Sitting of 4 May 1866

IRELAND—CHOLERA—QUARANTINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government have taken, or ordered to be taken, any steps to establish a really practical and effective system of quarantine in Cork Harbour as a precaution against the introduction of Cholera in Emigrant or other vessels entering that port; whether it is intended to send to Cork Harbour an old Man of War or Hulk to be used, in case of necessity, as a floating Hospital, for the reception of patients, emigrants, or others afflicted with that disease; and whether it is not the opinion of the Government that whatever is to be done as a means of precaution should be done immediately, and without a day's delay?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he quite agreed that what was done as a means of precaution against cholera should be done immediately, and the Government had acted in that spirit; for so long ago as July, 1865, when cholera was reported to be at Alexandria, they thought it right to address a circular to the municipal authorities of all the ports in Great Britain, calling their attention to the necessity of taking precautions against its introduction, and directing then, in anticipation of its appearance, that proper hospital accommodation should he provided for the reception of patients. He did not know what steps had been taken by the municipal authorities in consequence of those warnings, except that at Liverpool there is a hospital specially prepared for the reception of cholera patients. It was very doubtful whe-

  437
  ther a ship was the best kind of hospital for cholera patients, and whether it would not be much better that provision should be made for them on shore; but the hon. Gentleman was probably aware that for six years a vessel had been stationed in Queenstown Harbour, at an expense to the Emigration Commissioners of £300 a year, which had never been used except on one occasion for a few days. It was, therefore, thought desirable to discontinue it. At present it was impossible for the Admiralty to provide ships for cholera hospitals at all the different ports; but if there was any urgent necessity at Cork, the Admiralty would be prepared, if there was any difficulty in providing the necessary accommodation on shore, to place a ship at the disposal of the municipal authorities as a temporary expedient, those authorities undertaking the general charge and superintendence. In such a case the municipal authorities ought to apply to the Admiralty, stating the circumstances which induced them to think such an arrangement desirable. With regard to quarantine, he could only say that in consequence of information from Liverpool received by telegram, and since confirmed by letter, the Privy Council had met, and were considering the terms of an Order which would give municipal authorities additional powers to deal with ships that might arrive with cholera patients on board.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to know whether the expense occasioned by the hospital accommodation provided at the various ports to meet the great danger of cholera would be borne by the municipal authorities, or by Government subsidies?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he believed that under the present law that expense fell on the local funds administered by the municipal authorities.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that the municipal authorities of Cork had no control over Queenstown harbour.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not at all aware of that fact but the municipal authorities should themselves make their own application to the Admiralty stating all the facts of the case.

SLAUGHTERED CATTLE.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would beg leave to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, since the Return No. 159, relating to the
438
Cattle Plague has been laid upon the table of the House (namely, since April 10), Her Majesty's Government have been able to decide what compensation they will propose to give to Farmers whose Cattle have been slaughtered under the Orders of the Privy Council?
SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, that the Paper referred to by the noble Lord did not give the necessary information. The Return was made on a Motion for the actual number of cattle slaughtered, but did not state the circumstances under which they were slaughtered, and whether the owners received any and what compensation, or how long the cattle had been in the possession of their owners. There were cases in which he was aware infected cattle were bought cheap—a safe speculation; for if they died there was no great loss, and if not their owners made a good bargain. He was not satisfied that in such cases any compensation should be awarded. Inquiries had been addressed by the Privy Council to the local authorities in England and Scotland to ascertain the circumstances under which the slaughter of cattle had taken place and their estimated value. He had inquired of the Privy Council what had been the result of that inquiry, and he was told that Returns had been received from 133 local authorities, none of whom had any cases of slaughter to report in which compensation was claimed, in twelve cases Returns had been received of the number slaughtered and the estimated value, and in 122 cases no answers had been returned. He was not, therefore, in a condition to give a reply to the noble Lord's Question.

CHURCH RATES.—QUESTION.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that observing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given notice of a Bill on the subject of Church Rates, he wished to know, Whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds intended to ask the House to go into Committee on his Bill on Wednesday next?
MR. HARDCASTLE: No; it is not my intention to go into Committee on that day.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he had to request the indulgence of the House for a few moments while he made a personal explanation. His attention had been called to a

439
statement which he made during a debate which some time ago took place on the Administration of Justice in the county of Monaghan, and which he was given to understand had given pain to the relatives of a person whom he mentioned; and therefore he wished to set himself quite right on the subject. He was reported to have stated, and he believed accurately, that a person of the name of Samuel Gray, in the county of Monaghan, had been accused of killing or slaying eleven persons. He mentioned it as a matter of memory, referring to events long past. He understood the statement was considered to be inaccurate, and he had deemed it his duty to ascertain what the facts were. From the most accurate information he could obtain, it appeared that the person in question was first tried for the murder of a man named MacMahon, in the county of Monaghan, and was acquitted by a jury of that county. There were some other trials in which he was mixed up not connected with the sacrifice of human life. Subsequently he was tried for the murder of a man named Owen Murphy, and was again acquitted. He was afterwards tried for attempting the murder of another man, and found guilty and sentenced to death. Mr. Napier, however, his counsel, reserved some points, which were brought before the House of Lords, and the trial was quashed.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE NATIONAL DEBT.—QUESTION.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is willing to postpone the Resolution touching the Reduction of the National Debt from Monday next to a future day, in order to afford time to the House and the Country to bestow a reasonable consideration upon a question of so much importance and difficulty, and a scheme of so complicated a character? He also wished to ask, whether, before any discussion is taken on that Resolution, he is prepared to lay on the table of the House a statement of the exact mode in which the £24,000,000 is at present invested?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that with respect to the latter question he could remove the misapprehension under which the hon. and learned Gentleman obviously laboured. There was no investment whatever of that £24,000,000. It was what was called a book debt; a mere acknowledgment of debt on the part of the public to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. That £24,000,000 of book debt had been substituted for £24,000,000 of stock which was formerly held by the Commissioners, and which was cancelled upon the creation of that book debt. Consequently, it was simply a representative in another form of that old book debt, at the same rate of interest; but there were no securities to which it had any reference at all. With regard to the former part of the Question, his hon. and learned Friend had said that this was a subject of necessarily some complication, in which he quite agreed with him, though he should draw quite the opposite inference. The preliminary Resolution, which he had moved, was a Resolution according to the usual form, couched in very general terms, and giving very general powers; and it would be very difficult to engraft upon that Resolution a general discussion on the merits of the subject. He thought that if Gentlemen were disposed to say, "We object entirely to this principle of conversion of permanent debt into terminable annuities," that was a question which might conveniently be raised upon the Resolution; and, therefore, if there were any disposition to take a ground so broad as that, he should be the last person to ask the House of Commons to pass the Resolution without full opportunity of discussion. But if there was a disposition to entertain the principle of the measure at all, or under any circumstances, either as to this £24,000,000, or any part of it, or as to the further measure which was contemplated in the re-investment of dividends, and which, he thought, might require a fuller statement than he was able to give on the preceding evening, then he confessed it appeared to him that it would be greatly for the convenience of the House that any discussion that was to be taken should be taken upon the Bill, and when it was in the hands of Members, because it would describe with much more precision than the Resolution the nature of the operation, and would likewise give to Members the opportunity of raising the question in any

441
form that they pleased. Therefore, if it was agreeable to the House, he should wish to take the Resolution oil Monday, to report it on Tuesday, and to bring in the Bill immediately, and then to fix such a night for the discussion upon the Bill, taking it in the most convenient manner, as might be most agreeable to hon. Members. That was what he should ask, at the same time that he placed himself entirely in the hands of the House, and was most desirous to consult the general convenience.
SIR FITZROY KELLYthought that on a question of so much importance it was desirable not only that the principle, but also the details of the measure should be fully understood, and that could not be effected without discussion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his intention was to intimate to the House that the Resolution would enable any Gentleman who was disposed to contest the principle to do so. He did not mean to say that by passing the Resolution the House would be bound by the principle. It was always understood that preliminary stages might be passed, if thought convenient, without any degree of assent being given either to the principle or details of the measure.
SIR FITZROY KELLYwas expressing simply his individual views, and had no authority to speak on behalf of any other Member.

OYSTER FISHERIES (IRELAND.)

