The members ultimately appointed were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the ex-Chancellor, Mr. Herries, Sir George Clerk, Mr. P. Scrope, Sir G. Y. Bullar, Mr. Ker Seymour, Marquis of Kildare, Mr. Adair, Mr. G. Craig, Mr. W. Fagan, Mr. Bramston, Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. H. Herbert, Mr. Reynolds. This Committee sat thirteen days, and examined nine witnesses, including several officials connected with the Cuffe Street bank, Mr. Tidd Pratt, Mr. Higham of the National Debt Office, and Mr. Boodle of the St. Martin's Place Savings Bank, but came to no conclusion, and recommended nothing to the House. On the 13th of May, 1850, the same gentlemen were reappointed under the self-same conditions as in the previous year: they sat eleven days, and examined some of the same and other witnesses, and on this occasion made a long and exhaustive report to the House.[83] This report, for which all the members except Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Herbert voted (each of these gentlemen having produced a report of his own which the Committee would not accept), went over the case of the defaulting Savings Bank in Dublin very succinctly; exonerated National Debt Commissioners and their officers from blame; stated that they found the commissioners did not exercise all the powers they possessed, but this arose "partly from a misgiving as to the effect of an exercise of their authority, and partly from an unwillingness to run the risk of creating a discredit of these institutions;" and that if the trustees had taken the advice of the commissioners, when in 1845 they advised them to close the bank, the loss to the depositors would not have exceeded five shillings in the pound. For these and similar reasons the Committee came to the weighty conclusion, relative to this particular case of fraud, that "while they cannot admit the existence of any legal liability on the part of Her Majesty's Government, they recommend the case of the depositors in the Cuffe Street bank to the favourable consideration of the Government, with a view to the adoption of some measure which shall at least mitigate the extent of their loss." With regard to the other frauds into which they were instructed to inquire, they reported that there were "no peculiar features connected with them differing from those of other banks which have suffered from the dishonesty of their actuaries." They concluded by expressing their conviction of the unsatisfactory state and working of the existing law; proper power did not reside with any authority "to check abuses, however indisputable;" by expressing their opinion that the provisions of the law of 1844 had worked in a manner obviously at variance with the intentions of Parliament, and wound up by the following important paragraph:--