asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Dexter, who was charged at the Westminster Police Court on 13th June with serving milk in her shop to customers while suffering herself from small-pox, and was acquitted by the police magistrate on the ground that the Act 29 and 30 Vic. c. 90, only applies to streets and public places; and, whether he would consider the expediency of extending the operation of the Act so as to include all cases of exposure of persons suffering from dangerous infectious diseases?

, in reply, said, it appeared to be true that a person named Dexter, who kept a milk-shop, was guilty of the imprudence of serving a customer while she herself was suffering from small-pox. The 35th section of the Sanitary Act of 1866 enacted that any person subject to a dangerous infectious disease who exposed himself without proper precaution in any public place, street, or public conveyance should be liable to the penalties imposed by the Act. The magistrate held—and he thought rightly held—that a shop was not a public place within the purview of the Act. But he thought the Act might be very usefully amended and enlarged so as to include shops.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What responsible Minister of the Crown is answerable to this House for the conduct of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in the administration of the annual revenues of the Crown lands; and, whether a Report, addressed to the Treasury, dated June 8, 1871, and signed James K. Howard, purporting to define the function and duties of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, especially in respect of their relations to the House of Commons, is approved and sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government?

Sir, I have already stated, in answer to a Question, that I am the Minister responsible for the Woods and Forests in this House. With regard to the second part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman, we laid the Report on the Table because we thought it desirable that the House should have an authoritative explanation, from a person quite competent to give it and conversant with the subject, of the facts of the case, and the law, so far as it bears on the duty of the Office of Woods and Forests; and as far as I know—though I have not tested it minutely—that Report does contain a correct statement of the facts. There may be some corrections required, but I am not aware of any; and I repeat, that I believe it fully states the law as regards the Woods and Forests; and by laying it on the Table of the House the Government does, so far, no doubt, express its assent to the Report. As to any part of it dealing with the relations of the Department to this House, that is a matter, I imagine, rather ultra vires as regards the Department. Mr. Howard, though a great authority in his own Department, has no means of deciding what its relations are to this House, and on that point the Government must not be understood to give the Report their sanction.

, in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given Notice—

"That it is expedient that compensation should be made to the Clerks of the General Meetings, or of the Lieutenancy of any county, riding, or place in the United Kingdom, for the loss of emoluments which they will sustain by reason of the enactment of the provisions of the Army Regulation Bill,"

observed that, although theoretically these clerks held office merely at the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant, practically they held office for life; and taking the average, they held office for 18 years. Their emoluments consisted partly of salaries fixed by Parliament under various Militia and Volunteer Acts, and partly of fees on the granting of commissions. In no case did the emoluments exceed £122 per annum, which, taking into consideration the services rendered and the high character of the gentlemen who rendered them, could not be considered a very exorbitant rate of pay. Taking both sources of emoluments, he found that in the course of five years all the clerks of lieutenancy in England and Wales received only £8,100 per annum, which being divided by 59, the number of clerks, only gave to each £137 per annum. There had been some correspondence with the War Office on this subject, and in a Memorandum written by Lord Northbrook it was stated that Mr. Cardwell considered that in these cases the payments in question were made as a reasonable compensation for services rendered, and when those services ceased the payments would also cease. Now, that was totally opposed to the principle on winch compensation for the abolition of offices and superannuations had been granted. He referred to the compensations granted under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 105, to officers whose interests were damaged by changes in the Court of Chancery; under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 126, to clerks of the peace; under 20 & 21 Vict., to proctors practising in the Probate Court; under the Irish Church Bill of last Session, to schoolmasters, clerks, sextons, and holders of other offices; and under a Treasury Minute of January last year, upon the abolition of the agencies in the Foreign Office, although in the latter case the office could not be said to be other than one of a private nature. He had asked that two-thirds of their salaries should be awarded to the clerks of lieutenancy as compensation on the abolition of their offices; but if that were thought too much he should be prepared to accept a little less. He would further say that as the majority of the parties affected were upwards of 50 years of age, the burden could not possibly be of long duration. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Resolution.

said, he hoped the Government would not entertain such a proposal. The officers in question were really of no use whatever. They held their situations at the more will of Lords Lieutenant of counties, and in Ireland the expenditure was altogether useless. The situation appeared to be only an opportunity of giving a person £50 a-year for doing nothing.

said, that the Government agreed very much in the view that had been taken by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last spoken (Colonel French), that the proposal of the noble Lord could not be complied with without violating the rules of the House. But, independently of that objection to the Amendment, the Government felt bound to oppose the proposition on its merits, inasmuch as the gentlemen in question were not the servants of the Crown; and they were also of opinion that the withdrawal of the emoluments they had lost did not entitle them to compensation. The most telling of the examples of compensation referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex was that of the compensation to the agents of the Foreign Office; but those gentlemen were servants of the Crown, and had received their emoluments by virtue of an Order of Council. The case of the officers of the Court of Chancery who were compensated was not an example to be imitated, as it had given rise to scandal, and was never referred to except as an example that the House of Commons ought to avoid following. But even in that case the compensation was not paid out of taxes, but out of funds belonging to the Court of Chancery. In the case of the Irish Church, again, the compensations under the Irish Church Act were paid out of the Irish Church property. The duties out of which the emoluments in question had been derived came casually to the gentlemen whom it was now sought to compensate under the operation of an Act of Parliament, and had been abolished by another Act of Parliament. Under these circumstances, the Government were not prepared to accede to the proposal of the noble Lord.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the duties of the Receiver General of the Inland Revenue Department, and whether it was intended to put an end to that office? A somewhat similar office had been lately abolished, and he should like to know why that one was not dealt with in the same way.

said, he wished to know whether any progress had been made in consolidating the Inland Revenue with the Customs Department?

replied that, after full inquiry, it had been resolved to retain the office of Receiver General of the Inland Revenue; but he could not state on what ground the decision had been formed. The amalgamation of the Inland Revenue with the Customs Department would not conduce to the public advantage, and therefore there was no intention on the part of the Government to effect a union between those Departments.

said, he would not say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right or not; but he knew that the Receivership of the Board of Customs was abolished with great advantage to the public service, and he thought it might be possible to dispense with such an officer in the Board of Inland Revenue. In reference to another subject, which had been recently investigated by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, in consequence of what was called "the War Office Scandal"—namely, the allowances made by way of poundage to collectors and assessors of income tax—the Committee made two recommendations: one being that the arrangements for remunerating persons in the public Departments for this special service should be re-considered by the Treasury; and the other, that when public money was received by a person in those Departments beyond the salary of his office, the amount should appear in the Estimates. He should be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's opinions on these propositions.

