asked the Postmaster General, Whether, since the last Session of Parliament, any communication has been made by the United States' Government to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of a reduction of the postage on letters or of the issuing of postal cards at 1d.; and, if so whether he will lay the Correspondence upon the Table of the House; and whether there has been any Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and any Steamship Company with reference to the conveyance of letters or postal cards between this Country and the United States; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?

, in reply, said, that since last Session, no communication had been made by the United States' Government to Her Majesty's Government on the subject referred to in the first part of the Question. With regard to the second part of the Question, a communication had been addressed to the North German Lloyd's Company, and a reply had been received. If the hon. Member would move for the production of the Correspondence, he would consider whether it ought to be laid on the Table; or if he wished, he might see it at the Post Office.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If any regulations exist to secure the provision of lamps in Railway carriages when traversing long tunnels; and, if not, whether he would cause or sanction the adoption of some measure to protect the public from the inconvenience and danger resulting from the absence of such provision?

Sir, no regulations exist to secure the provision of lamps in railway carriages when traversing long tunnels other than such as are made by the companies themselves. The Board of Trade never impose such regulations on railway companies, unless required specifically to do so, as in one or two rare instances, by Act of Parliament.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education. When the Annual Report of that Department will be ready for presentation and for delivery to Members; on what day he proposes to move the Education Vote in Committee of Supply; and, whether he can give the House any assurance that the Annual Report will be presented at an earlier period in future Sessions, so that it may be in the hands of Members before the debate on the Education Estimates?

, in reply, said, that the Annual Report of the Department would probably be in the hands of Members before the end of the month. He was afraid he could not say definitely on what day he should be able to move the Education Estimates, but anyhow it would not be sooner than Monday, the 11th instant, but he would give due Notice when it would be done. In future Sessions he hoped the Education Report would be ready by the end of May at the latest, and his hon. Friend was doubtless aware that the Education Estimates were hardly ever brought forward before that period.

asked Mr. Attorney General. Whether Articles 70 to 74, inclusive, of the "Code Civile" of Lower Canada, respecting the registration—the register being in duplicate, and there being power to those so signing to demand certified extracts from the register—of persons making "profession by solemn and perpetual vows," now form part of the General Law of the Dominion of Canada; or, if not if they attach solely to the Catholic Province of Quebec?

Sir, the articles of the Civil Code of Lower Canada referred to in the Question of the hon. Member provide for the registration, with certain formalities, of the names, ages, and other particulars of all persons making profession, by solemn and perpetual vows, in religious communities in Lower Canada. That Code came into operation in 1866, and though it had the effect of law given to it by the Legislature of the then united Province, it affected Lower Canada alone. The Imperial Act constituting the Dominion of Canada was passed in 1867. Under that Act, the part of the then Province of Canada, which had formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada, was again formed into a separate Province, under the name of the Province of Quebec. That Act provided a Legislature for the Dominion, and also separate Legislatures for the several constituent Provinces, and specified the matters which were to be the subjects of legislation by such respective Legislatures. The "articles of the Civil Code having relation to acts of religious profession do not now form part of the general law of the Dominion of Canada, but affect solely the Province of Quebec.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government a Question, of which he had given him private Notice, respecting the course of procedure that night. It appeared from the Totes that Her Majesty's Government proposed to take Supply, the Report of Ways and Means, the third reading of the East India Annuity Funds Bill, and Committee of Ways and Means, before the Order for the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill came on. He had postponed the second reading of the Bill for a fortnight, in order to meet the convenience of Her Majesty's Government, and on looking at the Order Book, he found there was a second reading of a Bill put down for every Wednesday to the 15th of July, with the exception of the 3rd of June. Now, he should be sorry to interfere with the Derby Day, and he should not think it proper, after what occurred on the 2nd of July last, to move the second reading of his Bill on any Wednesday, when there was a special reason for the House being thin. He would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to proceed with the Government Orders that evening, as he had a perfect right to do; and whether he would afford any facilities for bringing on the second reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill, considering the importance of the subject and the great interest it excited in the country?

I think, Sir it is desirable that the opinion of the House should be taken on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend, and I do not consider it expedient that there should be an indefinite delay in the expression of that opinion. Therefore, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they will give every facility to my hon. Friend to bring forward the Bill to-night. He has, no doubt, observed that there are three Amendments to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, over which we have no control. With regard to Government business, we do not contemplate taking Supply to-night. Then there is the Report of Ways and Means, and the third reading of the East India Annuity Funds Bill, but there is no anticipation that cither of these Orders will give rise to a long discussion, and I hope my hon. Friend will not misinterpret my motives, if we wish those Orders of the Day to be read. After that, my hon. Friend will have the House at his disposal, and the hour at which he will be able to introduce his measure will depend on the length of the discussion of the previous Amendments to the Order for going into Committee of Supply, over which Amendments Her Majesty's Government have no control.

, in rising to call attention to the neglect of the Irish Fisheries, especially in contrast with the encouragement and support that has been given to the Scotch ones; and to move—

"That the decay of the Irish Sea Coast Fisheries imperatively calls for the immediate Attention of Her Majesty's Government, and demands the application of the remedies recommended by the Reports of Royal Commissions and of Select Committees, and that this House pledges itself to support any well-considered measure that may be introduced on the subject and conformeth to such recommendations,"

said, that the first Session of a new Parliament, and the advent to power, as well as to place, of a Conservative Government, was a fitting time to bring-before the House the question of the Irish sea-coast fisheries. The political cry of the Conservative party had always been the development of the industrial resources of Ireland, instead of political or social reforms. The present Motion would test the honesty of that cry, and prove to the country whether it was a real policy or only an election and party programme got up to suit the exigency of the moment. This was not the first time the subject had been brought before the House, and there was no Irishman, however ignorant, that did not feel an interest in the question. Anyone who looked at the map of Ireland would see how admirably the country was adapted for sea-coast fisheries. She commanded a coast of over 2,000 miles, three times the length of the coast of Holland, whose sea-coast fisheries produced £3,000,000 a-year, and three times the extent of the coast of Scotland, whose sea-coast fisheries produced nearly £2,000,000 a-year; and yet with all her natural advantages, the sea-coast fisheries of Ireland only yielded £300,000 a-year. The Irish Parliament had done much to encourage Irish fisheries by various Acts, especially by the 25 Geo. III., c. 35. Lord Sheffield, speaking of the operation of that Act and of the branding system under it, stated that no fewer than 21,057 barrels of herrings had been exported, which realized higher prices than those of any other country. And although the bounty under that Act was less than the Scotch bounty, the Scotch fishermen preferred fishing in the Irish waters. It was remarkable however, that now after the lapse of nearly a century, Ireland, from being an exporter, had become an importer of fish, and was obliged to draw on her agricultural resources to pay for the fish to feed her own population. The Act of 1785, and other Acts, expired with the Irish Parliament, as they were only of a temporary character; and from 1800 to 1819 the Imperial Parliament did nothing whatever for the Irish sea-coast fisheries, notwithstanding the efforts of Irish Members to have something done. A Bill, introduced in 1803, was opposed by Yarmouth and other English fishing stations, and was rejected on the second reading, owing to a spirit of commercial jealousy. In 1838, when the late Lord Carlisle, one of the best Chief Secretaries Ireland ever possessed, introduced a Bill for carrying out the recommendations of the Commission of 1836, a deputation, headed by the Duke of Sutherland, influenced by the same spirit of commercial jealousy, waited upon him, and the Bill never received a second reading. He did not refer to this matter for any invidious purpose, but to defend his countrymen from a taunt with which they had been lately insulted—that they invented a new grievance—namely, that they could not catch the fish in their own seas. When the industry of a nation or people was struck down by commercial jealousy, it was not by years but by centuries that its recovery could be measured. In 1819, an Act—the 59 Geo. III., c. 109—was passed for protecting the Irish sea-coast fisheries, and granting a bounty smaller, indeed, than that which had been given to Scotland by the Act of 1808, but Ireland was grateful for the boon. The Act was most beneficial in its operation. There was a general concurrence of opinion showing that the best effects, both moral and practical, followed. The Commissioners under the Act of 1819 applied the money they received rather in loans than in bounties. Apprehending a change in the law in 1829, they gave an account of the increase of the fisheries from 1819 to 1829, stating that the vessels had doubled and the men and boys had nearly doubled, and that from 1827 to 1829, 125 new boats had been built, and more than £14,000, which had been lent on the personal security of the Irish fishermen, had been nearly all repaid before the 5th of April, 1829. A late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe) had been asked to adopt the system of the Commissioners of 1819; but he declined to lend money, as he said, on personal security, and the Liberal Government preferred to save money and hand it over to their successors on the Treasury Bench. In spite of the warning that the repeal of the Act of 1819 would be the ruin of the sea-coast fisheries, the Act was repealed in 1830. and the sea-coast fisheries were handed over to the directors of the Inland Navigation of Ireland. He did not see any connection between inland navigation and the sea-coast fisheries, and therefore the change was one which, in the opinion of Englishmen, might rather have been looked for from an Irish Government or Parliament. But it was the Act of an Imperial Parliament, and must have been dictated by either a spirit of mockery, or by a fixed determination to give no encouragement to the Irish fisheries. The directors did nothing for the fishing industry, and therefore in 1832 it was handed over to the Board of Public Works, which confined their attention to the Acts relating to piers and harbours. Indeed, it might be said that the former had been employed to dig the grave, and the latter to erect a cemetery. The consequence was, that the fisheries continued to decay, and might be said to be moribund when they were transferred to the present Inspectors in 1869. In 1871, the Inspectors reported that much inconvenience resulted from the insufficiency of harbours and the inability of poor localities to meet the conditions under which aid was afforded. Would the House believe that from 1830 to 1842 the sum expended amounted to only £20,000, and half of that was absorbed in expenses? Why in 1838 the sum laid out was £138, and in 1839 it was only £61 14s. 2d.—he wished to be accurate! On the other hand, from 1819 to 1830, the sum laid out was £243,000, not unprofitably because a large portion—namely, the portion expended in loans—was paid back. That afforded a good contrast between the old and the new system, and accounted for the decay of the Irish fisheries. In 1868, when the question was before the House, the claim was opposed on free-trade principles; but that objection was well met by the late Mr. John Stuart Mill, who argued that it was not inconsistent with political economy to help a backward interest with a loan. In order to remedy the present state of things, they did not ask for bounties nor for grants, but for reproductive loans. Why should they not be applied to that, as to every other industry? In 1779 the Irish fisheries furnished 30,000 men for the British Navy; but if an appeal were made to them now they would not furnish 40 men. He had referred to Commissions—there was one in 1836 and another in 1866. There was a Select Committee in 1849, and another in 1867. There was also a Royal Commission in 1866. The Select Committee of 1867 reported that the fisheries of Ireland were decayed, and that the great cause of their decay and ruin was the famine of 18–17 and 1848, which decimated the Irish population, and particularly the fishing population of the western coast, who from the occasional tempestuous character of the seas were also small agriculturists. That Report had been in the hands of the Government from 1867 till the present time, but they had done nothing to remedy the present state of things. The Select Committee of 1836, speaking of the Scotch system, mentioned that "the small grants given to Scotland had produced most beneficial results, but in Scotland," they went on to say, "there were public officers under the Fishery Board to make the distribution." Now, there were similar officers in Ireland who might be employed under the Inspectors—he meant the officers of the Coast Guards—who were perfectly competent to carry out that duty; if not, a Board of Fishery might be created in Ireland as in Scotland. In 1846, when there was a famine on the West Coast of Scotland, the grants given had saved the fisheries from ruin; and yet in the face of that fact, no similar grant was given to the Irish fishermen in the famine of 1847, or since. Why was not the Report of 1836 carried out? Because commercial jealousy prevented it. Why was not the Report of 1867 carried out? Because a mean economy had prevented it. He hoped that there was an end of both. The Reports of the Inspectors, commencing in 1869 and ending in 1872, were clear and explicit, pointing out what the evil was and what the remedy should be. The Report of the Inspectors for 1869 stated that during the preceding ten years there had been a very large decrease in the number of boats and men and said—

"Without loans for the purchase and repair of boats and gear were advanced to the fishermen, no great improvement could be expected," and "if much longer time were allowed to elapse before their suggestions were carried out the fishing industry would nearly expire on one-half of the coast."

