ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 29 June 1843 vol 70 cc453-68

On the Order of the day for going into committee on the Arms (Ireland) Bill being read,

Mr. Hume

called the attention of the House to a return which had just been laid upon the Table, showing the comparative state of crime in England, Ireland, and Scotland, from which he found that the facts did not tally with the statements made by the noble Lord on introducing this bill, and that, while in England and Scotland, during the last two years, offences against the person had increased, they had decreased in Ireland.

House in Committee.

On clause 7, appeal against refusal of licences,

Mr. Wyse

moved to omit the words requiring the parties pending the appeal to deposit their arms with some authority.

Lord Eliot

opposed the amendment, it was very unlikely that the magistrates would refuse a licence, except to persons notoriously unworthy of being entrusted with arms.

The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause; Ayes 127; Noes 67: Majority 60.

Clause passed.

On clause 8, "arms to be marked."

Some discussion took place as to whether the word in this clause should be "branded" or "marked," the former word having been originally proposed, in the course of which Viscount Clements strongly denounced the bill and the clause, and some amendments were made in the clause. On the question that the clause as amended stand part of the bill,

Lord John Russell

rose to move the omission of the clause altogether. He considered it alike unjust, unnecessary, and impolitic. No sufficient reason whatever had been assigned for the introduction of this new provision. It was unnecessary, and therefore unjust; and impolitic in the highest degree. At the present moment, when so much ferment prevailed in Ireland, where there was so strong a feeling expressed there as to the conduct of the Imperial Parliament towards Ireland, it was essential to take no restrictive steps which were not absolutely necessary. If ever there had been a time at which it was desirable for the British Government to husband their power, to economize the means of authority, and to refrain from Vexatious acts not absolutely required for the service of the State, that time was the present. Yet this was the period at which her Majesty's Government brought forward a provision, full of additional offence, and attended with Very little, if any, additional security; which conveyed an insult and a stigma, deeply felt and resented by the people of Ireland; while, as a means of giving to the authorities in that country any more effective control, it was weak and valueless. He had never witnessed an attempt towards improved efficiency which manifested so little practical wisdom. The noble Lord relied in his defence of the new provisions in this bill, this one more especially, upon the opinions of certain magistrates and constabulary, who said the new restrictions were necessary. So he said it—without disrespect, and merely for the sake of illustration—might Gentlemen's gamekeepers give their opinion, and their conscientious opinion, that for the due suppression of poaching it was essential that they should have the power of entering any man's house, and searching for snares, guns, nets, dogs, and other materials made use of in the illicit pursuit of game; and so, in other matters, might persons connected with particular subjects, point out ways, which, if Parliament were disposed to set aside the principles of the Constitution, and to disregard the old established liberties of the subject, might, perhaps, add facilities to executive Government; but the Constitution and the liberties of the subject were not so to be set aside. This provision was one of those which Government might deem unimportant, but which would give, in point of fact, greater offence than more serious enactments. Of all the cruel and oppressive proceedings of William the Conqueror, none gave greater offence to the people of England than the institution of the curfew, a regulation which partook more of the character of annoyance than of any thing else. He might draw another illustration from the time of his own Administration, during which, few things excited so much anger and discontent among a large class of the community as the regulation which required the names painted on farmers' carts to cover two inches, instead of one, as formerly. This would seem to be no very tyrannical or outrageous proposition, yet it excited such a storm of indignation, such a deluge of representations and remonstrances from the farmers throughout the country, that the Government thought it desirable to repeal the regulation in the next Session. It was perfectly clear to him that the very deepest offence would be given to the people of Ireland by obliging them to take their guns to be branded. Nor would the branding provision be at all effective for the purpose; for how very easy would it be to imitate the mark. And, again, how very easy would it be for those who went about the country for lawless purposes, and who were about to perpetrate a murder, to steal some branded gun from the house of an honest and peaceable man, and, having used it for the perpetration of the deed, leave it on the spot. How much nearer would be the discovery of the murderer from the discovery of the marked weapon with which the murder had been committed? The true policy of the present, as of any other Admistration was to govern Ireland, not by terror, but by affection. The true policy of the Government as to the Arms Bill, so far from increasing its severity, would be to continue it but for a year at a time, to modify it more and more, and as soon as possible to remove it from the statute book altogether. The opposite course pursued by the Government would only have the effect of provoking fresh hostility, still greater indignation in the minds of the Irish people against the measure and those who framed and supported it; and so far from adding to our security in Ireland, would render it more and more difficult to retain the necessary authority there. If it were deemed necessary, to send large bodies of additional troops into Ireland, at least let it not be done with an ostentatious display which rather tended to create alarm among the peaceable than to lessen the danger in quarters whence danger was apprehended; and in their legislation let them not thus unnecessarily add severity and galling weight to measures already sufficiently stringent; but let them rely upon the great power of the Constitution, which duly administered, would not fail to effect every just and proper object. If, on the contrary, they insisted upon a provision like this, which gave them no new security, and their only object in which, therefore, would appear to the Irish people to be insult and annoyance, depend upon it, those who would derive the greatest advantage from this ill-advised course would be the chief enemies of the Government in Ireland, and those who maintained that the Imperial Parliament denied justice and impartiality to Ireland. For these reasons, he should propose that the clause be omitted.

