And here, it seems to us,--and we mention it, though we are somewhat anticipating the subject--the country is greatly advantaged in having the new system of Savings Banks to point to. What was much wanted in previous cases was some safe place, where timid depositors might resort with their savings, and defrauded depositors go with what they had saved from the wreck.[130] In the Bilston case this privilege was largely used. The Post Office Banks broke many a fall, and they set many on their feet again who otherwise would have been hopelessly overcome by the shock. Two years before it would have been sheer mockery to have told depositors, under such circumstances as those to which we are alluding, not to make a run upon Savings Banks; they had no alternative till, in 1861, that alternative was provided. It would seem, from a memorandum before us, that the authorities of the Postal Banks, without in any way seeking to prejudice the interests of the old banks, did all that was fairly possible towards reducing the disasters which have invariably and inevitably followed previous cases of Savings Bank failures. They instructed their agents, in all cases where, owing to the depredations at Bilston, Savings Bank depositors applied for advice about withdrawing their money, to recommend continued confidence in these institutions; if, however, such depositors were bent upon withdrawing their money, then to advise that it should not be asked for in cash, but by means of a transfer certificate, which would make them depositors under the Crown. The strict fairness of these instructions may be judged by the closing injunction: "Although you may fairly inform those depositors who are alarmed at this failure, that the depositors in Post Office Savings Banks have absolute and direct Government security for their money, you must on no account do or say anything to weaken their trust in the old Savings Banks."