ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 27 July 1843 vol 70 cc1359-72

The report of the Arms (Ireland) Bill was reconsidered.

On the question that the amendments be read a second time.

Mr. S. Crawford

rose to move, instead of the motion, the amendment of which he had given notice, and which he read as follows:— That the unrestricted power of having, carrying, and using arms, for all legal purposes, is a right enjoyed by Englishmen and Scotchmen, and is one of the essential safeguards of freedom. That to limit or withhold this privilege, as regards Irishmen, creates an unjust, impolitic, and insulting distinction, and is a violation of that equality of rights which can be the only safe and just basis of imperial legislation, That, therefore it is the duty of this House to reject any measure which would impose or continue such restriction. Such a measure as this had never been passed by the Irish Parliament, nor had any good ground for it been laid in the Imperial Legislature. The measure ought to be limited to those parts of Ireland which were in a disturbed state, and not applied to the whole country indiscriminately. In the charge lately made to the grand jury of the county of Down, the learned judge who presided congratulated them on the absence of any serious crime. It was dangerous to the people of England that such bills should pass, as the principles upon which they were founded might on some future day be applied to them also. if this bill were acted on, he himself, notwithstanding his desire for the continuance of the legislative union, did not see how he could abstain from advocating a separate legislature. Be the consequences what they might, he would not be a party to a charter of slavery against his country. A union maintained by such means ought not to be, and could not be continued.

Lord Eliot

thought the observations with which the hon. Gentleman had prefaced his amendment, would have been more applicable upon the second reading of the bill. The House on the second reading had affirmed the principle that some restriction should be put upon the use of firearms in Ireland, and during the progress of the bill whilst in committee alterations had been made which had confined its operation to firearms. There were other clauses still to be brought up which would modify the bill still further, so as perhaps to meet the objections of some of the hon. Members opposite. By one of those clauses, it was enacted that if the time allowed for registration should not be found sufficient, the justices of the peace should be empowered to extend it. By another, all persons at present on the registry would have a primâ facie right to be re-registered, and thus their attendance would not be required.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. Ayes 99; Noes 44; —Majority 55.

List of the AYES.
A'Court, Capt.	Hope, hon. C.
Acton, Col.	Hope, G. W.
Allix, J. P.	Hughes, W. B.
Arkwright, G.	Hussey, T.
Baillie, H. J.	Irving, J.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Johnstone, H.
Barrington, Visct.	Jones, Capt.
Beckett, W.	Kemble, H.
Bernard, Viscount	Knatchbull, rt.hn.Sir E
Borthwick, P.	Knight, H. G.
Boyd, J.	Labouchere, rt. hn.H.
Bramston, T. W.	Lyall, G.
Broadwood, H.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Bunbury, T.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Masterman, J.
Cardwell, E.	Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Chute, W. L. W.	Meynell, Capt.
Clerk, Sir G.	Milnes, R. M.
Clive, Visct.	Morgan, O.
Damer, hon. Col.	Mundy, E. M.
Darby, G.	Neville, R.
Denison, E. B.	Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Disraeli, B.	Northland, Visct.
Dodd, G.	O'Brien, A. S.
Douglas, Sir H.	Pakington, J. S.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
East, J. B.	Polhill, F.
Ebrington, Visct.	Pollock, Sir F.
Eliot, Lord	Pringle, A.
Escott, B.	Richards, R.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	Round, J.
Filmer, Sir E.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Russell, Lord J.
Flower, Sir J.	Russell, J. D. W.
Follett, Sir W. W.	Scott, hon. F.
Forman, T. S.	Shaw, rt. hit. F.
Fuller, A: E.	Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Gladstone, Capt.	Smith, rt. hn. T.B.C.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Smythe, hon. G.
Gore, W. O.	Somerset, Lord G.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H	Stanley, Loud
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Stewart, J.
Greene, T.	Stuart, W. V.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Hale, R. B.	Tennent, J. E.
Hamilton, G. A.	Thornhill, G.
Hardinge, rt.hn. Sir H.	Vesey, hon. T.
Hardy, J.	Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Hayes, Sir E.	TELLERS.
Henley, J. W.	Fremantle, Sir T,
Hodgson, R	Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Aldam, W.	Fielden, J.
Barnard, E. G.	Ferguson, Col.
Barron, Sir H. W.	Forster, M.
Bowring, Dr.	Hall, Sir B.
Brotherton, J.	Hindley, C.
Clements, Visct.	Hume, J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Langton, W. G.
Collett, J.	Leader, J. T.
Duncan, G.	Mitcalfe, H.
Duncombe, T.	Mitchell, T. A;
Dundas, A.	Muntz, G. F.
Ewart, W.	Napier, Sir C.

