Sitting of 27 July 1843

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1°. Landlord and Tenant (Ireland).
2°. Loan Societies; Prison Discipline; Limitation of Actions (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Stamps; West India Islands Relief; Excise.
Committed.—Law of Evidence; Warrants of Attorney.
Reported.—Coroners.
3°. and passed:—Loan Societies; Slave Trade Treaties; Militia Ballot's Suspension; Bills of Exchange; Marriages (Ireland); Stock in Trade.
Private. — Reported. — Earl of Gainsborough's Estate; M'Culloh's (or Roupel's) Estate: Wilkinson's Estate.
3°. and passed:—Leicester and Peterborough Roads.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir W. Clay, and Mr. Masterman, from Stepney Union, Port of London, and the Tower Hamlets, in favour of the Coalwhippers Bill.— By Mr. Hamilton, from Westmeath, in favour of the Irish Arms Bill.—From two places, against any further Grant for Educational purposes; and from several places, for Encouragement to the Schools in Connection with the Church Education Society.—By Mr. Bannerman, from Aberdeen, against the Factories Bill; against the Merchant Stamens Fund; against the Tenth Article in the American Treaty; against the Prisons (Scotland) Bill; for Carrying out Rowland Hills Plan of Post-Office Reform; and for making Seduction a Capital Offence.— From Individuals at Fishlake, and Stainforth, against the Names being signed without their consent to Petitions for the Repeal of the Corn Laws.—From Aberdour, and other places, for Inquiry into the Causes of the present Distress.—From Mayne, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.

ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.
The report of the Arms (Ireland) Bill was reconsidered.
On the question that the amendments be read a second time.
Mr. S. Crawfordrose to move, instead of the motion, the amendment of which he had given notice, and which he read as follows:—
" That the unrestricted power of having, carrying, and using arms, for all legal purposes, is a right enjoyed by Englishmen and Scotchmen, and is one of the essential safeguards of freedom. That to limit or withhold this privilege, as regards Irishmen, creates an
1360
unjust, impolitic, and insulting distinction, and is a violation of that equality of rights which can be the only safe and just basis of imperial legislation, That, therefore it is the duty of this House to reject any measure which would impose or continue such restriction."
Such a measure as this had never been passed by the Irish Parliament, nor had any good ground for it been laid in the Imperial Legislature. The measure ought to be limited to those parts of Ireland which were in a disturbed state, and not applied to the whole country indiscriminately. In the charge lately made to the grand jury of the county of Down, the learned judge who presided congratulated them on the absence of any serious crime. It was dangerous to the people of England that such bills should pass, as the principles upon which they were founded might on some future day be applied to them also. if this bill were acted on, he himself, notwithstanding his desire for the continuance of the legislative union, did not see how he could abstain from advocating a separate legislature. Be the consequences what they might, he would not be a party to a charter of slavery against his country. A union maintained by such means ought not to be, and could not be continued.
Lord Eliotthought the observations with which the hon. Gentleman had prefaced his amendment, would have been more applicable upon the second reading of the bill. The House on the second reading had affirmed the principle that some restriction should be put upon the use of firearms in Ireland, and during the progress of the bill whilst in committee alterations had been made which had confined its operation to firearms. There were other clauses still to be brought up which would modify the bill still further, so as perhaps to meet the objections of some of the hon. Members opposite. By one of those clauses, it was enacted that if the time allowed for registration should not be found sufficient, the justices of the peace should be empowered to extend it. By another, all persons at present on the registry would have a primâ facie right to be re-registered, and thus their attendance would not be required.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. Ayes 99; Noes 44; —Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Hope, hon. C.

Acton, Col.

Hope, G. W.

Allix, J. P.

Hughes, W. B.

Arkwright, G.

Hussey, T.

Baillie, H. J.

Irving, J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Johnstone, H.

Barrington, Visct.

Jones, Capt.

Beckett, W.

Kemble, H.

Bernard, Viscount

Knatchbull, rt.hn.Sir E

Borthwick, P.

Knight, H. G.

Boyd, J.

Labouchere, rt. hn.H.

Bramston, T. W.

Lyall, G.

Broadwood, H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Bunbury, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Masterman, J.

