rose and justified the course which he and those who were opposed to the bill took on Thursday night, in respect to the postponement of this clause, and again urged the postponement of the clause. He was understood to add, that at a meeting of Irish Members held this day, it was determined to resist the further progress of the measure, in consequence of the defective manner ill which many of its parts had been framed.

would not recur to the angry discussion of Thursday night, but merely state that the clause now presented was not a new one, but was intended to avoid some of the objections taken to that for which it was substituted.

reminded the noble Lord that the excluded clause contained what was sheer nonsense, and, that for that reason its postponement had been urged upon Ministers. Some hon, Members because the Opposition side of the House wished to omit nonsense, had been very angry, and had called the resistance factious. Even the first Lord of the Treasury had charged his opponents with debating the whole bill upon particular clauses. The clause now proposed was perhaps free from the objections taken to the other, but it was a point for the Chairman to decide whether it were not a new clause, and could not, therefore, now be introduced.

(the Chairman) apprehended that it was not a new clause.

was not conscious that he, for one, had betrayed any great degree of temper on a former night. He doubted, had the noble Lord been in office, whether he would have preserved his equanimity so well, considering that this bill contained seventy-two clauses, and, that now, after eight or nine nights of discussion, the committee had only arrived at the fourth or fifth clause. He and his friends were anxious to meet every fair objection.

moved, that certain words in the clause should be omitted, and insisted that such a bill so forced upon Parliament, had never been seen since the days of Sir Edward Poynyngs. He utterly denied that any necessity for it had been established, and maintained that it was called for only by a few police-officers about Dublin Castle.

said, he thought that increased facilities should be given to parties who had lost their licences, to obtain certificates from the clerk of the peace instead of from the justices in petty sessions and proposed to leave out some words, and insert others, to carry out that view.

was of opinion that the increase of the number of certificates would be very inconvenient.

moved an amendment; the substantial object of which was, that the magistrates at petty sessions should grant to a party who has lost his licence to keep arms, a certificate, by reference to the lists of licensed persons given to them by the clerk of the peace, without requiring a preliminary certificate of registry, signed by that officer.

opposed the amendment as unnecessary, and involving considerable additional expense.

moved to insert in the 4th and 5th line of the clause instead of "produce before two or more magistrates,' the words "apply to," The committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the clause: — Ayes 81; Noes 36: Majority 45.

moved that "statement" be substituted for "description." The committee again divided on the question, that the word "description" be left out:—Ayes 106; Noes 36: Majority 70.

objected to the penalty imposed on persons changing their place of abode, and not giving notice of such change, and moved, to substitute the words, "one pound" for the words "five pounds."

opposed the amendment, and pointed out, that the penalty might be reduced at the discretion of the convicting justice.

moved that this clause be expunged. He objected to the clause as it gave an ex post facto operation to the bill, in regard to a case in which a lieutenant Burslem was a party interested, on whom this clause would inflict much hardship and injustice. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had, on a former occasion, objected to this clause, and much to his surprise, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department then confessed, that it had been framed to meet this particular case. He called upon the committee to reject a clause fraught with so much injustice.

thought in these judicial cases every hon. Member should judge for himself. He contended, that the owner of the vessel would sustain an injury if this clause were not passed. At the same time he thought in this conflicting case it was necessary that they should have the facts. The most satisfactory course would be to postpone the further progress of the bill, and have a select committee to inquire into the facts. He was bound, however, to state, that if this were the last stage of the bill, he could not vote for such an important clause, which might be dangerous as a precedent.