More from the way in which this bill was introduced and the circumstances attending the Committee of Inquiry, than from any decided opposition to the Government proposals, much agitation prevailed among Savings Bank officials, which was ultimately made to extend to depositors.[78] The latter were led to believe that the proposed legislation would in some way be inimical to their interests, and petitions were got up, praying that no further Acts should be passed until a full inquiry was made into every part of the Savings Bank system. _Sir Henry Willoughby_, who for some years before this time, and till his death, took much interest in this and cognate questions, again presided at a meeting of Savings Bank managers in London about this time, and helped them to concert measures of opposition. Before speaking in Parliament on the introduction of the bill under consideration, he presented two large petitions, signed by 79,000 depositors in Savings Banks, praying that Government would cease their interference with these institutions. This gentleman then referred to the quietness with which Government had introduced such an important bill, "not having given such a notice as was invariably given even with respect to the commonest turnpike road." And the quietness was a mistake of no ordinary moment. Had the details of the bill now introduced been understood by the country, there might have been opposition from managers of Savings Banks, but there could not well have been so much dissatisfaction expressed by the Press, or by the body of depositors, whose interest every clause of the bill was meant to conserve. Sir Henry Willoughby also on this occasion gave utterance to the feeling which was in many other minds, and which had led to the opposition then manifested, by alluding to "the impression which had got abroad and which he believed was perfectly true, that the money of depositors was used for other purposes by the Government than those that related to the Savings Banks." Whether the money was used advantageously or not he would not say, for that was not the question. _Colonel Thompson_ spoke strongly of the erroneous impression that everybody had been in about the Savings Banks having full Government security for their money; so strongly, indeed, that in another place we shall make further allusion to him. The bitterest opponent, however, which the Chancellor met with on this occasion was the leader of the Opposition in the House. _Lord George Bentinck_ felt sure that the bill was one which its mover (Sir Charles Wood) did not understand. After going into the details of the measure, and endeavouring to prove that the examination of depositors' books could not be accomplished in the larger banks every year,[79] and that the smaller concerns could not afford to pay for auditors out of the small surplus of interest which went to pay expenses, Lord George added, "Surely a Government which had proposed so much and done so little,