property of his neighbours. There was another reason in the requirement imposed upon all railway companies to insure the property throughout the whole length of the line, and these heavy insurances they were enabled to effect in consequence of the low rate charged. In Russia there was a duty which was a little worse than our own; and it acted as a virtual prohibition. There was no doubt then that if the alteration which he proposed was agreed to the amount of insurances in this country would be largely increased by the very general introduction of the French system. In Continental countries the increase in fire insurances was about 8 per cent; in England it was about 10. Mr. Coode had shown, however, that wherever the duty had been increased fire insurances had decreased. Petitions had been presented for the total repeal of the duty from all parts of the country, signed by merchants, bankers, traders, and others. There was, in fact, a strong feeling in the country against the tax, and therefore he hoped the House would give him leave to introduce a Bill to reduce it from 3s. to 1s.

MR. NICOL seconded the Motion. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, that the hon. Gentleman professed to ground his arguments upon the assumption, that the reduction in the duty could not materially affect the revenue. This, however, was an assertion easy enough to make, but not so easy to prove. The revenue from this source had greatly increased during the last few years, and it was still rapidly augmenting. It had advanced already from £954,000 to £1,209,000. The hon. Gentleman would find that although the insurance on agricultural property had increased since it was exempted from the duty, the amount of property subject to the tax which was insured had increased at the same time in a greater ratio. The experiment therefore advised by the hon. Gentleman would be exceedingly dangerous to an important part of the revenue. If the Government could afford to dispense with this tax they would very gladly do so; but under the circumstances he must, with great reluctance, oppose the introduction of a Bill which would only raise expectations which it would not be possible to gratify.

MR. HADFIELD said, he had no doubt that if the duty were reduced the revenue would not suffer. When the duty on coffee was 3s. 6d. a pound coffee was almost a prohibited article; now that it was a few

pence there was a large revenue obtained from it. Then take the Post Office: he believed the number of letters sent had increased sevenfold. He believed that if the duty had only been a shilling, the ruin of many persons, which had been caused by fires, would have been averted, but the high duty had acted as a preventive of insuring. The duty was a tax on prudence, and in every sense, a most objectionable one, and he knew the feeling of the country to be very strongly opposed to it. He had himself presented petitions signed by thousands and tens of thousands of people against it, and he trusted that his hon. Friend would divide the House upon the question.

Motion made, and Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the Duty on Fire Insurances."

The House divided:-Ayes 102; Noes 112: Majority 10.

LAWS OF JERSEY.

ADDRESS MOVED.

MR. HADFIELD, in moving an Address to the Crown for a Commission to Inquire into the Civil Laws of Jersey, said that a Commission had been appointed in 1846 to inquire into the criminal laws of the island, and an intimation had been given that a Commission would also be appointed to inquire into the civil laws, but the recommendations of that Commission had never been carried out, nor had the second Commission been appointed. Having received various petitions on the subject, he had put himself into communication with the Home Office, and he was happy to state that the Government had agreed to grant this Commission.

MR. WALPOLE said, as this was a matter which had been brought under his notice in the course of last year, he hoped his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would forgive him if he ventured to suggest the course which he thought the Government would do well to adopt in relation to it. The civil laws of Jersey were in a state that was anything but satisfactory, and the mode of procedure before the legal tribunals there had caused great discontent. If this Motion were to be acceded to he thought that there were other matters relating to prisons which might be inquired into at the same time. There was a Commission appointed to inquire into the criminal law of Jersey which had made a valuable Report. Some of their recommendations were acted upon and others not.

Soon after that Commission had made its Report an intimation was made on the part of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), then Home Secretary, that it would be advisable to issue a Commission to inquire into the civil laws. If it should be the desire of the Crown to agree to this Motion he believed that it would produce a good effect, and would tend to the improvement of those laws. There were other matters mixed up in this inquiry which, at his request, the hon. Member for Sheffield had omitted. He must say he saw no objection to it in its present form. On the contrary, he thought very material advantages would arise from it. He should, therefore, strongly press his right hon. Friend to acquiesce in the Motion.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, that since he had been in office he had felt it to be his duty to look into the question referred to in the Motion, and had found from some correspondence he had had with persons living in the island that great confusion existed in the administration of the civil law in Jersey. He would not, therefore, oppose the Motion. With regard to the other matters in it he did not know much, but he was willing to abide by the view taken of it by the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge. Motion agreed to.

