§ Sir A. Wellesleyproposed an amendment, that, instead of the penalty of 100l. on magistrates for not sending notice within three days to the quarter sessions, of the persons 925 deputed by them to receive arms, the penalty should be but 20l. The reason of this proposed alteration was, that it had been yesterday stated that 100l. would be much too large a penalty, as many of the magistrates in Ireland were not worth 100l. per annum.
§ Sir J. Newportsaid, that he lamented to hear that the magistracy in Ireland was in such a degraded situation, that 100l. should be reckoned too severe a penalty, for a wilful neglect of duty. He, for his part, thought the penalty was not too severe, and that it would be necessary, in order to oblige them to do their duty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconsidered, that the larger penalty would, instead of producing any good effect, only tend to alarm the magistrates, and prevent men from undertaking the duties of that situation.
§ Sir J. Newportthought it was a most serious consideration, to think what chance of justice the people of Ireland had from magistrates that were not worth 100l. a year; and still more, what security they would have for the good conduct of those persons which such magistrate should please to depute.
§ Colonel Verekerconsidered that the penalty would be a severe hardship upon the magistrates, and that it might be incurred without any wilful neglect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that it would be better to take away the penalty altogether. The magistrates would still be liable to be proceeded against criminally for any neglect of duty; and if any individual should suffer injury from such neglect, that person might have his action for damages.—After some farther conversation, it was agreed that the penalty should be taken away altogether.
§ Sir J. Newportthen proposed a clause, that when arms should be surrendered in consequence of a district being proclaimed, the owners of those arms should receive them back again when the district was restored to the king's peace, or else they might sue the district for the value of them. He stated that there were innumerable instances of persons entitled to bear arms, who had registered them, and had yet been obliged to surrender those arms when the district was proclaimed, and could never get them back again. This was often a loss of considerable importance. Among other gentlemen who had so lost their arms, his right hon. friend (Mr. Grattan) was one. From his house there were taken pistols, 926 and other arms, silver-mounted, and of considerable value, and they were never restored to him. If those seizures were made by magistrates themselves, there would be persons responsible for them: but when those seizures were made by any body who might be appointed by magistrates, such as had been described, persons from whom arms were taken had nobody to look to for restitution. He considered that all the arms so surrendered should be deposited in certain places in the county, and restored when the troubles were over.
Mr. Fosterconsidered that it would be unsafe to convey those arms through a disturbed country, to such appointed places for keeping them, and did not know how actions could be brought against a district.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ,although he had not disapproved at first of the principle of the clause, yet after what he had heard from his right hon. friend, he conceived it his duty to oppose it.—The clause was then negatived.
§ Sir J. Newportthen proposed, as an amendment, that instead of two years being mentioned as the duration of it, it should be one year.
§ The Speakerobserved, that the motion was not regular in that stage of the bill, as it would be an amendment upon an amendment.
§ Sir J. Newportthen said, that he should propose it on the third reading of the bill, and he considered it of such importance, that unless some such amendment were agreed to, he might perhaps think it necessary to take the sense of the house upon the bill itself. As the bill had now been much altered by the various amendments, he moved that it should be printed in its amended form.
§ Sir A. Wellesleyhad no objection to the printing the amended bill, in order to give the fullest information to the members, but he would not pledge himself to postpone the third reading later than Monday, even if the bill should not be then printed.—The bill was ordered to be printed.