said, he also wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure for Reformatory Schools in Ireland?

said, that last year the Government had introduced a Bill on the subject of reformatories in Ireland which not proving acceptable to the Irish Members, was accordingly withdrawn. There was no reason to suppose that another Bill would be more acceptable, and the Government were of opinion that it would be better to wait and see what improvements were made in the law of England, and then to introduce a Bill for Ireland.

said, it was his intention to move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. On a previous occasion the hon. and learned Member (Mr. M'Mahon) had introduced a Bill relative to sea-coast fisheries, which had been rejected by a large majority, and the present Bill, in his (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald's) opinion, was still more objectionable than the former one, the result of the proposed measure being to leave the sea-coast fisheries in Ireland entirely unprotected. With all respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, he preferred the regulation of the sea-coast fishery Commissioners to the legislation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Scotland was under a system of protection similar to that in existence in Ireland, and the fisheries had been prosperous in consequence. The present Bill would do away with the power of the Commissioners in reference to sea-coast fisheries, and largely as to inland fisheries, which it was admitted on all hands had been most prosperous under the bye-laws of the Commissioners. He felt bound to defend the general regulations of the Commissioners with respect to the prohibition from fishing between sunset and sunrise, and the use of trawling nets, which he contended would be injurious to the fishery. The greatest part of the fish were taken on the coast of Ireland by Cornish fishermen, under the regulations of the Commissioners, and if they, encouraged by the laws and regulations, could be successful, how much more successful ought persons on the spot to be? The report as to the coast of Galway was that the fishery had improved. He considered that the present laws, though they might be well included in one Act, were in the main good laws, while the measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman would utterly fail. It was idle to attribute to the fishery laws the reduction in the number of Irish boats and men employed, since that circumstance arose from the greater demand for labour in more lucrative modes of employment. He trusted the House would discountenance the introduction of a new Bill on this subject every year, and would trust to the present law and the regulations of the Fishery Commissioners, rather than resort to the mischievous provisions of the present measure.

said, he was sorry to differ from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) but he was compelled to say that he did not think his Bill would work. He could not but think the regulations of the Commissioners, especially with respect to the inland fisheries, had been attended with great success. He must, therefore, however reluctant he was to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman, give his vote against the second reading of the Bill.

said, he was at a loss to see why there should not be an assimilation of the laws relating to fishing on the coasts of Ireland to those of England, unless it could be shown that there was a difference between the habits of fish on the two coasts. He thought Ireland had a right to have any benefit which might be derived under the English laws on the subject.

said, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the present Bill did not propose to assimilate the law of Ireland with that of England.

said, he should oppose the Bill, because he considered it was for the most part an exact transcript of the measure of 1855, and was brought in for the sole purpose of getting rid of the bye-laws of the Commissioners, prohibiting persons getting hold of the spawning fish in the River Slaney, Wexford. That Bill was rejected by the House. The assimilation of the Irish to the English law, which was stated to be the object of the Bill now under consideration, was a mere pretence. The preamble of the Bill stated that it was to remove all restrictions upon the Irish fisheries, and to put the persons engaged in them on an equality with those engaged in the English and Scotch fisheries, whereas they would find that there existed the most stringent regulations in reference to the fisheries in the two latter countries. He was quite aware that the fishery laws might be very well consolidated, but there could be no question that the regulations issued by the Irish Fishery Commissioners had been attended with the greatest benefit. In his opinion they ought not to allow the Bill to proceed any further.

said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had taken a wise course in objecting to the Bill. Considerable benefit had been experienced from the operation of the last Act on the subject, and he was anxious that it should have a further trial. If the consolidation of the fishery laws were to come under consideration there might be found many parts deserving amendment. Great difficulties arose from mouths of rivers not being properly defined.

said, that as the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had said that the present Bill might be good for Wexford, but it was not good for the rest of the country, he thought it right to observe that he had received letters from the north of Ireland urging him to give his support to the Bill, as being a measure important to the whole of Ireland.

said, he very much regretted that Parliament did not consider the question as a whole. It was a remarkable fact, that whenever an Irish question arose, English Members rarely joined in the debate. When a Scotch Bill was on, English and Irish Members sat patiently by while it was fought out by Scotch Members, so that in effect there was really three Parliaments. Such proceedings, as a matter of course, occasioned a great loss of time. As regarded the Bill now before the House, he thought it ought to go to a second reading, and then the merits of the existing Irish law, Scotch law, and English law respecting fisheries might be tested, and the Government would be left open to reject the present measure, and substitute another, amalgamating the laws upon all the fisheries of the kingdom.