Inspectors' Report of 1870 was of similar purport. The last Report was that of 1872, which showed that at that time the number of boats and men, as compared with 1846, showed a decrease from over 20,000 boats in 1846. to a little over 7,000 in 1872, and from 116,000 men and boys to 40,000, or the boats to one-third, and the men and boys to nearly a third. Even from 1869 to 1872 the decrease in boats had been nearly 2,000. What stronger case could be made out? There could not be more conclusive proofs than these Reports afforded of the existing unsatisfactory state of things and the necessity for applying a remedy to it. He trusted that the present Government would be found more disposed than its predecessor had been to travel in the desired direction. If he were to judge from what had transpired with reference to the question of the Government purchasing the Irish rail- ways, he should not be very hopeful; but he recollected at the same time that the Government had evinced a desire to assimilate the laws of the two countries, and that made him more sanguine. What he contended for was that the Scotch system of grants should be extended to Ireland, and that Ireland should have its Board as Scotland had. The Report of the Scotch Board of Fisheries proved, on the evidence of the Commission of 1866, the benefit of the system enjoyed by Scotland in regard to the development of its fisheries. Those of Ireland had no such stimulus. Ireland, the best fitted of all countries in the world for being an exporter of fish, so far from exporting, actually imported from Scotland, Norway, and Newfoundland to the extent of £100,000 annually. From the years 1808 to 1858 Scotland received a Parliamentary grant of £15,000 a-year, in addition to a grant of £500 a-year given by the Scotch Board to save the distressed fishermen of the Hebrides. The question, therefore, involved the principle whether one part of the Empire was to be treated better than another part. Now, he for one, did not grudge Scotland what she had got, and would resist its diminution by so much as one farthing. But every argument in favour of Scotland spoke with ten-fold power in favour of Ireland. He had never yet heard that Ireland was so strong and wealthy that she could allow exceptional laws to be passed at the expense of her industries. If protection were wanted anywhere, it was for the industries springing up in the poorer country. They might as well ask a cripple to compete with an athlete, as ask Ireland, after so long a series of grants and protective measures in aid of the Scotch fisheries, to compete with that country. In a few years, however, the Irish fishermen might be formidable rivals to those of Scotland, if the loans for which he now asked were granted, and if Parliament would supply the capital desired. On the western portion of Ireland, the fishermen could not fish all the year round, and during the winter they became cottiers and small farmers. In such a famine as that of 1847 these persons required the same aid which was given by an annual grant to the distressed fishermen of the Hebrides. The present Government had dangled before the Irish people the policy of developing the resources of the Irish people, and the fisheries had, therefore, a special claim upon their attention. The difficulty was as to the quarter from which the money was to come, and he trusted that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would not adopt the policy of his predecessor in refusing to make loans to these fishermen on personal security. If he did, all the evil he would wish him would be the fate of his predecessor the Member for the London University. He had now merely sketched the outline of his case, and he left it to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), who had requested him to bring the subject forward, and to other Irish Members, to fill up the canvas. He could see no possible answer to his Motion except to assent to it, and he hoped the Government would be able to give their sanction to it without hesitation. He hoped that a Conservative Government was not going to falsify their promises, or—

"To keep the word of promise to the ear.

And break it to the hope."

The great difficulty that might stand in the way of their doing anything, if not the only one, would probably be as to the quarter whence the money should come. He did not think that any real difficulty of the kind need exist, if the subject were gone into with a desire of bringing about a practical solution. But if there was not an earnest desire on the part of the Government to do justice to Ireland on this subject, he hoped his hon. Friends would apply to this great question the aid of their ability and their union, and help to give to it that prominence to which it was entitled. The Government had a great responsibility resting upon them in the matter, and he felt it his duty to tell them so plainly. They must rise to the height of the question, and confer a great boon on a large and deserving population. He did not know to what extent they might be disposed to give support and encouragement to these views. It might be that they were inclined to imitate the example set them by their predecessors, and, withholding money from important commercial and industrial interests, hoard up large sums for their successors to dispose of. But it required no prophet to tell them what would be the result of such a blind policy. The fate of their predecessors was a sufficient warning to them. He believed that what was required might he done by means of purely Irish resources, but if not the Imperial revenue must be resorted to. And as long as the Imperial Parliament claimed the exclusive right to legislate for Ireland, the Imperial revenue was liable to con-tribute to the development of Irish industry. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan) in the Preamble of his Resolution, has contrasted the encouragement given to the Scotch fisheries, as compared with the support given to Irish fisheries; and the disadvantage under which he supposes Ireland to labour, has formed a large part of his interesting speech. My hon. Friend divided his speech into two parts—the present state of things as regards the fisheries, and their by-past condition. Perhaps it may be most convenient to take things as they are, first, and then say a word about the million and a-quarter to which he has referred. My hon. Friend says Scotland gets £15,000 a-year from this House for the encouragement of its fisheries. I shall show from the Estimates of the present year that he has fallen into a great error in that matter. No such sum is granted to Scotland, but very much larger sums are granted to Ireland. I wish to show that distinctly, in order to negative the facts and allegations of my hon. Friend. What then, first of all, is the sum granted to Scotland? In the Civil Service Estimates of the present year you will find that the sum proposed to be granted is nominally £12,475—last year it was a few pounds less. But I must remind the House of the fact that during the herring fishing season in Scotland one of Her Majesty's cutters is sent down to act as the police of the sea. In some of the Scotch fishing stations as many as 1,000 or 1,200 boats will be assembled at one time. These are not all Scotch boats, but include boats from France, Holland, England, Ireland, and elsewhere; and in such circumstances it is as necessary that there should be on the coast a Government vessel to keep the peace of the sea as it is to send down a strong body of police from London or Dublin when any mischief is anticipated in the provinces. My hon. Friend imagines that no part of the grant for Scotland is devoted to that purpose, whereas a sum of £2,300 is paid annually for the services of this cutter. That reduces the grant to £10,175. But that, again, includes the grant in aid of piers or quays, amounting to £3,000. I deduct that sum for the purpose of fairly comparing the Irish and Scotch grants; for I want to show what the Scotch fisheries, as fisheries, get, apart altogether from the question of fishery piers and fishery harbours. Deducting further the £3,000 for piers or quays, that reduces the grant to £7,175. Many years ago it was proposed to abolish herring branding altogether. I think myself it is an erroneous system, but I admit that many men of intelligence in the trade differ from me, and I do not attach any great importance to my own opinion. The branding system did not yield much revenue at first, but it has latterly been better looked after, and curers now make more use of it than they did before; and the fishermen are bound to pay the Government a small sum for the brand to each barrel. If hon. Members will look at the Civil Service Estimates, they will find in a note to this Item that the branding fees this year are estimated at £7,000. I have already reduced the grant to £7,175, and if the Government gets £7,000 from branding fees, there remains only £175 as the total amount of the grant to Scotland on account of her fisheries: and, last year, there was an actual profit of £100 to the Treasury, instead of a grant of £15,000. Now, with regard to harbours. There has been in the Estimates for many years a grant of £3,000; but for the last 10 years that grant has been applied exclusively for one harbour in Fifeshire. The hon. Member who represents that Burgh (Mr. Ellice) has been exceedingly fortunate in his guardianship, for not one shilling has been spent on any other harbour or pier. My hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) seems to think that Scotland gets a large sum from the Imperial Treasury, and that Ireland gets nothing. I will endeavour to enlighten him on the subject. I will show from the Estimates for the present year that Ireland gets £6,300 for fishery piers alone; the total promised grants amount to £14,013. The instalments of grants for harbours in Ireland, not designated fishery piers, to be paid this year, are as follows:—Kingstown, £10,450; Donaghadee, £350; Dunmore, £990; and Howth. £550—making altogether, £12,340, as the instalments voted during the current year, as against £3,000 to Scotland. My hon. Friend, again, complains that there is no Fishery Board in Ireland as in Scotland. I can show him that there is a more expensive system in Ireland in the shape of Fishery Inspectors for whom the annual grant is £2,374. Taking these three items together—fishery piers £6,300; harbours, £12,340; and Inspectors of Fisheries, £2,374—the total voted for Ireland during the current year is £21,014 against £175 for fisheries, and £3,000 for harbours and piers in Scotland. Hon. Members will, therefore, see that my hon. Friend is under a great misapprehension when he says that Scotland is obtaining any advantage. I will now show that Ireland has a more expensive Fishery Board than Scotland. There are in Ireland three Inspectors receiving £600 each, a Secretary with £225, and clerks, messengers, writers, and housekeepers, receiving among them £359. Besides, there is a grant for chambers amounting to £296. The total of these items is £2,680. The only Fishery Inspectors in Scotland are the Salmon Fishery Inspectors, who are paid at the rate of £3 per day for the time they are employed, but the country is put to no expense for residence. The sum of £ 720 is the total of that item in the Estimates. On the Edinburgh Board of Fisheries there are a number of gentlemen, all unpaid, chosen without any knowledge of fisheries—Admirals, Generals, Judges. Baronets, and lawyers, and all sorts of people except men acquainted with fisheries. The Secretary gets £524—and taking into account the salaries of clerks and Inspectors, and including the amounts paid to the lesser officials, down to salaries of £120 a-year, the total is £1,470—against an expenditure for Irish Inspectors of nearly double that amount. My hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) has stated that including a long period of years, Scotland has got £1,250,000 of Government money. I am willing to assume, for argument's sake, that it is so; but how did it arise? Parliament, in its wisdom, decided that a certain class of industries were to be encouraged, including both fisheries and manufactures. To encourage them, a system of bounties was established, and every person exporting herrings was to receive a certain sum per barrel. My hon. Friend knows that if was just as much open to Irishmen to export herrings as it was to Scotchmen, and if they did export herrings they would receive the same grants. If they did not do so, it was their own fault, and not the fault of the Government. My hon. Friend seems to think the fisheries thrive better in Scotland than in Ireland; but I would remind him that during the time bounties were given for herrings, bounties were also given for linens: and that while Belfast and the North of Ireland generally received a large share of these bounties. Glasgow, Ayrshire, and the West of Scotland did not receive a shilling, because linen manufactures had not taken root there; but this did not prove that Ireland was unduly fostered, or Scotland injured by the bounties on linens. It is a remarkable fact that the herring fishing of Scotland—and, indeed, the fisheries of all kinds—thrive best not where the Celtic race chiefly abounds on the west coast, but on the east coast where the Norwegian and Danish invaders settled. These are the races who carry on the fisheries. Beginning at the Shetland and Orkney Islands, and coming down by Wick. Peterhead, and Aberdeen, and the Fife Coast, you will find colonies of these northern races; and even in the vicinity of the City of Edinburgh they exist, and keep up a separate and distinctive dress, and inter-marry only with each other. These, I say, are the men who make the Scotch fisheries thrive. If you go to the western coast, where the Celtic race is predominant, you will find that the fisheries do not thrive to anything like the same extent. My hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) referred to the famine in the Hebrides, and to the assistance rendered by the Government of £500 a-year in that emergency; but if he will look to the Re-port on that great famine, he will find that Scotland itself subscribed the large proportion of what was required to relieve the necessities of the starving people. My hon. Friend asks that Ireland should enjoy the same benefit respecting its fisheries as Scotland. I have shown that Scotland gets £175 this year, and I am quite Trilling that Ireland should get the same benefit from the Imperial Exchequer. To revert again for a moment to the branding system. If my hon. Friend will look at the Parliamentary Papers he will find that the Dutch Government—and Dutchmen are the best herring curers in the world—has written to the Foreign Office proposing to abolish branding altogether. The Foreign Office has agreed to abolish the system; and the Treasury also approved of its being done away with. If you except the parties interested in the trade, my own opinion is, that the great bulk of the people of Scotland would like to see the branding abolished; but there is no need to agitate and stir the question at present, because it causes no burden on the Exchequer. Why the Treasury did not bring in a Bill to abolish the system at he time these Papers were printed, I am quite unable to comprehend. In saying what I have done, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not hostile to the Irish fisheries or Irish interests. I am glad to see symptoms of their revival, and I shall rejoice if not only fisheries, but every branch of Irish industry, shall become as prosperous as those of Scotland.

said, his hon. Friend who had introduced the subject would not blame him (Mr. Collins) if he declined to follow him into some of the details of his speech; but, as representing a part of Ireland where fisheries could be most advantageously aided and developed, he wished to say, in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that though he did not wish to draw any invidious distinctions between the Scotch and the Irish fisheries, he must remind the hon. Member that there was no basis of comparison by which the condition of the one could be compared with that of the other; for the Scotch Fisheries had been fostered by many successive Governments, and did not stand in need of assistance now in the same way as the Irish fisheries did. He had the honour to represent the town of Kinsale which was becoming an important fishing station, and he could not better show to the House the great extent and value of the Irish fisheries than by placing before it a few statistics respecting the present condition of the mackerel fishery connected with the port of Kinsale. This fishery was conducted during the months of March, April, May, and a part of June. There were at present over 350 vessels engaged in it, with crews of seven and eight men in each. Every vessel cost, with fishing gear, about £550; so that property to the value of about £200,000 was embarked in this industry. It might be well to mention that a bout one half of these were Manx vessels, the remainder coming from various English and Irish ports, except about 45 to 50, which were owned in Kinsale and belonged to that port. He found that in some weeks the sales of mackerel produced £15,000, and assuming these to have been sold at 10s. per 100 fish, it gave 3,000,000 fish, weighing about 6,500,000 pounds of good food weekly, to be distributed throughout the markets of England and Ireland, where the eventual sales realized nearly £75,000 per week. As the fishing extended over 12 or 14 weeks, the average results were therefore, as he had stated, of considerable importance. He instanced Kinsale to show how important the Irish fisheries might become under development, for there might be many other stations in Ireland which might rival Kinsale, if encouragement were afforded by Government to bring them into activity. He believed that an equally important pilchard fishery might be developed at Kinsale, to follow immediately after the mackerel fishery, for he was informed that large shoals of pilchards reached the south coasts of Ireland in the months of May and June, where they were observed by the fishermen two or three weeks before they reached the coast of Cornwall, and it was known that they furnished to Cornish fishermen an abundant harvest of wealth and prosperity. They did not ask from the Government anything unreasonable; they did not propose to put their hands into the pockets of the State; they only asked that the Government of the country should exercise that same ordinary care in fostering the Irish fisheries which men usually devoted to their own business matters. He hoped the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would he specially directed to the subject, for the effect of encouragement to this great industry would not only be advantageous to individuals in the localities, but also to the nation. He would take the liberty of suggesting to the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland what appeared to him the simple and yet inexpensive means of aiding the fisheries of Ireland, He would recommend a moderate expenditure in the construction of fishery piers at important stations like Kinsale, as he believed that they, with similar judicious assistance, would serve greatly to extend the trade and protect the property of those engaged in it. He would further propose that a number of practical fishery instructors should be appointed—say 10, at a salary of £80 to £ 100 a-year: this would give four instructors for each of the four provinces of Ireland—to instruct, not alone with respect to the curing, but also as to the most effective modes of catching fish. He also thought that the judicious application of loans given to poor districts through the medium of local authorities, such as municipal bodies or Boards of Guardians—or where they did not exist, through the local magistracy—great encouragement might be given to individual enterprise, and thus the inexhaustible sources of wealth surrounding the Irish shores might be developed, so as to bring the blessings of abundance and prosperity to the poor struggling population of our coasts. He appealed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland earnestly, on behalf of his poorer fellow countrymen, to grant the aid which they sought for. The subject was deserving of his consideration, and he left it in his hands with the full hope that so important a means of serving Ireland would not be neglected by him.

thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M Laren) had not stated his case fairly. When the question of branding in Scotland was under consideration, the people of that country opposed its abolition, and volunteered to pay about £7,000 a-year for the continuance of the use of the Government brand. The payment was, therefore, in return for actual contract services rendered by the officers of the Crown to the traders. The amount received by Scotland from the State was about £7,000 a-year by way of subsidy, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh considered the one sum as a set off against the other; whereas, the fact was, the Scotch fisheries having been nurtured by the State to such an extent, the people engaged in the trade found the branding of great service to them, and did not object to £7,000 being paid for it, nor would Ireland object under like circumstances to pay quite as much.

submitted that this was no question of competition between Scotland and Ireland, and he deprecated any such issue being raised. He regretted that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) should have put forward an argument which, if it amounted to anything at all, amounted to grudging Ireland the concession claimed by this Motion. The fact was, that the Scotch fisheries had been wafted to prosperity by bounties, aids, and grants from the Imperial Exchequer, while Ireland was absolutely repressed and kept down, and now for the Scotch to say—"Let there be no more bounties, but free trade," amounted to this—"We have got the start; we are half way to the goal; let Ireland overtake us if she can." Suppose two yachts were to race from Dover to Cape Clear, and that one of them had been towed by a steam-tug to the Land's End, while the other was left beating against head winds in the Channel, would it be a fair start then? Would it be exactly fair of the first to object to any assistance being given the less-favoured craft, and say—"Let us both compete just as we are?" From the Report of a Government official, it appeared that for more than 280 years Parliament, at the instance of English fishery owners, had interposed to prevent the exercise of this industry in Ireland; and that at one period the Scotch fishermen, being in want, received advances on their own note, which they had not been called upon to pay while no loans were made to the Irish fishermen during the same period. He did not believe that Scotland had had a pound too much; but in a naval Empire, in island Kingdoms like ours, a wise Government would carefully con- serve sea-coast fisheries whenever they could be encouraged. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had, in framing his estimates of the expenditure in Scotland and Ireland, included the expenses in connection with the Imperial harbour at Kingstown. Why, the hon. Member might just as well, in estimating the money spent on English fisheries, count the millions which had been expended at Holyhead. When Irish Members on that side of the House advocated Home Rule, they were told by Irish Members opposite that they ought to attend to the material prosperity of their country, and when they advocated the material prosperity of Ireland hon. Members opposite remained silent. They were not asking alms for Ireland, but merely that justice should be done.

denied the justice of the remark made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He thought it could not truly be said that the Conservative party in Ireland had been neglectful either of the national or political interests of that country. As regarded the political interests of Ireland, he had put in the forefront of his address to his constituents that, whatever happened, he would never give any support to that most empty of all nostrums—"Home Rule." In respect to the material interests of Ireland, he found himself unable the other evening to vote with the hon. Member for Limerick County and his Friends, when they wanted a pull at the Imperial Exchequer; but as the same obstacles did not exist in this case as in that of the railways, and as he had for a number of years thought that a very good case had been made out for the grant now advocated by the hon. Member, he should be happy to give him his support. He had considerable acquaintance with the coasts of Ireland, and he might inform the House that the fisheries in the Bay of Donegal had been carried on at certain times with no little success, owing to the enormous supply of fish; but that success, he was sorry to say, had been of a very shifting character. No less than six different attempts had been made on the part of different companies, and although they partially succeeded, yet such was the tempestuous character of that coast that none of those companies were able to carry on their business with real profit for more than four or five years. There had been sometimes enormous takes of herring, but those seasons of profit were "like angel visits, few and far between." Under these circumstances, although there might be well-grounded claims coming from other parts of the coast, he should not feel himself justified in placing his county in the position of asking for a special grant, but he believed that there were parts of the coast of Ireland where the fisheries might be supported. He agreed with the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Sullivan) that comparisons between the fisheries of Scotland and Ireland were not necessary, and he felt sure that if there had been a great industry neglected in Ireland, his right hon. Friend would be glad to do all he could to restore it; and if the hon. Member for Limerick County would move for a Committee of Inquiry into the subject, an irresistible case would be made out, and he had no doubt the Conservative party in Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give him every assistance in remedying whatever grievance might exist.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had quite disposed of the fallacy that Scotland got £15,000 a year for the encouragement of the fisheries. His hon. Friend had conclusively shown that, although the sum of £12,475 was set down in the Estimates of the present year for Scotch fisheries, there was a note appended, stating that there was a sum of £7,000 received on account of the herring brand. What was actually voted yearly for Scotch piers and harbours was £3,000. This he considered a very inadequate sum. Some years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject, and it recommended that the grant should be increased to £6,000. In 1865 he had the honour of introducing a Bill, the object of which was to carry out their recommendations. He was not successful, and he did not remember receiving much support from his hon. Friends from Ireland. As to the herring brand, he might say a word or two. His constituents were very much interested in the herring trade, and he had taken a deal of trouble to ascertain their opinion in regard to the brand. He found there was a great deal of variance as to its value, and a great deal to be said on both sides. There was another matter. Since 1859 the very considerable sum of £63,442 had been paid into the Treasury for Scotch fisheries, being the amount of 4d. a barrel for branding, and therefore the Scotch fisheries were the source of considerable revenue to the country. Now, he would make an offer to his Irish Friends. He thought this money which was raised by the industry of the fishermen ought to go back to Scotland, and be devoted to the improvement of harbours, and the providing of new ones, with a view to improving the trade. His opinion was that it should be administered by the Scotch Fishery Board, and his offer was this—that if the Irish Members would assist in getting such an arrangement for Scotland, he would do his best to assist them to get a similar arrangement for Ireland. As to the bounty, it was almost absurd to say that the success of the Scotch fisheries was due to the miserable and inadequate sum of £3,000 a-year which they got for piers and harbours. What it was really due to was the energy and enterprise with which the fisheries were worked. The other day he was astonished to find that on the part of the coast between Wick and Aberdeen the enormous sum of £70,000 was made in about three months. The fishing would be very much improved if they had proper harbours, and considering the small sum Scotland got back from the Imperial Exchequer, he thought a good case could be made out for devoting the £3,000 to this purpose. When they succeeded in getting a Fishery Board for Ireland, he would be glad to assist them to get a similar return of the money that came from Ireland.

hoped the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly), that the question should be again referred to a Select Committee, would not be adopted. They had already had so many inquiries and Reports upon it that the subject was worn threadbare, and the time had now come for the Government to take action to assist in developing that important branch of the resources of Ireland; for it was not fitting that the Inspectors of Fisheries in that country should be driven, as they had been, to appeal for public subscriptions in order to do what ought to be done by the State. He understood, however that those fisher- men who had been assisted from the result of that appeal, although poor men, had faithfully fulfilled their obligation; and he thought that of itself ought to induce the Government to do something for the further development of the Irish fisheries. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had used arguments against the grant asked for, weaker than any he (Mr. Morris) had ever heard, and had referred to the grant of £10,000 for Kingstown harbour, which was not a fishing harbour at all; but the hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that not long ago a Bill was passed to relieve the harbour of Leith from a debt of over £200,000, and make it a present of that money. The hon. Member could not point to any such present to Ireland, and therefore he might allow Ireland to have a sum for harbour improvements. As to the repayments under the Scotch branding system, he believed that if the fisheries of Ireland were assisted in a way similar to those of Scotland, he had no doubt that the Exchequer would soon be recouped the expenditure. The drainage of the Shannon and other measures had lately been urged on the attention of the Chief Secretary, but the fisheries were better entitled than any other object to assistance, and if the right hon. Gentleman desired time to consider the matter, the Motion might be postponed.

said, he did not rise, as a Scotch Member, to draw any comparison between the grants to Scotland and those to Ireland for their fisheries. The remarks he intended to make would be in the capacity of having had the honour of being Chairman of a Royal Commission which examined into the herring fisheries of the British coast. In the inquiries of that Commission one thing of all others became most clear, and that was that the fisheries of the British coasts prospered more the less the Government did for them, and the less legislative restrictions prevailed. As the result of their inquiries, the Commission recommended the repeal of all the Acts of Parliament, which gave a sort of parental protection to the fishermen of the different coasts for close time, the regulation of the mesh of nets, the modes of using them as drift nets or seines, and other supposed methods of protecting the fisheries; and therefore, if the demands of the Irish Members on the present occasion were for a return to such unreasonable modes of protection, he should strongly resist the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan). But there had been no such unreasonable request made that night. The suggestions made by the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. E. Collins) were of the most moderate character, He suggested that there should be improvements made in piers in exposed situations in Ireland, so as to enable the fishermen to develop the resources of the seas surrounding that Island. Nov, aid of that description had been given to Scotland, and had produced great advantages; and therefore, if the demands were restricted to material aid beyond the resources of individual fishermen, and were not extended to loans of money—which he feared would have a tendency to diminish self-reliance, and to encourage unwise expectations from the Government—he should be quite inclined to accept the latter part of the Motion of his hon. Friend, and say that he, at all events, as one Member of the House, would be ready to entertain any well considered measure on the subject. He thought they owed much to Ireland for their past interference with her industries. Not only her fishing industry, but many other industries, had been interfered with by direct legislative injurious action on the part of the House; and where they could develop an industry in a moderate manner, he thought it would be well for the interests of the country that they should give judicious

