The fraud in connexion with the Hertford Savings Bank was one of the earliest cases that occurred in England, the particulars of which have been made known. This bank, as will be remembered, was one of the first formed in this country. Like many more of the original banks, this one was conducted on the principle of making it a Head office for the surrounding district, with branch banks radiating from it as from a centre. Clergymen, as has already been stated, almost exclusively acted as the Agents for these branch banks. The Rev. Mr. Small, a clergyman at St. Albans, acted in this capacity in that town, and in the course of a connexion with this bank, extending over a period of several years, contrived to embezzle the money entrusted to him to the extent of 24,000_l._ This he did in two different ways. In the one case, he received deposits and did not remit them; and in the other, acting with due clerical discretion, he applied to the Head bank for sums in the names of depositors for which he had not received their warrants. The systematic frauds of this reverend gentleman were found out when the St. Albans Bank was detached from the parent stock under the erroneous impression that it was strong enough to commence business on its own account. It appears that in this way the trustees of the principal bank were only liable for half the amount of the defalcations; but it ought to be placed on honourable record, that eventually, through the liberality of the trustees, who, fortunately, were principally rich noblemen, the poor depositors were reimbursed of their losses in full. We have gathered the above facts from statements made in the House of Lords in 1835, and as the question of the liability of trustees and the security of deposits was then largely introduced, it may be interesting to follow up the story with a few remarks to which the case gave rise. The Marquis of Salisbury, one of the trustees, asked the premier, Lord Melbourne, if the law, as it then stood, could not be altered. The liability of trustees, inculpating, as it might, innocent men, rendered many gentlemen most anxious to withdraw their names from such offices. This was one horn of the dilemma. The other was, how depositors could be made to feel secure. "It was no trifling matter. When Savings Banks were first formed, but few individuals could ever have expected that the sums subscribed would amount to what they now were."[68] It was high time that the security of these savings, and as to who was liable for them, should be once for all distinctly settled. Lord Salisbury was sure no one would like to remain a trustee without knowing the amount of his liability. He then appealed to Viscount Melbourne--who with himself was a trustee of the Hertfordshire Bank, and would have to pay a share of the loss--whether he would not have a bill brought in to remedy the grievance. Lord Melbourne thought it was not necessary. Much as he