104 REPORT — 1851. 



to the National Debt Commissioners on this emergency, and Mr. Tidd Pratt was sent 

 to Ireland. He awarded £7000 to be paid by the trustees, and that £4000, claimed 

 by the depositors, was not a legal charge. He advised that this latter sum should be 

 paid out of future profits, and that the trustees sliould carry on the bank, as the 

 future surplus would realize enough to pay all deficiencies. Mr. Pratt thought that 

 the defalcations did not exceed £4000. The trustees, instead of waiting for future 

 profits, paid the £4000 at once out of the incoming deposits ; they also omitted to 

 post the annual account, as required by law, from 1831 to 1848, and during all that 

 time, their accounts, as furnished to the Commissioners of the National Debt, showed 

 a deficiency. In 1838 the defalcations of the actuary were ascertained to have been 

 at least £25,000. The bank continued, though insolvent during all this time, to 

 possess public confidence until 1845. The Act of 1844 having relieved the trustees 

 from liability, one of them disclosed the insolvency of the bank. A run followed, in 

 which £200,000 was paid, leaving only £60,000 in the hands of tlie trustees, and 

 which would have compelled the bank to stop payment had not the Chancellor of 

 the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn) allowed the bank to draw a larger sum than the re- 

 gulation of the Bank of Ireland then permitted. When the run stopped, the depo- 

 sitors replaced their money, and the bank continued in operation until 1848, when 

 another run took place, in which they paid away all but £90, leaving a loss of 

 £60,000 on the depositors. 



The trustees were relieved from legal liability by the Act of 1844. They said they 

 were not morally responsible, in consequence of -Mr. Pratt's advice in 1831, and the 

 Chancellor of the Exchequer's allowance of the one draft in 1845. The Government 

 said that ihey were not responsible, as Mr. Pratt was not an executive officer. After 

 a long parliamentary investigation, by a vote of the House of Commons the depo- 

 sitors received £30,000, or 10s. in the pound. 



From this case it appeared, first, that the character of the clerk was no security, 

 as the Cuffe Street clerk had the highest character. It appeared, 2ndly, that the 

 security given by the clerks was no protection. 3rdly, that the character of the 

 managers and trustees did not secure the depositors, neither did their limited liability. 

 The same case showed that no reliance could be placed on the appointment of au- 

 ditors, or on any system of mere cheques. As it thus appeared that there was no 

 real security for the depositors in charitable savings-banks as now constituted, the 

 duties of the public in respect to these institutions were manifest : — 1st. That those 

 who advised the poor to deposit their savings in these banks should understand what 

 security they recommended the people to trust to. 2nd. That trustees who were 

 convinced that there was no real security, should have the banks they were con- 

 nected with wound up and the depositors paid ofl'. 3rd. That the public as legis- 

 lators should provide for the removal of all impediments to banks of deposits being 

 established for the poor by private enterprise, and for the formation either of govern- 

 ment banks with government security, or of charitable banks with unlimited liability 

 of the trustees ; and put an immediate stop to the half-charitable, half-government 

 institutions where there was no real security. 



Should Boards of Guardians endeavour to make Pauper Labour self-sup- 

 porting., or should they investigate the Causes of Pauperism ? By Pro- 

 fessor W, Neilson Hancock, LL.D. 



The Professor commenced by showing that the history of the Irish famine had com- 

 pletely established the necessity of a public and compulsory system of poor laws, both 

 on moral grounds and as a matter of police. He next pointed out that the controver- 

 sies respecting |)oor laws had arisen from taking too narrow a view of the subject. 



The subject of public relief of pauperism really gave rise to questions in every 

 branch of the social sciences, in moral philosophj', the science of government, juris- 

 prudence, and political economy. As to the particular question proposed to be dis- 

 cussed in the paper, it had been suggested by the efforts of the Sheffield and Chorl- 

 ton and other boards in England to make pauper labour self-supporting; by Dr. 

 Alison's paper ' On the Employment of Paupers on Waste Lands' at the Edinburgh 

 meeting of the Association, and by similar plans attempted by the Cork,Thurles and 

 Banbridge Boards of Guardians in Ireland, On investigating this question, it ap- 



