[77] The trustees of four small banks made the declaration: those of Tonbridge, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Fareham, and Carshalton in Surrey.
[78] At a meeting of the managers of the principal Savings Banks held on the 29th of August, 1819, it was resolved: “That this meeting has read with mingled feelings of pain and alarm the clause in the proposed bill virtually requiring trustees and managers of Savings Banks to give security or 100l. each, and making such trustees and managers responsible to an indefinite extent if they should neglect to limit their responsibility to that sum, as pointed out in the Act.”
[79] Mr. Brotherton, the member for Salford, soon after stated that the managers of the Manchester Savings Bank, with 20,000 depositors, insisted upon every person bringing his book to the office annually, as a precaution against fraud.
[80] The Committee of 1848 went very fully into the changes which were needed in Ireland, and many witnesses were asked what they would propose. For example (1579), Mr. W. Keating Clay was asked: “Do you believe, in consequence of the Cuffe Street bank, the deposits will decrease in Dublin and neighbourhood if the law is not amended?” and replied, “I should say they will be altogether withdrawn. I don't think the other Savings Banks in Dublin, which have conducted their business faultlessly all through, can exist another year under the present law.” Another witness, in answer to a similar question, said (1205): “I am quite satisfied that the Savings Bank system in Ireland will crumble to dust unless there is legislation.” A third witness said, nothing would do but trustees fully liable, and a system of Government inspection and regular audit of the accounts.
[81] The Times and Morning Chronicle strongly advocated the same view.
[82] Hansard, vol. civ, pp. 22-54.
[83] During the interval, Mr. Reynolds, member for Dublin, who had obtained the Committee originally, became Lord Mayor of Dublin, and Mr. Gibson Craig became Sir W. Gibson Craig. Mr. J. A. Smith was appointed chairman on each occasion.
[84] For example, in August, 1852, Mr. Reynolds again brought the subject before the House by proposing that the remaining money due to depositors should be paid by the State. On this occasion he told how he had had the honour, in 1846, placing Her Majesty's Government twice in the same night in a minority on this subject; but, unlike other members who had done the same thing, he had not received Her Majesty's commands to form a new ministry. This style of banter was scarcely suited to his subject, but more serious appeals were equally unavailing.
[85] The following remark had already been made from the judicial bench: “I find that country gentlemen, &c. were willing to lend their names as trustees, in the establishment of banks for the deposits of saving of the poor, but were negligent, in too many instances, in giving their personal services, whereby the business fell almost entirely under the exclusive management of the person appointed as actuary.”—Sir John Cross.
[86] “Nearly all the frauds, and all the loss which had occurred in Savings Banks,” said the Chancellor, “were owing to the actuary or secretary receiving money irregularly, sometimes at his own house, and very often out of office hours.”