Address to Her Majesty"That She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission for the following purposes, namely

"1. To inquire into and report on the Civil, Municipal, and Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs now in force in Jersey, including the Laws relating to the tenure of land, trusts and uses, and also the rights of the Feudal Lords in the said

island:

2. To inquire into and report on the constitution of the tribunals by which those Laws, customs, and rights are administered, and into the practice and forms of procedure used by them respectively:

"3. To inquire into and report on all defects in and abuses of the said laws and customs in the constitution of said tribunals, and in their practice

and form of procedure, and to suggest remedies

for amending the same:

Baldwin Walker, on the state of the Navy, to the Admiralty or the First Lord of the Admiralty, from March, 1858, to the end of the year.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, the documents in question were confidential papers presented to the Admiralty, and it would be neither in accordance with precedent nor beneficial to the public service to produce them. He had already communicated the substance of them to the House in the statement he had made on introducing the Estimates.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER said, it was quite true that the First Lord of the Admiralty read some extracts from Sir Baldwin Walker's letters; but he did not want extracts, he wanted the actual letters themselves. It appeared that Sir Baldwin Walker was obliged to write three times to the First Lord of the Admiralty before he would take any notice of his suggestions

-once in March, again in May, and again, he believed, in July. The time was when a First Lord of the Admiralty would have been impeached for leaving the British navy only one ship ahead of that of France. It was admitted that the navy was in a most unsatisfactory state; and the question was, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty had remedied those evils as soon as he came into office. The present Board, when they came into office, reduced the Estimates as far as the dockyards were concerned; and now an immense number of shipwrights were entered to bring the navy into a proper state. If that had been done last March we should now be in a different position. He thought great blame was due to the present Board as well as to the late Boards, for the present Board had not made all the exertions they ought to have made to put the navy in a proper state. He trusted the House would support him in endeavouring to get these

papers.

MR. CORRY said, that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was the last person who ought to be accused of neglecting the navy. The hon. and gallant Officer stated that nothing had been done till lately for the purpose of increasing the naval force of the country. The present Board only came into office on the 9th of last March, and in the month of May the whole of the artificers in the dockyards were put on task and job work, and were continued so during the whole summer. Afterwards his right hon. Friend, when the state of the French navy was

brought under his consideration, took measures in July which resulted in the addition of four screw ships of the line to the navy. They were already converted. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: The engines are not in.] The engines were not in because, as the gallant Admiral well knew, they could not be put in till the vessels were launched, but they would be afloat in the course of a month or two. He must say that to accuse the present Board of Admiralty of neglect ing the navy when they had proposed measures to add fifteen screw ships of the line and nine screw frigates to the British navy in the course of the year was to make as unjustifiable an attack as he had ever heard. With respect to the special Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer, he earnestly trusted the House would not support it, for it was contrary to all precedent that the confidential advice given by subordinate officers to the various departments should be laid before Parliament.

MR. T. G. BARING said, he conceived that when the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the production of these papers would be inconvenient to the public service the House ought to be satisfied with that assurance, but he must add that he thought it rather out of the usual course that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have read extracts from such papers. He would not now enter upon the question whether or not, when the late Board of Admiralty left office, the navy of the country was in an unsatisfactory condition. At another time that question would be entered into by one more competent than himself to do justice to the late Board, and he was confident that it would be shown that when the late Board left office in the beginning of 1858 the navy of this country was, as regarded France or any other Power, in such a condition as the House and the country ought to be satisfied with. There was only one remark in the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Corry's) speech that he felt bound to remonstrate with, and that was with reference to the suggestions that had been made by Sir Baldwin Walker to the Board of Admiralty. The gallant Admiral had referred to some of these letters, and he mentioned that the first suggestion was made in March. After that date the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) made his financial state ment, in which he recommended that the Naval Estimates should be reduced from those prepared by the late Board. It was therefore scarcely to have been expected

that, after controverting the statements of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, the right hon. Gentleman should urge the necessity of pushing on the building of line-of-battle ships. He could not allow the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) to go forth without saying in what point he thought it unsatisfactory and insufficient.