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, he rose to call attention to the present state of the public Oyster Fisheries of Ireland, and to a trial at the last Spring Assizes in the county of Sligo, where the validity of the title of an Oyster Licence, granted by the Fishery Commissioners of Ireland, was, for the first time, called into question, and to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to carry out the "recommendations" of the Royal Commissioners on Sea Coast Fisheries by granting titles which shall be "final and conclusive." He might remark that whereas one of the principal causes of the present poverty of Ireland was the want of industrial employment for its people, its oyster fisheries, which were capable of vast extension, might furnish employment for large numbers of the population, create a
  442
  hardy race of seamen for the public service, and supply the kingdom with an excellent article of food, the demand for which was increasing as rapidly as the supply were diminishing. The east coast of England was the best adapted for oyster culture in this country, but the temperature of the sea-water was too low, and the Herne Bay Oyster Company had been advised by Mr. F. Buckland to construct large banks on the shore and heat them by means of hot water pipes. Now, the south and west coasts of Ireland, having a higher temperature, were well adapted for oyster culture, but the public oyster beds through neglect, improvidence and over-dredging, were undergoing a rapid process of destruction, the great increase in the value of the article and the construction of railways to many of the ports having greatly aggravated the evil during the last few years. The Fishery Commissioners of Ireland had done what they could to enlarge the supply, but with few exceptions their efforts had been without success. In the Reports Of the Fishery Commissioners for 1844, 1850, 1851, 1855, 1857, 1859, 1864, and others, they deplore the steady and continuous deterioration of the public oyster beds of Ireland. The public oyster beds in Ireland would have been more completely exhausted still but for the fact, that in the neighbourhood of most of them there were private beds in which a good supply of oysters had been kept up, and the young oysters floated from the private beds, and, settling down upon the public beds, kept up a supply there. The great demand for oysters of late years had led to many of the private beds being encroached upon; and when the owners took legal proceedings, it was found almost impossible to establish, without a licence from the Fishery Commissioners, a legal right to hold a portion of the bed of the sea. Under these circumstances, some very valuable private beds had been abandoned, and in a short time they were completely exhausted by being over-fished. He believed it probable that in a short time there would not be a dozen private oyster beds on the coast of Ireland, except those which were held under licence from the Fishery Commissioners. This state of things had been admitted in 1845, when by the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 108, power was given to the Fishery Commissioners to grant licences to private individuals to hold for oyster beds parts of the bed of

  443
  the sea between high and low water mark. It appeared that in France ground so situated had been successfully applied to the purpose of oyster beds; but in Ireland such ground was unsuitable for the purpose, because oysters were very susceptible to the influence of frost, and a severe frost occurring when the tide was out, would destroy an oyster bed so placed. In 1850, therefore, a new Act was passed empowering the Fishery Commissioners to grant licences for ground lying beyond low water mark, and a considerable number of such licences were granted; but many persons who obtained them found that the task of cultivating oysters was more difficult and expensive than they had anticipated, and the work was therefore not carried out. The Commissioners thereupon consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and under their advice licences were in future granted upon the condition that the ground should, within a time named, be planted with oysters to the satisfaction of the Commissioners. Licences so granted were until recently universally believed to give an indefeasible Parliamentary title to the ground, and in such belief, many persons had invested large sums of money in planting oyster beds on the coast of Ireland. However, in March last a decision was given which showed that such licences were not worth the paper on which they were written, and that the only course for persons who had expended money in planting the grounds to adopt was to dredge up their oysters and give up the undertaking. Sir Robert Gore Booth, a gentleman of property, having invested a large sum of money in planting oyster beds in Sligo Bay, prosecuted some men who had attempted to fish for the oysters. The men were tried at the Sligo Assizes before Mr. Justice O'Brien, who in his charge to the jury laid down the law distinctly, that if the ground in respect of which the Commissioners had granted the licence had at any time been public fishing-ground such licence was void; and, indeed, the Act contained the provision that the Commissioners should not license to private individuals any ground which had previously been a public bed. But any one who read the whole clause would see that it was intended that this question should be determined previously to granting the licence, and the Commissioners did, in fact, hold public inquiries before granting any licence, and deter-
  444
  mined whether or not the ground had been a public bed, and the determination of the Commissioners had always been considered final and conclusive. Now, however, it appeared that their decision might be disputed years afterwards, and after a very large sum of money had been spent upon the ground; and the case of Sligo had created the greatest dismay among those engaged in the cultivation of oysters on the coast of Ireland. One gentleman, who had expended £14,000 or £15,000 in this way in four years, wrote to him to say that, in consequence of the decision, he had given orders at once to contract all operations as much as possible with the view of giving up the speculation. Another gentleman, Captain Wray, who had obtained a licence of 400 or 500 acres in Crew Bay, and who had been getting dredges of a superior description for deep-sea fishing, expressed the greatest alarm at the present state of things. The Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Sea Coast Fisheries not only on the coast of England, but also on that of Ireland, had made several recommendations which he thought ought to be adopted. Among their recommendations were the following:—
  "While we do not consider it expedient to impose any general restrictions upon the fishing of inshore oyster or mussel beds, we strongly recommend that every legislative assistance be given to individuals or corporations who may desire to form private beds for oyster or mussel culture.…We are disposed to think that the most convenient course would be to empower a public Board to grant leases of the sea bottom, after making proper inquiry into the circumstances of each case. Such power should only be exercised after proper notice to the public at the place proposed to be so dealt with, and with due consideration of the interests of the existing fishing population; and an appeal from the decision of the Board should be given to the Privy Council, whose decision should be final and conclusive as to any claim of the public to dredge or fish over the ground so granted."
  What he desired was that the Government would give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners; and he thought that as much money had been expended in the belief that the licences granted were good the provision should be of an ex post facto character, and all existing licences should be declared good and valid. The local inquiries should be made compulsory, and not left optional, as they were at present; and the decisions, when made, should be published in some manner or another, so that the public might learn

  445
  what had been done. He believed that the Fishery Commissioners of Ireland would be able in a couple of days to frame such an Act as would remedy the defects in the present state of things. Such a measure as he had indicated would, he believed, meet with no opposition from Irish Members, and would occupy but little of the time of Parliament, while it would tend much to develop the industry and the natural resources of Ireland, affording at the same time a remunerative and continuous employment to the maritime portion of the population. He earnestly hoped that the Government would deal with the question during the present Session, for if not, he feared that there would be a regular raid upon the licensed oyster beds on the opening of the next season.

SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT IN IRELAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BLAKE, in rising to
  "Call attention to the Returns presented relative to the treatment of prisoners confined in the gaol of Waterford under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and the correspondence on the subject,"
  said, he regretted he should again feel it his duty to occupy the attention of Parliament by bringing under its notice the illegal and unnecessary restrictions for some time imposed on the prisoners arrested in Waterford under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Independent of other considerations, he felt it necessary to do so in vindication of the statement he had made relative to these men in the House of Commons on the 16th of March last, and the accuracy of which was denied in rather strong terms by the Attorney General for Ireland. He believed he was then in a position to show by the Returns he had obtained that every word he said was correct. As he stated on a former occasion, he did not oppose the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act with a view of throwing obstacles in the way of the Government in suppressing the revolutionary movement in Ireland. Without at all entering into the question whether revolt was justifiable on any grounds in Ireland, one thing he felt quite certain of—that under present circumstances it was utterly hopeless; and every real friend of the people ought to wish that the abortive attempt at it should be put an end to, in
  446
  order to save those who foolishly engaged in it from the consequences of their rashness. But he opposed the suspension of the constitution, because, in the first place, he believed the law as it stood was quite sufficient for all reasonable purposes, and in the next, he apprehended that when the powers of the Government came to be exercised under the suspension, that the over zeal or indiscretion of their subordinate officers and others might lead to much needless hardship being inflicted on the people. This anticipation was not long in being realized, and that, too, in the locality which he represented. Almost immediately on the suspension of the Act several arrests took place in Waterford, and by the middle of March fifteen prisoners were in custody on suspicion of complicity with the Fenian conspiracy. Nearly a fortnight after the first arrests very strong representations were made to him as to the severe restrictions imposed on these men by the gaol authorities, which were further corroborated by statements which appeared in the local newspapers. Having made inquiries, and fully satisfied himself that these accounts were true, he felt it his duty, in his place in Parliament, to call the attention of the Attorney General to the matter. He represented, on that occasion, that these prisoners did not get a sufficient amount of exercise; that they were prevented from seeing their families or legal advisers, and were precluded from sending or receiving written communications, and that it was alleged that orders were given to this effect by Government. To his great astonishment, and that of every one acquainted with the real facts of the case, the Attorney General contradicted every thing he said. The following were a portion of the right hon. Gentleman's observations taken from a morning paper:—
  "The Attorney General for Ireland said he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel that these prisoners ought not to be subjected to any restrictions save those which were required for their safe custody; and he believed that the rule had been fully adopted in the gaol of Waterford. As soon as he saw the notice which the hon. Member had put upon the paper, he caused inquiries to be instituted upon the subject, and these inquiries led him to believe that the hon. Gentlemen had been entirely misinformed upon the case. He had been furnished with a report upon which it appeared that these prisoners were not subject to any severe restrictions, and in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman whether the Government had given specific directions with respect to their treatment, he had to observe that the Government had

