said, he rose to move that this Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Metropolis Sewage and Essex Reclamation Bill. Similar witnesses would have to be examined in both cases, and therefore it would save a great amount of time and expense to consider the two Bills together.

said, there could have been no objection to referring this Irish Sewage Bill to the English Sewage Select Committee had the Committee been willing to undertake its consideration; but from a communication which he had had with some of the Members of that Committee, he found that they were unwilling to accept the consideration of the Bill, and therefore, he would suggest that the Motion now before the House should be withdrawn.

said, he would consent to accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he proposes to introduce his Bill for the better protection of Life and Property against Fires in the Metropolis?

said, in reply, that he hoped the Bill would be introduced very shortly.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If Mr. Rawlinson, the Government Engineer, has made any other Reports on the state of Waterworks Reservoirs than those already published; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the table of the House?

said, in reply, that Mr. Rawlinson had made a Report concerning some Reservoirs at Rochdale, the hon. Member for Rochdale having requested that such inquiry should take place, and also a Report in reference to the bursting of a Reservoir near Whitehaven.

asked if the Reports were to be laid upon the table.

said, they should be laid on the table if they were moved for.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the horrible scene which took place at the execution of Matthew Atkinson in Durham; and whether he has made inquiry into the conduct of the authorities who had the management of that execution?

said, in reply, that the day after this unhappy occurrence the Governor of Durham Gaol wrote to him and stated the precautions which had been taken to prevent any such accident. He had thereupon written to the High Sheriff of the county, who was the person directly reponsible for carrying out the execution, calling his attention to the statement of the Governor, expressing his opinion that sufficient care had not been taken to test the rope beforehand, and hoping that if unfortunately another execution should take place at Durham, greater precaution would be used to prevent the possibility of the occurrence of so deplorable an event.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is intended to issue the Consular Reports and Reports of the Secretaries of Legation, for the information of the mercantile public, at shorter intervals?

, in reply, said, he had made arrangements at the Foreign Office for the issue of these Reports as speedily as possible, and he hoped they would be placed on the table at the end of every month, or as soon after the last day of the month as possible.

, in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the Office of Works and the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, said, that in the second Session of the present Parliament Mr. Wise, then Member for Stafford, but now no longer a Member of the House, moved for an inquiry into the whole Civil Service expenditure of the country, specially animadverting upon these two Departments. The inquiry which took place in consequence was directed to the Office of Works, but not to the Office of Woods; and owing to the failure of Mr. Wise's health and other causes it was not so satisfactory as could be wished, though many useful suggestions were made by the Committee. Last Session he endeavoured to bring the subject before the House, but it was too late for the appointment of a Committee, and he then gave notice of his intention to submit certain Resolutions. These were to the effect that the uncertain, intermixed, and undefined authority and rights of the First Commissioner of Works and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, in reference to portions of the lands, premises, and buildings constituting what were known as the Crown lands, were anomalous and unsatisfactory; that the Commissioner of Works was not justified in ordering or inviting plans for any public building until the destination, site, and cost of the same should have been sanctioned by Parliament; that the receipts of every kind of the Office of Woods and Forests ought to be paid direct into the Exchequer in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on Public Moneys, and that no payment should be made until it had been first sanctioned by this House; and lastly, that the Crown lands and buildings ought to be available for the use of public Departments without the payment of rent to the Crown. Works had frequently been undertaken by the Department in anticipation of and even in direct contradiction to the opinion of the House, and the House had been called upon merely to register the pleasure of the Office of Works. Again, the Woods and Forests were the only Department of the State which was allowed to spend public money without the authority of Parliament; while large sums had been charged in the Estimates as rents payable to the Crown, and large sums of money had been voted for the purchase of sites for public offices in Downing Street and elsewhere, when, in point of fact, the land belonged to the public. It was only since 1851, when the offices of Works and Woods were divided, that this principle had been acted upon. This division was effected with the view, it was stated, to more economical management, and to their being rendered more efficient for the purposes for which they existed. But, in the event, it was found far from being an economical arrangement, for the expenses of the two Offices were just double what they had been previously. In 862 a Report was drawn up, in which a comparison was made between the state of the Departments previous to and subsequent to the change. From this it appeared that for the ten years previous to 1852 the cost of the united offices was only £260,000, and, including some other expenses, the annual cost did not amount to more than £36,000. During the ten years which followed 1852, however, the expense of each of the Offices was nearly as great almost as the expense of the united Offices had been for the previous ten years, and the cost for both was £68,000 a year, as against £36,000 previous to 1852. The accounts for both the Offices had been regularly increasing from year to year. In 1863 the Office of Woods cost £27,000, and in the next year it cost £28,000. In like manner the cost of the Office of Works rose in those two years from £31,000 to £32,000. It must be borne in mind that, besides the expenditure which appeared in the Reports of the Commissioners, a large amount, which appeared in the Estimates voted by that House, was to be taken into account, and that amount must be added to the expense paid by the Commissioners out of the funds before they were paid over to the Exchequer. An unfair inference might be drawn from the Reports of the Commissioners, because the large additions of property acquired by the Department was carefully kept out of view, and therefore it was desirable to notice that the increase of revenue was not owing to any better management, but arose from the acquisition of various properties. Thus rent had been charged to a large amount for public buildings—a practice only introduced recently, and he thought it perfectly absurd that the public should be receiving with one hand money which they paid away with the other. Then again large Votes were passed by that House for the sites of public buildings. Thus, for instance, when the State Paper Office, which had some years before been built at the expense of £40,000, was pulled down to make room for the new Foreign Office, £7,000 were actually demanded and paid by money voted by that House, to the Woods and Forests for the site. He hoped to hear some explanation of the grounds on which such a transaction could be justified. Valuable rights in different parts of the kingdom had been neglected, whereas they ought to have been well looked after, and the revenues received from them rendered available for public purposes. A sort of roving Commission had gone through the country to see what property could be taken possession of by the Department, and there had been contentions in Wales and elsewhere with respect to the foreshores. An immense addition to the capital account had been obtained, and the revenue ought to be much greater than it was. Then, again, great claims had been made in Scotland with regard to the salmon fisheries, and in Hull, property which had been in the possession of the War Office since the time of Charles I., had been added to the property of the Department he was now referring to. Similar claims had been made in other parts of Great Britain and also in Ireland; but there was no justification for appropriating these acquired possessions simply to what was called Crown property. Another source of income to the Department was the disafforestation of several forests; for that process was accompanied by the cutting down of the timber which had been planted at the public expense. He maintained that the money obtained for such timber ought to have gone at once into the Exchequer. The State forests had been despoiled of their timber during the last ten years to the extent in value of £166,000 more than in the previous ten years, evidently for the purpose of unfairly swelling the revenue derived from that Department. It appeared that the outlays for improvements on what was called Crown property in the course of the present reign amounted to very nearly a million and three quarters. If these improvements were effected at the expense of the public upon what was a mere life estate, he asked whether it was justifiable that the cost of them should come out of the public purse? Large sums had been acquired by the sale of foreshores, which in the judgment of the best legal authorities was not property belonging to the Crown personally, but was held by it in trust for the public. Therefore, when that property was parted with, its proceeds ought to be paid into the Exchequer, instead of going to swell the revenues of the Woods and Forests. With regard to foreshores, no less a sum than £230,000 had been realized by the sales of foreshores in the United Kingdom, which ought to have gone into the public Exchequer, instead of forming part of the capital account of the Woods and Forests. Up to the year 1862, the sale of foreshores realized £205,000, and since that time the sales had gone on at the rate of £10,000 per annum. By the Return it appeared that during the last two years the sale of foreshores in Wales amounted to £3,000; in England £15,000. In Scotland, where people were rather more careful, these aggressions had not been so extensive, the sales in three years only amounting to £1,500; while in Ireland again the amount received for fore- shores in two years was about £2,000. The total sum received, and added to capital account, in two years for that description of property, was £22,000, or at the rate of £ll,000 per annum. Again, let them glance at the expenditure of the Department compared with the amount of the revenue. The gross revenue according to the Report of the Commissioners was £425,766 for the year ending 31st of March, 1864. The total payments for that year into the Consolidated Fund were £305,000, leaving a residue of £120,700, or two-sevenths of the whole receipts, which the Commissioners had expended at their own discretion. That, however, did not cover the amount of their expenses, because the actual expenditure of their office to be deducted from the £425,000 was £123,000. Nor was that the entire cost, for to it must be added the charges for stationery, postages, coal, furniture, and various items of that kind, included in the Civil Service Estimates, and which amounted to about £50,000. Thus there was an expenditure of not less than £173,000, out of the £425,766 or two-fifths of the whole gross revenue. What private gentleman with £5,000 a year would like to have £2,000 of it deducted for expenses? Surely he would think the case one calling for an inquiry, and an inquiry was what he was now asking from the House. He next came to the subject of the forests, on which there had on former occasions been frequent animadversions made in that House. The accounts of the Department exhibited such an extraordinary state of things in this respect that so far from those forests being a source of profit to the country they actually caused it to go into debt. The accounts for 1863 showed the receipts from Windsor Forest to be £17,000, and the expenditure £18,000; but if they put Windsor and the other forests together the sum received was £56,400 against £50,700 expended. That showed an apparent gain of between £5,000 and £6,000—a very small sum to go to liquidate the charges borne upon the Estimates for the Office of Woods and Forests. In 1864 Windsor and the other forests produced to the country a revenue of £42,000 against an expenditure of £46,000; and taking the two last years together they had a revenue of £99,000 against an expenditure of £97,000. Instead of keeping up a property which was so unprofitable would it not be better to let it pass into private hands that could make some use of it, and obtain from its proceeds the means of acquiring other land that might be requisite for the public service? The Commissioners, when they wanted unduly to swell the amount of the revenue of the Department, felled a large quantity of timber. [Cries of "Divide!"] The House appeared anxious to divide, but he thought it was essential that the House should be in possession of certain facts before going to a division, and his object in bringing the subject before the House was to show that an inquiry ought to take place into the manner in which the two Departments in question were managed. The misfortune was that no one was responsible for the Woods and Forests Department. When the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests had a seat in that House there was some one to look to for explanation and information upon any given point. Now they were told that the Secretary to the Treasury would answer any inquiry; but when questions were put to him it often turned out that the hon. Gentleman's information was second-hand—that he was misinformed—and he had to make further inquiry. The Woods and Forests Department was the only Department of the State that was allowed to expend public money without a Vote of that House, and the sooner it was altered the better. In 1857 the Public Moneys Committee reported, with reference to this Department, that it was essential to the proper Parliamentary control of public moneys that the whole revenues, after providing for certain charges, should be paid into the Consolidated Fund, from which it could not be drawn without the sanction of Parliament. And with regard to the charges on the land revenue, the Committee reported, in 1857, that, unless some constitutional difficulty were involved, they should be brought under Parliamentary control. Well, was there any constitutional reason why the whole receipts of this Department should not, like every other branch of the revenue, be paid into the Exchequer? As far as he knew there was none. Mr. Huskisson in former times, Lord Monteagle, and others strongly recommended that all receipts should be paid first of all into the Exchequer, and that no expenditure should be incurred by any Department without the sanction of the House. He believed it was quite within the power of the Treasury to establish the alteration for which he contended. These Commissioners were, under the late change, no- thing more than the stewards or agents of the public, and they were bound to conduct all their business in such manner as the Treasury should direct. The Treasury, therefore, were perfectly able to enforce on the Commissioners those alterations in the management of the revenues of the Department for which he contended. He now came to the Office of Public Works. That Office had been described by a right hon. Gentleman who now sat on the Treasury Bench in these terms—

