rose to move the Resolutions of which he had given notice relative to the mode of transacting Private Business. It was impossible that the present system could be allowed to continue for another year. The Committee appointed last year agreed to certain recommendations; and it was to carry out their suggestions that he had prepared the Resolutions which he now submitted. During the last Session no less than fifty Members were employed in taking proof that the Standing Orders had been complied with. He proposed that a tribunal should be appointed, before which that should be for the future proved. The Committee suggested that to save expense the Standing Orders for Scotch Bills should be proved in Edinburgh, and for Irish Bills in Dublin; but by the Resolutions he should move, this would be left with the Speaker in each case to determine. He did not propose to remove from the House any portion of the control which it now had over the proof of Standing Orders; but by the plan proposed, the attendance of a number of individuals would be dispensed with. In one case as many as 200 witnesses had been in attendance, some of them fourteen days or three weeks, at an expense of 10,000l.; while by the plan the Committee suggested, little expense would be incurred at this stage of a private Bill. At present the private Bills now in operation for the good of towns, varied in every town; and there were often several in the same town with powers clashing with each other. He proposed that on proof of the necessity of a Bill to effect improvements, commissioners should be sent down to make inquiry, on whose report a model Bill should be adopted, without coming to Parliament at all. Many private Bills would be in this way taken out of the hands of Parliament. From the period of the Union to the present time, the number of private Bills amounted to 9,400, while the number of public Bills was only 5,300. The private Bills were introduced by interested parties, and they were opposed also by parties interested, so that it was difficult for Committees to know, on the repre- sentations made to them, what was really best for a town. Undoubtedly if the Committees had been properly informed upon this point, many Bills would never have been passed. As a means of remedying the evils arising from this cause, he proposed that every private Bill brought in should be under the responsibility of some public department, which might send down a commissioner to inquire into the real circumstances of the case, and to report thereon to the Board of Trade or the Woods and Forests, as the case might be. As every department was responsible for the public Bills which came under them, so he proposed to make them equally responsible for all private Bills, which were often of equal public importance. No evil could arise from a trial of the Resolutions he proposed; and he hoped there would be no objection to them. There was another point of some importance. Every Bill at present had to pass the Standing Orders' Committee of both Houses; but it would be sufficient, he thought, to have one proof of the Standing Orders; and he hoped that arrangements might be made with the other House, so that one proof of the Standing Orders for both Houses might suffice. This would save great expense to parties. The Report of the Committee also suggested the consolidation of the various police and private Bills relating to the same towns. There were at present no less than sixty private Bills in operation in the town of Liverpool alone, many of them at variance with each other. The hon. Member concluded by moving a series of Resolutions, which were agreed to.

wished to put a question which he would be happy to hear satisfactorily answercd by the hon. Gentleman before him (Mr. Parker). In 1838 an Act passed for the improvement of the navigation of the Shannon, and certain plans were agreed upon, power being given to the Commissioners to execute the works according to those plans. It had been alleged, however, that without any authority the Commissioners had departed from those plans, to the great injury of a proprietor, whase property would be materially affected. He was authorized to state, that though the Commissioners were aware that a petition was before the Treasury, complaining of this departure, yet they were suffering the preparations for the work to go on. Now, his question was this—had the hon. Gentleman any objection to send orders to the Commissioners not to commence that work till a decision had been come to by the Treasury as to whether or not it should be executed?

said, this matter had not come before him, and therefore he was not prepared to give a satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman. There could be no doubt, however, the Treasury would endeavour to come to a fair and reasonable conclusion.

regretted that he should be called upon to refer again to the very painful subject of the abuses and cruelties which existed in Milbank Prison; but the fault was not his. Had the Government acceded to the Motion he formerly made, for inquiry by means of a Committee of that House, the truth would by this time have been ascertained; and any further reference to the question would have been avoided. He maintained that, on that occasion, he had made out sufficient ground for Parliamentary inquiry, and protested against the doctrine then laid down, that the Members of that House should be contented with a report furnished by parties interested. He had presented a petition from a person who had been a warder in the prison, and against whose character not a word had been breathed; and he offered to prove before a Committee the allegations contained in that petition. He made a Motion in support of Baker's Petition, and also brought forward fresh charges against the authorities of the prison; and the Government, in consequence of these new charges, sought for fresh information from the parties accused. And how was this done? They sent a copy of his speech cut out from The Times paper to those prison authorities; and they asked fresh answers to that speech; but he maintained that that speech, before being sent, ought to have been authenticated by him; for though it was in the main and substantially correct, the report of a speech was not the kind of document that ought to have been sent in such circumstances. A boy, named Nash, was stated to have been placed for twenty-one days on bread and water, instead of another individual; and these prison authorities, in their second reply, took advantage of this trifling circum- stance to deny the statement altogether. On seeing the report from that person, Baker presented another petition to the House, in which he stated that the report was altogether untrue, and the truth suppressed, and reasserting the charges contained in his first petition. Thus the case became more and more complicated. Fresh matter was brought forward, and fresh replies demanded; but could any thing be more irregular or unsatisfactory than such a contest as this betwixt statements made in that House, and answers from these prison authorities in return? He had to complain that the House had not been put in possession of all the reports drawn up on this subject. A supplementary report had been promised, but not yet given to the House; and he should like to see that report of the 30th July which had been suppressed. He denied that the authorities of Milbank prison were the parties who should have been called on to report on such a matter as this; but when they were asked to do so, if they wished to get at the truth, they should have had the petitioner (Baker) before them. They had not, however; but after they had laid two reports before the Home Office, they wrote to Baker, asking him to appear and support the allegation contained in his petition. Now, he wished to know why they did not do this before they made their general report in July? In reply Baker stated, that had the information now sought by the inspectors been sought before the report was drawn up, he should willingly have given it; but that, under the circumstances, he would petition a second time the House of Commons to impugn the truth of that report. These parties asked this man, after they had made out their report, and prejudged the case, to appear and support his allegations; and he refused. It was clear that this case could not be allowed to remain as it was; and it had, in fact, now become a much graver case than when he first brought it forward. With regard to the illegal cats used, it had been said that this was the first time they were used; but the governor, in the second report, virtually admitted that to some extent his statement on that subject was correct, when he gave the account of the flogging of Bunyan and Cotterell. It was but justice to the governor to state that he said he had no vindictive feeling towards the man Bunyan, and that his was rather a case for a criminal court than for punishment in the prison. In fact, the inspectors went beyond the law in the punishment of this man. His case was provided for by Act of Parliament; if brought before a court he was liable to two years' longer imprisonment; and the inspectors had no business to consider whether he ought to have two years more confinement or not. They took the case into their own hands, however, and inflicted punishment on the poor man by flogging. They had heard a great deal about flogging in the army; but it was a mere joke compared with that inflicted in this prison. A pattern of the cat had been sent to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State; he also had received a pattern, and he must say that a more cruel instrument never was invented than that which was used for the punishment of Bunyan and Cotterell. [The hon. Gentleman exhibited the waxed cord lash used at Milbank prison, and the lash used by the Guards, which he represented as much lighter than the former.] It was stated that seventy lashes had only been inflicted on Bunyan; but those who saw the punishment stated that a more painful and cruel punishment never took place in the army; that the blood was streaming over the waistbands of these two men. Cotterell received sixty lashes for the same description of offence as that committed by Bunyan. This man had been a soldier, and had, when in the army, received 120 lashes; but that punishment, he said, was a joke compared to what he got at Milbank. Instead of being carried to the infirmary, the man was taken to his cell. Dr. Bailey stated that his injuries did not require infirmary treatment. Anything more cruel could hardly have been. This man's back was in so dreadful a state that he could not move his arm, and for twenty-three days others were compelled to make his bed for him. If the man had died, a heavy responsibility would have fallen on the surgeons and the governor of the prison for the manner in which he had been treated. Baker, in his second petition, referred to that, and he also pointed out the manner in which the governor, in his statement, evaded the question respecting the three boys who were condemned to bread and water for seven days, for having looked into their bibles during divine service. That, the chaplain himself had admitted, was rather a severe punishment; and the governor admitted that they were sentenced to this fare for seven days. Then with respect to the suicides, it appeared that four men had succeeded in committing self-destruction, and sixteen others had made the attempt, all in the short space of three years. It was remarkable that nothing of the sort had occurred during the twenty-three years preceding, during which the Penitentiary had been established, although during that period persons were confined there for from three to five years. That result the petitioner attributed to the cruel conduct of the governor. But then, said the governor, these men were only the exceptions, and they alone have committed suicide out of the tens of thousands of prisoners who have passed through the prison; and that these prisoners, being about to be transported, had a motive for doing so. He thought that this was a prison for the amelioration of the criminals who were sent there. The suicides were above the average of the whole population, although there were no facilities for self-destruction in the prison, and although the prisoners were constantly watched. He contended, then, that the very great disproportion of suicides in the prison, showed the deficiency of the regulations of the prison, or the faults of its management. He believed that these prisoners were driven to self-destruction by the treatment they received in this prison. Prisoners had over and over again stated they preferred transportation for seven years, to a year in this prison. In fact, it was clear to him that the system of punishment must be defective; it ought not to be a system of torture from day to day. Another allegation of the petitioner was, that, in consequence of the treatment of the prisoners, several of them had been removed to the hulks at Woolwich in a sick state, and that there a great proportion of them had died since. Why was this? To evade the necessity of a coroner's inquest in the event of their dying in the prison. Could anything be more disgraceful in the conduct and management of a prison? He believed the charge to be true. He had received information that three individuals had been removed from this prison to the hulks at Woolwich in a dying state, within the last month; and that it was necessary on the journey to give them brandy and water to keep soul and body together. Dr. Bailey denied this; but the fact was, that nearly 300 sick prisoners had been removed, since this time three years ago, to the hulks at Woolwich, sixty of whom were in a state unfit for removal, and forty-eight had died. These persons were carried in cots to the ships, while the other convicts were at dinner, in order that no one might see them. Yet Dr. Bailey denied that persons in a sick state had been removed from Milbank to the hulks. In future, he hoped that coroners would do their duty with respect to inquests in prisons. At present they were a mere mockery, and the verdicts merely stated that the person died of such a disease—the disease, no doubt, of which he really did die; but the inquiry never went into the causes that brought on the disease. The petitioner asked for inquiry on this point, and into the removal of prisoners from Milbank, in order to prevent exposure of what was going on in that prison. Then there was a statement in the petition relative to the irregular conduct of the governor; that during the last year there were fifty-one reports against the governor for irregularity in his conduct in the prison. Why had not the inspectors reported that to the Secretary of State? for surely it was the duty of the governor of the prison to set an example to the officers under him of sobriety, regularity, and good conduct. The petitioner stated that he was prepared to prove this charge of irregularity against the governor. Now, he thought that if he had not made out a case on the former day on which he entered on this subject, he had made out a pretty good one on that occasion. He did not know what the House or the present Government might require to justify them in granting an inquiry; but he said that this prison as at present conducted was a disgrace to the country, a disgrace to the Government, and a disgrace to the persons put in authority over it. The inspectors had declared their conviction that the result of the inquiry they had made would be most satisfactory to the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey); but they added a suggestion that if he should be of opinion that any point was left unanswered, then he should, under the powers given by the 5 and 6 William IV., appoint a commission to inquire. But the fact was that no such powers of appointing a commission were given to the Secretary of State by the 5 and 6 William IV. Independently of the statute, the high officers of State had power to investigate the condition of the Queen's prisons at the pleasure of the Crown; the mode of inquiry which the parties criminated in charges of this nature dreaded ten times more than any investigation under a commission, was an inquiry be- fore a Committee of the House of Commons; and he believed, that if the inquiry was conducted within the walls of the prison, the subordinates would not dare to speak the truth, as they would before a Committee of the House of Commons. Parties charged dreaded a Committee of the House of Commons. With respect to the management of Somerset House, they had had inquiries; but were not all the complaints that had given rise to those inquiries glossed over? At length, however, a Committee of the House of Commons had penetrated the walls of Somerset House, and they saw what were the results of that. So with respect to the Milbank Prison; an investigation by a Committee would, no doubt, be effectual. He would undertake to say, that if they would give him five or six Members as a Committee, he would prove the allegations of the petition, and conclude the inquiry satisfactorily in a very few days. He must say, he did hope that the Government would allow a Committee to enter on the subject. If the inquiry was to be by a commission in the prison, such was the fear of losing their situations on the part of the subordinates, that the object of the inquiry would be frustrated; but by a Committee of seven he would prove the allegations of the petition, and show that it was impossible that the present system of management could be maintained. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving as an Amendment—