Cardwell, E.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Chute, W. L. W.

Meynell, Capt.

Clerk, Sir G.

Milnes, R. M.

Clive, Visct.

Morgan, O.

Damer, hon. Col.

Mundy, E. M.

Darby, G.

Neville, R.

Denison, E. B.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Disraeli, B.

Northland, Visct.

Dodd, G.

O'Brien, A. S.

Douglas, Sir H.

Pakington, J. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

East, J. B.

Polhill, F.

Ebrington, Visct.

Pollock, Sir F.

Eliot, Lord

Pringle, A.

Escott, B.

Richards, R.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Round, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Flower, Sir J.

Russell, J. D. W.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Scott, hon. F.

Forman, T. S.

Shaw, rt. hit. F.

Fuller, A: E.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Gladstone, Capt.

Smith, rt. hn. T.B.C.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Smythe, hon. G.

Gore, W. O.

Somerset, Lord G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

Stanley, Loud

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stewart, J.

Greene, T.

Stuart, W. V.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hale, R. B.

Tennent, J. E.

Hamilton, G. A.

Thornhill, G.

Hardinge, rt.hn. Sir H.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hardy, J.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Hayes, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Fremantle, Sir T,

Hodgson, R

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Fielden, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Ferguson, Col.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Forster, M.

Bowring, Dr.

Hall, Sir B.

Brotherton, J.

Hindley, C.

Clements, Visct.

Hume, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Langton, W. G.

Collett, J.

Leader, J. T.

Duncan, G.

Mitcalfe, H.

Duncombe, T.

Mitchell, T. A;

Dundas, A.

Muntz, G. F.

Ewart, W.

Napier, Sir C.

1362

O'Brien, W. S.

Trelawny, J. S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wakley, T.

O'Conor, Don

Wall, C. B.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ward, H. G.

Power, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Protheroe, E.

Wood, B.

Roche, E. B.

Wyse, T.

Ross, D. R.

Yorke, H. R.

Scholefield, J.

Strutt, E.

TELLERS.

Tancred, H. W.

Crawford, S.

Thornely, T.

Blewitt, R. J.

Amendments agreed to.
Lord J. Russell,in proposing the clauses of which he had given notice, said the House had already disposed of the question whether or not it would continue the act now in force in preference to proceeding with the present measure. In his opinion, the continuance of the present act would have been the wisest course, but the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland rejected that proposition without five minutes' consideration. He was about to propose a very considerable alteration in the most odious and offensive clause in the bill. He alluded to that clause, as one of those coming under the above designation, which enabled a magistrate or a constable under the warrant of a magistrate to open forcibly and to enter in search of arms the House of any person at any hour, whether by day or by night. There was nothing which in the eyes of Englishmen was held so sacred as immunity from all forcible entrance into their dwellings. The Englishman's boast was, that his House was his castle, and proverbial phrases such as these showed what deep interest was attached in this country to the sanctity of a private dwelling-house. With respect to the branding clause, many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and representing different counties in Ireland had expressed their opinion that the rich and the poor should be treated equally. The course which they pursued in this instance did them the highest honour. The clause to which he drew attention, however, was not likely to be enforced as against the rich. As the bill stood at present, it enabled any constable, at any hour of the night, to break into a man's house if refused admission. It warranted them to enter the bed-rooms of men's wives and daughters, and exposed women to the insult of having the privacy of their chambers violated and invaded. How would Englishmen feel if their country was proposed to be subjected