"Nothing," he said, "could be more lamentable and deplorable than the state of the whole arrangement with regard to the management of the Public Works. Vacillation, uncertainty, costliness, and all the conflicting vices that could be enumerated were united in our present system. He believed such were the evils of the present system that nothing short of a revolutionary reform would be sufficient to remedy it."

Such was the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had been rather given of late to lay down revolutionary propositions; and he (Mr. Augustus Smith) trusted the right hon. Gentleman would come to his assistance to-night with some such scheme of revolutionary reform. There was a very complex arrangement with regard to the properties placed under the charge of the First Commissioner. Palaces, parks, public gardens, which formed originally part of the Crown lands, were placed under his charge. A variety of other parks and public building acquired and bought by the Consolidated Fund should be kept separate as public property. These were under the Office of Public Works; but then came in the Woods and Forests and claimed what might be called the fringe of these parks—the valuable building ground in connection with them; but then the public got no benefit from the valuable ground so acquired. Richmond Park, for instance, was part under the Woods and part under the Works. The Office of Works was subject to the caprice of the First Commissioner, and there was no person to keep a consecutive management in the different Departments. The separation of the Offices had produced this result and doubled the expenditure. One Department had been taken out of the cognizance of that House, inasmuch as there was no one there to answer for the expenditure. The points upon which he would urge the appointment of a Committee were—first, as to whether the separation of the Offices had really been advantageous or not; also whether the Office of Woods wag at all satisfactory, and whether the expenses incurred were not larger than they ought to have been; next, whether the revenue derived from the Woods ought not to be paid directly into the Exchequer? Then, as regarded the Office of Works, was the person who held that office justified in adopting any measures upon his own authority? The next point was, ought the Crown lands and buildings, such as were required for public purposes, to be available to the public without any payment or charge? If the public had no benefit or permanent interest in these properties, were they justified in laying out a large sum of money upon them? Whatever expenditure was incurred it ought to be spread over a long period. If there was to be such a distinction drawn between the public and the Crown property as he had referred to, he could only say that they ought to be put under a distinct and independent management; and, further, that property which had been called Crown property, but which had been really acquired by large payments out of the Consolidated Fund, ought to be separated and the public given the full benefit of it. There ought also to be something done with the forests, because to keep them as they were would be a great disgrace and a national loss.

thought it was very desirable this Committee should be appointed, as with in the last thirty years the Government, on behalf of the Crown, had been taking upon themselves an entirely new character—that of landed proprietors, and it was well worth consideration how far the Government had acted wisely in that. They had been building houses, and in fact doing everything that enterprising landed proprietors would do. The Government had also put themselves into the hands of London valuers, and exacted extravagant rates. Another very important public question might soon arise, perhaps in the next reign, whether a civil list would be wanted, or whether the revenue of the Crown estates would be sufficient. Was it desirable that the Sovereign should be placed in the position of a great landed proprietor, and made entirely independent of all grants from the State? These were questions which a Committee might well inquire into.

said, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) had pressed for an inquiry into the Office of Woods and Works, and in his speech had referred to some Resolutions of which he had given notice last Session. The hon. Member also stated that there was much in the business of each of the two Offices which was common to both, and any difference between them was not clearly defined. That was wholly unfounded. The properties managed by these two Offices were perfectly distinct and separate from each other. The property under the management of the Office of Woods was the hereditary possession of the Crown, and administered, subject to the necessary outlay for the maintenance and improvement of the inheritance, for the purpose of the revenue; and the property administered by the Office of Works consisted of buildings and of the parks in London which were held and had been acquired for Government Offices, for national collections, and for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. The hon. Member stated that the Office of Works had certain rights over portions of the Crown property, and had referred to certain buildings which were occupied as Government Offices, such as the Admiralty and Treasury Offices; but he (Mr. Peel) had never heard that any inconvenience had arisen either to the public or the Office of Works in consequence of these buildings being the property of the Crown. The hon. Member had also drawn attention to the fact that while the parks in London which had been set out for the enjoyment of the public were under the management of the Office of Works, the property which was reserved had been placed under the Office of Woods, being the only part which yielded any profit. He (Mr. Peel) would take the two parks—Regent's Park and Victoria Park. These were acquired at the expense of the Crown revenues, and the Crown, having reserved a certain portion of them, planted and laid out the greater part for the use of the public, and entirely at the expense of the Crown revenue. When the partition of the Offices took place in 1851, an Act of Parliament, by which the two Offices were separated, transferred the management of that portion of the parks which had been laid out at the expense of the Crown revenue to the Office of Works, and also directed that all those portions, whether of houses or lands, which had been reserved should remain under the management of the Office of Woods. He conceived that any income that might be derived from the building leases was not more than a fair compensation to the Crown for the expense incurred to the revenue in laying out the parks for the benefit of the public. The hon. Member expressed his regret that these two Offices were ever separated, and stated that that separation had not resulted in that economy which was expected, but on the contrary caused great extravagance, and that it was to be regretted the Chief Commissioner of Woods had no longer a seat in that House, as he had at the time when the two Offices were combined. The two Offices were united in 1832. Up to that time there had been a separate Department for the accounts of public buildings. The experiment of a union was tried for nearly twenty years; but in 1851 the two Departments were again separated, because it was found that the experiment was unattended with success. The experiment partly failed because it was found that many public works were being carried out at the charge of the Land revenue instead of the general revenue, and, no doubt, the latter course would have been adopted but for the necessity of placing the services upon the Estimates, and thus insuring a discussion to which, though inconvenient, they ought to have been submitted. Another cause of failure was the adoption of the very course of which the hon. Gentleman was so enamoured that he desired it to be re-established—namely, the availability of Crown lands for the public service without the demand of any rent. Personally, he was very much averse to the renewal of such a course, because while it was in operation the House was never made fully acquainted with the expense of particular works, inasmuch as the site was supposed to be obtained from the Crown property without any cost. In many cases, too, an actual loss resulted to the public, because sites were selected simply because they could be obtained without any sum being voted by the House. It should also be remembered that this state of things existed when a very liberal view was taken of what constituted public purposes, and in many cases grants of land were made to persons from whom payment might fairly have been expected. He wished, therefore, to ask the House whether there were any grounds for the inquiry demanded by the hon. Gentleman, either jointly with the Office of Works or separately, into the Department of Woods. He would remind the House that there had already been several inquiries into the administration of those Offices. A Committee sat for two Sessions in 1832, and another for a similar period in 1848; and though the latter body made no Report, it was generally understood that the opinion of the Members was in favour of the separation of the two Offices, and Government afterwards brought in a Bill for the purpose of carrying this understanding into effect. In 1855 there was another Committee, which inquired into the management of the Woods and Forests; in addition to which inquiries into the organization of the Department had been instituted by the Treasury, and the general result of those inquiries had been favourable to the Department. The object of the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman had asked for was to ascertain whether the Department of Woods performed its duties in a satisfactory manner. He (Mr. Peel) said that it did; and in proof of that assertion, he would show that a great increase had taken place in the gross revenue of the Crown lands, and in the amount which it annually passed into the Exchequer to the credit of the Consolidated Fund, In the year 1850, before the separation, the annual revenue from lands was £296,000, and from forests nearly £45,000, making a total of £341,000. In the year ended the 31st of March last the gross revenue from lands had increased to £383,000, and the revenue from the forests was £42,000; giving a total revenue of £425,766, being an increase of about £84,000 during the thirteen years since the separation. The lands apart from the forests produced in the year 1850 £296,000, while in the present year the sum had reached £383,000, showing an increase of about 35 per cent. He would admit that, independent of good management, the property must have been an improvable one to allow of its increasing 35 per cent in value in the course of thirteen years. It ought however, in justice to the Department of Woods, to be borne in mind that a large proportion of the income derived from the land was of a fixed and immovable character—at all events, for the present. The Crown had a very large property in London, and the Crown rental in the metropolis alone amounted to £100,000. Those Crown rents were derived from building leases, at present not more than half expired. Of course at the expiration of the leases that property would largely increase in value; but until that time had arrived no improvement could of course be made in the rental. The amount annually received from quit rents in Ire land and fen duties and surplus tithes in Scotland was £80,000 and that again was not an improvable property. So that of the £296,000, which was the income derived from land in the year 1850, £180,000 at least was of a kind in which no immediate improvement had taken place. The hon. Gentleman had pretty correctly stated in what manner the in crease of £85,000 had accrued to the Crown from the Crown lands; but far from agreeing with the opinion entertained by the hon. Member, that the careful husbanding of the resources confided to their charge was a matter of reproach to the Office of Woods, he thought that the course which they had adopted entitled them to much credit. It had been the policy of the Department of Woods to give much encouragement of late years to persons desirous of searching for mines. This course had been attended by a profitable result, for in 1850 the Crown mines produced £10,000 a year, while at the present time they yielded a revenue of £25,000 per annum. The hon. Gentleman had blamed the Department for cutting down a large quantity of timber which was standing upon the forests, but it must be recollected that the process of disafforestation was sanctioned by Act of Parliament. Three forests had been cleared in this way. Two had been converted into farms, and the other sold, the proceeds being lodged in the funds. £60,000 had been expended in the conversion of these two forests into farms, and with a very small exception the whole of the outlay for improvements had been covered by the felling of timber upon the forests. The result was that while those three forests previous to their disafforestation produced only £5,000 a year, they were now yielding, partly from the farms and partly from the interest on the proceeds which were invested in the funds, an annual revenue of £15,000. The Com missioners annually expended large sums on the improvement of the property; but the public lost nothing by this course, because in every case the tenant was charged with interest, or an addition was made to his rent. Another great source of profit had been the result of the sales and purchases which had been made of late years, and from the enfranchisement of copyholds. The Commissioners had wisely determined to sell all the outlying and detached lands, buying with the proceeds lands which were nearer their more valuable property. Up to the end of last year the total sums for sales of property amounted to £1,150,000, nearly the whole of which sum had been expended in the purchase of other property. The property thus sold was valued at the time of its being sold or let at £15,000 per annum, and the income derived from the invested proceeds of such sales reached £35,000 a year. In that way, and partly owing to the increased rents obtained for Crown property, the annual income had increased to the extent he had stated. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the subject of forests, and had expressed an opinion that the forests should be sold, and the money turned to better account. But he had forgotten over how small a portion of the forests the Crown had absolute rights. Of the 100,000 acres which were comprised in the whole of the Crown forests, only 20,000 acres belonged absolutely to the Crown. The whole of these 20,000 acres which were in any way fit for cultivation were either planted or were let for farming purposes to the best advantage. As to the remaining 80,000 acres, they were subject to rights of common, and the Crown had no power to turn them to profit except in one particular manner sanctioned by an Act of Parliament passed during the first French Revolution, which gave the Crown power, notwithstanding rights of common, to enclose about 30,000 acres of common land, and to plant them with oak trees. The hon. Gentleman complained that the rental derived from the forests was small, and that was no doubt true; but it must be borne in mind that a great part of the annual return of the forests was not represented by money, but by the additional value of the growing crop of timber, which increased every year. These forests were principally of oak, and oak did hot arrive at maturity in less than a hundred years. The oak was planted about fifty years ago, and it was consequently only an accruing crop; but the value was increasing every year, and would ultimately be realized. Another point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was in relation to foreshores; but that subject had been so frequently and so fully discussed in that House, that it was unnecessary now to dwell at any length upon it. He would only remark that the law was clear that the shore was the property of the Crown, subject to the rights of navigation, and although he did not desire to see the Crown rights enforced with any degree of severity, yet he could not understand why Crown property below high-water mark should be differently treated from Crown property situated above high-water mark. There was no reason why Crown rent should be remitted to persons who wished to use the foreshore for their own purposes, and if such remission were made it would really be a grant of public money for the benefit of individuals. With respect to the payments into the Exchequer as compared with the increase in the gross revenue of the Crown property, he admitted that it would not be fair to institute a comparison between the payments made now and those which were made before 1850; because before the separation of the Departments there were various charges upon the gross revenue—such as expenses for the management of parks and the expenses of the establishments in London—which were now met by Parliamentary grants; but including only such expenditure before 1850 as was now paid out of the gross revenue the surplus then did not exceed £250,000. The net sums paid into the Exchequer down to recent periods did not exceed £150,000 a year; but in 1858 the payment into the Exchequer was £280,000, in 1860 £290,000, in 1862 £300,000, and in 1864–5 it would be £310,000. The difference between the gross revenue and the sum paid into the Exchequer represented the expenditure under the Office of Works, and it was right also to add the £28,000 voted by Parliament for the Office of Woods. The hon. Member complained that the expenses of the establishment of the Office of Woods had increased since 1850, but he had left out of consideration certain circumstances which had a material bearing upon that point. In 1851 the Estimate for the Office of Woods was about £20,000, and now it was £28,000. The increase was partly due to an increase of salaries and partly to the larger amount voted for legal disbursements. The increase in the charge for salaries arose from the fact that certain officers, who before 1850 were paid by fees, were now paid by salary. The increased charge for legal disbursements was owing, no doubt, to the activity of the Office of Woods in looking after the rights of the Crown; but it must also be remembered that at least one-half of the amount annually voted by Parliament for legal disbursements was recovered from the parties with whom the litigation took place, and was repaid to the Consolidated Fund as part of the revenue of Crown lands. The real increase on the expense of the Office for Woods had only been about £2,000, which was not more than might have been expected from the increased amount of business which was performed. The difference between the gross revenue of the Crown lands, £425,000, and the net amount paid into the Exchequer, £310,000, this year was £115,000, and that sum represented the outlay of the Department of Woods, not only in the management of the property, but also in the dealing with the forests and parks, including Windsor. It was not quite fair, however, to include Windsor Forest with the other forest lands, because it should be borne in mind that Windsor Park and Forest were devoted to the accommodation of the Sovereign in the same way as the parks of London were devoted to the accommodation of the public. The animal expenditure on Windsor Park and Forest was about £20,000, and the receipts had increased to £8,000; while the annual expenditure on Delamere Forest was £26,000. Those two sums deducted from the total expenditure left a sum of £75,000 to represent the expenditure of that Department of Woods. The amount of fixed charges, for creating which the Office was not responsible, was very considerable. The income tax alone came to £11,000; and there were besides many petty charges attached to the property in former times, and which had come down with it when it came to the Crown. The whole amount of these fixed charges was not less than £25,000 a year. The annual outlay for improvements was considerable—last year it amounted to £31,000. It happened, however, that at the present time very expensive works were in progress. The Committee of 1855 condemned a portion of Delamere Forest as unfit for the growth of timber, and recommended that a certain portion should be converted into farms, the expense to be paid out of the income of Crown lands. In compliance with the recommendation improvements had been going on, and the total amount expended upon the conversion of 15,000 acres was £45,000. This was a considerable sum, but the outlay would ultimately yield a return of from 8 to 10 per cent. Then a considerable amount had been spent on the Hull citadel and the reclamation of land about it. This was in the possession of the War Department up to a recent period, when it reverted lo the Office of Woods, who had taken steps to embank the foreshores, but the result would be that the public would receive about £10,000 from those improvements. All that remained was £16,000 annually expended in the management of the property, paid to the Receiver of Crown Rents, who received 4 per cent, and surveyors who surveyed the lands; but about three-quarters of that would be repaid by the persons who took the lands which were the subject of those surveys. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this expenditure should be transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the annual Votes, and it was true that the Committee on Public Moneys had recommended that course to be taken, provided there were no constitutional objections to it. The whole subject was discussed in that House in 1851, when the Bill passed which separated the two Departments; and after a division the arrangement adopted was to place upon the Estimates merely the expenses of the establishment of Woods, leaving the outlay for improvements and other expenses to be paid out of the revenues of the Crown lands. He doubted very much whether the expenses of the year could be so far anticipated as to allow the property to be administered in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman. While the settlement of the Civil List continued as now it was part of the compact that the income arising from the Crown revenues should be paid to the public account, subject to all necessary expenses of improvement and management. The Office of Woods were trustees to this property. The income was payable to the public during the life of the Sovereign, and after his death it went to his successor. The rules under which the property was administered by the Office of Woods were clearly and expressly defined by Act of Parliament. They had been frequently the subject of inquiry in the House; they had passed successfully through the scrutiny of several Commissioners, and he hoped the House would not think it necessary to order the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman had asked for.

