In addition to the grave concerns regarding the security of deposits, the 'Savings Banks Deficiency' was a source of discontent for many Members of Parliament and other critics of the savings banks. The Select Committee made a number of recommendations, most of which were ignored by the Government when it passed a somewhat innocuous two-clause Act in 1860 that mainly dealt with the powers of purchase of investments by the Debt Commissioners.
The Select Committee had proposed that:
- the Commissioners of the National Debt should be relieved of the responsibility of managing the funds of the savings banks, and that
that duty should be transferred to a Commission of five persons. (The Committee argued that only a proportion of the 'Savings Banks
Deficiency' was due to paying too high a rate of interest, the remainder being due to an unfavourable investment policy and the
method of valuing the Fund annually at November 20th.);
- there should be a Consolidating Act to sort out the statutory
orders and regulations of the previous forty years;
- the existing annual and total limits for deposits should be maintained;
-
no banking concerns other than those certified under a Savings Bank Act should be allowed to use the name 'savings bank';
- the
1828 provisions governing the liability of trustees should be restored; and
- depositors should be allowed to invest sums that were in excess of the £150 limit on deposits in Government Stock and the dividends
then credited to their savings bank account.
The Government's indecision regarding the structure and security of the savings banks was matched by its response to the proposals for the establishment of a Post Office Savings Bank (POSB). The originator of the idea of using the Post Office to collect the small savings of people of small means was the MP Samuel Whitbread (of brewery fame), whose Bill of 1807 to establish such a bank predated Henry Duncan, but it did not reach the statute book. Other attempts to raise the issue did not bear fruit until the idea was taken up by Charles Sikes who popularised the idea between 1859 and 1861. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, William Gladstone, was favourable to the idea, particularly when a simplified plan to use passbooks was proposed, instead of a complicated system basis on the Post Office's Money Order procedures. As a concession to fears that the new bank would signal the end of the TSBs, Gladstone promised that facilities would initially be available in areas without savings banks, rather than through the entire network of some 2,500 Post Offices. The Post Office Savings Bank Act received Royal Assent on May 17th 1861, with accounts earning interest at 2½% against the rate of £2 18s. 4d. per cent paid by the majority of savings banks. The demise of the old savings banks was freely prophesised, and they were almost certainly faced with a struggle for survival.
Survival would depend on depositors having confidence in the security of their money, security that was easily obtainable from the Post Office Savings Bank. The question of security was again to the fore when the Bilston Savings Bank (in 1862) lost over £9,000 through a defalcation, by the vicar of the parish who was also a local Justice of the Peace. Surprisingly, by the end of 1863, when the POSB had been in operation for over a year, only thirty of the savings banks had closed, although many of the 638 TSBs were very small operations who were at risk from the competition of the POSB. Despite Gladstone's promise that the POSB would commence gradually, the number of Post Offices offering a savings account grew from 301 in September 1861 to 1,629 in December 1861, and 2,532 in December 1862.
But the Bilston defalcation, combined with the rapid expansion of the POSB, was the catalyst for many of the banks to agree to co-operate in the formulation of a new Savings Bank Bill. Agreement was reached that the liability of the managers and trustees should be restored to the pre-1844 position; that there should be a double check on all transactions; that passbooks must be compared with the ledger on all withdrawals and on its first production each year; that money was to be received only on bank premises and during bank hours; to the appointment of independent professional accountants as auditors who were to certify the annual accounts; to the extraction of a list of depositors' balances (identified by account number, not by name) certified by the auditors, and to be displayed in the appropriate branch; and managers and trustees to meet at least quarterly and to keep proper minutes of the meeting. The Act received Royal Assent on July 28th 1863.
Some clauses of the Act consolidated various Statutes passed since 1828. Annual deposit limits were fixed at the low amount of £30 per year, with an overall limit of £150; if principal with added interest reached £200, interest credits ceased. More generous limits applied to friendly societies, charities, and penny banks. The TSBs continued to enjoy exemption from Stamp Duty, and were allowed to deal with the accounts of deceased depositors with small estates in an informal manner. The Savings Bank Barrister (whose function was transferred to the Registrar of Friendly Societies in 1876) was confirmed as the official to deal with disputes.
