said, that agreeing with the Times of that morning that "forewarned is forearmed," he begged to put a question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in order that all sides of the House might be "forearmed" with regard to the subject to which he was going to refer. He understood—though he did not say it, upon an authority which the right hon. Beronet could not contradict—that it was the intention of the noble Lord the Prime Minister to make the proposition of the hon. Member for South Essex (Sir E. Buxton) a question of confidence or no confidence in the Government. It was also rumoured that a message had been sent from Downing-street to the hon. Member for the West Riding, and the hon. Member for Manchester, requesting that they would not leave town for Manchester until after that question had been disposed of. He wished to give the right hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of stating whether these rumours were well founded.

was not sure that he quite understood the question of the hon. Gentleman. If the question was whether any private communication had passed between the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown and certain Members of that House, that was a question upon which he could give the hon. Member no information. His noble Friend was not in the habit of communicating to him the contents of his private letters. He could only say that he had never heard of any communication of the kind referred to before. As to making the Motion of the hon. Member for South Essex a vote of confidence, he had not even heard the subject mooted.

would repeat the question which he intimated yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, whether it was true that a public officer connected with Dublin Castle who had been intrusted with public money had decamped, the public loss thereby being very considerable? He (Mr. Hume) was quite ignorant of the case. He was only anxious, that, if unfounded, the rumour should be at once sot at rest; and that, if it was unfortunately well-founded, the House should know the worst.

was sorry he had been unable to answer the hon. Gentleman's question the day before; but he had thought it better to make the necessary inquiries first. He supposed his hon. Friend alluded to the case of Mr. Mathews, late clerk in the Chief Secretary's office, Dublin. The facts of that case were these:—The Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland having brought to the notice of Government certain irregular transactions in which Mr. Mathews was engaged with respect to the distribution of what was called the "Concor- datum Fund," Mr. Bromley, the Secretary of the Audit Board, was deputed to make inquiry into the facts of the case, and as it appeared from that investigation that Mr. Mathews bad been guilty of fraud in the management of the "Concordatum Fund," a Treasury Commission was issued to investigate the whole transactions connected with the Government in which Mr. Mathews was engaged. That was the whole state of the case. He was happy to tell his hon. Friend, that, as yet, the ascertained amount of the fraud was very small, being only, as far as was known, about 20l.

asked whether it was true that there was a second defaulter who had decamped from Dublin Castle?