O'Brien, W. S.	Trelawny, J. S.
O'Connell, M. J.	Wakley, T.
O'Conor, Don	Wall, C. B.
Plumridge, Capt.	Ward, H. G.
Power, J.	Wawn, J. T.
Protheroe, E.	Wood, B.
Roche, E. B.	Wyse, T.
Ross, D. R.	Yorke, H. R.
Scholefield, J.
Strutt, E.	TELLERS.
Tancred, H. W.	Crawford, S.
Thornely, T.	Blewitt, R. J.

Amendments agreed to.

Lord J. Russell,

in proposing the clauses of which he had given notice, said the House had already disposed of the question whether or not it would continue the act now in force in preference to proceeding with the present measure. In his opinion, the continuance of the present act would have been the wisest course, but the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland rejected that proposition without five minutes' consideration. He was about to propose a very considerable alteration in the most odious and offensive clause in the bill. He alluded to that clause, as one of those coming under the above designation, which enabled a magistrate or a constable under the warrant of a magistrate to open forcibly and to enter in search of arms the House of any person at any hour, whether by day or by night. There was nothing which in the eyes of Englishmen was held so sacred as immunity from all forcible entrance into their dwellings. The Englishman's boast was, that his House was his castle, and proverbial phrases such as these showed what deep interest was attached in this country to the sanctity of a private dwelling-house. With respect to the branding clause, many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and representing different counties in Ireland had expressed their opinion that the rich and the poor should be treated equally. The course which they pursued in this instance did them the highest honour. The clause to which he drew attention, however, was not likely to be enforced as against the rich. As the bill stood at present, it enabled any constable, at any hour of the night, to break into a man's house if refused admission. It warranted them to enter the bed-rooms of men's wives and daughters, and exposed women to the insult of having the privacy of their chambers violated and invaded. How would Englishmen feel if their country was proposed to be subjected to the operation of such a law? It was very well to say, let the rich be treated in the same manner as the poor, but why should the provisions of the law be extended beyond what the necessity of the case required? Why give such power to a magistrate, who, in a hasty moment, might exercise it against a neighbour who opposed him at an election, or might resort to its use at the prompting of some temporary panic? They should take care not to induce a suspicion in Ireland that the administration of the law was placed in the hands of those who were supposed to be enemies to the great body of the people. In 1819, an enactment was passed with respect to England authorizing houses to be entered for the purpose of search, but this power was confined to certain counties, with authority to his Majesty in Council to extend the power to other counties and districts, from time to time, as might appear fit. Apply such a law as this to Ireland, and though the Government had not stated that any particular counties were in a state of disturbance, yet as they were all aware that there were certain counties more disturbed than others, let it be left to the Lord-lieutenant to proclaim such counties as might appear to require the operation of the present bill. In counties where tranquillity prevailed, he did not see why the people's feelings should be offended by the general application of the bill. The Government had admitted, that in great part of the country outrages had not increased, and under these circumstances he did not conceive it just to give a power to any two magistrates to order houses to be entered at any time of the night. He considered it, too, the bounden duty of the Lord-lieutenant not to shrink from responsibility with respect to the enforcement of this law, wherever its enforcement might be deemed necessary. He thought it was too much the case already, that the Lord-lieutenant and the Executive of Ireland shrank from the responsibility belonging to them. If his suggestion were adopted, the country would have the means of knowing whether a necessity existed for the application of the law in each particular case. He might be told, that if a particular county was proclaimed, arms might be brought into it from a distance. No doubt this might be the case; and so also arms might be concealed in parts of England and Wales; and it might just as well be said, that it was necessary on this account to extend the law to such parts of England and Wales, as to the more tranquil counties of Ireland. He had seen in a newspaper of that day that a barbarous murder had been committed in Ireland by means of a hammer; and he asked whether it was not more likely that a hammer or stone would be used for the purpose of murder, than that the delinquent parties would go forty or fifty miles to obtain a gun or pistol? The general law of the constitution should prevail, unless a grave case of necessity for the contrary was made out, and the circumstance that parties might go into a distant county for arms was not such an obvious case of necessity as justified Parliament in granting this odious power. The noble Lord concluded by moving a clause that the provision of the act which authorizes a magistrate to enter a house, or search for arms, should not be enforced, unless the district be proclaimed by the Lord-lieutenant.

