There are, however, still two points upon which I would wish to make a few observations. The first is, as to the statement of this writer, “that the income of the Bible Society is larger than its expenditure; that a large sum is invested by this Society in various funds, and, therefore, that the sum which has been obtained by subscriptions from the poor, is unjustly taken from them.” Now, to this I answer, that a large sum has indeed from time to time been invested by this Society. But, does the Bartlett’s Building’s Society, or any other body of men, in their senses, neglect such a precaution? By referring to the Report, we shall see that only so much is reserved by the Society, from year to year, as is necessary to meet the engagements under which it has laid itself. If the sum of stock, now stated by the auditors to be possessed by the Bible Society, is estimated, it will be found hardly more than is sufficient to pay the £36,000 for which the Society stands engaged. Had not such a reserve been made in the last year, from the temporary diminution in the income of the Society, it could not have fulfilled its engagements. A second charge is brought against it, on the subject of _Bible Associations_. The principle of these Associations is this—The poor are permitted to pay one penny, or more, per week, to supply themselves with a Bible; and afterwards, if they are so disposed, towards the general funds of the Society. This is called, by the author of these Reasons, a “vexatious impost,” and he adds, that it is “wicked, cruel, and unchristian” to “deduct such a sum from a poor family,” to “tax the paupers of the kingdom to supply foreign nations.” I wish my readers and myself to forget the epithets which are here bestowed upon some of the most respectable persons in this kingdom; upon the Bishop of Durham, for instance, who is president of one of these associations. It will be sufficient for me to reply to the argument upon which they are founded. In the first place, it may be observed, that the payment of the sum of one penny per week, is not at all of the nature of a “tax,” or “vexatious impost,” it is strictly _voluntary_. Nor is it “_vexatious_,” for the disposition of man is not prone to inflict vexatious obligations upon himself. The days of the flagellants, if ever they existed, are over. But this charge of the author seems to me to be founded upon a wrong estimate of the character of the poor, as well as ignorance of the practical effects of the associations.