said, there was an investigation going on with reference to another gentleman, who was not, however, in the Chief Secretary's office; but he was not able to say what was the defalcation, if any, nor under what circumstances it had taken place. He knew that an inquiry was going on with regard to it, but he would rather not say any more on the subject at present.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that he had received a number of suggestions for the amendment of the measure, and that, if he should succeed in having it read a second time, as he hoped he should, he intended to move that it be committed pro formâ, with the view of introducing several of these amendments, none of which, however, would affect the principle of the Bill. He begged to explain that the Bill had been prepared in deference to the report of the Committee which sat on the subject last Session, and of which he was chairman. It was not a Bill which, in his individual capacity, he would hare proposed as absolutely the best, but he believed it was the best which the state of the law permitted, and the only one there was any chance of carrying under present circumstances. The report to which he had referred, after enumerating the Acts at present in force for the regulation of the Irish fisheries and navigation of Ireland, pointed out the chief deficiencies in them which required to be remedied by fresh legislation. The principal of these it traced to the ambiguity of phraseology with regard to the definition of what were public and private rights. This difficulty he proposed to remove by the present Bill. Another difficulty pointed out by the Committee was the want of sufficient penalties to enforce the provisions of the Act of 1842; the maximum penalty was not high enough to operate as an intimidation in some cases, and there was no minimum penalty at all to meet other cases. The Scotch law on the subject, which had been found to act most successfully, comprehended a maximum penalty, adequate to every purpose, and a minimum penalty; and he proposed the adoption of similar provisions in his own Bill. The Act of 1842 had repealed all the Acts which had been passed from time to time by the Parliaments of Ireland for the regulation of weirs, substituting only some provisions which, being altogether general and uniform in their nature, did not meet the circumstances of particular localities; and the result had been endless difficulties in the administration of justice respecting those obstructions. The Committee attributed the decline of fisheries and the decrease of fish in Ireland greatly to the solid weirs across fresh-water rivers, and proposed their abatement, giving compensation to the owners of such of them as could be proved to be legal weirs; and this recommendation be had adopted. The Committee further recommended that, for the settlement of disputes between parties, and between individuals and the public, a Commission should be appointed, permanent or otherwise, of the same character with that so satisfactorily established in England for the adjustment of tithes; and he had accordingly transcribed from the English Tithe Act, with merely the necessary alterations, the clauses which bore on the subject. He proposed to leave to the existing tribunals the powers which the Act of 1842 gave them in relation to prosecutions, the commission he contemplated having the power to act without any prosecution previously instituted. Mill weirs would not be affected by the Bill beyond the extent to which they were affected by the existing law. The Board of Works, which at present bad the superintendence of fisheries in Ireland, had neither the leisure nor the staff adequate to the due execution of that duty. The present amount allowed for their superintendence was only 1,200l. per annum—an amount altogether below the requirements of so important a charge; and the Govern- ment tacitly admitted as much by expending upon the Scottish fisheries in some years not less than 14,000l. He did not ask that, because injustice was done to Ireland in this respect, justice should not be done to Scotland; what he desired was, that equal justice should be done to Ireland. Certain it was, that unless this justice was done, an industry that might be so beneficial to Ireland, and which was so intimately connected with the supply of food to her people, would wholly perish. For himself, he should prefer the re-enactment for all Ireland of the repealed Act of Henry VIII., which placed the fisheries in the charge of the mayors and other authorities in the various localities. But that would be objected to by the Government, and he was obliged to content himself with the machinery of the Act of 1842. It had been said that this Bill would interfere with private rights, but that statement he denied. It would provide, in a cheap and summary method, for the protection of public rights, and for the establishment of private rights, where such rights existed. If the House assented to the second reading of the Bill, he would be ready, before it went into Committee, to consider any suggestions that might be made to him for the amendcment of the measure, his simple object being to do justice to all classes.

was not averse to some amendment of the present law on this subject, but he could not consent to the system proposed by this measure. The powers proposed to be conferred on the commissioners to be appointed under the Bill, were, in his opinion, as unconstitutional as they were unprecedented. He did not deny the necessity of some legislative interference with regard to fisheries, and was ready to promote, as far as was in his power, any salutary legislation; but he protested against any proposal of a tyrannical or oppressive character, especially when it invaded the rights of private individuals, who were utterly unable to defend themselves. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal had claimed great credit for bringing this measure forward; he had held himself up as the protector of the poor, and had said that the Bill would place food within the reach of people who were now debarred from it by monopoly. He (Mr. Conolly) believed, however, that if this measure, in its present form, be- came law, its effect would be to deprive of employment thousands of persons in Ireland. Some clauses of the Bill provided for the re-enactment of old laws, and to those he had no objection; but many of the new clauses were of a most tyrannical and unconstitutional nature. He complained of the inquisitorial powers which would be conferred upon the commissioners by the 10th clause, which gave them authority to inquire into details connected with the working of the fisheries. He denounced also the 60th and 68th clauses, empowering the commissioners to adjudicate upon complaints; and several other clauses of the Bill were most objectionable on account of the extensive and unconstitutional powers which they conferred upon the commissioners. One of the clauses provided that, under certain circumstances, persons should not be allowed to fish their own fisheries without permission in writing from the commissioners. Clause 71 empowered the commissioners to settle contested questions of title—questions upon which the judgments of the highest legal authorities had been over and over again reversed. Was it not monstrous that questions of such vast importance should be determined by a commission of three men, who might probably be wholly incompetent to give a legal opinion on such a subject? He thought the House would agree with him that this clause was altogether incompatible with the spirit of English jurisprudence. And he was sure the House would also agree with him that property in fisheries deserved the attention of Parliament as well as any other species of property; he confidently hoped, therefore, that they would see his objections to the Bill before them in a just light, and amongst those objections he might mention this, that when the commissioners under the Bill came to adjudicate upon any point, they were themselves the persons to confirm and carry out their own decisions. Then, as to the penalties which were imposed for contravening the proposed statute, there were two classes of persons liable, one of whom had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and very undue facilities were given in suing for the penalties—even the death of the party sued did not put an end to the suit, for his representatives would still remain liable. Further, the principle on which the preamble of the Bill had been founded, was a principle directly in opposition to the recommendations of that Committee over which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself presided, though the House had been told that the Bill before them was framed in exact accordance with the report of the Committee. Again, he objected to the measure under consideration on the ground that it was calculated to set up rights which yet had no existence, rather than to defend and fortify rights which were in being. It was also not unworthy of observation that the right to several fisheries in Ireland was now enjoyed by prescription; that those fisheries had always been possessed and sold like any other property. He hoped, then, that the House would meet those extraordinary enactments in the manner which the real necessities of the case seemed to require; and that they would not give their sanction to such an unconstitutional and tyrannical piece of legislation. He should give the Bill his decided opposition.