said, he thought there could be no doubt as to the importance to Ireland, and, indeed, to the United Kingdom, of the question which the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan) had brought before the House, and he was surprised that it should have been allowed to sleep for so many years. If any country had a mine of wealth under its soil, Ireland had one under its waters; and he had seen it stated that there were places, such as Galway Bay, where an equal amount of land covered with growing crops would not produce a value equal to that which might be raised from the sea. It appeared, however, that the fishermen of Ireland had not been able to make use of the advantages which nature had thus bestowed upon their country, for they had been informed that a decrease had taken place in the fishing population of Ireland which was out of all proportion to that of the general population, and also that for years past there had been a large quantity of fish imported into Ireland for food. During the nine years subsequent to the famine. £100,000 worth of fish were imported annually from Scotland alone, probably by vessels sailing through shoals of the very same kind of fish with which they were laden. There was no doubt that some of the fisheries in Ireland were very profitable; but they were mainly carried on by persons not Irish. In one case, that of the mackerel fishery of Kinsale, which had been referred to as producing £75,000 a week, during the three or four months over which it extended: the boats were chiefly manned by Englishmen. Manx, and Frenchmen, and the steamers which conveyed the fish to England, or elsewhere, had been supplied by the enterprise of English or other merchants. That extraordinary state of things showed the necessity of looking deeply into the reason why Irishmen thus yielded to the natives of other countries. Instead of a claim for assistance having been founded upon the prosperity of this fishery, it might rather be argued from it that Irish fisheries, if properly worked, could prosper without State assistance. But with that view, the erection of fishery piers and the despatch of instructors by the Fishery Commissioners to instruct men in the curing of pilchards, in order to bring that fishery into an equally prosperous state, were useful suggestions which would be carefully considered by the Government, and he should be as glad as the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Collins), if it appeared that anything more could be done in this direction. A great deal of the speech of the hon. Member for Limerick County was occupied with a comparison of the grants which had been made to Ireland and to Scotland for fishery purposes, and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) confessed he was sorry that question had been alluded to. It might be that the encouragement given to Scotland in past years had been greater than that which had been accorded to Ireland; but certainly, as regarded the present year, the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) were very near the truth. In all these things it was difficult to show what sums had been given for fishery purposes proper, and what for purposes not strictly connected with fisheries. From the best information he had been able to obtain, however, he believed that Scotland, in the Estimates for the present year, received a sum of £5,475 for fishery purposes, while Ireland, including the cost of the Fishery Commissioners and £6,300 for piers and harbours, received £8,674. If, then, they were to go into a comparison, it would appear that Ireland had nothing at present to complain of as to her position in reference to Scotland. But it was said that Scotch fisheries had been encouraged by a system of bounties, and thereby brought to a great state of prosperity, and that the same should be done for Ireland. He thought, however, that those hon. Members who took the trouble to go into the history of the question would see that of all modes of encouragement, the system of bounties was the most wasteful and the worst. If the Scotch had earned more bounties, it was because they caught more fish. He did not think, however, that the House would be induced to resume the system of bounties either for Ireland or for Scotland. It would be open to the greatest jobbery, as would appear from the action of the Irish Parliament, which was very free in bounties to every industry which found an advocate. He wished to speak with the utmost respect of that august Assembly; but he must say he was astonished when he learnt that it not only granted a bounty to encourage the exportation of fish, but he believed on some pressure exerted by a merchant interested in the foreign trade, it also gave bounties for its importation. The result of that extraordinary procedure, which was continued after the Union, was that in the 11 years ending 1812, £21,000 was voted for the importation of fish, and £4,000 for its exportation. Again, the system of bounties superintended by the Commission of 1819 depended on the tonnage of the vessels, and, consequently, vessels of very unsuitable size were employed, which were withdrawn as soon as the bounties were suspended. Bounties were given for the number of barrels of fish cured, and the result was, that enterprising gentlemen from Ireland took a vessel with a small crew, sailed to Scotland or elsewhere, brought back fish cured, and claimed the bounty for it. As an illustration of the wastefulness of the system, he might mention that during the time bounties were in force, from the year 1819 to the year 1829, a sum of £163,000 was spent by the State, the cost of distributing which amounted to no less than £68,000. For those reasons, he must repeat, he did not think the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan), or the House, would wish that system of bounties to be reverted to. There was, however, another scheme for which much more could be said, and that was the system of small loans. He found that the Commissioners of Irish Fisheries (established in 1819) obtained a sum of £5,000 from a Committee called the Loudon Tavern Committee, to which they added a further amount, and lent it in small sums towards purchasing and repairing boats, and for otherwise assisting fishermen. In that way, £21,000 was lent by them for the repair of old boats, and £4,000 towards the purchase of new boats. Of these sums £9,900 was repaid, and sums amounting to £4,300 on overdue securities and £10,900 not yet due were outstanding in 1830, when the Commission was abolished. A famine prevailed in various parts of Ireland after that time; great difficulty was experienced in obtaining repayment of the loans, and a considerable sum was lost. Under all the circumstances, however, he was bound to say he did not think the sum lost an unreasonable one, and there could be no doubt that the loans had effected a very great deal of good. The Commissioners of 1836 strongly urged that the system should be revived; and, in 1838, Lord Morpeth introduced a Bill, one clause of which provided for the granting of loans for the erection of curing-houses, fishermen's houses, and for the purchase and repairing of boats. The Bill, however, was not proceeded with. In 1867 a Select Committee was moved for, and presided over by Mr. Blake, now Inspector of Fisheries in Ireland, and they recommended the granting of loans for like purposes, and also for the construction and improvement of harbours; and in the following year Mr. Blake brought in a Bill, which obtained a second reading in the House of Commons, containing a clause for those special purposes. It was right to say, that that clause was objected to by no less an authority than the late Lord Mayo, whose experience and knowledge; of such matters they must all admit. He thought, however, that loans of the nature referred to might now be made—if they were carefully guarded—without any loss to the persons making them. There existed in Ireland a society called the Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor. They possessed a capital of £15,000, which was originally subscribed in 1822, at a time of great distress in Ireland. The society had been engaged in making loans to fishermen to enable them to buy and repair boats, and to purchase nets and tackle, and their managing secretary had informed the Committee of 1807 that the loans so made had been carefully and punctually repaid. The House would agree with him that the great difficulty in the way of the State advancing money for such matters was the want of proper security. If local aid were forthcoming—if, for instance, persons in the locality would advance one portion of the loan and the State find the residue, local supervision would be secured, and the difficulty might be got over, or it could be met by a system of local guarantees. He did not think it, by any means, impossible to devise a plan of this nature, but it would be well to proceed tentatively in the matter. An experiment might, bethought, be made in this way—There was, as the hon. Member for Limerick County was aware, a fund called the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund. It arose from a subscription at the Mansion House in London, at a time of great dearth in Ireland, and of that fund a balance of £55,000 remained, which was vested in trustees, and was lent by them for charitable purposes, and for objects of public utility in Ireland. Their management continued for some years, until in 1838 they got into difficulties on the occasion of the recurrence of a famine in Ireland. What remained of the fund was then transferred to the Treasury by Act of Parliament, to be devoted "to charitable objects and purposes of public utility in. Ireland, not otherwise provided for by local rates or assessments." Originally, as he had stated, the fund was called a Reproductive Loan Fund, but he could not conceive a more curious misnomer at the present time. It was not a loan fund, for no portion of it was now lent, and it was not reproductive, as from time to time free grants were made from it, on the recommendation of the Irish Government, for some purpose of public utility, but the amounts granted in each year were generally less than the interest on the fund. The balance now amounted to about £38,000, and grants had been made for several purposes which at any rate were not charitable—such as £7,984 for the improvement of harbours, £5,140 for halls and literary institutions, and £400 towards the formation of a public park. These purposes, however laudable, were hardly such as the persons who originally subscribed the money in 1822 had in their minds, and funds might be obtained from other and more cognate sources for such objects. He thought, therefore, it might be well if the Legislature could be induced to transfer this fund from the Treasury, either to the Irish Government, or to some Board to be formed in Ireland, with power to them to make advances from it for the purposes so frequently alluded to in the course of the debate. He would, however, at once say that the fund was applicable by Act of Parliament to only 10 counties, and he should not feel disposed to extend the scope of its operation; but among these counties were comprised nearly all of those in which loans could usefully be made for fishery purposes. The Government could not, at the present moment, hold out any hope of a Treasury grant; but if the experience of two or three years showed that the loans were punctually repaid, and had been usefully applied, a strong case would have been made out for applying to the Treasury for an extension of the aid so given. If he should ascertain that such a course would meet the views of the Irish people, he would, after careful consideration, bring in a Bill upon the subject, which he hoped would become law during the present Session. If, however, he found that it was likely to be opposed by those on whose behalf it would be promoted, he would not press forward a measure which he did not see his way to being able to pass. With reference to the Motion before the House, it had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Play fair) that the House should adopt the first part of it, which was to the I effect that the House should pledge itself to support any well-considered measure that might be introduced on the subject. He Confessed that he hoped the House would do nothing of the kind, because in adopting those words, either the House would be pledging itself to what was not before it, or else it would be passing a Resolution of a; vague and unsatisfactory nature. He trusted that after the statement he had felt it to be his duty to make, and after the promise he had given that this whole question should have his careful and early attention, the hon. Member for Limerick County would withdraw his Motion, and, resting satisfied with the result of the discussion, would not press the matter to a division. He confessed that in dealing with this question he had had some difficulty, in consequence of his not having been previously acquainted with its details, but he could assure the hon. Member that he had considered the matter with an earnest wish to administer this fund which be-longed solely to Ireland, in the most beneficial manner for the Irish people.

said, he was ready to admit that the right hon. Baronet would find considerable difficulty in dealing with this Reproductive Loan Fund, inasmuch as its application was not only limited to 10 counties, but it was divided into 10 parts, each of which formed a rust for a particular county. The whole sum available for general purposes out of this fund was only £5,000, and, no doubt, there would be strong objections on the part of some of the counties interested, to the fund being applied to other than its proper purpose. Moreover, last week he had put a Notice on the Paper, of his intention to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to determine; how the fund should be applied. It had been his intention to propose to place upon the Committee a Member for each of the 10 counties interested, so that they might have arrived at some agreement as to the mode in which the available sum should be made use of. He denied that the Resolution before the House was a vague and unsatisfactory one. The first part of it stated that the decay of the Irish fisheries imperatively called for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, and after what had been stated by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan), no one could doubt that the question was a very pressing one, because it was admitted that the Irish fisheries were decaying at an enormously rapid rate. The next part of the Resolution stated, that the matter demanded the application of the remedies recommended by the Reports of the Royal Commissioners and of Select Committees. The remedies so referred to were the granting of loans to the fishermen and a better distribution of the fund as regarded the construction of piers and harbours. He did not think anything could be worse than the application of the money voted for piers and harbours in Ireland. Like all other things in Ireland, the management of those works was entrusted, not to the local authorities, but, to some official at Dublin Castle, and he knew of large sums having been wasted in building useless piers. Until 1869 the deep-sea fisheries of Ireland were absolutely without control, and it was only in that year that they were placed under the control of three Fishery Inspectors, whose chief duties were to look after the salmon fisheries. These Inspectors, immediately after their appointment, drew attention to the fearful decline of the Irish deep-sea fisheries, and recommended that loans should be made to the fishermen to enable them to purchase boats and gear, or otherwise that the fishing industry would die out on half the coast. A similar recommendation was made by the Royal Commission in 1836, and it had been approved on several occasions since. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not more explicit in his answer to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Limerick. The Irish fisheries were at that moment perishing, and if the Government advanced £20,000, as loans, to the Irish fishermen they would be saved. It was no use for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would give the subject his best consideration. What he (Mr. Butt) wanted was a direct and explicit answer to the question—Would he, or would he not, advance that amount? If he did not do so, he would recommend his hon. Friend to divide the House on his Resolution. In his opinion, it was a reproach to the Government of this country that the remnant of a sum subscribed, so far buck as 1822, by the generosity of Englishmen, should continue unproductive in the hands of the Treasury, and that none of it should be spent, except upon such terms as might have exceptional interest. He should he glad to see the Irish Board placed upon the same footing as the Scotch Board, and able to send out instructors. The Irish Inspectors had asked for a gunboat for the purpose of preventing, among other things, the French fishermen from throwing out their nets at a time when by so doing they frightened away the shoals of fish. A Board with the necessary powers would be able to enforce useful and not obsolete regulations, and help the Irish fishery in a thousand different ways. In conclusion, he would say that what they desired was, that the Government should sanction—not the constant expenditure of public money—but the loan, once for ail, say, of £20,000. Such a loan was not contrary to the principles of political economy, for its wisdom had been acknowledged by Mr. Mill, and he regretted that the reply of the right, hon. Baronet had been so unsatisfactory, and under the circumstances should re-commend the hon. Member to press his Motion to a division.

trusted that the Government would be able to see their way to expend some money upon the repair of the harbour of Ardglass which lay on the coast of Antrim. A great deal had already been effected by private enterprise, and if properly completed, the result would be not merely a considerable benefit to the fishery along the neighbouring coast, but the place would also become valuable as a harbour of refuge on what was at certain seasons of the year a very dangerous coast.

said, he merely desired, in answer to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), to suggest to the hon. Member who had brought this subject forward (Mr. Synan), whether he would really be pursuing a judicious course in pressing the Motion to a division. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had that evening given the proposal as much encouragement as hon. Members could have expected. The right hon. Gentleman, considering the vast number of subjects which he had had to consider. had shown himself wonderfully well acquainted with the state of this question, and the position of that most complicated matter, the Reproductive Loan Fund. His right hon. Friend, unless he had conciliated the Treasury, might possibly, however, find more difficulty in dealing with that fund than he at present anticipated. He had himself had an eye to that fund for similar purposes, but the right hon. Baronet might, perhaps, find, as he had found, that the Treasury might not be over anxious to meet his views. In that case, he feared there would be great difficulty in procuring the money required. Although he did not think it would be productive of any great results, he should be glad to see the experiment of small loans tried to a small extent. In doing so, however, they must not lose sight of the fact, that wherever the fishery could be made productive, there was no dearth of private enterprise to promote it; but he believed that on the greater part of the Irish coast fishing on anything but a small scale could not be made profitable. Commission after Commission and Committee after Committee had reported in favour of such a proposal, and there was no doubt that it had received every kind of official encouragement. He believed, moreover, that until it was done the people of Ireland would remain firmly convinced that their interests were being sacrificed to favouritism for Scot I land and the parsimony of England. But it was hardly fair to press the right hon. Baronet too far so soon after his accession to office, and when it was utterly impossible for him to tell what he could do till he had the sanction of the Treasury.

said, he looked upon that as a most important question which hon. Members had not taken so broad a view of as it deserved. With regard to the pecuniary assistance given to Scotland to promote her industry in her fisheries, it ceased 45 years ago and her fisheries were now in such a prosperous condition that she did not require any further bounty from the State. Considering the present position of fisheries in Ireland, he thought it was incumbent on the Government of the country that these fisheries should be cultivated to such an extent as would enable them to compete successfully with the Scotch fisheries, for it should be a matter for most serious consideration on the part of the Government to afford proper protection to the mines of wealth to be found in the seas which surrounded the British Islands. He trusted, therefore, that the House would consent to give the same support to the fisheries of Ireland that was given to those of Scotland. He made these remarks, not only on account of the importance of the question, but because he had himself some considerable experience connected with the Scotch fisheries. These were his views with regard to the Motion now before the House. He hoped hon. Members would support it, and he trusted that that branch of Irish industry would, in time to come, arrive at as prosperous a condition as the fisheries of Scotland now occupied.

said, the hon. Member who moved the Amendment put his case so modestly and forcibly that he for one, should support it. In his opinion £20,000 was a very small and moderate sum to ask for the encouragement of Irish fisheries under the circumstances. He therefore trusted that the Chief Secretary would see his way to grant the aid which was asked of the Government. He believed there was a balance now remaining of the money voted for the improvement of harbours in Ireland, which, in his opinion, ought to be devoted to the purpose for which it was granted. He quite agreed with those who insisted on the great advantage which the brand gave to the sale of fish in foreign countries, and he hoped that, while it would not be taken away from Scotland, its benefits would be extended to Ireland.

