of the morning, so have education and a free press opened the eyes of the people to their true interests, and shown them which class of men have most wished for and best worked to promote these interests. It was not, however, only by such men as Cobbett that Savings Banks were misinterpreted and misrepresented. Like every other new and untried measure, it had to run the gauntlet of an educated as well as an ignorant opposition. It was a very usual thing to find the discussion on the utility of Savings Banks waxing warm in the most important organs of public opinion. For example, the _Times_ newspaper early took a decided stand against Savings Banks, and tried to maintain its position, as we shall see more fully subsequently, long after the country had given them a pretty unanimous verdict of approval. Just after the period of which we are speaking, a correspondent in the then, as now, leading journal, thought himself able to trace in Savings Banks, "a great source of mischief; and that to them,"--though in what manner it is not attempted to be proved,--"may be attributed a considerable portion of the distress which has been so long felt, and which does not appear to diminish in most of the manufacturing districts." "God forbid," ejaculates this remarkable genius, "that I should desire to encourage improvidence amongst any portion of society; but there is a wide distinction between parsimony and extravagance, and these banks have literally made misers, and held out a bonus for them to become so." But even this is not all: the same spirit, says our authority, which actuates a man in becoming a miser, will operate to prevent their making use of their petty accumulations. "With the habit of parsimony the mind becomes degraded, and the workhouse or an application to the dispensers of parochial relief lose their horrors." It is almost useless, seeing that now few could be found to advocate such views, to reply to them. They are based on the assumption, which we take to be utterly erroneous, that a poor man is less at liberty to lay out his mite at interest than his richer neighbour; or that if he did so, the step was more likely to lead to his becoming a miser than his wealthier neighbour who had all his money in the funds. It is less necessary to argue the point, inasmuch as the aim of this nonsense is made quite apparent by the writer concluding with an elaborate eulogium on Benefit Societies for working men. "They could there, provide," says he, "at a very trifling expense, against sickness, want of employment, and numerous other casualties; while, on the other hand, there would be no need to deprive themselves of the common necessaries of life in order to add to their hoard." But here again the fallacy of the argument is clearly apparent. The allowance from a Benefit Society, then as now, in case of sickness or distress, would be, generally speaking, quite inadequate to the circumstances