, in rising to move that the Chairman be directed to move the House that leave be given to bring in a Bill to substitute an oath for the oath required to be taken and subscribed by the Statute passed in the tenth year of the reign of King George IV., for the relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects, said, he was sure that although he could not appeal to any party or political feeling, he would receive the kind indulgence of the House. The question he was about to bring under their notice aid not touch the majority of the Members of the House. It affected the honour and disturbed the conscience of but a small minority, and on behalf of that minority lie confidently appealed to the justice and good feeling of the House—the time for bringing it forward was an opportune one. It was perhaps natural that immediately after the passing of the Emancipation Act Members should group themselves under theological banners. This had passed away, and he believed that hon. Members now took their seats on this or that side of the House according to political not theological views. Another point which had been frequently alluded to in former debates was the idea that some compact was made between the Roman Catholics and the Duke of Wellington at the time of the proposing the Emancipation Bill, That idea, however, had been dissipated by the statement of the more competent authority on the subject—namely, Earl Russell—who distinctly informed the House that there was no communication at all between the Roman Catholics and the Government upon the introduction of the Emancipation Bill. He had been urged by many persons, both in and out of the House, to extend the scope of his Motion, and instead of dealing simply with the Roman Catholic oath, to substitute for all oaths now taken a simple oath of allegiance to be taken by all Members entering that House, ["Hear!"] He entirely agreed with the feeling which that cheer indicated. He would desire that all Members of that House should have simply an oath of allegiance to take; but he would state the reason why lie did not think it expedient or desirable that he should be the person to make such a proposal. It was obvious that one oath still imposed on certain great public officers ought to be got rid of. He could conceive no scene more degrading than that which took place the other day in the Castle at Dublin, and he knew for a fact that Lord Wodehouse felt it as strongly as man could do. Lord Wodehouse stood with the Catholic Law Officers by his side, with Catholic Privy Councillors around him, and had to take an oath declaring the Roman Catholic religion to be damnable and idolatrous. He would for a single instant allude to the oath which touched a majority of the Members of that House, the oath taken by Members not belonging to the Roman Catholic religion. Every Protestant Member when he came to the table had to swear that "no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any spiritual jurisdiction within this realm;" and in speaking of this oath Lord Plunket said—

"My idea of the oath of supremacy is, I confess, that in the strict and literal interpretation of the words it is impossible to be taken by any one, for it not only denies that any foreign Power ought to have ecclesiastical or spiritual authority within this realm, but it denies even that any foreign Power has such authority. Now, if we admit that there are Roman Catholics in the country the Pope must have spiritual power here."

And he went on to say that its meaning was that no foreign Power had authority over the Established Church. This was the interpretation put upon the oath by so eminent a man. But he recollected that Lord Chelmsford (then Sir Frederic Thesiger) gave another interpretation—that it meant that no foreign Power had any authority here that could be enforced by law. But when we found two such eminent men, both Lord Chancellors, differing in opinion as to the interpretation of an oath, I it was quite time that the oath was abolished. At the same time, it would be presumptuous for him to deal with anything more than the very limited subject to which his Motion referred. He should leave it to those to whom those two oaths applied to deal with them. He only proposed to deal with the Roman Catholic oath, and he sincerely trusted that the result of the inquiry he suggested might lead to a modification of the other oaths. Hon. Members were perhaps aware that one of the securities discussed by the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel at the time of the Catholic emancipation was to limit the number of Roman Catholic Mem- bers in that House. The force of circumstances had limited them even lower than the number—he believed forty—which at that time was suggested. He might appeal to the House whether so small a number of Roman Catholic Members was likely to do any injury to the Protestant institutions of the country, even if they were so disposed. He preferred to rest his case on other grounds. He would ask what had been the mainspring of all the beneficial alterations which had been made in the laws of this country during the last thirty-five years? Was it not the confidence we reposed in each other? Commencing with the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and coming down to the emancipation of the Jews, had it not been through the confidence which they had been led to repose in one another—had it not been that principle which had led them to admit to the representation so many who were before excluded? All he asked of the House on the present occasion was to carry out that principle, and to have sufficient confidence in the small Roman Catholic minority to believe that they had no desire to injure the institutions of the country, but only to act in harmony with the other Members of the House in those questions in which they were all engaged. The shortest way of discussing the question was to lay down three simple principles on which he thought the oath now taken by Roman Catholic Members was objectionable, in which he thought the great majority of Members would agree. He did not suppose there were more than two hon. Members who would not desire that there should be only one mode of admission to an assembly in which all Members occupied the same position and had the same duties to discharge. Nothing could be more monstrous than that there should be a symbol of division presented to Gentlemen as they went up to the table of that House after an election, and that the House should thus divide itself, not into political but into religious and theological parties. On that ground the Roman Catholic oath was objectionable. Again, he apprehended there would be no difference of opinion that an unnecessary oath was an absolutely immoral thing. We were not justified in imposing upon any one an oath, unless we considered that there was some predominant reason which compelled us to do so. One mischievous effect of multiplying oaths was that it diminished the value of oaths in the public mind, and, therefore, such a proceeding had an absolutely injurious and immoral effect. On this point he would read the opinion of one of the most distinguished predecessors of the Speaker, Mr. Speaker Onslow, who stated at the time of the disputed succession, when the toast of Oxford was—

"God bless the King, the Faith's Defender!