rose to support the Amendment on other grounds than even those which had already been put forward. He was sure that every one acquainted with Ireland would be ready to admit that the measure was of a nature likely to injure other interests in Ireland besides those which had been already referred to; he alluded more particularly to the mill interest; and he thought that anything which affected the millers ought to be received with much caution. The commissioners created under the Bill might sweep away all the weirs—they might interfere to almost any extent. In his opinion a short Act, consisting of only three or four clauses, might easily be introduced, amending the Act of 1842, so as to remedy many of the evils at present complained of. As to the destruction of fish, there was every reason to believe that that took place less frequently at the mouths of rivers than higher up, where the spawn and the young fish were not properly preserved. Sufficient time had not yet been given to test the working of the old Act, and he had received letters stating that the conservators had been of the greatest service in preventing the destruction of spawn and fry. It would be better to withdraw the Bill, and to bring in a short simple Act, which would meet all objections.

said, there could be no doubt the opinion of the Committee last year was, that the state of the law in Ireland relating to fisheries was so contradictory, that a consolidation of the various Fishery Acts Was absolutely necessary. As every clause of the present Bill, with some few exceptions, had such a consolidation in view, the House would be only acting in accordance with the views of their Committee in allowing the second reading. With regard to the objection that the commissioners would be vested with too ranch power, he could only say that the Commit tee thought the commissioners should at least have the power of enforcing legal decisions obtained from courts of justice. The great evil complained of was, that in many cases weirs and engines which had by decisions in courts of law been declared illegal, had been re-erected, and were now in full operation. The milling interest of Ireland was much more important than the fishery interest, and no one could be more anxious than he was to protect it; but he could not admit the Bill would operate prejudicially with regard to the mills on fishing rivers. So far from wishing to support any mea sure that would interfere in the slightest degree with that branch of industry, he (Lord Naas) was prepared to consider in Committee, whether any further advantages might not be offered to that important interest. He deeply regretted, that any misunderstanding on this point should exist; and he was sure that if this Bill was allowed to go into Committee, the millers of Ireland would find that the promoters of the measure were anxious to do all in their power to further their wishes. He hoped they would consent to the second reading, and then refer the Bill to a Select Committee, which was the only tribunal that could do justice and satisfy all parties.

would support the Bill: he said there was a pressing and immediate necessity for some measure to consolidate the existing laws, and prevent the confusion of conflicting decisions. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, on bringing in what was commonly called "The Rod Act" last year, admitted that further legislation was necessary, and it was to be hoped he would lend his assistance to the present measure. He (Colonel Dunne) objected to interference with vested rights in Ireland, but at the same time did not wish to see those rights unnecessarily extended, and the rights of the public diminished. The Bill before the House interfered less with the milling interest than any former measure, and the House ought at least to allow a Committee to decide upon it.

