The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-30 00:00:00

THE SUN,

sufferers, and made so because their deposits were
taken to pay off claims of the old depositors
which had occurred before 1831. The trustees wished
the accounts of the bank to be closed about the year
1831, as would be proved by documentary evidence from
the trustees ttiemeelves. In consequence of the commu-
nication of the trustees to Government, Mr. T. Pratt
went to Dublin, but, instead of closing the bank, he in-
duced the trustees to continue the business. He main-
tained that the Cuffe-street Bank from 1831 became vir-
tually a new bank, and this went to strengthen the
charge of injustice, by making the deposits of the new
depositors available for the claims of the old depositors.
Though there was only a surplus of 27,0001. in 1831,
they paid in 1836 claims arising previous to 1831 to the
amount of 50,000/., and this too with the full cognizance
of Government. He would ask whether this was not a
case which ought to have the attention of Government,
and he hoped when the Committee met again
that the case of the depositors would be taken into
consideration. It was on grounds of public policy
only that Government allowed the erroneous ac-
counts to pass in 1831, and the money of the
new depositors to be made use of in payment of the
claims of the old depositors. Ho would now refer to
the Killarney Savings Bank, as here again he thought
the Government had acted with great injustice. The
le gal opinion of Sergeant Green was that the Commis-
sioners, when apprised of the neglect or refusal of the
trustees to furnish accounts, ought to have taken pos-
session of the balance, which amounted to 16,0001.,
which balance ought to have been appropriated t ) the
payment of depositors before 1844. It was wrong on
the part of the Government to part with that sum; and,
therefore, Gov _rnmetit, in this view of the case, were re-
sponsible f that amount. In the case of the Tralee
Savings Barrie the accounts had not been furnished
for a number of years. Hero was another case which
clearly entit'ed the depositors to the favourable consi-
deration cf the Government. He trusted that on some
future occasion Government would announce their de-
termination to do something in favour of these unfortu-
nate depositors.
Mr. GROGAN would express his regret that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had omitted all allusion to the
gross injustice committed under the late Act by what he
must call the public officers of the various savings banks
in those cases which had been referred to. He would
first call attention to one or two points in the Bill which
required some explanation. The Right Hon. Gentleman
did not state whether the present annual limit of 30/.
was to be interfered with?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied,
it was not to be interfered with.
Mr. GROGAN wished to know who was to pay the
treasurer's salary ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied,
the Commissioners.
Mr. GROGAN—Was the old rate of interest to be
maintained for the present ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No.
the Bill would not come int) operation until the 20th
November next, and then the reduction would take place
of the interest and deposits.
Mr. GROGAN put these questions because it was im-
portant there should be no doubt existing on these
points. He wished to have balance-sheets prepared and
circulated at stated periods, showing the exact position
of the savings banks. This, he thought, would be
very acceptable to the public as well as to the deposit
tore. He would now refer to the cases of those who
had suffered from the defalcation of the savings banks'
effi2ers in the hope of eliciting something favourable
from Government. The Honourable Gentleman
hero enterel into some further particulars connected
with the ease of the Cuffe-street Savings Bank's deposi-
tors to show that the depositors had a well-grounded
claim on the consideration of Government. The grossest
irregularity had prevailed at the Cuffe street Savings
Bank, the result of which had been the stoppage of the
bank, and the depositors had received nothing. If ever
there was a case calling for the merciful interference of
the House, that of the Cuffe-street Bank was the
strongest. If the depositors had been aware that they
had not the security of the Government, but merely of a
few voluut ere who were utterly irresponsible, the Right
Hon. Gentleman could not suppose that they would have
deposited their money. The question was of immense
importance to those who had lost all their money, and
he hoped, whenever it should come before the Commit-
tee. that a favourable decision would be given.—(Hear.)
