In Canada and Australia protests were prepared and presented through the Cardinal--that from the Dominion being signed by all the members of the Hierarchy. In the House of Lords a Committee was appointed, on motion of Lord Salisbury, to deal with the matter although no Catholic Peers would serve upon it. They reported early in July that a modification of the Declaration might be made so as to omit the adjectives and objectionable phraseology without affecting the strength of the pledge itself. A Government measure was prepared along these lines and submitted to the House. It was opposed by Lord Rosebery on August 1st, on the ground that nothing could really bind conscientious convictions, that the King might change his views and not be bound by this Declaration in future, and, that it did not repudiate the temporal or spiritual supremacy of the Pope. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not like the changes, the Duke of Norfolk did not care for the new form and the Roman Catholics generally, in and out of the House, objected to the compromise as useless. The result was that Lord Salisbury eventually withdrew his measure and the matter dropped out of public discussion for the time--although the Canadian House of Commons and other public bodies in the Empire had meanwhile protested against the continued maintenance of the Declaration. THE KING'S INCOME AND REVENUES Another duty which faced the early consideration of Parliament was the Civil List. Queen Victoria's Civil List had been £385,000, given as a permanent yearly income for her reign, and in return for the formal surrender of the revenues of the Crown Lands for the same period. In this connection, the _Daily News_ of February 14th, pointed out that the late Sovereign had received during her long reign £24,000,000 from the people while the revenues of the surrendered Crown Lands had totalled £20,000,000. Speaking for the Liberals and Radicals this paper declared that there was "no disposition to deal grudgingly with a Monarch who has fully borne the share that belongs to him in the country's affairs," that it might be well to adhere closely to the late Queen's Civil List, and that the example of "a moderate and sober Court" would be of the highest value to the nation. On March 11th Sir M. E. Hicks-Beach moved the appointment of a House of Commons' Committee to deal with the question, composed of Mr. Balfour, Sir W. Hart Dyke, Sir F. Dixon-Hartland, Sir S. Hoare, Mr. W. L. Jackson, with seven other members and himself, as representatives of the Government party and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Sir William Harcourt, Sir Henry Fowler, Sir James Kitson, Mr. H. Labouchere, and three others, as representing the Opposition. The _Times_ of the following day said that there were two reasons for somewhat increasing the sum to be voted--the fact of the King having a Consort of whom the nation was proud, while Queen Victoria was unmarried at the time of the former vote, and the fact, as the