asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If any communications have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States regarding the propriety of sending a joint Squadron to the Coast of Cuba, for the purpose of preventing the importation of Slaves into that Island?

Sir, I must answer the Question of my hon. Friend in the negative. There have been no communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with respect to sending any squadron to the coast of Cuba. There were communications some time ago—I think in the year 1864—between the two Governments with respect to the expediency of sending a small American squadron to the West African coast. With regard to the desirability of attaining the object in view, both parties were entirely at one; but the desire of the Government of the United States was that the vessels of the United States appointed to that duty should be released from the restrictions placed upon the cruisers of the United States in British ports generally under the Neutrality Proclamation. The opinion of Her Majesty's Government was that it was perfectly fair that they should be released, but that all vessels so released should be employed exclusively in operations for the suppression of the slave trade. To that condition the United States Government, on its part very naturally, did not feel itself able to accede. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government, quite as naturally, felt that if they were to exempt ships from the operation of the Neutrality Proclamation on any other ground, and allow it to be made the means of rendering British ports available for warlike operations, they would be departing from its spirit. With the best intentions on both sides, it was found impossible to agree on any practicable measure.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the Demarch of Astako reported to the superior authorities that the three English travellers who were seized by brigands near Dragomestre, on the 8th of December, 1865, had been previously warned by him of their danger; whether he is aware that that report was completely untrue; and, if so, whether the Foreign Office has urged, or intends to urge, upon the Greek Government the dismissal of that functionary?

said, that so far from the authorities stating that they had assured the three English gentlemen that there was no danger, they rather complained of those gentlemen going into a part of the country infested by brigands. He held in his hand a report from the Demarch of Astako to his Government, in which the fact was stated. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government did not think it necessary to call upon the Greek Government to take any steps with regard to him. Mr. Erskine had directed inquiries to be made into the facts of the case. It would be very advisable if travellers in Greece—and there appeared to be many—would put themselves in communication with the authorities before proceeding through districts remote from towns, as it was well known that brigandage was rife at the present moment in that country.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the appearance of a new disease affecting swine in parts of the Con- tinent of Europe, and not only destroying the animal, but rendering the flesh poisonous and dangerous to human life; and whether they have instituted any inquiries by competent medical and scientific authorities, with a view to ascertain the nature, extent, and progress of the disease? He wished to explain, in putting the Question, that the disease had appeared in France and Germany, and that eggs were deposited by insects in the hide of the animal, which died soon afterwards, or, if slaughtered, could not be eaten with safety.

said, in reply, that in 1862 Professor Gamgee was directed to re-port upon the subject of diseases in meat, and among the diseases embraced in the inquiry was the one referred to. A German physician of eminence, who had paid special attention to the subject, was directed to make a Report, and it was published in the last volume of the Reports of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council. The Report was most exhaustive, supplied a number of illustrations, and gave every possible information upon this and other parasitic diseases affecting animals that were killed for human food.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he thinks the Postmaster General came to a just and wise decision in refusing the application which the letter-carriers made for an advance in their wages in consequence of the rise in house-rent and in the price of provisions; and, whether these same considerations have not induced the magistrates of many counties to raise the salaries of the police?

said, that in answer to his hon. Friend, he had to state that the decision to which he referred was, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed, a decision of the Postmaster General never brought before the Treasury until it came under its notice in consequence of the Question of his hon. Friend; and it was a decision not upon the case of the whole of the letter-carriers of the Post Office, as, perhaps, the question might lead hon. Members to suppose, but upon an application from a considerable number of the country letter-carriers. He mentioned this because it was important to bear in mind, in considering the decision of the Postmaster General, that his noble Friend did some years ago consider very fully and readjust the salaries in the great metropolitan department. In looking into the question to which his hon. Friend referred, the Postmaster General examined very carefully what was the alteration in the position of the letter-carriers in consequence of any rise in house-rents or in the price of particular provisions, and likewise—a matter which his hon. Friend's Question did not take notice of—of any fall in the price of particular provisions—due either to the legislation of that House or to some other cause. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) also had regard to another very important question—namely, what was the application all over the country for the situation of letter-carrier, and the degree of disposition shown by perfectly competent persons to undertake it. Examining the whole of that matter, and finding that there was no diminution in the number or in the quality of persons who were found desirous of obtaining the situation of letter-carrier, and likewise looking carefully into the questions of house-rent and provisions, he came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for acceding to that application, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) confessed that his impression was that the decision was a wise one. With respect to the latter part of the Question, he had no information on the subject to which it referred; but he thought it very probable that what was there stated might be so. There were departments of the public service in which salaries had been raised, and that within no long time back. There might be others in which the same question was at present undergoing consideration; but he did not think that the course taken by magistrates with reference to the salaries in this or that particular county of the police, who were a recent institution, would afford any conclusive evidence with regard to the course which the Government ought to take in respect of the wages of letter-carriers.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the Bill contemplated by the Government for the better Regulation of Weights and Measures, provision will be made as to a scale of uniformity in Weights and Measures, to be applicable equally to all parts of the United Kingdom?

said, in reply, that his hon. Friend did not quite understand the answer which he had given yesterday. It related to the Exchequer standards, and to copies made of those standards. The present question related more to the law as to weights and measures in force in England and Ireland, which was not directly the object of the Bill in question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, What machinery will be employed in taking the number of Cattle, and whether any portion of the Vote for Agricultural Statistics will be applied to defray the expenses of the Cattle Returns?

said, in reply, that the machinery employed was this. A schedule was drawn up by the Board of Trade, it was sent through the Post Office to the owners of live stock, and certain officers of the Inland Revenue then made up the aggregate Returns. The Vote to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be applicable to the collection of those statistics.

Perhaps it would be convenient for the House, as I have already obtained the concurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I should ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the organ of the Government, a Question with respect to the subject which stands on the Notice Paper to-day in my name. I should like, with the permission of the House, to put that Question prefaced by a very few remarks, but I am altogether in the hands of the House. I think, considering the importance of the Question, and the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, that the House would perhaps allow me. Sir, the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper is now well-known to hon. Members. I may be blamed because sufficient time has not been allowed to elapse between putting the Notice on the Paper, and the Motion to which that Notice refers; but I will explain how that has occurred. We—for I do not speak in my own name only, but I speak on behalf of many hon. and right hon. Members in this House—have felt that the circumstances of the case were so important, and the danger so great to the principles which were involved in the existing system of the Queen's University—namely, united secular University education for the youth of Ireland of all denominations upon a footing of complete equality—that we believed no time was to be lost in bringing the question under the notice of the House. And, even supposing I had not obtained the permission of the House to make a few remarks, such is the importance of the question that, to put myself in order, I would, if necessary, conclude by making a Motion of adjournment.

Unless I am otherwise directed by the House, and unless the House desires, that there should be a departure from our ordinary rules, I must remind the right hon. Baronet of the exact state of the case. The right hon. Baronet has given Notice that at a later period of the evening, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, he will make a Motion upon this subject. The right hon. Baronet has the liberty, if he pleases, to change that Motion into the form of a Question; but, in putting the Question he is bound to observe the rules which are prescribed, and I must also add that it will not be in his power to do what he has just said he might do, to make a Motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of this discussion. Because he has given Notice of his intention at a later period of the evening to move an Address, he cannot now by anticipation go into that question, by moving the adjournment of the House.

I am quite willing, Sir, to bow to your decision, but in my own justification I must say that it is at the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I rise to put this Question. I will merely say that, in consequence of the dialogue which took place between us the other night, I saw my right hon. Friend, and he informed me that there appeared to be some misunderstanding with respect to the answer which he then gave, and he told me—and it will be a great satisfaction to the House to hear it—that the Government, having seen the Notice which I put on the Paper, have been graciously pleased to yield to the general wish of the House—they have determined not to obtain the Sign Manual of the Sovereign until they have submitted the question to the judgment of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell you so.

I must remind the right hon. Baronet that this is rather an answer to the Question than the Question itself.

The intelligence was so gratifying to myself and other hon. Members that I could not forbear from saying that, in consequence, I believe, of this notice of mine—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell you—nothing will be done to alter the Charter. ["Order, order!"] Well, then, I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Is it or is it not the case that since the Notice which I placed upon the Paper the other night the Government have determined to yield to what appeared to be the wishes of the House? Will they or will they not make any alteration in the Charter of the Queen's University without first consulting the House as to the propriety of those changes?

