|Somerset | 436,002| 22,019 | 679,072| 105,153| 176,286 | 157,022 | |Southampton | 354,940| 23,942 | 687,473| 99,324| 203,466 | 142,507 | |Stafford | 510,206| 15,368 | 452,306| 84,399| 120,512 | 95,242 | |Suffolk | 315,129| 11,972 | 348,176| 89,939| 245,509 | 138,228 | |Surrey | 582,613| 31,250 | 749,199| 159,068| 261,501 | 199,477 | |Sussex | 299,770| 15,709 | 420,570| 84,190| 246,626 | 145,013 | |Warwick | 402,121| 22,291 | 468,270| 93,168| 158,159 | 102,828 | |Westmoreland | 56,469| 942 | 24,719| 1,920| 22,283 | 17,607 | |Wilts | 260,007| 11,706 | 413,941| 97,140| 173,925 | 133,573 | |Worcester | 223,484| 12,218 | 401,330| 53,978| 81,612 | 62,958 | |Yorkshire | 1,591,584| 69,545 |2,105,866| 435,129| 418,742 | 372,166 | +--------------+----------+----------+---------+--------+---------+---------+ In every county, as may be seen from this table, there is a decided increase in the number and amount of Savings Banks deposits between the two periods; and in every instance, except two, there is a decided decrease in the amount spent on the relief of the poor. Not only so, but taking the two exceptional cases, we find that in the one case, a small county, there had not up to this time been any Savings Bank established; and in the other instance, that of the large and populous county of Lancaster,--which shows an increase instead of a diminution on the two years in the amount of poor relief,--it is not less curious that its industrial population have never patronised the Savings Banks to the same extent, in proportion to their number and earnings, as the same classes have done in the country generally. Further, the three counties of Kent, Middlesex, and Norfolk, which in 1841 had the greatest number of depositors in Savings Banks in proportion to their population, also exhibit the pleasing fact of the greatest diminution in the amount spent in the relief of the poor. It may be said that many considerations ought to enter into such calculations as those we are making, and that at best such statistics only prove that the same causes, such as abundance of work, good harvests, &c., will contribute to the increase of surplus funds, and the decrease in measures of relief. But it must be borne in mind that prosperous trade does not necessarily produce frugal people and provident habits, though it often enough leads to unnecessary and vicious expenditure. By far the greater part of the decrease in the sums given for relief is unquestionably owing to the operations of the Poor Law Amendment Bill already referred to, which Lord Althorp carried through Parliament. Truly stigmatized before his time as "the great political gangrene of England," the old Poor Laws of this country first made paupers, and then promptly maintained them. It is, however, the relative proportion