expressed his regret that the Beer-tax should have been selected for repeal, instead of other taxes, which pressed more immediately on the productive interest of the country, such as glass, paper, hemp, coals, bricks, and lime. The revenue arising from those sources was 2,680,000l., and therefore, if they had been chosen for repeal instead of the beer-tax, the whole of them might have been got rid of.

Report agreed to, and a bill ordered to be brought in.

suggested, that no right of search should be allowed except on information on oath, and that appeals should be limited to two years.

concurred in that recommendation, and said that he was opposed to the principle of the Bill, but owing to peculiar circumstances he would not go into his objections.

observed, that all it was wished to effect by the Bill was, to keep arms out of the hands of desperate persons.

was as desirous as the hon. and learned Gentleman to prevent miscreants from having the use of arms; but the danger of the Bill was, that it might prevent those from having the use of arms who would use them merely for their own protection, and for other lawful purposes.

objected to the whole form and pattern of the measure.

observed, that such was the state of some parts of Ireland that the Bill was absolutely necessary. Safe and respectable persons might always obtain a license for the use of arms. The Bill was only a renewal of a former measure. If the Bill were not passed the country would be inundated with arms.

said, it was not because the Bill was only a renewal of a former measure that the House was called upon to pass it, but because in the present circumstances of the time, there was no opportunity for a further consideration of the Bill. He also considered the limitation of the operation of the Bill to one year, and the introduction of the clause providing that there should be no search for arms except upon information upon oath, to be important concessions.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side had said, that if the Bill were not passed the country would be inundated with arms. But arms were very quiet inoffensive things, unless people were provoked to use them. He was sure that the honour and honesty of the people of Ireland might be trusted. In fact, man might be made what his rulers pleased, according to the treatment he received.

was glad to learn from the hon. member for Montrose that man might be made what they pleased. He could assure the hon. Member, however, that if he would accept an invitation to some parts of Ireland, he would there find the peasantry disposed to insubordination in a manner that would not be very agreeable to him.

maintained that there was not a people in Europe naturally less disposed to insubordination and outrage than the Irish. He perfectly agreed with his hon. friend the member for Montrose, that on the treatment of human beings depended their conduct.

The Report agreed to.

On the motion for Engrossing the Bill,

repeated his objections to the form and manner of this, as of all other Irish bills. When the sums of public money that were paid to various officers to assist in the framing of such bills was considered, the irregular way in which they were drawn up seemed to him very reprehensible.

The Bill to be read a third time on Monday.

complained, that he had been induced to come down to the House that evening by the expectation that this measure would be discussed. Had not the hon. member for Staffordshire better give up the Bill at once? There was no chance of getting it through this Session. He (Mr. Gordon) had received many applications from persons who apprehended the most injurious consequences from the measure.

said, that as at present advised, he had the most perfect confidence that he should be able to bring on the discussion on Monday, when he should be prepared to defend the Bill.

pressed the postponement of the Bill to another Session. Such a measure ought not to have been brought forward without having been first referred to the consideration of a Committee.

would postpone what he had to say on the subject until Monday.

entirely concurred in all that had fallen from the hon. member for Cricklade.

said, that as he found Government disposed to patronize the Bill, without having first referred the subject to the consideration of a Committee; as he knew that many persons hostile to the measure had left town in the supposition that it would not be proceeded with this Session; and as it was a Bill inimical to those principles of freedom in trade to which he was friendly, he would move that the debate on the question be adjourned to Friday.

appealed to the hon. member for Montrose, whether it would not be better to argue the subject calmly on Monday?

observed, that the provisions of the Bill seemed to be universal. It would be destructive to Ireland.

thought, that there ought to be an exception in the Bill with respect to husbandry servants.

was quite as friendly to the principles of free-trade as the hon. member for Montrose; but he was nevertheless favourable to the Bill.

hoped the mines of Cornwall would be exempted from the operation of the Bill.

strongly objected to the clause in the Bill which compelled a man to criminate himself. If it were not struck out in the Committee, he would oppose the Bill altogether.

Commitment of the Bill postponed to Monday.