Sir, in the first place let me say that I think no man could blame my right hon. Friend, with the feelings which he ascribes to himself—believing that the House was in danger of being taken by surprise—for having looked for the first opportunity of interposing. That is my first answer. My next answer will not be precisely the same in form. My right hon. Friend has asked whether, since the Notice which he placed on the Paper the other night, Her Majesty's Government have determined not to make any alteration in the Charter of the Queen's University without first consulting the House as to the propriety of the change. In reply to that, I have to say that there has been no change whatever in the intentions of Her Majesty's Government since or before the appearance of the Notice of my right hon. Friend. But the Question put to me upon the former day by my right hon. Friend, if I recollect it rightly, was, whether I would lay upon the table of the House a draft of the Charter as proposed to be altered before advising the Queen to sign it. ["No, no !"] So I understood the Question. Such I believe it to be, and to that Question I must answer now, as then, in the negative. But I said at that time that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was prepared to lay upon the table of the House at the earliest possible period the correspondence relating to this subject; and if the object of my right hon. Friend is simply to be fully informed of the advice which the Government may think it their duty to give to the Crown in this important matter, I entirely concur with him in thinking it is quite reasonable that that information should be given. I always thought that last year, when the Government came to its preliminary Resolution on this subject, the very first tiling done was to state to this House the nature of the changes which it was proposed to make. Since that time there has been much correspondence on the subject. That correspondence is not yet concluded. I believe the House will not think there is anything strange in the delay which has occurred. Naturally, the communications on this subject must be undertaken by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and recently, as the House is aware, these personages have had other more pressing questions to consider than those of University education. My right hon. Friend himself will move to lay on the table the correspondence as far as it has gone, and when it is concluded, and the Government have made up their minds—not before, and are ready to announce their conclusion, they will put the House at the earliest moment in possession of the fullest information on the subject. As to the Charter, it will naturally follow the conclusion at which the Government shall arrive upon points which that Charter may embrace, and I think I may say to my right hon. Friend that he need not be in the least afraid that he will be unable in point of time to bring the subject under the notice of the House, and to challenge the Government, if he thinks fit, before the Crown has committed any formal act, but not before the Administration have given any advice they may think it their duty to give to the Crown before the Crown is committed to that formal act. It was our intention, whether we are or are not compelled by law to do so, to clearly place under the view of Parliament the opinions we hold on the subject of University education in Ireland, and the advice which in consequence of these opinions it would be our duty to give the Crown. It was and is our intention to raise the question by asking the House to vote certain sums for scholarships to be opened to candidates from the Queen's Colleges, and to any other persons entitled to be examined in the Queen's University. In that manner we thought we should bring the matter fully and clearly before the House. We entirely agree with the right hon. Baronet in thinking this question one of great importance and great difficulty. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will fully and cordially state their views on the subject to the House, and that nothing shall be done to preclude the House from fully considering the question at the proper time.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Papers relating to the question of Irish University education which the Government have promised to lay on the table, will include the memorials which had been presented praying that no change should be made in the present system, as well as those asking for a change?

said, that there would be no objection to laying on the table the memorials referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

As I am very anxious, Sir, that there should not again be any misunderstanding on this subject, I wish to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. Am I to understand from him that when the Government has made up its mind on this subject it will first tender advice to the Crown, and then give Parliament an opportunity of expressing its opinion? Is that to be the course adopted? Or will Parliament be asked its opinion before any advice is given to the Crown?

Our first duty will be to make up our minds on the question. Nothing could be more unworthy on our part than to bring this important question before the House previous to our having made up our own minds as to the course we should pursue. It will be perfectly practical, right, and convenient that no definite proceeding shall be taken by the Crown before the House has an opportunity of expressing its opinion.

But will the Government give their advice to the Crown before Parliament has an opportunity of giving its opinion on the subject?

was understood to answer in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the event of the Report on the Cattle Plague Bill being brought up that evening, there will be any objection to taking the third reading of the Bill?

said, that Her Majesty's Government could not assent to the request of the hon. Gentleman unless the Bill were printed. Last night he strongly advised that the Bill should be printed, so as to be in the hands of hon. Members that day. This had not been done, and, considering the great number of alterations that had been made in the Bill, the Government could not adopt the course proposed by the hon. Member.

said, that perhaps he might be allowed to make a few remarks by way of introduction and explanation to the Question which stood in his name. It might not be generally known that the oyster fishers of the south coast—those, that was to say, west of the North Foreland—laboured under disabilities from which those upon all other coasts were exempt. This, however, was unfortunately the case, and for this reason:—In the year 1839 a Convention was concluded between England and France, the chief object of which was to reserve the exclusive right of fishing within a certain distance of the shore to the subjects of the respective countries. Unfortunately, those who were intrusted with the preparation of the Convention did not confine themselves to this, but drew up a series of regulations which might be found embodied in no less than eighty-nine clauses in the schedule to the Act of 1843, by which the Convention was carried into effect. These clauses contained minute regulations respecting fisheries which ought never to have formed part of such a Convention, and for this reason—that under it they were not applied to places in which France and England had common jurisdiction, but either to the sea within the three mile limit, where the municipal authorities alone had cither interest or power to enforce them, or to the deep sea beyond those limits, which was common to all the world; and in which we might create artificial disabilities for each other, but could not impose them upon other nations, who were free to act as they pleased. The attempt by France and England to enforce special restrictions in localities over which they had no power was not more reasonable than if they were to make Game Laws for the preservation of antelopes in South Africa. The framers of these regulations seemed, however, to have proceeded on the assumption that the whole channel between England and France was under the co-ordinate jurisdiction of the two countries. The moment the attempt was made to carry out the new Act it proved so burdensome that the authorities began at once to modify and evade it by the convenient means of Orders in Council. First, it was decided that the Convention was not in force within the three mile limit. Next, it was held that it applied only to coasts west of the North Foreland, though the terms were clearly intended to have a more extensive meaning; so that, practically, it had been reduced to the deep sea between England and France, which was open to all the world, and fished by Belgians and Dutch, who were subject to no restrictions. Indeed, the latter practical people had set us the example of abolishing all restrictions as to close months and peculiar modes of fishing, and, as it was stated, a marked improvement had since taken place in the condition of their fishing industry. After what had been said, no one would wonder that there was scarcely a clause in the Act about which lawyers did not differ. Sometimes an ignorant, hardworking fisherman became the helpless victim of an over-zealous cruiser or Customs officer; he submitted perforce. As one of the Shoreham witnesses said, "We are poor people, and cannot stand against the Government." "But when powerful companies defied interference a message came down from the Board of Trade that, by the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, the regulations had better not be enforced. In other cases prosecutions had commenced and never concluded. While there was this general objection to the Convention, that it was framed upon the assumption that France and England had jurisdiction over the whole channel, there was this in addition—that it also took for granted that the same enactments were suitable for the whole wide range. Hence, some were extremely mischievous, and none more so than those which fixed the close time for oysters. These were applicable, indeed, to the shallow water beds near the shore, the only ones the framers of the Convention knew anything of, and followed the well known rule of the months without an "r," in other words, dredging was prohibited from April to September. Unfortunately, the only beds where this could be enforced were those to which it did not apply. The deep sea beds were from twenty to fifty miles from shore, of such enormous extent that boats dredged the! same bank thirty miles apart, and new ones were constantly discovered. In these the fish spawned when they spawned at all, in July and August; and consequently, the month of the whole year when they were in worst condition was September, when the fishing began, and the best in May and June, when it was forbidden. Hence, the dredgers were forced by the shortness of time they had for stocking their beds to bring oysters in at the very time they would not, if left to their own discretion. The Convention was not intended to apply to these banks, which were not known in 1839, and for years the dredgers worked all the year round. But in 1852 complaints were made by the French, and the Act of 1855 was passed, which was so stringent that the Shoreham fishermen were not allowed to carry their dredges in their boats to the east coast, but were compelled to send them by railway, at great expense, till relaxation was procured last year, permitting them to be carried if tied up and sealed by the Customs. In 1859 this subject was brought before the House by Sir George Pechell, M.P. for Brighton, and since his death he (Mr. Cave) had been so impressed with the hardship of the case that he had frequently introduced it at the risk of appearing importunate. In 1863 Mr. Fen-wick, M.P. for Sunderland, and himself, moved for a Royal Commission, and, though the Motion was resisted by the President of the Board of Trade, a majority of the House decided that sufficient cause had been shown; and he might, perhaps, take it as some evidence that it was not considered a very unreasonable proceeding by the powers that be, since his co-conspirator was now a Member of the Government which then opposed the Motion. He heard before this that communications had been made to the French Government, but the reply was that they must have the whole Convention or none, and the impression was that they pressed this point, which could be of no importance to them, in order to get rid of all. After two years' inquiry, the Commissioners had come to the same conclusion with himself, and recommended the termination of the Convention and the repeal of the Acts enforcing it. They asserted that the restrictions were injurious to the fishermen, by paralyzing their trade and inducing them to break the law; injurious to the oyster-beds, which, according to all evidence, were most productive when most worked and cleared from mud and weed; and injurious to the public, by restricting the supply at the very time the oysters were most fit for food. He hoped, therefore, Her Majesty's Government intended to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners with the least possible delay. He had heard of arrangements for an International Commission to go again into the whole matter; but surely this was unnecessary in a question which was more one of principle than of detail—whether, namely, any restrictions should be imposed upon our fishermen in respect of seas which were open to all the world. The time was drawing near when the restrictions would be again in force—when, after a most stormy winter, which must have unusually curtailed their operations, the fishermen of the southern coast would find their means of livelihood suspended by an arbitrary law, while they would have the mortification of seeing whole fleets pursue beyond an imaginary line the honest industry from which they were debarred. He therefore implored the Government to consider whether notice of the termination of the Convention could not at once be given to the French Government, and, without trespassing longer on the patience of the House he begged to ask the Question, Whether the Government intend to carry into effect the recommendation of the Deep Sea Fishery Commission respecting the Deep Sea Oyster Fishery?

said, that in the interest of a large number of his constituents, he must entirely endorse the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and join in the hope he had expressed, that the Government would see the necessity of taking immediate action upon the Report of the Royal Commission, and that if it were really necessary to settle the matter by an International Commission, the Government would get it appointed forthwith. He should like to see the powers of the French Convention largely altered, if not totally repealed. Since 1843 the regulations of the Convention Act had been nothing but a fruitful source of jealousy, difficulty, and misunderstanding, not merely between the fishermen of England and France, but also between our own fishermen and the Government of this country. Not only had those provisions been extensively evaded with the knowledge and consent of Her Majesty's Government, but the highest legal authorities differed as to the manner in which the regulations ought to be interpreted. It was a moot point, for example, whether the provisions of the Convention had any force within the three mile coast line, or whether they referred only to the deep water. And he further believed no one could say where the coast line commenced and where it ended. If you put the question to the Board of Trade, they would tell you probably that the coast line regulations applied to the whole of the southern and eastern coast. If, on the other hand, you asked the fishermen themselves, they would answer that the Board of Trade had itself drawn a line from the North Foreland on one coast to Dunkirk on the other, north of which the coast line regulations had no application; and, in point of fact, when a year or two since the Board of Trade tried to enforce its own view on the Colchester fishermen, the fishermen of Colchester defied the Government to send cruisers after them; and though he never heard that a naval engagement had taken place, he believed that a civil action was still pending between the Board of Trade and the Colchester fishermen on this question. The Commissioners, in their Report, forcibly pointed out the difficulty of carrying out the law, and the uncertainty attending its administration. They said—

"It is obvious that the uncertainty attending the law must be very prejudicial to the interests of the oyster trade, and, in fact, the law is administered very differently, according to the views which the commanders of cruisers take of the Convention. A dredgerman of Colchester thus described it to us:—'The commander of one cutter will come on board a vessel and say, You ought only to have oysters of such a size; and another will say, You ought not to have a dredge on board; and a third, that we ought not to be here; and the next that we ought not to be there. What with all these different opinions, we never know what we ought to do. In point of fact, the interference to which we are subjected has regularly paralyzed our trade. We are obliged to act contrary to the law; if we did not we should starve, or should have to seek some other mode of gaining a living.'"

