§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY (Glasgow, Blackfriars)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the marginal reference to the 41 and 42 Vic. c. 5, in the Bill he has introduced to continue for a limited time the Peace Preservation Act is an error, and whether he intended to refer to the continuance of the 44 and 45 Vic. c. 5; what Irish counties are now proclaimed under the provisions of this Act; what steps are to be taken to renew the Expiring 1524 Act within the next twelve days' which prohibits the importation and possession of explosive substances as well as arms; and, whether he is aware that, before the passing of the Act, immense quantities of rifles and revolvers were sold at very low price by grocers, ironmongers, and others in all parts of Ireland, and that, on the passing of the Act, applications were made by shopkeepers for compensation for the loss of their stocks and a lucrative trade?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)The mistake to which the hon. Member calls attention in the first paragraph of his Question was a misprint. I have already explained, in answer to Questions of the hon. Member for Londonderry City, the extent to which the Act is now in force in Ireland, and also its bearing on the question of the importation and possession of explosive substances; and I shall make a further statement on the subject when moving the second reading of the Bill to-day. There is no reason to believe that before the passing of the Act immense quantities of arms were sold as suggested. After its passing there were about 20 cases in which dealers applied to have their stocks purchased under the authority of the 1st section, on the ground that owing to the proclamation of the surrounding districts there was no sale for the arms. In these cases the arms were purchased at reasonable prices, and are now in store.