always on the table when the bank was open, and of comparing this with the depositors' books brought to the bank. Had not Yelf been a clever swindler, or had the trustees carried the plan to a fair conclusion, he would now have been found out. Mr. Grey thus explains the new deception adopted to conceal the deficiency: "At the annual examination both ledger and balance-book were duly placed in the hands of the managers; but when they had satisfied themselves that all the balances had been correctly transferred, they shrank from the laborious task of adding together two or three thousand accounts, trusting to the secretary's addition." This labour was just what Yelf wanted. "In point of fact," continues Mr. Grey, "the addition of each page was correct, but the total of each page was brought into a summary page at the end; and in doing so, 1,000_l._ was dropped in one place, 1,000_l._ in another, in the capital column, and 20_l._ here and 30_l._ there in the interest column, with some odd money to make up the required deficiency." Well might the Government actuary add, "From these practices it will be perceived how imperfect a system has been pursued, and how little it was calculated to prevent or discover fraud!" We come now to a comparatively recent date, and to two frauds in Savings Banks which must be fresh in the memory of every reader. We refer, of course, to the aggravated case at Bilston, and the late case at Canterbury. A witness before the Committee of 1858 expressed his opinion that from that time henceforth the country had done with extensive fraudulent proceedings in any large Savings Bank. It unhappily comes, however, within the province of history to chronicle one such case occurring so late as 1862, and another the facts of which transpired even after the passing of the Consolidation Act of 1863.