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the treatment of Prisoners confined since October 1843, in the Milbank Prison, as well as into the conduct of the Governor and Officers thereof; and to report their opinion, with the evidence, to the House.'"

seconded the Motion. He hoped that the Secretary of State would not refuse the Committee, for he thought that such evidence had already been brought forward as called for inquiry; which would be much more satisfactorily conducted by a Committee of the House than by a commission. The cruelties practised in the prison drove the prisoners to suicide; and he said that no country professing Christianity ought to allow such cruelties to exist. The inspectors had not done their duty. Their appointment was new; they were a great cost to the public; they were appointed because the system before their appointment had not been satisfactory. Yet now abuses came to light of a graver character than had been known before. He trusted the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) would grant a Committee; for though it was late in the Session, there was enough time to prosecute an effectual inquiry, so as to satisfy the mind of the House and of the public.

was desirous, before he stated the course he meant to pursue on this occasion, to explain shortly what he had said on the former occasion respecting a supplementary report of the inspectors. He then stated that he had received a supplementary report, but he had not said that he wished for further information; what he did say was, that the inspectors wished to add something to the report, and that until that was done he could not consider it a final report. But all the alteration that was made by the inspectors was to substitute a letter dated the 3rd of August for a letter dated the 30th of July; that letter of the 3rd of August containing all that the letter of the 30th of July contained. The report, as it now stood, comprised all that was in the report of the 30th of July. He assured the House and his hon. Friend that not one portion of that report had been withdrawn; nothing relating to corporal punishment had been withheld. He had said in his place on the former occasion, that nothing should be withheld, and nothing had been withheld. With his hon. Friend, he certainly thought that it was most unseemly that these charges respecting this prison should be made and met in the House of Commons as they had been; but he might be allowed to recall to the recollection of the House how the facts stood as regarded himself. The original petition of Mr. Baker had been presented on the 15th of July; it had then been printed with the Votes, and transmitted by his predecessor in office to the inspectors of prisons, with the request that they would give the allegations a full and searching investigation. When he received the seals of office, it was impossible for him, in two or three days, to make himself acquainted with the state in which the business of the Office was, and he was not aware that this investigation had been ordered. His hon. Friend then placed on the books a notice to move for a Committee of Inquiry. He upon that called for information, and he was then told of the report of the inspectors, and he had only had a short time to make himself aware of the facts of that report before his hon. Friend made his statement to the House; and he therefore asked the House then, and he did not regret doing so, to suspend their judgment till the report of the inspectors was regularly before them. He then required that the inspectors should renew their inquiry, and investigate the additional allegations that had been brought forward by his hon. Friend. They had done so; but now there came a new petition from Mr. Baker, containing allegations which were of a character that he was ready to admit, if true (though he did not admit they were true)—especially as his hon. Friend, in his place in Parliament, pledged his belief of the truth of them—rendered it indispensable that further inquiry should take place. The governor of the prison had sent him a letter, in which he stated that he was most anxious that these charges should be investigated by parties not liable to the charge of partiality; and he felt that the inspectors might be considered as not being sufficiently free from bias to be impartial, and he therefore begged that other persons might be appointed to conduct the investigation. He thought an investigation was indispensable, and without expressing an opinion whether these charges could be substantiated, he would only say that he should be very much surprised if they were substantiated. That was his impression from the information that had reached him. But he felt that inquiry was necessary, and he was desirous that a most full and searching inquiry should be instituted. For this purpose, not under the clause of the Act of Parliament to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and in his construction of which he entirely agreed, but under the general powers exercised by the Crown, he intended to appoint a commission with powers to take evidence upon oath, and to examine in the fullest manner into the whole management of the prison, and into every charge that had been brought against the governor and the other officers of the prison—which commission would give every opportunity to Baker to substantiate his charges, and bring forward any evidence he pleased. In fact, the draught of that commission was already prepared; and he could not help thinking that such an inquiry would be much more satisfactory—the commission having the fullest powers to inquire upon oath—than an inquiry before a Committee of that House, who had no power to examine on oath, and whose inquiry, at this late pe- riod of the Session, would necessarily be a very hurried one. He should at this time abstain from noticing the charges which had been made against the officers of the prison, as he wished to give no opinion upon them, except the general charge of irregularity of conduct on the part of the governor. He could only say that when first he heard these charges preferred, he felt it his duty to ask his predecessor (to whom such matters ought to have been reported if they had occurred) if he had ever heard any imputations of the kind against the governor; and Sir J. Graham told him that he had not. He then applied to the inspectors of prisons (whose duty it was to have reported such matters to the Secretary of State) if they had heard any such imputations, and they said they never had. He could only say, then, that so far from such charges having been established, the result of the inquiry which he had hitherto made was that they rested upon no solid foundation whatever. With respect to the charge that corporal punishment had been inflicted upon one of the prisoners contrary to the powers contained in the Act of Parliament, he having consulted what he considered to be competent legal authority, was assured that the Act referred to did not take away the powers invested in inspectors of prisons under the General Prisons Act of inflicting corporal punishment in a summary manner if they thought fit. At the same time, his attention having been called to the subject of corporal punishment, he had felt it his duty to address a letter to the inspectors of prisons, with a view of placing the exercise of that power, which in certain circumstances might be indispensable in that prison, under what he conceived to be better regulations. He trusted that, under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with what he proposed.

said, that after what the right hon. Baronet had stated, he would withdraw his Motion, trusting entirely to the right hon. Baronet to conduct the investigation in the best way he thought fit; reserving to himself, however, if the inquiry should not be carried on in a fair and open manner, the liberty to move in next Session of Parliament for a Committee of that House to inquire into the charges, as well as into the way the commission had exercised their powers.

moved the Amendment of which he had given notice, viz.,

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Conduct of the Board of Ordnance, in their refusing to inquire into alleged malversation of the Public Stores by officers of that department, and into the cause and manner of dismissal of Daniel Toner, a pensioner, for good service in the Artillery, from Her Majesty's service, without allowing the said Daniel Toner to be present at the court of inquiry, or to be heard in his own defence."

He feared it was now too late in the Session to have the inquiry carried out by a Committee of that House; but he should shortly state the facts of the case, and if the heads of the Ordnance department would say that they were prepared to order an inquiry, he would withdraw his Motion. The petition from Daniel Toner, upon which he founded his Motion, was presented to the House on the 24th of June last. The case was first brought under his notice in the month of March, and upon asking what the man Toner complained of, he found that he principally complained of having been dismissed from his employment by a court of inquiry which had never called him before them. He thought this a very great hardship; and he asked Toner for certificates of his character. The most satisfactory references were accordingly produced. The petitioner stated, that in the month of April, 1845, being then employed as a labourer in the storekeeper's department of Her Majesty's Royal Arsenal, at Woolwich, he saw a misapplication of the public stores, which he thought it his duty to report to his superiors; that a court of inquiry was instituted, which affirmed the charges to a certain degree; and that the party implicated was dismissed the service, and made to pay back the sum of 214l. The petitioner further complained that from the moment this took place, he was subjected to a series of annoyances by persons in the Royal Arsenal, who wished to get rid of him, and that at last a charge was preferred against him by a clerk in the storekeeper's department named Read, for refusing to take off his hat to him in the pay office—the petitioner's excuse being, that there was no general order to do it, that they did not do it, and that he did not see why he should be singled out. Mr. Read then complained to the general officer, who reported the case to the Board; and from the hour he received a communication from the Board on the subject, Toner always took off his hat to Mr. Read, and never offended again. But the case did not end here. A court of inquiry was instituted, of which he was sorry to see Lord Bloomfield and Colonel Berney were members; and, contrary to all rules of justice, they never called Toner before them, though he would have been able to prove most satisfactorily that from the hour the order had been issued he had obeyed it. The court of inquiry, in these circumstances, recommended Toner to be discharged, and their recommendation having been sent to London, to the Inspector General of the Ordnance, it was ultimately carried out. So that here was an individual who ought to have been protected—because he was the means of pointing out a case of malversation in the stores—turned out of the service, merely on an alleged trumped-up charge that he would not take off his hat to a certain officer, although, up to that time, no one had been asked to take off his hat to him, nor had any other person been asked since. From information which he (Mr. Hume) had received, he suspected that that department of the service was not in the condition it ought to be, as the following correspondence between Toner and one of the officers of the department would indicate:—

was sure, after the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, the House would do him the justice, as a Member of the late Board of Ordnance, to listen to the answer which he had to give to the charges which had been brought forward. The Motion contained two allegations—first, that the Board of Ordnance had refused an inquiry into an alleged malversation of stores; and second, that they had dismissed Toner from the service. He would take the charges in the order in which they were stated. Now, he denied that the Board of Ordnance had shown any indisposition to inquire into the charges. On the contrary, a committee was appointed, before whom Toner appeared as prosecutor, and cross-examined all the witnesses. He admitted that the proceedings of the committee were most fair. The result was, that Mr. Jones was found to have committed some irregularities, and he was dismissed. Toner, it appeared, had been in the habit for two years of making notes of what occurred in the yard, with a view to subsequent complaints and charges, and on the occasion of this inquiry he was distinctly asked whether he had any other charges to make? His answer, in writing, was, that he had not. The hon. Member, however, complained that Toner was subsequently dismissed under an order of which he had never heard. Now, it appeared that Mr. Read, a civil officer in the dockyard, having had reason to complain of disrespect on the part of the labourers when they came to be paid, issued an order that they should come into his office uncovered. Toner complained of this as a piece of presumption, and he was the only person who did not comply with the order. Mr. Read referred the matter to the Master General, whose answer was, that the order must be obeyed by Toner, as well as by the other men. This minute of the Master General was communicated to the workmen, but Toner still did not observe the order. Lord Bloomfield and Colonel Berney then investigated the case, and ordered Toney to be suspended. On the facts being reported to the Master General, he ordered that Toner should be dismissed. Toner's own statement subsequently was, that he obeyed, but remonstrated with Mr. Read for requiring such homage from the men. The truth of the case was, that Toner, in consequence of his having been useful in leading to the first discoveries, assumed a position in the dockyard which was quite incompatible with the maintenance of discipline, and it became absolutely necessary to make an example of him.

