EARLY LEGISLATION ON SAVINGS BANKS--1817 TO 1844.
"The promotion of economical habits amongst the people is
so much a matter of national concern, that we cannot
conceive any direction in which the powers of Government
would be more beneficially directed than in giving effect
to schemes calculated to produce such valuable social
results among the humbler classes of the people."--MR.
SMILES.
It was not till Savings Banks had been regularly organised in this
country, and not before they had achieved some considerable success,
that the Legislature interfered in any way with regard to them. That
the ruling classes, however, were not slow to encourage these
undertakings is sufficiently manifest, when it is remembered that the
first legislation on the subject dates from 1817, or only seven years
after Dr. Duncan had organised his parish bank; and further, that the
purport and effect of the bill then introduced was not to embarrass
and hamper the new institutions, as was too often the case with new
and partially-tried measures, but to offer them protection and
encouragement. Prior to 1817, Savings Banks were simply voluntary
associations, established, as we have already seen, by some benevolent
gentlemen, who took a sort of leading part in the affairs of their
respective neighbourhoods, and who were actuated in doing so by their
desire to afford to their poorer neighbours help and inducement to
save money. Up to this time the confidence entertained by the poor in
the integrity and well-meaning of the rich was the only security they
had that their money was in safe keeping; and it is only fair to add,
that, so long as Savings Banks were promoted and kept up in this
semi-paternal fashion, that confidence was seldom, if ever, misplaced.
Savings Banks were soon seen, however, to possess germs of national
good which would require greater means of development to be brought to
bear upon them; and it was quite as plainly apparent that the more
they extended, the greater the necessity became that they should be
legally recognised and protected. The first mention of the new
institution in Parliament was made by the Right Hon. George Rose, who
was at the time Treasurer of the Navy, and one of the Committee of
Council for the affairs of Trade and Foreign Plantations, and who, at
the close of the session of 1815, and again in April, 1816, asked
leave to bring in a bill, "to afford protection to Banks for Savings."
Mr. Rose, for the next two years, took a leading part in all
discussions on the subject, as indeed he did on all kindred
subjects.[28] He had written on Poor Laws and Benefit Societies; and,
on account of his having, towards the close of the last century,
carried through Parliament a bill legalizing Friendly Societies, was
generally looked upon as an authority on such subjects. The first
speech of the hon. gentleman on Savings Banks was remarkably able: he
referred to the immense good which such banks as those of Edinburgh
and Bath had done, and were capable of doing. The instances which had
come before him of persons who before the establishment of Savings
Banks had never saved a penny, but who then had made ample provision
for a rainy day, were cheering in the extreme. He proceeded to give
particulars of several instances of the kind, mentioning them, as he
put it, "to induce hon. gentlemen to exert themselves, and that they
might not sit with their hands before them, believing that nothing
could be done." The moral good to be expected from these banks was
great and obvious. He hoped and expected that they would gradually
tend to revive in the lower classes that decent spirit of
independence, now almost extinct, which shrinks from accepting
parochial relief; the poor man would learn to regard his own industry
and labour as the source whence he was to derive temporary aid in the
hour of sickness, or permanent support when the approaches of age
should unfit him for active exertions. Not that this matter was
applicable only to the poor; a consideration of the subject in all its
bearings might well be given to it by the rich on their own account;
he thoroughly believed that the poor-rates of the country would
diminish in proportion to the spread of Savings Banks among the
masses. _Mr. Thompson_, a Yorkshire member, expressed his warmest
approbation of the proposed bill. In Yorkshire, he knew there was a
great desire to establish Savings Banks of this sort, but the better
classes were afraid of doing so, on account of their apparent
complexity, and because they had not received up to this time the
sanction or countenance of the Legislature. He hoped the provisions of
the proposed bill would be as simple as possible, and afterwards that
the bill and its clauses would be made as public as possible. Hundreds
of working men, to his knowledge, might easily save ten shillings a
week, whereas they did not then save a penny; nor could they be blamed
to any great extent so long as they were without the requisite
machinery for acting differently. Establish these banks, and place
their working under proper Acts of Parliament, and he should then say
that many who were accustomed in times of scarcity to solicit
parochial relief would have no excuse for their conduct; if they did
not avail themselves of the opportunity of becoming independent he
would rather punish than assist them. Thus early were our legislators
alive to the maxim that "the only true secret of assisting the poor is
to make them agents in bettering their own condition." The _Chancellor
of the Exchequer_ (Mr. Vansittart) believed that nothing tended more
to the independence of the poor than their learning to support
themselves by their own exertions. He thought the object of the
proposed bill would be congenial to the feelings of the whole House.