thought the recommendations of the Accounts Committee were perfectly just, and the Government would attend to them.

observed, that last Session and the Session before he submitted a point for the consideration of the Postmaster General as to the giving of more accommodation to the public for the posting of letters in the railway stations of the United Kingdom, and in Post Office railway vans. Last year the noble Lord then at the head of the Department (the Marquess of Hartington) made considerable concessions in the matter, but more accommodation was still required. The absence of letter-boxes for stations was a great disadvantage to persons travelling, and great delay occurred in consequence of letters not being sorted at the railway stations. It would not be right to make a Motion on the subject, without giving Notice, and he would only ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General whether some additional accommodation could not be afforded?

said, his attention had been directed to the importance of affording larger facilities in this matter, and he had spoken about it to the officials at the Post Office. He would continue to give attention to the subject; but there were obvious difficulties in carrying out a satisfactory scheme, and he feared there would be much danger of letters posted in stations going to wrong places.

said, the revenue from the Post Office was part and parcel of the permanent Revenue of the country, and whatever surplus was derived from the Post Office ought to be applied in remedying any deficiency in the means of obtaining letters.

mentioned that in France letter-boxes had been attached to the trains, so that letters need only be placed in them to be dispatched at once. He thought the difficulty suggested by the Postmaster General might be overcome by labelling letter-boxes in such a manner as to indicate the up and down service.

asked, when the new postal regulations would come into operation?

said, probably on the 1st of August, and, as considerable reductions would be made in the postal charges, no doubt the Revenue would be affected; but he trusted that correspondence would increase to such an extent in a short time as to make good the deficiency. These changes, however, would involve no increase of the present Estimates.

called attention to the very unsatisfactory state of the office, and expressed the opinion that they were annually voting a sum of £5,000 for what was of very little benefit to the public.

said, that nothing but the state of Public Business prevented the Government from dealing with the matter at once.

asked, how the new system of supervision under the Habitual Criminals Act was working?

said, it was working very well, and had already been found very useful. The experiment was only in its infancy; but he believed, from the investigation he had made, that it was likely in time to contribute very considerably to the detection and punishment of crime.

asked, whether it was intended to amend the Habitual Criminals Act, and to revert to the system of monthly reports of all convicts under inspection who changed their abode from one town to another?

said, the Government did intend to bring in a Bill on this subject; and so far as regarded convicts he should be disposed to recur to the former system of monthly reporting; but he doubted the expediency of extending such stringent regulations to persons simply under supervision.

contended that it was not fair to compel persons simply committed for trial to sit for their portraits, so that the photographs might be sent to different parts of the country, even before the parties had been convicted. The law presumes a man is innocent until he is proved to be guilty.

observed, that if the photographs were taken with the knowledge of the criminals, the latter might distort their faces in order to prevent a portrait being secured.

agreed that no one had a right to take the portrait of a man only committed for trial, and if that had been done it must have been with the consent of the man himself. With respect to the shrewd suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes), the warders who took the portraits were sufficiently skilled in photographs to avoid taking anything but the man's ordinary expression.

said, he hoped the Home Secretary would not commit himself to the doctrine that under no circumstances should a prisoner's photograph be taken until after his trial, for the simple reason that many persons awaiting their trial had been previously convicted.

inquired whether the sum of £15,000, which appeared in the Estimate as "New Prison—Commencement of Buildings," had reference to Brixton Prison? in reference to the expenses of which a Motion was on the Order Book for that night. He thought that the whole of the expenditure for the completion of the prison should be made known before the work was commenced.

said, £15,000 would not, of course, cover anything like the expenses of that work, and therefore he had thought it right that the House should not be asked to spend anything until its opinion had been taken on the proposal. If the Bill passed, it would be necessary for Government to bring in a Supplementary Estimate. This, he thought, would be a proper proceeding, because it involved a large sum.

concurred that the whole cost of the work should be shown, and it seemed to him that the £15,000 had been put down for the Brixton Prison.

asked, whether it was intended to do away with the Milbank Prison altogether?

said, that successive Governments had had their attention called to the unfitness of Milbank for the purposes of a prison. It was ill-arranged; and on a careful estimate of the Director of Prisons last autumn, it appeared that the excess of cost in overlooking this prison as compared with other prisons was not less than £5,000 a-year. Government had accordingly determined to do away with the prison, and to put the prisoners elsewhere. Milbank was only partly applied to the accommodation of convict prisoners; it also received the military prisoners. In removing this prison, it would be necessary to make accommodation elsewhere, and it had been considered most convenient that the accommodation should be supplied partly by adding to the Brixton Prison, and partly by erecting a new prison. He had been under the impression last night, when he stated that the £15,000 in the Estimates had reference to Brixton; that sum, however, was required for the new prison, the site of which had not yet been decided upon. While certain other works were under consideration, it was considered wise not to determine the position of the future convict prison; and it was also considered prudent to delay the settlement of that point until some decision was come to by Government which would determine the remunerative occupation of the prisoners, as there was some hope that the authorities would be able to utilize the convict labour to effect some such national work as the fortification of their arsenals, or the defence of London. There were two circumstances which would lead to a very considerable increase in the number of the prisoners, although, on the other hand, the state of crime might be described as generally satisfactory; one was the absolute cessation of transportation abroad, and the other was the term of punishment inflicted on persons already convicted of felony. The increase which those two circumstances would cause rendered it necessary to look ahead for the next few years, with a view to the proper housing of the prisoners.

wanted to know the whole amount of the Estimate in connection with this work, and also the probable cost of the new prison under the Brixton Bill, including the purchase of land.

replied that the cost would very much depend on the nature of the prison erected. If erected for the purpose of accommodating convicts engaged in some temporary work—say at Dover or Chatham—it would be less expensive than if it was to be erected for permanent purposes.

said, it was apparent that the right hon. Gentleman had determined nothing. The site was not known to him, and its ultimate cost was not known to him. He thought a strong case was made out for postponing the Vote. It would be open to Government to proceed in the matter when their mind was made tip.

said, it was absolutely necessary to provide increased accommodation for the increased number of prisoners during the coming year, and provision must be made not merely in reference to the wants of the moment but in regard to future wants, which could be estimated with tolerable accuracy. It was a matter of indifference to Government whether this Vote of £15,000 was taken now or postponed to some future time, so long as Government was able to carry out the works necessary for the public interest.

said, he thought it only reasonable that the Committee should know the whole cost and the site of the buildings before voting the money.