  447
  no power of issuing such directions, because by law the control over prisons in Ireland was vested, not in them, but in the Board of Superintendence. The treatment to which the prisoners arrested under the measure for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were subjected, was no exception to that rule. It so happened that the local authorities applied to the Inspector General of Prisons to know how those persons were to be treated, and the answer of the Inspector General was, that they should be treated as untried prisoners; that they should be allowed to supply themselves if they pleased with food, and that they should not be compelled to wear the prison clothes. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was further informed that these instructions had been complied with—that the prisoners received, through their friends, abundant supplies of good food, and that they were not obliged to wear prison clothing; so that all the statements made upon the subject by the hon. Gentleman had no foundation in fact, and he must have been entirely misled by his informants."
  And the Chancellor of the Exchequer added that—
  "It was obviously right and desirable that no unnecessary hardship should be inflicted on those prisoners, and that the Government held firmly by the principle that unconvicted prisoners who were arrested under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, were to be treated in the same manner as all other untried prisoners."
  Now, as the Attorney General had thought proper to state that his (Mr. Blake's) statement "had no foundation in fact," he had either to lie under the imputation of having made a misstatement to the House, or to prove that the Attorney General was not warranted by the facts of the case in denying his statement, and this, he thought, he was in a position to do. Now it happened that at the last Waterford assizes the grand jury, according to custom, appointed five of their number to inspect their gaol, and the following was an extract from their Report:—
  "The prisoners under the Habeas Corpus Act complained of not being allowed to attend chapel on Sunday; not being allowed to see legal advisers, and insufficient time for exercise."
  He (Mr. Blake) immediately wrote to three of the five magistrates who signed this Report, called to their notice the statement he had made in the House, and asking how far what they had seen in the prison bore out his statement. These gentlemen were Mr. Fisher, a Protestant, and Conservative journalist; Mr. Ryan, an Alderman of the city; and Mr. Slattery, a highly-respectable merchant. The hon. Member proceeded to read the replies of these gentlemen; from these it appeared that the prisoners, while they
  448
  admitted that the Governor allowed them every indulgence in his power, complained of their treatment—
  "1st. They alleged that they had not sufficient exercise.
  "2nd. They complained that they were not allowed to attend public worship.
  "3rd. They complained of not being allowed to see or communicate with their friends or legal advisers.
  "4th. We found sentinels in charge of the prisoners, and were told that they were not allowed even to go to the water closet except under guard of a turnkey and soldier, nor were they allowed to the lavatories. We were informed that the gas was kept lighting in their cells all night, and that they were inspected each change of sentries."
  The substance of these complaints was admitted by the Governor to be well founded; but the authorities alleged that the treatment complained of arose either from ordinary regulations of the gaol, or from the deficiency of the accommodation for so large a number of prisoners, which rendered it impracticable to carry out the prison regulations, or finally from the orders of the executive Government, made specially applicable to the detention of these prisoners. To give the House an idea of what these prisoners were subjected to, he (Mr. Blake) would read an extract from the Report of the city of Waterford grand jury, at summer assizes of 1865—
  "The arrangements for untried prisoners appear to require alteration. These persons whom the law presumes to be innocent are placed in solitary confinement, and are, in our opinion, undergoing severer punishment than those who are convicted.—Signed by
  "T. W. JACOB.
  "P. A. POWER.
  "July 26, 1865.
  "JOSEPH FISHER."
  So that it was manifest that even if the political prisoners were treated according to law, they would still have to suffer enough; but when, as he would presently show, the law was most flagrantly violated with regard to them, it would be seen that they were subjected to great and needless hardships. He would now read extracts from Acts of Parliament in force relative to prisoners, as well as the bye-laws of the gaol at Waterford, in order to show what the prisoners were entitled to by law, and the grave error that the stipendiary magistrate and local inspector had committed, the first in giving orders as to the treatment of the prisoners contrary to law, and the other in carrying them into effect. The first he would read was from 7 Geo. IV. c. 74,s. 109—

  449
  "Due provision shall be made for the admission at proper times and under proper instructions of persons with whom prisoners committed for trial may desire to communicate, and such rules and regulations shall be made by the Board of Superintendence for the admission of the friends of the prisoners as to such Board or grand jury may seem expedient; and the Board or grand jury shall also impose such restrictions as they may deem necessary."
  Subsequent Acts gave Boards of Superintendence powers as to the making of bye-laws; those of the Waterford with respect to visitors and legal advisers were: That visitors should be permitted to visit prisoners every Friday from ten to two o'clock. That all legal advisers necessary to assist a prisoner to prepare his defence should be admitted any day from ten to five o'clock. With regard to the duty of the local inspector it was enacted in the Prisons' Act 19 & 20 Vict. c. 68, s. 4—
  "That it shall be the duty of the local inspector of every prison to see that the bye-laws and rules for the time being in force in such prison shall be observed and carried into effect and no magistrate shall have authority to alter or add to same, or in any manner, save in this Act, provided to interfere with the description of the prison."
  And in the bye-laws at Waterford respecting this officer it was enacted that he
  "Should see that all regulations made by competent authorities be carried into effect, and watch over the rules prescribed."
  It was, therefore, manifest that no magistrate had any power to interfere with the discipline or management of the prison, or to give directions respecting the treatment of prisoners when once convicted; and that the local inspector was bound not to take any directions from him, but to carry out the rules prescribed by Act of Parliament and local regulations, and on all occasions of doubt or emergency to apply for instructions to the Board of Superintendence. He would now wish to call attention to a portion of the Returns in order to prove, according to the statement of the local inspector, how very illegally and indiscreetly both he and the Government magistrate had acted—
  "Verbal orders were given by the resident magistrate to the Governor after the committal of the political prisoners under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, that they were not to be seen by any person; and which were carried into effect until the 17th of March, on which day the Board of Superintendence met specially to consider what treatment should be pursued towards these men, when it was decided to admit their friends to visit them, which has been done since. The prisoners were prevented from seeing members of their families, or consulting legal advisers, owing to the directions given by the
  450
  resident magistrate, both to the Governor and local inspector, who were in frequent communication with him on the subject."
  In a letter to the Inspectors General of Prisons, 20th February, the local inspector, after mentioning the finding of a scrap of paper on which a prisoner had written something to his wife, the local inspector says—
  "The Governor and myself would feel much more easy if these prisoners were treated as convicted men, when such instances as quoted above could not take place."
  To this he got a reply, in which it was stated—
  "In reply to your letter of the 20th instant, I am directed by the Inspectors General of Prisons to apprize you that they have communicated with the Law Adviser, who is of opinion that prisoners committed to your gaol by virtue of warrants under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act are to be treated as untried prisoners."
  Notwithstanding this, and in the teeth of Acts of Parliament and local regulations, the inspector proceeded to carry out the verbal orders of the Government official, and for over three weeks the unfortunate prisoners were subjected to, what practically amounted to, the horrors of solitary confinement. They were never allowed to see one of their friends or family, to receive or send written communications, or to consult with legal advisers. Their friends and themselves were anxious to prepare memorials to Government—some to prove their innocence of the charges imputed to them; but in obedience to the fiat of the Government magistrate they were not allowed the opportunity. Most of those men were taken suddenly away from their occupations and business, which, though humble, was all-important to them, and were denied permission to see any one belonging to them in order to give directions about their affairs or even to communicate in writing. Another great hardship was the curtailment of exercise. Owing to the order not to be allowed to see any one, the Governor had to exercise these men separately, so that there was often no time to give them the two hours' exercise prescribed, and they had to remain locked up in their cells frequently for more than twenty-two hours with nothing to enliven them but prayer books. The most extraordinary proceeding of the local inspector was, that a meeting of the Board of Superintendence, which took place on the 5th of March, nearly a fortnight after most of the prisoners were in custody, and subjected to