On the part of the Government, he was ready to offer his best
assistance on behalf of an institution such as the Savings Bank, where
rich and poor might meet together and mutually combine in promoting,
under Divine protection, their natural rights. "There, forgetful of
those petty distinctions which temporary circumstances had created,
they met as brethren, each to do his duty to his neighbour." After an
Irish member had expressed his wish that the same bill might be
extended to Ireland, where, he truly said, such habits as these banks
inculcated were most urgently needed, even more so than in England,
this one-sided debate was closed.[29] The bill was read a first time
on the 15th of May, 1816. It provided, that any number of individuals
might enrol themselves as Trustees of a Provident Institution or
Savings Bank at the Quarter Sessions. It was not meant by this to give
any power to Justices of the Peace, but simply that the act of
enrolment might thus be made in as public a manner as possible. It was
further arranged, that the Rules proposed for the management of the
new Savings Banks should in like manner be left with the Clerk of the
Peace for the respective counties. The bill authorised the Trustees or
Managers to appoint such officers as were likely to be needed, and
required that in all cases where the persons were to be entrusted with
money, they should give reasonable security. It was only further
provided, that depositors should not be prevented from applying for
parish relief, but that, if any dispute arose on this point, the
decision in the matter should be left with the magistrates in Quarter
Sessions. The session being near its close, and several members having
expressed their sense of the importance of the subject and the
necessity of producing a well-considered bill to regulate these banks,
the bill was withdrawn till the next session. On the 15th of February,
1817, Mr. Rose again returned to the subject, and got leave to
re-introduce his bill. He did not on this occasion enter minutely into
the consideration of Savings Banks, further than to express a
conviction he had, "which daily became stronger," that these
institutions, if properly directed, would have a very direct influence
on the vexed question of Poor Law relief. He contended, that, if they
became generally introduced through the length and breadth of the
country, they would gradually mitigate, and then do away with, the
evils attending the system of the English Poor Law; and he very
reasonably urged that any measure which would tend, even remotely, to
such a desirable object, was deserving of, and ought to have, the
hearty support and countenance of the Legislature. _Mr. Curwen_, an
authority on this phase of the subject, held that there could be only
one opinion as to the utility of the banks, but he was satisfied "it
was an error to imagine they would essentially contribute to the
alleviation of the present distressing situation of affairs." Nothing
short of a measure which in its nature might have a compulsory
influence over the minds of the people, to teach the poor and the
peasantry that the means of relief, of content and happiness, were
within the reach of their own exertions and industrious application,
would be effectual. After a little further opposition, during which
another member said that the bill would do more harm than good--that
Savings Banks were going on extremely well without any Act of
Parliament, _Mr. Wilberforce_, ready at all times to forward any
measure which seemed likely to benefit the poorer and more defenceless
portions of society, congratulated his friend on his proposals, and
said that the system of Savings Banks pleased him most because it was
so eminently adapted to teach the poor how much they might do for
themselves by their own self-denying exertions. This was one of the
class of things for which he, the House, and the country ought to be
extremely indebted to all who had been instrumental in originating it
and bringing it to greater perfection. "Whatever difference of
opinion," continued Mr. Wilberforce, "there might exist as to the Poor
Laws, it was of all things desirable to countenance and foster so
sanative a principle as that on which Savings Banks were founded." The
second and principal reading of the bill took place on the 15th of
May, 1817, on which night many petitions were presented in its favour,
and only three--viz., from Norwich, Hertford, and St. Paul's, Covent
Garden--against it. All opposition, however, to the bill resolved
itself into simply contesting one or two of its clauses. An attempt
was made to throw out the clause which obliged the Trustees of Savings
Banks to vest all moneys received by them in the Public Funds, several
members contending that at any rate some of the money might be much
better employed on mortgage, to the relief of many different interests
in the immediate neighbourhood, and to the greater productiveness of
the money so lent. The arguments used on this occasion were very
similar to those occasionally used now in relation to the same
subject, and they were then as unavailing as they have been
subsequently: the preponderating opinion was that the _safety_ of the
investments was, and ought to be, the first and greatest
consideration. The clause, however, which proposed the giving of
premiums out of the parish funds to those contributors who had done
best in the way of saving money, fared worse, being rejected in
committee almost unanimously. The growth of such principles could not
be forced, and, if they grew at all, they would do better without the
crutches eleemosynary aid. At the third reading, a spirited contest
arose about the proviso that depositors in Savings Banks should not be
disqualified from receiving parochial relief. _Mr. Rose_ contended
that anything, which would have a tendency to make the poor think that
the richer classes were legislating with ulterior objects in view,
such as to get rid of poor-rates, would throw obstacles in the way of
Savings Banks. There would be no need to think of such considerations
in a few years, when Savings Banks were more firmly fixed amongst the
institutions of the country; it was highly expedient, however, that
they should now be allowed to have their weight. In a few years,
argued he, the poor will have formed habits of saving, and so they
will have become independent, and be above throwing themselves on the
parish, at any rate with impunity. Mr. Wilberforce held and expressed
the same view, which Lord Milton and others opposed; the clause was
retained, notwithstanding, by a majority of thirty-three in a House of
eighty-seven members. With this discussion the bill passed, and became
law in August, 1817. As this bill[30] is the beginning of legislation
on the subject of Savings Banks, we would here state in outline the
principal objects with which it dealt. A sort of Supplementary Act,
cap. 105, was passed to apply more particularly to Ireland, to suit
the Irish members, who, when the matter was under discussion, argued
that the same Act would not deal so well with Ireland, and who,
therefore, wished the two countries treated separately. Both the acts
required that the Rules of the proposed Bank for Savings should be
deposited with the Clerk of the Peace of the county in which the bank
should be situated, though no discretionary power was left with the
magistrates in the matter. The Trustees and Managers were prohibited
from receiving any profit from any transactions in these banks, and
were empowered to pay over the moneys they received into the Bank of
England, or Ireland (as the case might be), to the account of the
Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, the latter being
instructed and empowered to invest them in Three per Cent. Bank
Annuities. Interest on money thus deposited in the hands of Government
was guaranteed to the Trustees of Savings Banks at the rate of 3_d._
per cent. per day, or 4_l._ 11_s._ 3_d._ per annum. The Act restricted
the amount which any one depositor could place in a Savings Bank in
England to 100_l._ in the first year, and 50_l._ in any subsequent
year. In Ireland the limitation was 50_l._ in any year, though why
this distinction was agreed upon does not appear.
It was not long before it was seen that the Act just described was
defective in many particulars, and further legislation rendered
necessary. During the year which elapsed after the passing of the
Savings Bank Act, the progress of these institutions, in so far as the
number and amount of their deposits were concerned, was great beyond
all expectation. In nine months from the date of the bill of 1817, the
large sum of 657,000_l._ had been deposited. The largest amount
received at the National Debt Office during that period from any one
bank was 32,000_l._, remitted from the flourishing Exeter bank; the
smallest was received from a new bank just then opened at St. John's,
Wapping, for the benefit of sailors living in that locality. By the
middle of the year 1818, or less than twelve months after the passing
of the first bill, there were no fewer than 227 banks established in
England and Wales, and about an equal number in Ireland and Scotland.
That the encouragement which the bill had given was real is evident
from the fact that more than half the entire number of English banks
were first opened in 1817-18. So rapid indeed had been the development
of the measure, that it was soon apparent that the increase of
deposits was in a ratio far beyond any possible increase in the amount
of wages or profit from which small savings could have been made. No
doubt that now, for the first time, many hoarded savings saw the
light, and began to bring in to their owners a return; but even this
does not account for such an increase of business. Towards the close
of 1817, 20,000_l._ was deposited in one day, in a town in the North
of England where a bank had just been opened, and it was known that
very little of this money belonged to the industrial classes.
