The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-03 00:00:00

Laud led to the purity on the_ episcopal bench. Now no
such example .had been, made of a culpable architect.
A member of that profession fails in every respect, but
expends an almost incalculable amount of public treasure.
Did it not follow that if they wished to have a success-
ful architect they should set an example, and cat off the
expenditure of the present?—(A laugh.),
Alderman HUMPRERY thought chat some guarantee
should be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
the estimate and plan would, not be exceeded.
Mr. WAKLEY was one of these who thought the
alterations in the roof of the new House had produced a
great improvement with reference to wund. He did not
think that the new House had had a fair trial. Every
one knew that it was far more, difficult to hear in ix new
than in an old building.
The vote was then agreed to.
SAVINGS' BANKS.

On the next vote, 30,000/. tor relief to a certain cx-
tent to the depositors in the late Cuffe-street Savings
Benl4 in Dublin,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the House was aware that a Committee had sat on the
subject of the late failures of savings banks in Ireland
The Lord Mayor of Dublin (Ur. Reynolds) was ono of
the Committee, and he reminded the House of' the fact
mainly that he might bear testimony to the zeal which
the Hon. Member had shown, and to the services which
he had rendered the Committee on this question..—
(Hear, hear.) That Committee had made their report,
in which they had referred to the failures that had oc-
curree, and particularly to that of the Cuffe-street
Savings Bank, in Dublin. Under all the circumstances
of the case the Committee had thought it right to moat-
mend the Government to make a grant in order to meet
part c:4' the losses sustained by the depositors in those
banks.
Sir J. GRAHAM requested the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a rather
more detailed explanation with respect to tiler, subject.
They were called upoa to agree to that vote without
having seen the evidence given before the Committee.
He would ask whether that was a unanimous recom-
mendation of the Committee; and also why the precise
sum of 30,0001. had been fixed upon as the amount to be
voted? If the claim 1923 an equitable one the entire
of it ought to be paid, and not 10s. in the pound of it.
He would wish also to know what was the diffaeace be-
tween the Tralee case and the Cuffee-street case.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the recommendation of the Committee with respect to
the Cuffee-street case had been unanimous. A die.
ference of opinion had existed as to other banks. The
Hon. Members for Kerry, Cork, Stroud, and the Lord
Mayor of Dublin bad been in favour of a similar mea-
sure of consideration being extended to all the other
banks. It was not a recommendation of the Commit-
tee that a payment of 10:4 in the pound should be paid
to depositors ; but what was recommended was that it
should be given as a sort of charitable donation.
Sir J. GRAHAM—A charitable donation,_ on the part
of the Government or the British public?
After a few words from the CIiAI`.IOELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, iu explanation,
Sir J. GRAHAYI said if it was a matter of charity, it
became a matter for their mature consideration; if it was
ono of justice, it would be unworthy the British publiC
to make a compromise about it. He had looked-et the
report of the Committee that morning, and he confessed
'he had never read a report more difficult to undezetend.
He would repudiate the idea of giving charity'hut of. the
public exchequer; but if it was a measure of equity, and
justice, it should be fully sad properly met. That, as as
a very important question which they had to consider,
and he could say there was no subject which was more

