XVI.

THE LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK.

SINCE joint-stock banks have come to pay 20 per cent. to their shareholders the faith in them has been unbounded, and few realize the gigantic difficulty which there was, only thirty years ago, to start such undertakings, even in the British metropolis. It has been with joint-stock banks as with railways-they had at first but few friends and many enemies, and the want of numbers had to be made up by high determination and undaunted self-reliance on the part of the leaders. One of these leaders was Mr. James William Gilbart, the originator of the London and Westminster Bank. He commenced his career in 1813, as junior clerk to a London banker, and remained in this position for twelve years. At the end of the period he was appointed manager of the Kilkenny branch of the Provincial Bank of Ireland; but returned to London in 1833 to assist in establishing one or more joint-stock banks, in the teeth of the monopoly of the Bank

of England.

While great reform associations had run their engines against Parliament to compel it to repeal the clause in the Charter of the Bank of England, prohibiting the establishment of any bank with more than six partners; while pamphlets innumerable were hurled against the Act, and the acutest lawyers of Great Britain were fighting pro and contra, Mr. Gilbart quietly stepped forward and declared that there was no Act of Parliament in existence forbidding the creation of joint-stock banks of deposit in London, or anywhere else in the British dominions. When the statement was first made, some laughed, some got angry, and some called the innovators bad names-the three approved modes of opposing anything new that is said or done in the world. However, Mr. Gilbart and his friends persisted in their assertions, and, to show their earnestness, at once commenced the formation of a joint-stock bank on a large scale in the metropolis. Of course, the directors of the Bank of England rushed to arms; but, to their infinite surprise, discovered that their title-deeds indeed were as bad as was asserted. The expounders of statute law, having once more put on their best spectacles, now declared that the new bank promoters were quite right, and that all the world

had been quite wrong for the last hundred and twenty years; that, in fact, the Bank of England held no monopoly, or, at the best, but the fraction of one, regarding joint-stock banks of issue. So also ruled the Solicitor-General, consulted on the part of the Government. He maintained, in decided terms, that the establishment of jointbanks of deposit was not an encroachment on the privileges of the Bank of England, there being no Act of Parliament, or any other law whatever, to prohibit such partnerships. The declaration fell like a thunderbolt on the friends of the Old Lady in Threadneedle Street. They protested, of course; but what can protests affect against "legal opinions," backed by formidable law officers of the Crown? What was the worst was that the world did not sympathise with the sufferings of the Old Lady, but seemed rather inclined to take the part of her opponents.

When at length fair progress had been made in the attempt to establish a great joint-stock bank in London, Government bethought itself of welcoming the arrival of the little stranger, and sanctioning its existence in a proper legal manner. Accordingly, an Act was brought in3rd and 4th William IV. cap. 98—annulling the "construction" put by the public upon former

Acts, and embodying the most recent legal wisdom. The new Act ran as follows:-" And whereas doubts have arisen as to the construction of the said Acts, and as to the extent of such exclusive privilege [of the Bank of England], and it is expedient that all such doubts should be removed: be it therefore declared and enacted, That any body, politic or corporate, or society, or company, or partnership, although consisting of more than six persons, may carry on the trade or business of banking in London, or within sixty-five miles thereof, provided that such body, politic or corporate, or society, or company, or partnership, do not borrow, owe, or take up in England any sum or sums of money on their bills or notes payable on demand, or at any less time than six months from the borrowing thereof, during the continuance of the privileges granted to the said governor and company of the Bank of England." Immediately after the passing of this Act, in May, 1833, a final prospectus was issued for the formation of the London and Westminster Bank. It met with much secret, as well as open opposition on the part of the private bankers and others interested in the existing state of things, and the consequence was that the shares of the new bank could be

M

had been quite wrong for the last hundred and twenty years; that, in fact, the Bank of England held no monopoly, or, at the best, but the fraction of one, regarding joint-stock banks of issue. So also ruled the Solicitor-General, consulted on the part of the Government. He maintained, in decided terms, that the establishment of jointbanks of deposit was not an encroachment on the privileges of the Bank of England, there being no Act of Parliament, or any other law whatever, to prohibit such partnerships. The declaration fell like a thunderbolt on the friends of the Old Lady in Threadneedle Street. They protested, of course; but what can protests affect against "legal opinions," backed by formidable law officers of the Crown? What was the worst was that the world did not sympathise with the sufferings of the Old Lady, but seemed rather inclined to take the part of her opponents.

When at length fair progress had been made in the attempt to establish a great joint-stock bank in London, Government bethought itself of welcoming the arrival of the little stranger, and sanctioning its existence in a proper legal manner. Accordingly, an Act was brought in— 3rd and 4th William IV. cap. 98—annulling the "construction" put by the public upon former