God bless—no harm in blessing—the Pretender!

But who Pretender is, and who is King,

God bless my soul! that's quite another thing!"

—well at that period, when if at any, oaths might be considered likely to be useful, Mr. Speaker Onslow made use of these words—

"I cannot help observing of what little use to a Government the imposition of oaths has ever been. A Government is never secure of the hearts of the people but from the justice of it, and the justice of it is generally a real security. … When men habituate themselves to swear what they do not understand, they will easily be brought to forswear themselves in what they do understand. The like danger is from the frequency of them, which always takes off from the awe of them and consequently their force. In my opinion no oaths should be appointed but in judicial matters."

His third point, one on which he thought the House would also unanimously concur, was that it was an absolutely immoral act to present to anyone an oath which was not precise in its terms—an equivocal oath, one about the meaning of which there could be any difference of opinion. On that point he would refer to a statement made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer four or five years ago. Speaking on March 22nd, 1858, the right hon. Gentleman observed—

"What he wished the House to bear in mind was this—that if there were these difficulties in the construction of an oath, which were held to be of great constitutional importance, that of itself was a clear proof that the matter required the attention of the House; for it was not a subject which ought to be left to A, B, and C to construe for themselves. There ought to be a legislative construction put upon an oath."—[3 Hansard, cxlix. 484.]

According to that most reasonable statement if he (Mr. Monsell) succeeded in showing the House that the Roman Catholic oath was an equivocal one—one about the construction and meaning of which there was legitimately and necessarily a great difference of opinion, they were bound either to repeal it or to make some alteration in it which would render it clear and unequivocal. But, before addressing himself to that point, he would call the attention of the House to the passage in the oath—

"I do further declare that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion that princes excommunicate or deprived by the Pope or any other authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or by any person whatsoever."

That passage about abjuring the belief that princes might be murdered had been removed from the Protestant oath; and there could be no good reason for continuing to make Catholics swear to it, for if they were murderers no oath would be likely to bind them. Then came this passage in the oath—

"I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm as established by the laws."

Those words referred to an Act passed in the beginning of the reign of Charles II., for the purpose of establishing the arrangement made immediately after the Cromwellian Rebellion. As he believed that most of the Catholic nobility and gentry held their properties under that settlement, it was very unnecessary to make them swear to defend it. He now came to the more important part of the oath—that respecting the construction of which gentlemen of great influence took different views—

"I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am, or may become, entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom. I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever."

There were three different opinions held as to the obligation imposed on Catholic Members by that part of the oath. The late Duke of Norfolk acted on the belief that it prevented him from interfering with Church property. As against that opinion, he would quote one given by a Protestant statesman. Lord Althorp, speaking in 1833, was reported to have—

"Reminded the House that in the progress of the Catholic Relief Bill a clause had been proposed to prevent the interference of Catholic Members in any matters relating purely to the Church, and the House had rejected it; and as that was the case he thought that Catholic Members had as much right as Protestants to take part in the discussion of any matter that came before the House as Protestants."—[3 Hansard, xvi. 1353.]

It was the intention of the House which passed the Relief Bill that Roman Catholics should possess the same rights in every respect as Protestant Members. The third view was that taken by Mr. Justice Shee and others. They believed that the words he bad read were intended to prevent Catholics from overthrowing the Establishment, but not from reducing it to proper limits. For instance, if in the War Department you found 500 clerks who only wrote three letters a day, you would not be subverting the War Office if you cut down the staff of clerks by 400, keeping only a sufficient number to do the work. He thought there could be no doubt that an oath must be interpreted according to the sense in which it was understood by those who imposed it. Now, what was the sense of the people of England in which the Roman Catholic oath was imposed at the time the Emancipation Act passed? There could be no doubt that they regarded it as a security for the Established Church. He recollected that the Duke of Wellington, in 1840, in replying to some observations of the Earl of Shrewsbury in the other House, took that view of the oath; but, on the other hand, Sir Robert Peel stated that the oath in question was taken from two oaths enacted by the Irish Parliament in 1779 and 1793. What was the state of Ireland at that time? The belief of the Protestants was that if the Catholics obtained power in any way they would exert it to overthrow, by force of arms, the Establishment. The Catholics were kept down completely at that period; they were not permitted to buy land nor to keep a horse of a greater value than £5, and the object of the oaths was to prevent them rising by force of arms and leading the people to subvert the established state of things. Was it not clear that the fear was that violent and not constitutional and legal means would be used to overthrow the Establishment? When Sir Wilmot Horton proposed that Catholics should not be allowed to interfere with the property of the Church Sir Robert Peel rejected the Motion, and said that Catholics were to have every power and privilege which Protestants had. Taking these authoritative statements of Sir Robert Peel, it did not seem a forced interpretation to apply the same rule which Protestants applied when they considered the word "legally" or rightfully as understood in the oath they themselves take. It must be recollected that the Catholic oath was not imposed on Members only, but on students at Maynooth, and on Catholic mayors and magistrates and on councilmen. Did not hon. Members feel that there was really some difficulty in the question? Was it justifiable to force an equivocal and doubtful oath upon any man's conscience? He thought it was a positive crime to permit the oath to remain in force. A very remarkable statement had been made within the last few days by the Dean of St. Paul's, in which he said—

"I confess that to me all this is a very dangerous, a very objectionable, I will freely say, a very immoral trial of the conscience; a perpetual temptation to tamper with its sensitive jealousy of itself—a temptation to gulp down all without thought or without inquiry, or to act under the paralyzing torture of doubt."

Those words were spoken in reference to a different subject, but were singularly applicable to the present question. There was one other point to which he would draw attention. This was an oath imposed solely upon the Roman Catholic Members of the House. Let him suppose his hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) and Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) were walking up to the table after the general election along with himself. In their opinion the whole system of the Establishment was absolutely vicious, and they thought it ought to be got rid of root and branch. It was the unclean thing placed on the altar. He, on the contrary, had no such belief. He did not want to attack the Church Establishment in England, and, as long as the English people were anxious for its maintenance, far be it from him to attempt to touch a stone of it, as he believed it to be a great bulwark against rationalism and infidelity. Yet he was compelled to take this oath, while Gentlemen who would, if permitted, turn Westminster Abbey into a conventicle were not required to take it. Now, was not that a monstrous injustice and anomaly? He could only sincerely and heartily thank the House for the interest they had shown in a matter which, after all, only concerned a small minority of their Members, and he trusted they would join him in an endeavour to get rid of the grievance of which he complained, which was, after all, only a relic of a bygone day. The oaths had been framed, with other severe measures, for the purpose of forcing a sort of fictitious uniformity in a Christian country, and as men's minds grew softer, the penal statutes were got rid of, while the oaths were preserved. The only foundation upon which any institution ought to rest was that of confidence for confidence. When the people believed that the House of Commons was sincerely desirous of adopting that principle, they would join them in the maintenance of our Constitution, and in the support of our Sovereign. Let hon. Members go up to the table of the House without any such invidious distinction as was implied by the terms of the existing oath; let them all be in a position to join heartily in the prayer that the dignity and honour of the country might be maintained by their united efforts, and that they might never allow theological differences to separate them in the discharge of those duties which devolved upon them as Members of that Legislature. The right hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.

