"Your Committee have observed with much satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a Savings Banks bill, which is calculated to remedy several important defects in the existing law, and extends the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to the depositors; and they therefore abstain from all observations on this part of the subject, further than to state the conviction, which this inquiry has forced upon them, of the urgent necessity for further legislation, if those institutions, which have of late years acquired an extent and importance so little anticipated by the original founders of Savings Banks, are to preserve their hold on the confidence of the country, or produce the beneficial results expected from them in encouraging and rewarding the industry and self-denial of the working classes." This report was presented to the House on the 1st of August, and at once referred to a Committee of the whole House. Next day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that a grant of 30,000_l._ should be made to the defrauded depositors in the Cuffe Street bank, out of the Consolidated Fund. _Sir James Graham_ opposed the grant. If this money was a matter of charity, he argued, they were opening the door to a dangerous principle; if of justice or equity, the claim ought to be paid in full. It was unworthy of the British public to compromise for ten shillings in the pound. Other members asserted that if Cuffe Street depositors were paid, the poor creditors of other insolvent banks would likewise have to be paid. Generally, however, the House felt with the Committee; it was altogether an exceptional case, the claims of the former being, as Sir Charles Wood expressed it, "something between equity, sympathy, and charity." _Mr. Bright_, a resident of Rochdale, and _Mr. Sharman Crawford_, the member for that borough, whose ears had lately rung with the tales of heartless deception practised there, were both for paying these depositors in full; "there might be no legal claim, but there were the claims of equity and morality." Mr. Bright, indeed, went so far as to say, that if Government would bring in a bill to secure other banks in future from these dreadful calamities, he would willingly vote that all claims from Savings Bank failures should at once be met by the State. The House divided on Sir Charles Wood's motion, when 118 members voted for it, and 39 against it. We may as well say here that several attempts were subsequently made to get the remaining 30,000_l._ from Government, but without avail.[84]