The interest given for the investment made, it appeared, was
attracting a much higher class of depositors than it was ever sought
to encourage, or than the Act was intended to benefit. The interest
guaranteed by Government has already been stated. In amount, it was at
least 11_s._ 3_d._ more than the interest yielded by any other
Government security, while Consols did not bring in more than 3_l._
5_s._ per cent. Many, we believe, in the first instance put their
money into the Savings Banks to afford encouragement to their poorer
neighbours or dependents, and in order to inspire them with
confidence: and it will be well understood how necessary this was at
the outset, seeing that at that time there were few means of
inculcating sound political knowledge, or, indeed, information of any
sort, among the great mass of the people, who too often were swayed
hither and thither at the mere whim of some noisy and ignorant
demagogue. Whether or not this sufficiently accounts for the fact of
the better classes contributing to the early Savings Banks, it is
clear that all classes soon found out that it was not possible to do
better with their money, and hence allowed it to remain where it was.
Several banks were very careful to exclude by their rules all but
mechanics, servants, and persons in similar ranks of life, but the
rest either had no such rules, or were very careless about enforcing
them. One gentleman, possessed of 40,000_l._ was known to have
deposited large sums of money in one Savings Bank in the names of his
six children. On the 17th of March, 1818, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, influenced by such abuses as these, asked leave to bring in
a bill to amend the Act passed last year. No trace of the proceedings
of Parliament with regard to this little bill remains, but it seems
only to have been meant as a temporary measure of relief till the
whole subject could be more effectually grappled with. It simply
provided for some alterations in the forms of debenture, gave power to
Justices of the Peace to reject, for a sufficient reason, any Rules
deposited with their clerks, and prohibited the arrangement by which a
person might invest in a Savings Bank by means of a ticket or number,
and without disclosing his or her name.
Shortly after this period, in the year 1819, a question was put to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House, which seems to have raised
some merriment among the members. Ridiculous as it might seem, it only
reflected the spirit in which many people spoke of the measures which
had recently been passed with regard to the compulsory investments
with Government of the money placed in the banks. In Lancashire, aided
and stimulated by Mr. Cobbett, who all along sneered at the "bubble"
of Savings Banks, the people got up an absurd cry, and long kept it
up. _Mr. Wilbraham_, a Lancashire member, asked Mr. Vansittart if
there was "any tittle of truth" in the reports that were so prevalent
"that Government was about to seize the funds of the Friendly
Societies and Savings Banks, and apply them to the payment of the
National Debt. This report," said the hon. member, "had been caught up
by persons little conversant in political matters, and had actually
caused the breaking up of Friendly Societies, to the great loss of
those who had claims upon them." He had no doubt the course of
legislation had led to this report being circulated by designing
persons, and though quite aware that it was impossible for the
Government to touch any of these funds, he would like to hear a
declaration on the subject from the authority which in that House was
alone competent to give it. _The Chancellor of the Exchequer_ said,
that even after much experience of the extent to which malignity and
absurdity could go in the propagation of reports injurious to the
Ministry, he had not been prepared for such a rumour as this. "It was
utterly groundless; there was not the smallest foundation for it,
either in fact or possibility. Under the authority of Parliament, the
money belonging to the institutions in question was kept _entirely
apart_ from the public money, and even if the Treasury were base
enough, they had not the power to misappropriate these funds."[31]
_Mr. Brougham_ observed that this was not the first time that such
reports had been circulated, and such absurd cries raised. When the
Education Committee was sitting, it was asserted that its intention
was to seize all charitable funds, and to turn the two Universities
into charity schools. In such cases as these facts or reason on such
reports were very ineffectual, but he hoped that in this particular
instance they would be of some avail.
Before we notice the further progress of legislation in respect to
Savings Banks, it would be well to refer to their progress and
operation in Scotland. None of the Acts passed up to this time in any
way related to the Scotch banks. When Mr. Rose's bill was before
Parliament, its application to Scotland was successfully opposed; a
separate bill was introduced by Mr. Douglas, the member for the
Dumfries burghs, in 1818, but this did not pass. The failure to obtain
this act was said to be owing exclusively to the necessity for
legislative interference not being felt in Scotland; it seems now much
more likely that the failure was owing to the want of unanimity among
the Scotch promoters of Savings Banks, Mr. Duncan taking a decided
stand with the member whom he had influenced so far as to get him to
bring in a bill, and the promoters of the Edinburgh bank, on the other
hand, who kept up in this way the long-standing dispute which they had
always had with "the Father of Savings Banks."[32] There was certainly
some reason why the same legislation was unnecessary for the two
countries. There were many circumstances which rendered interference
on the part of the Legislature necessary, or at least expedient, in
the case of the English banks, and these circumstances scarcely in any
way applied to Scotland. The chief of these were the Poor Laws, and
the want of secure places of deposit for small sums to bear interest,
and be payable on demand; the English bankers did not usually allow
interest on money lodged with them, whereas in Scotland they gave a
liberal return for it. The general dispute was at its height in 1819,
when the Edinburgh Society published a report against any State
interference, and when Mr. Duncan, who, as we have already said, was a
strong advocate for parliamentary encouragement and protection,
replied in a lengthy and able letter,[33] in which he clearly showed
that difficulties and discouragements would surely be felt in the
progress of Savings Banks, if they were not arranged according to law.
The radical difference observable in the two classes of banks--and
there were at this time 182 Savings Banks in Scotland with 7,000
depositors, and deposits to the amount of 30,000_l._--was the
difference between the Parish Bank at Ruthwell, and the Savings Bank
at Edinburgh, for on one or other of these models all the Scotch banks
were with very few variations formed. Mr. Duncan placed, or intended
to do so, the management of his bank in the hands of the whole body of
depositors; the Edinburgh bank excluded all popular interference in
its management, and left every one to deal with it or not, at their
pleasure. The Ruthwell bank confessedly, and as we have seen, partook
of the nature of a Friendly Society; the Edinburgh bank as nearly as
possible approached to the character of a commercial undertaking. The
founder of the former was thus an advocate for minute regulations,
while the patrons of the latter wished to be left at liberty to manage
their affairs in their own way, and only to call in the help of the
Legislature when real grievances needed redressing.
With the exception of a short Act[34] passed in 1820, by which it was
provided that charitable institutions might deposit a whole or a
portion of their funds with the Commissioners, no further legislation
on Savings Banks was attempted till 1824. In this year the Chancellor
of the Exchequer (Mr. Robinson) took up the matter where Mr.