Clause brought up and read a first time. On the question that it he read a second time,

Lord Eliot

said, the noble Lord had begun his speech by expressing some surprise that the Government had not acceded to his proposition, and renewed the existing law for a year; and the noble Lord then endeavoured to excite the sympathy of the House for those persons, the sanctity of whose dwellings might be violated under the present bill. Now he desired the House to mark the inconsistency of the noble Lord's argument. The noble Lord proposed to renew a law, under which the right of search existed to a greater extent than under the present bill; for the alterations made in the committee on the bill modified the right of search, as compared with the existing law. The noble Lord wished to restrict the operation of the bill to disturbed districts. What was the meaning of the word "disturbed?" The meaning of that word was expounded in the noble Lord's own coercion bill of 1834. He apprehended that a disturbed state was a state of circumstances when there was an open violation of the law, bordering on insurrection, and it would be impossible for the Lord-lieutenant to issue a proclamation declaring a district to be in a disturbed state, unless there were in it not merely the commission of murders and agrarian depredations by individuals, but armed bodies of men openly violating the law. Supposing a man were refused a license for arms, and yet, notwithstanding the refusal of the license, kept arms, the magistrates would not under the noble Lord's clause have the power of taking the arms from that individual. He thought the adoption of the noble Lord's proposition would altogether frustrate the objects of the present bill, and render nugatory the clauses for the registration of arms. The noble Lord had alluded to the act of 1819, applicable to England; but the state of England then was different from the state of Ireland now. In 1819 there was in England open resistance to the law by armed bodies of men. This was not the case in Ireland at present. The power of search had existed for fifty years, and be did not think there was a single petition from any body of people in Ireland complaining of its undue exercise by the magistrates; while the existence of such a power gave to the peaceable and loyal inhabitants a confidence and feeling of security, which they otherwise would not possess. For these reasons he opposed the noble Lord's clause.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

agreed in the noble Lord's statement that the condition of England in 1819 was different from the present state of Ireland; it was worse, and yet this was a reason given by the noble Lord for not extending to Ireland that safeguard which England was then allowed to have. It was satisfactory, after all the annoyance which the Members on the Opposition side were supposed to have created during the discussion of this bill, to find the noble Lord referring to the amendments which had resulted from that discussion, as a reason for not acceding to the present motion of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London. The noble Lord (Lord Eliot) said, that a license for arms might be refused a man, and yet, under the clause now proposed, that man might keep arms, and the magistrates would have no power of taking them from him; but if no disturbance resulted from his keeping arms why should this power be granted to take them away? The noble Lord (Lord Eliot) had made the present bill less stringent in this respect than the old law; but if he consulted the real interests of Ireland he would adopt the amendment.

Mr. Ross

contended that in many counties in Ireland, in Antrim in particu- lar, crime was diminishing, and yet the Government had pursued a system of search for arms, and had actually taken arms from poor people who had been guilty of no offence. He took the same view of the question as the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and he protested against the extension over the whole island of a law which ought only to be brought into operation and applied in cases of extreme necessity, such as a state of insurrection or when aggressions and acts of violence were of common occurrence. Neither one nor the other of these conditions could now be spoken of as applicable to the present state and condition of Ireland. If that country were in a state of insurrection, he should be the last man to oppose a bill of this kind, but until the Government showed the existence of some such causes as those he had mentioned, and put them forward as the foundation of their legislation, he should raise his voice as long as he was able against such a measure. When the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland stated just now that no serious mischiefs had been produced by the night searches for arms, he must have forgotten the statement made a few nights ago by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. M. O'Ferrall). The noble Lord had forgotten that a whole district had been thrown into confusion by one of these night searches, in the course of which a cottage had been broken into and the women inhabiting it wantonly insulted. He had already recorded his hostility to the measure, and he should be glad if he could sit down with the slightest hope that the cogent arguments of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London would be productive of some effect upon her Majesty's Government, and induce them, by the adoption of the clause proposed, to deprive the bill of provisions so hostile to the feelings of the people of Ireland.

