objected to this provision; he thought that these arms ought not to be registered. There were no means of knowing whether a man was a yeoman or not, and no such class should be recognised. If any of the former yeomanry had arms in their possession, they did not belong to those persons, but to the Government, and should be returned, therefore, to the Ordnance stores. All these men considered themselves totally irresponsible to the Government.

said, that all the official authorities acknowledged the existence of these corps, although they had not been called out for a long time. The clause was only similar in its provisions to one to be found in all previous Arms Bills. He could not conceive that they would be justified in calling upon the yeomanry to give up their arms.

supported the amendment, considering the proposition to give a onger duration to the present Arms Bill than had been given to former Arms Bills most unconstitutional, most unjust, and altogether unnecessary.

said the Government had evinced every desire throughout to meet, as much as possible, the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he considered the reduction of the period now proposed by his noble Friend, of from five years to three, a convincing proof that this desire continued to actuate her Majesty's Ministers. There was, after all, but a difference of one year between the modified proposal of his noble Friend and that of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

said, it became his duty to move that this resolution be recommitted. He had been anxious if possible to direct the attention of the Government to the state of the Irish spirit duties, and to the condition to which the country had been reduced by the attempts to collect a higher duty than it was proved to be possible with safety to do. The Government, in proposing, as it now did, to reduce the duty at present levied, seemed to him to have acknowledged the justice of the arguments which he, and those who thought with him, urged in favour of a still further reduction, but at the same time they did not propose to make a reduction sufficiently great wholly to put a stop to, arid get rid of, illicit distillation. At the outset he wished it to be understood, that the opinion which he had always held upon the subject of the Irish spirit duties was, that there should be no limit to the revenue to be drawn from that source, either in this country or in Ireland, except that limit at which the illicit distiller came in, was enabled to undersell the legal distiller, and thus prevent the levying of the duties. It was necessary to lay this down in the first place, because he wished to get rid of the idea of being understood to advocate a reduction of duty exclusively in favour of Ireland, or indeed a reduction at all except upon the ground, that a too great amount of duty raised up illicit distillation, and prevented the levying of the duties altogether. The right hon. Gentleman opposite in making his statement last Session, in which the increase of duty was proposed, said that the extent of illicit distillation depended more upon the relative prices of oats than upon the amount of the duty. This was a statement, however, which he believed to be without foundation, for if they would look back to the returns, they would find that high duties invariably involved increase of illicit distillation. In estimating the duty, all the commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject had laid it down as a principle that the duty should be as high as they could levy; but they had also laid it down as a fact that from 2s. 6d. to 3s. was the highest duty which it was possible to levy. He believed that these amounts would be found to be the highest which could be levied, for it was necessary to remark that a duty of 3s. 8d. was upwards of 200 per cent. upon the value of the article. It would be remembered, that the capital required for embarking in illicit distillation was very small. The expenditure which must be incurred in order to set up an illicit still was not more than from 50s. to 3l. This was all that was required for setting up a trade which would produce a profit of 200 per cent. The papers before the House gave information only since the year 1834; but previous to that period, in 1830, the duties were raised, and so much illicit distillation then took place, that Lord Althorp was obliged to reduce the duty, in order to get rid of some of this increase. It would be necessary here to remark, that the prices of oats in Dublin market, did not always correspond with the price of oats in the mountains. The prices varied there in the same manner as they did in the Dublin Gazette, and what he wished to show was, that let the variation in the price of oats be what they might, higher or lower, still from the moment that the duty was reduced there was a great reduction in the number of smugglers, until they came to the time when the small addition made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought the duties and the profits of smuggling so nearly to a balance, that the slightest rise in the former would immediately produce the latter. In the year ending April 5, 1834, the duty was 3s. 4d. per imperial gallon. The price of oats was 8d. per stone. The number of detections was 8,324; of prosecutions, 2,569; of convictions, 2,155; and of persons remaining in gaol on the 5th of April, 483. In 1835 the duty was from 3s. 4d. to 2s. 4d., the price of oats 10d., the number of detections was 7,050; of prosecutions, 2,470; of convictions, 2,070; and persons remaining in gaol, 332. In 1836 the duty was 2s. 4d., the price of oats 9¾d., the number of detections, 4,545; of prosecutions, 1,631; of convictions, 1,125; of persons in gaol, 292. In 1837 there was a rise in the price of oats, and the detections, prosecutions, and prisoners in gaol were reduced by one-third. In 1838 there was a reduction in the price of oats, and there was a small increase in the number of detections, but none in the prosecutions or convictions; and the evidence of a witness before a select committee of the House, showed that the increase in the number, of detections was owing to the increase in vigilance and numbers of the revenue police. The increase, therefore, did not prove any necessary increase in illicit distillation. In 1839 a great reduction took place in the number of offenders. In that year the number of detections was 2,369. The number of prosecutions and convictions diminished by one-half, and the number of prisoners remaining in gaol reduced from 222 to 116. In 1840 the duty still remained the same, 2s. 4d., the number of detections and prosecutions was lessened by one-half, and the number of persons in gaol fell from 116 to 61. In 1840 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth was obliged to increase the excise and customs duties, and he determined, most unfortunately, he thought, to add to the amount of Irish spirit duties 4d. per gallon. In the first year the difference thus made did not produce any apparent increase of illicit distillation, but it did not procure the same regular diminution which had been for some years going on; in the year before, the number of detections, &c., had diminished nearly one-half, but between 1840 and 1841 the reduction in the number of prosecutions was only from 289 to 278, and the number of convictions continued the same; the number of prisoners in gaol had fallen from 61 to 48. In the year ending 1842 they found an increase in the amount of illicit distillation over that of the preceding year. The number of detections had