, as representing the people of Colchester, who thought they alone possessed the real "natives," wished to say a few words on that subject. He could confirm all that had been said by the hon. Member opposite in reference to the deep sea fishing. In conjunction with other gentlemen he had been to the Board of Trade, in order to induce the Department to interfere in regard to the treaty with France. One great object of the fishermen on our eastern coast was to obtain an extension of the period of fishing for the deep sea oysters, which were in the finest condition during the months of May and June. That fact, however, had not been discovered at the time when the treaty was made, and the fishing months were fixed. The object of the Coln Fishery Company was at present to obtain a positive assurance as to the line of demarcation over which the French Treaty extended. The East coast fishermen held that they ought to be enabled to fish in the German Ocean, from which they were supposed to be excluded by the French Convention.

desired to add his testimony to that already given, as to the excellent condition in which the deep sea oyster was in May and June, and impressed upon the Government the necessity of their speedily taking the whole subject into consideration.

observed, that living in the neighbourhood of an important fishing station on the coast of Ireland, he wished to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the condition of this branch of industry in Ireland, and to the desirability of giving the earliest possible effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. It would, no doubt, be within the recollection of the House that, when Mr. Fenwick, the late Member for Sunderland, moved an Address to the Crown for a Royal Commission to inquire into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom, the Government opposed the Motion, which, however, was ultimately carried by a small majority. He thought the country, and especially Ireland, had reason to rejoice that the Motion was successful, for the inquiry had proved to be one of great national importance. He had himself attended some of the meetings of the Commissioners in Ireland, and he could bear testimony to the intelligence, zeal, and urbanity with which the inquiry was carried out, and which resulted in the production of an enormous amount of useful evidence, terminating with a valuable Report, which he had no hesitation in saying was one of the most complete and trustworthy that had been presented to Parliament for a very long period. The Commissioners made two recommendations with respect to Ireland, which he wished to impress upon the Government. They stated that there was a great falling off in the number of boats and men employed along the coast. In the year 1830 there were 13,119 vessels of all classes, and 64,771 men and boys employed in the trade. In 1836, when the stimulus of bounties or loan funds was withdrawn, the number of vessels fell to 10,761, and the men and boys to 54,119. In 1845, immediately before the famine, the number of vessels was 19,883, and the men and boys 93,073; in 1848 (after the famine), the number of vessels fell to 15,932, and the men and boys to 70,111; while last year the number of vessels was but 9,300, and the hands had fallen to 40,946. This showed a diminution within the last twenty years of 10,583 boats, and of 52,127 men. The Commissioners added that the numbers given for 1865, reduced as they were, still appeared to be large as compared with the produce of the fisheries indicated by the railway returns and the supplies in the principal markets. But it was explained to them that a very small portion of the 40,000 men and boys stated to be employed in the fisheries were fishermen in the true sense of the term. The fishing population in many parts of Ireland had not yet recovered from the depression and ruin caused by the famine; while the subsequent emigration had taken off the ablest of the fishermen, leaving behind the old, the feeble, and the incompetent. These causes naturally led to a considerable falling-off in the general supply of fish from the Irish coast; but the Commissioners were of opinion that, if double the number of men made a living wholly or in part by fishing twenty years ago, it was not to be supposed that over-fishing within the last few years could have contributed to that result. They believed that "with greater enter-prize, skill, and capital, a greatly increased supply of fish might be produced from the seas round Ireland." The Commissioners recommended that all Acts of Parliament which profess to regulate or restrict the modes of fishing pursued in the open seas should be repealed, and that unrestricted freedom of fishing be permitted hereafter. Finally, they recommended that all restrictions which prevent foreign fishermen from entering British or Irish ports for the sale of fish be removed in Great Britain and Ireland, and that measures be taken to secure the like freedom for British fishermen in foreign ports. Previous to the withdrawal of the bounty system the fishing trade flourished to a certain extent on the Irish coast, because an inducement was offered to invest capital in that particular enterprize, but the bounties were discontinued because they were considered contrary to the principles of political economy, and the trade decreased. Now, however, he was happy to say that since the Commissioners had held their inquiry a more hopeful feeling prevailed in Ireland. Their Report was received with general satisfaction. Since its publication seven or eight joint-stock fishing companies had been started. One of these had a capital of £30,000, and so well was it thought of by the public that the shares were at once taken up, and there was not one to be had in the market at present. One or two steamers intended to be employed in the trade were also in the course of construction, in the hope that the present unwise and unjust restrictions would be removed. The removal of these restric- tions would give an immense impetus to the trade in Ireland, would furnish remunerative employment to a great number of people, and would supply the English markets with an abundant supply of cheap and wholesome food. There was another subject in connection with the subject of Irish fisheries which he wished to mention, as it was essential to the success of the trade. Twenty years ago a sum of £20,000 was granted to assist persons interested in the fishing trade in the construction of suitable piers. That sum had been all expended, and he was sorry to say that a considerable portion of it had been diverted from its original object, for, instead of piers being built to accommodate fishing-boats, the money got into the hands of landowners, and it was expended for the accommodation of turf boats and for other purposes. Now, he begged to represent that unless some funds were found to build piers, and to provide harbour facilities for fishing-boats on the south and south-west coast of Ireland, it would be impossible to carry out the recommendations of the Fishery Commissioners. Tramore, in the county of Waterford, for instance, was a considerable fishing station, and the persons interested in the trade raised two-thirds of the sum necessary to entitle them to get one-third from the fund, and after this great effort had been made they were told that there was no more money, as the whole fund had been exhausted. Another essential element for the development of the Irish fisheries, in addition to carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners, and providing suitable piers and harbour facilities, would be the placing of the fisheries under some vigorous and efficient central authority. This was a matter of great importance, and he ventured respectfully to urge it upon the attention of the President of the Board of Trade; also the desirability of giving immediate effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that certain Railways have commenced carrying Newspapers along the whole extent of their lines by means of an adhesive Stamp of the price of a halfpenny for each transmission; and, if so, whether it would not be expedient that the Stamp for the transmission of Newspapers through the Post Office should be reduced to the same amount? For some time past most of the railways had adopted the system of conveying newspapers and other periodicals for half the price of the Post Office charge; and he now received his newspaper by the Great Western Railway with a halfpenny stamp affixed. Under the ordinary law of competition the practice would soon become universal. The present postal law was altogether anomalous; for while the impressed stamp served to carry a newspaper through the Post Office several times for a period of fifteen days, the affixed stamp answered the purpose of only one transmission. The tax also fell upon the newspapers with great inequality; for whereas the impressed stamp on the old and high-priced papers amounted to 30 per cent of the selling price, in the case of the cheap journals the percentage was 100. He received a short time since a communication from a gentleman at Hawick, stating that the North British, the Caledonian, and some other of the great Scotch railways were carrying newspapers at a farthing each, and he held in his hand some of their stamps. If the railway companies could, in a commercial point of view, carry newspapers on their whole line for a farthing it was evident that the Post Office could convey them for less than a penny. There was a margin of 300 per cent difference. He confessed that he thought the railway price almost incredibly low. Having a grateful recollection of the kind consideration which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on former occasions given to similar representations, he would leave the matter in his hands without requiring any positive answer from him at present; but would be quite satisfied with an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the subject.

, in rising to put a question relative to the Report of the Railway Commissioners, said, that since he put his notice on the paper he had been told it should have been addressed, not to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), the President of the Commission on the Railways of the United Kingdom. As he understood the evidence had been closed in the case of Irish railways, he would venture to ask, Whether the Commissioners intended to make a Report on that part of the subject, or to wait until they had concluded their inquiry into the condition of all the railways in the kingdom, those of Great Britain as well as those of Ireland. Great anxiety existed in Ireland as to what the Government intended to do in regard to the railways of that country. The subject was brought under the notice of the House last Session by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), now a Member of the Government, but who was not at present in the House owing to the necessity for his reelection on accepting office, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion spoke as favourably as could reasonably be expected in respect to Irish railways. In that country, as in this, many of the railway undertakings were fair and flourishing, but many others were in a bankrupt condition, and very unreasonable hopes had perhaps in some instances been entertained of the action of the Government. In the case of Government wishing to purchase, with one exception, the Great Southern and Western, it had the right to do so at twenty years purchase, on an average of the last years profits, and of these there were none. The shareholders could scarcely expect they should be indemnified for the failure of their undertaking, but still some arrangement might be made where necessity existed. A meeting of the shareholders in Irish railways had lately been held in Dublin, and much anxiety existed to know whether any negotiations were likely to take place between the Government and the Irish railways. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by asking the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, Whether the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the condition of Railways has concluded the inquiry with respect to Irish Railways; and, if such be the case, whether they will make a Report with regard to that kingdom at once, and without waiting to pursue the inquiry as to the Railways in Great Britain; and further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if that Report be made, he is prepared on the part of the Government to entertain the subject of Irish Railways?