LORD LOVAINE said, that it must be recollected at the time his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty brought this subject before the House he was introducing to their notice a claim on the expenditure of the public funds to a very large amount, which obliged him to refer to the Report of Sir Baldwin Walker. He hoped, therefore, the House would consider the extraordinary circumstances under which those extracts were read, and not insist on the whole of the letters being laid upon the table. In March last the Government found a very large increased estimate for labour in the dockyards, and this the right hon. Gentleman was naturally loth to accept without a further knowledge of the subject; but at the same time when in May the Government received information from Sir Baldwin Walker of the necessity of the case, the whole of the artificers in the dockyards were put on task work, and the loss of time was fully compensated by the extra exertions which followed. He trusted from what had already been stated that the House would refuse to sanction the Motion of the gallant Admiral.

MR. LINDSAY said, that if any charge were made against the present Government in conducting the affairs of the Admiralty he was not prepared to endorse it. The present Board of Admiralty had been unwearied in their exertions to put the navy in an efficient state; but he was sorry to say the navy was not in the state which he could wish, considering the enormous sums which had been spent upon it. With regard to the Motion before the House, if the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker were confidential he should be the last man to ask for its production; but they would remember the First Lord of the Admiralty referred to and read extracts from it, clearly showing that the letter was not of a confidential nature. He therefore thought it ought to be laid upon the table, especially at a time like this, when there was a growing feeling throughout the country that there was something wrong about the administration of the Navy.

reply.

MR. HUDSON said, he had listened with great attention to what had fallen from the gallant Admiral, and he was very much surprised at the manner in which he had described the condition of the British navy. All he could say was, that when the time of trial came the British navy would do all that was required of it. Whatever its condition it would be abundantly answerable to any demands made upon it. He did not care how inefficient the navy wasbut he was surprised the gallant Admiral should attempt to lower the British power in any part of the world. He certainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would continue the mode he had taken to increase the efficiency of the British navy.

SIR CHARLES WOOD said, that if there was one Member of the House who might be supposed anxious for the production of the letters it was himself; but he would never allow personal considerations to interfere with public duties. The right hon. Baronet had said it would be inconvenient to lay the letters on the table, and he, (Sir Charles Wood) should, therefore, vote against the Motion. At the same time he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Sunderland, that the British navy had never been incompetent to the task of defending our shores, and he hoped on a fitting occasion to show that during his administration at least it had been perfectly efficient for any purpose for which it could be required.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER, in reply, observed that the Secretary to the Admiralty had made a very extraordinary statement, which he was sorry to say was not an unusual thing for him to do. He said that eighteen sail of the line

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I rise to order. The gallant Admiral has both spoken on the introduction of his Motion and has subsequently replied.

MR. SPEAKER: What took place was this: the gallant Admiral said a few words on proposing his Motion, and the First Lord of the Admiralty immediately rose before the Question was put. Therefore since the putting of the Question, I think

SIR CHARLES NAPIER said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) had made a most extraordinary statement, which he was sorry to say was not unusual for him. He said that the present Board had added eighteen sail of the line and fifteen frigates to the fleet. ["No, no!"] Well, then, fifteen sail of the line and eighteen frigates. But the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) himself had stated that we had in all thirty-three sail, and the French thirty-two. How, then, could the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) account for the addition of fifteen sail of the line and eighteen frigates. The Secretary to the Admiralty had, on a previous occasion, made another very remarkable statement. He had told the House that it would cost £164,000 to replace the old and inefficient coastguard ships with the efficient ships which he said were ready. That he (Sir Charles Napier) knew to be incorrect. The change could be made in eight-andforty hours, and he would leave the House to see what accuracy there could be in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Any naval officer would tell him that he was quite wrong; but though the right hon. Gentleman had twice been Secretary to the Admiralty he still knew nothing about it.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, he trusted, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was of opinion that the production of these papers would be detrimental to the public service, his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Charles Napier) would not press for a division.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER said he should persist in his Motion.

Motion made, and Question put, "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of Letters from Sir Baldwin Walker, on the state of the Navy, to the Admiralty or the First Lord of the Admiralty, from March, 1858, to the end of the year."

The House divided:-Ayes 26; Noes 177: Majority 151.

House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.