said, that the magistrates in the North of England had been considering how far there was any necessity for providing more convict prison room than actually existed. In Yorkshire there was a strong feeling in the mind of the magistrates that it was very undesirable to continue the Act which made it necessary, after a conviction for felony, to send to penal servitude for seven years. The justices would like to see their way to ordinary imprisonment being inflicted instead of penal servitude.

moved that the Vote be reduced by £15,000.

said, that it was quite immaterial whether this sum was granted now or afterwards, and Government would accordingly agree to the Motion just made.

pointed out that there was nothing to show that the expenditure in Milbank was greater than in other prisons. Both at Chatham and Dartmoor many of the charges were higher than at Milbank.

said, the circumstances of these prisons differed from those of Milbank, which was used partly as a prison for short sentences and partly for the first portion of sentences to penal servitude.

said, that as the Home Secretary had sent a Circular to the managers of Industrial Schools stating that the Treasury Grants to those schools would be reduced, he desired to have some explanation on the matter. The proceeding appeared to have been rather abrupt, for the Circular Letter was dated the 27th of April, and the reduction was made on the 1st of May. The Treasury payment for children under 10 years of age was reduced nearly 40 per cent, and a similar reduction was made in the case of children over 15 years of age. The reason given for the reduction in respect to children under 10 years of age was that they were hardly capable of industrial training; and the reason assigned for the reduction in the case of children over 15 years of age was that keeping children too long in Industrial Schools was not favourable to their moral or physical development. He had letters in his possession contradicting the reasons assigned in both instances. Indeed, the experience of every Industrial School proved that if children of the class sent there did not begin their instruction at an early age, the purpose for which industrial schools were instituted would be frustrated. It was the neglected state of those children which mainly justified any Treasury aid at all for national education, and which led many to a desire for compulsory education. The Industrial Schools were already the receptacles of compulsory scholars. With regard to children over 15 years of age, he believed that the Circular Letter exhibited a prevalent mistake in the estimation of these schools, arising from their being treated, in consequence of their connection with the Home Office instead of the Education Department, like penal or pauper establishments, and not as schools. In an article on the subject of enlistment in the Army the leading journal on Saturday last adverted to the difficulty which was experienced in getting well-educated adults to that service The Navy could take boys young—it would be expensive for the State to educate Army recruits till they were old enough for the service, and it would be well to see if we could not render the children educated at the public expense in those schools available for military purposes. In his opinion the present payment of 5s. per head was sufficient, and in some cases more than enough; but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in proposing to reduce the proportion of the grant in the case of such boys under 10 years of age on the ground that they were too young to benefit by Industrial Schools; and in the case of the elder boys on the ground that they were old enough to earn their own living, ignoring the fact that they might be doing so in the school itself, or preparing to emigrate, or for special service. Under these circumstances, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the reasons which had induced him to propose these reductions?

said, he thought that these schools ought to have a wider scope given to them, and that the police should be instructed to keep a sharper eye on vagabond children.

inquired, whether the sum taken in the present Estimates was based upon the old allowance of 5s. a-week, or upon the proposal contained in the right hon. Gentleman's Circular?

replied that the Vote was based on the old allowance.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles Adderley) spoke with such authority upon this subject, he having spent the greater part of a most useful life in supporting every institution which tended to reduce crime, that he always differed from him with extreme reluctance. No doubt it was of national interest that these unhappy children should be turned into good citizens, instead of being allowed to become the pests of society; but, at the same time, it should be kept in mind that their cases were exceptional. He would not go so far as to apply to the directors of these institutions the saying of Talleyrand, with respect to fathers of families, "That they were capable of anything;" but, certainly, the tendency in Scotland and many parts of the country was to strain very much the machinery of the Industrial Schools Act, and to send to the schools established under it a vast number of children who had no right to be admitted into them, but who ought to be dealt with under the Poor Law. It had been in consequence of this tendency that the Government had found it necessary to determine that no children should be admitted into them who were under six years of age. The annual sum appropriated to the support of these schools had—increased from £19,000 in 1865 to £115,000 in the present year, which showed the necessity which existed for placing some chock upon the practice of relieving the local burdens by means of these schools at the expense of the Imperial funds. The tendency of these schools was to become more burdensome to the Imperial Revenue, and as he was most desirous that they should be supported by voluntary and local effort, he had determined to reduce the allowance for the children. With regard to the children between 15 and 16 years of age he thought he was justified in making a reduction, for the simple reason, which he thought no one would gainsay, that at that period of life a child could contribute something considerable towards its own support. However excellent the instruction might be it had a prejudicial effect on the character of the children, for nothing could replace the freedom which a child enjoyed in earning a livelihood beyond the walls of an institution. After very careful consideration and consultation with those who were well able to advise him on the matter, he issued a circular announcing the reduction in the allowance to those schools. Many expostulations against the reduction had reached the Government; but managers of several of the most important institutions in the country had expressed their approbation of that step, and mainly because there was a tendency in these schools to cease to be voluntary. At the same time, these were institutions of great national importance, and it would be necessary to watch most closely the effect of the change in them. Nothing could be further from his wish, or that of the Government, than to do anything detrimental to these institutions, which were doing so much good.

wished to know how much the Government would save by this reduction, and whether the new system would be applied to Ireland? He feared that the consequence of reducing the grant would be to destroy some institutions that were of great advantage in Ireland.

said, that the reduction would not apply to the Irish Industrial Schools.

said, he was inclined to think that the alteration in the amount of the grant was a step in the right direction; though no doubt some difficulty would be felt from the managers being too ready to rely upon Imperial funds instead of upon local rates and subscriptions. Too liberal an allowance would probably do more harm than good. A great deal of mischief would be done by anything that would have a tendency to cause the honest working man to neglect his children. There were constant complaints that a poor man could not bring up his children in the way in which children were educated at these institutions, and that there would be no chance for their being so brought tip unless he should neglect them and turn them into the streets. It was very difficult to answer such allegations. The real excuse for spending public money upon these children was, that if they were let alone in their neglected state they would probably cause a good deal of evil to society at large. This end should always be kept in view, both in the quality of education given, and the selection of the children, so as to avoid giving a premium to the neglect of children, and more trouble should be taken for the same reason, to exact contributions from parents. The cases should be wholly exceptional. If there was a difficulty as to funds these cases would be properly selected; but if there were a large grant, the managers of the institutions would not be careful whom they admitted within their walls.

