ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 26 June 1843 vol 70 cc383-90

The House resolved itself into a committee on the Arms (Ireland) Bill.

On the question "that the Speaker do leave the chair,"

Viscount Clements

said, that no returns as to the actual state of Ireland were made, to show any cause for a measure of this kind. No act of equal importance had ever been introduced to the Legislature on such slight grounds. One of the reasons assigned for the bill was, that men went about in some parts of Ireland administering unlawful oaths. Such a practice was fraught with serious evils, but who were the parties most to blame? Were they not the gentry, who in many instances took no pains to check it, but on the contrary, encouraged it, and administered oaths themselves in open fairs and markets on the most trivial occasions? He himself had seen a magistrate administering oaths at a toll-bar leading to a market-town on a market day. The statements which had been laid before the House by the noble Secretary for Ireland were founded upon the reports of the police officials; but no dependence could be placed upon such evidence. The homicides which took place in Ireland arose principally from family quarrels, and from disputes regarding property. Sometimes a farm of three or four acres in extent was as much encumbered as a nobleman's estate. Bequests were left to the children of the owner, to be paid by the successor to the property; and the quarrels which rose respecting these bequests led to the perpetration of outrage and homicide. Those outrages were greatly exaggerated in the returns to which the noble Lord had referred. With respect to one of the items in those returns—that of burnings—it was notorious, that in many cases, when houses were accidentally destroyed by fire, the occupiers endeavoured to prove that the fires resulted from incendiarism, in order that they might obtain compensation by a grand jury presentment. He hoped the Government would consent to considerable modification in the provisions of this bill, so as to assimilate it to the measure of 1810, and then there would be some prospect of its adoption. By making some concessions, the Government would render it unnecessary for hon. Members on that side of the House to obstruct the progress of the measure. He felt it his duty to oppose the bill most strenuously in its present shape; and he would do so as long as he was supported by lion. Gentleman near him.

Mr. Wallace

had hoped that tile noble Lord would have concluded by submitting a resolution to the House. He also would offer all the opposition in his power to this measure. He was the only Scotchman who opposed the Irish Coercion Bill; and he felt it equally his duty to oppose the bill now under consideration. He was himself opposed to a repeal of the legislative union; but he was decidedly of opinion that full opportunity should be afforded for the discussion of the question.

House in committee.

On clause I being read,

Lord J. Russell

said, that before further progress was made in the consideration of the measure, he wished to ask tile noble Lord opposite, whether the object which he had in view would not be attained by the retention of those clauses only which were similar to those in the existing Arms Act. He had not heard any reasons advanced by the noble Lord, or by any Member of the Government which, in his opinion, would justify the adoption of the additional clauses which had been introduced into the present bill. His opinion was borne out by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw). He believed that many hon. Gentlemen would be ready to agree to the adoption of the measure, if only those clauses which existed in the present Arms Act were proposed, with such verbal amendments as might be necessary. He begged, therefore, to ask the noble Lord whether he would be content to re-enact the existing Arms Act, without asking for those coercive and restrictive clauses which were introduced in the present measure? If the noble Lord assented to this suggestion, he (Lord J. Russell) would readily support the bill; but otherwise, he should feel it his duty to offer it his opposition.

Lord Eliot

said, the noble Lord who had just sat down, and the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston), had by their speeches and votes recorded their opinions that an Arms Act was necessary in Ireland. The question, therefore was, whether such an act ought not to be made effectual for the accomplishment of the objects for which it was enacted? It was the general opinion of the witnesses examined before the committee of the House of Lords in 1839, that it was absolutely necessary some measures should be adopted for facilitating the identification of arms which might be stolen or improperly obtained. Parties in the possession of unregistered arms were now liable to penalties; but there were no means of ascertaining whether arms were or were not registered. Without going so far as to say that the present law was inoperative, he must say that it was not so effective as a measure of that nature ought to be; and, acting upon the advice and opinions of persons conversant with the subject, and having come to the conclusion that 'additional enactments—especially with reference to the identification of arms—were necessary, he had proposed the present measure. He believed the only means of effectually ascertaining their identity was by putting upon them some distinctive mark; but it was proposed, that where the arms bore such distinctive marks as might be sufficient for the purpose of identification, the owners should not be compelled to have them branded. He would also propose to substitute the word "mark" for "brand" in the bill, as it had been recommended that another mode of marking should be adopted instead of branding. He regretted that he could not accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord as to the withdrawal of the additional clauses which had been proposed in this measure.