, as representing one of the counties which would be seriously affected by the proposition, expressed his surprise and indignation at the lame and impotent suggestion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the surplus Famine Fund, raised in 1822, and now devoted to the improvement of agriculture in Ireland, should be applied to the improvement of the deep-sea fisheries of that country. He should oppose it in every possible way. The Government had at their disposal £311,000, and surely a sum, by way of a loan, of £20,000 would not be much as an advance in aid of the industry of the people in the Irish fisheries.

said, there was no doubt the subject under consideration was a difficult one to deal with practically. He agreed with the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) in protesting against the alienation of the surplus Famine Fund to the fostering of the deep-sea fisheries. The Reproductive Loan Fund had hitherto been allocated to most useful purposes, and purposes for which they could not raise funds by local taxation. They had for some years a grant from this fund for flax instructors, who were very useful, and also in several country towns in aid of private subscriptions for the erection of public halls, which but for this fund could not have been erected. As one who had endeavoured to do something for the improvement of the Irish fisheries, he wished to be allowed to say that without the brand, Irish could not compete with Scotch herrings. He knew of Scotch herrings being brought over and sold in Dublin in preference to Irish herrings. He agreed with those who held that small loans to the fishermen would be useful. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University (Mr. Lowe) had sneered in Glasgow at the idea of Irish priests becoming security for the repayment of these loans. Now he happened to belong to a body which was in the habit of lending small sums to farmers, and in many cases they were guided by the advice and opinion of those at whom the right hon. Gentleman had sneered, and in scarcely a single instance had they been misled. If a fund of £20,000 was left in the hands of Commissioners in Dublin, it could be lent with perfect safety and with the greatest benefit to the fisheries, and he would cordially support such a course of proceeding. Something also should be done in the way of an extension of the railway system to remedy the difficulties of transport which stood in the way of bringing to market the fish taken on the south-west and west coasts of Ireland.

trusted hon. Members opposite would give the Chief Secretary credit for the anxiety which he had shown to grant all reasonable requests, though, unfortunately, having risen early in the debate, he had made a proposal which had not found acceptance with Irish Members. He had some hope that when the right hon. Baronet should consider the subject further, he would take a more favourable view of the case. For these reasons he urged the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan) not to press the Motion to a division, which could do no good; but to be content with the discussion which had taken place, and which would, no doubt, have a good effect in advancing the desire of the hon. Member.

said, that though he was precluded by the division which had just occurred from submitting to the House the Resolution of which he had given Notice, he trusted he might be permitted to call its attention to the subject. That Notice was as follows:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to modify the Code of Regulations issued by the. Committee of the Privy Council in such a manner as to give more encouragement to the teaching of History, Geography, Elementary Social Economy, and the other so-called extra subjects, in the Elementary Schools of the Country."

and he would at once commence by disclaiming the idea that abstruse scientific problems should be taught in elementary schools. When his Resolution was brought forward on a previous occasion, it was said that difficult questions of science were entirely beyond the children in elementary schools, and critics seemed to suppose that he was bringing forward some individual crotchet. So far, however, from that being the case, there was a very remarkable unanimity of opinion among those best qualified to judge that some such step as this was eminently desirable, and it was even necessary if we wished our schools to perform their work thoroughly and efficiently. The name "extra subjects" was, indeed, very unfortunate. As Mr. Campbell, Her Majesty's Inspector for the Metropolitan division, truly observed, it was entirely a misnomer; "geography, grammar, and history ought never to have been placed without the usual programme of elementary schools." Indeed, a school for children in which neither geography nor history was taught was scarcely worthy of the name, and under that condition there were many schoolrooms which were not schools. He might, perhaps, be reminded that under the New Code, 3s, a-head was offered to all chil- dren presented in Standards IV. to VI., but it was easy to show that that offer was to a great extent, if not entirely, illusory. No school could receive above 15s. a-head, and a good school could easily earn that amount by reading, writing and arithmetic. Six shillings a-head was given for attendance, and 4s. each, making 12s. more, for reading writing, and arithmetic; so that if three-quarters of the children passed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, the whole grant would have been earned. But a good master had no difficulty in passing three-quarters of his children, and he (Sir John Lubbock) would be very sorry to see the examination made so difficult that more than a quarter of the children must fail. Such a state of things would be discouraging and unfair to both masters and pupils. On this question—namely, as regarded the amount of encouragement offered by the New Code to the higher subjects, he would refer the House, both to the experience of the Inspectors and to the Reports of the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction. In the year 1870, Her Majesty was graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of Scientific Instruction in the country, and that Commission, after carefully considering the question, and hearing much evidence, reported that although it was quite true that the grants of 3s. per head were promised for extra subjects, yet, owing to the other conditions of the Code, these grants were, to a considerable extent, illusory; and they stated that usually in schools the maximum amount of 10s. per head could be attained on reading, writing, and arithmetic without going into the extra subjects. Moreover, the Inspectors themselves pointed out in more than one place that the extra subjects, while most desirable, nay, necessary, in themselves, did not pay in a pecuniary point of view. Thus, after regretting that these subjects were often omitted. Mr. Fussell added that—

"As far as the pecuniary interests of the managers were concerned, that might, under existing regulations, be quite right, but the loss to the children was irreparable.

In 1868, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson), the House appointed a Committee—

"To inquire into the provisions for giving instruction in theoretical and applied science to the industrial classes, with special reference to what was done in foreign schools."

That Committee took a great deal of valuable and interesting evidence, and eventually reported to the House that—

"Many witnesses had expressed the opinion that the Revised Code had diminished the efficiency of elementary education; that every witness who was acquainted with foreign schools considered that the rapid progress which was being made in Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium, was duo in great measure to the elementary instruction which was acquired by the working population in the elementary schools,"

and they added the pregnant passage—

"That nothing more is required, and that nothing less will suffice, in order that we may retain the position which we now hold in the van of all industrial nations."

Under those circumstances, the Committee unanimously recommended—

"That elementary instruction in drawing, in physical geography, and in the phenomena of nature should be given in elementary schools."

In the year 1870 the Council of the British. Association, the largest scientific body in the country, unanimously adopted a resolution similar to that which he had The honour to propose, and appointed a deputation to urge the importance of the question on the Education Department. A similar course had also been taken by the Association for the promotion of Social Science. But what had been the action of the school boards? They were elected by the ratepayers, whose views they, no doubt, fairly represented, and he believed in the most important cases they had followed the example of the London School Board, which had resolved that the essential subjects in all schools should include English history, geography, the rudiments of science, and elementary social economy. Again, what was the opinion of those hon. Members of the House who had paid most attention to the subject of education? There was scarcely another proposition to which so general an assent would be given. When this Motion was brought in two years ago, a circular asking hon. Members to support it was signed and circulated by the chairmen of our two great educational societies, the hon. Members for Hants and for Birmingham, by every Member of the London School Board who had a seat in the House, and by other Members of great weight and authority—such as the right hon. and learned Recorder of London (Mr. Russell Gurney), the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair), the hon. Member for Liver- pool (Mr. Rathbone), the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Muudella), and others. The Motion, however, was not pressed to a division, because his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. TV. E. Forster), who was then Vice President of the Council, while expressing his general concurrence, was anxious to avoid any change at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman, however, altered the Scotch Code last year, and would, he presumed, have this year made some change in that of England if he had remained in office. But perhaps it might be said that these authorities, however eminent in themselves, were not practically acquainted with the working of elementary schools. What, then, were the views of Inspectors of Schools? From the last Report of the Committee of Council on Education which had been issued, it appeared that out of 22 School Inspectors' Reports, as many as 16 expressly called attention to this particular subject, and strongly urged that more ought to be done to encourage the teaching of these subjects, while none of the Reports contained a word in an opposite' direction. These Reports would conclusively show that the Motion which he had intended to submit to the House was no individual crotchet of his—that it was not even the opinion of a few hon. Members who felt deeply on the subject, but the deliberate and strong opinion of those who were best qualified to speak on it—Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools. No State indeed, in the present day, could afford to let its children grow up in ignorance of these subjects, and unless some such course as that suggested was taken, our countrymen would know less than the very savage.

"The savage," says Professor Huxley. "knows the hearing of every hill and mountain range, the directions and junctions of all the streams, the situation of each tract characterized by peculiar vegetation, not only within the area he has himself traversed, but perhaps for a hundred miles around it. His acute observation enables him to detect the slightest undulations of the surface, the various changes of subsoil, and alterations in the character of the vegetation that would be quite imperceptible to a stranger. His eye is always open to the direction in which he is going; the mossy side of trees, the presence of certain plants under the shade of rocks, the morning and evening flight of birds, are to him indications of direction almost as sure as the sun in the heavens."

Such a man knew far more of nature than many of our fellow-countrymen, for a great number of them were necessarily engaged day by day, week by week, and month by month in occupations which were essentially monotonous, unvaried, and mechanical. Again, he ventured to suggest that the examinations in extra subjects ought to be oral and not written, for the spelling and composition necessary for a written examination in history or geography were themselves a severe effort for children of 11 and 12, and prevented thorn from concentrating their thoughts on the subject matter of the examination itself. Moreover, on that point, the Code was inconsistent with itself, for while English composition, defined as the power to write out some simple narrative, was not required until the Sixth Standard, yet if any extra subject, say history, was taken up a child in the Fourth Standard was required to write out the events of some given reign. Out of 2,235,000 children, less than 50,000 children passed in 1872 in any one of the so-called extra subjects, and that in face of the fact that the best teachers had always protested against being limited to reading, writing, and arithmetic. He did not deny that indifferent schools might get something under the rule; but what was evident from the figures was, that a good school could earn the whole grant without teaching anything beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic. Though, no doubt, the New Code was an improvement, still there was evidence that-even under it our schools were becoming worse. But what was the effect of the present system on "the three R's? "We sacrificed everything else to them, but did we get that for which we paid so high a price? How many of the children did hon. Members suppose had shown themselves able to read with fluency and expression, to write a short letter or an easy paraphrase, and in arithmetic had shown an acquaintance with proportion and fractions? The numbers—he blushed to quote them—were out of 2,235,000 children,—for the reading, 14,000; for the writing, 11,000; for the arithmetic, 8,800. That was, surely, a very poor result. It must be remembered he was not now speaking of infants. He did not suggest that grants should be given till children were up to the Third Standard—that was to say, till they had been at least four years in school, and were from 11 to 12 years old. It was sometimes argued that reading, writing, and arithmetic were much more important than anything else; but that he did not deny. He did not wish to interfere with the reading, writing, and arithmetic, but he maintained that these would be better learnt if not taken alone. Indeed, reading, writing, and arithmetic, could not be taught by themselves. The monotony and want of variety bored the children and cramped their minds. Mr. Lingen, then Secretary to the Committee of Council on Education, had told the Committee of that House, in 1868, that in the schools where, extra subjects were taught, the reading, writing, and arithmetic were decidedly better than in those where the three R's were the only subjects. The Inspectors' Reports, moreover, seemed to show that in Scotland, where the extra subjects were encouraged, the reading, writing and arithmetic, so far from suffering, were better done than in England. Thus, in England, while 88 per cent of the children presented in reading passed, in Scotland the proportion was 98 per cent: in England the proportion who passed in writing was 82 per cent: in Scotland 91 per cent; in arithmetic the proportion for England was 72 per cent. in Scotland 87 per cent. Thus, in every point, the children in Scotch schools did better than those in English, who were kept grinding on at reading, writing, and arithmetic. Why should Scotland have a better Code than England? Why should Scotch children enjoy privileges which English children were refused? The Scotch people would not be satisfied with the schools we had to put up with, and he hoped therefore that Scotch Members would assist English Members in improving the present state of things. Again, it was a matter of constant regret that parents took away their children from school at so early an age; but as long as our school system was so narrow how could we wonder at it? Our schools were mere infant schools. No doubt reading, writing, and arithmetic wove essential, but we wanted our children to be trained, not into mere shop-boys, but into citizens; and hon. Members might rest assured they would never chock drunkenness in the country unless they could replace the craving for drink by the higher stimulus of intellectual tastes. He was not complaining of Her Majesty's Government. Considering the time of year at which the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) had entered upon his duties as Vice President of the Council, it was not surprising that he had not this year modified the Code; but he hoped they would receive from him some intimation that he was prepared to do so next year, for in so far as Government influence could make them, our schools at present were places of mere instruction, rather than of education in the true sense of the word. The time, however, had surely come when we might do more, and if our schools were really to fulfil their high functions, the education given in them must be such as would tend to cultivate and expand the mind, to protect our children against the temptation of drink and other sensuous indulgences, by teaching them to appreciate the beautiful world in which we lived, and thus opening to them those rational and intellectual enjoyments which cost so little and were yet beyond all price.