My hon. and gallant Friend (General Dunne) has conferred more honour upon me than is my due in alluding to me as Chairman of the Commission now sitting to inquire into the Railways of the Kingdom. But I have the honour of a seat upon that Commission, and I shall be very glad, as far as it is in my power, to give him the explanation that he desires. The state of the case with regard to the Irish railways is this:—We have taken a large mass of information with regard to the Irish railway system in general. That evidence is at present, and has been for some time, in the hands of the Government, and, as far as we are concerned, there is not the slightest objection to its being made public. I believe we have obtained pretty nearly all the information that will be found material with regard to Irish railways; but we have not expressly decided on closing that branch of the inquiry, and if any communications are brought before us which we consider important we have not cut ourselves off from receiving them. The second part of my right hon. Friend's question was, "Do you intend to make a separate Report as regards Ireland without waiting for the result of the inquiry as regards Great Britain?" My answer to that is that we do not purpose at present to make any separate Report as regards Ireland. As to our reasons, I cannot, of course, undertake to speak for my colleagues on the Commission; but, speaking for myself, I think I can explain why that decision was come to. It would have been a very easy thing to make a separate Report on the Irish part of the Question, if that Report had been confined to a summary of facts, or even to recommendations dealing with local details. But the main questions referred to us are not questions of fact or of local detail. They are questions involving very large principles of administrative management. One, for instance, is a proposition which has been put forward in a very ingenious treatise, and which was discussed last year in this House—a proposition that the State should buy up all the property of the railway companies. Failing that, there is a proposition that the State should lend money on easy terms to embarrassed companies, or to all companies, with a view to induce them to reduce their rates. Failing that, again, there is a proposition that much larger powers should be given to the State, enabling the Board of Trade, or some other Department, to supervise the working of railway companies. Now, it seems to me impossible that these questions, looking at them from an administrative point of view, should be decided with respect to Ireland, unless the railway system of Great Britain be at the same time taken into account. If you were to deal with Ireland only, the matter would be within a very narrow compass. The whole Irish railway system is of very manageable extent. The total capital embarked in Irish railways does not much exceed £20,000,000, which is exactly the aggregate sum proposed to be expended on metropolitan lines within the present year by the Bills now before the House. But it would be a serious matter to pledge ourselves to recommend the adoption of any course with regard to Ireland, which, by a logical necessity, would involve the adoption of a similar course, not with reference merely to £20,000,000, but to the £400,000,000 invested in the railways of Great Britain. Of course, we can only look at this matter from the administrative point of view. There is no doubt a political point of view, but that is not one that comes within the scope of our Commission. We are not sitting to inquire into the general state of Ireland: we are not authorized to consider whether any special measures are desirable for the relief of Irish distress, for the conciliation of the Irish people, or for the subsidizing of Irish trades or interests:—these are very fair matters for the consideration of Ministers and of the House; but the Commission of which I am a member is simply, as I conceive, charged and empowered to report on those principles on which the railway system of the United Kingdom ought to be administered. And, looking at it from that point of view, and again stating that I am merely expressing my own opinion, and not wishing to pledge my colleagues, I do not see how we can draw any distinction between the case of Ireland and that of England. I think we are bound to consider this question and to report upon it as a whole. Having answered the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, as I shall not be able to speak again in the course of the present discussion, I hope I shall be allowed to call attention to a kindred subject, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) is shortly about to address himself. My hon. and gallant Friend has given notice that he will to-night call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the enormous number of metropolitan railway schemes brought before Parliament in the present year. That is a subject which, I venture to say, the Government ought at once seriously to consider. If all these Bills go in the usual way before Select Committees, they must be referred, not to one Committee, but to two or more. I have seen the list, and it is impossible that any single Committee could undertake the task of dealing with them. But if they be referred to two Committees, that unity of plan and purpose which it is so desirable to retain where the metropolis is concerned will be lost. I have already stated that the capital of these projected metropolitan lines amounts, in round numbers, to £20,000,000. Their number is nearly one-half again as great as it was in 1864, when the magnitude of the undertakings projected caused Parliament to deal with them in a special manner. I think we ought to do again what we did two years ago. If it is inconvenient to send these Bills to two or three separate Committees, and if it is impossible to send them to any one Committee, the only alternative is to institute a preliminary inquiry and to weed the list, so to speak—to select those which are really urgent and important, and to throw over the rest to another Session. That was done two years ago by means of a Joint Committee of the two Houses. It was an experiment at the time, and an experiment as to the success of which many persons doubted. But it was one which when tried answered perfectly; and I never heard the general result which was arrived at complained of by any of the parties concerned. I think the Government cannot do better than repeat now what was done before. But if they adopt that course, it must be without delay. And I may remind them that the matter is one which, through the immense disturbance both of property and traffic that is involved, materially affects the comfort of three millions of people.

said, he had given notice of a Motion for that evening on the subject of railway and other Bills affecting the metropolis, but after the admirable speech of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) it would be needless for him to trouble the House with the observations he had intended to offer. He would content himself with adding a few words to what had been already so pointedly urged. The exact amount of capital comprised in the Railway Bills affecting the metropolis for this present Session was £19,149,000; and this was exclusive of other Bills to be submitted to Committees which affected the metropolis indirectly, involving a capital of over £27,000,000. He begged to add his strong recommendation to the President of the Board of Trade to take up this question at an early period, and see whether it could not be brought within moderate compass. In 1863 a Committee of the House of Lords recommended that every year the metropolitan railways should be taken in hand in a preliminary investigation, and the results submitted for the guidance of Parliament. In 1864 this was done; and the metropolitan schemes were submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses, of which his noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn, the President of the Board of Trade, and himself, were Members. The Joint Committee came to the resolution that, with a view of securing the most speedy and efficient communication between the various parts of the metropolis, all measures should be eliminated from the list of Railway Bills before Parliament which did not tend to some general scheme of communication. Acting in the spirit of that resolution a great number of Bills were thrown out, and a scheme of railway communication throughout the metropolis was drawn up and recommended as the basis of any future legislation. Unfortunately, in the last Session of Parliament the idea put forward by the Joint Committee of the previous year was abandoned. Independent companies came forward with plans having no reference whatever to the scheme, and rather interfering with the general plan. What he now suggested to his right hon. Friend was that rather by means of a Joint Committee, if the cooperation of the other House could be secured, or by means of a Royal Commission, it should be seen how far the metropolitan Railway Bills now before Parliament carried out the original recommendations of the two Houses. If any were found which failed to carry out, or which in any way interfered with, those original Colonel Wilson Patten recommendations, it ought at once to be set aside. This metropolitan question he took up, not so much from any personal interest in its solution—for many hon. Members naturally were more directly concerned in any decision which might be arrived at—as from its bearing on the large amount of Private Business before the House. This was so extensive that the greatest difficulty would be experienced in dealing with it, and if it were all proceeded with, he really did not think it would be possible to find Members to sit on all the various Committees that would be called for. The recommendation of the Board of Trade was to the effect that the metropolitan railways, fifty in number, should be divided into two groups; and that one Committee should take the railways on the north side of the river and the other those upon the south side. He could assure his right hon. Friend that the sacrifice of time which would be required from any Member undertaking the investigation of the Railway Bills affecting the northern side of the Thames would be a tax too serious almost to be imposed upon anybody. If the matter were left to chance, or if Members through overwork became careless in their attendance, there was great risk that the uniform plan of railway communication in the metropolis would be spoiled. It was very desirable, therefore, to establish, if possible, some preliminary investigation. Whether his right hon. Friend would agree to that suggestion he did not know, but the whole subject was worthy of his attention, considering the difficulties they would have to deal with if all these railway schemes were sent to Committees of that House without some previous arrangement.