increased from 871 to 942; of prosecutions from 278 to 331; of convictions from 204 to 244; and ' of prisoners remaining in gaol on the 5th of April, 1842, from 48 to S4. It was then that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, in proposing his budget, thought that the increase in the consumption of spirits was such that they could venture to lay on an additional 1s. of duty upon Irish spirits, and it was to the change in the state of affairs so produced, that he wished to call the attention of the House. It was when the duty was raised to 2s. 8d. that the increase in illicit distillation commenced, and the practice had slowly but surely increased; but it was after the imposition of the 1s. of additional duty, that they found the most alarming degree of increase. For the year ending April, 1842, they found an increase over the preceding year of—detections, from 942 to 2,805; of prosecutions, from 331 to 1,239; of convictions, from 244 to 803; and of persons in gaol, from 84 to 368. He wished particularly to draw their attention to this alarming increase of illicit distillation. There was now existing in Ireland a greater extent of illicit distillation than there had been in any year since 1836. In that year the duty had been reduced, and it took five years of exertion in putting down illicit distillation before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, could venture upon raising the duty even by the small amount of 4d. It was now proposed to reduce the duty from 3s. 8d. back to the previous amount of 2s. 8d., and the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, thought that by that reduction, and by using great exertions, they would be able to get rid of the late alarming increase in illicit distillation. Now he contended that this mode of proceeding would produce the greatest evils. The proposed reduction would not be sufficient to get rid of illicit distillation, even with great exertions upon the part of the police and the excise; and he trusted that Government would reconsider the matter, and reduce the duty at once to 2s. 4d" thus taking a step which would free them from illicit distillation. He had no object in wishing to reduce the duty one farthing lower than to such a sum as would enable them to get rid of illicit distillation. In 1830 the spirit duties were increased from 2s. 10d. to 3s. 4d., and the high duties continued in force until 1834; they were then reduced. This reduction was then opposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, upon the ground that they had not sufficient knowledge or proof of the extent to which illicit distillation was carried. Lord Althorp, in reply, stated that it had been urged that an increase of duty would increase the revenue, but it had been proved by experience that the only thing it would increase was illicit distillation. That was the argument which they had used against Government last year. There was at present no reason to suppose that the consumption of spirits in Ireland was diminishing; on the contrary, it appeared from the returns of the inspector-general, that the number of committals for drunkenness was stationary. In 1838, the number of such committals, was 16,461; in 1839, 38,678; in 1840, 23,277; in 1841, 20,783; in 1842, 19,003. Throughout the greater part of the country there had only been a nominal decrease of committals. He had also a return from the inspector of gaols in Donegal of the number of prisoners in the gaols on a particular day, upwards of 60; and that inspector mentioned that the number of persons who informed him that they were temperance men was one-fourth of the whole. This showed that there was nothing more likely to interfere with the temperance pledge than illicit distillation. He would wish the Government to consider the sentiment of Lord Althorp as to the evils of illicit distillation. It was impossible; considering the present state of Ireland, to get rid of this evil by the means which they proposed to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said it was the price of corn that the extent of illicit dis- tillation depended upon. He thought that the returns which he had quoted disproved this, and proved that the effect of any rise in the duty had been to increase illicit distillation. But he might be told that the extent of smuggling had been greater in former years than it was at present, and he certainly did not think that it had grown to such an extent as in former years; but he was greatly afraid that after a short time there might be a great deal of outrage and violence, as a consequence of the high duty, unless there should be a reduction greater than was now proposed. He had seen statements in the newspapers of an alarming character as to the seizures made of illicit stills. On one occasion 20 gallons of spirits, and 500 gallons of wash had been captured; and in another '200 gallons of wash, and 250 gallons of pot ale. The extent of these seizures showed that illicit distillation was now carried on in a manner, and with a vigour, with which it had never been prosecuted before, and they taught the House that nothing but a reduction of duties could put a stop to such dangerous proceedings. The House was aware that some years ago a great alteration was made in the malt drawback in Scotland, and also in Ireland. It was reduced from 14d. to 8d., at which rate it was still levied in Scotland; but it had since been done away with, as respected Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman's measure for this purpose was supported, and its propriety borne out by the statements of the Irish distillers; but the grounds on which the information which they afforded was founded, were quite incorrect. He would now call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the diminution in the quantity of spirits brought to charge during the last year. That diminution in the whole duty on grain spirits was no less than one-fourth; whereas, on the quantity of malt-spirits it was one-third. It appeared, that in 1842 the quantity of grain spirits brought to charge was 6,002,955 gallons. In 1843 the quantity was 4,450,786 gallons. He maintained the increase of crime in the north and north-west of Ireland was entirely owing to illicit distillation. He found, on looking at a return laid before the House of Lords, that the number of prisoners in the gaols of Roscommon, Sligo, Lifford, and Londonderry, had increased in 1843, as compared with 1842. On looking too, at the proceedings of the committee of last year, he found it first maintained by the witnesses, that there was not likely to be any reduction in the quantity of malt spirits. How stood the fact? He found that in 1842 there were 77,000 gallons, whereas in 1843, there were but 50,000. Again, it was said before the committee, that the withdrawal of the drawback would have no effect in increasing illicit distillation. Their prophecy was, however, best rebutted by the facts which he had stated. He could not blame the Government for acting on the information which they received; but he did blame them for keeping the duty to the last moment, and not make such a reduction as would be sufficient of itself to get rid of this illicit distillation. He should not give any opposition to the right hon. Gentleman's motion further than moving the re-committal of the report on two grounds—first, that the reduction from 3s. 8d. to 2s. 8d. was not sufficient to get rid of illicit distillation; and secondly, that there should be a restoration of the malt drawback, or some alteration in the malt duty, so as to get rid of illicit distillation.