The management of the banks was still left in the hands of the trustees and managers. Any persons might combine to form a savings bank in their locality, provided they obtained the permission of the National Debt Commissioners and agreed to abide by a set of rules certified by the Savings Banks Barrister as being in accordance with the Act. By 1863, the distinction between trustees and managers was not as clear cut as of old. It was now common for the trustees to act as a board of management - they were responsible for holding property, signing authorities, and submitting returns. Managers were gradually being replaced by paid officers to deal with day-to-day business. Most boards were representative of the best and most philanthropic men in the local community, although tradesmen, industrialists, and professional men had largely taken the place of the titled and landed gentry whose financial backing had once been essential.
The preceding
paragraphs detail much of the resulting constitution, powers, and limitations of the TSBs which, subsequently, described themselves
as 'certified under the Act of 1863'. By November 20th 1863, the number of TSBs was 603, having peaked at 645 in 1861 - the year that
the POSB commenced business. Total deposits had grown from £14.6-million in 1830 to almost £41-million:
|
|
Number of TSBs |
£ |
|
1830 |
480 |
14,616,936 |
|
1831 |
474 |
14,595,577 |
|
1832 |
478 |
14,365,302 |
|
1833 |
482 |
15,318,748 |
|
1834 |
482 |
16,309,520 |
|
1835 |
483 |
17,411,095 |
|
1836 |
491 |
18,761,219 |
|
1837 |
513 |
19,609,873 |
|
1838 |
522 |
21,393,312 |
|
1839 |
541 |
22,425,812 |
|
1840 |
546 |
23,471,049 |
|
1841 |
553 |
24,474,689 |
|
1842 |
563 |
25,319,336 |
|
1843 |
567 |
27,177,315 |
|
1844 |
571 |
29,504,861 |
|
1845 |
579 |
30,748,868 |
|
1846 |
591 |
31,743,250 |
|
1847 |
595 |
30,207,180 |
|
1848 |
583 |
28,114,136 |
|
1849 |
577 |
28,537,010 |
|
1850 |
573 |
28,930,982 |
|
1851 |
577 |
30,277,654 |
|
1852 |
576 |
31,754,261 |
|
1853 |
582 |
33,362,260 |
|
1854 |
585 |
33,736,080 |
|
1855 |
591 |
34,263,135 |
|
1856 |
599 |
34,946,012 |
|
1857 |
603 |
35,145,567 |
|
1858 |
607 |
36,220,362 |
|
1859 |
624 |
38,995,876 |
|
1860 |
638 |
41,258,368 |
|
1861 |
645 |
41,546,475 |
|
1862 |
621 |
40,562,256 |
|
1863 |
603 |
40,951,505 |
The
decline in the number of TSBs in 1862 and 1863 continued in 1864 and included the Birmingham Savings Bank. The final report of the
BSB (reproduced below) stated that after the 1863 Act had passed "its objectionable character was discovered. Many of the Trustees
declined to take upon themselves the liability, and a Special General Meeting of Trustees having been called to hear their report,
it was determined that the business of the Bank should be transferred to the Post-Office Bank, such transfer to commence on the 1st
of December".
Some of the provincial newspapers berated the Birmingham trustees for their timidity and lack of public spirit:
"Instead
of the Birmingham case being taken as a precedent, it should rather be looked upon as a warning. The evils to be apprehended from
the abolition of the old Savings Banks are much less imaginary than the responsibility that weighed so powerfully with the Birmingham
trustees." (Leeds Intelligencer);
"We have the best authority for saying that the depositors in the Birmingham Savings Bank are withdrawing
more in cash than they are transferring to the Post Office and such has been the inconvenience and alarm created by the sudden calling
in of 33,000 depositors that the promoters of the transfer themselves regret the hasty step they have taken." (Liverpool Mercury).
