A History of Banks for Savings in Great Britain and Ireland

by William Lewins

It will be remembered that in the third chapter we described the course of Parliamentary action with regard to Savings Banks down to the year 1844, and in that chapter left Mr. Hume, after an unsuccessful attempt to reduce still further the rate of interest to be given to depositors. The year 1844 is remarkable in the annals of Savings Banks for the carrying of a measure known as Mr. Goulburn's Act. The bill which was introduced by that gentleman, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Sir Robert Peel's administration, was meant in great part to provide against the constantly recurring frauds in Savings Banks, and still more especially to allay the consternation among trustees of safe banks, who now loudly complained of the state of the law with respect to their liability. The discussion in the House of Lords to which we alluded at the close of the last chapter may be taken as showing that Savings Bank trustees were by no means satisfied, several years before this, with the uncertain state of the law. The great fraud on the Dublin Bank is described as having come upon many trustees like a thunderbolt, and, aware that they were not spared by the judicial bench[69] in cases of the kind, they now threatened open rebellion. Mr. Goulburn received, as he stated subsequently before a Committee of the House of Commons, a large number of notices from such officers that, if the law were not modified, they would resign their trusts. Moved by such considerations as these, which the Government seem to have felt they could only disregard at the imminent risk of shaking the credit of the entire Savings Bank system, Mr. Goulburn introduced his bill (7 & 8 Victoria, chap. 83,) on the 2d of May, 1844, to amend the laws relating to Savings Banks.[70] The principal matter with which the bill dealt was the liability of trustees, but this was by no means the only one.

Second only in importance was the proposal to again reduce the rate of interest. The remarks with which he introduced his proposal to reduce the interest rate are curious, to say the least, when viewed in the light of the speech to which we have previously referred. He felt confident, he said, that the country had no right to pay upon these investments a higher rate of interest than could be obtained from an investment in other securities. The Savings Banks rate was considerably higher than any other investment of money. Although the Act of 1828 had tended to reduce materially the number of depositors of the better classes, and had increased—as we have shown in the last chapter, we think quite conclusively, so far as figures can show it—in a still greater proportion the number of those who had deposited only small amounts, there were still many who were attracted to Savings Banks on account of the interest given being higher than that obtained from the Funds. Mr. Goulburn now proposed that the bill should contain a clause reducing the rate from 2-½d. per cent. per day, to 2d. With the same object in view, namely, to restrict the operations of Savings Banks to the class of provident poor, the Chancellor proposed to reduce the amount which any one could put by in one year from 30l. to 20l. and to make the total amount which could be deposited in any Savings Bank, 120l instead of 150l.[71]

A further proposition, which provided for another wide-spread evil in the same direction, was one requiring that no persons should be permitted to make deposits as trustees without stating the names of the persons for whom they were acting, and that no payments should be made in such cases except under a receipt signed by all the parties interested in the funds deposited. By means of the clauses in previous acts relating to trust accounts, the law was regularly evaded, and many persons had considerable sums of their own in Savings Banks, which they represented as being held in trust for other people, whose names even they were required not to divulge.[72] This clause was carried without any trouble, as it met such a palpable evil; provision was made, however, that the law should not be applicable to trust accounts opened before the passing of the act. Had it not been for such an exception, those who had recourse to the stratagem of feigning the character of a trustee might have lost much of their money, on account of the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining within the time the signature of the party apparently interested. Though the clause was not made retrospective, as some urged it should be, as a punishment to those who had deceived the managers of Savings Banks, it was clearly the best thing that could be done to put an end to the practice, which entirely depended on the powers of the so-called trustees to draw out the money alone.

Mr. Goulburn spoke next on the question of liability of trustees. Though the topic was engaging great attention out of doors, little was said upon the point on this occasion: the section of the act thus passed so quietly, was, however, pregnant with meaning, and, as it turned out, pregnant with results. The clause provided that no trustee or manager of any Savings Bank shall be liable to make good any deficiency which may hereafter arise in the funds of any of these institutions, unless these officers shall have respectively declared, by writing under their hands, that they are willing to be so answerable; and not only so, “but it shall be lawful for each of such persons, or for such persons collectively, to limit his or their responsibility to such sums as shall be specified in any such instrument.” This declaration was, of course, to be lodged with the National Debt Commissioners. On a trustee or manager making it, he became liable to make good every deficiency that might arise in the bank with which he was connected, whether through his own carelessness, or the cupidity of those under him; if a declaration of this sort were not made, he was liable for nothing.[73]