Lord J. Russell

said, that the noble Lord had formerly said, that this was the renewal of a measure which had been in operation for half a century, but his argument now was, that the Arms Act had been inoperative, and that it was necessary, therefore, to have these additional stringent clauses. Therefore, the Government now lost the benefit of the argument that this was merely a renewal of the old measure, and the argument became this, that it was necessary to have a new act containing more restrictive provisions. That being the case, he should consider himself at perfect liberty to oppose the measure. The provisions with regard to branding gave more power, and were more odious than any which had hitherto passed. He thought the object of the House ought to be to pass such a measure, if necessary to pass it at all, as should not now irritate Ireland. They ought not to give new and oppressive powers to the magistracy, and so teach the people that they were subjected to a new species of oppression. That seemed to him to be the plain sense of the case. If the noble Lord, then, was not content with that which former Governments had been content with—that which Mr. Wellesley Pole had been content with—that which every Government for thirty-three years had been content with—the Lord noble should have his hearty opposition.

Lord Eliot

said, the noble Lord, with his accustomed ingenuity, but not with his accustomed candour, had greatly distorted what had just fallen from him; but doubtless it was very convenient to build the change in the noble Lord's tactics on his statement. He would ask the noble Lord to refer to the Arms Bill of 1838, and see whether his bill were not the milder of the two? The opposition which the noble Lord now menaced was not what he had a right to expect; hut he was quite prepared to discuss the provisions of the bill. He did not say the present Arms Act was inoperative and inefficacious. As he had said before, he regretted that these restraints on the people were necessary; but he felt that the House was bound to pass them. The present law, he said distinctly, was inoperative; a great number of arms were registered in Ireland, and a great number seized; but under the present law, the police had no right, if they met a man with arms, to ask if they were registered. He thought that the noble Lord had totally misrepresented what he had said; and his hopes that the noble Lord would have discussed the measure in a fair and candid spirit, were disappointed.

Mr. Hume

was glad to hear that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) intended to oppose the bill, and wished that he had acted in the same spirit when he was in office. However, it was better late than never. The circumstances of the times did not require such an enactment, and that if justice was done to Ireland she would cease to complain. It seemed to him that Ministers were running quite wild, or were positively mad—upon the subject of Ireland.

Lord John Russell

should not have opposed the bill had its provisions been the same as those he formerly supported; he had voted for going into the committee because it seemed to him that an Arms Continuance Bill was necessary, but not such an Arms Bill as that now under consideration. It was said that in 1838 he had voted for a bill like the present; that bill was without the branding and some other vexatious provisions. In 1839 the then Government had considered the subject most carefully, and had come to the conclusion that an Arms Continuance Bill would be sufficient.

The O'Conor Don

regretted that the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had not been acceded to, especially after the admission of the right lion. Member for Dublin University, that neither he nor his friends wished for the additional clauses, unless Ministers could establish the necessity for them.

Sir H. W. Barron

said, that crime had been on the decrease in Ireland for the last fifteen years, and, therefore, the necessity for an Arms Bill on the showing of the Government was less necessary. There was no case to justify such a measure, and the only ground that had been urged was, it had been passed by former Governments. This, however, was a gross delusion, for the severity of the enactments of the bill were increased to a monstrous extent in comparison with the former acts.