Lord Eliot

had always thought that the restriction on the common law right of the subject to carry arms was only to be justified by necessity, and so far he and the noble Lord agreed. The only question he had to discuss with the noble Lord was, whether the new clauses and provisions which the Government had introduced were or were not likely to make this bill more efficient. The noble Lord had said that the evidence of the stipendiary magistrates and the officers of constabulary was not to be relied upon in such cases as these, or brought forward as the grounds of such a measure. Now he admitted that the opinions of such persons on this main question were not entitled to great weight, He thought that, the Government ought to make up their minds as to whether such a measure was necessary, and having so made up their minds, to bring it forward on their own responsibility. At the same time, he thought that when it was admitted that an Arms Bill was necessary, great weight, as to its details, ought to be attached to the opinion of those who were personally acquainted with its operation. On the original introduction of this measure he had alluded to the opinions of gentlemen holding important official stations in Ireland, and he had also alluded to the opinions given by gentlemen filling the situation of stipendiary magistrates in Ireland and to the evidence which they had given before a committee of the House of Lords, in 1839, and all those gentlemen concurred in thinking that it was necessary that some additional and more stringent measures should be adopted to prevent the possession of arms by improper persons. It was not necessary that he should on this occasion go through the returns of crime to which he had adverted on a former occasion. Already, he had almost wearied the House by reading those returns, and if the hon. Member for Montrose would compare the returns he had read with those on the Table of the House, he would find that they were fundamentally the same. The noble Lord had said, that it was quite useless to introduce a provision of this kind, but he (Lord Eliot) was of a different opinion, considering the general feeling that prevailed in Ireland amongst all parties, that some more efficient regulation than at present existed was necessary. There was no doubt that there was at present in Ireland a feeling of insecurity with respect to life and property, which rendered it necessary that some measure should be taken to restrict the possession of arms by the lawless and the desperate. He thought that it had been most clearly shown by the stipendiary magistrates and the officers of the constabulary, that they had not at present those means to enable them to detect the perpetrators of crime which it was essential that they should possess. The noble Lord had indulged in some declamation on the disgrace and stigma that would be inflicted on the Irish people by this clause. Now, if that was the case, it was a stigma which those Irish Gentlemen who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House submitted to without a murmur, and it was not to be supposed that they were not as high-minded and as sensitive as hon. Members at the other side of the House. The noble Lord had said that marked arms might be stolen, and that the tracing of the owner of such arms was not a step towards the identification of the perpetrator of a crime committed with such arms. On a former occasion the hon. Member for Bath had made use of a similar argument. Now as he understood, when a crime was committed and the arms were found, the first step was to ascertain the ownership of the arms, and it would rest on the party to whom the ownership was traced to account for the arms being found in the hands of other parties. He had already stated that the bill had been prepared last Session, and that, owing to the state of public business, the Government had not been able to bring it forward. The measure was thought necessary to maintain peace and security in Ireland, and to protect the peaceble and inoffensive inhabitants, and looking at die present state of that country, he found nothing in its present condition which should induce the House to relax any measure calculated to prevent the possession of arms by improper persons. Therefore, though this bill had not been introduced with reference to the present state of Ireland, he saw nothing in subsequent occurrences which furnished any ground for the relaxation of those provisions which were thought necessary to make it effectual for its purpose. He hoped that the House would concur in maintaining this clause, for it would be impossible to check the possession of arms by improper persons without sonic means of identifying the arms and ascertaining the ownership.

