COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 29 April 1875)

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
moved, in page 2, line 8, after "modifications," to insert— And to this modification that 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be read as if in section four there were inserted after the word 'gun' the words 'except a fowling-piece or the ammunition for the same.' He said, if the Government would only assent to the Amendment which he intended to propose in reference to the possession of arms it would greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill. He had given Notice of two or three Amendments under this head, giving certain rights to certain people; but although the Amendments were of a very simple character he had experienced some difficulty, owing to the way in which the Bill was drawn, in finding a place at which they might be conveniently inserted. One of the objects of the Bill was to restrict the possession of arms, and his proposition was to take fowling-pieces out of the definition of arms. He thought he was justified in moving the Amendment, because they could hardly call fowling-pieces arms in the present day. They were perfectly useless for warlike purposes, being merely bad smooth-bore muskets. As well might the Bill prohibit the possession by Irish farmers of scythes or axes. But if fowling-pieces were useless as weapons of offence or defence they were extremely useful to the farmer to enable him to protect his crops. A farmer said to him in conversation on this subject—"The crows are as stiff on the land as we are ourselves," meaning that it was extremely hard to drive them away; and he added that the British Government had given the crows a right to eat up the seed that was sown on the farms. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would adopt this slight alteration, and that he would give the Committee some information as to the general policy he intended to pursue in reference to these Amendments.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he feared he should be unable to accede to the Amendment, and he did not see how he could make the concession which would satisfy the hon. and gallant Member upon this point. He felt some diffidence in differing from the hon. and gallant Member in respect to a subject on which he was so great an authority—namely, that of the gun—but he could not see how fowling-pieces could be regarded as not coming under the denomination of "firearms." They were firearms, and would be very dangerous weapons in the hands of these who might desire to use them for unlawful or improper purposes. The adoption of the Amendment would be tantamount to the rejection of the principle of the Bill, as far as it related to the carrying of arms. He desired to extend the possession of arms amongst the farm classes in Ireland. Hitherto, there had been a technical difficulty in the law which had rendered it doubtful in the mind of the Licensing Authorities whether they had the power to grant a licence to carry arms over specified lands—such, for instance, as over the land occupied by a farmer. The Bill removed that doubt, and would allow the grant of such a licence. He hoped these licences would be freely granted in the quieter parts of Ireland, and that the present system of restriction might be relaxed until, in the natural course of events, it would disappear altogether. With all deference to the hon. and gallant Member, he could not help saying he considered the difficulty now experienced in procuring arms licences had been much exaggerated. So far as the present Amendment was concerned, it could not be accepted by the Government.

§ MR. MELDON
supported the Amendment. It would be absurd to say at the present time that arms should be kept out of the hands of the Irish people for fear of a rebellion. He pointed out several instances in which the present law had proved a great hardship to the people, and urged the acceptance of the Amendment, which would bring about a much more satisfactory state of things.

MR. HERBERT
stated that, whereas formerly no game was sold in Killarney, there was now one licensed shop there doing a flourishing business, although the gentlemen in the neighbourhood 1831 did not sell their game—a proof that the police did not carry out the provisions of the Act very stringently. He considered it was at present a great hardship that the Irish farmers were not allowed to kill the rooks. He trusted the Government would provide a means of enabling farmers to get rid of this tiresome foe.

§ MR. RONAYNE
said, what was wanted was to place the possession and carrying of arms in Ireland on some plain and definite foundation, instead of leaving the matter to the decision of the magistrates, who acted on caprice or pique, as he knew many of them now did. He did not ask for petty favours here and there, dependent on the whim of an individual, but for justice all round. His own house was entirely unprotected. He had got rid of gun and dogs, and had not even a cap under his roof, because if he had it would be sufficient to render him liable to a sentence of two years' imprisonment. He could not see any reason why the Government should refuse what was asked by the Amendment unless they thought the farmers of Ireland, as a body, were not to be trusted with such arms. If that was their idea his own experience enabled him to say distinctly that it was a great mistake, and utterly without foundation.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
urged that there would be an advantage rather than a danger in intrusting arms to well-disposed citizens, in particular to farmers who required them for the protection of their crops. Last week a man holding 77 acres of land wrote to him requesting that he would use his influence to obtain for him a licence to carry a gun. Surely it was unreasonable to place obstacles in the way of such a man obtaining a licence. He had himself on one occasion been unable to get a licence for the man whom he employed as a gamekeeper. There ought, at all events, to be a provision inserted in the Bill to the effect that holders of land should be entitled to the possession of a gun if they had not been convicted of any offence.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he had done as much as any man in protecting game, and also vermin in the shape of foxes, but he objected, as a tenant-farmer, that his brother tenant-farmers were precluded from carrying arms over their 1832 own farms. He had himself applied to be allowed to have a gun in his house, and had been asked who had recommended him. He replied that he was a large landowner, and had never had a stain on his character. The end was that he obtained the licence because the magistrates of his county had recommended him. To show that the restrictions were put in force for the purpose simply of preserving game, he would read from a Parliamentary Return the case of a young man at Dundalk who, after shooting over his (Mr. Callan' s) farms for a week, with his permission, was told by the police that if he went out again he would be arrested. The sub-inspector, on being asked to assist in getting him a licence, replied—"I will do no such thing on account of your poaching over the country;" and on the ground that he had been poaching—for so his offence was called, although he had been shooting with permission—an application which he subsequently made for a licence, supported by the recommendation of two magistrates, was refused. If the Chief Secretary would assent to the use of the words "bonâ fide" in the clause he would advise his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment. Otherwise, he would follow him into the Lobby if he divided the Committee.