I was not aware before the meeting of the House of the precise proposal which my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson Patten) was about to make with regard to metropolitan railways. I shall, of course, hesitate, without due consideration, to refuse to entertain any proposal of his on that subject, knowing the great experience my hon. and gallant Friend possesses on questions relative to the Private Business of the House, and to the difficulty encountered in forming Committees to transact it. I must, however, say that on looking into the Railway Bills for this year affecting the metropolis, the Board of Trade has not thought them of such a magnitude, or of so unusual a character, as to call upon it to recommend the adoption of any exceptional course in respect to them. It is true that in 1864 there was a Joint Committee of both Houses which took into consideration the railway projects of the year affecting the metropolis and that it eliminated many of them, postponing them for a future Session, and allowing only a certain number to proceed. But there was a reason for that course. There had been a Committee of the Lords in 1863; that Committee had laid down a comprehensive scheme for the metropolis; and, in consequence of that, a great number and variety of projects were submitted, all more or less to give effect to the recommendations made in the previous year by the Committee of the other House. Therefore it was necessary, on that as well as on other grounds, to consider all those projects and see which should be permitted to go on and which ought to be deferred. I do not think that is the case now. It is quite true there are at present a good many Railway Bills, but they are not all brought forward for the purpose of executing new works, nor are they all promoted by new companies. Many of them are, in fact, promoted by existing companies, to extend existing lines, and to form new junctions with those lines, thus rendering works already executed more useful. [Lord STANLEY: It was so in 1864.] Perhaps, so. Many of these metropolitan Bills also are unopposed—that is to say, there may be claims on the part of individuals for compensation for private property intended to be taken, but no opposition is offered to the schemes as a whole. In making these remarks I am not prepared, indeed, to say that it may not be necessary to have some kind of an inquiry; but I much doubt whether the case requires the same formal proceeding as took place in 1864. At the present moment, I believe that six of those Bill have been abandoned; and in reckoning up the capital proposed to be expended, all that has been done is to look at every Bill and count up the various schemes, without taking into consideration the fact that some of them may be competing schemes, both of which Parliament cannot, of course, sanction. The capital of all these competing schemes, however, goes to swell the grand total. Again, I must observe that if 3,000,000 of people be collected in a great city like London—if we are to have our enormous trade, both import and export—if we are to drive out a large body of the inhabitants to live in the suburbs, we must be prepared to have increased railway accommodation to bring those people to the great centres of business. Therefore, we must not be astonished if projectors come forward, not asking for the money of the State, but merely for permission to invest their own capital in what they believe to be a profitable way, and to meet the requirements of that great community. That appears to me to be a view of the subject which should be kept in mind; and although the magnitude of these undertakings may startle us for a moment, we must look at the magnitude of that great metropolis, the extent of its trade, and the urgent necessity there is for increased facilities for its traffic. Why, look at the state of the public streets at the present moment—at the thronging and inconvenience produced by the crowded condition of the thoroughfares! And it should be observed that many of these railway projects—some at least of those in the present year—are in precise accordance with the previous recommendations of Parliament—namely, under-ground railways, which, while the works are in progress, no doubt may cause some inconvenience, but when once they are finished, except as regards certain houses that are taken for an adequate compensation, leave everything above ground wholly unaffected. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson Patten) says we cannot get Committees to do the work; and I will admit that it is rather a strong proposal to ask four hon. Gentlemen to attend to the entire group of Bills applicable to the north side of the Thames, while another Committee deals with the second group for the southern side. The labours of such a Committee will, no doubt, be very considerable. I do not, however, think they will be so great as my hon. and gallant Friend supposes. The six schemes which have been abandoned all related, I believe, to the northern side, and are precisely those which would have given rise to the greatest amount of labour and investigation; while, at the same time, they would have interfered most with the general plan previously laid down by Parliament. Many of the schemes for the north side are not opposed; they merely take ground for stations, or small extensions of existing works; and I believe the residue left to be disposed of by that Committee would not be so great as my hon. and gallant Friend imagines. Still, I am ready to join with my hon. and gallant Friend in going into a careful analysis of these projects, and to give my best consideration to the proposal which he has made that night. I think these matters will not be found to be so formidable; and I do hope that Members of Parliament will not shrink from the labour which devolves upon them in reference to these matters. It is a duty, and a most important one, which they have to perform for the public. They are sent to that House to perform such duties, and must not shrink from their discharge. If we can divide a great group into smaller groups in such a way that separate schemes not bearing on each other might be considered by a separate Committee, or adopt some other course of that kind, without incurring the risk of the uniformity of plan being destroyed, no doubt we should lessen the labours of particular Committees. The question is one with which the Government by itself can hardly deal properly, involving as it does duties and functions to be performed by the Members of that House, and especially those duties which are discharged so well by my hon. and gallant Friend, without whose assistance I should scarcely be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion on this subject. Therefore, if my hon. and gallant Friend will unite with me in considering these matters we need not despair of arriving at their solution; but I repeat that I do not think a case has been made out for so formal a proceeding in the present year as the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses. I will next turn to a very different subject, with respect to which some Questions have been put to me earlier in the evening, but which the forms of the House, forbidding me to speak twice in this debate, precluded me from adverting to before. I now refer to the fisheries of the United Kingdom, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave) has called attention. My hon. Friend has alluded to the Report of the Commissioners who lately inquired into the sea fisheries, and asked me whether it is the intention of the Government to propose, during the present Session, to give effect to their recommendations by any legislation. I may be permitted to say that I think a more able Report than that which those Commissioners have laid before Parliament and the country was never made. It is perfectly evident that this inquiry has been most searching and complete, and con- ducted in a most diligent and judicious manner; and as far as the Government have been enabled to give its consideration to their Report, the inclination of our mind undoubtedly is, at the proper opportunity, to give effect, at any rate, to some of their recommendations. It is not probable that at so early a period measures should have been matured for carrying out those large recommendations by legislation; but, as far as concerns the French Convention, Her Majesty's Government have sent to the Government of France a copy of the Report, and have invited its attention to it with the view of ascertaining the extent to which the French Government would be prepared to go in revising the present Convention and in the repeal of those obstructions to free fishing which the Commission have recommended should be abolished. With respect to the propriety of terminating the French Convention by notice, no project of that kind has been entertained. The French Government has on former occasions shown a great willingness to entertain the question of that Fishery Convention, and I think when the Report of the English Commission has been considered by that Government, that Report will materially assist them in coming to a conclusion as to the principles upon which some revision of that Convention should be based. We have had also the benefit of very important inquiries which have been made in France; and I think the ground is now laid for putting our fishery laws upon a sound and satisfactory footing. I have also been asked whether the Government proposes to introduce a Bill empowering persons to appropriate portions of the foreshore for the purpose of cultivating oysters, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. The matter is well worthy of consideration; but it is obvious that a proposal to enable private persons, by going through certain forms, to appropriate portions of the foreshore to their exclusive use, demands very cautious consideration. I am glad, in conclusion, to be able to say that the Report of the Commissioners has entirely put an end to the apprehension that had been entertained in certain quarters, that the supply of fish for food is materially diminishing, for the Commissioners have clearly proved that the agency of man has hardly an appreciable influence in diminishing the supply of fish. On the contrary, with the exception of oysters, fish is as plentiful as it has ever been, and oysters, even in their opinion, had not fallen off from over fishing, but from causes over which man has no control. It is highly satisfactory that an inquiry undertaken in the spirit of a proposal to increase the restrictions upon fishing, should have resulted in showing that the supply of fish and the interests of fishermen would be best promoted by free and unrestricted fishing.

remarked, with reference to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade upon the subject of metropolitan railways, that, although he quite approved the spirit which induced the right hon. Gentleman to shrink from transferring the action of the Government upon the House or upon private legislation, yet he thought the feeling might be carried too far, because he could conceive of a state of things which would render it absolutely necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to interfere for the public good, and also for the purpose of ministering to the legitimate convenience of Members. The question of metropolitan railways was one of great interest and complexity. The present difficulty had arisen from the decision arrived at by the Joint Committee two years ago with respect to railways in the metropolis; for when the proposed restrictions had been once broken through Parliament was flooded with schemes. They were so numerous and so conflicting that there was great danger of confusion and delay, and in the meanwhile the injury to the inhabitants of London was enormous; houses were taken by thousands, and all the arrangements of business were seriously disturbed. He strongly urged that the whole of the schemes now before Parliament should be dealt with by one Committee of hon. Members, or, if possible, by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. If the many schemes were dealt with, as before, by several Committees in their separate rooms, the result, he feared, would be similar to the results of the past. Contradictory conclusions would be arrived at by the several Committees, based upon the diverse evidence of separate sets of witnesses, and thus discredit would be thrown upon the labours of hon. Gentlemen. To avoid this some directing mind should be brought to bear upon the whole subject, and the suggestion he had made would permit this to be done. He would also remind the House that the Board looking after the drainage of the metropolis had to watch these schemes in the interests of the public, and the greater the number of Committees the greater the expense to the ratepayers. He hoped these reasons would weigh with the right hon. Gentleman, and induce him to overcome those scruples which prevented him acting in the matter.

expressed a like opinion. In a great question of this kind, involving the welfare of thousands, nay, millions of people, different Committees, with different facts before them, ought not to have power of giving decisions; but the whole of the metropolitan railway schemes should be considered by one Committee, or one Commission, with all the facts before them. Additional railway accommodation was undoubtedly required in the metropolis; but that accommodation should be afforded according to a well-devised general scheme, and not on the haphazard speculation of different and conflicting companies. The working classes, turned out of their dwellings by the destruction inevitably arising from the making of metropolitan railways, ought also to have a large share of attention. A Joint Committee of the two Houses would probably be the best machinery.

believed that the remedy to the evil complained of was not to be found in a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, but in carrying out this simple proposition—of taking railway as well as all other private business before another tribunal than the House of Commons. Two years ago he served on a Committee in which a proposition to the effect that the whole business of railway legislation ought not to be undertaken by that House was negatived only by a majority of one; and since then the country had been plunged into such a state in relation to railway construction that he believed we had to pay for new lines something like 15 per cent, while the outlay for similar purposes was only 5 per cent in France. Thus it came to pass that no man in his senses was disposed to invest a single shilling in railway shares, and that it was left to engineers, lawyers, and others to construct those great and useful works, as it were on their own terms. That was the result of their attempting to keep legislation with respect to railways within that House. The influence, he might add, which the great railway companies brought to bear on that House and its Committees was perfectly unprece- dented; and it was their interest to prevent the construction of independent lines, and to retain the powers they already possessed. He (Mr. Whalley) considered that competition ought to be encouraged, and that the same system should be adopted with respect to railways which had been found to answer in other cases—namely, the delegation of these matters of detail to a tribunal properly constituted. As an illustration of the extent to which it prevailed, he might mention that after a Resolution that no Private Bill relating to railways should be opposed on the ground that the proposed line would enter into competition with an existing line had been carried in the Committee of 1863, it had, owing to the influence to which he referred, been rescinded. Such was the unsatisfactory nature of the existing system that a leading counsel before Parliamentary Committees was heard to say that he never had a case so bad as to lead him to despair of success, nor one so good as to make him feel confident that he would not fail. The question was one of great national importance, and the Government ought, he thought, to take it up in the national interest.