1363
to the operation of such a law? It was very well to say, let the rich be treated in the same manner as the poor, but why should the provisions of the law be extended beyond what the necessity of the case required? Why give such power to a magistrate, who, in a hasty moment, might exercise it against a neighbour who opposed him at an election, or might resort to its use at the prompting of some temporary panic? They should take care not to induce a suspicion in Ireland that the administration of the law was placed in the hands of those who were supposed to be enemies to the great body of the people. In 1819, an enactment was passed with respect to England authorizing houses to be entered for the purpose of search, but this power was confined to certain counties, with authority to his Majesty in Council to extend the power to other counties and districts, from time to time, as might appear fit. Apply such a law as this to Ireland, and though the Government had not stated that any particular counties were in a state of disturbance, yet as they were all aware that there were certain counties more disturbed than others, let it be left to the Lord-lieutenant to proclaim such counties as might appear to require the operation of the present bill. In counties where tranquillity prevailed, he did not see why the people's feelings should be offended by the general application of the bill. The Government had admitted, that in great part of the country outrages had not increased, and under these circumstances he did not conceive it just to give a power to any two magistrates to order houses to be entered at any time of the night. He considered it, too, the bounden duty of the Lord-lieutenant not to shrink from responsibility with respect to the enforcement of this law, wherever its enforcement might be deemed necessary. He thought it was too much the case already, that the Lord-lieutenant and the Executive of Ireland shrank from the responsibility belonging to them. If his suggestion were adopted, the country would have the means of knowing whether a necessity existed for the application of the law in each particular case. He might be told, that if a particular county was proclaimed, arms might be brought into it from a distance. No doubt this might be the case; and so also arms might be concealed in parts of England and Wales; and it might just as
1364
well be said, that it was necessary on this account to extend the law to such parts of England and Wales, as to the more tranquil counties of Ireland. He had seen in a newspaper of that day that a barbarous murder had been committed in Ireland by means of a hammer; and he asked whether it was not more likely that a hammer or stone would be used for the purpose of murder, than that the delinquent parties would go forty or fifty miles to obtain a gun or pistol? The general law of the constitution should prevail, unless a grave case of necessity for the contrary was made out, and the circumstance that parties might go into a distant county for arms was not such an obvious case of necessity as justified Parliament in granting this odious power. The noble Lord concluded by moving a clause that the provision of the act which authorizes a magistrate to enter a house, or search for arms, should not be enforced, unless the district be proclaimed by the Lord-lieutenant.
Clause brought up and read a first time. On the question that it he read a second time,
Lord Eliotsaid, the noble Lord had begun his speech by expressing some surprise that the Government had not acceded to his proposition, and renewed the existing law for a year; and the noble Lord then endeavoured to excite the sympathy of the House for those persons, the sanctity of whose dwellings might be violated under the present bill. Now he desired the House to mark the inconsistency of the noble Lord's argument. The noble Lord proposed to renew a law, under which the right of search existed to a greater extent than under the present bill; for the alterations made in the committee on the bill modified the right of search, as compared with the existing law. The noble Lord wished to restrict the operation of the bill to disturbed districts. What was the meaning of the word "disturbed?" The meaning of that word was expounded in the noble Lord's own coercion bill of 1834. He apprehended that a disturbed state was a state of circumstances when there was an open violation of the law, bordering on insurrection, and it would be impossible for the Lord-lieutenant to issue a proclamation declaring a district to be in a disturbed state, unless there were in it not merely the commission of murders and agrarian depredations by individuals, but