The only observation I feel called upon to make at present is to say on the part of Her Majesty's Government that we give a ready assent to the Motion which has been made by the right hon. Member for Limerick, so far as regards the preliminary step for bringing in a Bill for the purpose he has in view. I think it is impossible to deny that the subject is one which is entitled to consideration. I agree with him that oaths and declarations, which are unnecessary, of doubtful interpretation, or needlessly offensive to those to whom they are tendered—not because they cannot conscientiously make the declaration, but because it imputes to them opinions which they repudiate are objectionable. How far this objection applies to the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Members of this House, we shall have an opportunity of considering on the second reading of the Bill. I believe that no objection will be made by any hon. Member to the introduction of the Bill, and therefore I think that it will be better to postpone any discussion upon this subject until the second reading, and I hope we shall approach the discussion then, with a desire, while parting with no real security for the maintenance of the Protestant religion, to do justice to every reasonable claim made by our Roman Catholic fellow subjects.

I confess I do not think the present a favourable period for taking into consideration such questions as those involved in the Motion of the right hon. Member for Limerick. The whole of Europe—and I do not see how England can ignore these proceedings on the Continent—has just been alarmed at the issue of a document termed the Encyclical Letter of the Pope. This document is of so important a character that it has occupied the attention of the French Legislature for a considerable time, and the compliance of certain Roman Catholic bishops in France with the terms of that document has compelled the French Government to interfere. No one would suppose that the French Emperor would lightly set himself against the feelings of a certain number of the clergy of France, who claim what they affirm to be the liberty of obeying the Pope within the dominions of the Empire. I advert to this subject the more strongly because I think it is unwise in the Legislature of England at this moment to lend any countenance to this Papal aggression, when the Legislatures of France and other Roman Catholic countries find it necessary to resist it in the interests of social and political order and the peace and happiness of society. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has on this occasion manifested that same leaning towards Ultramontane doctrines that we have witnessed in him before. I think that, under the existing circumstances, the restrictions imposed in the oath taken by Roman Catholic Members at this moment are really a protection to Roman Catholics. If the Government of this country will not resist these encroachments of the Papacy, in support of the resistance offered by the Roman Catholic Governments of France, Spain, and other countries, whence is resistance to these aggressions to be expected? I think England ought to be mindful of her duty. Hitherto she has maintained the great cause of civil and religious liberty against the encroachments of that Power which, although now limited as to its immediate sphere of action as a temporal Government, was, perhaps, never more active than at the present moment in opposing the great principles of civil and religious freedom throughout the world. Perhaps the House will allow me just to read a description by a very eloquent author in France of the character of the Encyclical Letter, because it will illustrate my opinion of the proceeding which the House is invited to take. This is the description by a Roman Catholic of the document which the Papacy is attempting to impose upon every Roman Catholic conscience—

"According to the Encyclical there is no truly Christian society except where the subjects obey their princes without discussion, and the princes in like manner obey the Pope, and the Pope alone, as God; where the crime of heresy is persecuted and punished with the whole rigour of the law. Therefore, in such a society the religious theocratic power exists alone, for princes will not know how to deal with the affairs of the Church without offending God, while the Pope will be at liberty to intervene in the affairs of Catholic States."

The writer further says—

"Freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, freedom of opinion, the independence of the civil power in contradistinction to the religious, the ecclesiastical, or spiritual, are all described as detestable errors. The theory (system) which is hence adduced is this:—The people at the mercy of their princes; the princes under the authority of the Pope; the Pope having all liberty of intervention in the affairs of the temporal power; princes and Governments cannot in any sense claim of right to deal with religious, spiritual, or ecclesiastical affairs; the Roman Catholic religion alone in possession of the right of public worship; the Roman Catholic Church having the right to inflict corporal punishment upon those who violate her laws; the offence of heresy, which has been obliterated from all the modern codes, is continued, and is to entail punishment, just as in the worst days of the Middle Ages."

Now, Sir, this document issued from the Vatican may excite a smile upon the part of those who do not acknowledge the power of the Pope as the head of the religion which they adopt; but I cite the action of the Emperor of the French, who has forbidden the publication of this document, and I cite even the action of the Government of Spain, to show that Roman Catholic countries at this moment find it necessary to impose restrictions far more stringent than the restrictions in the oath which you are now asked virtually to abrogate. If it be the opinion of this House that this meddling with a grave matter should be permitted, I feel it would be idle for me to resist; but I feel it my duty not only to the Protestant constituency which I represent, but to my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, to deprecate the course now about to be taken by the Government of the country and this House, which is not in accordance with the action adopted by France, Spain, and other Roman Catholic Governments in Europe. The object of the restrictions in the oath proposed to be abrogated is to prevent the disturbance of the constitution and settlement of property in this country. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) adverts to the circumstances at the close of last century as being a period of Roman Catholic rebellion in Ireland, assuredly his argument tells against himself, because it was in order to obviate the possibility of questions being raised in this country which might excite similar disturbances that these restrictions were imposed. It is against that very danger that the Government of France is acting. The Emperor has declared that it is in the cause of civil and social order that he forbids the reading of the document issued by the Pope. M. Rouher, in the French Senate, called attention to this subject in a celebrated speech. He complained, as a Roman Catholic, that this edict issued from the Vatican is aimed at the remaining liberties of the Roman Catholic Church in France, no less than against that civil and social order which it is the duty of the ruler of France to maintain, and which the present ruler has maintained to the admiration of the world. I do deprecate that the representative body of a nation in close alliance with the French nation—of a nation which respects and admires the Emperor of the French for the manner in which he has adapted himself to the government of a noble but excitable people, should take this action, which appears to me to cast a slur upon the course which the Emperor has found it necessary to adopt in order to secure social and religious order within his own dominions. I deprecate this movement for another reason. We, as members of the Church of England—as Protestants—ought not to do anything that shall embarrass the Roman Catholics of France in re-asserting those national liberties and privileges of their Church in France which were termed the Gallican liberties of that church, and for centuries constituted the pride and blessing of that great establishment. As a member of the Church of England, not less as a representative of a large constituency, I deprecate this movement. I deprecate the conduct of the Government in thus lending at this moment their aid to the disturbance in this country of questions which are agitating the whole continent of Europe—the disturbance of questions, which every lover of peace, of order, and of religion wishes should remain permanently settled in the interests of humanity and civilization.

said, he did not intend to reply to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell), but merely to point out to the Government that the proposal involved a constitutional change in the organization of the House—a change in an arrangement which was the subject of great deliberation when it was agreed upon. When, therefore, the Home Secretary invited calm discussion for the question, he begged leave to make this observation, that he, for one, would not discuss it he should vote against it; and he would charge the Government, whenever an opportunity should occur, with having disregarded their duty. If a change of this kind was to be made, it ought to be made by the Government and upon their responsibility. It was not sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the matter would form the subject of discussion in the House. That was not the way to uphold the principles of the Constitution, or to maintain an arrangement made within the memory of living men, which was the result of the deliberate contract by which Roman Catholic gentlemen obtained seats in that House.

rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice—

"That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that the reduction of Fire Insurance duty made in the last Session be extended at the earliest opportunity to houses, household goods, and all descriptions of insurable property."