said, that after the able, eloquent, and exhaustive speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) he should not trespass upon the time of the House with many observations of his own; he would confine his remarks to the importance of making elementary education a necessity. At present the children attending the schools of the country were so imperfectly educated that very soon after they ceased school attendance, the little they had acquired there vanished and was lost. The reason why what they were taught did not take sufficient hold on them was, that it was not imparted in a sufficiently interesting way, in consequence of reading, writing, and arithmetic being taught simply and alone; and their interest was not excited, as would be the case if the extra subjects to which the hon. Baronet had alluded were made part and parcel of their elementary education instead of being treated as extras. That the result was unsatisfactory was shown by the statistics of the Education Department. A Report issued a year ago showed that the total number of children presented for examination it 1872 was 661,589, and out of these only 118,799, or 18 per cent. were presented it Standards IV. to VI., and only 65,796 passed without failure in any subject. The question was, what they should do in order to encourage the teaching of the extra subjects in elementary schools. Should they offer more money? He thought not, and in fact, believed the money was more than sufficient already. The easiest thing as it seemed to him was, to assimilate the English to the Scotch Code. Under the Scotch Code, grammar was introduced as early as the Second Standard, and so on with the other subjects of history and geography, which the hon. Baronet described as essential elements in elementary education. He did not wish, in seeking to introduce into the school course the subjects mentioned in the Resolution, to detract in any way from the the teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic. On the contrary, he wished to improve that teaching, and he was of opinion that that result would be attained by the course he advocated. In Scotland, the grant was a reality. It could be earned and secured, whereas in England, as the hon. Baronet had shown, it was an illusory thing altogether. Nothing could be easier than to assimilate the English Code to the Scotch, and this he thought would have the effect of raising the standard of education.

said, he took as great an interest in the spread of education as any hon. Member in the House; but it was necessary that in a matter of this kind they should proceed step by step, and not require children to run before they were able to walk. They had two great difficulties to contend with in the matter. The first was the difficulty of inducing the children to go to school, and the second was the difficulty of keeping them there a sufficient time to give them an amount of instruction which would enable them to carry their education further, should they desire it, when they went out into the world. The first of these difficulties would be somewhat removed when the Act in respect to children employed in agriculture came into force; but with respect to the second difficulty they had to study the habits of the people and consider the views entertained by the parents. If the children were to be detained at school the parents would be deprived of the amount of family assistance which the labour of those children now brought them in, and it was necessary to show them that they were young to obtain a more than corresponding advantage. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), that the Reports of the examiners showed that there had been a lamentable deficiency in the results of the present Code. In the first three classes only 88 per cent of the children passed; while in the fourth, fifth, and sixth classes the result was still more distressing and unsatisfactory. In 1873 there passed in the Third Standard only 47·13 per cent. in the Fourth 43·16 per cent. in the Fifth 42·27, and in Sixth only 52·56 per cent; so that in those Standards more than one-half of the children present had proved failures, and the ratio of failure to efficiency would be raised if an attempt were made to cram into them more than they were now required to learn. He wished to hold out inducements to the children to remain in school until they at least acquired the rudiments of education; but if the standard of education was raised to the point suggested by the hon. Baronet, it was to be feared that the results would not be so satisfactory as under the present system, for a few clever children would be crammed to the neglect of the general body of the pupils. To carry out the hon. Baronet's proposition, moreover, would require an alteration of the whole Code, whereas, as it stood at present, it offered pecuniary encouragement to schoolmasters to teach the very subjects in question. Not only that, but at present many schoolmasters did something more than teach the three R's, and in some of the endowed schools in the district with which he was connected, exhibitions of £6 6s. per head were granted to the children, while those in the elementary school who had distinguished themselves were raised to the higher class schools. That was an inducement to the parents to make some sacrifices in the early part of their children's lives, in the hope of prospective advantages, and he thought some provision of the same kind might be very well instituted by the Education Department. If they raised the standard of education too high they would discourage both parents and children by the general want of success. He hoped the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) who had entered on his duties in the Committee of Council on Education, and who was, no doubt, as desirous as any of his predecessors to advance the education of the country, would not be led away by the idea that the present elementary system of education would not be productive of satisfactory results. If he was, he might find himself, to his regret, taking steps which would tend to the neglect of the great majority of the children in elementary schools.

said, that he was the manager of schools in the country, in which they had introduced one or more of these extra subjects, and he believed that they had thereby raised and improved the education of the children. He would therefore suggest that it was a matter worthy of the attention of the Education Department, whether something could not be done in the direction recommended by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone.

thought it was not quite apparent to schoolmasters that teaching extra subjects would pay them for their extra trouble; but he might mention that after a complete investigation at Liverpool, the best masters showed that the extra subjects did pay them, and that such teaching raised the general intelligence of the school, and brought the children up to a higher

, in supporting the Motion, said, it was true, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) had stated, that a large proportion of schoolmasters did teach the children something more than the three rudiments in which they were examined by the Inspector. They taught, more or less, geography, history, and grammar. But the hon. Member had failed to point out that while the Code did contemplate a higher examination also—namely, that in the so-called extra subjects, yet comparatively few school teachers presented children for examination in those higher subjects. There was an apparent inducement to them to teach these subjects, for a grant of 3s. was offered in the Code for each child that passed in one of them. But the fact was, that the inducement was apparent and not real; for the grant to every school was limited by the condition that it should not exceed 15s. per child in average attendance; and schoolmasters knew quite well that even if some of their scholars failed in the rudiments, and although no extra subjects were taught, the school grant would amount generally to about 15s. per child. Thus, there was nothing to gain by presenting children for examination in geography history, and so on. Now, it was most desirable to encourage some schools at least to aspire to something higher than the mere rudiments taught by the least enterprising teachers, and to make an endeavour to throw some degree of charm around the instruction given to poor children. He (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had suggested in that House before, and would now once more urge on the Department represented by his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon), that, in the case of schools where the extra subjects were taught, it was not desirable to impose this limit on the grant—that it should not surpass 15s. per child. He would advise that the other limitation on the grant should be maintained—namely, that it should never exceed half the income, nor half the expenses of the school. That was a wise rule. But why refuse to give more than 15s. per child to schools where, because of the existence of a better teaching staff, and because additional instruction was given, the expenses of the school were greater than 30s. per child? In London schools the expense was often nearer 10s. than 30s.; and 34s. would be a fair estimate for a good school, where an education was given higher than in bare reading, writing, and arithmetic. In such cases a limit of 17s. might be substituted for that of 10s. Let us in England follow the example set us by Scotland, and let our Code advance in the footsteps of the Scotch Code, giving a real instead of a merely nominal encouragement to more complete education.

thanked the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) for the very able and temperate manner in which he had brought forward this interesting subject. It was quite true that he himself and the Government had a warm feeling in favour of doing all they could to promote the noble system of elementary education which his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Forster) had so well inaugurated. Mr. Corry—a name never mentioned in that House without respect—was one of the first who moved very zealously in the Education Board on behalf of those extra subjects. The Code had to be settled within three weeks or a month of the time when the Lord President and himself entered upon office, and they felt that it would have been presumptuous on their part, after so short an acquaintance with the matter, to venture to propose any serious alterations in a Code which was the work of the careful and skilful men who had devoted themselves to the task of framing it. Moreover, it was, he thought, very undesirable to make frequent changes in the Code, whereby the children themselves, the teachers, the Inspectors, and others who worked under it, might be seriously worried. Again, it should be remembered that the Scotch Code would only come really into effect in Scotland after the 31st of August next. In the Scotch Code some very important changes were introduced; and, possibly, after they had had some further experience of their operation, they might be worthy of imitation in this country. The Scotch Code included these points—extra payment for superior organization and discipline in school: extra payments for extra subjects without deduction; extra payments for intelligence and knowledge of subjects by classes—all of which were matters of interest that they would watch with great attention to see how they worked in Scotland before adopting them in England. Another consideration which made it desirable that they should hold their hands was, that since 1869 there had been an averaged increased attendance in their schools of 330,000 children. That might be taken to represent an increase of about 500,000 children on the books since 1869. In all probability the mass of children thus swept into the schools consisted of the least educated portion, and it was therefore undesirable to raise the standards in the face of that poorly educated body of children who had lately entered the schools. Again, what were the facts as to the number of children who passed in the extra subjects? The average attendance, deducting infants, was, in 1872, 1,079,000, and in 1873 it was 1,191,000, showing an increase of 112,000. The number of scholars examined in 1872 was 661,500; in 1873 it was 752,200, showing an advance of 90,700. Deducting 52 per cent as the proportion under 10 years of age, there would remain as the numbers to be presented for examination in their standards, according to age in 1872, 330,000, and in 1873, 370,000. But when they came to see how many actually did come under examination under the three Standards, IV., V., and IV., which the extra subjects affected, they found that in 1872 118,700 were examined, and in 1873 131,000, being an advance of 12,300. That was a very small proportion of the children who ought property, according to their age, to be examined in the three upper Standards. Again, out of those Standards, how many passed or were examined in extra subjects? In 1872 the number was 71,500; in 1873. 77,800, being an increase of 6,300. The advance, as would be seen, had been somewhat encouraging; but still, the small number of children who at present came under examination in the upper Standards, and the small number who came up in the extra subjects, was a good reason for showing great caution in raising the Standards. There was a danger that they might seriously diminish the number of children who passed in the Standards, than which nothing could tend so much to discourage the scholars, the masters, and the teachers. At the same time, he confessed, he thought there were reasons why they should not hastily put aside the suggestions of the hon. Member for Maidstone—he did not mean in respect to the present year, but in respect to their future action. He felt strongly that under the new Act, now that they had made education a necessary of life, now that they had introduced compulsion to so great an extent, and now that they had so largely increased the charge which the public had to bear, both out of the Imperial Exchequer and the local rates, a fresh responsibility had been placed upon the State in regard to education. First, the State was under fresh responsibility towards the parents. When they took the children during the whole education period day after day, and year after year, the parents had a right to say to the State—"See that our children are thoroughly educated." Then, again, in respect to the children themselves, if they took them away from work and occupied all the time which they used to devote to industrial pursuits, the children had a right to claim from the State a good return for the honourable servitude in which it held them. And, as to the country, when they put upon it those heavy burdens to which he had referred for educational purposes, he thought the nation also had a right to look to the Educational Department, to see that the education they gave the children was suited to make them grow up in after life to be thoroughly good and useful citizens. The country might well require that they should not allow the children's time to be either wasted by inferior education, or frittered away by fanciful theories of education. The country was also entitled to insist that the children should be brought up in the best habits of morality, in obedience to the laws, and in a knowledge of their duties as citizens. Those considerations made him feel disinclined hastily to reject the proposal of the hon. Member for Maidstone. Moreover, he thought that if they were hereafter to keep the children habitually in the schools from 5 to 13, and secure their regular attendance, the character of the schools was likely to deteriorate, unless they introduced somewhat of, he was going to say, a more exciting education than the mere study of reading, writing, and summing. Speaking on behalf of the Lord President and himself, however, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he could give no pledges in detail on that subject. He would, however, state very briefly the principles on which they would approach the consideration of the Code for the coming year, and he trusted, from the temper which the House had shown, that it would put sufficient confidence in them to accept his statement. With regard to teaching children reading, writing, and a sufficient knowledge of arithmetic to fit them for after-life, they were all agreed that the instruction in these elementary subjects should be a thoroughly good one; while with respect to the other subjects which they might introduce into their educational course, he thought the principle which should guide them in their choice should be to select those by which a child should be taught thoroughly to think and to use his intellectual faculties. He confessed he did not attach very much importance—provided that the elements of instruction to which he had referred had been given—to what a child under the ago of 12 actually learnt in school. But what he did attach great importance to was, that a child should, as far as possible, be led to exercise his intellectual faculties with pleasure; and, upon this principle, the Government would approach the consideration of the proposed alterations in the Code. There was one other principle by which the action of the Government in the matter would be guided. They were determined not to crowd out the religious teaching which the great mass of parents in this country were evidently desirous their children should receive, and they would look with great jealousy at any tendency to create in the minds of the children the idea that the State was disposed to set itself on the defensive against the teaching of religion. That was a feeling which he believed was shared by his right hon. Friend opposite, who, with such great success and such untiring zeal, had administered the Department with which he now had the honour to be connected. It was a feeling, too in which he felt sure the great majority of the English people participated, and while giving every attention to this all-important matter, there were two other dangers which lurked in all those matters which the Government would endeavour to avoid—namely, that of reducing the schools to a dead level, and that of cultivating so much the cleverest children as to allow the education of the great mass of children to be neglected. There was, in his opinion, a good deal in the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) with respect to the establishment of exhibitions from the National Schools to schools of a higher order, as a means of getting over the difficulty of having the clever children too much attended to. By that means an opening would be given to children of merit and talent which the Government would always be very glad to encourage. In conclusion, he hoped, under the circumstances of the case, the House would allow them time to consider the subject, and consult those best acquainted with the working of the Code, and that they might reserve a full statement of the mode in which the Government might deem it to be their duty to deal with it for another year,