MR. SULLIVAN
wished to point out the position in which Irish Members were placed at that moment in reference to the Bill. It appeared that they were to discuss their Amendments under a sort of coercion. A notice might have been placed over the entrance to the House, stating that all who were desirous of considering the Budget should discourage the Irish Members, and all who wished to discuss any other measures in the hands of the Government must squeeze the Irish Members. While he and these who acted with him meant to discourage any merely dilatory tactics, they would not be pressed, nor squeezed, nor intimidated into shortening, by one word or sentence, the debates they were to have on their Amendments to the Bill. And if the Budget or any other very important measures which were dexterously put after that Bill were postponed, the responsibility must rest on the exceedingly skilful strategists of the Treasury Bench. With regard to the present proposal, here was a great and powerful Monarchy declaring it to 1833 be a matter of peril to allow an Irish farmer to have a gun to shoot crows with. The Chief Secretary of Ireland had said, from information he had received through the police—the real rulers of Ireland—that there were several murders all ready to come off, and which would be committed if the House of Commons did not pass this Bill. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could name a single attempt at shooting in Ireland which had not been carried out for want of a gun. There had not been one. The Government, by their proposal in this Bill, were inconveniencing honest and peaceable occupants of farms for the hypothetical advantage of stopping one murder out of 50,000. Why did not the Government register the wearer of clogs in Lancashire, and say that John Brown should wear clogs, on the re-commendation of a magistrate, because he was a quiet man, and would not kick his wife to death with them? The time would arrive when military conscription would be the order of the day in Great Britain; and when one of these great cataclysms occurred which the Premier had often warned them was nearer at hand than most supposed—then it would be found that Ireland would be unable to help England in her difficulty, not from disaffection, but because she would be incapacitated through the operation of these Coercion Acts, which denied her inhabitants the right to carry arms.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he thought that was one of the most impracticable Amendments which could be conceived, as its adoption would necessitate the re-casting of the whole of the Act of 1870. A much more convenient course of proceeding would be to withdraw the present Amendment, and take the discussion of the question it raised on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt).

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
said, if farmers were allowed to use fowling-pieces, then he would consent to re-frame his Amendment. He asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he would consent to give compensation to farmers for damage done to their crops in consequence of the occupiers of lands being prohibited to carry fire-arms for the destruction of vermin, &c.?

§ MR. MOORE
said, he thought the fowling-pieces would prove as disastrous as any other kind of weapon in the 1834 hands of persons bent on committing agrarian or other outrage, and he did not wish to see an Amendment carried in that form. What he wished for was that any two justices of the peace should be allowed to grant licences for carrying arms to persons fit to be entrusted with them. He thought it absurd that men who were thought fit to serve as magistrates should not also be thought proper persons to be entrusted with the power to grant licences for the carrying of firearms; and he thought it an indignity cast on them to require them to run after a stipendiary magistrate. Personally, he had no complaint to make; he had applied for gun licences for some 20 or 30 of his tenants and others, and none of his requests had ever been refused by the stipendiary magistrates; but he thought that putting justices of the peace beneath the resident magistracy indicated a certain suspicion of the good faith of the magistrates which could not fail to be keenly felt by the people of the country. The Government could not expect the people of Ireland to respect the law, when they felt that they were being watched and suspected on all sides; and he thought that if the Government adopted his view a judicious relaxation would be made,