Vansittart had left it, and carried a Bill through Parliament still
further to amend the law.[35] With a view to remedy still more
completely the evil of classes, other than the industrious ones,
investing their money in Savings Banks, this Act provided that the sum
which could be deposited during the first year should be limited to
50_l._ and should stand at 30_l._ for any succeeding year. To provide
against anything like evasion of these regulations, a form of
declaration was introduced,--which we scarcely need say has existed up
to the present time,--stating that the subscriber to it had not
contributed to any other bank than the one at which he made the
declaration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavoured to carry a
clause which required that this declaration should be subscribed by
the proposed depositor in his own name, "and own handwriting," in
place of a mark or initials, but this was wisely discarded. This
absurd proviso would have put an educational test in the way of those
very classes whom, to the exclusion of all others, it was desirable to
attract to Savings Banks. Another important clause succeeded better,
and was plainly proper to the object meant to be served by it. No
depositor could by this further clause invest more than 200_l._
excluding interest, in any Savings Bank. The case of the funds of
Friendly Societies was the subject of another clause. It was only four
years since these societies, as we have seen, were allowed to deposit
their funds through the medium of Savings Banks; but the Act of 1820
had given rise to so much abuse, or to so much that seemed like abuse,
that some alteration was necessary. The high rate of interest which
had been guaranteed by law to these banks induced, not only
individuals of rank and property, but large charities to place their
funds in them: the result was a great burthen to the public, inasmuch
as the excess over the ordinary rate of interest for public securities
was thrown in by the Legislature with the object of increasing the
provident disposition of the poor. As it was seen that, if this state
of things continued, the original object of State assistance and
countenance to Savings Banks would be defeated and the public in some
degree prejudiced, it was proposed that no friendly society or
charitable institution of any kind should deposit their funds in any
bank. If the alterations now proposed did not suffice to preserve
Savings Banks from the inroads of the rich, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer saw no other means of meeting the evil than by reducing the
interest given. He "should feel most reluctant to weaken the
confidence which the public reposed in these banks, and which rendered
them one of the greatest blessings ever conferred upon the country;"
but the evil must be met in one way or the other, or with the loss of
their normal character they would lose their efficiency.
The Act of Amendment then went on to deal with the responsibility of
Trustees, the giant difficulty of Savings Banks from that time until
now. The same arguments were used at this early period as at different
times subsequently. Those who placed money in Savings Banks ought to
have some security that that money was not made away with by some one
through whose hands it would pass; and the Trustees, who had the sole
control over the affairs of the banks, and appointed all the
subordinate officers, were the persons who ought to give some
security. On the other hand, enforce to the full the liability of
Trustees, and the most able persons would be deterred from accepting
so much responsibility, and would give up the connexion which they had
already voluntarily assumed. It was now therefore settled that the
Trustees should deposit all the money they received with the National
Debt Commissioners, and that they should be held liable in case of
default only to a certain amount. A legally and efficiently
constituted bank should consist of twelve Trustees, each liable for
50_l._, or 600_l._ in the aggregate. This Act, it was also decided,
should refer to Ireland equally as to England.
Early in February, 1828, _Mr. Joseph Hume_--who had not then been many
years in Parliament, but who had already commenced that course of
conduct in connexion with the public expenditure which, at first,
gained him little but ridicule and derision, and subsequently the
respect of friend and foe and the confidence of the entire
nation--took up the question of Savings Banks, or more especially that
part of it which related to the question of expense to the Government.
Mr. Hume had already asked for returns of the progress of Savings
Banks; but on the 6th of this month he required the production of an
account, showing the amount of interest that had been allowed to them
since they had become connected with the State in 1817. He tried to
disabuse the mind of the members of the House as to his having any
prejudice against Savings Banks. He told how he had been one of the
earliest friends of these institutions and heartily wished well to
them. When he found, however, that they had already cost the country
half a million sterling, and were likely to cost still more as their
numbers and efficiency increased, he thought it was high time to have
the matter inquired into, and this expenditure stopped. Mr. Hume said
that his original notion about Savings Banks,--which was likewise that
of all he knew who had endeavoured to establish them,--was that each
bank might, and therefore ought to maintain itself, and, whilst it
enabled the poor to invest safely their 10_l._ or 20_l._ as cheaply
and as profitably as the rich could their larger amounts, it should
neither be a burthen on the charity of the benevolent nor an incubus
on the State. Mr. Hume stated that he believed it would be found that
up to January, 1827, the amount paid to Trustees, over and above what
the money remitted to the National Debt Commissioners had produced,
was 452,000_l._ By the arrangement of the Act of 1817, which ordered
that a separate account should be kept of the moneys deposited with
Government on behalf of Savings Banks, he was enabled to tell exactly
how affairs stood. He found that Government had obtained interest on
the Savings Bank Fund to the extent, in round numbers, of
2,250,000_l._ and had paid to depositors for the same 2,703,000_l._
Hence the loss[36] above given, which he had no doubt by the time the
accounts were finally made up for the financial year ending in March
would be half a million sterling. Mr. Hume went on to state that, if
honourable members thought it proper after an inquiry to pay
40,000_l._ or 50,000_l._ a year, as a means of encouraging these
banks, let them do so; perhaps he would not make any more appeals
about it; at any rate, however, in this case, and if this state of
things continued, he thought it would be only fair that Government,
and not separate directors, should have the management and control of
these banks. There was no possible uniformity among them; some paid
one rate of interest, and some another; some charged much higher for
paid assistance than others, and yet, with unvarying uniformity, he
might have said, the executive granted the same high rate of interest
to all, irrespective of how they disposed of it. The Returns were
ordered _nem. con._ The Statement which Mr. Hume more particularly
referred to is in its proper place among the "Accounts and Papers" for
that year, and is as follows:--
+---------+--------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| | Dividends on Stock | Interest Paid | |
| Years. | Received by | Trustees. | Difference. |
| | Commissioners. | | |
+---------+--------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| | £ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d. |
| 1817-18 | 32,071 1 5 | 44,909 5 1 | 12,838 3 8 |
| 1819 | 92,865 13 7 | 106,963 4 9 | 14,097 11 2 |
| 1820 | 124,278 8 2 | 141,488 1 3 | 17,209 13 1 |
| 1821 | 163,631 1 1 | 182,649 13 3 | 19,018 12 2 |
| 1822 | 225,252 6 1 | 253,629 4 11 | 28,376 18 10 |
| 1823 | 298,270 10 1 | 340,757 0 2 | 42,486 10 1 |
| 1824 | 379,411 6 7 | 468,261 12 1 | 88,850 5 6 |
| 1825 | 450,027 13 0 | 562,759 0 4 | 112,731 13 4 |
| 1826 | 478,286 5 3 | 592,390 18 11 | 114,104 13 8 |
| 1827 | 480,851 13 0 | 615,516 1 7 | 134,664 8 7 |
| 1828 | 515,569 9 4 | 675,753 16 7 | 160,184 7 3 |
+---------+--------------------+------------------+-----------------+
A month afterwards, the Returns having been furnished, Mr. Hume
returned to the charge. The accounts had more than borne him out in
all particulars. He now again asked if the daily loss ought to be
suffered in the financial state the country was in. The Act regulating
Savings Banks ought to be repealed, and another passed in its place.
