Mr. Pratt found out in making his awards that almost every legislative enactment relating to Savings Banks had here been systematically violated; that the bank itself had rules founded upon the Act, but that they had all been evaded. Depositors had placed as much as 200_l._ in the bank in one year, and had received interest upon all they had deposited; the same individuals were also found to have had two different accounts in the bank. In all cases of this kind where a deficiency existed Mr. Pratt ruled that the depositors could not legally recover, but he recommended in his private capacity, that if the bank were carried on, such sums might be paid out of the accruing yearly profits. Mr. Pratt is said to have recommended in the same way that the bank might go on under a fresh management, and seems to have appointed another set of trustees for the purpose; at the same time informing them that the National Debt Commissioners would _receive without remark_ the yearly statements as usual, though those statements must of necessity for some time to come exhibit an increase of liabilities over assets. The bank was carried on, and against Mr. Pratt's advice the whole of the claims were at once met, "with a view," as the trustees said, "to induce a more perfect confidence." In 1845, the Government observing that year by year the bank was getting into a worse financial position,[65] made an attempt to close it; but on the case being submitted to the Attorney and Solicitor General, they found they could not do so unless the Annual Returns were _not sent_. The Returns, worthless as they were, had been regularly sent, and thus the Executive was powerless. After another crisis at this period, the bank finally went down in 1848, the liabilities amounting to the sum of 56,000_l._ and about 90_l._ to meet it. The number of depositors who had accounts with the bank at the time was 1,900, nine-tenths of whom were poor people. In a debate which occurred in the House of Commons immediately after this failure, Mr. Reynolds, the member for Dublin, commented in strong terms on the conduct of the National Debt Commissioners, who had known the state the bank was in for fifteen years, and had never zealously interfered.[66] This member also stated his intention to move for a Select Committee to investigate the whole question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he saw no objection to such a committee, and it was subsequently appointed. The proceedings of that committee, and the assistance which was given to the defrauded depositors after much debate, will be referred to in their proper place in the next chapter.