said, that he had postponed the Question and Motion of which he had given notice till to-night in deference to the wishes of hon. Members anxious to complete the discussion of the Cattle Plague Bill, and he did not regret it, for in the interval the House had learned from high authority—namely, that of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that the Fenian conspiracy was of American and not of Irish origin, and that it was not countenanced by the Government of the United States. This announcement was no doubt made upon definite information, and he was anxious that the House and the country should be re-assured by that information being officially made known. On the other hand, the postponement had placed him in this position, that the subject of the remarks he should have to make, though analogous to that so ably raised by the hon. Member, had been divided from it by a discussion on railways and a reply about the oyster fisheries. He could, no doubt, have imitated the example afforded him and have spoken upon the Motion of the hon. Member, but he thought he should thereby have strained the rules of the House. He had now to submit what, perhaps, might be considered the other half of this international question. His Question to the right hon. Gentleman was, If any and what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States in reference to the Fenian organization in America, and more especially as to the employment of United States officers, the issue of bonds of the so-called Irish Republic, and the threats made to levy war upon the dominions of Her Majesty by that organization? And he also moved for all papers connected with the subject, in order that the House might know the true position of affairs and ascertain whether or not the Government had given, as he hoped, their serious attention to so pressing and serious a matter. He had received a friendly hint from an hon. Friend who usually sat in that part of the House to the effect that it was undesirable to raise this Question for fear of causing irritation in the United States, and because the Fenian movement would, if let alone, at last die out. He feared it would not die out of itself, and that it would have to be repressed. He was not likely to say anything which could lead to irritation. He had visited the United States frequently. He had considerable interest in its industry and physical progress, and he was proud to count many citizens of that great country as his personal friends. The people of this country were an outspoken people, and those of the United States were not less outspoken, and they each honoured the other for the quality. He did not believe that anything could be, or ever had been, gained to the cause of truth and right by the concealment of the true opinions of one great people as to the conduct or omissions of another. On the contrary, the language of mystery always led to misapprehension of its motives, and that which frank and honest representation would easily set right grew into dimensions of difficulty and danger. He felt sure, therefore, that the people and the Government of the United States, so far from being offended, would be glad to know the real opinion of this country, as reflected by that House, upon the pending movement. He had recently been in the United States. He was at Philadelphia when the Fenian Congress was sitting there in October last. He was in New York when the headquarters of the Fenian organization were removed from Duane Street to one of the largest houses in Union Square, which was set up as what they called the Fenian "Capitol," and was surmounted by their adopted flag. He was also in Canada when rumours, more or less serious, arrived of intended Fenian raids into British territory, and knew that preparations had to be made to resist attack. A few days after he left Washington a Fenian deputation, beaded by Colonel Roberts, waited upon—he hoped he might say intruded themselves upon—President Johnson at the "White House," the official residence of the President of the United States, to thank him, on behalf of the Fenian Congress of Philadelphia, for the liberation of John Mitchell. The deputation said that that congress contained delegates from no less than thirty States and territories of the American Union affiliated together for the liberation of Ireland. Now, the result of the observations he had been able to make convinced him of three things—first, that the Fenian organization was exclusively and without doubt or question of American origin, being, in fact, a continuation of the old "Phcenix" Societies; second, that it was not sympathized in by native Americans at large—still less by the native American officers of the United States army; and third, that it did not arise from or exist in those immense portions of the continent over which, happily, the British Crown held sway and the British flag floated. Now, while the deliberations of the Fenians were called secret, their object and the mode by which they sought to accomplish them were known and avowed. No one in the United States could plead that he did not know that there existed a vast ramification all over the States, having war with a peaceful ally for its avowed object. With regard to the congress at Philadelphia, he might mention that one peculiar feature was the presence of a large number of officers in the employment and pay of the Government of the United States. He had got in his hand a list of a very small committee of the congress, and yet it contained the names of no less than ten volunteer officers belonging to the United States. Three of these were generals, five were colonels, one was a captain, and the last one was a lieutenant. [Mr. ROEBUCK: What countrymen are they?] They were Irish-Americans, availing themselves of the rights of American citizenship. During the constant public discussions in America many things were said which completely disclosed the objects of the Fenian organization. He had with him many reports, including the report of a meeting of delegates to the Fenian Congress, and, without troubling the House with the speeches, he might mention that the general result was that the speakers avowed that they had met to "complete" their organization, the object being to "liberate" Ireland from the Government of Her Majesty, and do so, if need be, by force of arms. But he would picture what the organization was by quoting other and more definite evidence. First of all, Mr. Justice Keogh, in charging the jury at the first of the recent trials in Ireland, described Fenianism as follows. That learned Judge said—

"That its ramifications existed not only in this country, but in the States of America; that the supplies of money and of arms for the purposes of a general insurrection were being collected, not only here, but on the other side of the Atlantic; and, finally, that the object of this confederation was the overthrow of the Queen's authority, the separation of this country from Great Britain, the destruction of our present Constitution, the establishment of some democratic or military despotism, and a general division of every description of property as the result of a successful civil war."

"There is in this city (New York) a military engineering class of 100, taught by an engineer formerly on M'Clellan's staff in the peninsular campaign. Subscriptions are handed in to large amounts every week from all parts of the country. A bank account is kept by the Brotherhood in its own name, and a clerical force is employed to keep the accounts and attend to the correspondence of the Brotherhood. One of the bank note companies, as Colonel Roberts stated in his speech last night, are printing 8 per cent bonds in the name of the 'Irish Republic,' one and indivisible. They will be ready next week in denominations of 10 dollars, 20 dollars, 50 dollars, 100 dollars, 600 dollars, and 1,000 dollars. In the centre will be a figure of Liberty drawing a sword, and at the sides vignettes of Emmett and Lincoln. It is confidently hoped by the leaders that these will be taken up very rapidly, and that large orders will come from the country and from the West. It is stated that negotiations are pending for the purchase of eight ocean steamers, each warranted to carry 1,000 men, with the certainty almost that the purchase will be made before the 1st of October. It is farther said that there have been immense purchases of arms from the Government by parties who are supposed to be identified with the Fenians, and that propositions for further purchases are now under consideration. At the Fenian headquarters in Duane Street they are continually boxing up muskets, but of course no information is given as to where they are sent. There are twentyseven circles in New York, and Colonel John O'Mahoney is the head centre of the organization throughout the country."

"There is a Secretary of War, a Secretary of the Navy, and most of the usual officers of a regularly constituted Government. The society is known to be in treaty with a gunmaker for the purchase of a large quantity of arms which he bought of the Government after the war. The agents of the Fenians have been in Washington within the last fortnight, endeavouring to ascertain whether Mr. Welles, the Secretary of the Navy, will sell them any of the vessels for which the Government has no further use. Whether they succeeded in seeing Mr. Welles or not I cannot say; but it is well known that they have had interviews with Mr. Stanton. These facts, taken together, and many other circumstances which it would be too tedious to repeat, but which are well known here, prove at least that the Fenian organization is now a power, and one which cannot be scattered by the arrest of a few of its members in Ireland."

"On the occasion of my recent visit to the United States, many of these poor deluded people talked as flippantly and confidently of taking all British America in the course of this winter and holding it as if they already had the title deeds in their packets. If they come on the strength of their own resources, it will indeed be a laughable scare; and from what is now occurring at New York, we may easily foresee the glorious denouement. Two millions of Protestants and eighteen hundred thousand Catholics, who have mothers, wives, and daughters, happy homes and free altars, and a Government of their own choice, will meet them as they would the freebooter and the assassin, with knife in hand, on the trail of his victim. From their success we have nothing to expect but bloodshed, rapine, and anarchy, and the overthrow of God's religion; for all this is inscribed on their banners."

"If any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, begin or set on foot, or provide or prepare, the means for any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or State, or any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding 3,000 dollars or imprisoned not more than three years. The indictment by the Crand Jury was procured at the instance of United States District Attorney Dickinson, on intimation received from the Secretary of State, who was, of course, directed in the matter by the President."

"By their treaties with several of the belligerent Powers, treaties forming part of the law of the land, they had established a state of peace with them. But without appealing to treaties, they were at peace with them all by the law of nature; for by the natural law, man is at peace with man till some aggression is committed, which by the same law authorizes one to destroy another, as his enemy. For the citizens of the United States, then, to commit murders and depredations on the members of other nations, or to combine to do it, appeared to the American Government as much against the laws of the land as to murder or rob, or combine to murder or rob, their own citizens; and as much to require punishment, if done within the limits where they had a territorial jurisdiction—or on the high seas, where they had a personal jurisdiction, that is to say, one which reached their own citizens only; this being an appropriate part of each nation, on an element where each has a common jurisdiction."

"The same principles were afterwards incorporated in a law of Congress passed in 1794, and revised and re-enacted in 1818, by which it is declared to be a misdemeanor for any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to augment the force of any armed vessel, belonging to one foreign Power at war with another Power, with whom they are at peace; or to prepare any military expedition against the territories of any foreign nation with whom they are at peace; or to hire or enlist troops or seamen for foreign military or naval service; or to be concerned in fitting out any vessel to cruise or commit hostilities in foreign service, against a nation at peace with them; and the vessel, in this latter ease, is made subject to forfeiture."