Mr. Ewart

condemned the policy pursued towards Ireland by the present Government. That policy was one of inaction, or in other words, it was this,—" Leave Ireland to herself, and possibly, in time, she will become tranquil." Now, was that policy consistent with a stringent measure such as that now under the consideration of the House? On the one hand it was said, 'Leave Ireland as she is," and on the other there was introduced a measure most calculated to increase ex- citement in that country. Nothing could be more inconsistent. He should have been glad if the noble Lord the Member for the city of London had moved some more decided amendment; but as it was, the clause proposed should have his support.

The O'Conor Don

said the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had alluded to the feelings expressed by grand juries in Ireland with reference to this bill, and he merely rose to state that he had lately been on the grand jury in the county of Roscommon, and that even the Conservative Gentlemen upon that jury were not favourable to this bill. He most cordially supported the clause moved by the noble Lord.

The House divided on the question that the clause be now read a second time: Ayes 65; Noes 109; Majority 44.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Morison, Gen.
Archbold, R.	Muntz, G. F.
Barclay, D.	Napier, Sir C.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Barnard, E. G.	O'Brien, W. S.
Blake, M. J.	O'Conor, Don
Blewitt, R. J.	Plumridge, Capt.
Brotherton, J.	Power, J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Rice, E. R.
Clements, Visct.	Roche, E. B.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Ross, D. R.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Russell, Lord J.
Crawford, W. S.	Scholefield, J.
Dundas, Adm.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Ebrington, Visct.	Stuart, W. V.
Ewart, W.	Strutt, E.
Fielden, J.	Thornely, T.
Ferguson, Col.	Trelawny, J. S.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Tufnell, H.
Fitzwilliam, hn. G.W.	Tuite, H. M.
Forster, M.	Wakley, T.
Fox, C. R.	Wall, C. B.
French, F.	Ward, H. O.
Gill, T.	Wawn, J. T.
Gore, hon. R.	Williams, W.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Wood, B.
Hastie, A.	Wood, C.
Hume, J.	Wood, G. W.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Wrightson, W. B.
Lemon, Sir C.	Wyse, T.
Mangles, R. D.	Yorke, H. R.
Mitcalfe, H.	TELLERS.
Mitchell, T. A.	O'Connell, M. J.
Morris, D.	O'Ferrall, M.
List of the NOES.
Acton, Col.	Bankes, G.
Allix, J. P.	Baring, hon. W. B.
Arkwright, G.	Barrington, Visct.
Astell, W.	Beckett, W.
Baillie, H. J.	Bernard, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.	Lincoln, Earl of
Borthwick, P.	Lyall, G.
Botfield, B.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Boyd, J.	Mackenzie, T.
Bramston, T. W.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Broadwood, H.	Masterman, J.
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Mildmay, H. St. J.
Bruce, Lord E.	Manes, R. M.
Bunbury, T.	Mundy, E. M.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Cardwell, E.	Northland, Visct.
Chute, W. L. W.	O'Brien, A. S.
Clive, Visct.	Packe, C. W.
Corry, rt. hon. H.	Pakington, J. S.
Cripps, W.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir It.
Darby, G.	Plumptre, J. P.
Douglas, Sir H.	Polhill, F.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Pollington, Visct.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Pollock, Sir F.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Pringle, A.
East, J. B.	Rashleigh, W.
Eliot, Lord	Richards, R.
Escott, B.	Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	Round, J.
Flower, Sir J.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Forman, T. S.	Russell, C.
Fuller, A. E.	Russell, J. D. W.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.	Sanderson, R.
Gladstone, Capt.	Sandon, Visct.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Scott, hon. F.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Sibthorp, Col.
Greene, T.	Smith, rt. hn. T.B.C.
Grimston, Visct.	Somerset, Lord G.
Hale, R. B.	Stanley, Lord
Hamilton, G. A.	Stewart, J.
Hayes, Sir E.	Stuart, H.
Henley, J. W.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Herbert, hon. S.	Tennent, J. E.
Hervey, Lord A.	Thompson, Ald.
Hodgson, F.	Thornhill, G.
Hodgson, R.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Hope, hon. C.	Vesey, hon. T.
Hope, G. W.	Vivian, J. E.
Hussey, T.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Jermyn, Earl	Wilbraham, R. B.
Johnstone, H.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Jones, Capt.	Young, J.
Kemble, H.	TELLERS,
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Lefroy, A.	Clerk, Sir G.

