§ The house then went into a Committee on the above bill.
§ Mr. Parnellobjected to the nature of the punishment inflicted by the bill upon such persons as were concerned in unlicensed stills. For the first offence, corporal punishment was inflicted; for the second, transportation. He did not approve of such severity, especially as the system now acted on was so defective as to give encouragement to the offence. He would therefore move, That the clause inflicting such punishment should be omitted.
Mr. Bernarddisapproved of the entire system of laws that regulated the distilleries in Ireland. He was strengthened in his opinion, not only by the Irish commissioners of inquiry, but by a trial of the 862 present system for many years. He contended, that at no period were the illitit distilleries carried on to a greater extent than the last two years, which must alone be attributed to the present regulations. Though the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster) would not at present agree to a change in the system, he was happy to hear him say even so much as that next session he would meet an inquiry on the subject. He (Mr. Bernard) pledged himself to bring it forward at an early period, and hoped to convince the house that a change of the system would be of considerable advantage to both countries, by encouraging agriculture, and increasing the revenue.
§ Mr. H. Martinsaid, that he had never yet heard of corporal punishment being inflicted for a fiscal offence; such a punishment, in such a case, was unknown to the constitution. Besides, the nature of the corporal punishment was not ascertained; whether it was to be flogging or hanging they did not know. Great care, he admitted, should be taken of the revenue; but not by subverting the principles of the British constitution.