We can now understand why the private banker was never a great success in this country. He was of course sacrificed to the monopoly of the Bank of England; for although six very rich capitalists could conduct a large banking business, the resources at their command would not be sufficient to enable them to extend their branches throughout the country. Consequently, before the advent of the joint stock banks we find the private banker, broadly speaking, confining his connections to a particular district or county. It is true that he enjoyed free trade in banking down to 1844; but the regulation as to the number of partners in his business necessarily confined his offices or branches to a limited area, and effectually prevented his expansion on a large scale; so we get influential houses in the various counties, such as the Gurneys in Norfolk and Suffolk, the Smiths in Nottingham, and so on. It is noticeable, however, that both these well-known private firms, recognising the applicability of the joint stock system to the times, have surrendered their note issues, and taken a place in the modern movement, evidently foreseeing that, in order to progress, they must adopt the methods of their more successful rivals. Undoubtedly, the country was not ripe for such a movement until the beginning of the nineteenth century; and though the number of partners in private banking firms was extended to ten in 1857, this concession by no means placed the private banker on an equal footing with the joint stock companies, which could increase their members or partners by the issue of additional capital whenever it became apparent that their business was rapidly progressing. The private banker, had he desired to farm some dozen counties, would have been compelled to find a few large capitalists to join hands with him, whereas the joint stock banks had only to obtain hundreds of very small ones, and it is quite evident that the companies possessed infinitely the easier task. In fact, down to 1844 the monopoly of the Bank of England prevented their rapid growth. Then came the period of, so to speak, free banking; but not for the private firms. People are constantly asking: Why did not the private bankers establish themselves firmly in the country and progress? They were first in the field, and, had they been well managed, surely they would have been as progressive as their joint stock rivals. But we know that the law never gave them the remotest chance. How could they progress on a really gigantic scale when their partners were limited to six? The law literally forced them to stand aside; and in 1826 and 1833 only the joint stock system profited by the concessions wrung from the Bank of England, because by that system alone could sufficient capital be obtained to enable a bank to farm the country from south of the Tweed to Land's End.