said, the present Board of Ordnance were fully of opinion that Toner had been very properly dismissed in consequence of his having been excessively insolent and disrespectful to his superior officer.

withdrew his Motion.

said, that he trusted it had not escaped the recollection of the House that within a short period he had presented four petitions from the out-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, praying the House to take into consideration that which they stated they considered a great hardship, and in which he fully agreed, that 5 per cent should be stopped from their pensions, particularly as such stoppages were not made either from the marines or sailors. And why the soldier should be stopped and the others not, to him was unaccountable; not that he wished that 5 per cent be stopped from the marines and sailors—far from it. What he desired was that no stoppage should be made from any; and actuated by that desire, in the justice of which all whom he had consulted upon the subject entirely agreed, he determined to bring the matter under discussion. Now, of these petitions, two had been printed by order of the House. The petitioners state "that it is a heavy loss to them, that one-twentieth of their pensions gained in fighting the battles of our common country, and thereby increasing its immense power and riches, should be stopped." They likewise state that, in adverting to the common principle that now prevails in advancing or lending money, "they conceive 5 per cent monthly an exorbitant tax; and that the continuance of it must be owing simply to the matter never having been brought under the notice of your honourable House." Now, the Act by which this deduction was authorized was the 27th Geo. II., and was entitled, "An Act for the Relief of the Out-pensioners of the Royal Hospital of Chelsea." Now, this Act was passed to alter the old system of paying pensioners, than which nothing could be worse. At that time (1754) the pensioners received their pensions in the following manner — namely, the payment of a year's pension only after the same was "become due; and which, as the Act recites, exposed them to great hardships and distresses, making them take money up for present subsistence, on credit, of persons called money lenders, on terms frequently oppressive and usurious. The Act then goes on to state, that to prevent this bad system the pensioners shall be paid six months in advance. Now, in Clause 7, it states, "that the treasurer of Chelsea Hospital shall and may withhold and deduct one shilling in the pound from all moneys so paid to out-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital; and which moneys so deducted shall be so applied in the manner which His Majesty, his heirs, and successors shall, by warrant under his royal sign-manual, direct." This system went on for some time; paying six months in advance. Then it was reduced to three; and about two years ago, by a plan of Lord Hardinge's, staff-officers were appointed to pay pensioners; and now they were only paid one month in advance, which plan was, in his (Captain Layard's) opinion, a very good one, and likely to be highly beneficial to the country. But by the 3rd and 4th William IV., only 2½ per cent is to be stopped from the new rate of pensions. So that, under the present system, the old and hard-tried Peninsular veterans had 5 per cent stopped; and those who, no doubt, were just as good soldiers, but could never have the same severe trials, were to pay only 2½ per cent. No doubt he should be told that the pensions of the latter were smaller. Alas! that such was the case was too true; and a disgrace to the nation it was that it should be so. Now, he must recall to their minds that, within a few weeks, at the gracious recommendation of Her Majesty, they had voted pensions to those gallant officers who had deserved so well of their country—Lord Hardinge and Lord Gough—to support that dignity which Her Majesty had bestowed upon them for their gallant achievements, having raised them to the temple of honour, as a reward for their having taken so high a station in the temple of fame. For his (Captain Lay- ard's) part, he could not believe that any one for a moment would suppose that either 5 per cent or 2½ per cent would or ought to be stopped from the pensions of those gallant leaders. And if such was the case, how could the Parliament think of any longer allowing this stoppage to be made from their no less worthy and gallant companions in arms? But he felt that the great enemy he had to contend with was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he trusted that upon this occasion he would let his love of justice overcome his love of economy; and he thought when he informed the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Montrose was to second his Resolution, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would feel that it was an act of justice which no economical feeling ought to counteract. Shall it be said that those who can say to their children or their grandchildren, "I fought with Hardinge at Albuera — I was at the storming of Burtpore with Lord Combermere—I helped to take the eagle at Barossa with Gough—I fought with Napier in India—I formed part of that force at Waterloo under Wellington, whose squares were invulnerable, and whose advance in line was invincible"—shall these men, when they shoulder their crutch, and show how fields were won—shall these men end their narrative by stating, "We petitioned the British House of Commons—we petitioned the representatives of the people no longer to allow the paltry deduction of five per cent from our pensions, and our prayers were unheeded?" He called upon the protectionist party, who had talked so much of standing to their colours and nailing them to the mast, to remember that the standard of their country had been carried untarnished by the agricultural labourer to honour and glory. He reminded the manufacturers that many of those who had been operatives had by their gallant bearing as soldiers opened new marts in the uttermost parts of the world. He called upon all in that House to remember upon what a pinnacle of glory this country had been placed by her army, and to remember how poorly that army had been requited. The right hon. Baronet, the late Prime Minister, had, upon a former occasion, upon bringing forward the pensions to Lord Hardinge and Lord Gough, read to them from Napier's History of the Peninsular War—that brilliant history of brilliant exploits—the account of the horrible and bloody fight of Albuera, where, by Hardinge's perseverance, victory had been achieved. He trusted the House would allow him to follow the late Prime Minister's example, and read an extract from that book, and which would prove how worthy a cause he stood there to advocate. Napier says—

"That the British infantry soldier is more robust than the soldier of any other nation can scarcely be doubted by those who, in 1815, observed his powerful frame distinguished amidst the united armies of Europe; and notwithstanding his habitual excess in drinking, he sustains fatigue and wet, and the extremes of cold and heat, with incredible vigour when completely disciplined; and three years are required to accomplish this. His port is lofty and his movements free; the whole world cannot produce a nobler specimen of military bearing. Nor is the mind unworthy of the outward man. He does not, indeed, possess that presumptuous vivacity which would lead him to distate to his commander, or even to censure real errors, although he may perceive them; but he is observant, and quick to comprehend his orders—full of resources under difficulties, calm and resolute in danger, and more than usually obedient and careful of his officers in moments of imminent peril. It has been asserted that his undeniable firmness in battle is the result of a phlegmatic constitution uninspired by moral feeling. Never was a more stupid calumny uttered. Napoleon's troops fought in bright fields where every helmet caught some beams of glory; but the British soldier conquered under the cold shade of aristocracy. No honours awaited his daring—no despatch gave his name to the applause of his countrymen. His life of danger and hardship was un-cheered by hope, his death unnoticed. Did his heart sink therefore? Did he not endure with surprising fortitude the sorest of ills, sustain the most terrible assaults in battle unmoved, overthrowing, with incredible energy, every opponent, and at all times proving, that while no physical military qualification was wanting, the fount of honour was also full and fresh within him? The result of a hundred battles, and the united testimony of impartial writers of different nations, have given the first place amongst European infantry to the British."

Such was the description of those men—and could any one deny the truthfulness of that description — for whom he stood the humble advocate. And he trusted and believed that neither the House nor the country would or could neglect their petitions. No one knew—no one could say at what moment the safety of the country might depend upon these pensioners; they were the only force which you could call together in case of any sudden emergency, for of regular troops you had very few; you could lay your hands upon the Colonies, taking up so large a proportion, while the pensioners, consisting of 73,500, gave 25,000 available men fit to do good service, and 25,000 more fit for garrison duty. And this alone showed the advantage of acting generously and kindly; for if it had not been for these pensions, by some so much abused, where could you have such a force to call out in a moment, and available at once? That brilliant history from which he had before quoted ended with this touching sentence:—

"Thus the war terminated, and with it all remembrance of the veteran's services."

Were the House of Commons prepared to let such a sentence stand against them to all time? Were they prepared to have it go forth that they refused the petition of these men, whose military achievements had been the admiration of thc world? He felt that should the right hon. Secretary at War oppose this Resolution, he would be acting against his own generous nature, and the anxious desire he had always personally evinced to benefit the soldier. But he trusted the House would feel, whatever was the course taken by the Government, that the petitions ought to be granted. He felt he had done well in giving them an opportunity of doing these gallant men a justice, however tardy, a reward, however inefficient. He should end by calling upon them to—

"Pity the sorrows of each brave old man,

Whose shattered frame can carry arms no more,

Whose life is dwindled to the shortest span:

His prayer but grant, and Heaven will bless your store."