Mr. SLANEY said there could be no doubt that the
loss of the depositors was a matter of the greatest inte-
rest, but, as the Committee was to be appointed, be
thought it would be much better to communi-
cate the facts to the Committee than to state them
to the House. He hoped that in the Commit-
tee justice would be awarded to those parties, and if
the question should be at all doubtful, the benefit of
the doubt ought to be given in favour of the
humble depositors.— (Hear.) The number of persons
interested in the subject was extremely large, and he
thanked :the Right Hon. Gentleman for the attention
which he had pa!d to it. He wished, however, to make
one or two remarks, which he trusted the Right Hon.
Gentleman would not overlook. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman said most truly that the deposits of the working
classes were not in a state of security ; and he believed
the measure of the Right Hon. Gentleman would tend
considerably to improve that security ; but in doing so
he regretted to find that the depositors were to be made
to pay.—(Bear, _ hear.) Now, with respect to the
amount deposited. Formerly the sum was 150/., but
now it was to be reduced to 10e1., thus cutting off
one-third of the investments which the humble classes
might be enabled to make. It was true the Right Hon.
Gentleman proposed to give them facilities to become
stockholders ; and when their deposits should amount
to 1001, they should receive stock of that value. Now,
he wished to know if the Right Honourable Gentle-
man would give them the option of 100/. in Exchequer-
bills, instead of 1001. in stock ? If it were practicable
to make 501. Exchequer-bills, it would be a great stimu-
lus to a vast number of persons who were desirous of
investing in Government securities.—(Hear, hear.) He
congratulated the country upon the prospect of these
humble parties being able, through the medium of Go-
vernment offices, to purchase into the funds, and receive
the interest close to their own doors; but he hoped that
a power of attorney would not be necessary in each case,
and also that the advantages of these investments would
be given to friendly societies in general.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. JOHNSTONE said, if he had understood the
Right Hon. Gentleman correctly, the Committee would
examine the cases of the bank at Scarborough, and other
banks in this country, as well as the Irish banks. He
hoped when all the circumstances connected with the
defalcation at Scarborough were considered, something
would be dune to pay the depositors the small loss which
they must necessarily incur. The trustees asserted that
if any imputation could be fairly cast upon them of
having in any manner neglected their duty, they would
without a moment's consideration pay every sixpence of
the deficiency, although no legal responsibility rested
upon them.—(Hear.)
Mr. H. HERBERT said the Right Hon. Gentleman
having recpeested Hon. Members to confine their obser-
vations to the Bill, instantly proceeded to vindicate the
conduct of the Government and the conduct of the offi-
cers connected with the National Debt Office, assuming
that none of the allegations which had been made were
founded on fact, and he thought sifter the example set
by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Herbert) might
be permitted to make a few remarks. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Shrewsbury thought it desirable not to go into
the matter, because a Committee was to be appointed.
Now he (Mr. Herbert) had no faith in the Committee
that would be appointed, because he had no doubt the
Right Hon. Gentleman was about to appoint the Com-
mittee of last year. And he would state why he had no
faith in the proceedings of that Committee. Previously
to its app ointment a notice cf motion placed on the paper
by the Hon. Member for Dublin, had been several times
postponed at the request of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
and when he (Mr. Herbert) afterwards gave a similar
notice, the Right Hon. Gentleman consented to the pro-
p ssition, saying, " You may have your Committee, but
I must nominate it." He agreed to the proposition of'
the Right Ilan. Gentleman, and was afterwards informed
by an lion. Member that he had been "done."—(Leugh-
ter). The following year that Committee, of which the
Right Hon. Gentleman was chairman, made a short
report, stating that they had not been stele to go fully
into the merits of the case, and recommending a
further inquiry into savings banks. The next
year when the Honourable Member for Dublin gave
notice of a motion for a Committee, it was met by a dis-
tinct negative, and on two occasions the Government
were in a minority on the appointment of the Com-
mittee. The Right Hon. Gentleman now proposed the
appointment of a Committee, and would probably delay
the nomination till one or two o'clock, when the House
was quite wearied. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
not told the House what the Committee was for.—(Hear,
hear.) He could not help adverting to one other cir-
cumstance connected with the appointment of that Com-
mittee. A wish was expressed by the Irish Members
generally that the Hon. Member for the University of
Dublin (Mr. Napier) should be placed on the Committee,
on which occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer ex-
pressed his regret that he could not consent, but that it
was his determination to stick to the Committee. The
Hon. Member' for Montrose, who was a member of the
Committee of 1848, declined to serve on that of 1849;
but instead of then appointing Mr. Napier, they nomi-
nated the Noble Lord the Member for Kildare (Lord
Naas). Now with respect to the treatment of the depo-
sitors, who, he contended, ought to be reimbursed, Mr.