The above were the three most important changes made in the law of Savings Banks under Mr. Goulburn's Act, but there were several minor clauses introduced into the bill which deserve mention, and which were, there can be no doubt, equally with the more important sections, the direct results of the systematic frauds already described. With his eye direct on the Cuffe Street actuary, concerning whom the Government knew more than was generally known in 1844, the Chancellor, whilst studiously avoiding all mention of the Dublin case, spoke of those who, ignorant of business, took their money to improper places, and made deposits out of office hours. The fourth section of the Act was, therefore, designed to meet such cases, by declaring any actuary or cashier who should so take money out of course, and not account for it at the very first meeting, to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable to be punished for fraud. Section 5 required that deposit-books should be produced at the bank at least once every year for purposes of examination and check. Section 17 provided that bonds of sufficient security shall be given by every officer of a Savings Bank trusted with the receipt and custody of money, and that these bonds shall be placed (not with the Clerk of the Peace as before this Act), but under the charge of the National Debt Commissioners. The old arrangement likewise for depositing the Rules of the bank with the Clerk of the Peace was repealed by section 18, and in its place the next section enacted, that when a new bank was proposed, two written or printed copies of the Rules of such bank should be transmitted to the Barrister for his certificate, who, on approval, was to send one copy back to the Bank authorities, and the other forward to the National Debt Office. It was the 7 and 8 Vict. which, in addition, conferred extended powers on the certifying barrister, by appointing him final Arbitrator in any disputed case. The bill, after having been modified in one or two respects, and contested on several points,[74] received the Royal Assent in August, 1844, and was ordered to take effect on the 20th of November following.

It will not be supposed that the bill, of which the above is an outline, was passed through its different stages without a word from Mr. Hume. That member may well be forgiven for alluding on one of these occasions to the past, and stating, how, so far as the rate of interest was concerned, he had been fighting for the very thing which was likely to be brought about. This was clearly a case of patience and obstinacy rewarded.[75] The bill, however, Mr. Hume stated, scarcely went far enough for him, though it was in the right direction. He still held the opinion that persons holding Government security should be placed on the same footing, and that those who had 20l. in the Funds should be dealt with in exactly the same manner as those who had 1,000l. In this, however, we cannot help thinking Mr. Hume went rather too far, and argued on the assumption that there was no difference between the shilling of the rich and the shilling of the poor man. Mr. Goulburn in replying to Mr. Hume said, he knew this was a favourite point with the member for Montrose; but he could not concede it: a poor man with 20l. in the Funds could not and never would be able to bear a fall in the Funds so well as the large stockholder.

Early in 1848 a Committee of the House of Commons, consisting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. J. A. Smith, Sir J. Y. Bullar, Mr. Shafto Adair, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Gibson Craig, Mr. Fagan, Mr. H. Herbert, Mr. Herries, Mr. Hume, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Poulett Scrope, and Mr. Ker Seymour, was appointed to inquire into the state of the Irish banks. As already related in the last chapter, the Cuffe Street bank soon broke up after the trustees were enabled to take refuge under the Act of 1844. Into this inquiry, which we have before referred to, it is unnecessary to enter much further; it presents little else than information relating to the flagrant breaches of faith of officers to whom were entrusted the hard earnings of hundreds of the poorest people living around them. The scope of the inquiry was limited to Ireland. It seems to have been purposely intended that a full investigation into the general Savings Bank question should not now be made. The inquiry was not extended in any sense to the English banks, though some of the most prominent English managers offered to give evidence. Doubtless the Government feared that a full exposure of the frauds in Savings Banks, an inquiry into several matters connected with the disposal of Savings Bank money already beginning to be mooted, might have the effect of shaking the confidence of the people. People were openly saying that Government had not done its best to make the Savings Bank a secure repository for the people; yet, rather than raise this issue before a Committee of the House, it submitted to have the investigation that was made designated “a perfect star-chamber business,” and the members of Government themselves subjected to great ridicule. The Committee sat only nine days, and made a report to the House, which Lord George Bentinck characterized as “the most extraordinary one that ever was presented to Parliament.” “It is as remarkable for its brevity as for its vacuity—as brief as it is worthless.” The report is certainly brief, and may here be given without curtailment: “Your Committee,” it commences, “has proceeded with the inquiry entrusted to them by the House, but owing to the late period of the session they have found themselves unable to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. They are of opinion that it is advisable that a further inquiry should take place, either during the recess or in the next session of Parliament, regulating the liability of trustees, and providing for the appointment of auditors to Savings Banks.”