In clause 1, Mr. Smith O'Brien objected to the words (lines 16 and 17), which rendered it necessary for persons to register arms already registered according to the provisions of existing acts; and proposed to omit them and insert in their stead words enabling persons already legally authorised to retain their arms without further register.

After some conversation the committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause. Ayes 85; Noes 50: Majority 35.

[The great number of divisions which took place on the Arms Bill compels us to omit the names on all but the most important. We may take the opportunity of adding, that the protracted opposition given to the Bill came chiefly from the Members fur Ireland opposed to the Ministers. It was conducted chiefly across the Table, by way of conversation.]

The committee again divided, on an amendment having been moved by Mr. W. S. O'Brien to leave nut the words requiring a specification to be given of the place where arms were to be kept and deposited

On the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.—Ayes 107; Noes 36: Majority 71.

After some further discussion and some amendments having been made in the clause, the committee divided on the question that the clause as amended stand part of the bill. Ayes 123; Noes 62: Majority 61.

List of the AYES.
Acton, Col.	Damer, hon. Col.
Ainsworth, P.	Darby, G.
Antrobus, E.	Denison, E. B.
Arbuthnot, hon. H.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Arkwright, G.	Douro, Marq. of
Baillie, Col.	Dugdale, W. S.
Baillie, H. J.	Dungannon, Visct.
Baird, W.	East, J. B.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Eaton, R. J.
Barrington, Visct.	Egerton, W. T.
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Eliot, Lord
Bateson, R.	Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bernard, Visct.	Fellowes, E.
Blackburne, J. I.	Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Boldero, H. G.	Flower, Sir J.
Borthwick, P.	Forman, T. S.
Boyd, J.	Fuller, A. E.
Bramston, T. W.	Gaskell, J. Milnes
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Gladstone, rt. hn.W.E.
Buck, L. W.	Godson, R.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Gordon, hon. Capt.
Bunbury, T.	Gore, W. O.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Gore, W. R. O.
Christopher, R. A.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Clerk, Sir G.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Cochrane, A.	Grimsditch, T.
Collett, W. R.	Grogan, E.
Connolly, Col.	Hamilton, J. H.
Copeland, Mr. Ald.	Hamilton, G. A.
Corry, rt. hon. H.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Cresswell, B.	Hampden, R.

Harcourt, G. G.	Peel, J.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.	Polhill, F.
Hayes, Sir E.	Praed, W. T.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Pringle, A.
Hinde, J. H.	Pusey, P.
Hope, hon. C.	Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Hope, G. W.	Round, C. G.
Hornby, J.	Round, J.
Hughes, W. B,	Rushbrooke, Col.
Hussey, A.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Hussey, T.	Shirley, E. P.
Irton, S.	Smith, A.
Jermyn, Earl	Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Jocelyn, Visct.	Smythe, hon. G.
Kemble, H.	Smollett, A.
Knatchbull, rt. hn.SirE	Somerset, Lord G.
Law, hon. C. E.	Stanley, Lord
Lefroy, A.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Lincoln, Earl of	Tennent, J. E.
Lockhart, W.	Thornhill, G.
Lowther, J. H.	Tollemache, hn. F. J.
Lygon, hon. Gen.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Mackenzie, T.	Trollope, Sir J.
Mc. Geachy, F. A.	Turnor, C.
Mainwaring, T.	Verner, Col.
Marsham, Visct.	Vivian, J. E.
Masterman, J.	Welby, G. E.
Maxwell, hn. J. P.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Meynell, Capt.	Wood, Col.
Mundy, E. M.	TELLERS.
Northland, Visct.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.	Young, Mr.