said, he hoped it would be remembered that these Industrial Schools took the place of the prison. They were intended to supersede the necessity of imprisoning children for a greater or less time and exposing them to vicious associations. He did not think that they could draw any hard-and-fast line in respect to the age at which children should be received at or dismissed from school.

said, he was glad to see the attention paid to reformatories in England, because he should on a future occasion bring to the notice of the House the success which had attended the Reformatory of Glencree, in Ireland, under the management of the monks. The proportion of boys reclaimed was 90 per cent, while in England, under the most favourable auspices, it was not more than 75 per cent. He would ask the Prime Minister for a small grant for the Reformatory.

said, he saw in the Vote an item of £320 for the maintenance of criminal lunatics in private asylums. It was highly inexpedient that such lunatics should be confined in private asylums. There was a Bill in "another place" which proposed to transfer criminal lunatics in Scotland to chartered institutions. He hoped before another year some means would be taken to put a stop to this practice.

said, that the managers of the chartered institutions in Scotland complained grievously of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath had referred.

said, he would suggest that the Home Secretary should take into consideration a matter which had been pressed by him on successive Secretaries of State—namely, some arrangements for retaining at Broadmoor criminal lunatics of a dangerous character after the term of their sentence had expired. Under the Act of 1869 the Home Secretary had power to order their removal to the asylums of the county to which they belonged. There was no proper provision in the county asylums for lunatics of a dangerous class, and they might well be retained at Broadmoor at the expense of the county or borough to which they might be chargeable.

desired to call attention to the case of a person whose sentence had expired and who was sent to his county asylum from Dartmoor. Nearly all the time the medical officers were of opinion that the man was perfectly sane, and yet they were obliged to keep him. He was not sure that the medical superintendent was not liable to an action.

said, he thought if the sentence had expired and the man was sane those who detained him would be liable to an action. With regard to the general question, there was the greatest possible difficulty in providing at Broadmoor for the criminal lunatics sent there, and the managers were most desirous of transferring them to the counties chargeable with their support. There was, however, great force in the appeal of his hon. Friend, and he would undertake to see to it.

asked, how it happened that additional revising barristers were always wanted, and why the number of days during which they were required was always the same?

said, that was the best Estimate that could be made; he would not undertake to say all the money would be spent.

said, that in Scotland there were Courts called Sheriffs' Courts; but though the office was one of very great importance—more important, in fact, than that of the Judges of the County Courts in England or Ireland—the sheriff himself did not discharge the duties of the Court, but they were discharged by an officer called the sheriff-substitute. Now it appeared, from what had taken place the other night, that this sheriff-substitute might himself appoint a deputy, of whom the Law Officers of the Crown might know nothing. What he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) desired to know was, if it was true that the sheriff-substitute had the power to appoint any person as his deputy whom he thought proper, so long as he was a barrister of five years' standing? If such was the case, he thought it was an abuse which ought not to be allowed to continue. In England a County Court Judge could only have a deputy appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and there was the same practice in Ireland. In his opinion there ought to be some power conferred so that in Scotland the appointment of a sheriff-depute might be controlled and the sheriff-substitute might not be allowed to appoint whoever he liked. The power to appoint a sheriff-depute ought either to be in the hands of the Lord Advocate or one of the Judges.

said, the information on which his right hon. and learned Friend had made his statement was not altogether accurate. In the first place, he was wrong in his assumption that the duties of the Sheriff Court were performed by the sheriff-substitute and not by the sheriff. The office of sheriff was a very important one, and in many of the counties in Scotland the duties were very onerous. The sheriff had, by Act of Parliament and by the terms of his commission, power to appoint a substitute. It was a question whether the power to appoint a sheriff-substitute should continue as at present in the hands of the sheriff, or whether it might not conduce to the public service to transfer the patronage to the Crown. From the sheriff - substitute there was an appeal to the sheriff, and the appeals were very numerous. It was not accurate to suppose that the appointment of the sheriff-depute was made by the sheriff-substitute. There was very rarely occasion to make such an appointment at all; but when the occasion did arise, the appointment was made by the sheriff, and not by the sheriff-substitute. If the sheriff-sub- stitute was ill or unable to attend to his duties from some temporary cause, a deputy was appointed by the sheriff. He did not think there was anything in the present state of matters to call for legislative interference—it might be worthy of consideration, but he had no proposal to submit.

said, that although this sum seemed a very considerable one, it would appear from the account that it was not a Vote of public money, the expenses of the department in question being more than sufficiently provided for by the receipts and fees. This subject had given rise to dissatisfaction, because the Scotch people felt that they were practically taxed for a larger amount than was sufficient to maintain the establishment. It was urged some time ago that it was quite impossible to introduce any reform of the Register House until all the registers were united, and power was given to the Treasury as soon as that should take place to apply a remedy to the state of things complained of. What was asked for was that the fees should be so reduced that after paying the expenses of the department there should be no surplus to go into the general Exchequer of the country. The public had a full right to the benefit of reduced fees if the receipts of the department would justify it. In his opinion the time had come when the Treasury ought to act upon the power which they had, and reduce the fees.

asked what was the exact amount paid to the retired officers throughout Scotland, and whether the payments which had been made had been taken out of the fees? The expenditure of the present year was £30,200, while the receipts were £39,500, leaving a balance of £9,300, and there was a similar surplus last year. He feared that out of these balances had been paid the retiring allowances of those registrars whose offices had been brought to Edinburgh. If this was the case, the amount of the retiring allowances ought to be stated in the Estimates. As to the general balance, it was altogether wrong that it should go into the public purse. The Act of Parliament distinctly stated that the surplus was to be applied to the reduction of the fees, and no one could defend the appropriation of the money to any other purpose.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh. It was unjust that the landed proprietors of Scotland should contribute in this way a large sum to the national Exchequer. It was the duty of the Government at once to reduce the fees.

agreed that the fees in this Court ought not to be a source of revenue, it having been provided by the Act of Parliament, passed three years ago, that they should be adjusted so as to meet the expenses of the department as nearly as could be calculated, and he regretted that hitherto no steps had been taken towards their reduction. He was informed by the Secretary to the Treasury that the retiring allowances were paid out of the general funds of the country, but no such account was kept as enabled him to set that amount against the other. The department was not under his control; but he would do all he could to have justice done.

asked whether steps were being taken to avoid complaints about the backward state of business in the Register House?

said, he was aware that such complaints had been made, and he was sorry to say not unreasonably. The general explanation was that the establishment was very much under-manned, and the duties placed upon the department had been much increased. This was now remedied to a large extent.

