ordered to reside in some particular spot, or he was excluded from residing in particular places; the period of relegation might be definite or indefinite. If the relegatio was perpetual, the sentence might include the loss of part of his property; but the person who was relegated retained all the privileges of a Roman citizen. The poet Ovid was relegated to Tomi on the Danube: he was not exsul. Deportation, Deportatio in insulam, was a sentence by which a criminal was carried into some small island, sometimes in chains, and always for an indefinite period. A person who was relegated went to his place of exile. The person who was deported lost his citizenship and his property, but he continued to be a free man. It was a consequence of the loss of citizenship that the relation of the patria potestas was thereby dissolved, and accordingly a father who lost his citizenship by Deportation lost his power over his children; and the effect was the same if a son was under the penalty, for the son ceased to be a Roman citizen, and consequently ceased to be in his father's power. But narriage was not dissolved either by the Interdictio or Deportatio. (Cod. 5, tit. 16, s. 24; tit. 17, s. 1.) Interdictio and Deportatio are mentioned as two separate things in the Constitutions just referred to; but in the Institutes (i. tit. 12) Deportatio only is mentioned, and it corresponds to Interdictio in the passage in Gaius (i. 128). Some further remarks will presently be made on this part of the subject. Under the early Republic Exsilium was not a punishment: it was, as the name imports, merely a change of soil. A Roman citizen could go to another state, and the citizen of such state could remove to Rome, by virtue of isopolitical rights existing between the two states. This right was called Jus Exsulandi, the Right of Exsilium as applied to the party who availed himself of it, and the Law of Exsilium when it is considered a part of the political system. The condition of the exsul in the state to which he had removed might be various; but it seems probable that he would acquire citizenship in his new state, though he might not enjoy it in all its fulness (optimo jure). By the act of removing to another state as an exsul, he divested himself of his original citizenship. A man who was awaiting his trial might withdraw before trial to another state into Exsilium-a practice which probably grew out of the Jus Exsulandi. Thus Exsilium, though a voluntary act, came to be considered as a punishment, for it was a mode of avoiding punishment; but still Banishment, as such, was not a part of the old Roman law. A practice was established under the later republic of effecting a sentence of banishment indirectly by means of the "interdictio aquæ et ignis," or with the addition of the word "tecti." (Cicero, Pro Domo, c. 30.) This sentence was either pronounced in a trial, or it was inflicted by a special lex. In the lex by which this penalty was inflicted on Cicero there was a clause which applied to any person who should give him shelter. This putting of a man under a ban, by excluding him from the main necessaries of life, had for its object to make him go beyond the limits within which he was subjected to the penalty; for the interdictio was limited to a certain distance from Rome. In Cicero's case the interdictio applied to all places within four hundred miles of Rome (Ad Attic. iii. 4). The interdictio did not prevent him from staying at Rome, but it was assumed that no man would stay in a place where he was excluded from the first necessaries of life. It has been a matter of dispute what was the legal effect of the Interdictio in the time of Cicero: in the period of the Antonines, as appears from Gaius, the sentence of Interdictio when pronounced for any crime, pursuant to a penal law (ob aliquid maleficium ex lege pœnali) was followed by loss of citizenship. The penal laws were various, such as the Julia Majestatis, Julia de Adulteriis, and others. In the Oration Pro Domo, the writer labours to prove that Cicero had not lost the civitas by the Interdictio, but the tenor of the argument rather implies that the loss of civitas was a legal effect of the interdictio, and that there were particular reasons why it was not so in the case of Cicero. The whole subject however is handled in such a one-sided manner that no safe conclusion can be derived from this oration. It appears from Cicero's own! BANISHMENT. [ 254 ] letters that he considered it necessary for When The rules as to Exile under the legisla- Relegatio, that under which a man was excluded from particular places (omnium locorum interdictio), and that by which he was excluded from all places except one (omnium locorum præter certum locum), which was in effect to confine him to the place that was named. (Marcianus, Dig. 48, tit. 22, s. 5, as corrected by Noodt, Opera Omnia, i. 58.) Sometimes the word Exsilium is used in the Digest (48, tit. 19, s. 38) to express the severer punishment of banishment, as opposed to the lighter punishment Relegatio. Practically then there were two kinds of banishment under the later empire, expressed by the names Relegatio and Deportatio, each of which had a distinct meaning, while the term Exsilium was used rather loosely. The condemnation of criminals to work in the mines was a punishment in the nature of banishment, but still more severe. Thus, if a man seduced a maid who was of years too tender for cohabitation, he was sent to the mines, if he was a man of low condition; but only relegated, if he was of better condition. The same difference in punishment between people of low condition (humiliores) and those of better condition (honestiores) was observed in other cases; and it may be remarked that the like distinction in inflicting punishments is not unknown in this country in summary convictions. 