He, therefore, begged to move—

"That in the opinion of this House, the pensions paid to Non-Commissioned Officers and Privates of the Army should be paid without fee or deduction whatsoever."

seconded the Resolution, observing that he could not understand on what principle one class of pensioners, and they the poorer, should be subjected to a charge from which the wealthy were exempted.

lamented that this subject should have been broached in the absence of the Secretary at War, whose presence in another place was rendered just then imperative by the nature of his duties. He trusted that the gallant Officer would not on the present occasion press his Motion, but would, under all the circumstances of the case, be satisfied with the assurance which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no hesitation in giving him—that the matter was one which would most certainly engage the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government. There could be no doubt that the present system was a very anomalous one, and should be inquired into.

was satisfied with this assurance, and would withdraw his Motion. Motion withdrawn.

seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, begged leave to ask him what the intentions of the Government were with regard to proposing a substitute for the duties which were hitherto levied in pursuance of an annual Bill on Sugar? A distinct promise was given by the Government when it was proposed to make the Sugar Duties permanent, that some large amount of duty to be agreed to annually should be substituted; and he (Mr. Moffatt) wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now prepared to name the articles on which such annual duty was in future to be levied?

was not prepared to say what duties the Government would submit to the House for annual revision and imposition. It had been repeatedly stated, during the recent discussions, that it was exceedingly inconvenient that these annual discussions should take place on the Sugar Duties; and it was highly desirable, before any duty was fixed upon to be annually discussed, that the matter should be very carefully considered. There was hardly any one duty, for the reduction of which a Motion had not been made during the year; and it became an important question how in such a matter they could best consult the interests of the country. The Government would therefore take time to consider what these duties should be, and he would not, till next Session, state what their decision on the matter was. He thought the House would have so much confidence in the Government as to allow this matter to stand over till that time.

seeing an hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Berkeley) present who had given him notice by letter that it was his intention on a future day to call the attention of the House to the evidence which had been taken respecting the Game Laws and to the Report, and that he meant to make allusion to him (Mr. J. Collett) when he brought forward the subject, begged to say, that the Report on the Game Laws which he had received was a thick blue book—the Report of the Committee of 1845; he had not received the Report of the Committee of 1846, and no report had yet been made, nor had his conduct anything to do with the evidence on the game laws, or with the report. He was never before the Committee to give evidence. He wished, therefore, to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he intended to bring forward the subject; and, if so, whether he intended to allude to him (Mr. J. Collett), and at what hour; so that he might be present to answer the hon. Gentleman? Or, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman would bring forward the subject at once?

in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Athlone, begged to say that if he only told him what allusion he had made, he should be very thankful. He was not aware that he had made an allusion at all, except calling his attention to the fact that in alluding to the game law evidence he might by chance allude to him—that was all he had said.

begged, with the permission of the House, to read the letter he had received. [The hon. Gentleman read the letter.] He now begged to know if the hon. Gentleman wished to make any allusion to him.

had no hesitation in answering the hon. Gentleman, and in saying that he did most decidedly intend to call the attention of the House to the game laws. He also intended to allude to all such persons as had in his opinion brought those laws into contempt; and as he thought the hon. Member to have been peculiarly guilty on that head, he certainly did intend to allude to him.

Sir, being connected with the West India interest, my ancestors and myself having held possession of that description of property for upwards of a century, in fact ever since the first colonization of those islands, I take the liberty of stating a few facts that relate to that description of property. It is well known, and I believe painfully so to all West India proprietors, that the value of their estates has of late greatly deteriorated; to such an extent as in many cases to give no return whatever, and in others to cause an expenditure greater than the profit. When the twenty millions were granted by this House for the manumission of the slaves, it was certainly a generous boon; but in many cases that vast amount was very far from being a compensation, or in any manner an equivalent for the loss incurred. Under these circumstances, it appears to me that the West India proprietors are entitled to every indulgence. It was quite evident to all who gave their attention to West Indian affairs, that when the duty on corn was doomed by the Legislature, it would be impossible much longer to keep up the monopoly of sugar. In proposing an alteration in the Sugar Duties, the Government cannot be blamed; any Government whatever that ruled this country must have done the same, and I must admit that some of the provisions made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government are a great advantage to the West Indian proprietors. I allude chiefly to the admission into the Colonies of men of colour, and also to the proposed abolition by the local legislatures of the duty on various articles imported into the colonial islands. These benefits will materially improve the condition of the proprietors of the soil, and are well-judged concessions made by the Government: at the same time I cannot but express a wish that the system of free trade, which is the leading principle in the Sugar, as well as in the Corn Importation Bill, had been extended to the admission of colonial rum on the same scale of duty as home-spirits are charged with respectively in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The duty now on the importation of rum is 9s. 4d. per gallon; that of home-made spirit is in England, 7s. 10d. per gallon; Scotland, 3s. 8d.; Ireland, 2s. 8d. Since 1802 the consumption of home-made spirit has doubled; that of rum has decreased, In Scotland, it is only one-tenth of what it used to be; in Ireland, only one-fiftieth; surely, therefore, admitting the principle of free trade, as the rum on some estates is nearly equal to the value of sugar, is it fair to give free trade in sugar, and to deny it in the article of rum, which is nearly as essential to the well-being of our Colonies as the other? Just consider, Sir, the contradiction that keeping up the duty on rum makes. You state a broad and general principle, that of free trade, in colonial produce; you say all sugar after a time shall come in on an equality; and yet you keep rum out of the market, and say—no, you shall not sell your rum to the inhabitants of England, and particularly those of Scotland and Ireland, but at the enormous differential duty, with regard to Scotland, of 5s. 8d., and in Ireland of 6s. 8d. Surely you are not in this manner keeping up the principle of free trade! The Channel Islands last year were allowed by a Bill which I hold in my hand to import into Great Britain spirit extracted from sugar under certain regulations. If this was done to them, if this boon was given them, why should you withhold from the West Indian interest the same favour? You lay down a principle of free trade in corn and sugar; you allow all sugars to enter into competition with colonial sugar; in return, allow colonial spirit to enter into competition with British spirit. In putting the heavy duty on ruin imported into Scotland and Ireland, you encourage the illicit distillation at the expense of the West Indian proprietor, and injure the health of the population by giving them a spurious and fabricated liquor in place of the genuiue rum of the Colonies.

had, in the first place, to thank the hon. Gentleman for the terms of approbation in which he spoke of the measure of the Government with regard to sugar. He regretted the painful position in which many of those connected with the West Indies were placed; and no one was more anxious, consistent with his public duty, to do all in his power to afford them relief. With regard to the question immediately before the House, he denied that the principle of protection was involved in it. The difference in the customs duty on rum and the excise duty on British spirits, whether rightly or wrongly, he would not stop to examine, was imposed for the purpose of equalizing the fiscal burdens on these articles. The British distiller formerly said that unless the duty on rum was 2s. 11d. above that on British spirits, the latter article would not come into consump- tion on equal terms. That amount of difference had since been much reduced. He did not know what amount of difference the West Indians admitted should be allowed; but they acknowledged that there were some differences in the circumstances of the case, for which allowances should be made. There were fiscal charges to which the British distiller was exposed, which did fall upon the producer of rum. It was quite clear that the excise duty on malt threw an increased amount of taxation on spirits, whatever it might be. Again, the duty was paid on rum when it was taken out of the warehouse for the purpose of consumption; but the duty was paid on British spirits, so to speak, at the worm's mouth. There were other items of a similar nature into which he would not go on that occasion, but which entitled the British distiller to say that if some duty was not put on colonial rum beyond that paid on British spirits, these articles would not come into consumption on equal terms. That these articles should be admitted upon equal terms, was asked by the West Indians; and he admitted that it was a sound principle, and this was the reason which induced him at once to propose to reduce the difference of the existing duties one-third. He had been able to go so far without difficulty, and the British distiller did not oppose this reduction; and he was prepared to go farther, if it appeared on investigation that the justice of the case required it. He could not, however, go further in assent to the proposal of the hon. Member, without a much more lengthened inquiry than could be gone into at that time of the Session. As regarded the duties on Scotch and Irish spirits, the circumstances of the case were very different. Of late years the uniform practice had been to impose the same amount of customs duties in all parts of the United Kingdom. This was not likely to be departed from as a general rule, as it would open a door to smuggling which was now closed. The hon. Gentleman said that this measure of the Government was in contravention of the principle of an Act which passed last year, as to the importation of spirits from the Channel Islands; and he quoted this as a ground for doing the same thing with regard to the West Indian Colonies. If the Government proposed to put the introduction of colonial rum on the same footing as spirits from the Channel Islands, the hon. Gentleman would have little to thank them for. The duty on the spirit from the Channel Islands, which was imposed by the Bill alluded to, had operated as a prohibition, for since that Bill had passed, not a single gallon of spirits had come from the Channel Islands into the United Kingdom; therefore, putting them on the same footing would be most injurious to the West Indians. The trade which formerly ex-existed in spirits from these islands was a fraudulent trade, and now it was put an end to. It should be recollected that the excise duty must be levied on spirits in rather a peculiar manner from other duties. Every Gentleman in that House admitted that the article spirits was one of the fittest subjects for taxation; and as long as they could collect a full revenue, there was no amount of duty which should not be paid. This was the principle, and for no other principle the rate of duties in England, Scotland, and Ireland varied. What they had to look to was the amount, and the amount of duty which would not promote illicit distillation. The amount of duty might be carried so far as to operate as a high premium and a positive encouragement to illicit distillation. In England there might be some small amount of illicit distillation; but in proportion to the quantity of spirits consumed, he had reason to believe that it was not carried to any serious extent. The duty, therefore, of 7s. 10d. a gallon would be maintained without much illicit distillation. In Scotland, many attempts had been made to raise the amount of duty on spirits, but the result had invariably been, that the amount of spirits brought to charge had fallen off. This was abundant proof, not that a less quantity of spirits was made in that country, but that a much larger amount was obtained by illicit distillation. It was hardly worth while to detain the House by going into details; but he had returns before him showing the amount of spirits which had been brought to charge in Scotland, which, it appeared, varied inversely in the amount of duty. This was still more the case in Ireland. Whenever they had raised the amount of duty on spirits in Ireland, the revenue had materially diminished. When they again reduced the duty, the quantity brought to charge had doubled and trebled, and even more than that in both those countries. They were enabled, by observing this, to see what amount of duty was sufficient to put down illicit-distillation. He admitted that nothing was more anomalous than the different state of duties in different parts of the Empire. The peculiar circumstances of Scotland and Ireland, however, were too powerful for the Legislature as regarded illicit distillation. The spirit used in Scotland and Ireland was a raw spirit, while that made in England was a compound spirit. He believed that the different tastes, as regarded spirits, of the respective countries, alone could account for this. Although there was this difference of duties, there was not much smuggling except on the borders of Scotland; and there would be an increased inducement to smuggle if this distinction was made in the duty on rum in Scotland and England. For instance, if the same spirit paid a different duty on the opposite sides of the Solway Frith, and was sold 3s. 4d. a gallon cheaper on one side than the other, it would give rise to a a most extensive system of smuggling. Again, a large extent of the western coast of England would be open to the smuggling of rum from Ireland, if the duty on that article in the former country was 7s. 10d. a gallon, and in the latter 2s. 8d. It should be recollected this was not a spirit with respect to which a different taste existed between the two countries. He did not state this as in itself a sufficient reason for not going into the subject; but he wished to press upon the House, before such a measure was adopted, that it was wise that they should go into the whole question, and carefully consider the matter, so that they should preclude as much as possible smuggling. The people of England might reasonably say that it was hard upon them that they should pay so much more duty on the same spirit than the people of Scotland. It was a remarkable fact that there had been a material diminution in the consumption in rum both in Scotland and Ireland; and this did not arise from difference of the duty on that article at different times. He found from the returns before him, on going back so far as the commencement of the century, that the quantity of rum imported into Scotland in 1800 was 239,000 gallons, at a duty of 9s. a gallon, while the duty on Scotch spirits was 3s. 10d. a gallon. Thus the duties were nearly in the same relative proportion as now. In 1843, the quantity was 48,000, while in 1845, it was only 43,000. The consumption varied in different years; but it was utterly impossible to account for the reduction in the consumption of the article by any thing in the duties. During the war a very considerable quantity of rum was imported into Scotland; but he did not see why the consumption had fallen off so much. In like manner the importation of rum into Ireland had fallen off, and varied in the most unaccountable manner. He found the return of the importation of rum into Ireland to stand as follows:—

