and those Commissioners shall appoint auditors, who
shall exercise a constant auditing of the accounts, subject
to supervision by special inspectors despatched at
discretion. It was further proposed (he added) to reduce
the rate of interest allowed to depositors from £3 to
£2 15s., and to limit deposits to the amount of £100;
above that amount, Government would either hold the
money without interest, or, at the depositor's option, invest
in the funds free of charge. The power of buying should
also be enlarged.—Some remarks were made, generally
favourable to the measure, with criticisms on its details.
Mr. HUME, in particular, observed that it provided only
for the future, and that nothing was done for the relief
of those who had already lost the money they had
invested in savings-banks, trusting to the security of
the Government. The bill was then read a first time.

In moving the second reading of the Ecclesiastical
Commissions Bill, Sir George GREY entered into some
explanations. He said that the principal feature of the
measure was the separation of the ecclesiastical and lay
departments by the appointment of a tribunal to be
designated "The Church Estates Committee," which was
to be invested with the management of the property of
the Church, and to report to the commission thereupon.
This estates committee was to consist of three persons,
two to be appointed by the Crown, and the third by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the former and the
latter to be paid commissioners. Two others might be
added, one of whom must be a layman. The decision
of the committee would be practically conclusive from
the weight which would attach to it. There was an
important clause in the Bill by which fixed, instead of
fluctuating incomes, would be given to the Archbishops
and Bishops, and a clause was also to be introduced to
prevent Deans from holding benefices beyond a certain
distance from their Cathedrals.—Mr. HORSMAN
strenuously objected to the Bill; showing how far
it fell short of the recommendations of the
committee, and how unfit it was to effect any practical
good. The whole Episcopal body were to remain
members of the board, at once perpetuating its
unwieldiness and the undue weight of episcopal
influence. "Why," said Mr. HORSMAN, "are bishops
necessary in the Commission at all? The bishops are
not the Church; it is the laity who compose its numbers,
life, and strength, and who may fitly guard its property.
Looking to such gentlemen as Sir James Graham and
Mr. Goulburn, surely that property would be as safe in
the hands of a devout layman as a devout ecclesiastic.
The Church has been plundered often; by the monarchs
first, then by the nobles, in the last century by the
bishops, in the present day by the ecclesiastical
commissioners. The bishops are not exempt from human
infirmities, and think they are taking care of all when
sometimes taking care of themselves alone. In earlier
days, the bishop's residence was in the cathedral city;
he was at the centre of a religious community, ever at
home, ever in the public gaze, ever accessible to his
clergy and people; now he is metamorphosed into a
rural dignitary, secluded in an aristocratic mansion,
which the clergy penetrate with difficulty, the people
not at all. In this age of active speculation and cultivated
intellect—in this age so unsusceptible of belief—
who should be the guides in the arduous and critical
warfare? Surely men of a higher spiritual order
than those who now, styled "Fathers in God,'"
are yet wholly engrossed with worldly affairs,
vigilant only of the Church's monies, tenacious only of
her dignities and ranks—more likely to smite and sink
her than to save her in the struggle. Mr. Goulburn
had once complained of Mr. Horsman's low idea of the
Episcopal office; Mr. Horsman had yet to learn that
political functions have aught to do with spiritual office,
or, indeed, are aught but tumours and excrescences
upon that office. That office he deemed divine
in its origin, spiritual in its essence—too high to be
exalted by worldly pomp, too holy to be profaned by
worldly occupation; and if so large an amount of
worldly duties be involved in its functions, it is impossible
to advance anything more fatal to the establishment
of which it is a part.—Mr. GOULBURN vindicated
the bench of bishops with great warmth, and made a
personal attack on Mr. Horsman, who, he said, had
"assaulted and vilified them with laboriously prepared
eloquence." He described Mr. Horsman as a
disappointed man, who had been a lord of the treasury, and
was desirous of a higher office; and he entered into
calculations, to show that Mr. Horsman, on a former
occasion, had made unfair statements as to the incomes
of the bishops.—Lord John RUSSELL observed that no
objections had been made to the second reading of the
bill; the observations which had been made being
merely for the consideration of the committee. He
would, therefore, only say, that so far as he had known
the right rev. bench of prelates, they were pious, learned,
courteous, and hospitable.—Mr. OSBORNE characterised
the bill as being, in the present state of the Church, a
mere compromise—a sort of "pull-bishop pull-curate"
affair. He repelled Mr. Goulburn's attack on Mr.
Horsman. He was surprised that a minister of Mr.
Goulburn's standing and experience could condescend to
throw out so low a taunt as to say that his honourable
friend was a disappointed man. Such an expression did
not come with grace from one who had been tied for
years like a tin kettle to the tail of the right honourable
baronet the member for Tamworth—so long, that
whenever the right honourable baronet ran from one side of
the house to the other, be it on this question or on that,
the tinkle of the tin kettle was ever heard, whether it
was against Catholic emancipation one day or in favour
of Catholic emancipation on another, or whether
against the principles of free-trade at one time, or for the
principles of free-trade on the next occasion. "After
such a career," continued Mr. Osborne, when the
laughter and confusion caused by his remarks had
subsided, "the honourable gentleman turns round upon my
honourable friend, who has been engaged in a most
meritorious manner; and because he has succeeded in
making a stand in the country—such a stand as the
right hon. gentleman himself has never made, and never
will make—he taunts him with having brought this
question forward because he is a disappointed man. I
cannot sit here and hear a taunt, so low, so unworthy a
representative of the University of Cambridge, without
at once entering my protest against it.—Sir R. INGLIS
rose with great heat to answer Mr. Osborne, who had
made an attack upon the member for the university
of Cambridge,—his equal in everything, his superior
in station, in temper, in talent, and in eloquence.
Sir Robert's warmth produced a good many interruptions.
On the subject of the bill he objected to the
hierarchy of England being treated as mere stipendiary
servants—the question was not of salaries, but of the
inalienable property of the church. He trusted that the
feeling with which he consented to the second reading
of the bill would prevent him from being bound to the
measure as it stood, or to the alterations which might be
made in it.—Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT and Mr. PAGE
WOOD expressed regret at the tone which the debate
had taken; the latter condemning Mr. Goidburn for
introducing idle gossip, to which he should not have
condescended to give weight.—Mr. HORSMAN called on
Mr. Goulburn to specify for what office he had ever
known him a candidate.—Lord John RUSSELL
interfered, with a tribute to the political independence of
Mr. Horsman, and the unimpeached integrity and
public character of Mr. Goulburn.—Mr. GOULBURN
admitted that he had spoken under feelings of vexation,
and retracted his allusion to what he admitted might
have been a very foolish rumour.—Lord John RUSSELL
promised to fix an early day for the discussion in
committee, and the bill was read a second time.

On Tuesday the 30th, Sir B. HALL brought forward
the subject of a Sinecure Office in the Archdiocese of
Canterbury. He said that the emoluments of the office
of Registrar of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
have been from £9000 to £12,000 a year; the office itself
being a sinecure. The usage has been, that the
Archbishop for the time being should nominate the incumbent
of the office and two successors. Archbishop Moore
appointed his two sons, and they in succession held the
office. Dr. Manners Sutton appointed his grandson, the
present Lord Canterbury, to the reversion of the office
—that grandson being then ten or twelve years old.
The late Dr. Howley made a communication to the
Government, that, in the conscientious fulfilment of his