66 Deportation is the third of the six peines afflictives et infamantes" of the French Code Pénal. The punishment of deportation consists in the offender being transported out of the continental territory of France, there to remain for life; The sentence of and if he returns, hard labour for life is added to his sentence. deportation carries with it loss of all civil rights; though the government is empowered to mitigate this part of the penalty either wholly or in part. (Law of September, 1835, § 18, Code Penal.) Banishment (bannissement) is classed as The one of the two "peines infamantes," the other being civil degradation. offender is transported by order of the government out of the territory of the kingdom for at least five and not more than ten years. BANK, in barbarous Latin bancus, BANK. [255] literally signifies a bench or high seat; | but as a legal term it denotes a seat of judgment, or tribunal for the administration of justice. In a rude state of society, justice is usually administered in the open air, and the judges are placed in an elevated situation both for convenience and dignity. Thus it appears that the ancient Britons were accustomed to construct mounds or benches of turf for the accommodation of their superior judges. (Spelman, ad verbum.) It is clear, however, that in very early times in this country there was a distinction between those superior judicial officers who, for the sake of eminence, sat upon a bench or tribunal, and the judges of inferior courts, such as hundred courts and courts baron, the latter being analogous to the judices pedanei of the Roman law-a kind of inferior judges, whose duties are not very clearly defined, but who are supposed to have derived their denomination a pedibus, because they decided on inferior matters, on the level ground, and not on a raised seat. In consequence of this distinction, the king's judges, or those who were immediately appointed by the crown to administer justice in the superior courts of common law, were in process of time called justices of the bench, or, as they are always styled in records, justiciarii de banco. This term, in former times, denoted the judges of a peculiar court held at Westminster, which is mentioned in records of the reign of Richard I., and must therefore have made its appearance, under the name of bancus or bench, not long after the Conquest. This court no doubt derived its name from its stationary character, being permanently held at Westminster, whereas the curia or aula regis followed the person of the king. (Maddox, History of the Exchequer, p. 539.) This institution was the origin of the modern Court of Common Pleas, and the judges of that court retain the technical title of "Justices of the Bench at Westminster" to the present day; whereas the formal title of the King's Bench judges is "the justices assigned to hold pleas in the court of the king before the king himself." For many centuries, however, the latter court has been popularly called the Court of King's Bench, and the judges of both these courts have been described in acts of parliament and records in general terms as "the judges of either bench" (judices utriusque banci); but the barons of the Court of Exchequer have never been denominated judges of the bench, though, in popular language, a new baron, on his creation, is, like the other judges, said to be raised to the bench. The phrase of sitting in banco, or in bank, merely denotes the sessions during the law terms, when the judges of each court sit together upon their several In this sense it is used by benches. Glanville, who wrote in the reign of Henry II., and who enumerates certain acts to be done by justices in banco sedentibus. Days in bank are days particularly appointed by the courts, or imposed upon them by various statutes, when process must be returned, or when parties served with writs are to make their appearance in full court. The day in bank is so called in opposition to the day at Nisi Prius, when a trial by a jury takes place according to the provisions of the statute of Nisi Prius. [ASSIZE.] BANK-BANKER-BANKING. By the term "bank" is understood the establishment for carrying on the business to be described; the "banker" is the person by whom the business is conducted; and the expression "banking" is commonly used to denote the system upon which that business is managed, and the principles upon which it should be governed or regulated. We propose to consider the subject of banks and banking under the following heads : I. A brief historical sketch of the origin and progress of banking. II. An explanation of the objects and general principles of banking, including a description of the various kinds of banks. III. The history and constitution of the Bank of England. IV. The art of banking as carried on by private establishments and joint stock associations in London and other parts of England, and in Ireland. V. A description of the Scotch system of banking. VI. Some notices of the banking system followed in the United States of America. 1. Historical sketch of the origin and progress of Banking.-Until, in the progress of a community towards civilization, the extent of its commercial dealings had become very considerable, none would be led to give their attention to the occupation of facilitating the money operations of the rest of the mercantile community. At first this office would doubtless be undertaken for others by the more considerable traders, and a further period would elapse before it would become a separate business. It is probable that the necessity for some such arrangement would be first experienced in consequence of the different weights and degrees of fineness of the coined moneys and bullion which would pass in the course of business between merchants of different nations. The principal occupation of the moneychangers mentioned by St. Matthew was doubtless that of purchasing the coins of one country, and paying for them in those of their own or of any other people, according to the wants and convenience of their customers. It is likewise probable that they exercised other functions proper to the character of bankers, by taking in and lending out money, for which they either allowed or charged interest. (Matthew xxv. 27.) The bankers of Athens appear to have fulfilled most of the functions belonging to the trade. (Demosthenes, Against Aphobus, Orat. 1.) They received money in deposit at one rate of interest, and lent it out at another; they advanced money upon the security of goods, and lent sums in one place to be repaid in another. They likewise dealt in foreign coins, and appear to have occasionally advanced money to the state for public purposes. Some of them, as we are told, acquired great wealth. In the treatise written by Xenophon on the revenues of Attica, we find a remarkable project for the formation of a bank, the subscription to which should be open to all