said, he had listened with great pleasure to the speech of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, and was glad to find that there was a perfect union of principle between them as to the main features of the question. He congratulated the House and the country on the progress which had of late years been made, for he thought they were now all agreed that it was a perfectly legitimate mode of spending the public money to give the children who attended the National Schools the very best education that it was possible they could get during the time they remained there, and that without confining their acquirements to mere reading, writing, and arithmetic, they should offer to them the power of afterwards increasing their mental culture. They were all agreed as to what they were aiming at, and the only question was, how to accomplish the object. With regard to religious education, it was his opinion, and was becoming more and more the opinion of the country, that, putting aside the religious motives of action, upon which there was much difference of opinion amongst conscientious men, there could be but little doubt as far as regarded the improvement of the intellect of the child, and the increase of the power to obtain and use knowledge, that nothing would more prevent that power being really possessed than by banishing from the schools all religious education. But the question before the House on the present occasion was whether it was or was not advisable to alter the Code by encouraging those subjects to which his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had invited attention? Now, on that point he was not surprised at the course which had been taken by his noble Friend opposite, for it could hardly be expected that so soon after his accession to office, he should be prepared to issue a fresh Code. He quite concurred with him also, in thinking that it would be most undesirable to make alterations in the Code without the fullest consideration. The Code prescribed to all masters and mistresses the mode in which they should conduct their schools; their incomes depended upon it, and they ought to be made to feel that their efforts were not useless, although he fully admitted that the time might come when the Code might be reconsidered with advantage, and in the direction which his hon. Friend had indicated. He was not, at the same time, quite prepared to admit the justice of the objections which his hon. Friend had advanced. The re- sult with respect, to the higher standards was, no doubt, as he had pointed out, very poor, and it was to be lamented that but few children passed in the Fifth, and still fewer in the Sixth; but the main cause of the backwardness which had been complained of was the miserableness and irregularity of the attendance, and in many cases, the want of attendance at all on the part of the children, and to remove that should be one of the main objects in view. Scotland had been referred to, and undoubtedly Scotland was in advance of England; but a fair comparison could not be made between England and Scotland with respect to the attainments of children, for Scotland had been an educated country for centuries, and its children lived in educated homes. To some extent, the bad results in England were owing to the fact that so many-children had been recently swept into the schools; and they were also to some extent owing to the fact, that the Standards had been raised on the supersession of the Revised by the New Code. The time was, however, coming when we might make some change in the direction in which it had been made in Scotland, but it was not unreasonable that the noble Lord should say that he would like to see the results in Scotland before he pledged himself. The first considerable difference between the English and Scotch Codes was, that last year geography and history were made subjects of teaching in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Standards of the Scotch Code; and a knowledge of them was made a necessary condition of passing in those Standards. He had not supported this change without the fullest consideration, though as regarded history, he might add that there had been some concession to Scotch feeling, which was, that on the Fourth and Fifth Standards it should be Scotch history, and on the Sixth Standard only the history of the Imperial Government. On visiting a good Scotch school, he found the children well up in Scotch history—they remembered the glories of Scotland, and were familiar with Bannockburn; but, just before leaving, he asked whether any child could remember an occasion on which the Scotch were beaten by the English, and it did not appear that any-scholar could. However, it was worth considering whether the time had not arrived when in England we might add some teaching in geography and history, to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Standards. In the Scotch Code, moreover, an additional stimulus was given by saying that there should be an average attendance grant of 2s., if the classes in these upper Standards generally passed well, and that independently of the special examination. He did not wish the noble Lord to pledge himself without making the fullest inquiry; but the more he considered the matter, the more he was convinced that we might give a little more public money for the general results of the teaching of classes, instead of on individual examination. There would be an advantage not only in making geography and history necessary to pass in the Standards; but in offering a reward for good teaching, if the Inspector was satisfied that the classes were well conducted. Another change made in the Scotch Code, was the giving of 4s. instead of 3s., for special subjects, and a further and very important change, one well worthy of imitation in England, was, that a child which had passed in the Standards was allowed to go up in the special subjects; and he hoped the advisability of granting that privilege in England would be considered. It would involve the expenditure of a little more public money; but it could not be much, because children left school at such an early age. Then there was the very important matter of the 15s. deduction. It was a condition of the annual grants that if a locality did not raise as much money as the public gave, a corresponding deduction should be made from the grant, and however severely that might operate, he did not think that the House could with safety depart from that condition. There could be no real check unless 6d. was required for every 6d. given; but there was not the same reason for saying that the grant should never exceed 15s. per child, because the cost of education, as it improved, was necessarily increasing. He did not advise, as had been suggested in the debate, that the limit should be raised from 15s. to 17s., but he thought that we might in England, as in Scotland, say that extra subjects should not be taken into account in that deduction. This was the way in which he thought the difficulty might be most hopefully met. It was discour- aging to work up in extra subjects, and then to discover that no money was gained. That was what he should have said to his Colleagues had he remained in office, and he thought it most candid now to give the result of his own experience. At the same time, were he in the place of the noble Lord, he should take a little longer time yet to consider the matter; but no doubt the noble Lord would consider the matter, and he trusted that real progress would be made in the Code which he would bring before the House next year.

, in rising to call attention to the warning stated to have been given by the Lords Justices of Ireland to the "Flag of Ireland "newspaper, said, he was anxious not to be misunderstood; he did not sympathize with the articles in the paper; he objected to what had been done by the Judges—although, doubtless, acting within the letter of the law—irrespective of the merits of the case as regarded the contents of the articles. Every British subject accused of a crime was entitled to examination and trial in public, and to every opportunity of defending himself; and it was unconstitutional for the functions of counsel, Judge, and juror to be exercised by the same person, as had been done in the case under notice. The conduct of the Government in the affair, too, was unconstitutional and arbitrary, for if the law had been violated, the offender should have been brought to trial, and heard in his own defence—a right enjoyed by the greatest malefactor. That no conviction could be obtained in the case of political prisoners, owing to the prejudices of the juries, he denied, for the Fenian leaders were convicted, as also were certain Dublin journalists in 1867 or 1868. Wherever the case was clearly proved, the Crown could rely on obtaining a conviction, and the Irish people could not be expected to feel respect for the Constitution, if its elementary principles were set aside, when they themselves were concerned. Precept being better than practice, the Government ought to sot the example of scrupulous regard for the letter of the Constitution. If Irishmen were to become as contented as Englishmen, they must be treated in the same manner, and one could imagine what excitement would arise in England if it were announced in The Times that the Home Secretary had given a warning to an English newspaper. He hoped that was the last time such arbitrary measures would be adopted. Perhaps justification might be attempted by the Ministry on the ground that the law had been passed by the previous Government; but if the law were bad, as he thought it was, it was alike idle and unjust to take shelter under any such excuse, for their successors incurred equal responsibility by enforcing it. Already, much evil had been wrought in Ireland by the law, and instead of good being done, discontent and angry feelings were aroused by such an arbitrary proceeding as that which he complained of. The Irish people were no worse than the English publicans, and the Government having undertaken to relieve the latter from oppressive legislation, the former were entitled to similar treatment. The country had never been more peaceful, for the Fenian organization was dead, and the people were devoting themselves to a constitutional organization, working in the light of day. It was inopportune at such a time, therefore, to take a step which would tend to create discontent, and to make Irishmen think it was useless to employ constitutional means to effect their objects. He feared he was pleading for an unpopular cause, but he appealed to Englishmen's love of fair play. He appealed for justice and fair play for his country, and he trusted he should not appeal in vain.

said, he could not complain of any want of moderation and fairness in the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow Borough (Mr. Owen Lewis), He presumed the subject had been brought forward rather in order to call attention to the circumstances than with any serious wish to obtain the Papers to which the Notice of Motion of the hon. Member referred. As regarded the newspaper itself, it would probably be hardly worth while to have its contents printed for the information of the House, while the warning which had been served was simply a copy of the notice which had been given on similar occasions by the late Government. It seemed to him that the speech of the hon. Gentleman had proceeded cm a mistaken assumption. Probably it was not necessary on this occasion to defend the policy of the Peace Preservation Acts, and, in particular, of the clause that related to the matter now before the House; but he thought the hon. Member had hardly given sufficient weight to the circumstance that the state of Ireland was widely different from that of England. Both in 1870 and in 1873 Parliament thought it necessary, for the better security of life and property in Ireland, that certain exceptional laws should be enacted with reference to that part of the United Kingdom, and among those laws was the clause which gave Government exceptional powers with regard to the Press. Now, in England, those exceptional powers were not required, and, therefore, had never been demanded. If sedition was circulated in England, as it might be in some obscure newspapers, they knew that, thanks to the good sense and loyalty of Englishmen, and to the opportunities they enjoyed of learning the whole of the facts from other newspapers, an independent judgment was formed on the matter discussed, and the seditious expressions practically did no harm. But he was afraid that in Ireland the case was still widely different, for a spirit of disaffection still existed there which might be easily fanned into a flame by writings of the kind to which the hon. Member had referred; and, so far from the people having before them newspapers of every shade of politics, almost the only popular literature circulated in Ireland was of a kind that was unfavourable to the cause of order and loyalty and good government. ["No, no."] Hon Members cried "No;" but to illustrate what he had said, he would quote a passage or two from the articles which had led Government to take the step which had just been criticized. The paper in question was The Flag of Ireland, which had a large circulation among the more ignorant classes. One of the articles to which he alluded spoke of Her Majesty as" the foreign lady that holds Ireland in subjection against their wishes"—that was, the wishes of Irishmen. Again, referring to opinions expressed by Mr. Goldwin Smith in a lettter which had been published in one of the London daily papers, it remarked that they showed "the desperate hopelessness of Ireland's obtaining from England by peaceable means that which her enemies had united in refusing to her." It also pointedly alluded to the Fenian disturbances as the only means by which Irishmen could hope that their grievances would be redressed. He had not come down provided with a copy of the paper, or he would have shown the House in some detail what kind of a publication it was. But he might state generally that its whole tone was contrary to the cause of order and good government. During the war which this country had recently been compelled to wage upon the Gold Coast, articles appeared in this Flag of Ireland speaking of the British Army as if it had been the army of an alien and hostilerace, glorying in the report which came to this country—and which fortunately proved untrue—that our forces, including many Irishmen had been surrounded and cut off by the army of the Ashantee King, and going so far as to express a wish for "more power to the Ashantees." [An hon. MEMBER: What paper is that in?] What paper? The Flay of Ireland. It contained notices of Fenian meetings in America, and portions of the journal of O"Donovan Rossa whilst in prison appeared in it at frequent intervals. And while this was the character of the journal, what had the Government done? To listen to the hon. Member, the House might suppose that the proprietors of this paper had been overwhelmed with ruin. Government had merely done what had been approved, when the Peace Preservation Acts were passing through the House, by hon. Members who were included in what was called the National Party of Ireland. ["No, no."] They had supported the idea of a "warning," with the object of securing that an offending newspaper might not unduly suffer. He had referred to the debates, and had found that an Irish Member well known and respected in the House—he referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan)—said, in supporting the insertion of a clause providing that a warning should be given before confiscation—

"He trusted the Government would listen to the suggestion that they should first give a warning to the newspaper proprietor before proceeding to the extremity of seizing the plant of the newspaper. This arrangement would have one good effect; a Government would I hesitate long before taking the extreme course, but a warning would be a more simple matter, and could be given without so much deliberation. and might be the moans of rendering it unnecessary at all to have recourse to it."—[3 Hansard, cc. 651.]

As a matter of fact, what was this warning? It was what the word denoted, and nothing more. It called the attention of the editor of the newspaper, who might himself have been merely careless in the matter, though he feared that could hardly have been the case with the editor of The Flag of Ireland, to the fact that some of his contributors had been either imprudent or disloyal; and it pointed out to him that he ought to change the tone of the articles in his paper in order to save himself from the penalties of the law. Why, if the Government had brought an action against this newspaper, the mere cost of defending it might have ruined the editor and proprietor, and have placed them in an infinitely worse position than they were at present. He had endeavoured to explain to the House the real nature and effect of the proceeding; he had read passages from the articles on which that proceeding had been taken; he had also explained the mischief which might be done in Ireland by the free and constant circulation of opinions such as he had quoted—mischief which he believed was beyond almost anything which people in England could conceive; and under the circumstances, he trusted the House would be of opinion that in this matter the Irish Government had not exceeded their duty. He could assure them that it was no pleasure to Government to put exceptional provisions of the law into force; but where it appeared to be necessary for the safety of the country, and for the security of life and property, to prevent seditious opinions from taking root among the ignorant masses of the people, Government would not hesitate to take the course which duty demanded.

said, the observations they had just listened to were such as they might have expected to hear at the period when there were difficulties in Ireland, and when strong-expressions were uttered throughout the country. At the present time, however, they sounded strange, for the condition of Ireland was now, and had been for the last twelve months, notoriously quiet. The right hon. Gentleman had not brought forward a single truth—nor even a single untruth, to warrant the step which had been taken, and which was calculated to do harm, and arouse angry feelings. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was not there to support The Flag of Ireland, or The Irishman, and much less The Nation. Those journals had the strength of their convictions and the manliness to express their opinions. He was one of those who, having a strong faith in his country, had always advocated its connection with the English nation. [Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen might sneer at him, and hon. Gentlemen behind him might also sneer, for, probably, it was inconvenient that he should express these opinions, but he thought the right hon. Baronet should, before attempting to rule Ireland, inquire what its Constitution was, and not merely refer to olden days. By olden days he meant last year. [Laughter.] It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Woods and Forests to smile; but he thought some respect should be shown to those who had been 20 years in that House, when they rose to express the opinions that were within them. He saw on the other side an hon. Gentleman who attempted to speak last night on Navy administration, and he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) cheered the hon. Member. A friend asked him at the levee that day why he had clone so? and he replied that the hon. Member was talking so extraordinarily, that a cheer would be the best thing to discompose him. And this was the right hon. Gentleman who was attempting to interfere with him now. [Laughter.] He had not risen in his place to be suddenly put down, He had known of many attempts to sit upon men in that House; but he was not going to submit to it. [Laughter.] To hon. Gentlemen opposite the idea of laughing-seemed to be a most charming thing.

reminded the hon. Baronet that he must confine his remarks to the Question before the House and address them to the Chair.