Clause rejected.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

observed, that in the former debate upon this subject he had not heard from Members of the Government, or any hon. Gentlemen opposite, any proof as to the necessity of introducing this new provision into the bill, the necessity of marking the arms. On the former occasion the noble Secretary for Ireland, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, had addressed them at some length, but in all that had been uttered by them he had heard nothing to convince him that the "marking" clause was required for the peace or security of Ireland. He had indeed heard from hon. Gentlemen who sat on that (the ministerial) side of the House the admission that the clause would be vexatious in its nature and troublesome in its consequences. The only argument he had heard from gentlemen in support of it was, that as the law existed there was a difficulty in the way of a policeman who met a man carrying arms, in arresting him; because he could not prove that the arms the man had were unregistered. By the present bill they had, however, got rid of that difficulty. By the 14th clause a constable might arrest a person under the circumstances referred to. Leaving out the "marking" clause, they made the law sufficiently stringent. They enabled the policeman to arrest a person having unregistered arms in his possession; and when they had done that they had, in his opinion, done all that could be required. If that were so, why add to their measure a clause that was unnecessary? Why was this branding clause continued? Police officers or stipendiary magistrates had declared it to be their conviction that such a thing was necessary. He had a great respect for the police force in Ireland; he believed that no better nor more efficient body could be found any where; but, saying that, he must add, he should be very sorry to trust to them as Legislators. He warned the noble Lord and the Government against taking the police for their councillors. A great objection was felt to centralization in this country; that objection might be carried too far; but when they found a centralized body, like the police, taking it into their heads to be statisticians, when they undertook to be collectors of information, he believed that neither the country nor the Government could be much benefitted by them. Let the noble Lord look, for instance, to the manner in which the census had proceeded. It had been intrusted to the police; and he believed it was in consequence of their zeal to gather statistical information that the census was not yet published. Some of the police had talked of "a thirst for arms" being dangerous to the peace of Ireland; but he really believed that there was no little danger to its peace in "a thirst for knowledge" in the police themselves. If they went on as they had begun, he did not know but in their eagerness for information they might go into a man's kitchen and require to know what he had for his dinner, and so make out of that a new statistical point. He objected to the marking clause because even those who suggested it could not conceal from themselves that it created a great deal of dissatisfaction. They talked, indeed, of grand jurors petitioning in favour of this clause. Why, nine-tenths of the grand jurors in Ireland lid not comply with the law for registering arms which existed for twenty-seven years. He knew that in the county that he represented not a single magistrate had his arms registered. He believed he was the only magistrate in the county not liable to a penalty for not having done so; because there was an exemption in favour of Members of Parliament. The noble Lord, when they were discussing the other night how long this act should last, did not refer to the marking of arms as a reason why the act should be perpetuated. The noble Lord was quite right; but it was to be remembered that when this bill expired, the brand would remain, and must be a source of trouble and irritation. Why not avoid that? But here it would be said, "concession was exhausted"—here they, like their great American negotiator, had at last come to something which was not to be abandoned. It had been said of the course pursued hitherto by the present Government, that of the measures they had proposed, those that were new were not good, and those that were good were not new; but of this clause it might be most truly affirmed, it was neither new nor good. Could he, however, be induced to believe that peace would be preserved through its means—that the crimes which disgraced his country could be prevented by its operation—he would not oppose it. Under the conviction that it could not have such an effect, he deemed it to be his duty to ask the House to reject this clause. It was a new measure. It was not to be found in any previous enactment, and with reference to it they need no experience from the past. He did not now call their attention to the absurdities to be found in the clause. The time was past for doing that. He said to them let them either strike out this new provision from the bill, or let them give to the people of Ireland something in the shape of a tangible reason for passing it. He moved, as an amendment, that in page 5, from the word "and" to the end of the clause be struck out.