the Athenians. The object of this project was to raise a great revenue, by taking advantage of the high rate of interest then currently paid by commercial adventurers, and which sometimes reached the exorbitant rate of twenty-five per cent. The grandeur of this scheme of Xenophon, which was intended to combine the whole free population of Athens into one great banking company, could hardly have been in agreement with the condition of a society in which the element of mutual confidence was but scantily infused. To afford a better chance of success to his proposal, Xenophon endeavoured to engage the public spirit of his countrymen in its favour, by suggesting that a part of the great gains which it could not fail to produce might be employed " to improve the port of Athens, to form wharfs and docks, to erect halls, exchanges, warehouses, market-places, and inus, for all which tolls and rents should be paid, and to build ships to be let to merchants." (Mitford, History of Greece, vol. iv. p. 22.) The successive conquests of the Romans having caused a great mass of wealth to be accumulated in the city of Rome, a necessity arose for the establishment or bankers. These traders were called argentarii, and their establishments received the name of tabernæ argentaria. Mensarii and Numularii are said to have been public functionaries, who had something to do with money; but their functions do not seem to be very clearly ascertained. Bankers (argentarii) conducted money business in Rome in a manner very similar to that now in use in Europe. They were the depositaries of the revenues of the wealthy, who through them made their payments by written orders. They also took in money on interest from some, and lent it at higher rates to others; but this banking trade does not appear to have been held in much repute in Rome, where a great prejudice existed against the practice of making a profit from the loan of money. They also sometimes conducted public sales (auctiones), where they had to receive the purchase-money and do whatever was necessary towards completing the bargain. (Gaius, iv. 126.) During the middle ages, in which com merce and the arts can hardly be said to have existed, there could be no field open for the banking business; but on the revival of commerce in the twelfth century, and when the cities of Italy engrossed nearly all the trade of Europe, the necessity again arose for the employment of bankers. At first they carried on their business in the public market-places or exchanges, where their dealings were conducted on benches, whence the origin of the word bank, from banco, the Italian word for a bench. The successful manufacturing efforts of the Florentines brought them into commercial dealings with different countries in Europe, and thence arose the establishment of banks. In a short time Florence became the centre of the money transactions of every commercial country in Europe, and her merchants and bankers accumulated great wealth. The earliest public bank established in modern Europe was that of Venice, which was founded in 1157. This bank was in fact an incorporation of public creditors, to whom privileges were given by the state as some compensation for the withholding of their funds. The public debt was made transferable in the books of the bank, in the same manner as the national debt of England is transferable at the present time; it was made obligatory upon the merchants to make their contracts and draw their bills in bank-money, and not in the current money of the city. This establishment was always essentially a bank of deposit and not of issue, and existed until the subversion of the republic in 1797. Its money at all times bore a premium, or agio, over the current money of the city. [AGIO.] About the year 1350, the cloth-merchants of Barcelona, then a wealthy body, added the business of banking to their other commercial pursuits; being authorised so to do by an ordinance of the king of Aragon, which contained the important stipulation, that they should be restricted from acting as bankers until they should have given sufficient security for the liquidation of their engagements. Fifty years afterwards, a bank was opened by the functionaries of the city, who declared their public funds answerable for the safety of money lodged in their bank, which was a bank of deposit and circulation. The Bank of Genoa was planned and partially organised in 1345; but was not fully established and brought into action until 1407, when the numerous loans which the republic had contracted with its citizens were consolidated, and formed the nominal capital stock of the bank. This bank received the name of the Chamber of Saint George, and its management was intrusted to eight directors chosen by the proprietors of the stock. As a security for its capital in the hands of the republic, the bank received in pledge the island of Corsica, and several other possessions and dependencies of Genoa. The Bank of Amsterdam was established in 1609, simply as a bank of deposit, to remedy the inconvenience arising from the great quantity of clipt and worn foreign coin which the extensive trade of the city brought there from all parts of Europe. This bank, which was established under the guarantee of the city, received foreign coin, and the worn coin of the country, at its real intrinsic value, deducting only a small per centage which was necessary for defraying the expense of coinage and the charges of management. The credit given in the bank-books for coin thus received, was called bank-money, to distinguish it from the current money of the place. The regulations of the country directed that all bills drawn upon or negotiated at Amsterdam, of the value of 600 guilders (about 557.) and upwards, must be paid in bank-money. Every merchant was consequently obliged to keep an account with the bank, in order to make his ordinary payments. The Bank of Amsterdam professed to lend out no part of its deposits, and to possess coin or bullion to the full value of the credits given in its books. Dr. Adam Smith has given an account of this bank (Wealth of Nations, book iv. c. 3). When the French invaded Holland, it was discovered that the directors had privately lent nearly a million sterling to the states of Holland and Friesland, instead of keeping bullion in their cellars in accordance with the regulations of the |