1801	1,059,000	1824	9,000
1804	180,000	1826	27,000
1809	1,063,000	1836	27,000
1811	150,000	1842	11,000
1113	460,000	1845	13,000
1814	90,000

During the whole of this time there was comparatively little change in the duty, at any rate it was not sufficient to account for diminution in the importation of the article. The question required the most attentive consideration, and, as he said the other night, he would promise that it should receive the most serious attention of Her Majesty's Government; but it was too late at this period of the Session to enter on it.

said, that the only objection which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to entertain on the subject was the fear of smuggling. Now, it could be easily shown that there was no ground for any such apprehension. The question was, whether rum was more likely to be smuggled from Scotland than Scotch spirits. On the south side of the Solway Frith, the duty on spirits was 7s. 10d. a gallon, on the north side 3s. 8d.; now rum would be placed on the same footing as the latter, and why should it be smuggled more than whiskey? He should have thought the common sense would have shown the right hon. Gentleman that there was nothing to fear on this account. Why should the people of Scotland be deprived of the power of drinking rum on the same footing, as regarded the duty, as whiskey, and so, also, with the people of Ireland?

trusted, if they accepted this proposition, that the reduction of the duty would be only regarded as an instalment of what was due to the West Indians. In 1826, when Lord Ripon was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the distinction of the duty between West Indian rum and British distilled spirits was fixed at 1s. 6d. During the last few days, he had had several documents under his consideration, which had been brought before him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1830. Among others was a memorial presented to him by the distillers, in which they represented the difficulties under which they were placed by the increased price of the raw material from which they distilled their spirits, namely, foreign grain. They argued, therefore, that in consequence of the higher price which they had to pay, they had a right to a differential duty. He at that time reviewed the whole subject, and after maturely considering it, he proposed to impose an additional duty of a shilling a gallon on English spirits, leaving the duty on rum the same as it was before. He satisfied himself then that he could put the additional shilling on the British article without subjecting it to an unfair competition with colonial spirits. The Session of 1830, however, terminated, and the Government of which he was a Member was removed, and consequently the arrangement which he proposed to have made with respect to the spirit duties was not carried into effect. It must be recollected, that at that time not only was foreign grain dearer than it was likely to be now, but that then the West Indies had plenty of labour; and he thought that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to consider the question in all its bearings, he would be satisfied that the West Indians were justified in regarding the present measure merely as an instalment. The only way to enable the West Indian planter to supply this country even with sugar would be to place him on a fair footing with respect to other articles. He sincerely believed, also, that the only mode by which we could hope to terminate the Slave Trade was, by diminishing the profits of those engaged in it; and no means were so certain as measures which would enable the colonists to supply not only the wants of this country, but to send a large proportion of their produce in foreign markets, there to compete with the slave-grown sugar of other nations.

expressed his conviction that the existing differential duties were grounded upon the now exploded system of protection, and that it was intended that colonial sugar should have a preference over foreign sugar, and British spirits over colonial spirits. That system, however, had been avowedly abandoned, and we must now follow out, to their full extent, the principles of free trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the fiscal difficulties which surrounded the subject of the spirit duties, and the danger of smuggling; but the reasons which he had urged might be very potential for introducing a change into the excise laws, but none at all for treating the colonists with injustice. The right hon. Gentleman must deal boldly with the question, for as long as the anomaly of the spirit duties continued, there was no prospect of a satisfactory adjustment of the matter.

observed, that the noble Lord the Member for the city of London had, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was addressing the House, used in an under tone the words "in justice to this country." Now he was quite ready to argue the question upon the principle of justice to this country. If the Polish corn-grower had greater facilities for raising corn, and was subject to fewer burdens than the English agriculturist, that, as the House had already determined, was not a sufficient reason why the corn of the foreigner should not compete upon equal terms with home-grown grain. Why, then, should the charges which the English distillers had to pay be taken into account? As to their "plant," as it was termed, no doubt that was expensive; but so were a farmer's farm buildings. He wished to say nothing of West Indian distresses or West Indian misfortunes. We must go on, and not look back. The causa causandi, if he might so express it, of these differential duties, was the influence of the landed interest. The differential duty on rum, as compared with the duty charged upon British spirit, was bad enough; but when it came to a duty of 3s. 8d. on Scotch spirits, and 2s. 8d. on Irish whiskey, while rum was charged 9s. 4d., the matter became too ridiculous for argument. He called upon the right hon. Gentleman to follow out the principles which had already been acted upon, and to do justice to all classes.

observed, that his hon. Friend seemed to attach great importance to what he had said, while his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking. When he used the words, "in justice to this country," all he meant to say was, that the Government ought to have a little time to consider the matter, in order to enable them to do justice to England while they did justice to the Colonies. Let it be supposed that his right hon. Friend was to admit rum into Scotland at a duty of 3s. 8d., and that it became quite easy in England to consume smuggled rum which had paid 3s. 8d. only in Scotland, while British spirits were charged with a duty of 7s. 10d. That would cause great complaints among the people of England. All he said was, that these questions required some time, and that the Government ought to take them into consideration. He did not wish to do injustice to anybody, and all he asked was, that they should have time to take everything into consideration, and to hear all parties. He must say, that his hon. Friend opposite had argued the question from the beginning with perfect fairness, and had not taken advantage of any undue prejudices on the subject.

inquired when the reduction was to take place?

As goon as the Resolution is reported.

He would offer no opposition to the Resolution.

said, he could assure the House that it was with sincere reluctance he moved the second reading of this Bill. That reluctance, however, was not created by any doubt on his mind that the course he took, in concurrence with the rest of Her Majesty's Government, was that which would be most in accordance with the interests of Ireland, and with their duty to the House. He retained the opinion he had originally formed when the measure was first introduced, that it contained many most objectionable clauses, and for his own part he never would have been a party to its introduction; but at the same time he trusted he should be able to demonstrate to the House that it was perfectly consistent with that opinion to recommend the Bill under the circumstances in which they were now placed. He did not ask the House to lend any formal sanction to the principle or to the details of the Bill, of which he would be the last man to approve; but he asked them to continue it in order to give the House and the Government the limited period for the consideration of their future policy on this important question, and an opportunity for that deliberate and serious attention which it so fully required. If any hon. Member was disposed to blame the course taken by Government on this occasion, he begged of him to reflect on the inconveniences of the alternatives which were open to them. He might be told the measure ought to be dropped altogether—that no regulations respecting the possession of arms ought to remain one single hour on the Statute-book. Now he would not express any opinion on the present occasion as to what ought to be the policy of Government on this question after due consideration and reflection; but he was prepared to maintain, in the face of the House and of the country, that a Government would desert its duty, and would act a part utterly unworthy of the dignity of the Crown and of the country, if they were to propose such a step under the present circumstances of Ireland. In recommending the present course, he did not mean to preclude the Government or himself from adopting that which they might hereafter think expedient; but he put it to any Member of that House if it would be conducive to the peace of Ireland, if Government would be acting as a friend to Ireland, were they, for the sake of catching popularity, and to save themselves trouble, at once to propose that all legislation should cease on the subject. He was not prepared to take such a course, which he would have felt to be unworthy of him. It was an alternative which he deliberately refused to adopt. The other course open to the Government would have been to attempt to amend the Bill. What would have been the effect of that? Why to have given their sanction to what they had amended? He was not prepared to take that course: the spirit in which he asked the House to approve of this Bill was not one of approval in principle or in details. He did not ask them to adopt this as a mere continuance Bill—far from it. Her Majesty's Government had adopted a most unusual course, but were, as he conceived, quite justified under the circumstances of the case. The Bill would only be in force till the 1st of May, when he gave them not only a pledge but security of the intention of Government to bring in a measure on this subject. All they asked for was time to enable them to consider the subject. It had been suggested to him that he should not have asked the House to pass this Bill, but should have introduced the former Arms Bill, which would have been more satisfactory; but he entirely disapproved of that course. Let the House but see in what a situation such a measure would have placed the people of Ireland; such constant changes were in themselves very harassing and perplexing. But besides that, he believed the evils resulting from the present course had already happened, and he saw no reason for adopting an altered scheme, which would, in his mind, have been infinitely more objectionable. It had been said that by the registration of arms those persons who had arms were pointed out to the evil-disposed; and the fact was that great robberies of arms had taken place in consequence, so that the lawless portion of the people, instead of being armed with old rusty guns, were now possessed of bright new firelocks. The mischief of the Bill had already been done, and no harm could be done by continuing it for only nine months. As to the branding clause, he disliked it extremely. It was justly objectionable, and he agreed with those who said it was affronting. But the thing was over now. The arms were all branded. Much depended on the spirit and manner in which the Act would be carried into effect by the Executive Government; and here he was bound to bear his testimony to the conduct of the last Government, and to say that the pledge which they gave that their powers should be carefully and temperately used, had been followed by them. He owed them that testimony; and as he said so, he might assure the House that if they were pleased to confide those powers to the present Lord Lieutenant, they might have every confidence that they would be carefully and cautiously exercised. He was most anxious to avoid causing any unnecessary annoyance; and although he was not prepared to defend the provisions of the Bill, he felt assured that the course he recommended was the only honest, true, and faithful part he could adopt towards the people of Ireland; and he trusted and believed it would be so received by them. He should be sincerely sorry if the necessity for proposing such a measure were to be taken as a specimen of the feeling and a sample of the legislation that the present Government would adopt towards Ireland; but he was most conscientiously persuaded that it would be impossible to take any other course. He ventured to hope the House would not refuse to trust Her Majesty's Government with the power they asked, not as a permanent measure, but to give them time for reflection and consideration.