Tidd Pratt, in his examination before the Committee,
stated that in his opinion a gross and grievous hardship
had been inflicted by the passing of the Act of 1844.
The Hon. Member for Cork said that, in the case of the
Killarney Bank, the claims amounted to 36,0001., and
the assets to only 16,000/. Now, how was that divided?
Why, 20s. in the pound was given to the depositors pre-
vious to 1846, and 3s. to the depositors subsequent to
that period.—(Hear, hear.) And what was the reason
for a decision so contrary to every principle of equity
and common sense but the passing of the Act of 1844?
Allusion had been made to a variety of irregularities
that had been permitted to take place by the Commis-
sioners of the National Debt. In almost every iastance
in which the Act required their control for the protec-
tion of depositors they had neglected to exercise it. In
proof of this he would refer to the evidence of. their
secretary, Mr. Byam, given before the Committee of
1848. In his examination Mr. Byam stated that,
strictly speaking, the Commissioners bad not acted in
the manner directed by the Act. He (Mr. Herbert)
had to prefer a charge against the Commissioners,
which, he thought, would surprise the House, and it
was that they had passed and signed the accounts trans-
mitted to them without the slightest supervision. Mr.
Byam admitted this in his examination. In fact, ever
since 1844 accounts had been passed by the Commis-
sioners with errors so gross that any school-boy might
have detected them. In the accounts of the Killarney
Bank, published in a 100 of newspaper in 1848, he him-
self had detected an error to the amount of 4,000/.
On the face of one account, the aggregate amount of
forty-one depositors of WU each was put down at
1,300., instead of 4,1001. The opinion of Dir. Green,

was

late Attorney-General for Ireland, and one of the
best of lawyers, was, that the Commissioners had
been guilty of a violation of the Act in regard to the
transmission of the accounts. He could not help re-
ferring to the extraordinary conduct of the gentle-
man appointed by the Government to supervise the pro-
ceedings connected with savings banks. In the case of
the Tralee Bank, Mr. Tidd Pratt went to Tralee and
made award; against a certain number of trustees, but
with a degree of haste that rendered it almost impossi-
ble that he should not have committed errors. One of
these awards became the subject of trial at the assizes
for 1849, at which Mr. Tidd Pratt gave evidence. The
jury found a verdict for the dsfendant, and the decision
was confirmed by the Chief Justice on appeal. The con-
sequence was, the unfortunate people who had endea-
voured to obtain redress by law, had been thrown over
by the incompetency of a public officer, who had not
served the notices required by the Act. He should not
have troubled the House with these details if he had not
felt that he was advocating the case of those who had
been reduced to a miserable state of beggary and desti-
tutiun, not from any fault of their own, but rather from
possessing those good qualities which every wise Govern-
ment should encourage—honesty and industry. There
little use in telling the people to be honest, indus-
,riuus, and frugal, if their savings were not to be secured
to them as fir as possible. An able writer ha I said that
he who spoke from conviction spoke with force. He
knew not whether he had done so; but after having been
an eye-witness of the distress and wretchedness which
had resulted from the failure of the savings bank of
Tralee he felt that he ought not to remain silent when
such a question as the present was bef ire them.
