§ Mr. T. L. CORBETT (for Mr. Homer)asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on both the 12th and 24th of January the Cunard steamers were unable to land their homeward mails at Fishguard, whereas on both occasions the steamers could 351 have landed their mails at Queenstown, and thus have obviated the loss and inconvenience to merchants, traders, and others in Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom caused by the delay of a full day each time in dealing with their correspondence; and whether the Government, having now had practical proof of the superiority of Queenstown as a port of call, would retain it as such for both outward and inward American mails?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am aware that on the two occasions in question the Cunard packets, having passed Queenstown, found themselves unable, on account of stress of weather, to call at Fish-guard for the purpose of landing mails, and I understand that on each occasion it would have been possible to land the mails at Queenstown. I have no intention of abandoning the call at Queenstown for the purpose of embarking mails on the British contract packets of the Cunard and White Star Lines on the outward voyage. As regards the homeward voyage, the companies are under no contract obligations with me, and I am not in a position to determine their ports of call.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORIs it not a fact that not only are these vessels not able to call at Fishguard owing to stress of weather, but frequently also are unable to call owing to the prevalence of fogs, which occur there very often?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELMy attention has not been called to that point. On the two occasions mentioned in the question the reason for the non-calling of the boats at Fishguard was the stress of weather.
§ Mr. REMNANTIs it not a fact that-there are fewer fogs at Fishguard than at Queenstown?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am afraid I cannot give any information as to the degree of fogginess.