Everything that an ingenious marshalling of figures, an array of argument, and even eloquence could do, Mr. Sikes did; but all appears to have been equally unavailing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made attempts, as we have before seen, in the House of Commons, to improve the organization of Savings Banks, but without success. When the Committee on Savings Banks was appointed, in 1858, Mr. Sikes was called as a witness. He again described the plans which he had suggested in 1856, and which had undergone little or no modification since that time, and urged the adoption of some of them,--with what success is already known. And here it will be best to dispose of the Committee of 1858, and to show how little it effected, and how little it was calculated to effect. So far as the providing of additional and much required facilities was concerned, it is necessary to describe with minuteness the Committee's deliberations. The Report itself, to which the Committee put their names, has been given. It provided, as our readers will remember, for a new Government management of Savings Banks, advised that increased power should be given to the Commission, and provided actual security for the deposits. This Report was not acted upon; but even had it been, the reform would only have been partial. So far as relates to the increase of facilities, it left the question almost untouched. Indeed, with the conflicting evidence given, the Committee acted wisely in confining their labours to the rectification of existing abuses, and in making as perfect as possible, without increasing, the existing accommodation. The witnesses examined before the Committee were by far the most prominent authorities on Savings Bank management in the kingdom, and yet on no single point could they all agree. This is, we think, no unimportant phase of the subject; on the contrary, it is highly important, as showing how very little could be effected for the body of Savings Banks in the absence of any thing like unanimity amongst those who best understood the subject. On the question of Government security and Government supervision, we have already spoken. With regard to the necessity for a uniform system of management, and of course a uniform system of accounts, there was certainly an appearance of general agreement; but little attempt to bring it about. _Mr. Hope Nield_ "thought it would be very advisable to assimilate the practice of the different banks more than at present exists (1,895)." _Mr. Maitland_ and _Mr. Wortley_ would like uniformity, and would give the Commissioners power to enforce it; "nothing less would remedy the loose system of so many of the banks." "The system of keeping the books," said _Mr. Craig_, of Cork, "in some of the country banks, is most abominable. I speak of the vast majority of banks; some are exceedingly well managed; but I say, that from the way they make out their accounts for the National Debt Office, not one in ten is