Mr. BANKES thought the Hon. Member ;had given
good reasons why he had taken the present opportunity
of offering his remarks to the House, instea I of wait-
ing till the nomination of the Committee, which would
probably take place at a period of the night when he
might not be able to obtain that at cation which the sub-
ject deserved. He was aware that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer wished that the subject should he considered
prospectively. But as three months of the session had
elapsed he :thought he was entitled to ask the Govern-
ment whether they intended to give any aid to those
who in England and Ireland had suffered so severely
from the failure of savings banks—and in some degree,
ho must say, from the neglect of the Government itself?
During three sessions the attention of the House and
of the Government had been called to this particular
subject, and it was extraordinary, considering that neg-
lect of duty on the part of persons connected with
savings banks was known to some members of the
Government, that last session should have been allowed
to pass without a measure of this kind being introduced.
The Government were aware of what was not generally
known, that the Bill of 1844 materially affected
the safety and security of tlso depositors, 'and
yet they permitted the sesion t) slip away
without bringing forward any measure on the
subject. In his opinion Government was justly to blame
for their neglecting this subject from the time they be-
came aware of the circumstances alluded to up to the
present moment.—(Hear.) Only the other day another
case of failure bad occurred in a neighbouring county,
and there was no saying where the matter would end.
Not only had they to regret the pecuniary loss of the
sufferers, but also the public loss which would arise from
circumscribing the limits of these beneficial institutions,
in consequence of the neglect of the Government in not
earlier applying a remedy. He would not say that there
was a greater disposition in that House to legislate for
the rich rather than the poor; but he did ray, that if the
sufferers in the present case had been trustees, and not
depositors, more would have been said about the matter.
—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Scarborough,
and the Hon. Member fn. Rochdale, had both alluded
to the failures that had taken place in their neigh-
bourhoods. He did not clearly understand whether
the proposed Committee was to embrace those
places as well as Ireland. The Honourable Member
fir Kerry had given a very satisfactory reason why
he did not desire the appointment of a Committee with
reference to the case of Ireland. The Hon. Member
seemed to think that the question of their claims was so
clear that a Committee would only be a waste of time.
In regard to all cases—taking into consideration the
ignorance of depositors with regard to the terms on
which they had entrusted their money, and their bent f
that they had the security either of the trustees or the
Government itself', he thought a claim might fairly be
urge lon their behalf. There were not wanting pre-
cedents for remunerating parties who had suffered from
no fault of their own, but from that of public officers.
In one case the Bank of England had granted an indem-
nity of 300,0001. or 400,0001. to parties who had suffered
from a forgery. It was their duty to render savings
banks as secure as possible. He was aware that it would
be better to discuss the Bill at a future stage, but thought
that the present was not an unfair time for calling the
attention of the House to the subject, and askiug the
Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had made up
his mind to recommend any assistance from the public
purse to those who had sufferel?
Colonel THOMPSON said his argument why the de•
positors had a claim, not only on the Government, but
on the country, was, that the country was mainly to
blame. The country ought to have looked t the busi-
ness, and not to have allowed half-starved Irishmen to
be defrauded of their painful savings. Since the country
had not done so it had no right to grumble if called on
to provide the means for remedying the evil. Why, he
would ask, should the same precaution not have been
taken in savings banks that was taken in the collection
of the taxation of the country, where security was re-
quired of the collector ? Ho did not see why deposits
should be limited to 100/. A private banker did not ob-
ject, but was rather rejoiced, to receive deposits beyond
that amount. Why should the limit of 1001. be taken
in savings banks? It was a saying that there were
things cheap but so squalid as not to be worth having.
He was quite certain that depositors would never demand
to have that cheapness which was accompanied with the
certainty of never seeing their money again. They did
act seek to be spared paying for advantages.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ra'd
there was only one question necessary for him to answer
with reference to the Bill, and that was the question of
the Hon. Member behind him with reference to granting
Exchequer-bills instead of stock. He was disposed to
decrease the floating debt as much as possible, and there-
fore did not think it advisable to increase, by any means
that could be avoided, the issue of Exchequer-bills.
