would avail himself of that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It would be in the recollection of the House that he presented a petition last Session from the owners of fishing-boats on the coast of Kent and Sussex, complaining of the conduct of the French fishermen on that coast, in pursuing a course calculated materially to injure, if not to destroy, the fishery. It appeared, however, that the subject of complaint not only existed on the coast of Kent and Sussex, but had extended to that of Norfolk and Suffolk. He wished to know whether Government had taken any steps with a view of putting a stop to this great grievance to our fishermen, and whether such interference had been attended with a favourable result, so that the French boats with their trawl nets would no longer come upon our coast, and impede the English fishermen during the mackerel and herring fishery.

replied that his hon. and gallant Friend must be aware that the question put by him involved a subject of discussion between the French and English Governments of a much more extensive nature than he had described. It was true that frequent collisions arose on the coast between the crews of the fishing-boats of the two nations; much more serious differences, however, had arisen respecting the boundaries of the oyster fisheries of the two countries off Jersey. In the latter case a joint commission had been appointed by the English and French Governments, which had been empowered to make a permanent line of demarcation between the fisheries of the two countries, and which, at the same time that it did justice to the claims of the English fishermen, did not do injustice to the French. The Report of the Commissioners as to the line had not yet been received, but he hoped that very shortly he should be enabled to announce a satisfactory result of their abours. With respect to the question now put, his hon. Friend must be aware that it involved a very different matter, and one of much greater difficulty, and could only be settled by the Governments of the two countries. He could not state what progress had been made on the subject, but he could assure his hon. Friend that the attention of Government should continue to be directed to it, and whatever could be done should be done consistently with the principles involved in the treaties between the two countries. The object of the Commission which had been appointed was confined to the oyster fishery at Jersey and on the French coast, and it probably would not be convenient to refer to it this much larger question. The subject was one of great importance, and the most convenient mode of settling it would be by an amicable discussion between the Governments of the two countries.

said, that the motion of the hon. Baronet was of a most unusual nature, and he trusted that the House would not accede to it. The reasons why the punishment of this convict was commuted were shortly these:—A memorial was sent to him by Dr. Watson, who stated himself to be the clergyman of the parish where the convict lived, and it was signed by that gentleman and several other respectable persons in the parish. It stated that the man had undoubtedly been guilty of destroying his father's will, but it had been done under feelings of great excitement on his part, and that he appeared sincerely to repent what he had been guilty of; and it also added that he was in such a bad state of health, that the carrying the sentence into effect would most probably occasion his death. This petition came under the consideration of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department who recommended that the convict should be pardoned. He (Lord John Russell), however, under all the circumstances of the case, thought it advisable that the sentence should be commuted in the way in which it had been, namely, after the man had been imprisoned three months in the Penitentiary. If he had entertained any doubt as to the guilt of the man he should have sent to the chairman of the quarter-sessions in Northamptonshire; but in cases where there was no doubt of the guilt of the party, and where reasons might appear to arise for the remission of any portion of the punishment, it was not usual to make application to the judge who tried the prisoner. Hundreds of cases of the kind had occurred at the Home-office in which no application had been made to the judge. Above all, in cases where the putting the sentence in force was likely to be attended with danger to the life of the prisoner, the judge was not questioned on the subject. The hon. Baronet, however, seemed to think that the prerogative of mercy was in the chairman of the quarter sessions, and not in the Crown. He did not believe that any instance had ever occurred of calling for papers of this kind under such circumstances and should certainly oppose the introduction of such a precedent.