1365
armed bodies of men openly violating the law. Supposing a man were refused a license for arms, and yet, notwithstanding the refusal of the license, kept arms, the magistrates would not under the noble Lord's clause have the power of taking the arms from that individual. He thought the adoption of the noble Lord's proposition would altogether frustrate the objects of the present bill, and render nugatory the clauses for the registration of arms. The noble Lord had alluded to the act of 1819, applicable to England; but the state of England then was different from the state of Ireland now. In 1819 there was in England open resistance to the law by armed bodies of men. This was not the case in Ireland at present. The power of search had existed for fifty years, and be did not think there was a single petition from any body of people in Ireland complaining of its undue exercise by the magistrates; while the existence of such a power gave to the peaceable and loyal inhabitants a confidence and feeling of security, which they otherwise would not possess. For these reasons he opposed the noble Lord's clause.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellagreed in the noble Lord's statement that the condition of England in 1819 was different from the present state of Ireland; it was worse, and yet this was a reason given by the noble Lord for not extending to Ireland that safeguard which England was then allowed to have. It was satisfactory, after all the annoyance which the Members on the Opposition side were supposed to have created during the discussion of this bill, to find the noble Lord referring to the amendments which had resulted from that discussion, as a reason for not acceding to the present motion of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London. The noble Lord (Lord Eliot) said, that a license for arms might be refused a man, and yet, under the clause now proposed, that man might keep arms, and the magistrates would have no power of taking them from him; but if no disturbance resulted from his keeping arms why should this power be granted to take them away? The noble Lord (Lord Eliot) had made the present bill less stringent in this respect than the old law; but if he consulted the real interests of Ireland he would adopt the amendment.
Mr. Rosscontended that in many counties in Ireland, in Antrim in particu-
1366
lar, crime was diminishing, and yet the Government had pursued a system of search for arms, and had actually taken arms from poor people who had been guilty of no offence. He took the same view of the question as the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and he protested against the extension over the whole island of a law which ought only to be brought into operation and applied in cases of extreme necessity, such as a state of insurrection or when aggressions and acts of violence were of common occurrence. Neither one nor the other of these conditions could now be spoken of as applicable to the present state and condition of Ireland. If that country were in a state of insurrection, he should be the last man to oppose a bill of this kind, but until the Government showed the existence of some such causes as those he had mentioned, and put them forward as the foundation of their legislation, he should raise his voice as long as he was able against such a measure. When the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland stated just now that no serious mischiefs had been produced by the night searches for arms, he must have forgotten the statement made a few nights ago by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. M. O'Ferrall). The noble Lord had forgotten that a whole district had been thrown into confusion by one of these night searches, in the course of which a cottage had been broken into and the women inhabiting it wantonly insulted. He had already recorded his hostility to the measure, and he should be glad if he could sit down with the slightest hope that the cogent arguments of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London would be productive of some effect upon her Majesty's Government, and induce them, by the adoption of the clause proposed, to deprive the bill of provisions so hostile to the feelings of the people of Ireland.
Mr. Ewartcondemned the policy pursued towards Ireland by the present Government. That policy was one of inaction, or in other words, it was this,—" Leave Ireland to herself, and possibly, in time, she will become tranquil." Now, was that policy consistent with a stringent measure such as that now under the consideration of the House? On the one hand it was said, 'Leave Ireland as she is," and on the other there was introduced a measure most calculated to increase ex-

1367
citement in that country. Nothing could be more inconsistent. He should have been glad if the noble Lord the Member for the city of London had moved some more decided amendment; but as it was, the clause proposed should have his support.
The O'Conor Donsaid the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland had alluded to the feelings expressed by grand juries in Ireland with reference to this bill, and he merely rose to state that he had lately been on the grand jury in the county of Roscommon, and that even the Conservative Gentlemen upon that jury were not favourable to this bill. He most cordially supported the clause moved by the noble Lord.
The House divided on the question that the clause be now read a second time: Ayes 65; Noes 109; Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Morison, Gen.

Archbold, R.

Muntz, G. F.

Barclay, D.

Napier, Sir C.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Blake, M. J.

O'Conor, Don

Blewitt, R. J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Power, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Rice, E. R.

Clements, Visct.

Roche, E. B.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Ross, D. R.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Russell, Lord J.

Crawford, W. S.

Scholefield, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Ebrington, Visct.

Stuart, W. V.

Ewart, W.

Strutt, E.

Fielden, J.

Thornely, T.

Ferguson, Col.

Trelawny, J. S.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Tufnell, H.

Fitzwilliam, hn. G.W.

Tuite, H. M.

Forster, M.

Wakley, T.

Fox, C. R.

Wall, C. B.

French, F.

Ward, H. O.

Gill, T.

Wawn, J. T.

Gore, hon. R.

Williams, W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Wood, B.

Hastie, A.

Wood, C.

Hume, J.

Wood, G. W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Wrightson, W. B.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wyse, T.

Mangles, R. D.

Yorke, H. R.

Mitcalfe, H.

TELLERS.

Mitchell, T. A.

O'Connell, M. J.

Morris, D.

O'Ferrall, M.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Bankes, G.

Allix, J. P.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Arkwright, G.

Barrington, Visct.

Astell, W.

Beckett, W.

Baillie, H. J.

Bernard, Visct.

1368

Boldero, H. G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Borthwick, P.

Lyall, G.

Botfield, B.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Boyd, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Bramston, T. W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Broadwood, H.

Masterman, J.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Manes, R. M.

Bunbury, T.

Mundy, E. M.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Cardwell, E.

Northland, Visct.

Chute, W. L. W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Clive, Visct.

