troops to Rome when that Convention had been so frequently violated. The Act of Union with Ireland, though carried by very questionable means, was nevertheless regarded by this country with such respect that it would not allow a word to be uttered against it. Why should not the Convention of September between France and Italy be viewed with the same respect? What did Italy want with Rome, which for a part of the year was a very unhealthy city, while Florence, the present capital of Italy, was one of the healthiest and most beautiful cities in Europe? But supposing the Pope were driven from Rome, what could be done with him? It was impossible to do any thing else with him than to place him again in Rome. Whatever might be said of France, he believed that the heart of the people of France was Catholic, and determined that the solemn compacts entered into by that Power should not be violated by treason or fraud of the other parties to them. LORD STANLEY: Sir, I have already stated what the position of the Government is in regard to this question of the temporal power of the Pope; and therefore I do not think it will be necessary for me now to comment upon the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I only wish it to be understood that if I pass over that speech in silence, I do not thereby imply entire assent to the doctrines the hon. Member has laid down. Indeed, I think, in some respects, he answered his own argument, for he spoke of the increased and increasing power of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. Well, I apprehend that there is no one in Italy-not even among those who are most adverse to the temporal power of the Pope-who would not be quite content if the Catholic Church occupied in Italy the position that it occupies in the United States. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman laid great stress upon the content of the people of Rome with their present Government; but I did not hear him say that he, or those in whose interest he speaks, would be satisfied to refer the question, whether the temporal power should continue, to the decision of that population. I agree, however, with the hon. Member in thinking that this is a question upon which we are not called to take a leading or active part. Referring to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), I am I much obliged to him for the courtesy with which he has commented upon the foreign policy of the present Government. But considering the state of the House-considering that the Papers upon the subject of Abyssinia were only laid on the table last night, and that upon an early day next week the whole of that question must be gone into, I think I had better reserve until then the explanation of the course the Government have pursued. I will only remind the House now that when it was my duty to speak on that subject in July last, I left the Government entirely free and unfettered as to the course we should pursue we did not pledge ourselves certainly to an expedition, neither did we pledge ourselves against one. I may also observe that a period of three or four weeks elapsed between the delivery of that speech and the time when the Government announced their intention to send an expedition to Abyssinia. shall be quite prepared, when the subject is formally before the House, to explain what occurred in that interval to induce the Government to arrive at the decision to which they came. I can assure the House that if the circumstances and the time of year had rendered it possible, we should undoubtedly have felt it a great relief and a great advantage to have obtained the preliminary sanction of Parliament to the steps we were about to take. The objections which my hon. Friend raised to the Prerogative of the Crown are, in fact, not objections to the conduct of this or any other Ministry, but to the form of the Government under which we live. All, therefore, I can say upon that is, we did not make the Constitution. We have simply accepted it, and acted upon it, within the limits which it prescribes. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), I shall only point out that he began by objecting very strongly to our sending any expedition with a view of rescuing those unfortunate persons, and concluded by suggesting that we might take a course which would be infinitely more embarrassing in the future, and might lead to infinitely more serious consequences than that which was proposed. The hon. Member suggested that we should annex a portion of Abyssinia. I shall state, on the proper occasion, what the Government are prepared to do; but this I will now say, that we shall not take the course suggested by the hon. Member. MR. WHALLEY explained that he only urged that we should occupy a portion of territory sufficient to enable our Consul in Abyssinia to maintain an inde pendent position. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, November 21, 1867. Address agreed to; to be presented by MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE On Printing Privy Councillors. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 1.] KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS). Standing Committee appointed, "to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refresh ment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeantat-Arms attending this House: " Colonel FRENCH, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Mr. DALGLISH, Mr. ONSLOW, Mr. ADAM, General DUNNE, Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE, Mr. ROBERTSON, and Captain Vivian:-Three to be the quorum. House adjourned at half after HOUSE OF LORDS, appointed. PUBLIC BILL - Ordered Metropolitan Streets CONSUL CAMERON.-QUESTION. COLONEL SYKES, who had given notice to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Consul Cameron holds a Commission in Her Majesty's Army at present; sion; and, if so, what were the alleged and, whether he formerly held a Commisreasons for his retirement? said, he wished to say a word in explanation of his Question. On looking at the blue book, he found that Mr. Cameron was sometimes addressed as Consul and sometimes as Captain Cameron. He would simply ask, whether Consul Cameron held a Commission in Her Majesty's Army? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman placed on the Paper a Question of a rather more extended character than that which he has just asked; but I hope that, in justice to Consul Cameron, I may be allowed to answer the Question as it stands on the Paper. Consul Cameron does not now hold a Commission in Her Majesty's Army. He did so formerly-namely, from 1846 to 1851. He was then an ensign in the 45th Regiment; HER MAJESTY'S Answer to the Ad- but in 1851 he sold out in consequence of dress reported as follows: HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS. "My Lords, his being unable to obtain promotion under the purchase system. He then settled in the Colony of Natal, and served "I THANK you for your loyal and in command of an irregular force during dutiful Address. "I AM confident that I shall receive your cordial Assistance and Support in all Measures which I may consider calculated to maintain the Honour of My Crown, and to promote the Happiness and Prosperity of My People." House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter the Kaffir War. For his services at that period he received the war medal. Subsequently he served under Sir William Fenwick Williams, before and after the siege of Kars. During that time he held the local rank of captain. I have seen a certificate from Sir Fenwick Williams re lating to Consul Cameron's military services at that period, and in it his gallantry and ability are spoken of in the highest terms. COLONEL SYKES said, he was glad the right hon. Baronet had answered the latter part of the Question as it stood on the Paper. He had not put it, because he had been requested not to do so. CATTLE PLAGUE.-QUESTION. MR. HODGKINSON asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, as the Order in Council of the 23rd day of October last has abolished all restrictions as to the movement of Cattle to and from Markets which are open under Licences from the Privy Council, any and, if so, what objection exists to allowing, with the same absence of restrictions, the sale of Cattle at Fairs legally and customarily held in those towns where such licensed Markets are held? LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: There is no objection to the licensing of sales of cattle on regular fair days. Fairs are prohibited by the Consolidated Cattle Plague Order, and there is no provision for licensing them; but the sales licence which is always granted unless there are some special objections, answers the purpose exactly, the non-licensing of fairs being merely technical. MR. HODGKINSON asked if he was to understand that cattle could be sent to fairs without passes? LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, that the rule was the same as with regard to sales. Cattle could be sent for sale at present without passes. MR. CRAWFORD asked the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that the Navigation of the River Thames is in danger of being obstructed by the formation of mud banks near the outfall of the Main Drainage Sewers at Crossness and Barking Reach? MR. STEPHEN CAVE: Early in the summer a vessel grounded in Barking Reach at a time of the tide when there ought to have been sufficient water to float her. to the Metropolitan Board of Works; to which a reply was sent on the 11th of November, stating that the Board had acted in obedience to Acts of Parliament, and that it was the duty of the Conservancy Board to remove shoals. The Conservators will have before them a report from their engineer on the best mode of doing this on Monday next, and will proceed at once to act upon it. There is therefore no danger of the navigation of the Thames being obstructed. I have received copies of a minute of the Metropolitan Board of Works questioning the alleged origin of the shoal and their liability to remove it, also of a report from their engineer admitting that the question is a complicated one, and recommending a conference with the Conservancy Board for the purpose of discussing the whole subject. MR. CRAWFORD asked, whether there would be any objection to produce the Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred? MR. STEPHEN CAVE replied, that as far as he knew, there would be no objection whatever to produce them. ABYSSINIA-TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.