The difference between the total assets (£80,974,532) and the total liabilities (£56,976,745), is £23,997,857, which represents capital, reserve funds, and undivided profits. The proportion which these items, representing working capital, bear to the total liabilities is 42 per cent., a very extensive margin, especially when we bear in mind that there is an uncalled liability representing eighteen millions more, which brings the total margin provided by the proprietors up to 75 per cent. of the entire liabilities to the public.

But when we come to contrast these figures with those of former years a most rapid growth is apparent. This is not visible so much in the notes in circulation or in the coin and bullion, which may be explained partly by the growth of other banking facilities, as in the deposits, and the discounts and advances, the expansion in which has been very great indeed.

In the following figures these details are given respecting twelve of the leading Australian banks. It will be observed that there is a five years' interval between each period :

The deposits have, therefore, increased 115 per cent. in the ten years, the growth being £8,131,997 in the first period of five years, and £17,908,645 in the second. Therefore, in spite of the late crisis, these deposits have grown more than twice as fast in the past five years as was the case in the previous period.

Under the head of notes in circulation, the ten years' expansion has only been 28 per cent., the incrcase being £625,430 in the first five years, and £141,345 in the second.

In the coin and bullion the ten years' increase has only amounted to 17 per cent., that is, to £357,262 in the first period of five years, and to £1,172,294 in the second. But the move ment in the different banks has proved very irregular, some of them in 1879 holding a smaller stock of coin and bullion than either in 1869 or 1874. This apparent anomaly may be explained by the circumstance that a smaller amount of bullion has latterly been transmitted from Australia to this country. This year especially, Australia has sent us very little gold, and the banks which do the business have therefore held less bullion in transitu, though not less coin in the till.

The discounts and advances in these ten years have been practically doubled. In the first half of this period the increase was £9,861,626, and in the second it was £19,518,227, showing, like the deposits, an extraordinary rate of development during the past five years.

The accounts before us do not enable us to sub-divide the discounts from the advances, although the operation would disclose much that would interest both the public and the proprietors. It has been understood, and the understanding has, within the past twelve months, tended greatly to depreciate Australian bank shares in the stock markets, that their advances upon land have been very extensive, and that even if judiciously effected, such advances must constitute a serious lock-up of resources. This may be true, and in bad times like these a lockup, whether it be in good land or good iron, or in produce generally, must be a drawback. But it may be pointed out, that the investments which most banking companies hold so largely at the present time, form a very small portion of an Australian bank's assets, and to a certain extent these advances on land take the place of the investments. Besides which, unlike iron or produce, the land is very certain, in the course of years, to improve in market value, and the principal, though fixed for the time, is safe to be recovered.

It is more gratifying to us to contrast the extent of the banking facilities afforded in Australia with those of other countries. At the present time it may be estimated, that Australia, including New Zealand, possesses 2,600,000 inhabitants; which would yield about £9 of banking capital, £20 of banking deposits, £1. 14s. in notes, £3. 4s. in the store of gold and silver, and £22. 158. in discounts and advances, for every inhabitant of these colonies. These are most extraordinary figures. In this country it has been estimated that the total banking deposits do not fall short of £500,000,000. Our population is 34 millions, so that the deposits do not quite reach £15 per head, as against £20 in Australia. A still wider margin separates the discounts and advances in the two countries. In America and on the continent, the figures "per head" disclosed are less, generally much less, than in the case of the United Kingdom; and the conclusion is forced upon us that Australia is about the most powerfully "banked" country on the face of the globe. Hence, the vast development of her resources in the last ten years.

Banking and Commercial Law.

CROSSED CHEQUES.

THE necessity of having the whole law relating to bank cheques stated so clearly as to be capable of no misconstruction is obvious, and at first sight it would seem a matter of no great difficulty to frame a statute which should effect this. But the history of legislation in regard to crossed cheques shows that this has been found by the Legislature a work which, at any rate up to 1876, it had been unable successfully to accomplish, and one which perhaps time will show is even now unfinished or capable of improvement. The course of legislation has been the same here as in many other commercial matters. A practice is established amongst business men in relation to crossed cheques, which they think legally restrains their negotiability to the extent understood amongst them. After some time, and when it is supposed well settled, a case comes before the courts which decides that the effect intended by a crossing is not legally effected. Legislation ensues, and the point is settled, and things go on as before with a slight alteration, until some other point arises in connection with the practice, which might well have been settled at the same time as the first, but which was not. This has again to be settled by special legislation. It is interesting to trace the course of legislation on this subject from the first enactment in relation thereto down to the Act of 1876.

In Bellamy v. Majoribanks (7 Exch. 389) it was decided that the crossing of a cheque did not restrain its negotiability, but was a mere memorandum amounting to a direction, the neglect of which by the banker would be evidence of negligence, but nothing more. This case was followed by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 59, s. 19, which, treating of cheques generally, protected a banker on whom a cheque was drawn, from any liability for paying it if it purported to be indorsed by the payee, without proof of such indorsement having been made by or under the direction or authority of the person to whom the said draft or order was made payable.

In Ogden v. Benas (30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 683) it was held that the protection given to bankers, by that statute, against the forged indorsement of cheques, applied only to the bankers upon whom such cheques were drawn, and did not extend to bankers cashing cheques for convenience, or to third persons, and this decision was followed in the subsequent case of Arnold v. The Cheque Bank (34 L. T. Rep. N. S. 683).

By 19 & 20 Vict. c. 25 it was enacted that the crossing of a cheque should be a direction to the banker on whom it is drawn to pay to a banker only. In Simmonds v. Taylor (4 C. B. W. S. 463) it was decided that the crossing was not a part of a cheque, and that a banker was not liable for paying a cheque, of which the