said, the reason he objected to sending the Bill to a Committee was, that what was good in it was not new, and what was new was not good. In 1842 an Act was passed to consolidate the Acts then existing, and to settle the doubts then expressed as to the state of the law. They were now called upon to pass an Act to consolidate laws that had been consolidated already, and to explain doubts which had long ago been set at rest. Was it wise or right before ten years had passed away to sweep off the Statute-book a measure which was calculated to define the state of the law, and thus to revive all the doubts and difficulties which had been settled and determined? They talked of giving a Parliamentary title to property; but if the House acted in that way, any title would be preferable to one resting on an Act of Parliament. People in Ireland had said to him, "For God's sake, do get the Legislature to leave us alone." Their legislation on Irish property was one continual scene of clipping, altering, and changing—consolidating Acts now, explaining them then, then separating them, and then consolidating them all over again—thus continually directing the minds of the people to look to Parliament instead of teaching them to rely on their own exertions. Where were the doubts to be resolved? He knew of none. The Act of 1842 was as plain as words could make it. He had a very great dislike to give extensive powers to commissioners. In Ireland the practice was particularly objectionable, as the exercise of such large and arbitrary authority had an injurious effect on the minds of the people.

, in the hope that the Bill now under discussion would be referred to a Select Committee, as suggested by the noble Lord the Member for Kildare, would vote for the second reading, for the purpose of showing his approval of the object the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had in view, namely, to increase and protect salmon fisheries in Ireland—and of expressing his opinion in that manner, that some amended legislation was necessary to preserve these fisheries; and, lastly, for the purpose of testifying his sense of the energy and ability which the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had exhibited, not only in framing the Bill now before the House, but also as Chairman of the Committee of last Session, when he conducted with untiring zeal and perseverance the inquiry into the various questions which came before that Committee. He (Mr. Fagan) must, however, say, that in its present shape he was as much opposed to the Bill as his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary. It was too cumbrous, in his opinion, to work advantageously; but it should be recollected that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal was not responsible for that. He was obliged by the vote of the Select Committee to embarrass himself by undertaking to consolidate the existing Acts; and here he would say in reply to a remark made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, that the Bill was not a consolidation of the 5th and 6th of Victoria, which was itself a consolidation of former statutes, but it embraced the provisions of six other and distinct Acts which were passed since 1842. But, in consolidating these Acts, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal did himself injustice in adhering too strictly to what he would call the almost unconstitutional provisions of these statutes. It was true that he rather diminished than increased the powers given by these Acts to the Board of Works; but still they were in the present Bill too despotic and indefinite; and his hon. and learned Friend should recollect these powers were, by his Bill, to be given to a new fishery commission and not to the Board of Works, who were under the control of the Treasury, and were responsible in every particular. The Bill also, in its present form, was a Bill of pains and penalties, which, taken in connexion with the despotic powers given to the commissioners, would not be tolerated in Ireland. But before all, and above all, he (Mr. Fagan) was opposed to the clauses which affected the milling interest in Ireland. Milling was almost the only interest now left to that country, and it was his duty in every way in his power to protect and sustain it; and it was because he was persuaded that these clauses would be modified by a Select Committee that he voted for the second reading. The Bill, it should be recollected, made no alteration in the existing law as regarded mill weirs; but these enactments, as the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had stated, were never enforced by the Government—clearly, thereby, showing that they were injurious—and, therefore, he was surprised they were introduced in that Bill in their integrity. He was not, however, sorry it was done, because it will enable Parliament to repeal the existing law in that respect, provided the Bill is allowed to go into Committee. If it is to be rejected on second reading, then the existing enactments relating to mill weirs remained in force, and it is on that account as a friend of the milling interest he was for the second reading in order that in Committee he might get rid of these objectionable provisions. With these exceptions he was in favour of the Bill. Year after year the salmon fisheries in Ireland are diminishing by reason of defective legislation. To increase these fisheries, and thus increase employment to the labouring class occupied in salmon fishery, was his main object in supporting the Bill. It gave greater facilities to the poor man for earning a livelihood, while it diminished the taxation to which he was subject by a late Act, and, at the same time, raised the taxation on the rich weir owners. This appeared to be the chief objection taken to it by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, who seemed to be for protecting the rich proprietors; while his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal, by his Bill, was in favour of extending the benefits of a good fishery law to the poor. For these reasons he would support the second reading, reserving for himself the right of objecting to the whole Bill on the third reading, if the provisions to which he referred were not considerably modified and altered.