His opinion was, decidedly, that Government should just give the
interest which it realized by the Savings Bank money, and not add a
farthing to it. "At a change in the price of Stock," added the
reformer, "Government might very possibly lose three or four millions,
and yet the depositors would not suffer the loss of a penny." Much as
he wished for the progress and advancement of the poorer classes--and
few, we think, worked harder to obtain it for them,--he contended that
these classes ought to be placed precisely in the same situation as
other people who had capital to invest. Another point which Mr. Hume
dwelt upon was the _surplus money_ which managers of Savings Banks had
in their possession untouched, after paying their depositors all the
interest that was allowed them. At that time Mr. Hume stated that the
surplus in the Newcastle Savings Bank, after paying the expenses of
management, amounted to 4,810_l._ and in the Exeter and Devon Bank to
a still larger sum; and this money which had been paid by Government
and saved after the Trustees had given a liberal interest to
depositors, was now turned into an invincible argument for some change
in the law. Mr. Hume concluded with expressing a hope that Government
would bring in a bill to amend the law relating to Savings Banks, or
at any rate not throw any obstacles in the way of some private member
doing it. The Secretary of the Treasury said, in reply, that Mr. Hume
had stated the case fairly and correctly; and that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer fully intended during the present session to bring in a
bill with which he hoped _to satisfy all classes_.[37] The
vicissitudes of party prevented this high Government functionary from
carrying out his laudable, but very impossible design. In a few weeks
the Chancellor is on the other side of the House, and another occupies
his place. A bill, however, was introduced on the 5th of June, 1828,
by Mr. Pallmer, which, supported by the new Administration, was passed
through Parliament, and became law in the same year.[38] In
introducing this bill, _Mr. Pallmer_ said it was quite obvious that
the laws which affected Savings Banks ought to be as clear and as
distinct as possible. Savings Banks were now very important
institutions, and the welfare of thousands was connected with them. At
that time there were no less than five Acts of Parliament regulating
Savings Banks, and these Acts, which contained 150 clauses, involved
an enormous amount of confusion and perplexity. He would in the place
of these five Acts, propose an Act, simple and consolidated, of thirty
or forty clauses. He would endeavour to deal with all the questions of
interest allowed, surplus money, responsibility of trustees, and to
make the necessary restrictions towards carrying on the banks safely.
And leave was quickly given to proceed with the bill. Nothing
transpired in the passage of the bill through Parliament of much
moment: so little hold were questions of this nature supposed to have
on the public mind, that it is barely alluded to in the pages of
_Hansard_. It seems never to have occurred to the reporters of the
day, that posterity might wish for a detailed account of the steps by
which institutions, such as these we are considering, arrived at some
important position, and so important indeed as to make every step of
that progress interesting after the lapse of years. Two or three
little incidents have survived this neglect. _Mr. Lewis_, for example,
during the second reading of the bill, proposed a clause for
preventing the National Debt Commissioners from taking more than
20,000,000_l._ from the Savings Bank Trustees, and ordering that, when
that amount had been invested, the funds should be declared full. The
answer which Mr. Goulburn, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave
to the hon. member was, that he "would take a day or two for
consideration, after which he should be able to say better whether
such a clause ought, or ought not, to be agreed to." Two or three days
before there had appeared in the _Times_ newspaper a well-written
lampoon on the new Ministry, over which, it will be remembered the
Duke of Wellington presided as Premier, and one verse ran--
"To rest from toil our Great Untaught,
And soothe the pangs his warlike brain
Must suffer when, _unused to thought_,
_It tries to think, and--tries in vain_."
_Sir Joseph Yorke_ embraced the opportunity to compliment the
Chancellor, amidst great laughter, on being such a "valuable auxiliary
of the 'Great Untaught.' The right hon. gentleman evidently was not
one who spoke on the strength of two bottles of wine: his eloquence
was certainly not of a fiery description;" and more banter of the like
description. Mr. Lewis, however, withdrew his amendment, as did also
Mr. Hume, who, when the amount of interest which should be given was
discussed, had proposed that, in place of a reduction from 3_d._ to
2-1/2_d._ per diem, the interest on deposits should only be at the
rate of 2_d._ per diem. The bill was only further opposed in some
trifling particulars and, when finally carried, was ordered to come
into operation in the November of the same year. The statute was
entitled, "An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to
Savings Banks," and repealed all other Acts previously in force. From
this circumstance, the clauses of the bill of 1828 are generally known
as the "Governing Statutes" relating to Savings Banks. As the great
majority of these clauses are still in force, it will suffice, when we
come to give the present Act, to simply mark those which were
originally passed in 1828, and so distinguish them from the clauses
passed in 1863. We will here give the principal items and arrangements
of the new bill. The Act provided that the rules of every Savings Bank
should be entered in a book, which book should be deposited with the
Clerk of the Peace: the Clerk of the Peace was directed to submit this
book to a barrister, who, under the terms of the Act, would be
appointed by the National Debt Commissioners.[39] The duty of the
barrister would be to certify that the Rules of the proposed bank were
strictly according to law, and this certification, after it had been
made, was to be laid before the Justices of the Peace in Quarter
Sessions, who were empowered under certain circumstances to reject the
same, or any part thereof. If admitted, as they most commonly would
be, after certification, the Rules became binding on depositors and
officers. The interest to be given to depositors, as we have already
stated, was reduced by this Act from 4_l._ 11_s._ 3_d._ per cent. per
annum, to 3_l._ 16_s._ 0-1/2_d._ per annum. It was provided that
savings of Minors might be invested, and that deposits might be made
by married Women. Charitable Societies were again authorized to invest
sums not exceeding 100_l._ per year, or 300_l._ in the whole. Friendly
Societies were also authorized to subscribe any portion of their funds
into Savings Banks, but a Friendly Society enrolled after the date of
the bill could not invest more than 300_l._ principal and interest
included. Trustees were not to receive from any one depositor more
than 30_l._ in any one year, nor more than 150_l._ in the whole and,
when the deposit and interest amounted to 200_l._ interest was to
cease. Depositors might withdraw their money and again subscribe,
providing they did not do it to a greater extent than 30_l._ in any
one year. Deposits might be withdrawn from one Savings Bank and placed
in another. Should a depositor die leaving any sum exceeding 50_l._
the same was not to be paid without probate or letters of
administration. Administration bonds for effects under 50_l._ were
exempt from stamp duty. Section nine exacted that no Trustee or
Manager should be responsible except for his own wilful neglect or
default; and finally, and a matter of considerable importance, the
bill provided that once in each year the Trustees of every Savings
Bank should make a Return to the National Debt Office, in which a full
Financial Statement should be made of the condition of the bank; and a
minor clause enacted that depositors should be entitled, on payment of
one penny, to a printed copy of this Annual Statement.
