The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-09 00:00:00

IRISH FISHERIES.

Mr. BLAKE asked the Attorney-General for Ireland
whether he intended moving for leave to introduce a bill
to give effect to the recommendation of the special com-
missioners for Irish fisheries, as contained in their report
for 1865 ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said the
question had been considered, and ho hoped to introduce a
bill very early after Easter.
THE CATTLE PLAGUE.
In reply to Mr. HUNT,

Sir G. GREY said he could not say when the bill would
come down from the other house, because he believed
there were very extensive amendments to be made therein.
Until the bill was returned to the house, and he could see
what the amendments were, he could not say when the
bill would be re-considered.
NAVY ESTIMATES.

Mr. FERRAND asked the Secretary for the Admiralty
when he intended to go on with the Navy Estimates?
Lord C. PAGET, in reply, said to-morrow evening, as
he proposed.
TRANSPORT OF CAVALRY HORSES.

Mr. O'REILLY asked the Secretary of State for War
whether the horses of cavalry regiments lately sent to
Ireland had been removed rrom England to that country;
and, if so, whether that was not in violation of the Orders
in Council for the prevention of the introduction of the
cattle plague into that country ?
The Marquis of lIARTINGTON said it was quite true
that a cavalry regiment ordered to Ireland did take their
horses with them, but in so doing they did not contravene
any order in council.
THE EASTER HOLIDAYS.

Colonel WILSON-PATTEN said it would be for the
convenience of many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the
house if the Government would state when they proposed
to move the adjournment of the house for the Easter holi-
days ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said ho in-
3nded to move the adjournment on Friday, the 23d, to the
'ollowing Monday fortnight.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL.
Sir G. GREY moved the second reading of the bill.

Mr. NEWDEGATE presented a great number of peti-
tions against the bill.

Mr. DISRAELI said ho was one of those who thought
the oaths ought not to be lightly altered. Tho bill
that had been rejected in the last session had not to
deal with a real grievance. The Roman Catholic gentle-
men on each side of the house at that moment showed that
the oaths in existence was not regarded as a very groat
grievance. He should not oppose the second reading
of the bill, because he felt it would be well to have an
uniform oath to be taken by all members of the house.
He should place on the table the form of oath which he
thought ought to be administered to the members of that
house.

Sir G. GREY was gratified to learn that the present
bill iwas not to be opposed, because it showed the
immense progress that had been made on that ques-
tion. He hoped the motion was now in a fair way of
sealement, and that the sane unanimity of feeling that
had existed up to the present time would prevail
when they came to consider the amendment of the right
gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli).
After a few observations from Sir H. CAIRNS,
Mr. NE WDEGATE rose and moved the rejection of
the bill, which he said was a measure to deprive Parlia-
ment of its Protestant character.

After some observations from Mr. 'VALLEY and Mr. T.
CHAMBgRS, the second reading of tho bill was carried by
298 to 5.

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN called attention to the case of
Mr. Ferguson, who was recently attacked by a policeman
in plain clothes, and moved for papers.
Sir G. GREY declined to go into the case as it was at
present under judicial cognisance ; but, in justification of
the magistrate, he mentioned that Mr. Ferguson was re-
manded on the deposition of the policeman, taken when he