His simple statement of the scheme was not long in securing ample criticism; some of it was friendly, much more of it adverse. Then a certain class of Insurance Offices and the principal Friendly Society organizations believing their institutions menaced, set to work to get up an agitation. The measure was represented by one class of persons as embodying the very questionable principle of Government interference with private enterprise, and taking as it were the bread out of the mouth of institutions specially got up for such purposes. Others pretended to criticize the proposals disinterestedly; they dwelt on the difficulty the Post Office would find in attempting to do the work, and that, if officers of higher attainments were obtained, they would require proportionately higher remuneration. Savings Bank deposits _might_ be managed, though that was not thought likely three years before; but how all the details of Life Insurance proposals and the intricate calculations necessary to the Annuities business could be got through, was above comprehension! It was represented by leading articles in influential papers that there would be but a poor security against fraud; little supervision, and probably that little would not be exerted; and everybody would conspire to defraud the Government. "As it is intended," said one respectable organ, "to assure the lives of the poorer classes chiefly, all payers of poor-rates and officers of the Poor Law Unions would have a bias, _to say the least_, in getting those persons assured who would otherwise be likely to leave their families a burden upon the parochial funds." "It cannot be denied that a few isolated instances of bad faith have occurred among insurance companies, yet as a class there is none to excel them for high and honourable dealing, and there is no pretence for interfering with their operations or invading their privileges. Why should not Government open a drapery or a dry-goods store?" This latter effusion, which appeared in a letter to the _Times_, was prominently printed, and headed, "A New Instance of Proposed Paternal Legislation."[197] A more organized opposition soon, however, showed its face. The actuaries of some of the Insurance Companies met and discussed the measure, and came to the conclusion that, as it might only be the thin end of the wedge, the measure ought to be opposed. The smaller Insurance Companies eagerly fell in with this conclusion. During March petitions were got up in great numbers from Insurance Companies and Benefit Societies, and when they were presented to the House of Commons several voices were raised in support of their prayer.