said, he could not perceive in what the Bill differed from those which the hon. and learned Member for Wexford had brought in on previous occasions. With respect to the observation of the hon. and gallant Member who last addressed them, he did not think it possible that any general law could be passed applicable to the three kingdoms. There was a law relating to the pilchard fishery off Cornwall. How could that be applied to Ireland? The only way, therefore, to make any law practically useful was to have a power of making bye-laws, and that power the Irish law gave to the Commissioners. It appeared to him that the objects of the Bill were to destroy laws which were amongst the best in the three kingdoms. He should therefore oppose the second reading.

said, he did not think that the Irish sea-coast fishery laws required any amendment; but he hoped that, if those laws were consolidated, the opinion of Irish Members would be duly considered. Whatever improvements might be required in the laws, he did not think the present Bill calculated to effect anything in that direction.

said, the Bill would repeal a portion of the Irish law, but not enact any part of the English law. The English law was very restrictive as to deep-sea fishing, and had been found beneficial. But the Irish restrictions were to be removed and the English restrictions not to be substituted. The other part of the Bill related to salmon fisheries in estuaries. The Bill would give greater facilities for fishing in the estuaries; but the effect would be to destroy the fisheries. The great object was to ensure a proper supply of fish by restrictions in the lower portions of rivers, and those restrictions were proposed to be repealed.

said, the Bill would be mischievous both to inland and deep-sea fishing. In some districts it would annihilate the fishermen; and the entire removal of restrictions would destroy the fisheries. Therefore he must oppose the Bill. He wished the hon. and learned Member (Mr. M'Mahon) would bring in a Bill to consolidate the Fishery Laws, instead of proceeding with the measure before them.

said, that up to the present time the Bill had not been debated on its merits, and the arguments that had been brought against it were founded on other and former measures. It was monstrous that Irishmen could not fish in their seas and streams without paying fines and rents; and so long as he had a seat in that House, he would advocate their cause. Such was not the law in England and Scotland. Those restrictions were set up for the sake of the Crown, under the Act of 1842, which gave them a monopoly of inland fishing. Now, what he asked the House to do was, to assimilate the fishery laws of Ireland and England. The effect of the Act of 1842 had been most disastrous. The results of it the following statements from Thom's Directory would show:—

	Number of Boats.				Number of Men.
1844	…	19,000	…	…	93,000
1848	…	15,000	…	…	70,000
1852	…	13,000	…	…	58,000
1853	…	11,000	…	…	38,000
1854	…	11,000	…	…	40,000

The fisheries of Ireland, he maintained, were far better before the restrictions were imposed. That would be apparent from Hoare's "History of the Irish Fisheries." In 1654, so great was the fishery in Ireland, that from one port 100,000 barrels of herrings were exported, and in 1798 the English fisheries actually petitioned against the Irish fisheries. Ireland in the last century exported immense quantities of fish, which she now imported. Thus had her fisheries declined since the present restrictions were established. No doubt monopolists of inland fisheries liked the Irish laws as so stringently restrictive. But as to deep-sea fisheries no one asked for such laws among the Scotch or English fishermen. Such was the restrictive system in Ireland, that over and over again—as it had been stated before Committees of the House of Lords—the fishing nets supplied by benevolent societies to the poor starving people during the famine, had been confiscated under the stringent provisions of the Irish fishery law. Why, there was a law in Ireland that no one should catch an eel or a herring in the deep sea or any part of the Irish coast, without a licence to fish! At the same time, the law was not even uniform, and there was one law on the east coast, and another on the west coast of Ireland. Nay, there was actually a law compelling the Irish fishermen to cure their nets, not with bark, but with tar; the effect of which was, that the fish were frightened away and the nets were rotted. But that was not all; the Cornish fishermen were absolutely allowed to fish on the Irish coast without restrictions, and actually caught and sold to the Irish their own fish, which the Irish were prevented from catching. The question was most important, and the Government ought to take it up. For years he had laboured on the subject in vain. The Government had counted out the House on the question on one occasion, and now made this an argument against him.

said, he should support the Bill. He wished to call the attention of hon. Members to a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, on the occasion of the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, to the effect that the proprietors of English and Scotch fisheries would gladly exchange the English and Scotch fishery laws for those by which the Irish fisheries were governed; but he (Mr. MacEvoy) doubted very much its correctness, because he felt certain, that if such were their sentiment, English and Scotch Members would long ago have introduced measures to assimilate the English and Scotch fishery laws to those of Ireland.

said, he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to withdraw his Bill, because he felt certain that it would ruin many of the Irish fisheries.

said, that as the hon. and learned author of the Bill (Mr. Craufurd) proposed to exempt the Sheriff Courts in Scotland from the operation of the Bill he should withdraw an Amendment of which he had given notice.

said, he thought there was a sort of compact entered into on the last occasion between the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) and the House that the Bill should be reprinted before the House was asked to discuss it, and he trusted that the Committee would be again postponed until that had been done.