  451
  this unusual severe and illegal treatment. Yet he never consulted them on the matter, merely remarking that he had got his orders from Government regarding those prisoners, and would carry them out; so that he completely set aside the Board, whose officer he was, to obey the verbal orders of the magistrate, who he ought to have known had no authority to give them. The Board of Superintendence were to blame to some extent, too, for not inquiring more particularly into the matter, but they depended altogether on the inspector. He admitted that every possible precaution against their escape should have been taken; but there could have been no fear that the prisoners would get away, seeing that a military guard had been stationed in the prison during the whole of their confinement. It had been alleged that such stringent regulations were necessary to guard against internal treachery; but if that were so, it was strange that they should have been withdrawn upon the very day when the local inspector said he was apprehensive that an attempt at rescue might be made. It had further been stated that the prisoners had expressed themselves as not only satisfied with their treatment, but thankful for the kindness which had been shown them. It was, however, very easy to understand why some of these unfortunate persons should make use of such expressions; by doing so they thought they would ingratiate themselves with the local inspector and the stipendiary magistrate. It was upon the ipse dixit of the magistrate that the inhabitants of Waterford were arrested, and it was only upon his report of good conduct that they anticipated release. Matters continued in the way he described until he placed a notice on the paper in March to call attention to the severe treatment of these prisoners. When the inspector called a meeting of the Board, and on the very day, 17th of March, when, according to the inspector, the greatest precautions were needed, the restrictions were directed by the Board to be relaxed, and since then the prisoners were treated like any other untried prisoners. He wished to deal as lightly as he could with both the inspector and stipendiary magistrate. He entertained every respect for them, and, with the exception of this case, he had never heard any complaint against either in their public or private capacity. He submitted, however, that in the instances he
  452
  had been dealing with, they had both committed a very great mistake, and if a number of the unfortunate prisoners had not been the sufferers, he would not have taken notice of it. He also thought the Attorney General should, with that truth and fairness which was characteristic of him, admit that he had not been just to him in having denied the accuracy of the statement he had made respecting these prisoners, and which was just the same as he now made, both of which were borne out by the Returns. In conclusion, he hoped the Government would take measures to prevent a recurrence of what he complained of. If he got an assurance to that effect, he would not press his Resolution to a division. They could readily do so, if he might venture to offer a suggestion, by directing their stipendiary magistrates to keep within their line of duty, and not to attempt to interfere with the treatment of prisoners, once they passed out of their legal control; and with regard to local inspectors of prisons, the Lord Lieutenant had a power which he ought to exercise of adding to the local bye-laws, so as to completely prevent such officers from outstepping their duties. He sincerely hoped the remedial measures which the Government contemplated for Ireland would put an end to disaffection in that country, and that their prisons would not again be filled by men who, hopeless of having their grievances redressed by constitutional means, were in their despair driven into a rash revolt. He also hoped that the severe restrictions the Waterford prisoners were subjected to would weigh with the Government in shortly granting them their liberty. He had the greater confidence in making this appeal to an Administration who had for its leader in that House one who had shown so much creditable sympathy for the sufferings of untried prisoners at Naples. He hoped Government would exhibit an equally merciful spirit in favour of objects, just as deserving, nearer home. The acts done in the name of the Government at Waterford were calculated to bring them into great odium, and cause a feeling of resentment against them; but all this might be remedied by taking precautions against its recurrence, and releasing from further imprisonment those who had already suffered so much needless hardship. He would, therefore, beg to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  MR. MAGUIREseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is the opinion of this House, that it would he desirable that Government should take measures to prevent untried prisoners from being subjected to illegal and unnecessary restrictions, similar to those which appear to have been imposed on the political prisoners at Waterford, from the twenty-first day of February to the sixteenth day of March,"—(Mr. Blake,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SERJEANT ARMSTRONGsaid, he wished to say a few words with reference to the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Mayo. He thought that the law with regard to oyster licences in Ireland was in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was perfectly plain to any one who would take the trouble to read the Act of Parliament, that if the Commissioners transgressed the limits assigned by the statute, the licence was pro tanto, or altogether, as the case might be, ineffectual for the purpose for which it was given. The object of the Legislature was to preserve and perpetuate the oyster fishery on the coast of Ireland, seeing that it was one of the not very numerous sources of the national wealth, giving employment to a large portion of the seaboard population. As the law at present stood, however, it could not be expected that private individuals would embark their capital in speculations of this character, if they were afterwards to incur the risk of having the validity of that licence called in question before a court of justice. If the legislation, which he held to be necessary, were to be adopted in order to induce private individuals to embark in such enterprizes, it should be preceded by a full, an open, and a public inquiry. The usage had been that one of the Commissioners should repair to the neighbourhood of the fisheries, and hold something in the nature of a court of inquiry, but it was not obligatory upon the Commissioners to do so. He, however, contended that they should be bound to do so, and be empowered to examine witnesses on oath. Where public fisheries were alleged to exist and public rights in respect to them had been claimed, power should not be delegated to the Commissioners to grant permanent li-
  454
  cences, save after a full inquiry with a right of appeal, and he thought the question being one of fact a jury should be empannelled to ascertain the fact. As illustrative of the difficulties sometimes arising with respect to oyster beds under the existing state of the law, he (Mr. Serjeant Armstrong) mentioned an incident which had occurred in the harbour of Sligo, the Commissioners of which knew nothing of any licence having been granted till they saw posted up on their own walls a notice to that effect, and according to which the navigable channel of the river was granted as an oyster bed. He threw out the suggestion for the consideration of the Attorney General whether means ought not to be found of giving finality to the licence without prejudice to public rights; and also as to whether, in any inquiry held, the time at which a public fishery should be found to exist should count from the date of the inquiry, and not as was now the case from the date of the passing of the Act of Parliament.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, the noble Lord the Member for Mayo was entitled to their thanks for bringing under the notice of the House a very important subject. Since notice of the intention to do so had been given he had looked into the subject and found the state of the law to be as described. It would therefore, in his opinion, be right and convenient that after inquiry by the Commissioners their licence should conclude all questions as to the public right of fishing. The suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sligo that a public inquiry should always take place was very valuable; and some form of appeal from the decision of the Commissioners ought to be given in future, probably to the next-going Judge of assize. Having heard these suggestions he certainly should be prepared to recommend Her Majesty's Government to introduce, without delay, a measure for the purpose of giving finality to the order of the Commissioners; and if that were done there was every reason to hope that the unsatisfactory state of the law at present existing would be done away with, and additional inducements given to those persons described by the noble Lord as anxious to develop the resources of Ireland by establishing oyster fisheries. On that point it only remained for him to say that the subject would engage the earliest attention of Her Majesty's

  455
  Government. Now he turned to the notice placed on the paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford with respect to the Fenian prisoners confined in gaol under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. When last the matter was before the House he stated that the Government had done all in their power by communicating, on the 21st of February, to the authorities at Waterford, that these persons should for the future be treated as untried prisoners, to be permitted to supply themselves with food, and not to be required to wear the prison clothing. In doing this the Government only discharged their duty, because the directions which they had uniformly given, were that those persons should be subjected to no inconveniences and placed under no restrictions, beyond those absolutely necessary for their safe custody and for the due maintenance of discipline within the prison; and if in any instance those orders were not carried out, he could assure the House that it was not the fault of the Government. He was quite willing to admit that from the Return moved for and obtained by his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford it did appear that strict orders were originally given by the resident magistrate preventing the access of any person to those prisoners. But it must be observed that the circumstances under which these orders were given were very peculiar, that grave apprehensions were at the time entertained from the excitement that prevailed of an escape or rescue being attempted. It appeared, also, that attempts were made from the outside to hold very improper communications with those prisoners, and it was under such circumstances that the resident magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, felt it right to issue those orders. Looking back upon what had occurred, he was not prepared to say now that everything then done was altogether and absolutely correct; but in judging of the matter they must place themselves to some extent in the position of the magistrate who had a most responsible duty to discharge, and for whom every fair allowance should be made. As soon as the attention of the Government was called to the matter, the restrictions were removed, and he believed there was now no possible cause of complaint. Under these circumstances, and having the assurance of the Government that the prisoners should be treated with the utmost leniency consistent with their safe custody, he hoped his hon.
  456
  Friend would not feel it necessary to press his Motion. He regretted very much that on the former occasion any conflict should have arisen between his hon. Friend and himself, as to the actual statement he then made. Both were speaking from the information which they then possessed; slight errors might possibly have been made on both sides; but they were both anxious only to state the truth, and therefore, he trusted, they need not discuss the matter further.
  MR. BAGWELLimpressed on the Government the necessity of their quickly and closely investigating the different cases of committal that had taken place in Ireland since the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He had no hesitation in saying that it was necessary and just at the time to arm the Government with the extraordinary powers of arrest which had been conferred upon them in Ireland, but the Government ought without delay to investigate the case of every individual now in custody upon suspicion, and ascertain what grounds there might be for his detention. The number of persons in custody was very great, and many of them were of that class that one could hardly conceive it possible that they would be mixed in treasonable practices. They appeared to be of the humblest class, and persons who were almost incapable of forming an opinion upon political subjects. With the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act it was but natural to suppose that a great number of officials, with a view to ultimate notoriety with the Government and thereby to assist themselves, would think it to be their duty to make a number of contemptible arrests. He believed there was every reason to believe that that had been done to a considerable extent, and therefore it was that he pressed on the Government that they could not too closely and too minutely examine into all these cases in order to clear their actions from all suspicion of unnecessary harshness. The resident magistrate to whom reference had been made he had often met in the course of duty, and entertained of him the highest opinion. If he had forgotten himself so far as to give orders which could not be defended, it must have been from over anxiety to do his duty, at a time, moreover, when matters were in a very unsettled state in Ireland. To show that complaints of treatment in gaols were not universal, he could state that an Irish American gentleman had been confined in