So
was the decision of the Birmingham trustees hasty, as the Liverpool Mercury claimed? And what was the "objectionable character" they
found in the new Act? The provisions of Section II of the Act regarding the liability of trustees were simple and straightforward.
A trustee would only be personally held liable if he failed to pay over moneys actually received by him on account of a savings bank;
if he failed to take security from the officers entrusted with the receipt and payment of money; or if he failed to see that his bank
complied with three of the fundamental rules and regulations set out in the Act. These were:
(1) that at least two persons must be
present on all occasions of public business and be parties to every transaction of deposit and repayment;
(2) that an independent auditor
must examine and certify the books at least twice a year;
(3) that the trustees and managers or committee of management must meet at
least twice a year and keep minutes of their proceedings.
Certainly, these rules provided the basis of a system that would make
a large scale defalcation very difficult, and it is hard to see what the objection of the trustees was. The result of their decision
in 1864 was that Birmingham was without a savings bank of its own until the Birmingham Corporation Savings Bank commenced in 1916,
and its successor, the Birmingham Municipal Bank (BMB) opened for business in 1919. In the meantime, the provisions of the 1863 Act
stood the test of time, and were reflected in the Rules and Regulations of the BMB.
The final Annual General Meeting of the Birmingham Savings Bank was held on January 26th 1864, at "the Bank in Cannon Street". This address (31½ Cannon Street) was the Bank's office - a purpose built freehold property occupied from January 23rd 1851.
The printed report of the proceedings stated that the
following were present:
Mr E Lucas (in the Chair); the Rev P M Smythe; the Rev H H Rose; Messrs J A Campbell; T A Proud; B H Cadbury; J T Horton; W M Lightfoot; John Cadbury; R Parry; Jas Horton; P H Denman; John Manly, jun; Bassett Smith, and J C Woodhill.
The Resolutions passed at the meeting include a list that comprises a Managing Committee who are to be responsible for the transfer of funds to the Post Office:
Resolved: That the same [the Statement of Accounts and the Auditors' Report] be approved and confirmed,
and a copy thereof inserted once in each of the Birmingham Newspapers.
Resolved: That the following Gentlemen do compose the Managing
Committee for the completion of the transfer to the Post Office, including compensation to Officers, and for all necessary business
excepting the sale of the premises:
Mr H J ADKINS
Mr E BEMBRIDGE
Mr B H CADBURY
Mr J A CAMPBELL
Mr P H DENMAN
Mr H A FRY
Mr J T HORTON
Mr
J HORTON
Mr THOS JONES
Mr E LUCAS
JAS MOILLIET, Esq
Mr R PARRY
ABEL PEYTON, Esq
Mr T A PROUD
Rev H H ROSE
Mr T WATTS
Mr J C WOODHILL
Resolved:
That the Thanks of this Meeting be given to the Committee, to the Treasurer, to the Auditors, and particularly to those Trustees who
have devoted so much time and attention to the welfare of the Bank.
Resolved: That Messrs Lucas, Campbell, and Mr B H Cadbury be authorised
by this Meeting to confirm the Sale of the Savings Bank Property, and to carry into effect the same as soon as they receive official
communication from the Postmaster-General, and report thereon to an adjourned Meeting of Trustees and Managers.
Resolved: That this
Meeting do adjourn until called by the Managing Committee.
Resolved: That the best Thanks of the Meeting be presented to Mr Lucas for
his kindness in presiding, and his attention to the business of the day.
Mr EDWARD LUCAS }
ABEL PEYTON, Esq } AUDITORS
Mr JOS T HORTON }
TREASURER - JAMES MOILLIET, Esq
SECRETARY - Mr WILLIAM BOLTON
ASSISTANT
SECRETARY - Mr W A BOLTON
ACCOUNTANT - Mr JOHN WILLIAMS