Page:Life·of·Seddon•James·Drummond•1907.pdf/228

 newspapers. His action was heartily condemned at the meeting of shareholders and in financial circles. Shareholders complained that the bank had been so discredited that its existence was imperilled. Hardly anyone had a good word to say for Mr. Buckley. The directors had suggested that the bank’s headquarters should be removed to London, and the general opinion was that Mr. Buckley’s speech had helped that movement, as the aid of a strong London Board and the further assistance of English shareholders were required to rehabilitate the bank. Besides that, the Auckland directors had frequently been charged with mismanagement, and it was thought that it would be better to free the institution from the local influences of any portion of the colony, and from the temptation of mixing bank affairs with politics. There was a belief that local pressure in Auckland had had an injurious effect and was a real danger. Most colonists, however, refused to take Mr. Buckley’s statements very seriously. They did not accept his figures, and the shareholders passed a motion stating that the information given by the directors was sufficiently full.

A sensation was caused in London as soon as the report of the meeting reached that city. The Financial Times denounced the deception that had been practised. Mr. Buckley’s speech created a panic among the depositors. Shares fell to the extent of £2 each, and in London it was suggested that it was the duty of the Government to interpose. All this helped to raise public feeling in the colony against Mr. Buckley, who was accused of being a sensationalist. He was pointed to as a man who was doing immense harm to the colony, and for a time he was the most unpopular person in New Zealand.

In 1893 Sir Joseph Ward noticed that the reserve in coin at the bank was below the legal limit, and he called the attention of the bank’s officers to the fact. The general manager maintained that the law had been complied with. Sir Joseph did not altogether accept that view of the case, but as the circumstances were critical at the time, on account of the Australian depression, he did not think it advisable to insist that the coin reserve should be increased. He contented himself with giving instructions that the bank’s position should be carefully watched.