Loud Clements

objected to a police officer being considerered an authority on constitutional matters. The only constitutional authority of the noble Lord was no other than Mr. Warburton, a police officer. He thought the constitution of his country was invaded by the bill, which went to establish an inquisition. The Pains and Penalties Bill was another of the acts which placed an additional sum of money in the hands of the Government, The noble Lord (Lord Elliot) had for his object—he avowed it now—to check the use of fire-arms in Ireland. That was the confession of the noble Lord; and that was the object of the constabulary officers whose advice the noble Lord was following. He admitted that M'Gregor was a good officer, but he was no better authority on this subject than that of the noble Lord the Secretary of Ireland himself, and all his statements were made from hearsay. Colonel Miller's report, too, was all founded on suppositions: that officer said,:— Yet for the last seven years, that is, since a central constabulary office has been established in Dublin, the reports of all serious outrages throughout Ireland have generally passed through my hands. In furnishing these reports, it is the duty of the district officer to ascertain and set forth in his statement of each case, in addition to other particulars, the supposed motive which induced the perpetration of the offence; so that the perusal of such details for a term of years, while calculated to afford to any attentive reader much insight into the character, temper, and habits of the rural population of the country, could not fail, at the same time, to enable him to form tolerably just notions as to the mode in which, and the means whereby, the outrages which afflict the country are effected; and as to the motives which may have led to their perpetration. Now, what had that House to do with suppositions? He said it was folly to legislate on them, and that the whole proceeding was a monstrous farce. Again, Col. Miller said:— The police reports bear upon a variety of subjects, for, besides, the numerous cases of agrarian outrages, such as homicides, robbing for arms, attacking and burning houses, maiming of cattle, and other acts of malicious injury, the public peace is frequently disturbed by illegal combinations to resist legal process, to regulate the wages of labour, to assert right of turbary or commonage, or to seize and carry off seaweed, &c. In all such cases illegal combination is readily formed, and, when necessary, arms are sure to be forthcoming. There is, I regret to say, an unhappy propensity among the Irish peasantry to effect their ends, whatever those ends may be, by intimidation and violence; and even in cases of real injury occurring among themselves, where a legal remedy might doubtless be obtained, our police reports show that they are often prone to redress such wrongs by some cruel acts of retaliation, rather than proceed by course of law. He denied that there were any combinations in Ireland. He knew of but one, and as to the people not liking to have recourse to law when it was accessible, they gladly availed themselves of it. They attended cheerfully at courts of petty session. But, Colonel Miller was so much at a loss for facts to allege against the Irish, that he went back for ten years to rake up the old disturbance of Church-rate. Fie on him Col. Miller said:— Of late years we have seen vast numbers illegally banded together to resist the payment of tithes and Church-rates, when much bloodshed ensued, more recently, the levying of the poor-rate has been forcibly resisted, and lives have been lost in the conflict. Here was another extraordinary passage of the report— In the districts of Ireland where the agrarian and other disorders are most prevalent, the progress of disturbance is marked invariably by the same characteristics. The system of intimidation is traced by the pillaging of arms, the posting of threatening notices, and the firing of shots, the administering of unlawful oaths, to compel the reluctant to enter into combination, the firing into dwellings, &c. Hence the thirst for the possession of arms, which is a ruling passion among so many of the peasantry. A thirst for arms. The Irish might thirst for whiskey, but who had ever before heard of their thirsting for arms? Colonel Miller knew nothing of the Irish, and gave a most unfair description of their character. The noble Lord again quoted Col. Miller's evidence, which he said was a most inaccurate description of the Irish character, and on that imperfect and inaccurate description this bill was to be supported, and the indignity was to be put on the Irish of having their arms branded. He contended that this officer was not at all acquainted with the rural population of Ireland. His report was full of misrepresentations. Instead of following that gallant officer's advice, he thought it would be much better to remove the Lord-lieutenant from Ireland, and to clean out Dublin Castle. If the Viceroyalty were done away, Dublin Castle cleansed out, and the court there abolished, it would do more to restore peace to Ireland than an Arms Bill. That would be more effective in restoring order and restraining violence than all the coercive measures which the Government could devise. If this clause was not left out, he would oppose the bill to the utmost of his power at every stage.