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, there was great force in what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken; but, at present, he would not enter into the subject, although the Government were anxious to give it full consideration. The discussion would be better raised by the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. He could not support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway; and as to the question of compensation to farmers, that was a matter on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have something to say if any hopes were held out on that head.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
moved, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "eighty," and insert "seventy-seven," with the view of limiting the operation of the Act to two instead of five years. He said, he considered there were many reasons why 1835 the Act should not be continued in force longer than two years. In the first place, he objected to a suspension of constitutional liberties for a longer period, and when the noble Lord at the head of the Opposition supported the principle of the Bill, he did not understand that he intended to vote for its continuance for five years. Under any circumstances, hon. Members on that side would not be bound to support a proposal which would keep the Act in force for a longer period than had been proposed when they sat on the Ministerial side of the House. What did they do with the Mutiny Act? They knew that there was a suspension of liberty in connection with these Acts, and they were never adopted for a longer period than one year. No one had contended that these Coercion Acts were Constitutional Acts, even if circumstances had made them necessary; and he wanted to know, therefore, why they should be asked to pass them for so long a time? They destroyed the liberty of Ireland by these Acts for five years, and there was no encouragement to the people to advance. All hope was crushed out of them, and all their Representatives could do was to bring forward Motions and Bills in favour of repealing the Acts, which would be rendered unnecessary if they were prolonged for only two years. The present Parliament was not likely to last longer than five years, and that seemed to be the only reason for adopting that period.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
hoped the proposals would be adopted, and said he believed many of these who had supported the Government hitherto would vote for this Amendment. The House ought to bear in mind the fact that in the state Ireland was in 1870, it was considered sufficient to pass an Act which was to continue in operation for two years. What justification could there be now, when crime was almost unknown in the country, for asking that the Acts should be continued for five years? He believed that the present Government would remain in power during that period of years, and that it was their intention if they were succeeded by a Liberal Administration 1836 to leave these Acts as a legacy for them to deal with. At the end of two years, the Bill, or a portion of it, could be renewed, if it were necessary. No case had been made out for re-enacting these laws at all, and he hoped the feelings of the Irish people would not be strained by having these Acts forced upon them for five years.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, he had on former occasions voted for these Acts being continued for two years rather than one, believing that if re-enacted annually they could be brought forward and accepted as matters of course, like the Mutiny Act, and great difficulty would be experienced in getting rid of them. He, however, entirely concurred with the Amendment, and he would make one remark which appeared to him to come with peculiar force at this time. This Bill was introduced as a relaxation of the code of coercion which had previously existed, and the Chief Secretary had held out the hope that this coercion would be still further relaxed. Why, then, should the House be asked to bind itself to the provisions as they stood for five years? They ought to pass the Bill for two years, and at the end of that time the House ought to have the opportunity of making such further relaxations as the condition of the country would admit of. If they bound themselves for five years, no matter what the state of the country might be, the provisions must remain in force, unless a Bill was brought in to repeal the Act, which, as hon. Members knew, was a very clumsy proceeding. He hoped the Committee would not sanction this very long extension of time.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he hoped that the Committee would have clearly before its mind the precise nature of the provisions which it was proposed to continue for five years. The hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way had spoken of taking away all the liberty of the country, and other hon. Members had used similarly extravagant language. Now, the provisions of the existing law, which the Bill proposed to continue, were these—Restriction upon the possession of arms; the issuing on sworn informations of search warrants for threatening letters; the arresting of absconding witnesses; the clauses allowing compensation for agrarian murder 1837 or injury; and the special police tax, which had already been discussed at some length. Hon. Members must recollect that the clauses of the present measure were very different from the Act of 1870, which gave power to arrest strangers who were unable to give an account of themselves, which rendered liable to arrest persons who were out after sunset, and which imposed the most arbitrary restrictions upon the freedom of the Press. The main provision which was retained in the present Bill was the restriction upon the possession of arms. He would remind hon. Members of the past history of Ireland on this subject. Since the year 1796 there had only been a period of 18 months during which these restrictions did not exist. That period was in 1846–7, when it was found necessary to re-impose the restrictions which had been temporarily removed, with additional provisions infinitely more stringent than anything now proposed. Was, then, the Committee prepared to say—looking at the fact that these provisions had continued in operation for so long—that there was any chance that in the short period of five years they would become entirely unnecessary, not in certain parts of Ireland, but all over that country? If the noble Marquess who filled the office he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) now occupied were in his place he would, doubtless, agree that no other course could be adopted than that proposed by the Government. They hoped to be able to revoke these restrictions gradually, and they trusted that when the time they had fixed upon had expired—namely, five years—it would be no longer necessary for them, or for any Government, to re-enact them. Still, they did not think that the free possession of arms could be allowed in Ireland generally until the five years had expired. The provisions had, since 1847, been re-enacted at the end of every one or two years. Was it of any real use to continue this mode of proceeding? If the Government were of opinion that these restrictions would be unnecessary in one or two years, they would not make their present proposal; but they had no such hopes, and what they intended to do was this—when the agitation with regard to this measure had subsided—and it was subsiding already—they would gradually withdraw 1838 the proclamations in certain parts of Ireland, and in this way relax these laws, until they prevailed over only a small part of the country. Perhaps, as matters progressed, even before the five years had expired the restrictions might be withdrawn all over Ireland. But they felt it their duty to ask Parliament to give them these powers for this lengthened period. They thought that they would have more chance in this way of carrying out their policy of gradual relaxation than if they came to Parliament at the end of 12 months or two years to renew these powers, and thus led to a constant renewal of excitement and agitation upon the question.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
observed, that if the Government thought it necessary to introduce this measure for the sake of the peace of the country, they ought to declare that they did so on their own responsibility, and relieve other persons from the odium of being supposed to sanction its operations for so long a period.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, that the fact relied upon by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that restrictions had existed upon the free possession of arms for nearly a century told the other way. The period during which there was no coercion law was during the Irish Famine, in 1817–8, when not a shot was fired in Ireland; while in London, at the time of the Chartist gathering on Kennington Common, the streets were lined with policemen kept carefully out of sight, and the corners were occupied by troops, the officers commanding which did not know who were their next neigbours, so carefully and secretly had the arrangements been made. Would any one on the Treasury Bench venture to propose these restrictions for England? He appealed to the front Opposition Bench to support the Irish Members in obtaining the small modicum of liberty for which they were now contending.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, he had not heard from the Chief Secretary for Ireland any sufficient reason for suspending rights of the character dealt with by the Bill for so long a period as five years. Former Governments in asking for such powers had acted upon a plain constitutional principle which the present Government—and for the first time—asked the House to depart 1839 from. That principle was, that the responsible Government of the day should, from time to time, state to the House of Commons that there was an absolute necessity for the granting of the powers for which they asked. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had reviewed the history of Ireland for nearly a century; but he had failed to show that any Administration—Liberal or Conservative—had ever made a proposal similar to the present. The argument of the right hon. Baronet in its favour would apply with equal cogency to the English Mutiny Act. That was an annual Act. "Well, it was not likely that Her Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to dissolve the Army within the next five years; but what would the House of Commons say to a proposal to continue the Mutiny Act for five years? Such a proposition would not be entertained for a moment. Upon principle, and in accordance with precedent, it would be most objectionable that any Bill suspending important rights of Her Majesty's subjects should be allowed to continue for so long a period as that suggested by Her Majesty's Government. If two years was sufficient in 1847 and 1848, and in the most disturbed times in Ireland, surely a like period would be sufficient now. It was no argument to tell the House of Commons that the Government did not mean to execute the powers which they sought to obtain. The liberties of the subject had never been made dependent upon the discretion of any Government. The House had shown no disposition to support Her Majesty's Government during the progress of the Bill; but he must vote against the present proposal unless a much stronger reason was given for departing from established precedent than had yet been advanced.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)
said, that he readily admitted that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had during the progress of the Bill acted towards Her Majesty's Government with great fairness. He assured the House that it would have been a far pleasanter thing for the Government, if they felt at liberty to do so, to bring in the Bill in a shape which would have rendered the Amendment unnecessary. The present was a measure of relaxation. ["No, no!"] Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite who 1840 cried "No" must admit that, as compared with the Acts the Bill was meant to displace, it was a measure of enormous relaxation. Within the last few years the larger Act was continued in the Annual Continuance Bill, but last Session Her Majesty's Government gave a pledge that in future, so far as they were concerned, the subject should be treated in a different way if it required to be treated at all. It did require to be dealt with, and the Government had, after full consideration, come to the conclusion that they should ask the House to grant them the powers referred to in the clause for a period of five years. There was no parallel between the present Bill and the Mutiny Act. He had always understood that the Mutiny Act was continued only, from year to year, not so much on account of the provisions it contained for the punishment of offenders, but to reserve to the House of Commons power over that which would otherwise become a standing Army. The Westmeath Act, which was one of a very exceptional character, they only sought to continue for two years; but the power which this clause would confer upon the Government they felt in the interests of the peace of Ireland that they should ask for for a period of five years; and the Committee would remember that they could only be put in operation in districts which had been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. There were only two clauses thus continued that applied to the whole of Ireland. One of them was the power to arrest absconding witnesses, and the other the power of making presentment in cases of agrarian outrage. Where there were no agrarian outrages this last provision of the Act would not come into force, and he regarded the clause giving the power of arrest as a most useful one. What the Government desired was, that they should have this reserve power for five years, but they hoped that it might not be necessary to keep all these clauses in force for anything like five years. The Government had already shown the Irish people their earnest desire to relax the severity of these laws, not only by repealing the most stringent of the provisions which their Predecessors had found it necessary to ask Parliament to assent to, but also by the manner in which they had administered them. He need scarcely say how gladly Her Majesty's Government would have 1841 come down and told the House—"For the first time for the last 90 years we fling away these coercion Acts, and we now ask the House to repeal them." But Her Majesty's Government were compelled, unfortunately, to adopt a different course at this moment, and could not indulge in eloquent and heroic speeches of that character. Looking over that unhappy period of 90 years during which this kind of legislation had existed, they always found that there was a rising of excitement among the people whenever measures of stringency were suddenly relaxed. There followed some violent outbreak, and then it was found necessary to resume with increased severity the powers which had been abandoned. Such had been the case in 1846 and in the succeeding years, when famine was accompanied by outrage, and when the money that was subscribed by the people of this country to purchase food for the famine-stricken population of Ireland was spent by the latter in the purchase of arms. [An hon. MRMBER: Name!] If the hon. Member wished, he would read an extract from his authority— In the midst of the most horrible starvation a mania arose for the possession of arms, and the gun trade of Birmingham had experienced a great revival.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to name the authority from which he was reading.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)
From The Annual Register of the year 1846, which was an authentic contemporary record of what had occurred, and which was not drawn up subsequently for controversial partizan purposes. In that work it was stated that, in Clonmel, so many as 1,138 stand of arms were disposed of in a few days, and in many cases were paid for in the silver just received by the Public Relief Committee. He was happy to think that there was not at present a chance of the recurrence of such a terrible state of things, for now we lived in a period of prosperity. Again, what was the state of things in 1870? These things occurred when they had tried the experiment of renewing the code for short periods. To avoid doing this, and to avoid the necessity of having to make the code more and more severe when they had to renew it, the Government had determined upon this occasion to adopt a different 1842 course—that was, that whilst they relaxed measures of extreme stringency, they retained these parts of the code that were of a precautionary nature for a longer period. They believed that it would be more satisfactory if they took a renewal of the legislation for five years, so that they might be able to enforce it if necessary, instead of again within a short period raising this sad and vexed question in the House. The Government holding this power in reserve, would, it was hoped, be able to relax from time to time such sternness as even the revised Acts might possess by withdrawing their proclamation of the districts, whenever they found that they might do so consistently with the preservation of the public peace. Such was the programme Her Majesty's Government hoped to be able to carry out, and the manner in which these laws had been administered by them was a guarantee to the people of Ireland and the Irish Representatives in that House that these Acts would be enforced in the most conciliatory, cautious, and fair-dealing manner. An hon. Member (Mr. Downing) had suggested that the term of five years was fixed by the Government, in order to bequeath to their Successors the disagreeable, but inevitable task of passing another Peace Preservation Bill. But if the view taken by the majority of the Irish Representatives who had spoken on the subject were correct, then a Peace Preservation Bill would certainly not be wanted for Ireland at the end of five years. It seemed to him that each of these arguments cut the throat of the other. He need scarcely say that it was greatly to the regret of himself and of every Member of the Government that they felt themselves obliged to ask for a renewal of these Acts; but after having given the subject the most careful consideration, they felt that by doing so they would be taking the safest and surest way of securing peace and tranquillity in Ireland.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, he would state in the briefest manner the reasons that induced him to support the Amendment. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that he had received every support and every courtesy from that side of the House during the progress of this Bill, and he therefore trusted that hon. Members opposite would permit him to say a few words on the subject under 1843 discussion. In reference to what had just fallen from the Solicitor General for Ireland, he wished to remark that the point involved was not a mere question of passing on the consideration of this subject from one Government to another, but was that of the propriety of transferring the important responsibility of ultimately repealing these Acts to another Parliament. Surely it would be wiser for the present Parliament, which imposed these Acts, to retain in their hands the power of either renewing them, or of letting them drop? But if this Parliament were to have the ultimate determination of this question, it was of the greatest importance that it should deal with it before the last days of its existence, inasmuch as it would not be desirable that it should have to discuss a Peace Preservation Bill for Ireland on the eve of a General Election. Under these circumstances, if no middle term between the five years and the two years that would be acceptable to all parties, could be found, he thought that it would be better that the power should be renewed for two rather than for five years. It was most desirable that the people of Ireland should know that the present Parliament would again consider within a limited time whether they might not further relax these restrictions. It was fortunate that the Act passed by the late Government was restricted to two years, as it had given the right hon. Gentleman opposite an opportunity of proposing to the House a Bill better suited to the present circumstances of the case. The present Parliament and the Government would not be sorry if, after two years, they might be able to make these relaxations in the Bill which both sides of the House generally desired. The Solicitor General for Ireland had spoken most fairly on the subject, and, on the other hand, he trusted that the Government would not misinterpret the vote he was about to give.