  457
  Clonmel Gaol for some time, when an order was received from the Lord Lieutenant authorizing his liberation, provided he would leave the country for America by a certain time. The Irish American gentleman said he had merely come to Ireland for the benefit of his health, and that, being much better in health from the treatment he received whilst in confinement, he had no objection to leave at the end of the month, and return to his own country. It was high time that some investigation should be made into the character of the offences which these persons were said to have committed, in order that those who were innocent might at once be liberated.
  SIR HENRY WINSTON BARRONalso pressed on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland the necessity of a speedy investigation into the case of each individual prisoner. A number of them had to his knowledge been confined—he would not say improperly, because no doubt Government had acted on information of their folly and imprudence in using language which was not justifiable—but he thought it would be found that a great many had been arrested who would be found incapable of doing mischief to the Government. If the Government found that nothing could be alleged against these prisoners but the use of incautious language, he thought it would not only be doing an act of kindness, but one of justice in letting such persons out of prison.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would add his voice to the appeal made to the Government by his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell), and he believed there were many persons now in gaol under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant whom it would be a great mercy to release, and thus restore to their families. As to the treatment of prisoners in gaols, he would not refer to that part of the subject more than to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Waterfbrd (Mr. Blake) had triumphantly vindicated the accuracy of his statements in reference to the mode of treatment adopted at Waterford, previous to the attention of the House and the Government having been brought to the matter on the 16th of March. The result of that Notice was most beneficial, as the Government at once interfered; for public opinion having been brought to bear upon the facts of the case, the consequence was an almost instantaneous change. He would, therefore, say that no cause of complaint —of reasonable complaint—existed at pre-
  458
  sent in any instance of which he was aware throughout the country—certainly none existed in the county gaol of Cork to which he (Mr. Maguire) had drawn attention on a previous occasion. He, however, desired to refer to a subject of more serious and pressing importance, and one which, in his opinion, was worthy of the gravest attention of Government. That was the fearful impetus which arrests, and the apprehension of arrest, had given to emigration from Ireland to America. The rush from various ports of Ireland was, as compared to several years past, quite unexampled. By the 1st of June probably not less than 30,000 emigrants would have left one port alone—that of Queenstown— and there were several other ports from which the tide of Irish emigration was pouring across the Atlantic. He ventured to think there was not an Irish Gentleman in that House who desired to see the impulse of the people to leave their country stimulated by any cause whatever, as the ordinary emigration was reducing the population sufficiently of itself. Dread of arrest was, beyond doubt, one of the motives which impelled young men to fly from the country. There had been some foolish arrests, owing to the over zeal or officiousness of certain officials, who perhaps intended to display their activity, or who formed erroneous notions of the supposed criminality of individuals. He was willing to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which, as a general rule, the Irish constabulary had conducted themselves in reference to the Fenian movement. No body of men could have more nobly resisted the temptations which were of necessity thrown in their way; and having himself had knowledge of them, under peculiarly trying circumstances, he could also speak of their good temper and forbearance in moments of popular excitement. But still there were over zealous members of the force, and a few who, looking for promotion, instinctively displayed more haste than discretion in attributing blame to persons who really had nothing to do with the Fenian conspiracy. He might mention two cases that happened in his own city. A young man named John Reily was arrested in place of a cousin of the same name who had fled to America; and that young man was only recently liberated by order of the Lord Lieutenant. The other was the case of a painter named O'Keeffe, whose place of residence was searched, and in whose box were found

  459
  portions of a Bible covered with the leaf of an old number of The Irish People, and a circular summoning him to a meeting of the society. Of course, it was imagined that this formidable document connected him with a treasonable confederacy, whereas it was nothing more than a circular from the Sick Poor Society of one of the parishes of Cork. Of course, the man was speedily liberated on memorial to the Lord Lieutenant. An information was very easily made, and was at best but an ex parte statement; and, in not a few instances, when the Government were asked to investigate a case, they found there was no real ground for the detention of the prisoner, and he was accordingly liberated. It was the apprehension that some malicious neighbour or some officious constable might procure their arrest, that caused such a panic among the young men of certain districts of the county Cork—to which he would exclusively confine his remarks—as had imparted so dangerous an impulse to emigration. He had received a letter from Mr. Leader, brother of the hon. Member for the county of Cork, and residing some ten miles from the city of Cork; and Mr. Leader stated that there was a perfect panic among the peasantry of his district, and that, if confidence was not restored, in a short time it would be denuded of its agricultural labourers. He mentioned that, within a few days, as many as thirty-six of his own labourers had gone off—and that it was of the utmost consequence something should be done to allay the apprehensions of the peasantry. He (Mr. Maguire) was speaking not long since to Sir Thomas Tobin, a magistrate of the county, who was well acquainted with a large agricultural district, and he said he was afraid the Government were going too far, and that arrests had excited an apprehension amongst the peasantry which he was sure had an injurious influence on emigration. More recently he (Mr. Maguire) had been speaking to a gentleman from the district of Kanturk, and that gentleman apprehended that the labour of the country was being diminished to a very damaging extent. Indeed, he went so far as to say that farmers were not planting as much ground as formerly, having a fear of the dearness and scarcity of labour in the harvest time. He had also seen a memorial addressed by a Protestant lady of the county to the Lord Lieutenant, praying for the release of a confidential labourer
  460
  in her employment, and in which the difficulty of procuring labour was strongly dwelt upon. Now, surely, that was not the class of persons against whom the extraordinary powers intrusted by Parliament to the Government were to be exercised. It was never intended to strike at the mere rank and file, the ignorant labourer, or the mere cow-boy—the object was to enable the Executive to strike down the leaders, and capture the American emissaries who were disseminating treason through the land. It was to arrest dangerous leaders that the Constitution was suspended, and not to guard against the machinations of mere agricultural labourers, who had neither the means nor the knowledge that would enable them to spread sedition, were they disposed to sedition themselves. He would ask the special attention of the Government to the only letter which he would take the liberty of reading on this subject. It was from a Catholic clergyman of high rank and great intelligence, and who on a former occasion had the courage to brave unpopularity with the young men of his parish, by zealously grappling with an illegal confederacy in the district. The writer was the parish priest of Bantry, the Very Rev. G. Sheehan, who, dating his letter on the 24th ultimo, said—
  "I have watched with attention, and noted with accuracy, the results of the arrests under warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, and they have produced very disastrous consequences. A widespread feeling of insecurity obtained at once among the young men of this parish. Their liberty was clearly at the mercy of every constable, or even of a malicious neighbour who might make a private statement to a magistrate or a sub-inspector of police. It cannot be wondered at, then, that a determination to fly in haste from the land where no young peasant felt safe should spring up among this class. This determination to fly has been put into execution in a wholesale manner. Within the last two months over 250 persons, principally young men, have left this town and neighbourhood for America, most of them against the wish, many of them without the knowledge, of their parents. I am perfectly certain that a very small proportion of those who fled away was tainted with Fenianism. The result of this withdrawal en masse of the workers can be easily arrived at. Labourers are not to be had, even at extravagant wages; all farming operations are in arrear, and many farmers have abandoned the idea of putting in crops. Another evil remains to be told, and it will bear bitter fruit for years to come. The poor children are put to work long before their young frames are capable of enduring hardship. I have seen children of six years old, and under that age, striving to labour at potato planting. They are, of course, withdrawn from school, and doomed to ignorance as well as to bodily hard-

  461
  ship. Last summer there were on the rolls of the national schools in this parish—fifteen in number —1,580 children. I am certain there are not 600 at school now. The decay of the rural population of course brings ruin upon the towns, so that all interests suffer. A gloomy prospect, truly, this is; and I see no streak of light to lessen the gloom."
  Now that was, in his mind, a very important communication—from one of the most intelligent men in the Catholic Church—a gentleman whose opinion was entitled to the respect of the Government. The advice given by his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel was sound and judicious. The Government ought to send some thoroughly impartial and sensible man to every gaol in which political prisoners were confined, and institute a rigid inquiry into each case; and if there were no real grounds for their further detention, in the name of God let these unhappy men go back to their homes and their industry. It was in the interest of law and order—it was even in the interest of the Government itself—that he spoke. In conclusion, he would earnestly call on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to take the present opportunity of publicly making such a consolatory assurance—such a declaration on the part of the Government—as would allay apprehension and restore confidence in Ireland. He would respectfully ask the Chief Secretary to declare that if young men thenceforward devoted themselves to their ordinary duties and avocations, abstained from dangerous associations, and took no further part in illegal confederacies, they would be unmolested by the police, and free from all danger of arrest. Of course, if in spite of the warning of the past, they persevered in their folly, they should in that case pay the penalty of their infatuation. He made that appeal to the Government, because he believed such an assurance in Parliament would have a most beneficial effect, especially in preventing the excessive emigration which was literally carrying away the strength and the very life of the country.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEentirely agreed with the hon. Member for Clonmel and the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford that it was the duty of the Government to deal with these cases of arrest under the Habeas Corpus Act and the Lord Lieutenant's warrants with the utmost care, and that they should be dealt with not in a lump, but one by one, according to the individual circumstances of
  462
  each. He ventured, however, to say that that care had been exercised by the Irish Government, both previously to the issue of the Lord Lieutenant's warrants and since the arrest of these misguided men. Although, of course, it was impossible to say that in no one instance had a mistake been committed, he might state that whenever a mistake had been made it had been rectified as soon as possible. The grave powers conferred by the Legislature on the Lord Lieutenant could not have been exercised with a greater amount of care and conscientiousness than they had been by him. The Lord Lieutenant had on no occasion trusted merely to the reports of officials, but had made use of every means in his power in order to ascertain the truth in every particular case, and had never issued his warrant without having personally examined the statements laid before him. More than that, after the bulk of these persons had been committed to prison under the Lord Lieutenant's warrants, applications for release poured in to the Irish Government, and still kept pouring in day after day. Indeed, the greater part of the time of the Law Officers of the Crown had been, and was still, occupied in the investigation of those applications, and in determining what advice should be given to the Lord Lieutenant in regard to them. The result had been that in many cases prisoners had been set at large, and it was quite true that some of those gentlemen who came to Ireland from America on account of their health—which was oddly enough invariably their motive—had been set free on condition that they should at once return to the land of their birth, or rather of their adoption. But the hon. Member for Cork had made a very serious appeal to the House and to himself with respect to the excessive emigration which the hon. Gentleman said was going on in certain districts, and which in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman was stimulated by a sort of panic caused by the indiscriminate arrests which had taken place among the peasantry of that district. Now, with respect to arrests under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant having been made among the humbler classes, the House ought to remember that many of those persons although, apparently, judging from their station in life very insignificant people, were within their respective neighbourhoods in connection with the Fenian Society men of great consequence; and the fact was that in many cases the arrest and