, said, the retiring allowances which were paid last year amounted to £2,646.

said, then it appeared that even after paying the retiring allowances, they had still a surplus. They had disobeyed an Act of Parliament in not applying that surplus to the reduction of fees, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put the money into his pocket. He trusted that it would be paid back.

observed, that a large sum was put down for pensions, and that the increase over the amount asked for last year was £10,442. He objected to the increase, and moved that the Vote be reduced by that amount.

said, that the pensions were granted under Act of Parliament, and he scarcely believed that the hon. Member for the West Riding would persist in his proposal to deprive the men of the pensions they had earned, and on the faith of receiving which they had been induced to enter the service.

said, that the amount of pensions was certainly enormous, and was increasing at the rate of £10,000 a-year. It already amounted to £120,000; whereas the pay of the force only amounted to £567,000.

said, that these pensions were a difficult matter to deal, with, as they were granted under an Act of Parliament; but the Government should take speedy steps to deal with the whole question of pensions and retiring allowances.

said, he would call attention to the fact that while the sum voted for the whole police force of Scotland was only £45,000 a-year, the pensions to the police force in Ireland amounted to no less than £121,000.

said, he considered 22 per cent a most enormous amount for pensions and retiring allowances. The police force of Ireland absorbed upwards of £1,000,000, more than twice the amount of England, Wales, and Scotland, and he hoped the whole question would be looked into by the Government, with a view to the reduction of that enormous charge.

thought the Vote a most extravagant one.

admitted that the Vote was a large one; but there were large questions involved. Was the House prepared to accept the alternative of greatly reducing the police force in Ireland, or asking Ireland to defray the whole expense of the constabulary, to whose efficiency everyone bore witness, and to substitute local for Imperial management of the force?

said, he must object to the system pursued in the Industrial Schools of Ireland. 18,000 Roman Catholic children had been sent there, while there were only 123 children belonging to every other creed. Practically a denominational education was thus given to the Roman Catholic children, contrary to the national system, which he hoped no Government would ever consent to alter. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £10,000.

expressed a warm approval of the Irish Industrial Schools, which had introduced greater habits of industry among certain classes of the Irish people. He cordially hoped that the amount of this Vote would be increased next year.

said, he had never heard a more unjust statement respecting these schools than that which had fallen from the hon. Member for Armagh. The reformatories had done most excellent work in Ireland. The Roman Catholics were deserving of praise for looking after their juvenile criminals better than their Protestant fellow-countrymen did.

said, he would explain that the children in the Industrial Schools were not criminals. The reformatories might have done very good work, but that was not the case with the Irish Industrial Schools.

, in rising to call attention to the subject of the New Forest, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, pending legislation on the New Forest, no felling of ornamental timber and no fresh inclosures should be permitted in the New Forest; and that no timber whatever should be cut, except for the purposes of thinning the young plantations, executing necessary repairs in the Forest, and satisfying the fuel rights of the Commoners,"

said, the Motion which he should bring before the House represented the almost unanimous feeling of the independent Members, and he believed, from the communications he had received, that the Government were equally as anxious as they that the Motion should be passed. He did not intend in the slightest degree to fetter the action of hon. Members, because, whatever might be their opinion as to the future use of the Forest, he should not think it fair to ask them to prejudge the case. All that he desired was to obtain an expression of opinion that, until the Government had had an opportunity of legislating on the subject, if any legislation were necessary, nothing should be done that would injure the Forest, or affect its present condition. Anyone who visited the New Forest must come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when the House should express an opinion on the subject, and that nothing should be done to destroy what remained of beauty there, or to injure it as a place of resort. The destruction of ornamental timber there had been truly lamentable, but that Forest might still be considered to be one of the most beautiful spots in England, and he desired that the House should say that further spoiling of the picturesque ought not to be effected. As future legislation on this subject would be materially affected by the quantity of land that was inclosed, and as such in-closure diminished the area that could be enjoyed by the public, besides destroying the beauty of the Forest scenery, he thought it only fair for the House to say that pending legislation no further inclosure should be made. In the latter part of his Motion he had deemed it necessary to insert a few qualifying sentences, because he know that there were certain rights as to fuel that must be exercised, and also because it might be necessary to thin the plantations. As he believed the Government intended to accept his Motion, he should have thought it unnecessary to make any further remarks on the subject, had it not been for the Paper which had just been issued by Mr. Howard, of the Woods and Forests Department, for that had conveyed to the minds of some hon. Members an impression that even if this Resolution was passed it would produce no practical effect. He did not intend to discuss that Paper, but would only say that if the House and the Government expressed an opinion on the subject that no more timber ought to be felled, and no further inclosure should be made until there had been an opportunity of legislating, Mr. Howard, as an official serving under the Government, and representing a Department, would pay some attention to the Resolution, which would, therefore, have an important practical bearing. He would, therefore, conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in rising to second the Motion, said, it was only the other day his illustrious friend the Poet Laureate had informed him that he had gone down to the New Forest to search there for an ancient wood of yews, which had existed since the time of William the Conqueror; but all trace of them was gone. He himself (Mr. Clifford) had made inquiries about this wood, and had learned that it had been sold to a merchant at Lyndhurst for £60. The fact appeared to be that the New Forest was held in no more esteem by the Woods and Forests than the yellow primrose by Mr. Peter Bell. This Forest, however, which was first created for the diversion of a Norman tyrant, was now a most magnificent pleasure park for the people of England, who found there that rural enjoyment which the richer classes sought in Scotland and other places, and as such it ought to be maintained. They were under a deep obligation to the hon. Member for Brighton for bringing that matter forward, and he thought the Resolution of the House ought to declare, beyond any doubt, that there should be no further encroachment on the Forest. He had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Howard, and he believed that a more excellent or more conscientious public servant, as far as regarded the question of pounds, shillings, and pence connected with his office, did not exist anywhere. Still, it was very necessary for the House to look closely after that office. He did not want to say anything more disagreeable to a Ministry than he could help; but it was to the efforts of the hon. Member for Southwark that they were indebted for the Thames Embankment. Had not that hon. Member brought the subject before the House, they would not at this moment have had a continuous Embankment, because the Government of the day, by means of the Office of Woods and Forests, had wished to prevent the Embankment from passing by Richmond Terrace. It was very essential that the House should guard against the encroachments of that Department.