§ MR. VANCE
remarked that the late Government had received every assistance from hon. Members sitting round him in their attempt to carry these measures; but hon. Members opposite had not shown any reciprocity in that respect towards the present Government. On the contrary, they had joined with certain Members from Ireland in opposing this Bill and to prevent its being carried into law. One reason why it was desirable 1844 that the measure should be passed for five years was, that by that means they would prevent a recurrence for a considerable time of the sort of debates and scenes they had lately witnessed, which greatly impeded the general business of the country.

§ MR. RONAYNE
supported the Amendment. He thought passing a Bill for five years but poor reward to the Irish people for being peaceful and contented for so long a time.

§ MR. FAY
moved, in page 2, line 11, after "eighty," to add— Where any person shall be licensed or entitled to carry arms under the above-mentioned Acts, or any of them, he shall he at liberty to unite with with others so licensed in forming volunteer regiments, and such volunteers shall have in all respects the same rights, and he subject to the same laws and regulations, as the volunteer forces of England are now subject to.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must point out to the Committee that, as the Amendment stood, it was outside the purposes of the Bill, and would require a separate Instruction of the House before the Committee could entertain it, because it would, if carried, have the effect of repealing certain clauses of the Acts relating to Volunteer corps in England.

§ MR. FAY
said, he would mention the subject on the Report.