With regard to the general observations of the Hon.
Member for Kerry, he did not think it necessary, nor
was that a proper opportunity upon which to enter into
a discussion on the subject to which the Hon. Member
had referred. He should only refer to one portion of his
speech—namely, that which alluded to the case of Mr.
Tidd Prate, and wherein it had been stated that due
notice had not been served, according to law, upon the
parties concerned. Now, what, he would ask, were the
special requirements of the Act of Parliament? It was
required that the notices should be posted on the doors
of the savings bank, or the place where such bank was
kept. In the instance in question, the party con-
cerned had been in Tralee gaol, the house
shut up, and all the papers of the savings
bank deposited in the Town-hall. Yet circular
letters had been sent to all the trustees and parties
concerned, and all those who had been engaged in the
action had had an opportunity of meeting the gentienean
who had gone there to investigate the matter. Under
the circumstances of the case, all had been done that
could be done to comply as far as possible with the mean-
ing and spirit of the Act of Parliament. Tho Hon.
Member for Dorset (Mr. Bankes) had wished to know
why the Government had not introduced a measure like
the present one, for England, in the course of last year,
when they must have known of the evils which existed
in the system. In answer to that, he could say that a
similar measure had been proposed, but they had been
obliged to withdraw it. In conclusion, ha would only
observe that it was necessary the Committee which it was
proposed to re-appoint should be nominated, in order to
receive the report of the actuary.
Mr. BANKES wished to know whether the case of
Rochdale would be included?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think it advisable for the present. But all these cases of
defalcation were under consideration.
After a few words from Mr. HERBERT in explana-
tion,
The motion was put and carried, and the Attorney-
General proposed as the Member to bring in the Bill.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Sir GEORGE GREY then moved the second reading
of the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill. In doing so, he
said he felt it was necessary to render a short statement
to the House, and to detail as briefly as possible the cir-
cumstances which brought about such a measure, and
the principle it was proposed to introduce. In 1847 a
Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the con-
stitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission for England
and Wales, which took some evidence in that session,
but made no report to the House. It was re-appointed
in the session of 1848, when a great deal of additional
evidence was given, and at the close of it a report was
presented to the House.
That report briefly referred to
the origin of the Commission in 1835, and after advert-
ing to the nature of the duties of the Commissioners,'
proceeded to recommend that certain alterations should
be made in its composition. They recommended that
the number should be increased from thirty to forty-
nine, consisting of two archbishops, five members
of the Government, all the bishops ; three judges,
either of the courts of equity or prerogative
court ; eight lay commissioners, six
.to be appointed
by the Crown and two by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury. The Committee stated further, that the constitu-
tion of the present Commission was liable to very great
objections, that it was too large for the transaction of
such business, and that there was a great want of regu-
larity in the system, owing to a want of proper atten-
tion, an uncertainty of attendance on the part of the
Commissioners, owing to an absence of any obligation,
and that that absence threw a larger share of power into
the hands of a portion of the Commissioners than was
deemed expedient. They then recommended that the
portion of the business purely ecclesiastical should be
separated from the other objects of the Commission, and
confided to the management of the bishops; that three
paid Commissioners be appointed for the management of
the property of the Church, two by the Crown and oneby
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that the presence of
one of these paid Commissioners should be necessary on
all occasions. In those recommendations generally the
Government concurred. They felt it was most desirable
that there should be a greater security for a proper at-
tendance, and more responsibility thrown on the Commis-
sioners than now attached to them. The Bill which he
now moved to be read a second time came down from
the House of Lords, and was in accordance with the
principal recommendations of that committee, though in
some of the minor details it differed from some of those
recommendations. The main recommendation was, not
to supersede the body of the bishops, and to appoint a
committee, on thu members of which would devolve the
principal management of the secular concerns of the
Commission. Some doubts had been entertained as to
thet o
hody, as new
propriety ofsuch a committee, but it must be one of
h proposed, but not independent of ;t,