Mr. Vesey

said, the noble Lord had treated the matter as if the bill was founded on the opinions and suggestions of police magistrates alone. Now he, as a local magistrate, as a resident observer, as one who had the best means of observation, felt himself bound to express his conviction as to the necessity which existed for the measure now introduced, and the inefficiency of the existing law. He was sorry to be compelled to say, the practice prevailed of hiring strangers to commit ourages and crimes. If any person desired to have his neighbour injured or fired at, he employed strangers, unknown, and therefore not easily identified. If those persons employed for such evil purpose were met by the police before the outrage was committed, on their way to the actual perpetration, with arms in their hands, they were not empowered to interfere, nor even to question the parties. An instance occurred, to his recollection, which would exemplify the matter. A gentleman residing in his neighbourhood was fired at in the open day. The deed was committed by two strangers. Those Very men had been met by some of the police before the outrage was committed, and they had arms. The suspicions of the police were roused, but, not being empowered to interfere, they could only make such observation as might enable them to identify the parties if necessary Would not the peace and the lives of individuals be better secured by some law which would have given the means of prevention? In another case a murder had been committed about two years ago; one of the men who committed it was met, while running away, by a magistrate, who, though strongly suspecting from his manner and from his speed of flight that some bad act had been perpetrated, was unable to arrest him. These men escaped punishment. He would mention one other case. He was himself returning from hunting one day when he met two very suspicious-looking persons with arms. Had the power intended by this bill to be given to magistrates then existed, he should have been able to call on the nearest police force, and ascertain whether these men were properly licensed, and bore registered arms. But the power did not exist, and crimes were subsequently committed by those very men, and the party to which they belonged. He had been in Ireland when the hill was brought into the House, and had heard no complaint on the subject. There certainly now was excitement in Ireland on the subject, but it was caused by the speeches of hon. Members in this House. At the Repeal meetings throughout the country, where every topic was greedily seized on for complaint, this bill was not used as one of the intrinsic subjects of complaint. Believing that under the present law crimes were frequently committed with impunity, that the arms being branded would lead to identification of offenders, and that this bill altogether would tend to repress the flagrant outrages which disgraced the country, he would give it his support and hoped it would pass into law.

Mr. G. Hamilton

stated that there was no disinclination among magistrates in his part of the country to grant licences to proper persons; he recollected very few instances in which licences had been refused. He could not subscribe to the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Waterford city, that in legislating the House was to assume that magistrates would do injustice.

Sir R. Ferguson

could not see that the branding of arms would give any security to the public. There were gun clubs holding weekly meetings; at each meeting money sufficient was subscribed to purchase one gun, which was raffled for; at the end of the year each member possessed a gun. Now, supposing one gun to be branded, was it not easy to have that mark nine times over, and if those guns were used in different parts, as they ' would be, most probably, what security was there from the licence? The clause, therefore, was only vexatious, and not likely to be of any use.

Sir D. Roche

considered the branding of arms quite unnecessary, because a person could be punished if found with unregistered arms. He believed the bill would not avail in the protection of the public or the suppression of offences, whilst it would be regarded as an insult by the well-disposed.

Mr. V. Stuart

thought the clause unnecessary. Although he was prepared to support the bill generally, he should decidedly oppose this clause, and he warned the Government against the consequences of pressing it on the House.