§ MR. BUTT
moved, in page 2, line 11, at end, to add— Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall have the effect of continuing the eleventh section of the Act as passed in the eleventh year of the reign of Her Majesty, entitled 'An Act for the better Prevention of Crime and Outrage in certain parts of Ireland,' until the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament; and from and after the passing of this Act the said section shall be and the same is hereby repealed. The hon. and learned Member said, his object was to take away from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the power of preventing persons from having arms in their houses, but to leave to him the power of preventing persons from carrying arms outside of their houses. The powers of the Lord Lieutenant were now only optional, but he had the power of 1845 issuing notices, the effect of which was to disarm the whole people. Not only were they not allowed to carry arms out of doors, but they were bound to deposit any arms they had in their houses at the police barracks. This being so, of course it was necessary that there should be the power of search for arms, and his Amendment, if carried, would enable them to escape the odious power of domiciliary search, which was so liable to abuse, and which in many cases had been actually abused. That power of search as it now existed amounted practically to a general right for any policeman to enter every man's house in a proclaimed district whenever he thought fit, by day or by night, and to ransack every room in it under the pretence of searching for arms. In doing that he might break open every door in the house. He asserted positively that the power of searching for arms as now exercised was nothing less than a power given to every policeman to break into any house he pleased in Ireland. He proposed to limit that power of search. Any concession which the right hon. Baronet thought it within his duty to make would be received in the spirit in which it was offered. He had not been able to give him the credit which he claimed for the relaxations of the present Bill. It was more severe in its provisions than the Act of 1856, although it was not so severe as the Act of 1870. The Committee had now decided that the operation of the measure should be extended to five years; it was therefore necessary carefully to scrutinize every provision in detail. He did not think there were any Amendments which had been placed on the Paper for the purpose of obstruction or raising a discussion, and they might fairly challenge the decision of the Committee on every one of them. It was a delusion to speak of these Acts as temporary measures—they were, in fact, perpetual. The first Act, that was introduced for two years, had been in existence for 33 years. He wished it to be clearly understood—he said it deliberately from information received since the Bill was introduced—that every one of the clauses to which objection was taken, was part and parcel of a most grinding and despotic system of police tyranny, which would be exercised under this Bill in many districts of Ireland. 1846 He wished by this Amendment to prevent the importation and carrying of arms, but not to meddle with the sacred-ness of home. He hoped, although the Committee had decided against the last Amendment, they would not be deprived of the opportunity of taking the sense of the House on the duration of the Bill on bringing up the Report.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he would not discuss the statements which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had made with regard to an alleged system of police tyranny, or the special case of improper exercise of the power of searching for arms to which he had referred. All he would say on that subject was this—that if these cases were officially brought under his notice, they would be thoroughly sifted and justice done; but he was bound to observe that he could hardly remember a single instance of a complaint being made to him on the subject. These portions of the hon. and learned Member's statement which related to future Amendments would be fairly considered when the time arrived. The present Amendment was proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman as a a mitigation of the present restrictions on the possession of arms; and he seemed to think if the Committee adopted it, the law would be still sufficient for the purpose required. But if it were adopted, the very foundation on which restriction was based would be destroyed, because the people would be able to keep their arms concealed, and take them out and use them for all practical purposes, without the police being able to detect them, precisely as if no proclamation had been issued. There could be no better way of getting rid of restrictions to carry arms than by supporting the Amendment. If the Amendment were adopted, these arms that had been delivered 1847 up in the proclaimed districts would have to be returned, whilst the proclamation would remain in force. No result could be more absurd.

§ MR. BIGGAR,
said, the present law was altogether inoperative, since it affected only the well-disposed these who wished to make an improper use of arms could still obtain them in spite of any proclamations.

§ MR. BUTT,
quoting the original Act, contended that it contemplated the carrying of arms as something entirely distinct from the possession of them in a dwelling, and therefore there was no difficulty in separating them now.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, it was obvious that the object of the Government was to entirely disarm the Irish people. The present law had not been efficacious, he contended, not the slightest proof being forthcoming that the power of search had prevented a single outrage from taking place. What was the use of maintaining these powers when they (the Government) were admitting by their silence that they were not efficacious. The evil, on the other hand, of imposing such laws as these on the people was very great, and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), in his Amendment, was no doubt, striking at the most objectionable part of the Bill—namely, these horrible domiciliary visits. This power given to the police amounted to dire oppression and insult, and its exercise tended continually to impress the people with the feeling that they were governed by an authority which considered itself hostile to their sentiments. His Predecessor was put out of the representation of Louth because the people there, especially the farmers and their wives, objected to the great power which was placed in the hands of the police. There had been no lack of instances showing the evils of the law. He remembered a case in which some love letters belonging to a young lady were taken by the police in the course of one of these visits. The friends of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, however, were caught tripping, and the young lady was advised to bring an action against the police-officer. She did so, and the result was that she recovered £250 damages. But what did the officer plead? Why, he pleaded the Coercion Bill. In conclusion, he declared that the Government were not 1848 powerful to render their law efficacious—they were, indeed, powerful to madden the people.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, there was no country in Europe where the Government possessed the power of depriving individuals of the power of protecting their own households and families. Even in Russia the idea of conferring such a power would be scouted. He appealed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland not to put such an indignity upon the people of that country, or do them so gross an injustice.

§ MR. CONOLLY
considered that these provisions were absolutely necessary, and he should have thought that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt), from his great experience in the defence of criminals, would have had some idea that this was so. The millenium had not yet arrived in Ireland. The late Mr. John Martin, who had represented the county of Meath, said he never would be happy until he saw every Irishman armed. The possession of arms was the most dangerous possession, in his opinion, that the Irish people could have. First, because there was the danger which always existed to a peasant of a brother peasant endeavouring to rob him of them; secondly, because the Ribbon societies might insist upon his using them in a manner he would not like; and thirdly, because they were allowed to get rusty, were kept in bogs and ditches, and were therefore quite as likely to go off backwards as forwards. A peasant who sat with arms in his house sat in reality upon a barrel of gunpowder.

§ MR. FAY
characterized the arguments used by the last speaker as weak and illogical. He had said that the first reason why a peasant should not have a gun was that his brother peasant would take it away from him. But one would be as strong as the other; in fact, the man with the gun would be much safer from intrusion than he would be without it. Then with regard to Ribbonism, it was now admitted on all hands that the organization was a myth. The peasantry were Conservative, for since the passing of the Land Act they had a stake in the country. As to the third point—the rusting of the guns—if the arms were kept in the bogs and dykes, surely there was no need of domiciliary visits.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he did not believe in the existence of Ribbonism at present, but supposing it to exist in such perfect organization as the Government would have them to suppose, then the effect of disarming all well-disposed persons in a district would encourage evil-disposed persons to attack them, knowing as they did that their intended victims had no weapons with which to defend themselves. The evidence given before the Westmeath Committee showed that a Ribbon murder was never committed by any person residing within the barony—it was always perpetrated by some person who came from a distance. The effect of the 3rd clause was to encourage ill-disposed persons to commit outrages, and to leave well-disposed persons at their mercy.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
moved, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from after "lawful for," to and including "authorise," in line 16. He stated that the object of the Amendment was to enable persons who had a licence to possess arms, to carry and use them on their own land.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he thought the hon. Member did not quite appreciate the probable effect of his Amendment, which would be to limit rather than to increase the number of licences granted to persons to have arms in their houses for self-protection. He thought that the hon. Member's object would be attained by the proposal which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had already inserted in the Bill.

§ MR. MOORE
said, that these who administered the law in Ireland did not appear quite to understand what they were administering. In the counties of Meath and Louth, and in other parts of Ireland, resident magistrates gave permission to persons licensed to have arms in their houses to carry these arms over their own grounds, and also permitted employés to carry their masters' guns so long as in their employ, and no longer; whereas other magistrates of experience refused to give any such permission.