had already stated the grounds why he proposed the additional duty last year. Every one agreed that spirits was an article on which the highest practicable amount of duty should be imposed; and from the information supplied him by persons resident in Ireland, and well qualified to form an opinion, he did entertain a belief that this duty could be made available; but as soon as the fact was established, that it gave rise to offences, he at once resolved to reduce its amount. The hon. Gentleman argued, that no higher duty should be imposed than 2s, 4d., but he founded his arguments on the state of things in 1825, when the condition of Ireland was very different from its condition now; when the organization of a police force for the purpose of preventing illicit distillation was not so perfect as now; and, above all, when there was no such improvement as that which was now apparent in the moral tone and character of the people. The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to show from the tables which he adduced that the offences had increased under the imposition of the 4d. duty; but if he had looked narrowly at the papers, it would be found that they did not bear out altogether the statements which he had made. The hon. Gentleman said, that the number of convictions in 1841, a short time after the imposition of the 4d. duty, the number of offences was forty-eight, but when it was in operation a twelvemonth, this number was increased to eighty-four, which the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to show proved an increase in the amount of illicit distillation. He must demur to such a test applied to illicit distillation. He took the detections as showing more fairly the state of crime, and saw that in 1840, previous to the imposition of the 4d. duty, they were 1,359; in the following year, during part of which it was imposed, 1,004; and in 1842, when it was in full operation, they diminished to 888. But the hon. Gentleman said, "To be sure there was some decrease in crime in the last year as compared with the preceding, but it did not bear the proportion that might be expected from a comparison with the last before that." It was perfectly true that when means were first applied for the repression of crime, the decrease immediately following such an application was greater than in subsequent years. As to the alteration in the malt drawback, it had been brought before the House in the course of last Session, and a committee having sat on it, they were of opinion, with a few exceptions, that the repeal of the drawback would not be injurious to distillation. It was thought fair that each country should have the kind of spirit most agreeable to the inhabitants. In Scotland five-sixths of the whiskey was distilled from malt, whereas in Ireland, of 6,000,000 of gallons, the quantity distilled last year, there were but 77,000 made from malt—a proportion so small, as clearly to show that the general taste was not in favour of malt spirit. Besides, of ninety-two or ninety-three distillers, there were but three who availed themselves of the malt drawback, and one of these had since abandoned the trade. The return before the House showed that the diminished amount of malt spirit imported from Scotland had answered the anticipation which was made last year. He thought the hon. Gentleman had not made out his case, nor could he concur with him that it would be for the advantage of Ireland, or the general interest of the revenue, to allow again that drawback on malt, which was abolished last year.