said, he must deny that he had made any such promise. He proposed to include the Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, and the Court of Common Pleas at Durham in the Bill. An Amendment had been suggested by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to the effect that a copy, instead of a mere memorial of a judgment, should be transmitted to a Court out of which it might be desired to issue execution under the Bill; but he (Mr. Craufurd) could not accede to that proposition, as he thought it would entail unnecessary expense. He proposed to limit the time within which execution might be obtained as a matter of course on judgments under the Bill to twelve months; after which time it would be necessary to make a special application for execution.

said, he acquitted the right hon. and learned Gentleman of all breach of faith, but he had regarded his silence, when the former proposal was made for reprinting the Bill, as consent.

said, he trusted that the extensive Amendments introduced might be printed before the Committee was asked to discuss the Bill.

said, that although the Amendments were numerous, they principally affected the question of substituting a copy of the judgment for a memorial. He would propose that those Amendments be considered, and then to have the Bill reprinted.

said, he had suggested the particular alteration in order to increase the efficiency of the Bill. A memorial would not throw the necessary light as to the scope and object of the action on which judgment had been obtained.

said, in his opinion the proposal of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would utterly destroy the object of the Bill.

said, he could not but remark the want of harmony in the treatment of the Bill, notwithstanding the length of time it had been under consideration. The difficulty was not with regard to the principle of the Bill, but to its details. He could not see any reason why, as in the case of a protested bill of exchange, a Judge's order might not be applied for, and the Judge should determine whether execution should issue absolutely or be issued upon terms. If there had been a Minister of Justice the Bill would have been framed in a manner more calculated to conciliate general approval.

said, he believed that the promoter of the Bill had suffered from the interposition of "too many cooks."

said, he would recommend the reprinting of the Bill, as conducing to the ultimate saving of time.

said, he would suggest the same course, but he should advise the promoter of the Bill not to accept the alteration proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland.

said, he would now propose in Clause 1, to leave out the word "memorial," and insert the word "copy" instead. His object was to supply the defendant to the action with fuller information than was contained in a memorial as to the grounds on which the judgment rested. He should, therefore, move that in all cases the party against whom execution was sought should be furnished with a copy of the judgment.

said, he was quite satisfied that such an Amendment would be detrimental to the working of the Bill, entirely at variance with the practice of the County Courts in England, and with the practice generally in Scotland.

said, that his experience in India was opposed to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. If it was intended to guard against judgments fraudulently obtained in Ireland the proviso was unnecessary, as an affidavit before a Judge in Chambers setting forth that the judgment had been so obtained would protect the defendant from execution.

said, he considered that a memorial would not suffice for the proper identification of parties.

said, he regarded the Amendment as inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, the very first object of which was to avoid the necessity of a second time investigating the question in dispute upon its merits.

said, he saw plainly enough that their difficulty arose from attempting to assimilate the legal procedure of the three countries. From what he had seen of Scotch practice he should be inclined to say that the procedure there was most prolix. The Amendment simply contended that before execution could be levied every defendant should know clearly the grounds on which the judgment was granted; and he must say he thought it a most rational proviso.

said, he should now move that the Chairman report progress.

said, he was about to make the same Motion, to enable him to consider whether the Bill, which had been attacked in its principle by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, was worth proceeding with. He should second the Motion for reporting progress.

said, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr.Whiteside), who had charge of the Bill, to postpone the second reading until a little more time had been allowed for its consideration. A great number of Gentlemen took a deep interest in the subject—and it was certainly one of great importance; it would be well, therefore, that due time for consideration of its principle should be allowed.

said, he was very happy to have the prospect of the hon. and earned Gentleman's assistance; and as, undoubtedly, the subject was of great importance, he would postpone the second reading of the Bill for a week.

said, he would beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to bankruptcy and insolvency in Ireland. The Bill was nearly similar to one which had obtained a second reading last Session, when the only Amendments made were those of the hon. Member for Dublin. The Bill he asked to introduce would be a reprint of that Bill, save and except that it would adopt all the Amendments just referred to.

said, the condition of the law of bankruptcy, and the conflict of jurisdiction now existing in regard to the winding-up of commercial and other companies, were a disgrace to the country, and called loudly for the interference of some authority such as that of the proposed new Department of Justice.

said, he would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to omit providing an appeal in cases of insolvency. In every case of bankruptcy an appeal was allowed, but not so in the Insolvent Debtors Courts, from which no appeal lay, and he himself had known cases where the greatest injustice had been the consequence. With regard to the general state of the mercantile law, he quite concurred with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) in his description of it, and he hoped no time would be lost in remedying such a horrible state of things.

said, that on every question of property the measure gave an absolute right of appeal in insolvency cases. The point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen had not been lost sight of, as the Bill provided a perfect scheme for winding-up in all cases not covered by the Joint-stock Companies Act of last Session.