-QUESTION. MR. CRAWFORD asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any arrangements are being made for connecting by Telegraph the port of disembarkation of the expeditionary force on the coast of Abyssinia with the ports of Suez and Aden? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am not aware that any arrangements such as those referred to by the hon. Gentleman are in progress. A proposal was made to the Government on the part of the Telegraphic Construction and Maintenance Company which I found it im possible to entertain. I, however, informed the Company that if they thought fit to lay down a line of telegraph along the Red Sea the Government would make arrangements for its temporary diversion to the port of landing; but I have no reason to think that my proposition will be accepted. A survey was ordered by the Conservancy Board, the Report of which, presented on the 10th of June, states that there were large accumulations of mud, in some places to the depth of six feet, off the Main Drainage outfall. Some of this mud was sent to Dr. Letheby, and an analysis made by him, the Report of which is dated the 24th of June, left no doubt in his mind of its being composed in a great degree of sewage in a state of decomposi- SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN asked the tion. On the 25th of June a communica- Secretary of State for War, When the tion was made by the Conservancy Board Returns relative to Staff appointments, ARMY-STAFF APPOINTMENTS. QUESTION. ordered in June last, will be laid upon | given the House a little more explanation the Table? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, that the Returns were ready and would be laid upon the table in a few days. CASE OF THE CONVICT MAGUIRE, QUESTION. MR. WATKIN said, the House were aware that Thomas Maguire, the Marine, who had been convicted at the recent special commission in Manchester, and sentenced to death, had since received an unconditional pardon. It appeared, however, that Maguire had been discharged from the service. He wished to ask the Home Secretary, Whether he was prepared to recommend that he be restored? MR. GATHORNE HARDY: If the hon. Member puts the Question to-morrow I will answer it. MR. CORRY: Perhaps the House will allow me to state that Maguire has been restored to the service. on the subject, because there were different versions in the newspapers of some observation made by the right hon. Gentleman to a deputation that had waited on him some time since; but the general effect of the reports seemed to imply that in respect of the portion of the Bill of last Session which it was now sought to repeal there had been considerable negligence on the part of the metropolitan Members. There never had been a more unfounded suggestion than that put forward as having been made by the right hon. Gentleman. As the versions of what had occurred while the right hon. Gentleman was receiving the deputation were very various, perhaps an improper use had been made of his name. The Bill it was now sought to amend was brought into the other House early last Session; and on its coming down to that House, he (Mr. Ayrton) suggested that it should be sent for consideration to the Committee then investigating the subject of the Local Government of the Metropolis. The Bill, however, was kept before the House, though nothing was done with it till the 14th of August, when it was read a second time. The next day it was considered in Committee, and on the third day it was passed. If therefore there was anything METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) in which it was carried through the House wrong, it was due entirely to the manner SUPPLY-QUEEN'S SPEECH. QUEEN'S SPEECH considered. Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty:' Committee thereupon To-morrow. AMENDMENT BILL. The LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. GATHORNE HARDY: House is aware that at a very late period of last Session a Bill was passed for regulating the traffic of the metropolis. I am informed that the clause in that Act having reference to persons placing goods on the pavement would, if carried out in strictness, do great injury to a large number of industrious people who earn their livelihood in that manner. I have now to ask leave to bring in an Amendment Bill. It is a very short one; but it contains a clause which provides that the prohibition as to the exposing of goods for sale in the manner I have stated shall not apply to costermongers, street hawkers, and other itinerant hawkers, so long as they carry on their trade in conformity with regulations to be made from time to time by the Commissioners of Police. The right hon. Gentleman then moved for leave to bring in the Bill. MR. AYRTON said, he should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had by the Government. With regard to the particular clause referred to, it should be borne in mind that at the time the House went into Committee on the Bill the public had not been allowed the usual opportunity of expressing their opinion respecting the details, and consequently hon. Members had not the usual means of ascertaining which were regarded as objectionable; but he might remind the House that the clause now proposed to be amended was still more objectionable in its original form. It proposed to sweep away all the rights of individuals over open