went on to say, that when a question affecting the Irish Press was brought forward, hon. Gentlemen opposite attempted to make hon. Members sit down, and laughed at the principle of a free Press in the person of its humble advocate. For the last four or five years he had, with other hon. Gentlemen, attempted to oppose certain measures introduced by the late Government, and as he had ventured in the most respectful manner to express the opinions of the people of his country, he could not understand why his rising on this occasion should he a signal for laughter on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had a majority of 50. He knew that well, and he had never expected that the party he was connected with would at the late election have had a triumphant majority; but, at the same time, his opinion had always been (hat a majority was a disadvantage when it was too great. He complained that the right hon. Baronet had taken an isolated case, instead of considering the general subject of the Press of Ireland: and he believed the argument, that in this instance the power of England was necessary to crush a paper, would have an injurious effect. Last evening, the question whether an iron-clad should have six or eight inches of armour was considered all important to the English nation, and discussed patiently; but it would be known that when the interests of the Irish Press were brought forward, with respect to its freedom of expression, the cry was raised—"We have a majority of 50; sit down, we will not hear you."

said, it was somewhat unfortunate that no one had brought before the House the articles in consequence of which the warning was given. The real question was, whether those articles were justifiable or not. He could, in a sense, speak disinterestedly on the point, because the articles contained an attack upon himself. One of them was a reply to Mr. Froude, and said that Irish rebels had fought bravely. That, he believed, was a fact which few would deny. At the same time, he admitted the writer ought not to have described the Queen as "a foreign lady." Still, that expression would have passed unnoticed, but for the publicity given to it by the warning. It was worthy of re-mark that the leading Conservative paper in Ireland, The Dublin Evening Mail, denounced the warning in the strongest terms, and be lived it to be a hoax practised to bring the Government into contempt. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke of a warning as a light matter; but what was a warning? Why, once a warning was given, a paper held its life at the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant. Without charge, without accusation, without notice, the Lord Lieutenant could seize the type, and plant, and everything connected with that paper, and confiscate them Therefore, the effect of a warning was to transfer a paper from the position of a free journal to one actually in chains. These extreme powers were given to be used in extreme cases. If, indeed, seditious language was being employed throughout the country, if there was danger of insurrection, if drillings and seditious meetings were being held, then Government might fairly say—"We are entrusted with those tremendous powers exactly for this crisis, and we must use them." He could understand such language at such a time, and neither the House nor any reasonable man could blame them for holding it. But there was nothing of the kind now. The country was in extreme tranquillity, and therefore Government was not justified in seizing on a mere chance expression in order to use this tremendous power. He believed the language was harmless, and so was that of the other article to which the right hon. Baronet referred, except for the publicity which the warning of the Government had given it. The effect of the arbitrary act of the Government was to attract sympathy to the man whom people would otherwise condemn. It was for the following reason that he strongly objected to the use which had been made of the Act of Parliament in this instance. It was exceedingly unfortunate that the very day when a Nobleman was to enter Dublin—and did enter it—whom the Irish people were willing to receive with the respect due to his exalted rank, and to his character as Representative of the Sovereign, should have been chosen, as if to inaugurate a new system of coercion and repression; and still more unfortunate that, in the evening of that day, a measure of justice and fair dealing to Ireland should have been rejected by that House. He and his Friends would offer no factious opposition to Her Majesty's Government in their dealings with Ireland, and as far as any efforts of theirs could avail to maintain peace and tranquillity in the country they would be exerted; but he believed those efforts would be vain if popular feeling was excited and exasperated by measures of repression which could not be calmly weighed by the people of Ireland. He earnestly hoped the government of Ireland would not be continued in the spirit of this Act. It was true that there had been great discontent in Ireland a few years ago, but that discontent had passed away, and the Government might believe him that they would do more by one warning, like that given, to arouse discontent in Ireland than anything else that he could suppose. He believed, in his soul, that such warnings would make many rebels. If the Government were prepared to use those powers, they ought to be used cautiously. If they were used oppressively, he believed the people of Ireland would lose confidence in the Government. If the Government placed a newspaper in the "dock," the effect would be to destroy its commercial credit. It was a punishment that ought not to be used without public necessity. Were right hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to follow it up? Suppose next week The Flag of Ireland justified what it had done by language such as might be found in many an English writer, for instance, equal to the expression referred to, in speaking of the Queen as "a foreign lady," which, though true in a sense, he would admit was objectionable, were the Government prepared to crush it? If they did so, they might drive the paper into some remote locality to be published; it might, for instance, be published at Holyhead, or any other place out of the country. He hoped the Government would not persevere in such a course; for, if they did, they would do more to revive Fenianism than could be clone by all the seditious speeches and writings which might be tittered and published in Ireland for many years.

said, he perfectly remembered what occurred in that House when the Peace Preservation Act of 1870 was introduced by one of the most liberal Members who ever sat in Parliament, Mr. Chichester Fortescue. At that period an extraordinary amount of agrarian crime existed in Ireland; the Bill was aimed primarily at that; but, because agrarian crime was found to be often instigated and excited by newspaper articles in Ireland, clauses were introduced for the purpose of enabling the Government to prevent the diffusion of writings calculated to lead to such results. The Government of that day had no desire to interfere with the freedom of the Press; what they desired was to prevent the Press from taking means for the dissemination of incitements which might lead to the commission of the very offences at which the rest of the Bill was aimed. What were called "the warning provisions," therefore, were introduced into the Bill, and they were introduced in the interests of the newspapers themselves. It was pointed out in the House, that men had been held answerable for articles in newspapers brought up cumulatively against them, while if the owners of the papers had had their attention called to their nature they would never have suffered them to be continued. He himself had experience of the fact, for he was counsel in a prosecution in a case in which he had reason to believe that one of the worst articles, on which a verdict was obtained, was not written by the editor of the paper at all, and might have been inserted without his knowledge. The object of a warning, therefore, was simply to inform the editor that whoever had written a particular article had transgressed the law. By calling his attention to it, he was saved from being visited with punishment for want of knowledge of what was passing in his paper. What could be more fair than that before you punished a man you should give him notice that a course was being entered upon which, if pursued, must inevitably lead to that result? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Owen Lewis) who introduced this subject asked, why did not the Government prosecute? That was the very thing to which he would object. He objected to prosecute a person without telling him—"If you pursue such a course we will prosecute you." He would never be a party to the prosecution of a newspaper proprietor for an offence, of the commission of which, he might not have been aware. But it was a different thing when notice was given; the proprietor was then forewarned, and whatever he did afterwards he did at his peril. His hon. and learned Friend who spoke last endeavoured to slur over an expression in one of the articles which led to the warning. That was an expression which ought not to be slurred over. It was no light matter for any man to propagate in Ireland that Her Majesty was "a foreign woman who held possession of the country against the will of the people." He found that another newspaper last Saturday—and he was not certain that the same person was not the owner of both newspapers—pointed to that expression as relating unmistakably to the Queen. Now, such language was not to be confounded with calm historical or philosophic discussion relative to the position of Ireland. That mode of writing of the Sovereign must, he contended, be denounced by every right-minded man. If the paper in question contained nothing but idle, empty, bombastic expressions without meaning, he, for his part, would never urge in that House or elsewhere that the slightest action should be taken against it but would rather leave all such publications to the obscurity which they deserved. The case was however, different when there was a plain, unmistakable expression such as that under discussion; and it was the duty of the Executive, he maintained, to say to the editor of the paper in which it appeared, "Look at that expression. Can you justify it; can you excuse it? It may have been written without your sanction, and published inadvertently. There it is, however, and we wish to point it out to you and to tell you that such language must proceed no further." Such a warning was justified by the principles which had been laid down by Mr. Chichester Fortescue in the warning clauses of the Act of 1870, which were framed to prevent a paper proceeding in a perilous path.

contended that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had placed before the House a totally wrong issue. That the expression complained of was one which ought not to have been used was the opinion of the people of Ireland themselves, and he protested against its being said that it received the smallest sanction or sympathy either from them or any hon. Member from Ireland in that House. At the same time he regretted that the words of the article itself had not been laid before the House so that they might better determine whether the course adopted by the officers of the Government was merited. What he objected to was, that the law should be put in force by such means instead of appealing to the usual constitutional tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman also alleged that the warning-was given in a friendly spirit to the newspaper; but did he not rather mean to say that on the commission of the next offence an arbitrary use would be made of the law, that the proprietor's property would be seized, and confiscated without trial before a jury. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that within a recent period, persons who had been guilty of similar offences had been prosecuted in the regular way and convicted by juries in Ireland; but the warning of a newspaper by three persons who only occupied office temporarily as Lords Justices certainly afforded a most remarkable illustration of the way in which that country was governed. If Ireland had a regular Government, such a warning would never have been issued, and he would remind the House that public meetings, attended by hon. Members of Parliament, were held in England, at which Republican and Communistic principles were propagated with impunity, and that persons who had attempted to disseminate such principles in Ireland had been hunted out of Cork—one of its cities which was supposed to be most disaffected. Indeed, he defied anyone to succeed in getting up a Republican meeting in the whole of Ireland. Some of those in that country who were mixed up with Fenianism—which he did not for a moment defend—however mistaken their conduct might have been, were actuated by the noblest motives, and he regretted very much that when an effort was being made to win back the people to Constitutional courses, three Gentlemen should have exercised so injudiciously the power which the law gave them for the express purpose that it should be employed only in suppressing grave sedition.

regretted to find that on that occasion the loyalty of Irish Members had been impugned, not directly, but by implication, and he gladly seized the opportunity of expressing in the British House of Commons his titter condemnation of the writing in some of the Irish newspapers. He deplored their language, and fell the most profound contempt for it. When he heard the Chief Secretary for Ireland quote expressions in which the writers exulted in the humiliation of the Imperial Forces and the defeat even of their own countrymen—for Irish soldiers served in the Queen's Army—he could not endure the language such infamous writers employed. But he was sorry the debate had occurred. Why should they question the loyal allegiance of Home Rulers? He could truly say that his motive in joining that body was, that he thought it offered an opportunity of getting at the bottom of Irish discontent, and a fair ground for a real union with this country. He agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last, that it should not he supposed that Irish Members in any way encouraged the miserable and seditious scribes who wrote the articles complained of, and which would never appear if the Government would only place confidence in those who were the recognized leaders of the Irish people, instead of relying on exceptional laws which insulted the country, such as that under which the warning had been given to the paper in question. By enacting these exceptional laws they put Ireland in a position of inferiority. They were unwise because they did not trust to the honour, good sense, and patriotism of the Irish people, and, further, they were addressed more to England and Scotland than they were to Ireland, where public opinion was emphatically condemnatory of them; and to his own knowledge the Roman Catholic priests in the Queen's County did all in their power to prevent their circulation.

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to say that the notice had boon given in kindness and consideration—in fact, as a warning—that if a similar course was persisted in, it would be followed by a legal prosecution. If that were so, he for one would not object, especially if it were conducted in a constitutional manner; but if the notice was to be followed by a policeman from the Castle with a waggon to take off the presses and types of the establishment, he could not see where the kindness was. There was no denying that disaffection and sedition existed in Ireland, and one principal cause of that was the existence and enforcement of laws of a coercive character. The whole history of that country was a vicious circle of coercion and sedition—sedition because of coercion and coercion because of sedition, and there was no instance of a concession having been made to Ireland except it was wrung from this country by a display of disaffection and disloyalty. That was the case in 1782. upon the declaration of Irish independence. Catholic Emancipation had been wrung from the Government of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel by the terror inspired by the Clare election and the fear of civil war; and they had lately heard the then Prime Minister and Lord Derby declare that it was in deference to Fenianism he had consented to disestablish and disendow the Irish Church. The reason of a great deal of the present inflammatory writing which appeared arose from the fact that Irishmen could not even meet as delegates and select men of thought and position to represent them, and the result was that language was used resenting the despotism with which Englishmen attempted to govern Ireland.

said, he thought that, after the course that had been taken by Irish Members, there ought to be some expression of opinion from some independent English Members. Much of the language used to-night was applicable, not to the present Government, but to that which was in power when the Irish Coercion Act was passed. That language had, however, nothing to do with the question before the House, for the Act was passed almost with unanimity, and the late Government thought it necessary, and the House accepted it on their recommendation. Moreover, there was much reason to believe that the present tranquillity of Ireland was secured by the Act being put in operation—["No, no!"]—and if the Government attempted to withdraw the Act from the proclaimed districts, a protest would conic up from everyone charged with the, preservation of the peace in those districts. ["No!"] At all events, the Act was only put in operation in consequence of the representations of those who were responsible for the peace of those districts. The Act having received the assent of the Legislature, was it to be enforced, or was it to remain a dead letter in the hands of the present Government? It should be remembered that the warning of which complaint was made was not for a single isolated Act or expression, but had been called forth by the whole tone and tenor of the newspaper in question. It was an act of mercy towards that journal as well as to other newspapers in Ireland which might follow in the same course. If a newspaper in this country had been proceeded against it would not have been by a warning, but by an indictment against the proprietors.

said, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was in error in attributing the tranquillity which prevailed in Ireland to the operation of the Coercion Act, he could assure the House, from extensive acquaintance with many parts of the country, that the peace which at present existed in Ireland was not in consequence of the Coercion Act and its application, but in spite of it. He trusted that the Secretary for Ireland would give the House an assurance that after the "warning" that had been given, he did not intend to proceed against any newspaper except in the regular course of prosecution.