  463
  detention of these persons for a certain time had had a very salutary effect upon the neighbourhoods within which their operations had been carried on. He could hardly understand that the excessive emigration spoken of by the hon. Gentleman could have been stimulated by the causes alleged by his hon. Friend, because the fact was that scarcely any fresh arrests had taken place for a long time back in any part of Ireland, and none at all he believed in the particular district referred to. In respect to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, though he could not exactly repeat the eloquent formula which had been put into his mouth, he could on the part of the Irish Government assure the people and the peasantry of the districts to which the hon. Gentleman had referred that if they would only keep clear of this insane and wicked conspiracy, or if, having been led to mix themselves up with it, they would make up their minds to abandon it and to return to the pursuits of honest industry, they would be as safe from the power with which the Lord Lieutenant had been armed as any Gentleman sitting in that House. It would depend on themselves to retain their liberty; and he trusted that, if the present state of things had produced excessive emigration, that any anxiety on the subject would now totally cease.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

SHIPWRECKS IN TORBAY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Government to the recent shipwrecks and loss of property in Torbay, and to the Petition of the Inhabitants of Brixham, Torquay, Paignton, Newton, and Teignmouth, praying for the erection of a Harbour of Refuge. Torbay was situated about midway between Portland and Plymouth, and was surrounded on two sides by a high hill. It was almost entirely protected from every wind but one—namely, the east or south-east. Frequently there were sheltered there sixty or seventy vessels at a time, and the place, therefore, was one of considerable importance. It had a large fishing trade, and it was computed that within the year between 2,000 and 3,000 vessels, varying from 50 to 1,500
  464
  tons burden, took refuge there, independently of vessels employed in the fishing trade. The number of trawlers using the harbour at Brixham was 150, employing 2,400 men; and the fish trade represented £1,000 a week. The Brixham men were noted for their knowledge of the Channel, and for the hardihood and excellence they displayed as sailors. On the 10th of January in the present year there was within the bay a fleet of about sixty-two sail. The evening was perfectly calm; there was not a ripple on the sea, and not a cloud was to be seen. Of all things a great gale appeared most unlikely, and especially from a quarter destructive to the bay. At ten o'clock, p.m., however, the wind rose, and suddenly changed to the east-south-east, and about midnight it came on to blow a perfect hurricane. It was impossible to describe the confusion that arose. Vessels were torn from their anchors, and were driven home against the pier at Brixham, and ground against each other, till the sea seemed to be covered with splinters, small enough to light fires with. Some of the vessels tried to make the harbour, but there was a fleet of trawlers in the roadstead outside. The consequence was that the ships were driven all among the trawlers, and the whole entangled mass of shipping were swept into the harbour together, where the most fearful damage and loss of life arose. In a few minutes fourteen vessels were wrecked, and seventy-two seamen lost their lives. Mr. Elrington, the incumbent of North Brixham, wrote a letter on the subject to The Times, and he would read to the House a short extract from it—
  "We find that there were certainly 62 sail in the bay when the gale came on, and of these there were riding in the bay after the storm, 10: in the harbour, 10; wrecked on the coast or foundered in the bay, 42; there were besides 8 trawl sloops sunk and wrecked; 73 seamen are supposed to have lost their lives, and 4 fishermen of Brixham. The estimated loss in ships and cargoes is from £150,000 to £200,000."
  Nothing could exceed the good conduct of the inhabitants all round the shore. The women of Brixham—and he was glad to have an opportunity of making this public acknowledgment of their kindness—hurried up with their clothes and even their bed-clothes to the succour of the poor men who had been rescued from the wrecks, and all was done that kindness, courage, and hospitality could do to relieve the wants of the sufferers. Now, the disaster was caused, first, by the vessels lying in

  465
  the roadstead being exposed to the whole fury of the wind from the east south-east, and secondly, by there not being within the bay any place to which vessels could run for shelter. There was a small harbour at Paignton and another at Torquay, but neither of these was capable of giving shelter to vessels of large tonnage. The town of Brixham, he might remark, had a very large trade. Last year 297 vessels, with a tonnage of 23,681, had entered the harbour; while 291 vessels, with a tonnage of 23,510, had departed from it. There were at present insured in the Brixham Shipping Association 116 vessels, of the value of £250,000. The crews of those vessels numbered 1,000, and the shipping interest was rapidly increasing. He should probably be met with the answer that the Board of Trade had no means at their disposal, and that some years ago when a Committee of the House inquired into the subject of harbours of refuge they did not name Torbay as a suitable spot for such a harbour. With regard to that point he begged to read an extract from a letter from Admiral Shering-ham, who was a good judge of the matter. He said—
  "That the Committee on Harbours of Refuge did not recommend the construction of a breakwater in Torbay was based principally on the opinion of the Hydrographer Admiral Washington, having more immediately in view the construction of large harbours of defence and aggression than national harbours of refuge; but that to my mind has been fully proved to have been an error in judgment, by the sad result of the gale of the 10th of January. Except Plymouth Sound no harbour of refuge for the passing trade does, in fact, practically exist to the westward of Portland, and there is a report current that Plymouth Sound is silting up, and it is even rumoured the Royal Albert some time ago actually grounded on her own anchors."
  Now, the country was undoubtedly wise, and the House of Commons only fulfilled the wishes of the public when it first turned its attention to harbours of defence, and no one that had seen the splendid harbour of Portland could regret that the House of Commons had voted the expenditure on so magnificent a work. But it was also true that the commerce of this country was increasing to such an incredible degree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was indulging in golden dreams of future prosperity. As our commerce increased, so must our shipping trade, and if the golden dreams of the right hon. Gentleman were to become a reality, the value of the cargoes intrusted to the vessels
  466
  which sail the seas, though now to be estimated by millions, must become vastly greater. Here, then, was a simple matter of insurance against possible loss, and it seemed to him a question of the highest consideration whether an annual grant should not be made for the erection of harbours of refuge, not only upon one coast but upon all the coasts of the kingdom. We had already through the generous exertions of individuals, and especially of the Duke of Northumberland, lifeboats upon almost every portion of our shores. That was a feather in the cap of England. A shipwrecked foreigner who had been saved at Brixham having beer, asked how he knew it was the coast of England, said he knew it because a lifeboat had come out to save him. He should like to see this country take a step still further in advance, and that Parliament should vote the sums necessary to erect harbours of refuge wherever the natural facilities rendered it desirable. Perhaps there was no place which had a better title to consideration in that respect than Torbay. It was easy of access in all winds and tides, and to show that it was so, he would read a short statement made by Mr. Elrington of the value of the ships which took shelter there during the year—
  "Torbay contains often throughout the year large fleets of wind-bound vessels, many of these having on board hundreds of emigrants and most valuable cargoes. Some of the finest ships in the navy have anchored in the bay, and the Channel Fleet has lain there for days together. Brixham is one of the most important fishing stations on the coast, and now that the railway is being completed to the harbour will no doubt have considerable trade. The fleet of trawlers alone is worth £100,000. The schooners and other traders in the Brixham Club are worth £250,000. The vessels anchoring in the bay may be computed at 900,000 tons; worth, without counting vessels of war or cargoes, upwards of £7,000,000."
  Now, when interests of such consequence were involved, was it asking too much of the Government to erect a harbour of refuge at Torbay? He was aware that it was often said that local wants should be supplied from local resources. But he wished to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the great difficulties which stood in the way of a company or individual improving a harbour of refuge or dealing with a foreshore. First of all, it was necessary to obtain the assent of the Board of Trade, where the plans of projectors were all overhauled, private rights were carefully inquired into, every one who had, or imagined he had, a