considered that some measure was necessary; and though he could not support the Bill in its present shape, he thought it should be referred to a Select Committee upstairs, fairly and impartially selected, with ample power to examine and arrange its provisions. That would be the way to have unanimity on the subject, and to ensure the passing of a Bill this Session that would protect the real interests of the country.

opposed the Bill, which proposed to create three commissioners—a triumvirate—with most arbitrary powers. He referred particularly to the 14th clause, which he considered would place in great danger the interests of the millowners. He felt it his duty to support the Amendment.

supported the second reading, with a view to have the measure referred to a Select Committee.

said, he had always acknowledged the importance of an extension and preservation of the fisheries of Ireland in a national point of view, and he thought the question was one well worthy of the consideration of Parliament. But he had not been able to discover that one single Gentleman who had supported the second reading approved of this Bill. They wished to send it to a Select Committee, but it was with a view to throw out the principal clauses. The opinion had been generally expressed that some further legislation was necessary. But what was the best mode of proceeding? Was it by sending a Bill of 180 clauses to a Select Committee, to be returned by them to this House, or by a withdrawal of the present Bill, and the introduction of another measure containing such provisions as appeared to meet with the approbation of the House? The latter course was, he thought, more convenient, as it was certainly more consistent with Parliamentary usage. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Bill, because he should with reluctance vote against a Bill containing clauses of which he approved, believing, as he did, also, that some legislation was necessary on this subject. If another Bill such as he had described were introduced, he should have much pleasure in supporting it, so that it might effect those necessary amendments in the law which were required.

would remind the right hon. Baronet that if he opposed every Bill on which there was a difference of opinion, he would never agree to any Bill. He thought that many of the provisions of this Bill were exceedingly useful; what was wanting in Ireland was to have all the measures on this subject comprised in one Act; this Bill proposed to do so, and with some alteration would effect that object. He should remind the House that they had omitted from their legislation one branch of the fisheries that was open to every man—he alluded to the sea fisheries. He hoped that either the Government or some independent Member of the House would take up the question, and in the course of next Session introduce some measure that would be for the advantage of that great and important branch of their fisheries.

, in reply, stated that he had no objection to the Bill being sent before a Select Committee, but would persist in his Motion for a second reading.

