justly." Well, this bill, which was represented as entirely novel in principle, simply offered to such members of the community as chose to avail themselves thereof, certain facilities for self-help. It had not grown out of any consideration of the case of Assurance Societies, but from a consideration of Friendly Societies, and of the wholesale deception, fraud, and swindling perpetrated upon a helpless and defenceless portion of the community. Mr. Gladstone then referred to some deputations of the largest Friendly Societies that had waited upon him, and begged him not to interfere "with private trade and private enterprise;" and answered that these very societies were virtually and substantially subsidized by the Government. After showing that they were exempted from different duties, and received, like Savings Banks, more interest from the money invested with Government than the money realized, Mr. Gladstone held that nothing could be more plain than that Parliament was justified in looking to their circumstances. The country was overrun with them, and it was necessary to inquire if they were safe. Instead of finding them safe, he found them promising to pay amounts of interest which it was impossible to pay under fair and honest management. Such were the reasons which had induced him to interfere. He had, however, chosen a very mild form of intervention, and, he thought, a proper time for the remedy. The remedy, indeed, in this case was precisely analogous to that adopted in the case of the Post Office Banks. "In the case of the Post Office Savings Banks," said the right hon. gentleman, "we had to deal with Loan Societies offering the most attractive terms to the public, promising them a rate of interest which could not possibly be paid under any sound and honest management, and then ending in disappointment or ruin. We did not attempt the foolish task of prescribing laws by which all Loan Societies should be regulated, and under which alone the poorer classes of the community should be permitted to lend their money. That was utterly impossible. You could not possibly defend the poor man against the abuses and dangers into which he might choose to run head foremost with his eyes open; but what you did was this:--you said, 'It is but just to them, and it is expedient and politic in the highest sense, in discharge of the most sacred duty of the Legislature, that we should give to the poor man, to the owner of small savings, the advantage of a scheme which will possess no meretricious attractions, which will not promise a high rate of interest--on the contrary, the rate will be a low one--but which will offer an absolutely certain security.' That is precisely the basis of the scheme now before the House."