There was nothing new in the terms or scope of this Resolution beyond what the House had already adopted. It was only a sort of refresher to the Government, to remind them that the reduction of duty made last Session was not exactly a compliance with the wishes of the House as expressed in the Resolution which it had agreed to—which was to the effect that the reduction should extend to all descriptions of property. So far as the merits of the question were concerned, he might say that they were settled by the Resolution of the House, and he need not, therefore, go into the already fully expounded history of this oppressive duty. To do so would be quite unnecessary, as the subject had been fully exhausted, and the House had, with full information, arrived at the conclusion, and declared it, that the duty upon Fire Insurance was excessive in amount; that it prevented insurances, and that it should be reduced at the earliest opportunity. The question now before them was two-fold:—first, whether the Resolution of the House aimed at a general reduction on all classes of Fire Insurances, or only had regard to a particlar sort of insurance; and second, whether the Government in the reduction it made last Session had given effect to the real aim of the Resolution. Now, there could be no doubt at all that the Resolution passed aimed at the reduction of all insurances, and not one particular class of insurances only. That was the clearly expressed will and wish of the House in the early discussions, and in accordance therewith he had modified the proposals of the Bill he first brought in on the subject. He did not push his Bill, for he considered it more respectful to leave it in the hands of the Government; but the Government did not move in the matter, and then, acting upon judicious advice, he dropped the method of proceeding by Bill arid proposed his Resolution. That Resolution having been adopted by the House, and with the sense he attributed to it, last year the Government, having a surplus, undertook to give effect to the Resolution. But it took the wrong course, and proposed a reduction on one special item only of insurable goods. Now, all he asked was that the House should remedy the oversight of the Government, by drawing its attention again to the fact that the interpretation it placed upon the Resolution of that House was not a correct construction of the wishes of that House, and desiring it to extend the reduction to all descriptions of insurable property. That was the sole object of the Resolution which he had now proposed. The only other question was for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he felt that the condition of the Exchequer would enable him to give effect to this Resolution, he would be not only giving effect to the wishes of the House, but would earn the gratitude of the country; and if he could make it a reduction throughout and uniform to 1s. per cent, he would be not only earning the lasting gratitude of the country, but would be taking such a course as to enable him to replace in the Exchequer the amount which it would temporarily lose by the reduction. If the right hon. Gentleman had not the means, then the Resolution he now proposed would serve as a standing instruction to the Government that its first duty would be to reduce the Fire Insurance duty when it should have the means in hand; and that was, indeed, the interpretation put by the right hon. Gentleman upon the Resolution already agreed to when it was under discussion in the House. He (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) could not for a moment suppose that the Government if it had the necessary means would refuse to give effect to that Resolution, for it had always acknowledged the binding nature of these resolves of the House; otherwise it would simply be ridiculous for hon. Members to occupy themselves for years with particular questions if, when the House came to definite Resolutions on them, their Resolutions were left to remain without life and inoperative by the Members of the Government charged to give effect to them. He would not trespass longer on the House, except to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had any doubt as to what the wishes of the House and the country were, he had only to consult the petitions presented during the present Session on this subject, and principally one from the City of London itself, calling upon the House not to wait for the Budget, but to give its sanction at once to the Resolution which he now introduced. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.

Sir, I rise to move the Previous Question—Without entering into what may be called the merits of the Question, I shall address the few remarks I have to make simply to the Question as to the time at which the hon. Member proposes his Resolution; and I feel bound to say, that the period which he has chosen for his Motion is inopportune. On no occasion that I have known has it ever been considered by the Government compatible with their duty to accede at a period immediately preceding the financial statement of the year to any Resolution of this House binding their hands by anticipation in regard to the proposals they may have to make in respect to the reduction of taxation. The hon. Gentleman has said that some right hon. Gentleman, whom he has not named, found fault with his infantile simplicity for introducing a Bill to effect the reduction of this duty, and told him that if he only proposed a Resolution of this House, that Resolution, if carried, would be potent and effective. For my part, I venture to say, with respect to Resolutions of the House, that in my opinion they are binding, as far as regards the Government, variably according to their subject-matter. I have never concealed my strong opinion that a Resolution of this House, unless relating to a matter of grievance or recommending the reduction of a burden oppressive to the community, does not demand great consideration from the Government; but Resolutions relating to the repeal or reduction of the burdens of the people, though they may not be in precise accordance with the views of the Government, yet do demand the most respectful consideration at their hands, and ought at all times to be a material element in deciding on their financial proposals. I am bound to say, however, that the sanguine mind of the hon. Gentleman considerably overstates the real potency and effectiveness of Resolutions. Has he forgotten that Resolution, by far the most famous, for the repeal of the paper duty. Though hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches were inclined to attach weight to that Resolution, yet, when in 1861, the Government proposed its repeal, very large minorities, which were almost majorities, made other proposals which they desired to substitute for the repeal of the paper duty. With regard to Motions made in anticipation of the Budget, I am not aware of any single instance in which public good or advantage has resulted from them. A. Motion of that sort has an abvious tendency to excite expectations which, if they are fulfilled, would also have been fulfilled a few weeks later independently of the Motion; so that nothing material is gained by it, and if they cannot be fulfilled, much mischief is done by the excitement of vain hopes. But (his is not the only or material objection to Resolutions of this kind, picking out a single matter of taxation when other matters of taxation are not before the House. These Resolutions are entirely contrary to the principle of our arrangements, which require that annually the entire financial condition of the country should be placed before the House, so that the House, with that financial condition before it, might make a selection as it thinks fit between the different interests of the country claiming relief. Such a Motion is not less hostile, I am bound to say, to the principle which assigns the initiative in these matters to the Government. You give that initiative to the Government, I apprehend, because you think it is for the public interest that they should have it; and I humbly submit to the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is most important that the dividing lines between the essential jurisdiction of the House and the permissive jurisdiction—for such, I grant, it may be deemed—vested in the Government on these questions should be preserved. For look at the injustice of this proposal, to select a particular tax among the various claimants for remission. Only the other night we objected to make any declaration with respect to the Malt-tax on this very ground; we would not let fall from us a single syllable as to the claims which that tax may present for consideration at any given period. And I am bound to maintain an equal restraint and an equal silence on this occasion. But surely it is most unfair to the House, which has rejected one great demand, powerfully supported—and certainly I cannot say that the whole of those who joined in rejecting it rejected it deliberately on the merits; possibly some of them would have been its promoters on the merits—surely it is most unfair to them that a demand like this should now be pressed by those who have another favourite tax to put forward for remission. The hon. Gentleman says, and says with truth, that the House has agreed to Votes in favour of the remission of the duty on Fire Insurance. But it has also come to a vote for remission of the Malt Tax, and has afterwards been called upon to rescind it. I ask the House to, consider the position in which any Administration must be put by the passing of a Resolution of this kind. It is absolutely contrary to the duty of the Government to come to any irrevocable decision as to the repeal or reduction of any tax involving an important branch of revenue until we know within certain limits that our revenue and charge will be balanced. Therefore, if the House were to select this inopportune moment for declaring its views with regard to the duty on Fire Insurance, it would place the Government in a predicament of what I may call compulsory disrespect towards the House. It would still remain just as much the duty of the Government as ever to observe such an absolute silence and main- tain such an entire freedom with respect to their intentions, as the general interests of the country may demand. At the same time it would not be desirable, for the sake of the public service, that they should seem to show any indifference or inattention to the expressed wishes of the House. But if such an apparent conflict, such an apparent tardiness in responding to the wishes of the House in matters of taxation would be highly inexpedient as regards the Government, I am bound to say that it would likewise be disparaging to the dignity and authority of this House. But these, I admit, are all objections of a general character, and I own that there might be some colour for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman if he could show that he had reason to entertain some special mistrust—to presume some foregone conclusion—in the mind of the Government, that under no circumstances were they disposed to give to the subject of the Fire Insurance duty that sort of consideration which, upon its merits, and, I grant also, upon its history, it may demand. The hon. Member devoted a great part of his speech to proving two propositions—the one that the wish of the House and the country apparently has been for an uniform dealing with this duty; and the other, that the last reduction of it was not altogether a compliance with the desires of the House. But, Sir, I agree with him in both of those propositions. He says the last reduction was not altogether a compliance with the wishes of the House. Who ever said it was? Her Majesty's Government did not propose it in these terms. It is an odious thing for a man to quote from himself, but, still, as what I said in these matters was spoken by me as a Member of the Government, I venture to cite a short passage from the financial statement which it devolved on me to make last year. The words then used were—

"The surplus, which began with £2,570,000, is now brought down to no more than £430,000. And here it would have been the wish of the Government to stop. There is, however, still another subject demanding our attention. In consequence of the formal intimation given by the vote of the House, we have deemed it our duty, limited as are our means, to consider whether we could submit a measure which, whatever else it might do, would do good as far as it went, and which would indicate at least our desire to meet with deference and respect the convictions entertained by the House of Commons, even although we did not entirely and absolutely share them, if it could be done without a vital sacrifice of the public interests. I refer to the duty on Fire Insurances."—[3 Hansard, clxxiv. 590.]