thought, unless they reduced the duty below 1s., they could not put an end to illicit distillation. Though there might be a falling-off in the quantity of spirits brought to the charge, this did not show that a smaller quantity of spirits was consumed. He was of opinion that the hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Ferguson) had made out his case, and he should support his amendment.

could not, after the best consideration, concur in the view taken by the hon. Gentleman, or in that of a noble Friend of his (Lord Monteagle), whose opinion on any subject he sincerely respected. The question was, whether spirits would bear a duty of 2s. 8d. the gallon. He apprehended it would be generally admitted that this was an article which should be taxed to the utmost extent short of promoting of illicit distillation. They had the benefit of experience that three was a diminution under the additional 4d. duty of offences from 1,359 in 1840, to 888 in 1842. He found, however, that his lion. Friend's return was made out in a different way—indeed, he could guess at the author of that mode of proceeding. His hon. Friend showed, that in the quarter ending April, 1842, there was an increasing number of detections, but his hon. Friend did not mention that there was an increase of 25,000l. on the amount of duty. His hon. Friend then would have them believe that the addition of the 4d. duty increased the smuggling when, the increase of duty was so large as that he had just stated. If the taste for spirits should revive amongst the people, an increased consumption, both of legally distilled and illicitly distilled whiskey would follow. There was another fact mentioned in the report of the commissioners of inquiry, to which he would take the liberty of directing the attention of the House. The question now at issue was, whether Irish spirits would bear a duty of 2s. 8d. The report of the commissioners referred to the alteration of the duty from 2s. 4d. to 2s. 10d.; and what was the result in that case? The average duty paid under the 2s. 4d. duty was 846,597l., and under the 2s. 10d. duty it increased to 1,294,000l. This proved distinctly, that so far from it being true, that spirits could not bear a 2s. 8d. duty, it was evident that they could bear a 2s. 10d. duty. It was remarkable also, that the quantity of spirits consumed under the 2s. 10d. duty was greater than that consumed under the 2s. 4d. duty, even in 1825, which everybody knew was a year of great excitement, and, consequently, of increased consumption. Under these circumstances, he thought, that the hon. Member for Londonderry had not made out such a case as could induce him to vote against the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As far as he was able to judge from his own experience, from the returns before the House, and from the history of past transactions, he was of opinion that the additional fourpence would not increase illicit distillation. Nay, more, he would say, that if he were desirous of trying experiments with respect to the reduction of duties, Irish spirits was not the article he would select for that purpose. Taking the financial condition of the country into consideration, he would rather risk eighty or a hundred thousand pounds on the reduction of some other tax than the duty on Irish spirits.

would not give the House the trouble of dividing.

moved that the House resolve itself into committee on the Admiralty Lands Bill.

said, this was an unconstitutional bill. Its object was to empower the Government to take possession of certain lands near her Majesty's dockyards for the public service; but the particular lands were not defined, and persons possessing property near the sites were anxious and alarmed. He proposed that all the lands intended to be taken by the bill should be scheduled or otherwise described, and that no lands not so scheduled or described should come in any way under the operation of the bill.

thought the measure was a departure from principle, and an unjustifiable violation of private rights. He moved that the House resolve itself into a committee in three months.

was surprised that any one should describe the bill as an unconstitutional measure. Bills of a similar character, relative to the Ordnance and Customs' departments, were in existence, and the only difference between them was that the present bill was not nearly so stringent in its provisions as the others. The object of the bill was to enable the Crown to acquire lands, appealing to a jury to assess their value, when that was necessary for the defence of the country. It was necessary that the act should be general in its terms, for if the lands were to be scheduled, the Crown might hereafter be unable to obtain sites, the possession of which might be essential to the public service. Care had been taken to frame the clauses, so as to give every person having any, an ample opportunity of asserting his rights, and when the bill should be in committee, he was prepared to move a clause which would limit the lands to be taken to within 700 yards of the dockyards.