Sir T. Wilde

said, all agreed in this, that it was of the utmost importance not to excite unnecessarily irritation in Ireland, and he confessed that, looking at the state of Ireland, and admitting that they could give effect to such a bill as this, still that they ought to have proved to them that this clause was indispensable, fur he could not conceive a more powerful weapon to excite irritation and to produce ill-will against the Government than this clause. Every man who had any description of arms branded under this clause, would only have to hold it up to his fellow countrymen in order to excite irritation in their minds. He could not imagine any means better calculated to cause such a feeling than the production of some branded weapon for the purpose of manifesting their degradation. In the first place the House would observe that this clause would apply to what was generally called "arms." The noble Lord opposite had only spoken of fire-arms; but the branding was not to be confined to them. In other parts of the bill they found that a pike or a spear head were defined as arms. Might not a bill-hook? Might not even a spit be regarded as coming under the definition of arms? A person having a spear head was by a clause of the bill liable to punishment. Was not, then, every description of arms to be branded? It was to be remembered that the branding or mark was a thing that would endure as long as the arms themselves remained. It would be a constant memorial of the unfortunate state of Ireland. If it were not necessary, it would be called an insult to the country. He would not call it an insult if it were essential to the security of the peace of that country; but every coercive measure that went beyond that necessity became an insult. The reasons for retaining this clause should be obvious to every one. He found, however, that amongst those favourable to the bill itself, some objected to this clause. Unfortunately they had an Arms Bill for Ireland. Having that Arms Bill for some years before they introduced this clause, they were bound to show that mischief had arisen from the want of such a clause. Now, if mischief were designed to be done by arms, there might be a forgery of the marks. What, he asked, could be the nature of the marks, that it should defy imitation? Let them suppose, then, that a person was going to commit a crime, surely he might have his arms branded, or the brand imitated. Ought they not, then, to have it clearly in evidence, that the bill without this clause, could not have the effect that they desired. There was no statement made that the former bill was not found adequate for the purpose without this clause. They had no evidence —all that was given to them was opinion. If the persons had facts on which they rested their opinions, why were not those facts given to this House, and then they might decide themselves upon their Value and importance. They ought to consider, in connection with this clause, the large powers that were given to magistrates as to who should or who should not have arms. What was "the fitness" of a man that was to determine his retaining the privilege of having arms to defend him-self? What was the test? His "fitness" was to be decided by the magistrates. It was of extreme importance for them to consider, and to pause, before they gave to those magistrates a discretion of so large a nature as that which related to the "fitness" of a man. Was there any man in that House who would venture to say, in the face of the country, that they could give a power liable to greater abuse than that which would leave to persons to say whether or not a man was fitted for a particular purpose? It might be that a man was suspected of being a poacher, that he was not a sober man, to make him offensive to the magistrates. They did not know how much, independent of a man's loyalty, might weigh with those who had to judge of his fitness. How could a man legally complain of what had been done by magistrates who had to decide upon his "fitness?" If a man were refused his licence he might appeal; but when once he had appealed, the first magistrate he met might recall the licence, and that was without appeal. It was, he considered, extremely important that in passing such a bill they should do nothing that could make it be regarded as a national insult. The very word "branding," he thought, had been unfortunately chosen. if they attended to the speeches made in Ireland, they would find a strong contrast made between the legislation for England and Ireland; and they ought, therefore, to be cautious, unless there was an indispensable necessity for it, not by such a clause as this to give any aid to the excitement that now existed amongst the Irish people. The clause, in his opinion, was open to the objections made on that side of the House and those objections had not received any answer, nor had it been shown that former bills had failed without it.

Mr. T. B. C. Smith

observed that Gentlemen from Ireland had not stated that the marking of these arms would be degrading to them or regarded as an insult to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman was a law officer of the Crown in 1841, when that general discretion was given to the magistrates which he now objected to. The same occurred as to the withdrawal of the licences without appeal. The schedule described what was meant in Ireland as arms. He admitted the clause might be used as a subject for exciting irritation, by those who sought for such topics; but he would show by resolutions of the King's County magistrates, that the branding of arms was not regarded as an insult to them. In the recent case of Mr. Scully, men, the supposed murderers, were seen prowling about the neighbourhood with arms—two pairs of pistols, a musket, and a blunderbuss—and if some provision of the present kind had existed, they might have been examined, and the murder perhaps prevented. He thought sufficient evidence existed of the necessity for such a power.

The committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill—Ayes 178; Noes 104: Majority 74.

List of the AYES.
A'Court, Capt.	Chetwode, Sir J.
Acton, Col.	Christopher, R. A.
Adare, Visct.	Chute, W. L. W.
Adderley, C. B.	Clayton, R. R.
Antrobus, E.	Clerk, Sir G.
Arbuthnot, hon. H.	Clive, Visct.
Arkwright, G.	Clive, hon. R. H.
Ashley, Lord	Colquhoun, J. C.
Baillie, Col.	Connolly, Col.
Baird, W.	Corry, rt. hon. H.
Balfour, J. M.	Courtnay, Lord
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Cripps, W.
Bateson, R.	Damer, hon. Col.
Beckett, W.	Denison, E. B.
Bernard, Visct.	Dickinson, F. H.
Blackburne, J. I.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Boldero, H. G.	Drummond, H. H.
Borthwick, P.	Duncombe, hon. O.
Boyd, J.	Du Pre, C. G.
Bradshaw, J.	Eaton, R. J.
Bramston, T. W.	Egerton, W. T.
Broadley, H.	Egerton, Sir P.
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Eliot, Lord
Bruce, Lord E.	Estcourt, T. G. B.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Farnham, E. B.
Bunbury, T.	Fellowes, E.
Campbell, Sir H.	Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Chelsea, Visct.	Flower, Sir J.

Follett, Sir W. W.	Mainwaring, T.
Forester, hn. G. C.W.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Forman, T. S.	Martin, C. W.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.	Meynell, Capt.
Gladstone, Capt.	Miles, P. W. S.
Glynne, Sir S. R.	Miles, W.
Godson, R.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Morgan, O.
Gore, M.	Neville, R.
Gore, W. It. O.	Newry, Visct.
Goring, C.	Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Goulburn, rt. hon.	Norreys, Lord
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J	Northland, Visct.
Gregory, W. H.	O'Brien, A. S.
Grimston, Visct.	Palmer, G.
Grogan, E.	Patten, J. W.
Hale, R. B.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Halford, H.	Peel, J.
Hamilton, J. H.	Praed, W. T.
Hamilton, G. A.	Pringle, A.
Hamilton, W. J,	Pusey, P.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Rendlesham, Lord
Harcourt, G. G.	Repton, G. W. J.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.	Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Hardy, J.	Round, C. G.
Hayes, Sir E.	Round, J.
Henley, J. W.	Rous, hon. Capt:
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Hervey, Lord A.	Sandon, Vist.
Hillsborough, Earl of	Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Hinde, J. H.	Seymour, Sir H. B.
Hodgson, F.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Hodgson, R.	Smith, A.
Hogg, J. W.	Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Hope, hon. C.	Smollett, A.
Hope, A.	Somerset, Lord G.
Hope, G. W.	Stanley, Lord
Hussey, A.	Stewart, J.
Hussey, T.	Stuart, H.
Ingestre, Visct.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Irton, S.	Taylor, T. E.
Jermyn, Earl	Tollemache, hn. F. J.
Jocelyn, Visct.	Tollemache, J.
Joliffe, Sir W. G. H.	Trench, Sir F. W
Jones, Capt.	Trollope, Sir J.
Kemble, H.	Trotter, J.
Knatchbull, rt, hn. SirE	Turnor, C.
Knight, F. W.	Verner' Col.
Knightley, Sir C.	Vesey, hon. T.
Law, hon. C. E.	Vivian, J. E.
Lefroy, A.	Welby, G. E.
Lennox, Lord A.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Leslie, C. P.	Wodehouse, E.
Lincoln, Earl of	Wood, Col.
Lockhart, W.	Wortley, hn. J. S.
Lowther, J. H.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Lowther, hon. Col.	Wynn, Sir W.
Lygon, hon. Gen.	Young J.
Mackenzie, T.
Maclean, D.	TELLERS.
McGeachy, F. A.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Mahon, Visct.	Baring, H.