§ MR. BUTT
said, there could be no doubt about the law as it stood, and under it only two classes of licences 1850 could be granted—the first class that of persons licensed to keep arms in their houses, and the second class a general licence to carry arms abroad. Although it would be regarded as a boon by occupiers of land having licences to keep arms in their dwellings if they were allowed to carry them over the lands in their occupation, yet the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would probably be to limit still more than at present the number of persons to whom licences of the first class would be granted.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLTTNKET)
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division, because it would limit the number of these to whom licences were granted.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, a licence to a man merely to have arms in his house would prevent him from defending himself with a gun outside of his house if he were attacked. He believed that the whole object of the restriction in question was to protect game, and he should feel bound to press his Amendment to a division.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he wished to make an appeal to the Government, but, as it was unrepresented on the Treasury Bench, and hon. Gentlemen generally seemed to feel little or no interest in the matter before the House, he begged to call attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members present, and to move that the Chairman do report Progress.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUS-RET)
apologized for his temporary absence, as he did not, at the moment, know that the Chairman had returned to the Chair, and expressed his readiness to deal with any observations which the hon. Member desired to make.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he had merely moved to report Progress in order to give the hon. and learned Gentleman time to return to the House. He now appealed to the Government to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), which he thought only a fair and reasonable concession to be made to the Irish farmers. He begged to withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
said, he hoped that the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment, as he thought it a very reasonable one.

§ MR. BUTT
said, this matter was a very important one. He thought perhaps the question might be fully weighed by the Government before the Report on the Bill, as he was sure the right hon. Baronet would do well to take the subject into consideration.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he was prepared to consider the subject before the Report; at the same time, he could give no promise as to what course he would take with reference to the matter.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
observed, that licences could not keep a man from shooting his landlord, if he were so inclined, or prevent an insurrection, and the object of the Bill, he contended, must therefore be the preservation of game.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, during the time the debate had lasted that evening the Government had not yielded one iota to Irish Members. The clause was really in the interest of the game-preserving population and not in the peace-preserving interest.

§ MR. CONOLLY
asked whether the clause would allow farmers to carry arms over their own farms? It was a matter of great importance that farmers should be allowed to carry arms. He hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would find it possible to assent to the clause.

§ MR. MELDON
said, there was no reason why the Committee should come to a decision on this point to-night. The simple issue was if a person was licensed to have arms in his house, why should he not be allowed to carry arms over his grounds? He hoped the Amendment would be carried.

§ MR. VANCE
hoped, considering the promise made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), that the matter would not be pushed to a division. If it were, he should vote with the Government.

§ MR. CALLAN
was not surprised that the hon. Member who had just spoken did not appreciate the hardship of the Bill, seeing that his constituents were allowed to carry arms to the public detriment. The only time he (Mr. Callan) had been shot at was in the city which the hon. Member represented (Armagh) on the 12th of July last. He happened 1852 to be standing in the garden of the college attached to the Roman Catholic cathedral by the side of the clergyman, when a shot was fired, and the sexton was struck down, and the shot was fired by one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He did not object to the inhabitants of Armagh being prevented carrying firearms, but he did object to the peaceable farmers of Ireland being placed on the same footing with them.

§ MR. VANCE
said, there had been a previous discussion in the House on this question, and there was a grave difference of opinion as to the person from whom the shot came; but he did not think there was any proof that it came from one of his constituents.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
joined in the appeal to the hon. Member for Limerick county (Mr. O'Sullivan) for the withdrawal of the Amendment.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, he would withdraw it if the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave him a positive promise that he would re-consider the matter.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he could give no assurance that the hon. Member's views would be adopted. All he could say was that he would look into the matter again in deference to the wish which had been expressed that the licences should be extended as widely as possible.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, the object of the clause was to enable persons to have arms in their hands for the purposes of defence, but not of aggression.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
urged the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
pointed out to the hon. Member the necessity of deferring to the expressed wish of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. Butt), in the interests of the Home Rule Party.

MR. SMYTH
also deprecated the pushing of the Amendment to a division, as it would alienate from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Sullivan) a section of the Irish Members.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
assented to the request made to him.

§ MR. BUTT
moved, in page 2, line 20, at end, to insert— The person appointed to grant licences to have or carry arms in any district shall he bound 1853 to grant a licence to have arms or to have and carry arms upon any specified lands, or a licence to have and carry arms generally, to any person resident within the district who shall produce to him a certificate signed by two justices of the peace for the county that he is a fit and proper person to have such licence respectively.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
welcomed the Amendment as a proof of returning confidence in the magistrates of Ireland on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick and these with whom he acted. He would accept the proposition on the understanding that the certificate should be signed by magistrates residing in the same petty sessional division as the person applying, because he thought that personal knowledge ought to be secured. He moved an Amendment with the object of carrying out this view.

§ MR. BUTT
said, he thought this would give rise to considerable difficulty in some parts, where but few magistrates resided, and he suggested that the certificate should be signed by magistrates residing in the same quarter sessional division as the applicant.

§ MR. CONOLLY
said, he was sorry the Government had accepted this Amendment. There were such people as popularity-hunters, and Benches of Magistrates in Ireland were not always free from this taint. In a large body like the magistrates of Ireland they could not all be angels, and some of them, he was sorry to say, had nothing angelic about them at all. Two magistrates would have the power of frustrating the design of the Act, and a person might obtain a licence upon the certificate of two of the greatest Numskulls in the county. The House had, in fact, got itself into a nice "mess," and he would try and extricate it by dividing the House against the Amendment.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
remarked that a magistrate in his county certified in favour of a man holding a considerable portion of land on the seaboard, whose crops were being destroyed by sea-fowl and rooks, and the certificate was signed by a gentleman of rank in the county; but when it was presented to the resident magistrate he refused to act upon it, although he had not a word to say against the man's character. The Amendment which had been accepted, with a modification, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was really the only 1854 concession which had been made since the House went into Committee on this Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) would not go to a division on the subject.

§ MR. CALLAN
observed, that there were many petty sessional divisions in which it would be impossible to get the signatures of two resident magistrates. He would suggest that the signatures of two magistrates in the quarter sessions division or in the barony should be sufficient. It ill-beseemed a Member sitting upon the Conservative benches to call the Irish magistrates "numskulls."

§ MR. W. JOHNSTON
said, he was quite satisfied at the acceptance of the Amendment by the Government, and he had no sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly).

§ MR. COLLINS
appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to restrict his good intention unnecessarily, and that he would consent to introduce the words "baronial division."

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he could not accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member. Revocation of licence was only made after careful inquiry, on the authority of the Lord Lieutenant, and he could easily imagine circumstances under which it would be highly inexpedient to publish the information so obtained.

§ MR. BUTT
suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed by his hon Friend. He (Mr. Butt) must, however, protest against the power which the magistrates would have under the Bill of branding a man's character in private without affording him an opportunity of knowing and probably of repelling the charge made against him.

§ MR. STACPOOLE
said, he thought that the magistrates of Ireland might safely be intrusted with the duty which the clause would impose upon them.

