It is now necessary to point out how—to glance at the opposite page of the account—the law guards against frauds attempted _by_ the public upon Savings’ Banks. The only way in which they could be so abused, would be by attempts, on the part of the comparatively wealthy, to obtain a higher rate of interest, for investments, than they could get elsewhere. But an average interest, 2_l._ 17_s._ 6_d._ per cent. with a maximum of 3_l._ 0_s._ 10_d._, would seem a sufficient bar to such deposits. But in order to guard against such a possibility, the law has enacted that no one person shall be permitted to deposit more than 30_l._ in any one year, or more than 150_l._ pounds in the whole; and if his principal and interest together ever amounts to 200_l._, then the payment of all further interest is stopped. These restrictions are effectual in preserving Savings’ Banks to the sole object of savings—the savings of the poor. As regards actual frauds and attempts at fraud by the public, we have been obliged with the experience of the St. Martin’s Bank, which very probably speaks for that of all the Savings’ Banks in England:—“Since this Bank was instituted, in 1816,” says our informant, “there have been only five attempts at fraud, by forgery of depositors’ signatures, or otherwise. In two of those five cases the forgery was detected and no loss ensued. In the other three cases the Bank sustained the loss, which amounted in the whole to less than 50_l._ Attempts at personation seldom succeed,—nor are these always fraudulent; absent depositors are often consenting parties, in order to save themselves the trouble of attending personally. Such cases lead to dispute; but two such cases which have occurred here are rather curious. In 1847 a man married a female depositor, and induced her to withdraw the whole of her money (exceeding 100_l_), of which having possessed himself, he abandoned her. Subsequently he deposited 90_l._., part of this money, in three different Savings’ Banks, our own among the number. The wife having stated her case to us, we took advantage of the law which prohibited him from depositing in more than one Bank, and refused to allow him to withdraw. The case was referred; and the barrister appointed by act of Parliament to settle such questions awarded that, under the statute, the deposits were forfeited to the Commissioners of the National Debt. The Lords of the Treasury, upon the wife’s memorial, ordered the restitution of the money to her, for her own separate use, free from her husband’s control; and this arrangement we had the pleasure of carrying into effect.—The other case was equally singular. In 1848 the Painters’ and Glaziers’ Friendly Society had an account with us. They sought to eject one of the trustees of their fund from the benefits of their Society, on the ground that on the ‘10th of April’ he had acted as a Special Constable, contrary to the rule prohibiting him from ‘voluntarily