Therefore, my answer to the hon. Gentleman on that point is that his argument was unnecessary, because we were perfectly aware, independent of the proof he has given of it to-night, that the wishes of the House—the present state of the law continuing—cannot be and do not remain entirely fulfilled. One word more. The hon. Member says that the former decisions were verdicts. Why, then, does he want another? But I object to his Motion out of his own mouth. This is a Motion not merely indicating a reduction of the duty on Fire Insurance, hut indicating the particular form, manner, and degree in which it should he reduced. Why is the House of Commons on the 21st of March—the financial year coming to its close ten days hence—now to indicate the degree in which the Fire Insurance duty is to be reduced? But the hon. Member himself supplies me with this answer. He proposes a Motion, and though in the same breath he says he knows of a better Motion, he yet asks the House to agree to the first one. He proposes a Motion, the effect of which is a reduction of the duty to a uniform standard of 1s. 6d.; and in his own speech he tells you that one of 1s. would be better. Can there be a more lively illustration of the inconvenience of dealing with these questions before their proper time? ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen say, "No!" Have they read the Motion? It states that it is expedient that the reduction in this duty made last Session—that is to say to Is. 6d.—should be extended to all descriptions of property. But that is not stating that it is desirable to reduce it uniformly to 1s. The hon. Member's speech and his Motion are in conflict the one with the other; for while on the one hand he calls upon the House to vote that the reduction of 1s. 6d. shall be made uniform, he declares in his speech—and with greater reason—that a general reduction to 1s. would be a great deal more satisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, but if you think that, you ought to join with me in voting against this Resolution, which binds you to a reduction to 1s. 6d. ["No, no!"] The petitioners on the subject of this duty have never indicated what in their opinion is the amount of duty which it is desirable to levy. ["Yes!"] As compared with 3s., or 2s. 6d., or 2s., or even 1s. d6., they may, I grant you, have done so; but I am not aware that the petitioners in favour of the reduction of this duty have ever stated that if they had the whole matter in their hands they would fix it at 1s. 6d., or have ever treated it otherwise than as a fair subject for a compromise. Why, then, should the House not reserve to itself the discretion of dealing with the question at large when the proper time comes, and when it may be able to form some estimate of the means at command for purposes of remission? Why is it to depart from the just and wise usages which regulate the functions of the Government and the House in regard to taxation, when it recollects the fair admissions which I have made in respect of the history of this duty and the view we take as to the just authority of the House in these questions? I venture to say the hon. Member would see that he has really nothing to gain—perhaps less than nothing—by asking the House for a decision at this moment. He leaves us no choice or discretion whatever. It would be an absolute abandonment of our duty for us to accede to this Resolution. If we acceded to it how could we decline to accede to other Resolutions that would come forward, not perhaps at this time, but at another moment, in regard to other duties having excellent claims to remission? We desire, Sir, to pay due respect to this House; and for these reasons I beg to move the Previous Question.

, who rose amid loud cries of "Divide!" said, that he had on a previous occasion supported the hon. Gentleman who had made this Motion, but he was unable to vote with him that evening. He was about to take what he knew to be an unpopular course with those whom he had the honour to represent, but he thought the present Motion was inopportune, and that it would be inexpedient to fetter themselves and the Ministry by an abstract Resolution.

wished to know whether this country was to be governed entirely by the Administration, or in part by the House of Commons—because, if the House of Commons were to have any voice in the Government, it surely had a right to express an opinion at some time on such a subject as the present. If the House declared its opinion in regard to the remission of a particular tax before the Budget, it was told it was premature; if after the Budget, it was told it was too late, that everything was settled, and that the Resolution should have been proposed long ago. This was his answer to the advice given to the House by the hon. Member for the City of London. Last year he (Mr. Hub- bard) requested the hon. Member for Dudley not to press his Motion, but to leave the matter in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Remembering, however, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman bad failed to carry out the wishes and instructions of the House in his Budget last year, he should vote with the hon. Member for Dudley, and should strongly recommend him to press his Motion to a division.

, who also rose amid loud calls of "Divide!" said, he did not often trouble the House, but he wished to be allowed to join in the appeal made to the hon. Member for Dudley by the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) not to divide the House. He was a supporter of the principle of the measure, but having heard the acknowledgment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the power of that House in such matters he thought the matter might safely be left in his hands. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman, after what he had said, would meet the wishes of the House as far as his means would go.

trusted that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) would not be led off on the false scent just thrown out, but would divide the House. The idea of leaving the matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a mere delusion. The reduction of the duties on Fire Insurance was not a favourite measure with the right hon. Gentleman. It was a tax for which no man would say a word, for it was s tax of 200 per cent on prudence and forethought. If hon. Members at the time when the Budget was proposed made a suggestion of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he could not have his plans disturbed. Whether they brought the matter forward before the Budget, after the Budget, or at the time of the Budget, they were always wrong. What, then, was the duty of Parliament? Clearly to put its finger on such a tax, and express an opinion for the guidance of the Government. The Resolution of the House was not without its influence upon the right hon. Gentleman last year, and if the House affirmed the Resolution now before it the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it impossible to resist such an expression of opinion. He verily believed the right hon. Gentleman intended to propose the reduction of the duty, and that was the interpretation he put upon his moving the Previous Question.

hoped his hon. Friend would divide the House. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to reduce the wine duty he said that the reduction would be an advantage to the public. He added that he believed that the Exchequer would soon be replenished. Why should not the same argument be true in this case, when it was stated that there was £800,000,000 of insurable property within a few miles round London, of which 80 per cent was uninsured mainly because there was a tax of 200 per cent upon insurance.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had charged him with inconsistency in moving a Resolution to reduce the duty to 1s. 6d., when he was really in favour of a duty of Is.; but all he meant to say was, that he had always advocated the reduction to 1s. as the point at which the duty ought ultimately to stand. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reduce the duty to that amount, he would earn the gratitude of the country.

said, that as soon as soon as he was acquainted with the provisions of the Bill about to be introduced he should be happy to communicate with the hon. Baronet, and between them a measure might be agreed upon calculated to work satisfactorily. If, however, as he had some reason to believe, the measure of the hon. Baronet went beyond his own in many particulars, he should be sorry to risk the loss of some one Bill of a practical nature this Session by striving after objects which might prove to be unattainable.

said, the explanation which he had given to the hon. Member when he spoke to him on the subject was not, he found, entirely correct. The practice formerly was that books provided for the libraries of regiments were supplied directly either from the War Office or the Horse Guards. At present the practice was that, instead of books being supplied from London, an allowance was voted annually by the House, a certain sum per company, and regiments themselves provided in such manner as was thought fit the books required for the use of the library. The management of these libraries was in the bands of the committee of officers and non-commissioned officers, and no books were allowed to be added to the library except with the permission of the commanding officer, who was always obliged to mention in his quarterly Report what books or periodicals had been added to the library, and these Reports were submitted to the Council on Military Education. He considered these precautions quite sufficient guarantee against the introduction of any book of improper character or irreligious tendency into these libraries. The books of which the libraries at their foundation were composed were originally issued either by the War Office or the Horse Guards, and they had been added too with the approval of the Council on Education. He did not think it necessary that the subject should be further inquired into. There was another reason why he was unwilling to give the Returns now asked. The books in these regimental libraries were extremely numerous, and if a catalogue were had from every regiment the Return would be found so voluminous that no one would be disposed to bestow on it any time or trouble. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

, in moving that the House resolve into Committee, in order that the Chairman might be directed to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the abolition of certain tests in connection with academical degrees in the University of Oxford, stated that the Bill was identical with that introduced last year by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson); and, as it had then been fully debated, he did not think it necessary now to make any statement on the subject. It would be more convenient to take the discussion on the second reading. He, therefore, confined himself to moving that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.

observed, that if the Bill was identical with that introduced last year, the only observation he had now to make was that the hon. Mover must expect the same opposition. He thought it would have been better to introduce a Bill amended in form instead of the identical measure which had only reached the Committee last year.

said, that the Bill of last Session had been introduced by its promoters in the shape in which they were anxious it should pass, and that they had left it to its opponents to give notice of such Amendments as they might think fit. It was not correct to say that the Bill had only reached the Committee, for the fact was that it had been read a third time, and had only been thrown out on the question that the Bill do pass.