, in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, to move as an addition to the hon. Member for Brighton's (Mr. Fawcett's) Resolution, "Also that Denny Wood should be restored to its former condition as an open forest land," said, that hon. Members who took an interest in the preservation of the New Forest might remember that some weeks ago he put a Question relating to the inclosure of Denny Wood to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. That Question was not put without some knowledge of the facts, nor was it framed without a certain care; but the answer of his hon. Friend, although remarkable for that clearness and that precision which always distinguished his answers, was not of a satisfactory nature, and was not, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) feared, founded upon an adequate knowledge of the case. The Question that he put to his hon. Friend was divided into two parts. In the first portion of it he asked him whether Denny Wood was originally inclosed with a view to felling and planting, and he was told by him—

"That it was intended originally only to fell such trees in Denny Wood as were dying or defective, and to replant their sites."

If that were so, the course taken was illegal. Sections 3 and 4 of "The Deer Removal Act" authorized the Crown to "inclose and plant," but so that all in-closures "should be made and reported a nursery for timber and trees only." The Crown had violated certainly the spirit and, he thought, the letter of these sections. It obtained the power to in- close Denny Wood from the New Forest Inclosures Commissions under Section 3 of "The Deer Removal Act," on the implied faith that it intended to convert the inclosure into a nursery for trees. But finding that if the Act was complied with the value of the property would undergo a great depreciation, and hoping to secure the inclosure as part of the property of the Crown, freed from common rights and from all public rights, the Crown left the inclosed laud alone; and when the commoners said, "If you inclose, you are bound to plant," it answered, "If you press us, we will cut the trees." The Commissioners refused to tell them why Denny Wood was inclosed. They thought, and had every reason to think, that they wished to retain that beautiful wood as a choice and compact estate in itself, with a view that it should ultimately pass to the Crown, unincumbered with rights of common, or other public rights. That this was the correct view was established by the provisions of the Bill now withdrawn. Section 41 provided that the Commissioners should not allot to the commoners "any land which is now inclosed under the authority of the recited Acts"—that was, all existing inclosures, including Denny Wood, were, on the passing of that Bill, to vest in the Crown, as provided by the 46th section, "as part of the possessions and land revenues of the Crown, absolutely freed from all rights of common." He repeated, before he left that branch of the subject, that the Crown had no power to inclose open forest lands over which commonable rights were exercised, except by virtue of statutory powers. The statutes provided that inclosures were to be made for the purpose of planting only. That was not so as to Denny Wood, for there no planting had taken place, and as to the greater portion of it—that part covered with old timber—Mr. Howard long ago promised that no felling, and consequently no planting, should take place. He again asked, therefore, why and how, legally speaking, had Denny Wood been inclosed? A local answer was given, that it was inclosed in order to allow self-sown timber to spring up. If so, that was illegal; but he had been told upon the spot, that the only self-sown timber that was ever seen in the Now Forest now was Scotch fir, and that the cones were found stuck in rows in the ground a long way from the trees from whence they came. They might be self-sown; but the self-sowing-process was aided by Her Majesty's keepers and Her Majesty's carts. He now came to the other part of his Question, in which he asked whether, now that no more cutting of ancient timber was for the present to take place in the New Forest, Denny Wood should be restored to its former condition, as open forest land. He was told, in answer to that, that the Commissioners had power only to throw open the inclosure when "the young trees were past danger from cattle." What young trees? There were no young trees. The only trees not ancient timber in Denny Wood were some trees in an inclosure of 1829, called, he thought, "Little Holme Inclosure." But his Question and the Answer could not relate to these, and for two reasons. They were not in Denny Wood Inclosure, but in an old inclosure within it, and if all the posts and rails and banks and gates round Denny Wood were to be thrown down, the cattle would nevertheless not get into this inclosure of 1829. His second reason was so much stronger, that he was reminded of the 21 reasons of the Mayor of Bayonne for not giving the keys of the town to Henri IV. of France, ending with the 21st—"There are no keys." It was this—that in the map of 1867 they would find that that inclosure was to be thrown open in 1869, as out of danger of cattle. That had not been done, because it was inside this very Denny Wood Inclosure. Really it was rather too bad to make that an excuse for not throwing open the latter. Now, what was Denny Wood? It was one of the most beautiful woods in the whole world. It was not like Mark Ash—a wood of beech only, but was mixed wood of beech, and birch, and oak. It was close to the railway, and therefore well within reach of pleasure-seekers. Several beautiful forest paths, much used by picnic parties, had been stopped up by a fortification-like fence, through which there was not a single gap. The whole of the gates had padlocks, and the whole of the padlocks were locked. Even if the cattle were to be excluded, he could not see why the walking public should be entirely blocked out. A private landowner would not be guilty of so gross a sin against public enjoyment of the most innocent kind. The fence was such that none but active youths could climb over it in any place, and for women, children, and old people, it was impassable. In trying to find an open gate, he saw the wanton destruction which, in making this inclosure, the Crown had wrought. The fence had been carried right through the best portion of the wood, and all the trees near it on either side were felled, and vast numbers of giant beeches and huge oaks laid still on the ground, unsold. He had one thing more to say. Denny Wood was a herary—a place where herons often bred. Near to it was a marsh, known as the Bishop of Winchester's Purlieu. The herons were for the sport of the Bishop for the time, and the marsh was granted to—not the present Bishop he believed—but some ancient Bishop of a sporting turn, who induced a King to grant to him for hawking purposes as much of the marsh as he could crawl round in a day. He was sure that that House had too much respect for the right reverend Bench to permit the destruction of the herons that resorted to the Bishop of Winchester's Purlieu. But, seriously, he should take the opinion of the House on the preservation of Denny Wood. He would conclude by moving the Amendment to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Brighton, of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he was glad to find that the management of the Office of Woods had been admitted to be satisfactory in a pecuniary sense. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) stated that Denny Wood had been illegally inclosed, and that there were no young trees in that plantation. Those allegations rather surprised him, because the Commissioners of Woods and Forests distinctly held that they were bound by statute to inclose a certain portion of the New Forest every year, and that they had only acted in accordance with the Act of Parliament. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division, be- cause he (Mr. Baxter) had heard for the first time that evening that there were no young plantations in Denny Wood. Under the circumstances of the case it would become the duty of the Treasury to inquire carefully into the matter and to see who was right and wrong with respect to it. As to the padlocks which had been spoken of, he admitted that they ought to be at once removed, and he hoped the Commissioners of Woods and Forests would give directions to have them taken away. As to the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), the Government could not of course help accepting it, for it was couched in the precise terms of an Answer to a Question which he (Mr. Baxter) had himself given; and although it was rather an unusual thing to found a Motion upon an Answer given by a Member of the Government, yet the Treasury could not object to the Motion because they intended to take the precise course which he had stated in that Answer. That hon. Gentleman had, in the course of his remarks, animadverted on a Paper which had been laid on the Table of the House, and the Government saw no objection to the publication of the Report. He wished the House at the same time to understand that Mr. Howard was alone responsible for what he thought and said, although the Treasury were responsible for what he did.