Lord Eliot

observed, that it was admitted by all parties that this clause was not one of those provisions which would prove inoperative, or which in its operation was liable to evasion. For his own part, he thought that if they required a registration of arms, they also required some proof that the arms found in any person's possession were arms which had undergone the registration. At present it was impossible to determine this point, and the object of the clause, instead of being to degrade the people, as was asserted on the other side, was merely to enable the authorities to decide whether the other provisions of the act had been properly complied with. The hon. Member said that the police were the originators of the clause, and that the police were not the most proper advisers of the Legislature. He perfectly coincided in that doctrine, but at the same time he would take leave to say that it was not only necessary, but highly advisable, to consult practical men on the subject of any bill submitted to Parliament, and it was as practical men that the magistracy and the police had given almost unanimously their opinion in favour of the clause. He begged also that Members would recollect that this clause only applied to firearms. With respect to other points, the hon. Member had said that no sufficient reasons in support of the clause had been alleged. Reasons, however, sufficiently conclusive had been stated, to induce the majority of the House to pass the clause in committee. The magistrates of Ireland, as high-spirited men as either the noble Lord or the hon. Member for Kerry, did not see that any disgrace would attend its operation; the opinion of the respectable farmers of the country was in favour of it, and the only class who murmured at the provision were those lawless persons who now found it easy to evade the law, but who, if this clause were carried, would hereafter find it difficult to possess any arms which were not properly and duly registered.

Lord Clements

remarked, that the lawless and desperate persons whom the noble Lord had referred to would in no way be prevented from possessing illegal arms by such a clause as this. Those persons kept their arms concealed in such a way that they could not be got at by any body of searchers. Their arms were not to be found in their houses—they were concealed in caves or buried in the ground. As for the argument about the prevention of murder by fire-arms, it was perfectly worthless. Why, when Ox. ford was tried for firing at the Queen, the learned judge who tried him told the jury that it was necessary to have proof, not only of the firing, but of the fact that the pistol was absolutely loaded; and the circumstance of no ball being found, went on that occasion, to the prisoner's advantage. Probably, however, that was not the state of the law in Ireland. If they had had a trial of that sort in Ireland, they would, no doubt, have heard a different story, for the very good reason that in England public opinion had its full weight, whilst in Ireland it had no weight at all. But if they wanted such legal evidence in order to convict a man, where was the use of branding the arms? Would it not be much better to brand the bullets at once, and to have something behind every man who was shot at to catch them after they were fired? He should vote against the clause.

The House divided—that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the bill:—Ayes 74; Noes 37: Majority 37.

List of the AYES.
Arkwright, G.	Herbert, hon. S.
Attwood, M.	Hervey, Lord A.
Blakemore, R.	Hodgson, F.
Boldero, H. G.	Hodson, R.
Borthwick, P.	Hope, hon. C.
Botfield, B.	Hope, G. W.
Boyd, J.	Hussey, T.
Broadwood, H.	Jermyn, Earl
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Jones, Capt.
Bruce, Lord E.	Kemble, H.
Clayton, R. R.	Knatchbull, rt. hn Sir E
Corry, rt. hon. H.	Lefroy, A.
Cripps, W.	Lincoln, Earl of
Duncombe, hon. A.	Lyall, G.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Mackenzie, T.
Eliot, Lord	Mackenzie, W. F.
Escott, B.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Flower, Sir J.	Masterman, J.
Forman, T. S.	Meynell, Capt.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.	Northland, Visct.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Plumptre, J. P.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Polhill, F.
Greene, T.	Pollington, Visct.
Grimston, Visct.	Pringle, A.
Hamilton, G. A.	Rashleigh, W.
Harcourt, G. G.	Richards, R.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.	Round, J.
Henley, J. W.	Rushbrooke, Col.

Scott, hon. F.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Shaw, rt. hon. F.	Vivian, J. E.
Smith, rt. hon. T.B.C.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Somerset, Lord G.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Stanley, Lord	Young, J.
Stewart, J.
Sutton, hon. H. M.	TELLERS.
Tennent, J. E.	Freemantle, Sir T.
Tollemache, hn. F. J.	Clerk, Sir G.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Archbold, R.	Power, J.
Barnard, E. G.	Rice, E. R.
Blake, M. J.	Roche, E. B.
Blewitt, R. J.	Ross, D. R.
Bowring, Dr.	Russell, Lord J.
Brotherton, J.	Stuart, Lord J.
Clements, Visct.	Stuart W. V.
Crawford, W. S.	Thornely, T.
Dundas, Adm.	Tufnell, H.
Ewart, W.	Villiers, hon. C.
Fielden, J.	Wakley, T.
French, F.	Wawn, J. T.
Hall, Sir B.	Williams, W.
Heathcoat, J.	Wood, B.
Hill, Lord M.	Wrightson, W. B.
Hume, J.	Wyse, T.
Napier, Sir C.	TELLERS.
Norreys, Sir D. J.	O'Brien, W. S.
O'Conor Don	O'Connell, M. J.

Verbal amendments made—bill to be read a third time.