§ MR. CALLAN
protested against the assertion that Irish magistrates might safely be allowed in secret to decide upon the character of a man and the course which the Government ought to adopt towards him.

§ MR. STACPOOLE
stated, without fear of contradiction, that the magistrates of Ireland were as independent and straightforward a body of men as could be found in the Three Kingdoms. The Government would, he believed, do a service to the country by acting upon any suggestion they might make.

§ MR. R. POWER
moved, in page 2, line 20, at end, insert— Every person appointed to grant licences under this Act shall keep a true and perfect list of the names and residences of all persons applying for such licences, and shall on the first day of every month deposit with the clerk of the peace of the county a true and perfect copy of such list, adding thereto to the name of each applicant a statement showing whether the licence has been granted or refused, specifying also the nature of the licence applied for, and the nature of the licence, if any, granted, which list shall be kept by the clerk of the peace among the records of the county.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he had no objection to the Amendment' provided the words "true and perfect', were omitted, and that for "month" the word "year" was substituted.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
moved, in page 2, line 20, at end, insert— Every person duly licensed to kill game shall be entitled as of right to obtain a licence to have and carry arms under this Act. This would restore the law to what it had been prior to the Act of 1870.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
pointed out that the Amendment would simply have the effect of taking away the discretionary power of the licensing authority in the case of persons who chose to pay £3 3s. for a game licence.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
supported the Amendment. He thought that persons 1856 who would pay £3 3s. for a game licence would not belong to the "dangerous" classes.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
maintained that if the clause were passed as it was it would entirely remove all discretionary powers from the county magistrates.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he hoped the Chief Secretary would agree that persons having a licence to carry arms in their own county should, if they had also a game licence, be permitted to carry arms in any part of the country. At present they could not join a shooting party in a neighbouring county.

§ MR. RONAYNE
stated that he had suffered inconvenience personally as a sportsman under that clause. After paying £3 3s. for a game licence he had gone out shooting without having also a licence to carry arms, being ignorant of the alteration of the law which rendered the latter licence necessary. In that way he understood he had made himself liable to two years' imprisonment with hard labour every time he had gone out shooting, and it was in the power of any policeman to have arrested him. When he became aware of the real state of the law he got rid of his dogs and his gun because he could not bring himself to go and ask a magistrate for permission to carry arms. That grievance might be a sentimental one; but it was keenly felt by the highly intelligent constituency which he represented.

§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, he thought the Representative of an intelligent constituency ought to look into the Acts of Parliament relating to his country, and if he found that he had infringed the law and that the Government had not come down upon him for it, he ought to be grateful to them for their clemency, and not complain of it as a sentimental grievance.

MR. SULLIVAN
replied that in such a case it was the first duty of a Viceroy to know the laws he had to administer, and not to break them. Was it becoming for the son of a Viceroy who, ignorant of the laws he had sworn to maintain, had rendered himself liable to prosecution as a felon, to tell an hon. Member that, as a simple Representative, he ought to study the uncodified laws of the British Empire? He (Mr. Sullivan) believed that if the noble Lord was examined, he would prove to be well able to preach, but not to practise.

§ MR. RONAYNE,
in explanation, could only refer to the complicated state of English legislation, and of the penal enactments.

THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON
Will the hon. Member for Louth state the laws of which the Viceroy was ignorant and which he had broken?

MR. SULLIVAN
With the greatest pleasure. I was referring to these portions of the Act of 2 & 3 Vict. which the Government is now about to amend, as it provides that every unregistered Freemason in Ireland is liable to be prosecuted as a felon. I hope that no one will deny—no brother Mason certainly will deny—that the Viceroy of Ireland is a Freemason. I am not aware that his name is on the return of registered Freemasons. If it is, I make the most profound apology to him, not only as Viceroy, but also in his other character, in which I highly respect him, as an Irish gentleman and a nobleman who is extremely popular in our country. If it be true that these Acts have been so absurd and complicated that a Viceroy was ignorant of their provisions, I put it to the House whether it is to be wondered at that the hon. Member for Cork should be ignorant of the law for three months? I should be glad to hear now that the Viceroy was registered, and not a felon. We are now about to amend the law, so that there shall no longer be felons in high quarters in Ireland through ignorance of the law.

THE CHAIRMAN
wished to remind the Committee of the Question before it. It was proposed to insert words to the effect that every person duly licensed to kill game should be licensed to carry arms.

§ DR. O'LEARY
spoke in favour of the Amendment, and said that he himself had similar experience of the difficulty of understanding the Act to that which had been stated by the hon. Member for Cork. He hoped the Chief Secretary would consent to modify the clause.

§ MR. O'CONNOR POWER
appealed to the hon. Member for the county of Cork to press his Amendment to a division, and he should have his support.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
moved a verbal Amendment in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork.

§ MR. MELDON
opposed the verbal Amendment, and stated that the law, as it now stood, in relation to game licences, authorized any man having a game 1858 licence to go through any proclaimed district in Ireland with his gun.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he understood the hon. Member who had just spoken to state that a person having a licence to carry arms and also a game certificate, was thereby authorized to carry arms in any proclaimed district; and he believed this to be correct.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
Then, Sir, after what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated I withdraw my Amendment.

§ MR. BUTT
said, there was no instance wherein it could be shown that men possessing game licences had turned their arms to improper uses. The present Bill was going beyond the Act of 1847.

§ MR. BIGGAR
moved that the Chairman do report Progress.

§ MR. BIGGAR
again rose, and said he had intended to ask leave to withdraw his Motion, which he made simply because the House would not hear him. He must be heard or would repeat the Motion.

THE CHAIRMAN
ruled that it was not competent for the hon. Member to renew a Motion which had been negatived.

§ MR. CALLAN
protested against the unseemly conduct of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House. They were sent to Parliament to express their opinions freely and fully, and they ought not to be interrupted by unseemly noises. He would move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
appealed to the Chairman to know whether it was in Order for one hon. Member to say that other hon. Members had been guilty of "unseemly conduct."

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he did not understand the hon. Member to apply the term "unseemly conduct" to hon. Gentlemen, but to use the words "unseemly noises," and he must point out that even that term was not desirable.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, that he did not think it was fair that hon. Members should be interrupted in their observations by noises which were not seemly, and if the noises were not seemly they were unseemly noises; and therefore, in spite of the hon. Gentleman who had 1859 just risen to Order, he begged to repeat his remark.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must again point out that the words "unseemly noises" were not a desirable term to use; and he must also say that it was not the practice of hon. Gentlemen to repeat expressions after they had been ruled to be undesirable.