had long listened in that House to arguments in support of Bills introduced to their notice, but had never in his life before heard such extraordinary arguments as those of the right hon. Gentleman. His surprise was the more increased when he considered the course which he had taken against that very Bill on its first introduction, when almost every hon. Member on that (the Ministerial) side of the House opposed it most perseveringly. With respect to any plans proposed to the right hon. Gentleman, he knew nothing of them; but his plan was a very simple one—namely, to let the Bill drop altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had told them he would assign reasons for proposing the measure; but the right hon. Gentleman had not given a shadow of reason. He had, indeed, admitted that the evils foretold of it had come to pass; but no proper reason for its continuance had been given by him. Why, the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department had twice admitted that the Bill had failed; and it was then incumbent on the present occupants of the Treasury bench to show what good results were expected to flow from its continuance. The right hon. Gentleman asked, would they not trust Her Majesty's present Ministers with the powers given by the Bill? He was not willing to intrust unconstitutional power to any man or set of men. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of his disapproval of the principle of the Bill, but at the same time admitted the necessity for its continuance, he wanted to know how and where that necessity was shown? What petitions from Ireland were there in its favour—what Member belonging to that country advocated its re-enactment? So far from agreeing with Ministers as to the necessity of its continuance, he thought they had come to a most unwise conclusion on the subject, and he would not be a party to the error they had committed. When the Bill had been first introduced, the allegations on which it was founded were that crime had so increased in Ireland that there were no other means left of preserving the public peace, and protecting the lives and properties of Her Majesty's subjects there. The truth of those allegations were by many doubted at the time; but what was the case at present? Why, no such allegations whatever were made, and yet the Bill was to be continued, and that too a Bill which was so objectionable in its provisions that the noble Lord who was now the First Lord of the Treasury had, when it had been first introduced, moved the omission of that clause, which was known as the branding clause. Right hon. Gentlemen, however, the moment they reached the Treasury benches seemed to forget all the wise maxims which governed them when in opposition. With respect to Ireland, trials of various systems had been made from time to time, all except the right one. Coercion had been used instead of conciliation, and the depriving of the people of that country of the rights and privileges enjoyed by Englishmen and Scotchmen, instead of extending those privileges to them. Now he would turn the tables altogether, and adopt a different system. On that very measure there had been no less than fifty-one divisions, and fifteen days had been lost which might have been better employed. Let them then drop the measure altogether. Let them adopt conciliation instead of coercion, and let them tell the Irish people that one of their first acts as a Government would be to put an end to a measure of so objectionable a nature. If the people of Ireland were treated on an equality with the people of England and Scotland, they would have a tenfold return of peace and good order from them—far greater than if they persisted in the old system. He could not understand how it was that the Members of the Government, individually and separately condemning the measure, at the same time collectively approved of it. He should move as an amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day month.

said, that when this Bill was originally proposed he was no advocate of it, but he did not think it deserved the character given it by the hon. Member. It was not a coercive or tyrannical Act in the sense imputed to it by the hon. Member, for scarcely any one could be refused to register arms under it. What he had predicted in 1843, when the great opposition was made to the new provisions then added to it was, that they would be found in the working of the measure troublesome, expensive, and inefficacious; and such had turned out to be the case. The Members of the present Government had at that time opposed the introduction of the present Bill, not because they objected to any Arms Bill; but their argument was that the then existing law might have been continued, and that the addition of the branding and registration clauses was objectionable. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had given fair reasons, showing why it was not worth while discontinuing those powers at present; because, in fact, their operation as regarded branding and registration was over. He did not think that the Secretary for Ireland ought to have altogether abandoned the Bill, and he thought it reasonable to allow Government time to consider the whole question. It might be very true that the new clauses of 1843 were vexatious and useless, but that was no reason for abolishing, without consideration, a law that had existed in Ireland for half a century for the regulation of the import and sale of arms and ammunition in that country.

confessed that he had never heard a speech which surprised and amazed him more than that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin. The Bill was, according to his representation, troublesome, vexatious, expensive—not only not productive of any good, but positively and hopelessly useless—and therefore the right hon. hon. Gentleman would support it. He believed it to be everything the right hon. Gentleman had represented it, and for that reason he would vote against it. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the measure, the Secretary for Ireland, would make it his study, as far as in him lay, to have it administered in a kindly spirit. He knew sufficient of that Member of the Cabinet to be perfectly well aware that no tyrannical measure could be consigned to his hands for administration, that he would not endeavour, as far as in him lay, to mitigate the horrors of it; but still it was a tyrannical and oppressive measure, and he could not understand on what principle the constitution of Ireland should for the next nine months be handed over to the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary. It was to him a matter of the most curious conjecture what wild infatuation could have induced the Government to take such a Bill under its protection. The Chief Secretary for Ireland himself admitted that it was a failure, and denounced every provision of it; and the right hon. Gentleman who sat by his side (Mr. Sheil), when in opposition had mercilessly denounced it with that all that fiery eloquence for which he was so remarkable, describing it as a measure into whose every clause tyranny was elaborated in every possible form. Was not that hon. Gentleman going to support it now, because, forsooth, he now sat on the other side of the House? He (Mr. Escott) gave the noble Lord at the head of the Government the fullest credit for the vote he recorded against the Coercion Bill introduced by the late Government; but was it to be credited for one instant that he was now going to perpetuate for nine months more a vile and a vicious system, having no other excuse for so doing than the absurd one, that as it had been so long persevered in, it might be continued a while longer? Why should the Irish people be treated thus ignominiously? Why should the constitution of Ireland be thus violated? No good reason had been attempted to be assigned for this measure, and no man could in the absence of all good reasons give his vote in favour of such a measure, and at the same time hope to maintain his character for honesty and independence. He called on all hon. Members who had any regard for their character to vote with him against this Bill.

was most willing to give his support to Her Majesty's Government so long as he could do so consistently with honour, and without violating his principles; but he felt that if he were to support them in the present instance, he would be degrading and disgracing himself. He deeply regretted that Ministers should have brought forward such a Bill, for public men were just now at a discount, and such conduct on the part of Ministers would not tend to raise them in estimation. If so odious a Bill as this were to be received without sufficient deference to the public feeling in this country and Ireland, people would think that there was indeed truth in the assertion that men changed their principles in that House as soon as they changed the benches on which they sat.

considered the Bill a violation of the Constitution, and particularly useless, and would vote against it accordingly. He would not say that there ought not to be some restrictions as to the importation of arms and the sale of gunpowder; but the practice of registering arms, especially under the circumstances of the branding clause, he could never approve of.

with every inclination to support the Government whenever he could do so with honour and consistency, could not vote with them on the present occasion. He had divided against the Bill before, and could not do otherwise than oppose it now.

thought that in this particular instance the Government had not acted with sufficient consideration of the sentiments of the public and the Irish Members. The effect upon the character of public men, which would result from the introduction of such a measure, would be most injurious; and most unaffectedly did he regret that Government had exposed themselves to such peril; for their Irish appointments were such as to induce the Irish people to repose confidence in them.

had been an active opponent of this measure when first introduced, and any amendments in it were of his introduction; but the question he had now to ask himself was this, what was best for the people of Ireland, and he must say that it appeared to him best for their interest not to tamper with patchwork legislation. In 1843 he was of opinion that there should be no legislation on this subject; but legislation having been introduced, they should now consider what was most advisable to be done under all the circumstances. Some hon. Members had advocated the renewal of the old Bill; but that would be most distressing on the people, for under that Bill no blacksmith could carry on his trade without registering his forge. If he did so, he subjected himself to a severe penalty. He was not, therefore, for renewing the old Bill, nor for introducing a new Bill to last merely till the 1st of May. He thought it would be a most mischievous arrangement to have the present form of arms legislation, then a new form to last for a few months only, and ultimately another and a totally new one, which was to supersede all the antecedent ones, for thus the people of Ireland would be exposed to the annoyance and infliction of three separate codes within the period of three or four months. Within the course of the last six or twelve months but very few registrations of arms had taken place in Ireland, so that it was natural to suppose that the greater number of fire-arms had already been registered in Ireland, and that there would be very little trouble or annoyance on that account between this and May. Under all the circumstances of the case, he could not but think that the least vexatious and in all respects the best course towards the Irish people was, to let the present Act remain for nine months longer on the Statute-book, on the express understanding that it was not to be a permanent enactment, but that at the end of that period the entire system with respect to arms should be revised and placed on a different footing.

said, it was with great regret that he felt himself called upon to give a vote upon this question in opposition to Government. They had been told, that the conduct of the late Government seemed to have been the result of gross infatuation; but he confessed he could not account for the course taken by the present Government on this question, except on the ground of positive infatuation. No one was more desirous than he that the Government should be powerful and permanent; but this could only be hoped for through possessing the confidence of the country—a confidence which he begged to say no party in the country could say they possessed. He had voted against the Coercion Bill of the late Ministry, in the full hope that it was the last Coercion Bill he would ever see, and because he thought the time had arrived for governing Ireland upon a new principle. In this he was disappointed; and therefore he would on the present occasion give the measure proposed by Ministers the most determined opposition.

did not at all view this matter in the light in which it had been represented by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, He did not regard this measure as a symptom of infatuation on the part of Government. Considering the disturbances that had so recently agitated Ireland, and the near commencement of winter, was any Gentleman prepared to say, distinctly and decidedly, that we ought to put no limit to the introduction of arms and gunpowder into Ireland? By the late Government there was no attempt to use the powers for limiting the importation of gunpowder, &c.; and this was the reason why the law had become in a great measure useless. An attempt had been made to argue the question on constitutional grounds; but that view of the question had been given up by the hon. Members for Louth and Rochdale, and indeed he could not see, considering all the circumstances, on what constitutional ground the question could be debated. He would most decidedly give his support to the Government by voting in favour of the Bill.

deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Ministers should have been so untrue to their professions when in opposition, to have introduced such a measure as this now that they were in office. What Irish Members had suggested that such a piece of legislation was necessary? Was it the right hon. Gentleman the Mem- for Dungarvon, or was it the right hon. the Recorder for Dublin. He (Mr. B. Osborne) denied that it was expedient to retain this Act on the Statute-book for one single hour longer. The present Government had come into power avowedly with the intention of making the same laws for England and for Ireland; and with these professions on their lips, how were they justified in advocating such a measure as the present—a measure, observe, which had not been bequeathed to them by their predecessors, but which, on the contrary, their predecessors decried and admitted to be a failure. He was willing to support the Government when he could do so honourably, but he would not repose that confidence in any Government that would induce him to support them when they proposed measures which were unconstitutional and destructive of liberty. Why were they to have enactments of this description? If the people of Ireland were so determined to commit outrages upon society, was it necessary that they should have powder and arms, when, if they were so disposed, they might make sledge hammers answer just as well? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel had made such a speech that if his constituents knew it, he (Mr. B. Osborne) believed, even if he were to take the Repeal pledge whole, they would not return him again their Member, and that speech too, after having opposed a similar Bill upon a previous occasion. But it was said they were to have confidence in the Government. He (Mr. B. Osborne) had confidence in the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland; but he had not equal confidence in those with whom that right hon. Gentleman was connected; and he had never given a vote with greater pleasure than that which he should give upon that occasion for reading the Bill a second time that day six months.

thought that there were other Members of that House, sitting on the Treasury benches, whom it behoved, as much as it did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel, to explain their vote, and none more so than the noble Lord who was considered, by some means or other, to be the Prime Minister of this country. This Bill was opposed, not only by the right hon. Gentleman, but by the noble Lord in 1843. On a former evening, not long ago, he had taken the liberty to ask the noble Lord on what principles he proposed to conduct his Government. That was considered a very impertinent question. He incurred the displeasure of the noble Lord for putting it, and the noble Lord talked of every thing, but did not answer the question. He had incurred the displeasure also of some friends of his, who were getting into snug berths, and who were now ready to support the noble Lord in the apostacy of which he was about to be guilty. But he thought the result showed that he was perfectly justified in putting that question. The noble Lord said he intended to conduct his Government on the principles which he had always advocated. But what were those principles? What were those principles with regard to this very measure? Why, he found that in 1843 the noble Lord, speaking upon this very Bill, said—

"But really if we are told that it is the intention of the Executive Government to propose such plans, and such plans alone—if we are told that this is a sample of the measures by which Ireland is to be governed, I think before long that this House should address the Crown, or take some mode or other of expressing their opinion as to the government of Ireland."

