[73] Only four sets of directors of banks, and these banks of very insignificant size, made a declaration of the kind in question between 1844 and 1848.
[74] It was during the passage of this bill that the managers and trustees of the different Savings Banks in the country first combined to influence the action of the Legislature. On this occasion it can be shown that they made their influence felt, and provoked several divisions in both Houses. With the House of Lords they were most successful, owing, no doubt, to the great number of peers who were honorary officers of Savings Banks. For example, in the House of Commons they succeeded in dividing the House twice on the question of the rate of interest. They wished no reduction to be made in that rate; but, when it was decided that the rate should be reduced, amendments making it 3l. 6s. 8d. to trustees and 3l. 0s. 0d. to depositors, and 3l. 5s. 0d. and 2l. 18s. 4d. were proposed against the Government plan, eventually carried, of 3l. 5s. 0d. and 3l. 0s. 10d. respectively. It was declared that the difference of 4s. 2d. only would not defray the cost of management. It was objected also, and not without reason, that the Government erred in not naming the exact sum, instead not more than 3l. 0s. 10d. per cent. which should be given to depositors; that this was a matter which ought not to have been left in any sense to the trustees. Much unpleasantness might have been saved if the sum had been definitely stated, and instead of twenty or thirty different rates of interest, all had been paid alike, and there had not been left any doubt as to what depositors should consider their right in the matter. Out of doors there was a regular combination; deputations waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and gentlemen from all the leading Savings Banks in England, Scotland, and Ireland, met in London to concert those schemes of defence to which we have just alluded. A meeting was held, at the important institution in St. Martin's place, with Sir Henry Willoughby as Chairman, when the following resolutions, among many others, were agreed to by the deputies from banks representing 5,000,000l. of deposits. Nothing could of course better show how the action of the Legislature was regarded by the managers of the institutions in question:—
1. “That the proposed reductions in the amount of deposits from 30l. to 20l. in each year, and the total amount of deposits from 150l. to 120l. will be highly injurious to the interests of the depositors.”
2d. “That the reduction in the rate of interest from 2½d. per cent. per day to 2d. is far too great, out of proportion to the reduction of the interest in the Funds, and would be extremely prejudicial to the depositors in all Savings Banks, but more especially to those in the smaller banks, throughout the kingdom.”
3d. “That clause 7, requiring the production of the books of every depositor once a year, will cause annoyance to depositors, is not capable of being enforced, and is no efficient security.”
4th. “That the proposed alteration respecting the liability of trustees and managers of Savings Banks seems highly objectionable. The present provision, of no trustee responsible except for his wilful default or neglect, is well understood as applicable to all cases of voluntary trusts, and should undergo no alteration.”
5th. “That it is not expedient that trust accounts be altogether abolished, but that provision should be introduced to meet the case of fictitious deposits and the abuse of trusts.”
And so on throughout almost all the clauses.
[75] On one occasion, about this time, Mr. Hume had complained of the “impudent conduct” of some Government official, to which Sir Robert Peel, as Premier, replied. Sir Robert said, he “would not quarrel with the hon. gentleman,” (an experiment he had often tried without much success,) “considering him a good judge as to how far impudence might be carried with impunity.” Mr. Hume at once owned the soft impeachment. “If I had not had the impudence of the devil,” said he, “I should never have done any good in this House.” The Times, the next day, give it to Mr. Hume smartly, as was its wont, and congratulated him “on his generous, though rather startling, acknowledgment of the source of all his strength.”
[76] His speech on the occasion does not seem to have been fully reported.