COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 25 April 1861)

§ LORD REDESDALE
asked the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill (Lord Stanley of Alderley) by what means depositors were to find out what was the state of their accounts, and how they were to ascertain the amount of interest due? A comparison of the books was the great check now, and he did not see, unless means were provided for comparing the books, how the system was to work, because the object of the Bill was to have the books and everything connected with the working of the banks kept in London. Then, with regard to the transfer of accounts from the ordinary savings banks to the post office savings banks, the Bill provided that there should be the signature of two trustees in order to effect such transfer, which would be a difficulty in the way and throw great labour on trustees.

THE EARL OF EGLINTON
believed there was no great objection, either in Scotland or Ireland, to the principle of the Bill, or to the banking department being carried on in London; but a strong feeling prevailed, both in Edinburgh and Dublin, against the accounts being removed from those two cities. Great inconvenience would arise if the accounts were not kept in the capital of each country. He had asked the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) whether it was intended that the accounts should be kept in Edinburgh and Dublin as well as in London; and the reply was, that there was no present inten- 1055 tion of moving the accounts from Dublin and Edinburgh. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to repeat in public what he had thus stated to him privately.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
said, when the Bill was read a second time it was stated that there had been a Report made to the Post Office authorities on the subject; and when he pressed for the production of that Report the noble Lord said he would consult with the Post Office authorities as to whether the documents should be produced. He wished to know whether the noble Lord would consent to the third reading of the Bill being postponed until Monday next, and whether in the interim he would produce the Report?

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, a pledge had been given in "another place" that the accounts of the savings banks should be, kept in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, in the same manner as the money-order offices were. If the whole of the accounts were to be centralized in London he saw no prospect of the Bill working at all.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, with regard to the first question put by the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) he begged to inform him that the intention was that the depositors' books should be annually sent up to London to be there compared with the books of the establishment, and the amount of interest due would be set down in the book. If at any interval the depositor should desire to know how his account stood he would be at liberty to send his book to London to have it compared, and he would then receive all the information that he required as explicitly and as fully as be now did at the ordinary savings banks. With regard to the transfer of accounts for the existing savings banks to the post office savings banks, and vice versa, for the convenience of depositors, that would be done without the necessity of withdrawing the money, and the transfer would be made on the signature of two of the trustees. Both before and after the transfer, whether from an existing savings bank to the new post-office bank, or vice versa, the money would be in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners. With regard to the next point raised by the noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore), as to the accounts being kept in Edinburgh and Dublin, the accounts of the post-office savings banks would be kept exactly as the accounts of the money orders. Edinburgh and Dublin would still 1056 be used to a certain extent for the accounts of the respective countries; but it was necessary that the accounts should all he lodged in the great central establishment in London. One great convenience which was anticipated from these banks was that a man depositing money in a bank, and afterwards travelling from place to place, could, on presenting his book in any office in the United Kingdom, be able to receive the money he might require without going back to the original office of deposit. It was obvious that if there were several banks, one in London, and others in Edinburgh and Dublin, there would be great confusion with regard to the accounts, and for that reason he intended to have but one central bank. With regard to the last question of his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle), as to whether there would be any objection to producing the Report, his reply was, it was not a Report on the whole subject, but a Report from subordinate officers to the head of the department, to enable him to say, on his own responsibility, whether the scheme would work. It was mixed up with details of other matters, and it would not be conducive to the public service to lay it on the table.

§ LORD COLCHESTER
wished to know from the noble Lord the Postmaster General, Whether their Lordships were to have any sketch of the manner in which so extensive and expensive a system was to be worked? There must necessarily be a great number of extra clerks appointed, and he wished to know what was the estimated expense of the scheme.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, that it was not intended to ask Parliament for one halfpenny towards the expense of the scheme, which was an experimental one, the cost of which would be met by the difference between the interest paid on deposits and that received for those deposits when invested by the Commissioners for the National Debt. He did not apprehend that any very large increase in the number of officers would be required for the purposes of the experiment, or that the expense of working it would be very considerable.

§ LORD REDESDALE
repeated that great inconvenience would be caused by the provision making the signature of two trustees necessary in case of a transfer of money from an ordinary savings bank. It would require the adoption of a new rule in every savings bank in the kingdom.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
did 1057 not apprehend that any difficulty would arise from this provision. Both before and after the transfer the money would be in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
inquired, whether there was any provision for the audit of accounts?

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, there was a provision that the accounts should be subject to the audit of the Commissioners of Public Accounts annually; and the Bill also required that a Return should be laid before Parliament every year, showing how the funds had been invested.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
asked whether every shilling deposited in any part of the United Kingdom was to be remitted to London?

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, it was only the balance above what it would be necessary to remit to the country postmasters which would be sent to the Commissioners for Reducing the National Debt. The accounts would continue to be kept in Edinburgh and in Dublin as at present.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, he feared the proposed system would be attended with considerable insecurity to depositors. Uneducated persons were in the habit of regarding the signatures of the clerks of savings banks in their passbooks as vouchers for their money; and he believed that in most cases they would never think of going back again for the receipt which was to be forwarded from London, and which was to change their security from the personal liability of the postmaster into a claim on the public securities. A postmaster who was disposed to act dishonestly would never forward the money; no printed receipt would then be returned; and in case the postmaster afterwards disappeared the unfortunate depositor would be deprived alike of his money and of all remedy.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, it would not be necessary for the depositor, in case of defalcations, to go into evidence of the transmission of the money to Lon- 1058 don; the signature of the local postmaster in the depositor's book would he evidence of the receipt of the money, as in the case of the ordinary savings banks, the printed receipt being merely intended to operate as a security that the postmaster had fulfilled his duty.

§ LORD REDESDALE
hoped, before the third reading, his noble Friend would consider the effect of Clause 2, which, as it stood, rendered it optional to sign or stamp the book of the depositors. Taking into account the unguarded way in which stamps were often left about in country post-offices, he thought this clause might have a dangerous operation. He thought the person receiving the money ought to sign the book as well as imprint the stamp.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, his noble Friend would perceive that the stamp was to be impressed in addition to the signature of the postmaster.

§ LORD REDESDALE
thought this was by no means apparent from the wording of the clause.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
promised to inquire into the matter before the Bill came on for third reading.