Sir, I feel it to be a matter of public duty, and I think it is one of considerable public importance, that I should immediately follow the hon. Gentleman. I should consider that I failed in my duty if I allowed any other Member to interpose. I will despatch very shortly, obeying reluctantly the somewhat confused and confusing law of the House, any reference that may be necessary to matters which were raised in the earlier part of the evening. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) made a proposal that the rates of postage on newspapers should be reduced, in consequence of the low rates at which they were carried by the railways. He mentioned that newspapers were in some instances carried by railways from station to station at a halfpenny, and in Some cases at a farthing. It would be in vain to enter on a detailed reply to the hon. Member, but there is this broad distinction to be made between the service performed by the Post Office and the railways, that the latter undertake no kind whatever of collection or distribution, and that is the most serious and costly part of the service performed by the Post Office. There are other distinctions as to the service rendered, but I think I may for the present waive the details of that question. Then with regard to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Queen's county in relation to the Irish railways. He made a joint appeal to the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) and myself, and he received from the noble Lord a reply explanatory of the views of the Commission on that very important subject. The course of the Government is for the present necessarily limited in a very great degree by the proceedings of the Commission. I may, however, say that we shall not be disposed to be kept back by trivial obstacles, or to be restrained by any considerations of form or by any argument of a doubtful character from putting a favourable construction upon any plans which may be proposed or suggested with regard to the Irish question. Beyond this I can hardly go. There are many points of difference between the connection of Government with English and with Irish railways, one in particular being that there is no comparison between the capitals sunk in those undertakings in the two countries. It must also be recollected that while the Royal Commission has done much to inform us upon the subject of Irish railways, the companies themselves have done nothing towards laying any practical suggestions before the Government upon which they could act. And now I come to the important remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin). The hon. Member asks if any and what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States in reference to the Fenian organization in America, and more especially as to the employment of United States officers, the issue of bonds of the so-called Irish Republic, and the threats made to levy war upon the dominions of Her Majesty by that organization. No Motion has been made by the hon. Gentleman, but I believe I may say that there are no papers relating to this matter that can be produced.

said, that he had omitted to conclude with a Motion, believing that it was needless. He trusted he should be permitted to supply the omission. He moved for the production of the papers connected with the subjects.

It is immaterial. There are no papers upon this subject to be produced. The hon. Member, apparently anticipating that a reason might be asked of him for raising the discussion which he has introduced, stated as his reason for so doing that the people of the United States are an outspoken people, and that we in this country are an outspoken people also. I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the perfectly free discussion of all subjects whatever in this House forms perhaps the most characteristic, and also the most valuable, and important feature of our habits. At the same time it does appear to me that considerations of time and of place, and of the order of proceedings, as well as considerations of prudence and policy bear very strongly not against the general principle announced by the hon. Gentleman, but upon the question whether particular things should or should not be said at a particular time or in a particular place. I confess if I ask myself what useful object it is that the hon. Member anticipates from commencing a discussion upon this subject at the present moment, I find it difficult to give an answer to the question. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to recollect, considering the tone of his remarks, the position in which we ourselves usually and habitually stand in the face of foreign nations—that the proceedings of English citizens are constantly made the subject of complaint abroad, and that imputations are constantly thrown upon the English Government of a disinclination to interfere with those proceedings—I would ask him further to remember that we plead against those imputations the freedom of our laws and our habits, and the extreme inexpediency and imprudence of attempts on the part of Government at taking measures of repression on behalf of, or in the interests of a foreign Government, unless those measures of repression are founded upon facts perfectly notorious and are certain to be attended with success. I am bound to say I do not think there was in the speech of the hon. Gentleman a sufficient allowance for those considerations on behalf of the Government of the United States. Now, in looking at the hon. Gentleman's statements, I find that he made them with the hope that I should be able to show that all means of repression had been exhausted by the United States Government. [Mr. WATKIN expressed his dissent.] I am quoting as nearly as possible the words of the hon. Member.

The right hon. Gentleman has not quite accurately described what I meant to say. It was that I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would be able to show the House that they had exhausted every means in their power to prevail upon the Government of the United States to fulfil the duties of neutrality, and that that Government was loyally endeavouring to do so.

I accept the hon. Member's correction of my statement, but do not think the difference is material. Does the hon. Gentleman really suppose that on his making these statements from the newspapers for the first time publicly in this House, without having had any previous communication with Government on the subject, it would be in my power to follow him, to identify the sources from which he drew his information—in some instances he did not state what those sources were—and to show upon a careful examination which of these statements could or could not be made matters of representation to the United States Government? I am bound to say that it does appear to me that if we are to maintain the full discharge of international duties, these international duties affect not Governments alone, but also all those who fill public stations in civilized countries. If statements are to be made apparently with the intention of implicating the good faith of a foreign country, it is hardly too much to ask that those statements should first be placed in the hands of the authorized representatives of our own Government, in order that, if necessary, those particular statements may be made the subject of communication between the two countries, so that our own Government may either be made responsible for declining to act upon those statements, or else that the Government of which the complaint is made, may be made responsible for declining to act upon the remonstrances which may be addressed to them in reference to those statements. The Chancellor of the Exchequer The hon. Gentleman has made statements which are in a great measure vague with regard to the points in issue. It may be perfectly true—and is, unhappily, too true—that Fenianism in the main, and by the means by which it is supported, is a thing imported from America. As to that there can be no doubt. But that is not by any means sufficient to show that representations should be made to the American Government, and that that Government should be challenged to put it down, or to show good reason for not doing so. There are Gentlemen here who heard the admirable speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in the early part of the evening. What did he say in reference to the demand that we should submit the case of the Alabama to arbitration. He said—

"We are reluctant to allow that the Government are responsible for the putting down and the prevention of things which cannot be put down and prevented."

After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I prefer the responsibility for its withdrawal remaining with the Government.

said, that in these matters he thought that safety was not always to be found in silence. In 1853, when the relations between this country and Russia were in a state of extreme tension, his hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) persistently but unsuccessfully requested information from the Government with regard to these matters, but he was always met with the answer that it would not be consistent with public interests that the subject should be discussed in the House. What happened? The country "drifted" into a war. His hon. Friend was then, and, he believed, was still of opinion that if discussion had taken place, and the Emperor of Russia had been made acquainted with the opinion of this country through the House of Commons, the Crimean War would have been averted. So he hoped it would be with regard to this Fenian question. He had too much confidence in the justice and good feeling of President Johnson, and of the American people, to believe for one instant that if they were aware of the state of feeling in this country, and of the mischief which was being created by the Fenian organization in America, that they would tolerate it any longer. He was convinced, that if the American people were acquainted with this fact, the American Government would take steps to put an end to proceedings as dangerous to that country as to England. It was with this conviction that he thought it advisable, soon at all events, if not immediately, to discuss this matter. He could not imagine that President Johnson, who had on so many occasions exhibited a most friendly feeling towards this country, and who had described himself in a personal interview with his hon. Friend as animated by feelings of friendship and sympathy towards us, would have granted the release of that notorious convict and rebel, Mitchell, at the request of the Fenian Association, or have allowed a regiment of the New York State Militia to have protected the so-called President of the Irish Be public while occupying a building termed the Capitol, had he known how these acts would be regarded in this country. These things were done, he believed, because not only the President, but also the whole of the people of America regarded the movement with the most profound contempt, and because they were not aware of the light in which it was viewed in this country. But what was a joke in New York became a crime in Ireland. Out of eighty-five men lately arrested in Ireland, forty-five were Irish Federal officers. He was therefore satisfied that it was for the interests of this country that representations should be made to the American Government. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government had no information upon the subject, he should like to know what our Minister at Washington had been doing. The right hon. Gentleman said that the statements of his hon. Friend the member for Stockport were too vague, and could not be regarded as authentic. They were, however, matters of notoriety. Not only had they been published in the American newspapers, but they had been copied by the English and French press, and foreign newspapers were discussing the subject and asking us what we were going to do. Our Minister must be acquainted with these facts, and must have greatly neglected his duty if he had not drawn the attention of our Government to them. He believed, therefore, that Her Majesty's Ministers would be greatly neglecting their duty if they did not make some representations to the American Government upon the subject, making that Government acquainted with the light in which Fenianism was regarded in England, and the misery it was causing in Ireland.

said, that in spite of the suggestion which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not avoid trespassing for a few moments upon the indulgence of the House, as he totally differed from the hon. Member who had just spoken. He thought that no course could possibly be more unwise than that recommended by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin). He had only just returned from America, where he had ample opportunity of forming a judgment upon the Fenian movement, and ascertaining the amount of support which it derived from the American people. He might tell the hon. Gentleman that if he were himself a "Head Centre" he could not possibly have suggested a course more agreeable to the leaders of that movement. The one thing the Fenians desired was that notice should he taken of them. Their proceedings had been ridiculed from one end of America to the other. The request which they had ever made was that the sympathy which had persistently been denied to their movement should be accorded by the American Government. He did not believe that it was difficult to account for the unpopularity in which the Fenian movement was held in America. The Americans denied them any sympathy, in the first place, because there was not a gentleman among them. The Americans had a peculiar susceptibility upon that point. They admired such an individual when they could find him. But when they found that the Fenians were composed of the hewers of wood, the drawers of water, the waiters at hotels, and men engaged in similar occupations, the movement failed entirely in gaining the respect and admiration of the American people. Again, the Fenians had been ill-advised enough to start another nationality, and there could not possibly be anything more distasteful to the Americans, who approved no nationality but the Anglo-Saxon, to which they belonged. But the Fenians endeavoured to establish a Celtic nationality in Canada, just as it was desired to set up a Latin Empire in Mexico. The Fenians were in a manner regarded as traitors to the country, because the idea of losing the bone and sinew of the country, the Irish population by whom all the drudgery was performed, was viewed by the Americans with little short of horror. If they could possibly stop Fenianism, they would do so to-morrow. Besides, to secure for such a movement the sympathy of a great nation, the leaders must act with some consistency, and display not only dignity, but also some political sagacity. But ever since the Fenians had obtained money sufficient to quarrel over, they immediately commenced their bickerings, and the disputes of Mr. Head Centre O'Mahoney and President Roberts had become the laughing stock of the whole country. The New York Herald, which had at first taken a good deal of notice of the Fenians in consequence of its large circulation among the Irish, had, by trying to please each party, gained the antagonism of both, and the editor of the New York Times, Mr. Raymond, more unfortunate still, was challenged by O'Mahoney at the outset of his career to mortal combat. Acting in this manner, they did not conciliate public feeling in America. There was another reason why they were unpopular in America, and that was a political one. In the old days, before the war, political parties in America were divided into Democrats and Republicans, and the Democrats relied for success on the Irish vote in the State of New York. Naturally, during that time the Republicans looked upon the Irish as their natural enemies. The antipathy of the Irish to the negro was so great that this was certain to procure for them the antipathy of the Abolitionists. If there was anything which an Irishman hated more than an Anglo-Saxon it was a negro, and the result was that when at the end of the war the Democratic party became extinct, the Irish, who would have had the sympathy of the Democrats if their party succeeded, were deprived of those sympathies, but retained the hostility of the Republicans, so that for political reasons they were without the sympathy of any portion of the Americans. The want of success in New York had been so great that the rival camps had transferred the theatre of their operations to the rural districts, and were literally "starring in the provinces. "The estimate in which the movement was held might be gathered from an extract which he would read to the House from an American paper—