rose to move the Second Beading of the Extra Mural Interments Bill, which, he was satisfied, embodied the best mode of securing interments without the metropolis that could at present be adopted. He was convinced that the most effectual way of taking the dead out of town 20 or 30 miles was to do it through the medium of railways. If they adopted the ordinary hearse conveyances they could go only a few miles, and in a short time it would be found that they had a belt of graveyards surrounding the metropolis; whereas if they went out 20 or 30 miles, they would only be spots here and there. He was of opinion that every person ought to have a grave for himself, and one acre of land would not contain more than 1,500 corpses. If 60,000 corpses a-year were to be taken from London—and that would soon be the average—not less than 40 acres of land would be required annually. Only let the House consider, if this was the case, what, in a few years, would be the difficulties experienced with regard to land. The Bill proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had for its object to carry out the recommendations of the report issued by the Board of Health; but he (Mr. Lacy) thought it would not be difficult to show the utter impracticability of the plan proposed by the board. Their report pointed to a great national cemetery down the river, including Abbeywood, Belvidere- park, &c., amounting in all to 400 acres; but that extent of burying ground would not serve for more than 10 years; and in the course of 100 years, about 4,000 acres of land would be required. Then it was proposed to take all the bodies in vessels down the river; and the report spoke of this mode of conveyance as superior on account of the quietude of the waters. Now, he contended, that it would very often be impossible to preserve that order and decorum on board a boat which was desirable on such solemn occasions. Such a plan he conceived to be quite impracticable; and in opposition to the statement of the water being the must quiet mode of conveyance, he needed only refer to the crowded state of the river, and the numerous pleasure parties with bands of music which were constantly upon it. What would be the feeling of these mourners and attendants on the 40 or 50 corpses borne on a steamer down the river on going by or meeting these pleasure parties? Such a mode of conveyance was not comparable to that of the railway train. The report of the Board of Health Commissioners stated that a singularly eligible site for a cemetery had been found at a sufficient distance from any town or village (meaning Abbeywood), and which rose by a gentle ascent from the bank. He was able to state, however, that, before they could approach the site from the river, a considerable quantity of marsh, full a mile and a half, intervened, and the other ground was so broken that it would be almost impossible to carry bodies over it. The report stated that the water was not got but at a depth of 270 feet; but that was a mistake; for he could show, on the authority of Mr. Barlow and other eminent engineers, that water was constantly flowing out of the hill, under such circumstances as proved that it could not be at such a depth, and that it did so to the extent of 1,500,000 gallons daily. His proposal was that, under certain limitations, railway companies should be allowed to purchase waste lands, and on those lands to establish cemeteries. He was aware that some persons might be ready to characterise this as merely a railway job; but he was not instigated by any one, and he was not disposed to pay much attention to such remarks. He had been a humble promoter of the railway system, and had assisted in bringing it to its present height; and though he had lost a good deal, yet he did not regret it. He thought that advantage ought to be taken of this great system for burying the dead; and as the report referred to the subject of railway transit, as though collisions were frequent, he might mention that during the last six months, 35,000,000 of people had each had a journey by railway, and all of them came back with their lives safe—the only casualties being a limb or so broken. When he first brought forward this Bill, he had no idea that any measure would have been introduced by the Government on the subject. He had introduced a clause into the Bill to refer it to the Railway Commissioners to determine whether such lands as might have been sought to be purchased by the directors should or should not be taken for the purposes of a cemetery. The system suggested by the Government would impose a higher charge upon parties who had to bury a poor man than if his Bill were adopted, when a much lower charge would be made. The Bill proposed by the Government applied only to the metropolis; but his Bill had reference to the whole of the kingdom. Upwards of 200 towns had asked to be placed under sanitary regulations; that showed that something was wanting in the country. He would ask the House to let this Bill be read a second time, and be referred to a Select Committee, together with the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, in order to see whether any good could be made out of the two. The scheme of the Government suggested that a poor man might be buried for fifty shillings, but be calculated that it might be done for 1l.

seconded the Motion. The measure which had been introduced by the Government on this subject was open to many objections, and he certainly preferred the course which was re-commanded by his hon. Friend. The enormous expense which would be incurred by the plan proposed by Government, was a Strong objection to its being adopted. If any measure of this kind were to be made the subject of legislation, it would fee imperative on the Government to avail itself of railway conveyance. He strongly objected to the provision which made the payment of any deficiency attending the Government measure to be provided for out of the poor-rates. He did not presume that the Bill of his hon. Friend was per- fect; but he hoped it would be made so by its being referred to a Committee together with the Government measure.

entertained the strongest objection to the second reading of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin had criticised the report of the Board of Health; but as another opportunity would be afforded for discussing that subject, as well as the measure which had been proposed by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he would not now touch upon either of those topics. The question at present before the House was, whether the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin should be read a second time. Now, that Bill appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere) to involve a principle which made it impossible for the House to accede to it. Even if the House agreed in opinion with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill introduced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought not to be sanctioned, he (Mr. Labouchere) should still object to the present Bill. The Bill empowered railway companies, with the sanction of the Railway Commissioners, to undertake and conduct the business heretofore carried on by cemetery companies. He would not enter into a discussion of the sanitary branch of the subject; but this he would say, that it was contrary to all principle to allow railway companies to embark in any description of traffic different from that which was the real and legitimate object of such companies. Even the transmission of passengers by steamboats was considered a departure from the proper functions of a railway company; it was impossible, therefore, to allow such a company to perform all the duties of a cemetery company. He felt, therefore, bound to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He might just observe that, in all his consultations with persons connected with railways—including railway directors—he had not met with any one who did not altogether repudiate such a measure as this. He should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.