said, that the Paper in question gave but little information with respect to the mismanagement of the Crown lands to which it referred during several centuries. It was, indeed, a very curious document; for the remarks in it were not confined to the New Forest. It was rather a manifesto than anything else of the principles on which Mr. Howard and Mr. Gore managed the Crown lauds under their charge. But those who were really responsible to the country had not stated the principles on which, in their opinion, those estates ought to be managed. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests contended that they were trustees for the lands in question, and that they were responsible to no one; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged that he was responsible for their acts, and he ventured to think the Commissioners had entirely mistaken their position, and that the Government, too, mis- took the position in which the Crown estates stood towards the public at large. It was never intended, he maintained, that they should be trustees of the Crown property. The division of that property which was made between them and the First Commissioner of Works, had been made simply for the convenience of management, and no one would, for a moment, contend that the First Commissioner was a trustee for the Crown estates under his charge. There was, in fact, in that respect, no difference between Hyde Park and Epping Forest, both of which were Crown lands. The right of the Crown to recreation in its parks and forests had enabled the people to have recreation in them also, and he must say the Government were, in his opinion, ill-advised when they endeavoured to divorce the two. The Crown Lands Commissioners had excited a strong feeling against themselves by the spirit which had led them to issue this Paper, for they had shown themselves determined to sacrifice the rights and the recreations of the Sovereign and the people, in order to carry out the principle of adding to the income derivable from these lands whenever the opportunity arose. What the Crown Lands Commissioners appeared to say was that, though they were sorry to disobey the wishes of Parliament, they were unable to act differently until anew Act of Parliament had been passed. The responsibility, however, was clearly vested in the Treasury, and it was impossible for the Treasury to shift that responsibility upon those who, after all, were only their subordinates. He thought the House ought to be told not only in what manner the Commissioners had been authorized to give their opinion, but they ought to be put in possession of the Correspondence between the Treasury and the Commissioners which had led to the issuing of this Paper. The Paper itself would, doubtless, at some future time furnish a bill of indictment against the Commissioners for the way in which they had acted in regard to Epping Forest, in having allowed it to slip out of the hands of those who were formerly able to take their recreation there. He submitted that it was not right any particular locality should be deprived, as they had been latterly, of a privilege which they had enjoyed for centuries. He was, however, exceedingly pleased that this Paper had been issued, because they could afterwards discuss the matter more easily, and possibly bring the Government to acknowledge that there ought to be some actual responsibility in the management of those estates, and that to the objections which were urged against the conduct of the Commissioners it was no answer to say that these lauds were tied up as trust estates, and could not otherwise be dealt with.

said, he had been content to accept the intimation of the Government that they would agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett); but, after the publication of that extraordinary Paper, he trusted the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) would press his Motion to a division.

said, he was glad that the Government had assented to the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). Within his own recollection allotments of beautiful woodland had been made simply that the timber upon it might be cut down, and in the face of such a state of things it was of the utmost importance that the inquiry with regard to Denny Wood should be pursued by the Government. It was true that the Department of Woods and Forests produced each year a satisfactory balance-sheet, so far as mere financial results were concerned; but this was only accomplished by cutting down and selling large quantities of noble timber that ought to be let stand. It was true that little or no timber had been felled since 1864; but previous to that year the average annual value of the timber cut down for several years ranged between £10,000 and £15,000. In addition to that, there were entries in the accounts of £3,000 for fuel, which meant that the beautiful beech trees in the Forest were felled and sold at the rate of 3d. a foot to be chopped up and sold as firewood. And all that destruction of forest trees, which were, in actual fact, monuments, both valuable and beautiful, had been carried on for no earthly reason, so far as he was able to judge. He could not go so far as to say, with the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), that Denny Wood was illegally inclosed, because the inclosure was directed by Commissioners legally constituted and invested with power to act as they did; but as land containing old wood was usually, if not invariably, inclosed for the simple purpose of cutting down the old trees and planting young ones, he should be inclined to hold that the inclosure in question was illegal if any other course was pursued. He must say that, having only recently visited Denny Wood, he failed to see any young trees growing there. It was important, too, that the House should be told plainly who was responsible for the conduct of the Department of Woods and Forests. Unless that was done, hon. Gentlemen would not know in what light to regard the Papers occasionally issued, as the one placed in the hands of hon. Members on the preceding day had been, by the officials in the Department. The last document issued in 1867 was about the most unfair statement of the relative position of the Crown and the commoners that could have been written. It was, in fact, an ex parte argumentative legal statement, drawn up by the Solicitors to the Department, for the purpose of prejudicing the interests of the commoners, and he contended that it was unfair to issue any such document with all the authority of Parliament. The Paper just issued, too, was almost as full as its predecessor of partial extracts and one-sided statements of fact; but there was no one in that House to defend the authority and accuracy of the statements made. It would, therefore, be advisable that one of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who should be responsible alike for the finances and the conduct of the Board, should have a seat in that House, and unless he was much mistaken there was a clause—namely, section 21 of 10 Geo. IV. c. 60, which provided for that.

said, the clause of the Act in question had been repealed.

said, that if this was the case he hoped the Government would carefully consider the question and provide for the direct representation of the Department in Parliament in some way. He would revert to his statement that the Paper recently circulated was full of inaccuracies, and would say that some of the passages contained in it were not even what they purported to be—namely, correct copies of documents. For example, there was a quotation from the Act of William III., but the words "2,000 acres" were omit- ted, and the words "inclosures, or within inclosures to be hereafter made" substituted, and there were many other alterations of the same kind. Again, these gentlemen gave a quotation from the Report of the Commissioners of 1789; but left out that portion which told immensely against themselves. There were likewise misquotations respecting inclosures in the Act introduced by the Government this Session. Some of these inclosures were 4,000 or 5,000 acres in extent, and the public were prevented from walking through them, although no harm could possibly result from their being allowed to do so. In conclusion, he thanked the hon. Member for Brighton for bringing in this Motion, and expressed his hope that the Government would accede to it, as well as to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, which he should certainly support, if the hon. Baronet went to a division upon it.