For several years after the thorough change which we have just
described, the institution of Savings Banks increased and prospered
wonderfully; up to the year 1833, we find that no steps were taken,
nor agitation of any sort got up, to alter the law with regard to
them. In this year, some further changes took place; but if we except
a slight modification which was made in the arrangements under which
depositors could withdraw their money,--a longer notice being thought
necessary,--nothing was done which did not place additional powers in
the hands of Trustees.
In April, 1833, Lord Althorp, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
Government of Earl Grey, influenced, by a suggestion of Mr. Woodrow,
introduced a bill to grant immediate and deferred annuities through
the medium of Savings Banks, and to grant them on so small a scale as
to place them within reach of the humblest classes. Something of this
sort was undoubtedly required, and the necessity became more and more
felt on account of the action of Friendly Societies. The poorer
classes, it would seem, had scarcely any means of investing in
pensions for their old age: although nearly 5,000 Friendly Societies
had up to this time proposed to make some provision of the kind, all
but thirty-nine had in 1833 entirely relinquished this class of
business. It may be said that Friendly Societies gave up this business
because so few availed themselves of the provision that was made. From
the very constitution of these societies, however, the poor had little
confidence that any one of them would last so long as to give them
those benefits in their old age for which they would have to subscribe
for a long term of years. Benefit Societies might be broken up at any
time by two-thirds of their number; this sort of thing was constantly
occurring, generally leaving the oldest members in the lurch. An
attempt, to which we have not yet alluded, was made even before
Savings Banks were established, to give the industrial classes a
chance of providing for their old age, and preventing them from being
left destitute of other support than parish pay, or a home in the
workhouse. Baron Mazeres, so early as 1773, who published a work on
Annuities, succeeded in getting a bill introduced and passed through
the House of Commons--though unfortunately it was lost in the House of
Lords--which would have made the legislation of 1833 less necessary.
_Lord Althorp_ now stated that the object he had in view was simply
and solely to benefit the working classes. The lowest sum which could
be granted as a Government Annuity was 30_l._ a-year. He would propose
to make the sum 20_l._ The annuity should not be assignable, or
transferable, except in cases of bankruptcy or insolvency; and in the
case of the purchaser, either through necessity or choice making
default in the annual payments, or dying before the annuity commenced,
the whole of the money subscribed should be paid to him or his
executors. The tables would be calculated at the rate of 3_l._ 15_s._
per cent. and this rate being less than the ordinary Savings Bank
rate, would enable the Government to introduce the clause for
returning deposits. To no class, it was thought, would these proposals
be of more service than to members of Benefit Societies, who would
thus be enabled to secure superannuation on Government security, and
confine the objects of the society in which they might be members to
relief in cases of sickness or death. Lord Althorp calculated that a
person at the age of twenty-five, paying six shillings a month as a
deposit into the Savings Bank, would be entitled at the age of sixty
to an annuity of 20_l._ a-year. He contended, that, from the
calculations which had been made, Government could not lose by these
arrangements, and he thought the principal feature of deferred
annuities for a small amount, with money returnable in the cases above
stated, might be made,--if the working classes would only avail
themselves of the measure,--to tend greatly to their worldly comfort
and advantage. _Mr. Thomas Attwood_, the member for Birmingham, who
made some remarkable speeches in the House on matters of finance, but
especially with regard to Savings Banks, objected not only to this
proposal, but to legislation of any sort with regard to them. The
money deposited in Savings Banks might as well be put into the country
banks, for the average amount of each deposit, he was sure, was over
10_l._ and 10_l._ was the minimum sum which country banks would take.
He "did not believe in paying so much to keep up such establishments,
especially when they were not wanted." To such lengths will
intelligent men go, and to such an extent will they shut their eyes!
Mr. Attwood put his views before the House quite mildly in this
instance, as compared with subsequent speeches. _Mr. Brotherton_, a
member greatly respected in the House, who had once belonged to the
ranks of the people, and who might therefore be supposed better to
understand their requirements, felt sure that Savings Banks had been
productive of great national good, and could not be too numerous. _Mr.
Pease_, the Quaker member for South Durham, hoped that nothing would
be done to induce the working classes to try country banks in
preference to Savings Banks. In his own county 700,000_l._ or
800,000_l._ had been lost in country banks, and therefore it would be
highly dangerous to advise the poor to lodge their money there. Mr.