That was the principle on which the noble Lord had always acted, and he supposed that now, as a sort of tribute to the memory of his predecessors, he was going to pass another Coercion Bill. He wanted to know upon what principle they had turned out the late Government, unless it were upon the principle of non-coercion. Never was a Minister turned out so much against the will of the people of this country, or so much to the discredit of the party who had succeeded him. It was no such thing as the principle of non-coercion on which they turned out the late Government. Did they suppose that the country had forgotten what occurred in November and December last, when that non-coercion Government being offered the reins of Government on the principle of free trade, refused to accept them, pretending, for it was nothing but a pretence, that one noble Lord could not agree with another noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, while those noble Lords were now united in the same Cabinet; and did they suppose that the people of this country would be bamboozled by such idle pretences as that? The right hon. Baronet whom they had turned out, had incurred obloquy and separation from his friends, and the loss of all that had been most dear to him, for the purpose of conferring upon this country a great commercial benefit. They had thrown out the right hon. Baronet on account of his Coercion Bill; and yet their first act was themselves to propose a Coercion Bill for Ireland. He could not understand such conduct. It was something worse than infatuation, as an hon. Gentleman had described it; for they might have allowed the Bill to die a natural death, and no one would have known it. As far, however, as an individual vote of an individual Member was concerned, he would say, let those who occupied the petty places of the Government falsify their principles, let them be dragged through the mire as they would be dragged, yet he would not have it said, Saxon as he was, that a Saxon Parliament had again renewed the Coercion Bill; and he would do his best, though he might stand alone in that House from the beginning to the end, to defeat that Bill, which all those Gentlemen who now sat upon the Treasury benches had opposed, and strenuously opposed, when they were sitting upon the other side of the House.

should oppose the Bill; but he must say that it gave him the greatest concern to be obliged to oppose the Government upon this question. He was firmly persuaded, that pass what Bills they might, they could pass no Bill which would be so effectual to preserve the peace of Ireland as the power already in the hands of Government would be.

was not afraid of the charge of apostacy—a hard word used by the hon. Member for Finsbury—being laid to him, for it had been his lot to propose several Arms Bill, and never to oppose one. He believed every year that he had had the honour to fill the situation of Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, it had been his duty to bring forward Arms Bills, not varying very greatly in their provisions from the Bill now before the House, though, certainly, on these Bills in question, in their progress through the House, more stringent and coercive provisions had been engrafted. He would not follow the hon. Gentleman through his attacks on Government. He was sorry the hon. Member had thought it necessary to condemn the vote which he had given against the Coercion Bill; but he did not think it was necessary to justify a vote which he had given in common with the hon. Member itself. He had voted for the first reading of the Coercion Bill, and he felt he could not take upon himself to vote against the second reading, so as to give ground for the notion that he was prepared to dispense with the existing law which regulated and protected life and property in Ireland. And when he did give his vote against the second reading, it was not with the idea of dispensing with such protection. He would not make any vague professions, being well aware that such professions and practice were often at variance. He would, however, make no disguise of this circumstance—that he was not prepared to approve of all the provisions of the present Arms Bill. The question, however, was this, was he prepared to admit that Ireland could now do without legislative enactments restricting the sale of gunpowder and the possession of arms by the Irish people? Government had found that legislation was in progress on this subject, as an Arms Bill had been brought in by the late Government. The present Government did not attempt to deny the existence of great objection to this species of legislation; they believed it was right to reconsider the subject, to ascertain if it were not possible to introduce a better and a less objectionable system. He was not prepared to recommend dispensing with legislation on the subject altogether until next Session; and the question to decide was, whether, having a Bill before the House now, they should ask that Bill to be supported until Government could reconsider the question next Session; or whether they should introduce another piece of legislation at this late period of the Session? The question itself had been treated with great exaggeration; and he was satisfied if this Bill were passed, that neither the people of England nor the people of Ireland would think the Government were seeking to embody in Acts of Parliament principles in which they did not agree, and which, heretofore, they had opposed. It was true Government had brought forward the present Arms Bill, but it was with the intention of bringing forward another measure the next Session. Government were of opinion it was their duty, considering the power intrusted to them, under all circumstances to continue the Act, at the same time expressing their intention of entering on the consideration of the subject at the earliest opportunity in the next Session. He hoped hon. Members would not think that Government considered this piece of legislation as a model for future Acts. Government were only asking the House to continue the Bill until the opening of next Session, pledging themselves to give the whole subject a careful consi- deration during the interval, and to bring forward some measure of a more confiding and conciliatory character as soon as the recess permitted.

was not called upon to apologize for the vote he was about to give in support of Her Majesty's Government. He had not opposed legislation on the part of the late Government for the better security of life and property in Ireland; and he did not now intend to oppose legislation for a similar object, because brought forward by the present Ministry. He considered the propositions of the noble Lord on the part of the Government were but reasonable and fair, and they should have his support. Those who had supported the Coercion Bill of the late Government, and who believed that the state of Ireland required the introduction of restrictive measures, were bound in honour and honesty to give their votes in favour of the present Bill.

I rise, Sir, after the many attacks which have been made on the Government for the proposition to continue this Bill, to speak, first, as to the point of consistency on which hon. Gentlemen have dwelt so much; and next, as to the nature of the proposal which we have now made to the House. The hon. Member for Finsbury holds it to be totally inconsistent in me to vote for the continuance of any Bill of some of the clauses of which I disapprove. Now, Sir, the question which I had to consider was, whether I should propose a continuance of this Bill, moving the omission of those clauses of which I disapproved; or, whether I should propose to drop the Bill altogether? Now, if I had proposed to drop the Bill altogether—which is the opinion of the hon. Member for Montrose, and I dare say of the hon. Member for Finsbury also—I should have been acting a more inconsistent part by far than any which he has imputed to me; because when this Bill was proposed in 1843, I said I could not vote with those who proposed that there should be a Select Committee, or in support of Resolutions or Motions the effect of which would have been the rejection of that Bill. My course was to state that the Bill consisted of two parts—one was to prevent improper persons having arms, the other to prevent the introduction of gunpowder and ammunition into Ireland; and after that statement I went on to say that I found the noble Lord had truly stated that precautionary measures on this sub- ject, certainly varying in their stringency, had been continued from time to time, for a period of fifty years. Now, during ten or eleven years of that period of fifty years, I myself had held office, and I had constantly voted for Bills containing restrictions of this description. I went on to say—

"With regard to the first object in 1838, I being then in connection with the Government (being, in fact, Home Secretary), inquiries were made as to whether the power could not be safely abandoned, and whether for all useful purposes a mere registration of arms would not be sufficient. The result of those inquiries was to convince the Government of Ireland, and to convince me likewise, that the effect of such a measure would most probably be to increase outrage, to increase faction fights, and to throw difficulties in the way of the police, who were seeking either to repress offenders or to bring offenders to punishment. With regard to the state of Ireland in 1838, and at the present time, I see no reason why we should now refuse that power which we thought necessary in 1838. With respect to the other power, it certainly could have been better parted with in 1838 than in 1841."