"The decline from heroic tragedy to the moat stupid of burlesques during the internecine war in this city between the Head Centre and the Senate has been duly recorded. The ridiculous force is over, the smoke has cleared away, the parties themselves have become indifferent or weary, and the whole thing is as flat and uninteresting as a wake without whisky. By the new tactics the grand campaign for the liberation of Ireland is transferred from this city to the rural regions. A dozen imitators of Peter the Hermit are abroad and sounding the 'hewgag.' The American Continent (except Canada) is to be aroused, and in less than no time the Queen's minions from Cork to Coleraine, and from Dublin to Galway, are to skedaddle, leaving Mr. Chief Executive Stephens at liberty to creep from his hiding-place under the blarney stone, hoist the 'sunburst,' and proclaim at last the Republic of Ireland. But thus far the new tactics have not worked quite up to expectation. There is a Corsican feud—a regular vendetta—between the Head Centre faction and the Senate faction. If a senatorian undertakes to lecture, a Head Cen-treite is on his track like a bloodhound, and before he has time to say 'Fellow-citizens,' the other side puts in an appearance and the fun commences. The enthusiastic hearers at once take sides. Irishmen never hesitate to do that much, no matter what the question, and the lecturer stands as much chance of being heard as a Puritan psalm-singer at Donnybrook Fair. This was the case the other day at Troy, where the lecturing crusade was inaugurated. The doors were hardly opened before the Milesian blood was at fever heat, and in default of a regiment or two of Life Guards to wallop, the boys went at each other. They did not hear the lecture, but they did enjoy the coveted luxury of a regular hulla-balloo, such as would have done honour to Tipperary in its best days. This ridiculous spectacle will doubtless be witnessed in most of our large towns, the squabbles of the O'Mahonians and the Senate being, thank fortune, transferred from this city to the provinces."

said, he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman admit, at the conclusion of his speech, the grave character of a question which at the beginning of it he had treated in too jocular a manner. He was unable, however, to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the re-opening of all the complicated questions which arose during the late war would be the best course for the Government to adopt for bringing about the kindly feeling which he hoped would be maintained by both countries. It was a misfortune that Irish affairs were always viewed under two opposite aspects. Only a few days ago, for instance, the House was in solemn conclave on the course proposed to be adopted by the Government in consequence of the serious emergencies which had arisen in Ireland. To-night, on the contrary, the House had been told that the matter was treated in America as a matter of jest, and that it was wrong to regard the subject as one which Her Majesty's Government could legitimately bring under the notice of the Government of the United States. For his own part, he thought that the hon. Member for Stockport had done great service in bringing this question before the House. He thought, moreover, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had avoided the real question. No want of faith was imputed to the American Government; no blame or breach of national obligation was charged upon them; but what the hon. Gentleman had said was that this Fenian organization had existed for years in America, had raised large sums of money, manufactured and exported large quantities of arms and ammunition, and sent subsidized agents to this country to excite sedition. The hon. Gentleman had asked why we should be afraid of urging upon the American Government the importance of giving their attention to this state of things. We had a large diplomatic establishment in foreign countries, and the matter must long ago have been communicated to the Government. They could not be the only persons ignorant of it. He sincerely hoped, now that the serious attention of the Government had been called to the facts, the House would soon have the satisfaction of hearing that some action had been taken in reference to this subject.

Sir, I shall address only a few words to the House upon the present occasion, for I have been so deeply impressed with the last observation which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I hope the House will not prosecute the discussion. There are now two grave propositions before the House. One of them, emanating from the hon. Gentleman opposite, calls upon the Government to discuss one of the most difficult international questions which can be conceived—namely, what is to be the conduct of different countries with regard to the Foreign Enlistment Act. The other, brought forward by the hon. Member for Stockport, without any specific notice, drawing the attention of the Government to the particular question to be considered, has reference to the representations to be made to a friendly Power and ally with regard to its relations with this country. I regret to see questions so grave, so difficult, and so embarrassing, nay, questions which may involve this country in a controversy the end of which none can foresee, brought forward on a Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and I think that, while the House has an undoubted right to debate with perfect freedom any question that may be brought before it, it will be advisable under the circumstances not to continue the present discussion. I will only add that a grave matter like this, affecting Ireland and our relations with the United States of America, ought to be brought before the House upon a specific Motion, after due notice has been given to the Government. I hope the House will not prosecute this discussion further, as a decision cannot now be arrived at which would give satisfaction to the House and to the country.

said, no Member of the House had been more delighted to hear the course the discussion had taken than himself. The tone that had been taken by the Government and by all the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, showed that the House was most sincerely and most deeply anxious to maintain friendly relations with the United States of America. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) in the earlier part of the debate, had said, in speaking of the question of arbitration in reference to the Alabama and other vessels that went out from this country during the American war, that there were two reasons which, in his opinion, prevented the country from going to arbitration. The first reason was that nations must not compromise their honour, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said that dishonour might have been imputed to this country if we had gone to arbitration. He (Mr. Hughes) thought he had a right to ask why? If the Government had been right in their contention there could have been no dishonour in taking that course. He felt very strongly upon that point. It was all very well to say that it was with nations as it was with individuals, that they were the guardians of their own honour, but even in the days when duelling flourished, and men were apparently more jealous of their honour, the duellists had seconds who formed a court of arbitration to which the principals went, before going to the great argument arbitrium. The second of the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasons was that it would have been a dangerous precedent if the Government had held themselves responsible for the acts of subjects which could not have been prevented. In that, however, the learned Attorney General begged the whole question, which was whether or not these acts could have been prevented. The American people said that they could have been, and though he did not say that he agreed with them, as he thought it very probable that those acts could not have been prevented, still he thought it would have been better if the matter had gone before an impartial tribunal, so that it might have been proved whether prevention could have been applied or not. He did not wonder at the soreness of the Americans, or at their say- ing that the lion's paw was the only law with John Bull. That whether right or wrong we would have our own way, and would not submit to an impartial tribunal. It had been said that the American Government had treated France and Spain in a very different manner to that in which they had treated this country, and he believed that to have been the case, but France and Spain had treated America in a different manner from that pursued by this country, and had allowed no Alabamas to leave their shores. [Cries of" Oh, oh !"] Hon. Gentlemen might say "Oh, oh !" but he had, he believed, taken more trouble to understand America than most Gentlemen in that House. He could not see what reason we had to refuse to go to arbitration, though he refrained from expressing his opinion as to whether that tribunal would decide we were right or wrong. The complaint of America was simply this, that we somehow or another, whether rightly or wrongly, allowed certain vessels to escape from our ports, and to prey upon their commerce, and when they asked us for an impartial tribunal of arbitration we refused it.

opposed the clause. He objected to Irish cattle being dealt with in the same manner as cattle imported from abroad as far as regarded compensation, while the owners of the latter cattle were allowed advantages not given to those of the former.

reminded the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that the cattle disease had not appeared in Ireland.

suggested that on the arrival in this country of cattle from Ireland or abroad the number of living animals should be compared with the number shipped, and if it was found that any animal had died on the passage all the remaining ones should be destroyed.

called attention to the fact that in the preamble to the Bill a number of symptoms were set forth as those by which an animal suffering from cattle plague might be recognized. From the construction of the clause it might be held that as this was a penal Act no animal could be slaughtered under it unless it had all those symptoms. He therefore moved that those words should be omitted from the preamble.

said, that under the former Act of Parliament it had been found necessary to indemnify all parties who had acted under the Orders in Council, and it would be very desirable to introduce some clause specifying the kind of Orders they should pass, because if they should pass Orders in Council as extensive as those now in force, they might have to come to Parliament again for an indemnity.

said, he was quite aware of the importance of the point to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred.

said, he thought it would be found impossible to apply any one rule to various parts of the country, because the local authority and other circumstances differed so much in character; and he feared that the Bill would in consequence tend to spread the disease rather than check it.

remarked that if the right hon. Gentleman held the opinion he expressed it was a pity he had allowed the Bill to pass.

said, the Bill had been passed very hastily, and he feared it would prove a crude measure in many respects.

observed, that the Bill had been very carefully considered and passed in opposition to the Government measure. He was sure the thanks of the House and country were due to his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) for the trouble he had taken in respect of the matter. He felt convinced the measure would not be found ineffectual for its object.