No time was lost in bringing the bill forward in the House of Lords. It was read a first time on the 15th of April, and a second time on that day week. The conduct of the bill in the Lords was naturally committed to the Postmaster-General, Lord Stanley of Alderley. On this occasion his lordship went over[173] the ground covered by the bill--the insufficiency in number, and the inadequacy of accommodation of existing banks, and the insecurity as regards repayment until the money had actually reached the hands of the National Debt Commissioners. Lord Stanley added that Savings Banks had by no means increased in number in proportion to the population, or to the increase of the money circulating among the working classes. He adduced several facts and a quantity of statistics on this head similar to those which we have already given to the reader. From these facts it was obvious, that when a working man formed a good intention to invest his small savings, there was a great danger that he would spend his money, if there were no means of his depositing it, or if he could not do it comparatively easily. He then spoke of the losses caused by the failures of Savings Banks. Referring to Mr. Whitbread's proposals in 1807, Lord Stanley stated that this measure was very like the scheme then proposed, which actually passed through the House of Commons in that year; that Mr. Sikes had originally proposed something similar in an admirable letter to Mr. Gladstone; and that the Government, with the assistance of two able gentlemen in the Post Office department, had matured the present plan, which he proceeded very clearly to describe. Lord Stanley, in concluding, said it was somewhat remarkable that nine-tenths of the depositors in Savings Banks were domestic servants and clerks, and that only one-tenth belonged to what are usually known as the "working classes;" yet large numbers of these latter are in receipt of wages far exceeding the incomes of many who possessed Savings Bank accounts.[174] He hoped that working men, when they received their wages, would be induced, before going home, to invest a portion of them at the receiving houses they would pass; if so, the result to them and the country could not but be highly beneficial. The banks must be looked upon as an experiment. If an extension should be demanded, it could only be by reason of the greater security and greater facilities they would offer.