So that with regard to those two main objects of the Bill, I gave my support to the Bill in 1843, and voted for going into Committee. If I were to say now that I had reconsidered the subject, and that I thought no Bill was now necessary, though I might get many hon. Members to agree with me in this step, yet it would be impossible to say that I was consistent, as this proceeding would be quite inconsistent with my previous declarations. It would be quite inconsistent too with my former course. For ten years I supported Bills of this description when in office, and in 1843 I voted for a similar Bill. Then I voted for going into Committee. There were many clauses in the Bill which I thought objectionable. I thought the branding clause was especially so; and though there was no great tyranny in it, I thought that it was a vexation which ought not to be introduced into an Act of Parliament; and I moved the omission of that clause. I moved some other Amendments, in which I did not succeed; yet I did not support a Motion on the Report, the effect of which would have been to reject the Bill; nor did I vote against the third reading, or make any further opposition to it in consequence of the introduction of those clauses. If that be the case, is it not competent for me to consider which of the two is the greater evil—to continue a Bill, some of the clauses of which I think highly objectionable, or to part altogether with the power of putting any restriction on the possession of arms in Ireland? With respect to those clauses, I still entertain the opinion which I have before expressed. Perhaps those who proposed them may have changed their opinions, and may not think them efficacious now. I think them vexatious; but I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder for Dublin, that a good deal of the vexation is over now—with respect, for example, to the registry of arms—with respect to the sessions to be held specially for that purpose—that is all over. The greater part of the arms have been branded, and any vexation that is likely to take place on that account, between this time and May next, must be very trifling in amount. But with respect to this subject, I would observe, that we are now on the second reading of this Bill. If Gentlemen think with regard to any of those clauses, that they ought to be expunged from the Bill, it will be in the power of the House to accede to their wishes, and to make those Amendments in Committee, leaving out those clauses which they think will operate vexatiously and injuriously. But that is not the question to-night. The question is, whether the House will agree with the hon. Member for Montrose, that this power ought to be altogether taken away, and that all persons whatever in Ireland should be at perfect liberty to have any arms they please, to introduce any quantity of gunpowder they please into the country, and to sell that gunpowder and those arms in the interior, on the coast, and in all parts of the country. I say that in the short time I have had to consider the subject, I am not prepared to say that there should be so total a change in the legislation of Ireland. I do not say that the law ought to be maintained merely because it has existed for fifty years; but I say, as I said in 1843, that the tendency of throwing out this measure would be to increase outrage, to increase faction fights, and to throw difficulties in the way of the police, who are seeking to repress offences, or to bring the offenders to punishment. In our recent discussions on the Bill for the protection of life in Ireland, very few of those who opposed it, doubted that there had been many murders, or that the crime of deliberate assassination, as pointed out in the Queen's Speech, had not been of frequent occurrence. They did not take that line; but they said that the Bill was not calculated to check those offences. But if you see that these offences have been rife so lately as December and January last, and that they may be rife in December and January next—if you give an entire license to the people to have what they choose, then I do say my belief is that you will be giving encouragement to outrage, and that there will be more offences against life, than if you allowed this Bill to continue. If that be my opinion, I cannot shrink from the duty of proposing a second reading of this Bill. I cannot shrink from the duty of asking this House, however unpopular the measure may be, still to continue some restriction on the possession of arms in Ireland. The declaration in the preamble of all these Bills is, that they are to prevent improper persons having arms. Now I wish the House to observe, whatever ridicule may have been thrown on the argument of the right hon. the Recorder of Dublin, that it is a different thing to continue a law in England, by which all may have arms, and to abrogate a law in Ireland, by which restrictions are placed on the possession of arms. I have no doubt that the throwing out of this Bill would encourage many of those malefactors in Ireland, who go about deliberately offering their assistance to commit murder for money. [Mr. DUNCOMBE: Hear.] Does the hon. Member mean to say there are no such persons? [Mr. DUNCOMBE: NO; I say that on that principle this Bill is permanent.] But I will not admit that. I say, that taking away this power altogether, and at once, will have that injurious effect. I do not believe when we come to this question next Session, that we shall be able to part at once with the whole of this measure. I should be very glad if we could come to that conclusion; but my impression is, that you should take away all the more vexatious parts of this measure, and that you should rather get rid of this legislation gradually, than give it up all at once. If you reject this Bill now, every body will know that it has been done without deliberation and without forethought, merely because it was an unpopular Bill. On the principle on which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) advised us to act, I am not prepared to proceed. I am not prepared to say that to avoid any unpopularity that may fall on the Government, still less for the sake of avoiding the loss of power which might happen to the Government, could I refrain from asking the House to confer powers which I think ought to be conferred on the Executive. It is our bounden duty, so long as we are in the Executive, to ask for powers which we think will maintain peace and tranquillity in Ireland. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Escott) himself cheers that sentiment, and at one time he was not of opinion that this Arms Bill was unnecessary, for I had the happiness of voting with him in the same division on a former occasion. But be that as it may, I repeat that it is not for the sake either of maintaining office or of retaining popularity, that I would refrain from asking for those powers which I conceive to be necessary, and which are contained in this Bill. At this late period of the Session, and with the thin attendance of hon. Members, I think it is most advisable to reserve the measure as a permanent one, or one to be wholly abolished, for full consideration when there can be a more ample attendance. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. B. Osborne) said, he believed the present Government had the confidence of the people of Ireland, and that their accession to office had given a feeling of security in Ireland. If that is the case, are we not entitled to some consideration when we risk the good opinion of the people of Ireland by bringing forward a Bill which cannot add to our popularity, and which some say will take it entirely away? For my part, I am willing to incur the risk. I hold that whoever was in the Government would be bound to incur the risk. The former Government thought the Bill which they brought forward for the protection of life necessary for the protection of life, and they did well, in my opinion, in pressing it forward. The hon. Member for Finsbury, I suppose, thinks he gives some annoyance to the Government when he passes such panegyrics upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, late at the head of the Government. I assure him he gives no annoyance to me, because I agree in what he says, that the right hon. Baronet did make great sacrifices when he brought forward his measure for the alteration and repeal of the Corn Laws. I think praise must ever attend him upon account of the sacrifice he then made, and for the course he then took. It cannot, therefore, be at all irksome to me if the hon. Gentleman bestows his praises upon the right hon. Baronet. The hon. Gentleman is always careful to say how very deserving the late Government were, and how much he admires their conduct. It is a great pity, if he admired that Government so very much, he did not do more to preserve them in office. If the hon. Member had thought how much he should lament their fall, he might have given them his continual support. However, the matter now before the House is, whether you will give a second reading to this Bill. As I have said, I am ready to listen to anything that can be said, when we go into Committee, as to whether it should be a simple continuance Bill, or whether some of the clauses should be altered. [Mr. ESCOTT: They cannot be altered.] The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Bill provides that the Act shall continue in force a certain time, and it is possible to alter some of the clauses. But this I must say, I am not prepared at the end of the Session to consent to part altogether with the restrictions which this Bill places upon the sale and disposal of arms in Ireland. I shall be glad when the time comes for altering the Bill to consider any suggestions that may be made, but at present I am not prepared to do so, and I must press the second reading.

asked the noble Lord whether he would consent to strike out of the Bill those clauses which he voted against when he sat on the other side of the House? He had no wish to embarrass the Government; but he thought it desirable to know if they would reject those odious clauses against which they had voted and divided the House fifty-one times.

had come down to the House prepared to support the Government in voting for a renewal of this measure; but after the extraordinary reasons he had heard given by them within the last hour for supporting it, he really felt bound to come to the conclusion of not being a party to its passing. They had declared that they thought it a bad measure, but that as there was no time to improve it this Session, they must content themselves with proposing its renewal till next Session. Why, they had not hesitated, late as the Session was, to propose a Sugar Duties Bill; and if they were justified in doing that, he thought they ought also to have made the present measure perfect before asking the concurrence of the House to it.

said, that from the part he had taken on a former occasion, he did not apprehend that the course he was about to take on the present occasion could be matter of doubt. The question was one too important to be decided by reference to the consistency of any Government. The question was, whether the withdrawal of this Bill would be consistent with the tranquillity of Ireland? Considering the extent to which crime prevailed in Ireland, the late Government had satisfied their conscience by proposing a measure with a view to its repression; and although the House had come to an opinion that that was a measure beyond the necessities of the case, and had refused to confide in the Government of which he was a Member, he was not yet prepared to say that the state of Ireland was such as not to require the continuance of laws which had hitherto been found in a certain degree effectual for the repression of crime. The fact was, that upon the present occasion—whatever objections he might individually feel to some parts of the Bill—however he might feel that it had not been so effective for the repression of crime as he had at first anticipated—it would be the highest rashness and imprudence, with the Government announcing that they were distinctly of opinion that it was necessary for the preservation of the peace of Ireland, and for diminishing the evils which existed there—having himself been sensible of the extent to which crime prevailed in Ireland—it would not be consistent with his sense of public duty if, in those circumstances, he forebore to give his support to the measure before the House.

had been asked a question by his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) to which he was anxious to give an answer. Undoubtedly the Government were of opinion that the best course for the House to adopt now was, without entering into the particular clauses of the Bill, to continue the existing Act. When he was asked whether he would agree to alter certain clauses, that would be to go through all the details; but if the noble Lord meant two or three of the most objectionable, to any such proposition he would give a ready hearing and consent to proper Amendments.

wished to know distinctly whether the noble Lord would consent to the omission of the objectionable clauses of the Bill? Several hon. Members had understood the noble Lord to say, that he would consent to their omission, and he had got several votes in consequence. If the noble Lord would get up and say that he would omit those clauses, he should receive no further trouble from him with regard to this Bill. The clauses against which the noble Lord formerly made a strong speech were those which related to the branding and registering of arms. If Government were not prepared to legislate for Ireland in the same spirit and on the same principles in which they legislated for the United Kingdom, the sooner they went out of office the better. The division which they had just had would strike the people of this country with astonishment. If Government would dissolve Parliament on this Arms Bill, they would soon see what the people thought of them. He was at a loss to know how the hon. and learned Member for Dungar- von (Mr. Sheil) could reconcile the vote which he had just given with the speech he made on the subject two years and a half ago, in which he said that it was "tyranny elaborated into every form that coercion could conceive." Was the noble Lord the Member for Totnes (Lord Seymour) satisfied with the answer of the noble Lord at the head of the Government? If the noble Lord intended to omit these clauses, let him say so at once. The noble Lord had not yet said so. The noble Lord's answer was equivocal—he said that he would take the matter into consideration. But they all knew what a Minister meant when he said that he would take the matter into his consideration. It meant that he would do so and so if he had a majority at his back.

said, the hon. Member for Finsbury asked—whether he would consent to leave out "these clauses." It was difficult to give a straightforward answer to such a question. What did the hon. Gentleman mean by "these clauses?" He had, however, no hesitation in saying, that there were certain clauses in the Bill to which he had strongly objected, and that he had no objection to their being omitted. As the original Bill was to be reprinted, he must take some days to consider the matter.

remarked that it was hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not those on that side of the House, who had carried the second reading. It would have been better if Government had allowed the Act to expire, and if they had commenced their government of Ireland with conciliation instead of coercion.

admitted that when he moved the second reading, he stated that he thought the wisest course the House could take was, not at that period of the Session to go through the whole of the clauses, but to trust to the opinion avowed by the Government, that the present was an imperfect measure, and that it would be taken up and fully considered next Session. After having heard the discussion that followed, he still retained that opinion. At the same time, as several Irish Members were desirous, not that the Government should review the whole Bill for the purpose of altering it so that it might be altogether approved of, but that some of the more prominent and objectionable parts should be struck out, he was quite ready to admit that he agreed with his noble Friend at the head of the Government in his disposition to defer to that wish, and that he should be most ready to undertake the task imposed upon him. He would consider what were the most objectionable parts of the Bill, which he thought would be found to be those clauses which related to the branding of arms and domiciliary visits. But that he should do on the distinct understanding that he did not support the rest of the Bill as a proper measure. He should reserve his opinion upon that point until next Session, when he hoped to have an opportunity of introducing a measure on the subject.

said, he had heard no reason assigned why the Irish constabulary should be placed upon a different footing from the police of this country. The expense of that force was upwards of 400,000l., and he was at loss to know why this country should be obliged to bear that expense. Besides, he did not know where the amount was to come from, unless some new tax was to be imposed.

also objected to the vote. He denied that the Irish counties generally would be benefited by the boon. The entire benefit would, in fact, go into the pockets of the landed proprietors, who would be sure to raise the rent to the full amount of the reduction. Besides, the charge for the police was a kind of fine on the disturbed districts, which he thought it would be imprudent to remove. He would certainly take the sense of the House on the vote. He did not know on what ground it was defended, except that the right hon. Gentleman the late Premier made some such assurance on introducing the Corn Bill.

said his hon. Friend attributed this measure to a hint thrown out by the late Government; but so far from its being a hint, he did not think he ever heard a more distinct promise than that this relief should be given to the Irish counties. The hon. Gentleman also said that it would be no relief to the counties generally; but so far from that being the case, the county cess, of which this formed an important item, was felt to be one of the greatest burdens which the people had to pay; and he believed the present measure would be gratefully and thankfully received. He hoped the House would not refuse its sanction to a plan which had originated with the late Government, and which had been taken up by Her Majesty's present Ministers.

said, as he understood there were other sums to be asked for, he would not press for a division until the Bill came before the House, but he would then certainly offer every opposition in his power to its progress.

presented and moved the First Reading of a Bill to prevent Sunday Trading.

moved that the Bill be read a first time that day three months.

said, that all he wanted was to have the Bill read a first time and printed, and if the second reading were strongly opposed, he would not of course press it.

hoped that as the Bill was an important one, time would be given for further consideration.