List of the NOES.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	O'Brien, W. S.
Barnard, E. G.	O'Connell, M. J.
Barron, Sir H. W.	O'Connor Don
Bodkin, J. J.	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Bowring, Dr.	Parker, J.
Browne, hon. W.	Pechell, Capt.
Byng, G.	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Chapman, B.	Philips, G. R.
Clements, Visct.	Pigot, rt. hon. D.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Plumridge, Capt.
Collett, J.	Pulsford, R.
Collins, W.	Roche, Sir D.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Ross, D. R.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T.	Russell, Lord J.
Duncan, G.	Seale, Sir J. H.
Ebrington, Visct.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Evans, W.	Stuart, W. V.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Strutt, E.
Gisborne, T.	Tancred, H. W.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.	Trelawny, J. S.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Tuite, H. M.
Hall, Sir B.	Wall, C. B.
Hatton, Capt. V.	Wallace, R.
Hawes, B.	Ward, H. G.
Hutt, W.	Wawn, J. T.
James, W.	Williams, W.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Wood, B.
Langton, W. G.	Wrightson, W. B.
Marjoribanks, S.	Yorke, H, R,
Marshall, W.
Napier, Sir C.	TELLERS,
Norreys, Sir D. J.	Crawford, S,
O'Brien, J.	Wyse,

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

After discussion, clauses 3 and 4 were postponed.

Clause 5 with amendments was agreed to.

On clause 6, some confused and stormy discussion took place.

Mr. B. Yorke

said, that after the disgraceful proceeding they witnessed, he begged to move that the chairman report progress.

The committee divided on the question Ayes 24; Noes 229: Majority 205.

The committee again divided on the question that the clause as amended stand part of the bill. Ayes 167; Noes 96: Majority 71.

List of tire AYES.
A'Court, Capt.	Douro, Marquess of
Acton, Col.	Drummond, H. H.
Adare, Visct.	Duncombe, hon. O.
Adderley, C, B.	Dungannon, Visct.
Allix,. J. P.	East, J. B.
Arbuthnot, hon. H.	Egerton, W. T.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Egerton, Sir P.
Bailey, J.	Eliot, Lord
Baillie, Col.	Emlyn, Visct.
Baillie, H. J.	Farnham, E. B.
Baird, W.	Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Balfour, J. M.	Flower, Sir J.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Forbes, W.
Baring, H. B.	Forester, hn. G.C.W.
Barrington, Visct.	Fox, S. L.
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Fuller, A. E.
Bateson, R:	Gaskell, J. Milnes
Bernard, Visct.	Gladstone, rt.hn.W.E.
Blackburne, J. I.	Gladstone, Capt.
Blackstone, W. S.	Glynne, Sir S. R.
Boldero, H. G.	Godson, R.
Borthwick,	Gordon, hon. Capt.
Boyd, J.	Gore, W. O.
Broadley, H.	Gore, W. R. O.
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Buller, Sir J.Y.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Bunbury, T.	Gregory, W. H.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Grimston, Visct.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Grogan, E.
Christopher, R. A.	Hamilton, J. H.
Clerk, Sir G.	Hamilton, G. A.
Clive, Visct.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Collett, W. R.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Colquhoun, J. C.	Harcourt, G. G.
Colvile, C. R.	Hardinge, tr. hn. SirH
Copeland, Mr. Ald.	Hardy, J.
Corry, rt. hon. H.	Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Cresswell, B.	Hervey, Lord A.
Cripps, W.	Hinde, J. H.
Damner, hon. Col.	Hodgson, F.
Darby,G.	Hodgson, R.
Denison, E. B.	Hogg, J. W.
Dodd, G.	Hope, G. W.
Douglas, Sir H.	Howard, P. H.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Hughes, W. B.