worthy the careful attention of the House. They were
called upon in a Committee of Supply, at the end of the
session, to vote 30,0001. for an object on which they had
but so little information. They could not tell where
that precedent might end if it were once established.—
(Hear, hear.) He believed there were some Scotch
cases, and also some English ones besides. If they were
to snake a charitable intervention to meet defalcations
on the part of trustees, they could not tell to what extent
Parliament might be called upon; bat if this present
matter were one of law and justice the House should not
fall short of its duty, and its assistance should be ex-
tended to all cases in Eagland and Scotland, as well as
Ireland,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
distinction between the Cuffe-street Benk and the others
was this—that in fact it had been insolvent 20 years ago
(as the Right Hon. Gentleman was understood). Twelve
years ago the state of the bask had been brought under
the consideration of the Government of the day. It was
then thought to compel the bank to wind up its affairs.
In 1845 its condition- had been brought under the notice
of the Commissioners, and they had recommended the
bank to be closed. But this had been refused to be done.
If the accounts had been wound up at the time, the loss
would not have been so great. The depositors in that
bank, who were of the poorer classes, seemed to think
they had the security of Government for their money;
but as there was not, the smallest chance of their obtain-
ing anything for them, the Commissioners had recom-
mended their case; but, at the same time, they did not
consider there was any legal liability.
Mr. H. HERBERT considered that those depositors
being of opinion that in depositing their money in those
banks they were. doing so under Government security,
were entitled to some compensation. He could nut,
however, tee that any difference should be made among
those banks which had suffered from the defalcation of
their trustees. The result of the inquiry into the matter
had been, that those depositors had justice on their
side, and that the detaulters connected with those banks
ought to be punished. If, then, the cause of the failure
of those banks lay with the National Debt Commis-
sioners, why not punish them. In the case of the Tralee
Bank, the conduct of Mr. Tidd Pratt had been con-
demned by the best judges in Ireland; and in the case
of the Killarney Bank, where there were assets, ho
bad awarded twenty shillings in the pound to those
depositors who had deposited their money previous
to the passing of the Act of 1844, and three shillings
in the pound to those who had done so after the
passing of that Act. It was said, that , were the
claims of those depolitors conceded, those who had
suffered from the failure of such banks in England
would come in for a share; and he would say, if
their sufferings had been eccasioned by the negli-
gence of the Commissioners of the National Debt, as
those of the depositore in the Irish banks had been, they
ought to be remunerated for their losses. He hoped
that some one would take up the question as one of na-
tional importance, involving to some extent the national
honour, as not until then would that justice be done to
those depositors which they were entitled to.
Mr. J. A. SMITH said that the Committee on this
subject had sat three sessions, and the evidence taken
before the Committee daring the two past sessions had
been published and was before the House. The evidence
taken during the present session did not differ in the
least degree from that taken during the two previous
sessions, and it was not thought necessary that it should
be published. The circumstances attending the Cuffe-
street failure were so discreditable to the managers,
that while the Committee felt that no blame was at-
tackable to the Commissioners of the National Debt, yet
there were circumstances connected with the case re-
specting the Communications between ' the managers
of the bank and the Commissioners of the National
Debt, which entitled the depositors to the corn
miseratiou of the Government. It appeared that
in 1831 there was a deficiency in the bank, and
the trustees offered to assign over the assets of the bank
to the Commissioners of the National Debt, but the offer
was not accepted. There was no doubt that had the
bank suspended its operations A that time, the losses to
the depositors would have been inconsiderable, and he
did not hesitate to admit that Mr. Tidd Pratt had made
the suggestion of carrying on the proceedings of the
bank at that time.. The business accordingly went on
until 1838, when the large amount of the arrears attracted
the notice pf the Commissioners of the National Debt.
The bank ettnally closed with a deficiency of 64,0001.
They were forced to this by the fact that they had re-
ceived notices of withdrawals which they could not meet
on the following Wednesday. At that time they had
1,9501. in the bank. What did they do? They absolutely
distributed this aura among their own friends who had
not given notice, excluding altogether those who bad
given notice. Th.) Committee decided that the deposi-
tors had no legal itlaim, but that they had a elaim upon
the sympathy of Parliament, which could not be re-
sisted. And now the question was whether the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was right in giving them ten
shillings in the posuad, and next whether they ought to
take criminal proceedings against the trustees. He cer-
tainly wished to obtain something from the trustees,
confident that wilful neglect could be brought home
against many of them, though they might not be
•cc ge
nisant of the frightful fraud which had been committed,
still he thought they ought not to escape without
punishment. He ivies of opinion that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer went as far as he could in proposing the
30,0001. to indemnify the depositors. With regard to
the Killarney BankeMr. Tidd Pratt was not in any way
to blame. The alteration made in 1844, which released-
the trustees from responsibility, placed Mr. Pratt in the
position that he was obliged to pay the depositors pre-
vious to 1844 before he could pay any one else; the con-
sequence was, that the depositors previous to 1844 re-
ceived twenty shillings in the pound, while the others
received but three shillings in the pounti. This was
strictly according to law, but he could not say it was
equally according to justice. The case of Tralee was
one which he hoped , would be the last of the same
kind. Before Mr. Tidd Pratt could make an award he
was bound to fix the notice on the doors of the batik, but
as that was the actuary's house, and be had fled, there
was no bank; but Mr. Tidd Pratt did all he could, by•
serving the trustees individually with notices.
str
Mr. REYNOLDS void the case ofthe
tj u
theffee
-
e
Banks in Dublin, was a special case, whether
trus-
tees or the Commissioners for redeeming the National
Debt were considered. If they had complied with the
provisions of the Act,. and required a•return of accounts,
or on refusal they bad closed their accounts with -the
bank, as the Act required, they would have been obliged
to wind up their affairs, and the consequence would have
been that the depositors would have received, in 1838,
sixteen shillings in the pound, and in 1845 fifteen shil-
hugs in the pound. He denied that this should be cons
sidered as a charity. The money was duo to those poor
people by the country, and they had no right to com-
pound with such creditors. He was told in Dublin it
was a packed Committee, but he said no, it was not a
" packed" but a " Select Committee." Ho did not mean
to say that it should be given ai a charity; bye was not
there to do so; but he demanded it as a right, inasmuch
as it was by reftiou of the misconduct of officers of the
Government the failure took place. In his opinion,
they ought to pay t'ae entire sum, with interest, to those
poor people who lost the it all. Be, howevcir, accepted
it thankfully as an instalment, and accepted is with
Banks,j
great injustice had been done by Mr. Tidd Pratt,
gra`it'u'l• "71111 regard to the. Tralee and Killereey
in giving 201. in the poue.: to depositors before 1844,
and 3s. to those subsequent to that period..
Mr. J. A. SMITH, in explanation of the third para•
graph of the report, where the word“ illegal" occurred