  467
  right was listened to, and when all that was done new difficulties had to be dealt with. It was necessary to purchase the foreshore from the Crown or the Duchy, to one of whom it was pretty sure to belong. Was it not a hardship that an individual or company, who was endeavouring to provide shelter for our ships, should be asked to pay for that which could never yield much money either to the Crown or the Duchy? If the Government would afford assistance in cases of this kind, there would be no lack of persons to do this great work of public utility and humanity. But there was another class who might be expected to asist, and that was the great merchants of England, whose goods were conveyed by sea. An appeal might be also made to that noble spirit of charity which was always manifested when the lives of our sailors were in peril, and was always to be readily relied upon in cases of distress. Those who had seen the terrible gale this year in Torbay would have read a lesson they could never forget. Vessels, before in perfect safety, in a few moments were hurried to destruction. He would only ask the House to reflect what would have been the loss of life and of treasure if at that moment the Channel Fleet had been riding at Torbay. He should possibly be told that as they always had their steam up, they might get out of the bay and escape, and that one or two steamers actually did so. But if the House would recollect the difficulty and danger of getting vessels of great size into motion in a hurricane they would see that if some did escape, many might have gone ashore. It was supposed that in consequence of the quantity of wrecks which had taken place in Torbay, the wreck of one ship might be lying over the wreck of another, and that the anchorage was very much fouled by anchors and obstructions of every description. He had been, therefore, requested to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether any means had been taken by the Government to remove those obstacles, in order to afford vessels riding there a sound anchorage, and the same security as they possessed before the disaster of which he had spoken. He trusted that what he had said would induce the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to give some assurance that the subject should receive the attention of the Government, and that no considerations of economy would prevent as much care being taken of the lives of our sailors, as was
  468
  taken of the lives of the community on shore.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that if there were a wreck lying in the anchorage of Torbay, it would no doubt be injurious to it. In many places on the coast there were harbour authorities who had powers under local Acts to remove wrecks sunk in the harbour or their approaches at the expense of the owners of the ships sunk.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that the wreck in question was without the limits of the harbour.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONwas not aware that in such a case any authority had power to compel the owners of ships to remove wrecks. For some time the Government had entertained the opinion, shared by the Trinity Corporation, that some legislation might be necessary on this subject in order to give powers to compel shipowners to remove the wrecks of their ships from anchorage grounds, and if that were not possible, to insure their removal at the public expense. The subject had been under consideration, and it might well be dealt with in any future Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act. With regard to the general proposition of the hon. Baronet, he scarcely knew how to reply to it. It was deplorable that there should have been such loss of lives and of shipping at Torbay during the tremendous gale of last winter, but it was obvious that the same loss might have occurred under any other headland on the same coast. When vessels availed themselves of a good anchorage to await a change of wind or favourable weather, if a sudden change of wind took place, and it blew violently towards land, the probability was that many sailing vessels would be driven ashore. That might happen under any headland where there was good anchorage; but would that justify in each case the erection of a breakwater at the public expense? Perhaps the case of Torbay was not that of an ordinary headland; but the Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the best places for harbours of refuge and breakwaters, in case Parliament should decide upon making grants for their erection, did not recommend that anything should be done at Torbay; and if it were ever proposed to make grants, Parliament would probably be guided by the recommendations of the Commissioners, He could not hold out any hope that Government would propose to Parliament

  469
  to make a grant of public money for the erection of a breakwater at Torbay. He did not see why the local authorities in these parts should not do something for themselves. Some years ago the Harbour Commissioners of Brixham obtained an Act which gave them powers to levy tolls and to construct a breakwater, which would have included a deep water anchorage; and which might have been very useful during the recent gale which caused the loss of so many ships; but the Commissioners had taken no steps under the powers they still possessed. No doubt they could raise money if they were so minded, and if they proposed to give the accommodation said to be needed. Knowing something of that coast, he should like to see a space of water where ships might anchor either at Brixham or Torbay, and he should like to see Torquay accessible to ships at all times of the tide. While feeling that these things were very desirable, he was still of opinion that it was not the duty of the House to move in the matter by making large grants of public money out of the taxation of the country for the erection of structures which would not be national in the true sense of the word. No doubt the works would confer great local advantages, but it was for the local authorities to come forward, and in this particular case it was for them to exercise the powers they had obtained for the execution of the works which the hon. Baronet proposed should be paid for by Parliament. He wished to see the suggested works executed from funds that might be properly devoted to such a purpose, for the more sheltered anchorages there were the better; but he did not know that a better case could be made out for Brixham on national grounds than could be made out for many other sheltered bays. The vessels to be benefited would be chiefly coasting and fishing craft, for large sea-going and steam ships would hardly use such a limited estuary. It was very well known that ships anchoring in open roadsteads did so at a certain risk, and that they were liable to be caught by a sudden gale of wind and blown on shore; and if such dangers were incurred to save a little knocking about in the Channel, that was no reason why either at Torbay or' elsewhere the State should be called upon to incur a large expenditure for the erection of breakwaters. Under the circumstances, with every desire to see improvements made, he could not say that
  470
  a case had been made out for the expenditure of public money on a breakwater at Brixham.

BOUNDARIES OF BOROUGHS,

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Government to bring forward any measure for the purpose of extending and settling the boundaries of the several Boroughs in England and Wales named in the second sections of the Schedules A and B of the Municipal Corporation Reform Act, in accordance with the Report of the Municipal Corporation Boundaries Commissioners, ordered by the House to be printed in the year 1837, or to take any other step with reference to extending and settling the boundaries of such Boroughs? At the time of the Municipal Reform Act there were 178 corporations, of which ninety-six had their boundaries made to correspond with their Parliamentary limits. With regard to the remaining eighty-two corporations a Royal Commission was appointed to examine and fix their boundaries. In the discussions which occurred in the Committee on the Bill, Sir Robert Peel thought it was too great a power to give to the Commissioners to settle such an important matter, and contended that the final settlement of the boundaries should be left to Parliament itself. Lord Russell, however, carried the question against Sir Robert Peel; but the House of Lords reversed this decision, and the noble Lord in considering the Amendments made in the House of Lords ultimately acquiesced in the proposal that the matter should be left to be dealt with by Parliament; remarking that the delay would only be for one year. In the meantime the Commissioners presented a Report; and a more elaborate or perfect Report he had seldom read. It gave the areas of the boroughs, showing the defects that existed, and that it would be impossible from their excessive extent in many cases to take the Parliamentary boundaries for municipal purposes. The Report was accompanied by plans and details, showing what would be the proper and most advantageous area for each borough; but from that time no steps whatever had been taken in the matter. In the case of the borough which he represented (Chippenham) one of the churches of the town,

  471
  the principal police-office, the railway station, two or three large mills and two or three large factories, employing 1,300 or 1,400 hands, were all out of the borough, and the consequence was that questions of conflicting jurisdiction between the borough and county magistrates occasionally arose. Complaints were made, too, with respect to watching, lighting and police rates, to which the parties outside the borough contributed nothing at all. The Commissioners in their Report cited many similar cases in which the existing boundaries were quite useless for municipal arrangements. At Banbury only 4,000 out of 10,000 inhabitants lived within the municipal limits. Similar facts were reported at Calne, Falmouth, Launceston, Grantham, the City of York, and most of the other boroughs enumerated. He did not ask the Government to take up this question on any large scale, but some measure might, he thought, be passed vesting in the Queen in Council the power of enlarging the boundaries of any borough on the application of the inhabitants or of the municipal authority.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the question raised by the hon. Member was certainly one well deserving the attention of the House. The Report of the Commission on Municipal Boundaries was made nearly thirty years ago, and the boroughs named in the second sections of the Schedules A and B were for the most part the smallest in the kingdom. He had been informed by Lord Eversley, who was the Chairman of the Commission, that the Report was not acted upon in consequence of the great local opposition which was raised to the adoption of its recommendation. It was impossible at the present time to adopt that Report as the basis of the new boundaries, because circumstances had since changed and the population of the suburbs of these boroughs had much increased. The objection that the population had outgrown the boundaries of many of these boroughs applied quite as much, if not more, to those boroughs whose limits were fixed by the Act as to the others. He quite agreed that some means ought to be provided for revising from time to time the limits of the municipal boroughs. The population had greatly increased in many of the boroughs, and the limits now fixed by law were not those which would be laid down by any tribunal to which such a duty would now be intrusted. If boroughs were not incorporated, they might petition for a charter of incorporation. The
  472
  Privy Council then ordered an inquiry to be made. Opportunities were offered for any objections which could be urged against incorporation. Inquiries were instituted upon the spot into the circumstances, and the question of boundary was gone into by competent officers. They made their Report, and the Queen in Council then decided whether a charter of incorporation should be granted, and fixed the limits of the borough. If a charter of incorporation were granted the boundaries were then fixed by law, and there was no power of altering them without having recourse to Parliament for an Act. He thought that the course suggested by the hon. Member was that which it would be expedient to adopt, and that an Act should be passed containing a general provision that on the application of the inhabitants—or of the Town Council, as Parliament might determine—for the enlargement of the boundaries of the borough, an inquiry should be instituted similar to that which took place upon an application for a charter of incorporation, and then, without the necessity of coming to Parliament in each case, power should be given to the Queen in Council to enlarge the boundaries of the municipal boroughs. He trusted that it would be in the power of the Government before long to submit some such measure to Parliament.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he rose to call attention to the large sum out of the assessment for the relief of the poor in Scotland spent annually in litigation; and to ask whether the Government will undertake to provide a remedy for so crying an evil? He believed that a sum of between £9,000 and £10,000 was annually spent in this litigation—an amount equivalent to the maintenance of 1,700 paupers, and he suggested that the whole jurisdiction should be given to the board of supervisors, or that questions in dispute should be summarily settled by the Sheriffs Courts.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that though no doubt a considerable amount of money was spent in Poor Law litigation in Scotland the amount was yet not so much as was spent in England, which was, indeed, about double in proportion. Still, that was no reason why the sum should not be diminished as much as possible. A great portion of the litigation

  473
  related to matters of settlement. He had always thought that the importance of these questions of settlement was quite overrated; and if one parish got rid of a pauper in one year, it might have to maintain ten in the next year on the very principle which it had succeeded in establishing. He consequently conceived that a shorter and more economical mode of determining these questions Should be adopted, and that questions arising in Scotch parishes, under the law of settlement, should be decided by the sheriff of the counties, but unfortunately it happened in most cases that the parish affected was beyond the jurisdiction of the sheriff. He had endeavoured to remedy the defect in the law by a clause inserted into the Sheriffs' Court Bill of 1853. It met, however, with so little encouragement at the hands of Scotch Members that it was withdrawn, but if a similar Bill would be more favourably received, he should not be unwilling to introduce one.