Hussey, T.	Pusey, P.
Ingestrie, Visct.	Repton, G. W. J.
Irton, S.	Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.
Jermyn, Earl.	Round, J.
Jocelyn, Visct.	Rous, hon. Capt.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. SirE	Russell, C.
Lefroy, A.	Russell, J. D. W.
Leslie, C. P.	Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Lincoln, Earl of	Seymour, Sir H. B.
Lockhart, W.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Lowther, hon. Col.	Shirley, E. P.
Mackenzie, T.	Smith, A.
M'Geachy, F. A.	Smith, rt. hn. T. B.C.
Mainwaring, T.	Smollett, A.
Manners, Lord C. S.	Somerset, Lord G.
March, Earl of	Stanley, Lord
Marsham, Visct.	Stuart, H.
Martin, C. W.	Sturt, H. C.
Masterman, J.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Maxwell, hon. J. P.'	Talbot, C. R. M.
Meynell, Capt.	Tennent, J. E.
Mordaunt, Sir J.	Thesiger, F.
Morgan, O.	Thornhill, G.
Mundy, E. M.	Tollemache, J.
Neeld, J.	Tomline, G.
Neville, R.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Newdigate, C. N.	Trollope, Sir J.
Newport, Visct.	Turnor, C.
Newry, Visct.	Verner, Col.
Northland, Visct.	Waddington, H. S.
O'Brien, A. S.	Welby, G. E.
Patten, J. W.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.	Wood, Col.
Peel, J.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Pennant, hon. Col.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Polhill, F.	Wynn, Sir W. W.
Pollock, Sir F.	TELLERS.
Praed, W. T.	Freemantle, Sir T.
Pringle, A.	Young, J.

List of the NOES.
Archbold, R.	Duncan, Visct.
Bannerman, A.	Duncombe, T.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T.	Ellice, E.
Barron, Sir H. W.	Evans, W.
Berkeley, hon. C.	Ferguson, Col.
Bernal, Capt.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Bodkin, J. J.	Forster, M.
Bowring, Dr.	Gisborne, T.
Browne, hon. W.	Gore, hon. R.
Buller, E.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Hall, Sir B.
Chapman, B.	Hallyburton, Ld. J. F.
Cochrane, A.	Hayes, Sir E.
Colborne, hn. W.N.R.	Hill, Lord M.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Hollond, R.
Collett, J.	Horsman, E.
Corbally, M. E.	Butt, W.
Courtenay, Lord	James, W.
Craig, W. G.	Jervis, J.
Crawford, W. S.	Labouchere, rt. hn.H.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Langton, W. G.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Leveson, Lord
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn.C.T.	Listowell, Earl of
Disraeli, B.	Macaulay, rt.hn. T.B.
Duke, Sir J.	Majoribanks, S.

Marshall, W.	Smith, rt, hn. R. V,
Morris, D.	Smythe, hon. G.
Murphy, F. S.	Stuart, W. V.
O'Brien, J.	Strutt, E.
O'Brien, W. S.	Tancred, H. W.
O'Connell, M. J.	Thornely, T.
O'Conor Don	Trelawny, J. S.
O'Ferrall, R. M.	Tufnell, H.
Paget, Lord A.	Tuite, H. M.
Palmerston, Visct.	Vesey, hon. T.
Parker, J.	Villiers, hon. C.
Pechell, Capt.	Vivian, hon. Capt.
Philips, G. R.	Wall, C. B.
Pigot, rt. hon. D.	Wallace, R.
Ponsonby, hon. C.F.C.	Ward, H. G.
Ponsonby, hon. J. G.	Watson, W. H.
Pryse, P.	Wawn, J. T.
Pulsford, R.	Wood, B.
Rice, E. R.	Wood, G. W.
Roche, Sir D.	Wyse, T.
Ross D. R.	Yorke, H. R.
Russell, Lord, J.
Russell, Lord E.	TELLERS.
Seale Sir J. H.	Clements, Visct. '
Smith, J. A.	Connolly, Colonel

Clause agreed to.

On clause 7 being put and objected to,

Sir R. Ferguson

proposed that the appeal should be to the next going judge of assize, instead of to the justices at the next general sessions.

Mr. Pigot

thought that it would be much better to leave the matter to the discretion of the justices who possessed local knowledge, instead of throwing the duty on the judge, who had not the same opportunity of obtaining information.

Mr. Smith O'Brien

moved that the Chairman report progress.

The House resumed, the Chairman reported progress, the Committee to sit again.