MR. SULLIVAN
quite understood that the Committee should evince a little impatience at listening to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); but he desired to say that up to the present both sides of the House had evinced the fairest disposition to carry on the discussion. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) would withdraw his Motion, and that the hon. Member for Cavan would be heard.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he intended to be heard. If hon. Members did not like it they had their remedy—and he had his. All he wanted to say was that the Excise in Ireland had power to grant licences for the sale of spirits, and he did not see why the gun licences should not be in their hands also.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, the Chairman had misunderstood him if he thought he had repeated anything which it had been ruled was undesirable to be used in debate.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
inquired whether it was intended, as he believed it was, by the clause to prevent a man who held an arms licence in his own county carrying arms into an adjoining county which was proclaimed?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)
replied that in the case referred to, a licence to carry arms in the proclaimed district, or in some other proclaimed district, would be required.

§ MR. BUTT
moved, in page 2, line 26, at end to insert "between sunrise and sunset." There was no reason why search warrants should be used at any hour of the night. For any legitimate purpose the power of search in the daytime was sufficient. What he wished was to restore the law to what it was before 1860 1870. At the present moment every man's house washable to be broken into without warrant at any time. There was such a thing as lawless law, and this was one. In England they had given household suffrage; in Ireland they gave household search. That was the law in 31 counties of Ireland. Every house was at the mercy of a common policeman.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, that after listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick he could well understand how it was that there was so strong an opposition on the part of some hon. Members who sat below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House to this measure, the cause of their opposition being a want of knowledge of the provisions of the law as it now existed. Neither in law nor in fact was it true that in 31 counties in Ireland any man's house could be searched at the will of a common policeman. No policeman could search the house of any man without a warrant issued by the proper authorities; and, in the second place, no search warrant had been in force in Ireland except for searching houses specially named since June last, with very few exceptions, as in the case of certain ports where there was reason to fear that arms were being imported. Under these circumstances, the eloquent denunciation of the existing law by the hon. and learned Member appeared to, be a little exaggerated. Having looked at the matter very carefully, however, he felt that the existing law respecting the search for arms might be fairly amended in several material respects. He therefore proposed to accede to certain of the Amendments which had been proposed by the hon. and learned Member and his Friends. Thus, he would assent to the proposal that the search for arms should only be between sunrise and sunset—a concession which he believed would be of very material importance. A great deal had been said about the dreadful way in which the houses of the Irish peasantry were invaded at night. He was willing to secure them against any such danger. He was also prepared to agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman that search warrants should not be executed except in the presence and under the direction of some responsible officer. The third Amendment provided that such 1861 warrant should not be executed except by the authority of a justice of the peace acting for the county within which it was to be executed, specifying the house or place to be entered. To that Amendment he must object, because it would place the authority of a justice of the peace over that of the Lord Lieutenant, and therefore he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press it. Under these circumstances, he asked the hon. and learned Member for Limerick and his Friends to meet the Government in the same conciliatory spirit, and to accept the compromise he had suggested.

§ MR. BUTT
said, that the right hon. Baronet in assenting to these Amendments had done much to mitigate the evils of this coercive legislation, inasmuch as it might now be said with truth that the general right of domiciliary search no longer existed. He need scarcely say that the Irish people would fully appreciate the action of the right hon. Baronet and of the Government in the matter; and, for his own part, he could with a clear conscience return his sincere thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the concessions he had made.

§ MR. BUTT
said, that after the generous spirit shown by the Chief Secretary, he was unwilling to interrupt the general harmony, and he would therefore withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that he should have the power to move it on the Report.

§ MR. FAY
moved, in page 2, line 36, to leave out "one year" and insert "forty-eight hours." He thought 48 hours' imprisonment was sufficient punishment for a person found in the possession of arms, especially after what had been stated by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) as to the character of some Members of the Irish magistracy.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
opposed the Amendment, which seemed to savour somewhat of a ridiculous character.

§ MR. CONOLLY
I wish to deny emphatically having depreciated the local magistrates of Ireland as a body. I did say some of them were not angels. ["Numskull."] I did say there were 1862 Numskulls among them, and I will say further, that there are Numskulls in this House.

§ MR. RONAYNE
said, that the hon. Member had shown that there were Numskulls in the House, and the Government had evidently thought that there were Numskulls amongst the local magistracy, because stipendiary magistrates, who in many cases knew nothing of the law, were placed over them.

MR. SULLIVAN
suggested that three months should be inserted instead of 48 hours.

§ MR. FAY
asked permission to withdraw his Amendment. ["No."]

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
complained of the language of the Irish Secretary, and expressed the hope that the original Amendment would be allowed to be withdrawn.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, the hon. and learned Member, not having been successful in his operations against the Bill in the earlier part of the evening, had now, after he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had spent a long and fatiguing evening in the Committee, come down, without hearing a word of what he had said, and accused him of using improper language. He would appeal to the Committee, whether he had used any language justifying the implied censure of the hon. and learned Member? He had only said that the Amendment would tend to make the Bill ridiculous. If the original Amendment were withdrawn, there would at any rate not be this objection to the substituted Amendment. The penalty had already been reduced from two years to one year, and he had hoped that this concession would have received more acknowledgment.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he had hoard no improper language attributed to the right hon. Baronet; and, indeed, his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) had spoken in a conciliatory manner. He hoped that the original Amendment would be allowed to be withdrawn.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, as a general rule, he should like to meet the wishes of the Committee, and as far as he had any influence in that House, he should use it to try and induce the Committee to consent to the withdrawal of the hon. Member's (Mr. Fay's) Amendment. With regard to the progress of the Committee 1863 with the Bill, there appeared to he a misconception, not only in that House, but out-of-doors; but so far as it appeared to him, he must say that he thought the progress made with the Bill was satisfactory, and the spirit in which the discussion had been carried on by the Committee so business-like and encouraging, that by meeting today at 2 o'clock they would, no doubt, make considerable further progress with the measure. It was a proposition which he had no doubt would be generally popular, and he hoped the remaining parts of the Bill would be discussed in the same well-intended feeling as the preceding parts had been. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. MELDON
proposed to omit "one year" in order to insert "three months for a first offence, and not exceeding one year for any subsequent offence."

MR. SULLIVAN
moved that Progress be reported, and suggested that the discussion should be resumed on Monday.

§ MR. DISRAELI
acceded to the Motion for reporting Progress, but remarked that the Committee so thoroughly understood the subject of the Bill now that they could dispose of it more easily at a Morning Sitting to-morrow than at an Evening Sitting on Monday.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.