wished to know whether the lands in question were to be exempted from the land-tax.

wished to ascertain what lands were to be taken in. If the Secretary of the Admiralty would give him information on this point, he would be happy to give his assent to the bill.

was afraid, if the lands were scheduled, the value of the property must be diminished, inasmuch as the proprietor's right of control over it was infringed. He was glad to find it was not proposed to take any lands at a greater distance than 700 yards from the dock-yards.

said, the House was generally inclined to place a certain confidence in the various departments of Government, and he hoped they would extend so much to the Admiralty Board, as to believe that the powers confided to them by this bill would not be misused.

said, the effect of the bill would be to schedule all land within half a mile of every dock-yard for an unlimited period of time, interfering with the proprietor's right of disposing of it, and keeping the property around in a state of dilapidation and uncertainty. A man, for instance, might erect an expensive building on his ground, without any chance of being repaid for the outlay, if Government thought proper to take the land.

was not surprised, that the House should regard with jealousy the powers proposed to be given by this bill. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, the hon. Member for Plymouth had given an opinion diametrically opposed to his theory. If this bill passed, it would still not be competent for the Government to make a bargain for the purchase of a piece of land without the consent of the House, as the price must be voted in committee of supply. The amount of the purchase money would be settled by a jury, in case of difference arising; and there was no room to apprehend that the rights of individuals would not be well protected by a jury. Any attempt to specify by schedule the particular properties required, would be a great disadvantage to the public, by raising the price; it might also lead to much litigation.

did not think the right hon. Baronet had answered the case which had been made out against the bill.

contended that the Government were asking for unlimited powers, and desired that the places should be specifically defined at which the Admiralty were to be vested with this power of purchasing, lands. Unless this were done he should move, that the chairman report progress.

said, the object of the measure was to give power to the Admiralty to purchase land that might be necessary for the public service without being subjected to exorbitant exaction. The suggestion, however, that the places should be specified was, he thought, a fair one, and at a future stage of the bill the names of the great public establishments which it was proposed to invest with this power might be inserted. It would, however, be an inconvenient and clumsy proceeding to have a separate act every time the Admiralty might require to purchase a few square yards of land, and it would be better to have a general act for the purpose.

then rose and entreated five minutes attention whilst he moved for leave to bring in a bill to establish, regulate, and protect societies for the improvement of the industrious classes, by extending the allotment or field garden system, and the more general establishment of loan funds in England and Wales. The noble Lord said that the first object of his measure would be to extend the allotment system. At present landlords found it too troublesome and expensive to attend to the letting of small portions of land, and the consequence was, that a system of field gardens, calculated to prove so beneficial to the health and morals of the poor, was but rarely found to be in practice in any crowded vicinage. Now, waste and common lands applicable to this useful purpose were to be found in abundance near many large towns, and what he should propose would be that a board should be established in London, the members of which, in their collective capacity, should have the power to purchase, hire, and let lands to the poor, without, however, exercising any other powers appertaining to landlords, or in any way interfering with the operation of local boards. The second object of his bill would be to promote the more general establishment and to regulate the management of loan fund societies in England and Wales. The loan fund system in England had not up to the present time answered all that might have been expected from it; whilst in Ireland it was admirably conducted and in every way successful. The object of his bill, therefore, would be to assimilate the management of these societies in this country as far as possible to the management of the societies in Ireland, It was curious, and he should be glad if the House would mark the difference between the conduct of these societies in the two countries at the present time. By the return of 1843, it appeared that the number of loan societies in England was sixty-eight, whilst in Ireland they numbered 300. The amount of money circulated by them in England in 1842 was 104,378l., whilst in Ireland it was 1,691,871l. The number of loans issued in 1842 in England was 20,766; in Ireland, 488,702. The gross profit in England was 6,450l.; in Ireland it was 59,943l. In England the net profit was 4561. whilst after deducting the interest on capital, the expenses of management, and the bad debts, it amounted in Ireland to no less than 18,967l., every farthing of which sum was applicable to purposes of charity. The noble Lord quoted several testimonies to the advantage of the system in Ireland in the promotion of industry and discouraging of vice, and he thought there could be little doubt but that the House would accede to a proposition so calculated to add to the prosperity of the population in our own part of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in his bill.