said, he hoped the Motion which had been acceded to by the Government would admit a little light into the recesses of the Office of Woods and Forests. In the remarkable Paper which had been placed on the Table, the Commissioner of Woods stated that it was his duty to manage the Forests for the benefit of the public, but he took a different view from that entertained by the majority of hon. Members as to what the interests of the public really were. He repudiated any benefit but a pecuniary one. When the Commissioner had to deal with some of the most magnificent beech trees in this country, he seemed to think the best thing he could do for the interests of the public was to cut them down and sell them for firewood. It did not seem to have occurred to him that the public could possibly care for the Forest as a natural landscape, of which the country was proud. No one in this House ever alleged that the public money was wasted when it was expended in purchasing the productions of great landscape painters for the National Gallery; but the Commissioner could not believe that the public approved of the expenditure of money for the purpose of preserving the finest natural landscape existing in England. He wondered whether the Commissioner, if he had the charge of the National Gallery, would sell the pictures for what the canvas and paint would fetch; or whether, if he had the management of the British Museum, he would sell the Elgin Marbles for the value of the marble of which they were composed. The progress of inclosure, and improvements in agriculture, were rooting out the beauty and charm of the wild scenery in England, and as this was the only large Forest still open freely to the public, it was their duty not to sacrifice wantonly and unnecessarily the beauty of the scenery, nor to allow the destruction of ancient and matchless trees, in order that their places might be taken by young saplings, which might as well be planted in other situations. The British public delighted in the picturesque, and surely it was impolitic to drive them abroad in search of it? He hoped that henceforth it would be a recognized principle among the official arbiters of the fate of this Forest that it was not to be wantonly and carelessly destroyed, but that it was to be preserved, as far as was consistent with the rights of the Crown, for the healthful enjoyment and pleasure of the public. In conclusion, he would urge that there was no part of England better adapted for the training of troops and for military manœuvres as the New Forest. It presented inequalities of surface, open spaces, and woods; it was in the vicinity of the garrisons of Portsmouth and Winchester; and a national interest would be served by preserving it as a place for military manœuvres.

also urged that no part of England was so important to the country for campaigning manœuvres. It not only presented every variety of surface, but it was also near the sea, and therefore available for the purposes of embarkation; and, in fact, if was adapted to all those tactics which had brought the Prussian Army to such perfection. He hoped, therefore, the House would not permit the destruction of that beautiful district, which was the best exercising ground in the whole country. The very Paper of Mr. Howard proved that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were really unfit to be intrusted with the management of the New Forest.

said, he trusted the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) would withdraw his Motion, in order that it might go forth to the country that Par- liament had unanimously determined to preserve the New Forest for the recreation of the public. After the announcement from, the Treasury bench that the padlock should be taken off the inclosure to Denny Wood, it would be a bold Government indeed that would continue the course of demolition which had been going on in that wood. The Paper of Mr. Howard gave them some very trite advice as to the duties of proprietors with regard to the property they held, and as to the responsibility of the officers of the Government to the taxpayers of the country. All that advice was already anticipated by the A B C of constitutional Government or of Ministerial management. What they did want was something in the Paper which would clear their minds and free their apprehensions as to this particular exceptional property of the Crown, of which the most ornamental portion, by the mismanagement of the very Department now on its trial, had diminished to 6,000 acres. Before the ill-omened legislation of 1851, the ancient wood land covered 9,000 acres; so that it had been reduced by 3,000 acres since that time. In regard to the question why were there the two Departments of Woods and Forests and of Public Works, he thought the answer was contained in the intention of Parliament, that certain property in the country should not be administered regardless of benefit to the public on the one hand, and of the honour and dignity of the realm itself on the other. Therefore it was that, the Royal Parks of London and similar property being at present under the administration of the Office of Public Works, the argument of Mr. Howard's Paper fell to the ground. Parliament having decided that there were certain provisions to be applied to the public Parks, it was only a question whether the woods of the New Forest should be thrown into the ordinary category of woods and forests, or whether they should be put under the footing of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. He claimed that those ancient groves of the New Forest should be dealt with as park land, not as wood land. He was, to a large extent, a proprietor of woodland property, and therefore he was not speaking in ignorance of his subject; and he claimed that the noble old woodland of the New Forest, with its trees of gigantic size, and of an age that was dated by centuries, should be treated as a park.

said, it had always been his opinion that when the question of the New Forest came to be discussed in that House the sentimental view of the subject would be found to prevail. At the same time, the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) must be perfectly aware that there were numerous inhabitants of that division of the county who would be glad to see a portion of the New Forest sold in lots and appropriated to agricultural purposes. It had fallen to his lot to have to deal with the case of the New Forest; and it was at his suggestion that the Government of the day refused to allow a Disafforestation Bill to be introduced. When, at the beginning of the Session, a Bill was laid on the Table, he took the liberty of suggesting that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) might come to the rescue, and that by aid of the section of the House in which he occupied so distinguished a position, the disafforesting of the New Forest might be put entirely out of the question. It had been a practice of that House to bear hardly and unnecessarily on the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with regard to the property of which they had charge. That, he thought, was unjust. It was clearly unjust that they should be found fault with for doing what he believed they considered to be their duty. The disafforesting of the New Forest was forced upon the Commissioners by the residents of the New Forest, who quarrelled with the Act of Parliament that was passed in their interests and at their suggestion. He always felt that the House would take the question into its own hand, and would, at the proper time, interfere to prevent the disafforesting of the New Forest. He now understood that the wild and wooded district of the New Forest would be left in its integrity.

said, he was glad that some progress was being made with this question, and that an understanding was likely to be arrived at about the management of these forests. The House had had placed before it a manuscript of the recollections of one of the managers of the Woods and Forests. "Oh, that mine enemy would write a book! because a perusal of that manuscript must convince every hon. Member that the forests were being mismanaged, and, however polite they might desire to be towards the Commissioners, the House must be determined; while the Government ought to consider whether the present arrangements for managing Crown property ought to be continued. The assent to the Motion that had been given by the Government must convince all that a change was necessary, and the unanimity of opinion that prevailed among hon. Members was the condemnation of the Commissioners.

said, he was desired by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) to state that he wished to withdraw his Amendment, in consequence of the satisfactory promise of the Government to give up the padlocks on Denny Wood. He explained, in reference to the statement that had been made by the Secretary to the Treasury, that he did not desire to express the least want of confidence in anything that his hon. Friend might say; but it must be remembered that the answer which was given by a Minister was to a certain extent his individual opinion, but a Resolution of the House was a formal matter, and recorded as the expression of the opinion of Parliament. The House, he thought, would be of opinion that he was right in bringing forward that Motion.