List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Archbold, R.
Adam, W.	Baring, rt. hoe, F. T.

Barnard, E. G.	Mitcalfe, H.
Barron, Sir H. W.	Mitchell, J. A
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Morris, D.
Bernal, R.	Murphy, F. S.
Blewitt, R. J.	Napier, Sir C.
Bodkin, John Jas.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Bowring, Dr.	O'Brien, J.
Brocklehurst, J.	O'Brien, W. S
Brotherton, J.	O'Connor, Don
Browne, hon. W.	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Busfeild, W.	Palmerston, Visct.
Carew, hon. R. S.	Pechell, Capt.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Philips, G. R.
Chapman, B.	Pigot, rt hon D.
Coleborne, hn W. N.	Plumridge, Capt.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Rice, E. R.
Collett, J.	Roche, Sir D.
Craig, W. G.	Ross, D. R.
Crawford, W. S.	Russell, Lord J.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Russell, Lord E.
Dashwood, G. H.	Scholefield, J.
Denison, J. E.	Seale, Sir J. H.
Dennistoun, J.	Smith, B.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.	Smith, J. A.
Duncan, Visct.	Smith, rt: hn. R. V.
Duncan, G.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Duncombe, T.	Stuart, W. V.
Ebrington, Visct.	Strickland, Sir G.
Esmonde, Sir T.	Strutt, E.
Ewart, W.	Tancred, H. W.
Ferguson, Col.	Thornely, T.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Traill, G.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Tufnell, H.
Forster, M.	Wakley, T.
Gore, hon. R.	Wall, C. B.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.	Wallace, R.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Ward, H. G.
Hall, Sir B.	Watson, W. H.
Hastie, A.	Wawn, J. T.
Hatton, Capt. V.	Wemyss, Capt.
Hawes, B.	Wilde, Sir T.
Heathcoat, J.	Williams, W.
Hill, Lord M.	Wilshere, W.
Horsman, E.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Hume, J.	Wood, B.
Butt, W.	Wrightson, W. B.
James, W.	Wyse, T.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Yorke, H. R.
Maucaulay, rt. hn. T.B.	TELLERS.
Majoribanks S.	Clements, Visct.
Marsland, H.	O'Connell, M. J.

On clause 9, licenses to be applied for at subsequent sessions as at the first,

Sir R. Ferguson

moved to omit some words of the clause.

The question was put, that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause. A discussion which lasted nearly two hours ensued, and which turned on the wording of the clause. The opposition contending that it was in a great measure unintelligible, and requesting it to be postponed, the Ministerialists denying the unintelligibility and contending that if it were obscure, that was no reason for postponing it. There were imputations of factious motives on the one side, and of improper insinuations on the other. Finally, a motion was made that the chairman do report progress. On the question the committee divided. Ayes 92, Noes 152: Majority 60.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Leveson, Lord
Archbold, R.	Marjoribanks, S.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Mitcalfe, H.
Barron, Sir H. W.	Mitchell, T. A.
Berkeley, hn. Capt.	Morris, D.
Bernal, R.	Murphy, F. S.
Blewitt, R. J.	Napier, Sir C.
Bodkin, J. J.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Bowring, Dr.	O'Brien, J.
Browne, hon. W.	O'Brien, W. S.
Busfeild, W.	O'Connell, M. J.
Carew, hn. R. S.	O' Conor Don
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Palmerston, Visct.
Chapman, B.	Pechell, Capt.
Colborne, hn. W.N.R.	Philips, G. R.
Collett, J.	Ponsonby, hn. C.F.A.C
Craig, W. G.	Ricardo, J. L.
Crawford, W. S.	Rice, E. It.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Roche, Sir D.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.	Ross, D. R.
Duncan, Visct.	Russell, Lord J.
Duncan, G.	Russell, Lord E.
Duncombe, T.	Scholefield, J.
Dundas, D.	Seymour, Lord
Ebrington, Visct.	Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Ellice, E.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Elphinstone, H.	Stuart, Lord J.
Esmonde, Sir T.	Stuart, W. V.
Evans, W.	Strutt, E.
Evart, W.	Tancred, H. W.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Thornely, T.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Trelawney, J. S.
Gill, T.	Tufnell, H.
Gore, hon. R.	Vivian, J. H.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.	Wall, C. B.
Hall, Sir B.	Wallace, R.
Hallyburton, Lord G.	Watson, W. H.
Hatton, Capt. V.	Wawn, J. T.
Hill, Lord M.	Wemyss, Capt.
Hollond, R.	Williams, W.
Horsman, E.	Wood, B.
Howard, hn. J. K.	Wyse, T.
Howard, P. H.	Yorke, H. R.
Hume, J.
Hutt, W.	TELLERS.
James, W.	Clements, Visct.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Brotherton, J.