Pease's position, as a large employer of labour, gave his remarks
weight, when he trusted that the clause in the bill of 1828, which
provided that Accounts of Savings Banks should annually be laid before
the Government, would be carried out in its entirety; "there was
little hope of Savings Banks turning out uniformly profitable to the
industrious classes, except Government maintained a strict
superintending control over them." The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said this was done, and in two or three instances since he took
office, where the Trustees had neglected to furnish proper returns,
the Commissioners had exercised the power which the law gave them,
_and had closed the banks_ till the Accounts were sent up.[40] In May
the bill was carried through Parliament unaltered, but, as usual,
opposed by two or three fractious members. Mr. Thomas Attwood again
expressed his disapprobation of Savings Banks; and we allude to his
speech with a view solely of enlivening our pages, which may over this
ground of legislative enactments be dull to some readers. This
gentleman stated his belief on the third reading of the Savings Bank
Annuities Bill, that Savings Banks "were instituted by the late Lord
Liverpool and his Government, not for the good of the people, but for
three different purposes." The first was to draw capital to London, in
order to bolster up the Funds; the second was to give the Government
the power of putting their hands into the pockets of the people; and
the third, to enable them to scourge the people.[41] On the House
showing manifest signs of disapprobation, Mr. Attwood said, "Hon.
members might express disapprobation as much as they pleased, and the
noble lord (Althorp) might laugh, but he firmly believed that Lord
Liverpool's great object in getting up these banks was to get his claw
in the people." _Lord Althorp_ replied with the straightforward
understanding, and quiet, manly good sense which always characterized
this eminent statesman. He wondered that Mr. Attwood had not imputed
to Government another motive, that being, to realize _profit_ by
Savings Banks, which he need not say they had scarcely yet done. He
might have smiled, but it was entirely on account of the originality
of the hon. member's ideas on the subject: seriously, it was
astonishing that such arguments should be used by reasoning men. "So
far from being an injury to the people, he believed these banks
conferred on them the greatest advantages; and so far from affording
the Government the means of trampling upon them, they would have an
exactly contrary effect." And there can be no question that Lord
Althorp was right. The evident effect of Savings Banks, from their
commencement, had been to make people independent; and surely persons
of this description would be the very last that any Government would
attempt to ill-use. Another member spoke a word for Mr. Attwood: he
believed him to have the kindest intentions towards the poor; only, he
must add, that he took the strangest way of showing these good
intentions, when he strove to prejudice the poor against institutions
which were capable of rendering them independent and comfortable
sooner than any other organization whatever. _Mr. Slaney_ thought the
people showed great good sense in preferring Government security to
the allurements of country bankers. As for the member for Birmingham,
he ought to be reminded of Franklin's story about the two sacks, where
the empty sack fell to the ground, whilst the full sack stood bolt
upright. The fuller the sacks, the more likely were the people to be
independent, and the less likely were they to be trampled upon. Mr.
Slaney was glad to find, that though the crisis of last session had
had a bad effect on the deposits of Savings Banks, they were now daily
increasing. With this discussion, so far as any record is left, the
bill became law.
An act passed in 1835[42] extended the bill for consolidating and
amending the law with respect to Savings Banks to Scotland, and of
course the bill of 1833, which we have just described, became at the
same time applicable to Scotland.
Nothing further was done in the way of legislation for Savings Banks
till 1844, so we will close this chapter by referring to another
attempt made by Mr. Hume, in 1838, to reduce the interest given to
Savings Banks, and to introduce other changes into their organization.
And here we cannot forbear to state our belief, that, though many
thought very differently at that time, Savings Banks, the working
classes, and the country generally, had not a better friend than Mr.
Joseph Hume. He saw a lavish expenditure going on in connexion with
Savings Banks, and he endeavoured to stop it; with what success
remains to be seen. He saw that in consequence of this expenditure, or
the inducements which it gave, legislative enactments were openly set
at defiance by well-to-do people, who, besides their own deposits,
made fraudulent investments in the names of the various members of
their families, or their friends; and that the action of the
Legislature was in this way an attempt to cultivate good habits
amongst one portion of the community, at the expense of promoting bad
habits amongst another. Mr. Hume on this occasion reminded the House
that he was one of the original founders of Saving Banks, and had
always taken a deep interest in them. It was far from him to do
anything to interfere with their usefulness in the country, only the
country ought not to be put to large and increasing expense over them.
He compared the rate of interest given before and after 1828, and now
stated that on this latter rate the country lost from ten shillings to
fifteen shillings per cent. on the entire amount of deposits. The
average annual loss to the public up to the time he was speaking, and
from 1818, had been 75,000_l._ If this money went to the provident
poor he would not so much care; but if all was paid to depositors,
that might not be the case. Of the 500 Savings Banks in existence in
1837, to whom the Commissioners paid 3_l._ 16_s._ 0-1/2_d._ per cent.
interest, 412 of them paid to the depositors only 3_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._,
and 88 of them paid 3_l._ 8_s._ leaving of course a large surplus,
after every expense had been paid, in the hands of both sets of
trustees. Hon. gentlemen might say that this surplus money was
required by law to be invested in the Surplus Fund account at the
National Debt Office; but the act, in leaving it to the trustees to
say what they themselves deemed "surplus," defeated its own ends, and
without doubt had opened a door to fraud. Mr. Hume made a motion that
the House at its rising should go into committee on the 9th Geo. IV.
c. 93, which fixes the rate of interest to be given, and to permit the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce that rate to an equality with
that which is received in the public funds. He thoroughly believed
that the security afforded by Savings Banks was a matter of far
greater importance than the amount of interest which was paid. Mr.
Hume then referred to a subject which was made matter for great
discussion, and which a committee of the House of Commons treated at
great length some years subsequently. This was the power which was
supposed to rest with the National Debt Commissioners, of using
Savings Bank money for the exigencies of the State; "the dangerous
power," as Mr. Hume characterized it, "to change the money they had in
charge from funded to unfunded debt." He said the Commissioners had
paid thirty-five millions sterling from 1817 to 1838, for the purchase
of Stock and Exchequer bills, and had received from the sale of Stock
and Exchequer bills seventeen millions, leaving more than a similar
amount then standing in their names. He urged, "that as the whole of
the deposits were by law payable in cash, and that as sums under
10,000_l._ could be demanded in five days, and even larger sums at
fourteen days' notice, the public might in a time of panic, such as
they had recently passed through, legally make demands of cash, and so
produce a heavy loss to the Government, and greatly inconvenience, if
not endanger, public credit." He gave a recent example, taking five
months of the year 1832, when the country was at its greatest height
of political ferment. The money transactions of the English Savings
Banks in
Deposits. Withdrawals.