spaces in front of houses in the metropolis. He called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) to the wording of that clause, and the result was that it was put into its present shape. The right hon. Gentleman himself undertook to introduce the necessary Amendments, and of course the House was obliged at that late period of the Session to accept the Bill as it was placed before them-especially as there was but a scanty attendance of Members, and the majority were on the Treasury Bench. Now, hel should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really proposed to amend the objectionable clauses by taking away any rights possessed by individuals over the land in front of their houses-or, in other words, whether the right to use such property was to be taken from the persons who paid rates and taxes for the maintenance of the roads, and transferred to a class of people whose only claim to the use of such property was that they paid no rates and taxes at all. Before the Bill was brought forward for the second reading the right hon. Gentleman ought to maturely consider what he proposed to do. If the existing clause were unjust to the costermongers and street hawkers, that proposed to be substituted for it might be equally unjust to persons who had land in front of their houses. It would, in his opinion, be impossible for the House to pass a Bill conferring on the police authorities the right of dealing with property of that kind. He trusted it would be found upon examination that the Bill was not of the nature suggested by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, it appeared to him from what the right hon. Gentleman had said, that the Bill proposed to place an unlimited power in the hands of the police for making regulations affecting the trade of persons who sold articles in the streets. He hoped, however, the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider that point, because he (Sir George Bowyer) considered it was too large a power to be vested in the police or any one else, seeing that it affected the very existence of a very large class of people. The police regulations might be quite as injurious to these poor men as the clause to which objection was now made. Unless the Bill contained some limitation, he should certainly feel it his duty to move a clause to render the Commissioners of the Police responsible for what they did, and to prevent their wielding the powers they possessed over the street traders in an arbitrary manner. He wished also to point out that it would be exceedingly objectionable to give to the Commissioners of Police any power in the City of London. The privileges of the City would, he trusted, be treated with due consideration by his right hon. Friend; but if they were not, he should bring the matter under the consideration of the House, unless representatives of the City deemed it their duty to do so. MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE said, it was satisfactory to find that the Home Secretary had taken the earliest opportunity of introducing an amendment of the Act of last Session, with the view of remedying a great injustice which would otherwise be inflicted by the operation of the Act on a number of deserving poor; but he thought that a portion of Clause 6 also required amendment. That clause provided that when spaces between the footway and the carriage-way were by prescription or otherwise used for exposing articles for sale, such spaces should after a certain period be deemed to be a part of the footway unless they were enclosed by barriers. Now, the right hon. Gentleman might not be aware that in various parts of the metropolis so much alarm had been felt in respect of this clause, that since the passing of the Act the spaces intervening between the footway and the road, over which the public had a limited right of way, had been enclosed by rails. This process had been going on because the owners of those spaces of ground feared that they would otherwise be brought under the operation of the Act. This subject ought to be re-considered, and he hoped that the Amendment Bill would not be passed through that House as hurriedly as the original Bill was, but that time and opportunity would be afforded of remedying many defects of the present Act. For instance, the case of the cabdrivers and cab proprietors ought to be taken into consideration. A very heavy penalty was inflicted on them by the Act, which compelled them to provide lamps for their vehicles. There were 7,000 cabs in London. If each four-wheel cab were to be furnished with two lamps, the annual cost would be £7 for each cab; while the total cost to the proprietors was estimated at between £25,000 and £50,000 a year. ["Oh!"] At all events, the cost would be very great, and it would fall upon a class of persons who even now were scarcely able to exist in consequence of the heavy tax imposed upon them; for it could not be too frequently repeated that each cab had to pay a duty of £19 5s. per annum, besides which every cabman had to pay 5s. per annum for his badge. Though the tax upon omnibuses had been reduced, no attempt had been made to lighten the burden borne by the owners of cabs. A letter had recently appeared in The Times written by Mr. Haddan, the late Superintendent of the Hackney Carriage Depart |