List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt.	Astell, W.
Acton, Col.	Baillie, Col.
Adderley, C. B.	Baird, W.
Allix, J. P.	Baring, hon. W. B.
Antrobus, E.	Baskerville, T. B. M.
Arkwright, G.	Bateson,

Beckett, W.	Hinde, J. H.
Bernard, Visct.	Hodgson, F.
Blackburne, J. I.	Hodgson, R.
Boldero, H. G.	Hope, hon. C.
Borthwick, P.	Hope, A.
Boyd, J.	Hope, G. W.
Bradshaw, J.	Hussey, A.
Bramston, T. W.	Hussey, T.
Broadley, H.	Ingestrie, Visct.
Broadwood, H.	Irton, S.
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Jermyn, Earl
Bruce, Lord E.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Bunbury, T.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Chelsea, Visct.	Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E
Chetwode, Sir J.	Knight, H. G.
Christopher, R. A.	Knight, F. W.
Chute, W. L. W.	Knightley, Sir C.
Clayton, R. R.	Lefroy, A.
Clerk, Sir G.	Leslie, C. P.
Clive, Visct.	Lincoln, Earl of
Clive, hn. R. H.	Lockhart, W.
Cochrane, A.	Lowther, J. H.
Colvile, C. R.	McGeachy, F. A.
Connolly, Col.	Mahon, Visct.
Corry, rt. hon. H.	Mainwaring, T.
Courtenay, Lord	Manners, Lord C. S.
Cripps, W.	Marsham, Visct.
Damer, hon. Col.	Martin, C. W.
Darby, G.	Masterman, J.
Dawnay, hon. W. H.	Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Denison, E. B.	Meynell, Capt.
Dickinson, F. H.	Miles, P. W. S.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Miles, W.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Milnes, R. M.
Du Pre, C. G.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Egerton, Sir P.	Morgan, O.
Eliot, Lord	Neville, R.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	Newdigate, C. N.
Farnham, E. B.	Newport, Visct.
Fellowes, E.	Newry, Visct.
Fitzmaurice, ho. W.	Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Flower, Sir J.	Northland, Visct.
Forester, hn. G. C. W.	Patten, J. W.
Fox, S. L.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Fuller, A. E.	Peel, J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Pennant, hon. Col.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.	Praed, W. T.
Gladstone, Capt.	Pringle, A.
Glynne, Sir S. R.	Pusey, P.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Rendlesham, Lord
Gore, W. R. O.	Repton, G. W. J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Round, J.
Grimston, Visct.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Grogan, E.	Sanderson, R.
Hale, R. B.	Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Hamilton, G. A.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Hamilton, W.J.	Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C
Hamilton, Lord C.	Somerset, Lord G.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.	Stanley, Lord
Hardy, J.	Stuart, H.
Hayes, Sir E.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Henley, J. W.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Hervey, Lord A.	Verner, Col.
Hillborough, Earl of	Vesey, hon. T.

Waddington, H. S.	Young, J.
Wellesley, Lord C.
Wood, Col.	TELLERS.
Wortley, hon. J. S.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Wynn, Sir W. W.	Baring, H.

The original question being again put, it was again moved that the committee do report progress. House resumed. Committee to sit again.

The House adjourned at one o'clock.