PRUSSIA, AUSTRIA, AND ITALY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to call attention to the critical state of the existing relations between Prussia, Austria, and Italy. The subject had been referred to in the French Chamber, and a statement had been made there the confirmation of which in that House would answer the object he had in view. He did not desire to express any want of confidence in Lord Clarendon, and congratulated the country on the change which had taken place in the occupancy of that office. Matters seemed to be on the verge of explosion on the Continent of Europe. The forces called out by Austria and Italy were excessive, and the latter country appeared to have been drawn into the struggle in a most unfortunate way. At the time when a dissension was occurring between Austria and Prussia an Italian General had been sent to Prussia for the purpose of forming an offensive and defensive alliance; between the two countries. The feeling of this country would, he thought, be against a junction of Italy with Prussia for effecting the conquest or slavery of Schleswig-Holstein, and he trusted that no actual alliance had taken place, because nothing could be more detrimental to Italian liberty. There was every preparation for war between Austria and Italy. One of the railway bridges had been destroyed by the military
  474
  authorities, and it was well known that specie payments had just been suspended in Italy, and that the National Bank had supplied the Government with a loan of 250,000,000 lire, or about £10,000,000 English. These warlike preparations, and this excessive expenditure were naturally subjects of great anxiety. The statement made by M. Rouher in the French Chamber appeared to be highly satisfactory and judicious, inasmuch as it was calculated to discourage either Austria or Italy from commencing warlike operations. An honest neutrality and complete liberty of action constituted, according to the French Minister, the maxim by which the French Government would be guided. He should be happy to learn that the French and English Governments acted in concert together, and had a good understanding on this subject, as well as in respect to the Danubian Principalities, where it would be to the advantage of Europe that the policy of France should be supported. He thought the time had come when we should look with less distrust to the policy of France than we had done on former occasions, and that the two countries ought to go more hand in hand together.
  [Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being present,]
  MR. WHITEthought this a subject of very great importance, and he hoped some satisfactory assurance would be given that the Government had used all proper means, in concert with our ally the Emperor of the French, to avert the calamity of war. At the same time, he could not help saying that the very critical state of Europe was entirely owing to the conduct of the late Government. He stood alone when, in the discussion which took place on the address in reply to the Lords Commissioners, at the opening of the Session of 1864, he said that the noble Lord who then had the conduct of Foreign Affairs had adopted a course which he held to be highly detrimental to the interests of the country in rejecting the proposition made by the Emperor of the French for a European Congress to settle the various questions then under dispute. He then strongly urged that the Schleswig-Holstein question and the occupation of Venetia by Austria had in them the seeds of inevitable war. The events of a few months later showed he was right with regard to Schleswig-Holstein, and he was afraid what he had

  475
  said would also prove true in regard to Venetia. The armed state of Europe and the attitude of mutual menace which now existed, together with the enormous war expenditure, would, in all probability, be followed by hostilities. The propositions made by the Emperor of the French had been received by the British Government in a spirit which at the time he very much regretted. They all recollected that the noble Lord, whose epistolary correspondence was not remarkable for its amenities, had made a reply to the Emperor not of the most conciliatory character. He was not himself an admirer of the Emperor; but this at least could be said for him, that he had been our best friend among Continental Sovereigns. He therefore trusted they would have some assurance from the Government that the just umbrage of the Emperor of the French at the way in which he had been treated had been removed, and that he would join with us in all proper measures to avert the outbreak of hostilities.

THE RECIPROCITY TREATY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WATKIN, who had a notice on the paper relating to the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty, and the conduct pursued by the Government in relation thereto, said, he had waited a few moments to see if the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was disposed to reply to the questions which had been already put, but perhaps he would answer both together. Notwithstanding the attempt which had just been made to count out the House, he must ask their attention to a most important subject. He had two years ago ventured to bring the subject under the notice of the Government, in the hope that it would attract a portion of the attention which was then directed to the affairs of Poland and Denmark. First of all, he wished to know who was responsible for the consideration of questions involving so largely the international relations between the British North American Provinces and the United States, and our relations with the latter through the former. Was it the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, or the Board of Trade? They had recently been told in the public papers that an uneasy feeling existed about the fisheries on the North American coast; that a fleet was being prepared for the protection of the United
  476
  States against British fishermen, and that gunboats as fast as they could be got ready sailed for their destination. It appeared that Americans demanded the right of fishing in British waters, just as before the Reciprocity Treaty, and were ready to bring on a war to enforce those claims. Now, he did not think it likely that sensible statesmen in America would plunge their own country and ours into a war for any fishery rights; but these were the fears of many well-informed people, and these fears of disturbed relations between this country and the United States produced very considerable commercial embarrassment. The Reciprocity Treaty divided itself into four essential parts—the first was the interchange without duty of the products of the soil, forests, mines, and waters of British North America on the one side and of the United States on the other: the second, the free navigation of the St. Lawrence for 1,200 miles: the third, the reciprocal advantage of communication with the shores of Lake Michigan; and the fourth, the settlement of what had been the cause of more disputes, differences, and dangers between us and our Transatlantic neighbours than any other — namely, these rights of fishery. There was also a subsidiary question as to the stipulations under which dutiable goods may pass a United States Custom House without liability to duty till they arrive at their destination. This Reciprocal Treaty was negotiated and passed in 1854. He found by reference to Hansard that on the 27th of June, 1854, Lord Clarendon stated, in reply to a question, with reference to the negotiations—
  "It appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the return of Lord Elgin to Canada afforded an opportunity, which ought not to be neglected, of endeavouring to settle those numerous questions which, for years past, have been so embarrassing to the two Governments. One of those questions, especially that relating to the fisheries, has given rise to annually increasing causes of contention, and has sometimes threatened collisions, which I believe have only been averted for the last two years by the firmness and moderation of Sir George Seymour and of the British and American naval commanders, and by that spirit of friendship and forbearance which has always characterized the officers of both navies. But, my Lords, your Lordships are also aware that there are other questions which have given rise to embarrassing discussions between the Governments of the two countries—questions which involve the commercial relations of our North American possessions with the United States, and that those questions, which involve very diver-

  477
  gent interests, hare become so complicated as to render their solution a matter of extreme difficulty… I trust, therefore, that nothing will occur to mar the completion of this great work— namely, (the Reciprocity Treaty), which I firmly believe, more than any other event of recent times, will contribute to remove all differences between two countries whose similarity of language and affinity of race, whose enterprize and industry, ought to unite them in the bonds of cordial friendship, and to perpetuate feelings of mutual confidence and goodwill."—[3 Hansard, cxxxiv. 730.]
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Ecclesiastical Commission, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading —Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) * (90).
Committee— Exchequer Bills and Bonds * (58).
Report —Exchequer Bills and Bonds * (58).
Third Reading —Poor Persons' Burial (Ireland)* (94); Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* (82); Local Government Supplemental* (84), and passed.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH, in moving for Returns connected with the Established Church in Ireland, said, that he was induced to ask for this information because it had recently been stated that the number of parochial benefices belonging to the Established Church in Ireland in which there were clergymen without any Protestant parishioners was 191, whereas the fact was there was not a single parochial benefice which did not contain within it some inhabitants members of that Church.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House,
  Return of the Number of Benefices having Provision for Cure of Souls in Ireland, with the Population of the Established Church resident therein, according to the Census taken in the Tear 1861: The Word "Benefice" to be understood to mean "The Parochial Benefice or Territorial Extent comprised within each particular Cure of Souls," in accordance with the Definition given by the Commissioners of Public Instruction in Page 3. of their Report, 1884:
  Number of Benefices in which there is no Member of the Established Church:
  Number in which there is 1 and not more than 20
  Number in which there is 20 and not more than 50
  Number in which there is 50 and not more than 100
  Number in which there is 100 and not more than 200
  Number in which there is 200 and not more than 500
  Number in which there is 500 and not more than 1,000
  Number in which there is 1,000 and not more than 2,000
  Number in which there is 2,000 and not more than 5,000
  Number in which there is 5,000 and upwards:—
  (The Archbishop of Armagh.)
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. (No. 52.)

  SELECT COMMITTEE NOMINATED.
  The Lords following were named of the Committee: The Committee to meet on Tuesday
  436
  next, at Two o'clock; and to appoint their own Chairman:

  L. Abp. Canterbury

  E. Chichester

  L. Abp. York

  E. Powis

  D. Somerset

  E. Harrowby

  D. Richmond

  E. Russell

  D. Marlborough

  V. Eversley

  E. Derby

  Bp. Oxford

  E. Hardwicke

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.