£ £
March 1832 were 46,841 93,947
April " 33,447 107,534
May " 28,345 114,677
June " 25,515 368,976
July " 47,574 140,682[43]
_The Chancellor of the Exchequer_, who at the time of which we are
speaking was Mr. Spring Rice (the late Lord Monteagle), was quite
unwilling to take the course recommended by Mr. Hume. He was sure it
would tend to shake the security of the deposits, to which the loss
which Mr. Hume had spoken of was a mere trifle. He admitted, however,
that if Parliament could have foreseen the extent to which Savings
Banks would so soon have arrived, wiser arrangements would undoubtedly
have been made. People certainly did not want all the inducements to
save their money which it was once thought they did require. Still, he
was not for changing the rate; Government paid more than they received
as interest, but he declined to argue the matter as a mere money
question. Mr. Hume might say that depositors cared more for security
than interest, but he (the Chancellor) said, that if they reduced that
interest, the depositors would rush to take out their money. Nor did
Mr. Rice speak without the book. He produced a paper in which was
described the effect of the various commercial and political panics on
Savings Banks, and in distinction to this the result of the reduction
of the rate of interest in 1828. So far as it went, the Return is
conclusive and instructing.[44] In the commercial panic of 1825, the
total amount withdrawn was 361,000_l._; in the political panic of
1832, 550,000_l._; in 1828, when the interest was reduced by 14_s._
per cent., no less a sum than 1,500,000_l._ was withdrawn. The
Chancellor would not say that under no possible circumstances should a
reduction take place; a time might come when it might be done wisely
and discreetly, though he believed it would never take place without
creating some degree of uncertainty and risk. The depositors in
Savings Banks were not the class to be experimented upon, and he would
not have it said of him by persons out of doors that he had commenced
reductions in the public expenditure by cutting down the interest
payable to the poorer classes, who, after all, he believed, were the
principal investors in Savings Banks. One other little item of
statistics Mr. Rice gave before he sat down, which is very
interesting, and much more convincing than his other arguments. He
gave, from a Return which we have not been able to find, the amount of
interest which had been paid _in money_ since the establishment of
Savings Banks and, on the other hand, the interest which had been
credited to depositors _and made into principal_. In the former case
it was 286,000_l._; in the latter, or interest made principal, it was
9,271,000_l._ Finally, the Chancellor believed, that to pay depositors
interest at the rate of the value of money in the market would be a
death-blow to Savings Banks altogether! If Mr. Hume, in his pursuit of
economy, tried to enforce it by dividing the House on the subject, his
duty would be to resist. _Mr. Goulburn_, as the spokesman of the
Opposition on financial subjects, condemned the proposition as likely
to cause distrust amongst all classes connected with Savings Banks. So
far from thinking that the interest ought to be reduced, or could be
reduced, with safety--and this remark is curious, viewed in the light
of subsequent events--"it was only by great care and good management
on the part of those who superintended such banks" that expenses could
be paid. Time, however, works wonders, and among other things, brings
its revenges. The financial reformer, who from the first had the best
of the argument, had not long to live to see a change, and to find
that change brought about under the direct auspices of one who only
six years before, in the words just quoted, had strenuously opposed
his motion. We must leave Mr. Goulburn's bill of 1844 to be described
in a subsequent chapter.
[28] Mr. Rose's exertions in this respect were only ended by his
death, which took place in January, 1818, at the age of
seventy-four. "His whole life," says a contemporary, "was the
continued and strenuous effort of a powerful mind to promote the
welfare of the state and the happiness of his fellow creatures."
In contrast to this testimony, which cannot be called exaggerated,
we might refer to William Cobbett's bitter tirades against Mr.
Rose, which, indeed, may with some readers form the most
convincing evidence of the merits of the statesman. In Cobbett's
"New Year's Gift to Old George Rose," published in the _Register_
of 1817, and to which choice production we shall again refer,
there is an elaborate and embittered attack upon the latter, in
the course of which Cobbett stated that the amount of the
sinecures which Mr. Rose and his sons held would furnish ample
funds for all the Savings Banks then in existence.
[29] From a bare record of the debate in question to be found in
_Hansard_. Third Series. 1816.
[30] Act 57 George III. c. 130.
[31] _Hansard's Debates_, vol. xli. page 1392.
[32] This cognomen was given to Mr. Duncan more than once in the
House of Commons about this period.
[33] _A Letter to W. R. K. Douglas, Esq. M.P. on the Expediency of
the Bill brought by him into Parliament, occasioned by a Report of
the Edinburgh Society for the Suppression of Beggars._ By the Rev.
Henry Duncan, of Ruthwell. 1819.
[34] 1 George IV. c. 83.
[35] 5 George IV. c. 62.
[36] We shall see subsequently that this loss was more than made up
in other ways.
[37] _Times_, March 13, 1828.
[38] 9 George IV. c. 92.
[39] The barrister appointed, under clause 92, was Mr. John Tidd
Pratt, who still holds the office after a lapse of thirty-six
years. Under a subsequent clause of the same Act there was power
given to the Commissioners to appoint an umpire in cases of
dispute, and Mr. Pratt was likewise appointed to decide in these
cases on behalf of the Government. Mr. Pratt's name is now
properly and deservedly connected with all questions relating to
Savings Banks. From time to time this gentleman's intimate
acquaintance with the legal history and working of these and
kindred societies has gained him other appointments in connexion
with them. By the Act of 7 & 8 Victoria, c. 83, he had additional
powers conferred upon him, this Act setting forth that all cases
of dispute should be referred to him in the first instance,
without the necessity of each party appointing an arbitrator. In
1846, under the 9 & 10 Vict., he obtained the appointment of
Registrar of Friendly Societies, an office which he still holds;
and in 1861, on the establishment of Postal Banks, he was
appointed Consulting Barrister. Mr. Pratt was born in 1798, and
called in 1824 to the bar at the Inner Temple.
[40] _Times_, April 17, 1833.
[41] _Hansard_, vol. XVII. Third Series. 1833.
[42] 5 & 6 William IV. cap. 57.
[43] _The Westminster Review_ of this period thus refers to Mr.
Hume 's motion for a reduction of interest rate for Savings Banks:
"We are ignorant of any good reason why the public should receive
these deposits on other terms than those which would be settled
between individual and individual in a common mercantile
transaction. Admitting to the full importance of giving
encouragement to economical habits, we deny that the payment of
bounties is necessary for such a purpose, or that more is
requisite than to extend to the parties that superior
accommodation and greater security for investment which it is in
the power of Government to afford. This should form an inducement
adequate to every salutary purpose. All that is given as interest
beyond the market price of money is simply a premium upon fraud."
Vol. IX. Old Series.
[44] But it did not go far enough; the years 1826 and 1831 are the
years which ought to have been taken.