The Government immediately set to work to introduce a bill. They saw that a great mistake had been made four years before, in settling the question of the liability of trustees in the way it was done, and now the endeavour must be, if possible, quietly to re-enact the old law in this particular, making trustees liable in the way they were before 1844. The great mistake in this instance, and that which proved fatal to the attempt, was in legislating for English as well as Irish banks, when the inquiry upon which the bill was taken to be founded had been limited to Ireland, and was not allowed under any circumstances to extend to England. The debates to which the measure of 1848 gave rise are certainly the most animated that ever took place in the House on this subject, and it will be interesting, as in different ways indicating the feeling of the country, to notice the expressions of opinion which the discussion elicited. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Charles Wood, in moving the Bill to amend the Law of 1844, appears[76] to have urged that the clause requiring the trustees to voluntarily assume responsibility had completely failed; that few trustees would take the responsibility upon them, and that, consequently, depositors were losing faith in the banks;[77] irregularities were increasing; and the trustees had not even the pretence of a sufficient inducement to make them attend to their self-imposed duties. In place of no responsibility at all, he proposed that each trustee should be responsible for a certain sum, which would be large enough to ensure a reasonable amount of attention, and so small as not to frighten them into resigning their office altogether. This sum it was proposed to fix at a hundred pounds. Clauses in the bill also provided for the appointment of auditors, as suggested by the Committee of Inquiry, and for the examination of depositors' books, “that once in each year the books of every depositor shall be produced at the office of each Savings Bank, for the purpose of being inspected, examined, and verified with the books of the institution by the auditor.”

More from the way in which this bill was introduced and the circumstances attending the Committee of Inquiry, than from any decided opposition to the Government proposals, much agitation prevailed among Savings Bank officials, which was ultimately made to extend to depositors.[78] The latter were led to believe that the proposed legislation would in some way be inimical to their interests, and petitions were got up, praying that no further Acts should be passed until a full inquiry was made into every part of the Savings Bank system. Sir Henry Willoughby, who for some years before this time, and till his death, took much interest in this and cognate questions, again presided at a meeting of Savings Bank managers in London about this time, and helped them to concert measures of opposition. Before speaking in Parliament on the introduction of the bill under consideration, he presented two large petitions, signed by 79,000 depositors in Savings Banks, praying that Government would cease their interference with these institutions. This gentleman then referred to the quietness with which Government had introduced such an important bill, “not having given such a notice as was invariably given even with respect to the commonest turnpike road.” And the quietness was a mistake of no ordinary moment. Had the details of the bill now introduced been understood by the country, there might have been opposition from managers of Savings Banks, but there could not well have been so much dissatisfaction expressed by the Press, or by the body of depositors, whose interest every clause of the bill was meant to conserve. Sir Henry Willoughby also on this occasion gave utterance to the feeling which was in many other minds, and which had led to the opposition then manifested, by alluding to “the impression which had got abroad and which he believed was perfectly true, that the money of depositors was used for other purposes by the Government than those that related to the Savings Banks.” Whether the money was used advantageously or not he would not say, for that was not the question. Colonel Thompson spoke strongly of the erroneous impression that everybody had been in about the Savings Banks having full Government security for their money; so strongly, indeed, that in another place we shall make further allusion to him. The bitterest opponent, however, which the Chancellor met with on this occasion was the leader of the Opposition in the House. Lord George Bentinck felt sure that the bill was one which its mover (Sir Charles Wood) did not understand. After going into the details of the measure, and endeavouring to prove that the examination of depositors' books could not be accomplished in the larger banks every year,[79] and that the smaller concerns could not afford to pay for auditors out of the small surplus of interest which went to pay expenses, Lord George added, “Surely a Government which had proposed so much and done so little, can refrain from doing harm, since they cannot do good; and will not press this most discreditable bill through the House at the end of August without necessity for it, and against the opinions of those best calculated to form a judgment.” Irish members, seeing the turn the discussion was taking, urged that, at any rate, the bill might apply to Ireland. It was patent to everybody that the poor depositors in Ireland needed every protection, however secure the same classes might feel in England. In Ireland such a bill was really required, and was necessary, to restore confidence in Savings Banks;[80] why not make it apply to Ireland only? After an unsuccessful attempt on the part of Lord George Bentinck to throw out the bill altogether, it was decided, on the motion of Mr. Wodehouse, and by a vote of thirty to eleven, that the words “Great Britain” should be struck out of the motion, and that the Act should simply apply to Irish Savings Banks.

That the bill now passed was a beneficial change in the law, and a considerable step in the right direction, no one now doubts; had not the perverseness of Savings Bank officials prevented the Government from making its provisions apply to England, much subsequent suffering and grievous loss would have been saved to many of the best classes of our industrial population. It was a safeguard such as was wanted in Ireland, and it answered admirably.