Packe, C. W.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Cripps, W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir It.

Darby, G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Douglas, Sir H.

Polhill, F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Pollington, Visct.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Pollock, Sir F.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Pringle, A.

East, J. B.

Rashleigh, W.

Eliot, Lord

Richards, R.

Escott, B.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Round, J.

Flower, Sir J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Forman, T. S.

Russell, C.

Fuller, A. E.

Russell, J. D. W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Sanderson, R.

Gladstone, Capt.

Sandon, Visct.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Scott, hon. F.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Greene, T.

Smith, rt. hn. T.B.C.

Grimston, Visct.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hale, R. B.

Stanley, Lord

Hamilton, G. A.

Stewart, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Stuart, H.

Henley, J. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Tennent, J. E.

Hervey, Lord A.

Thompson, Ald.

Hodgson, F.

Thornhill, G.

Hodgson, R.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hope, hon. C.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hope, G. W.

Vivian, J. E.

Hussey, T.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Jermyn, Earl

Wilbraham, R. B.

Johnstone, H.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Jones, Capt.

Young, J.

Kemble, H.

TELLERS,

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Lefroy, A.

Clerk, Sir G.

Clause rejected.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellobserved, that in the former debate upon this subject he had not heard from Members of the Government, or any hon. Gentlemen opposite, any proof as to the necessity of introducing this new provision into the bill, the necessity of marking the arms. On the former occasion the noble Secretary for Ireland, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, had addressed them at some length, but in all that had been uttered by them he had heard nothing to convince him that the "marking" clause was required

1369
for the peace or security of Ireland. He had indeed heard from hon. Gentlemen who sat on that (the ministerial) side of the House the admission that the clause would be vexatious in its nature and troublesome in its consequences. The only argument he had heard from gentlemen in support of it was, that as the law existed there was a difficulty in the way of a policeman who met a man carrying arms, in arresting him; because he could not prove that the arms the man had were unregistered. By the present bill they had, however, got rid of that difficulty. By the 14th clause a constable might arrest a person under the circumstances referred to. Leaving out the "marking" clause, they made the law sufficiently stringent. They enabled the policeman to arrest a person having unregistered arms in his possession; and when they had done that they had, in his opinion, done all that could be required. If that were so, why add to their measure a clause that was unnecessary? Why was this branding clause continued? Police officers or stipendiary magistrates had declared it to be their conviction that such a thing was necessary. He had a great respect for the police force in Ireland; he believed that no better nor more efficient body could be found any where; but, saying that, he must add, he should be very sorry to trust to them as Legislators. He warned the noble Lord and the Government against taking the police for their councillors. A great objection was felt to centralization in this country; that objection might be carried too far; but when they found a centralized body, like the police, taking it into their heads to be statisticians, when they undertook to be collectors of information, he believed that neither the country nor the Government could be much benefitted by them. Let the noble Lord look, for instance, to the manner in which the census had proceeded. It had been intrusted to the police; and he believed it was in consequence of their zeal to gather statistical information that the census was not yet published. Some of the police had talked of "a thirst for arms" being dangerous to the peace of Ireland; but he really believed that there was no little danger to its peace in "a thirst for knowledge" in the police themselves. If they went on as they had begun, he did not know but in their eagerness for information they might
1370
go into a man's kitchen and require to know what he had for his dinner, and so make out of that a new statistical point. He objected to the marking clause because even those who suggested it could not conceal from themselves that it created a great deal of dissatisfaction. They talked, indeed, of grand jurors petitioning in favour of this clause. Why, nine-tenths of the grand jurors in Ireland lid not comply with the law for registering arms which existed for twenty-seven years. He knew that in the county that he represented not a single magistrate had his arms registered. He believed he was the only magistrate in the county not liable to a penalty for not having done so; because there was an exemption in favour of Members of Parliament. The noble Lord, when they were discussing the other night how long this act should last, did not refer to the marking of arms as a reason why the act should be perpetuated. The noble Lord was quite right; but it was to be remembered that when this bill expired, the brand would remain, and must be a source of trouble and irritation. Why not avoid that? But here it would be said, "concession was exhausted"—here they, like their great American negotiator, had at last come to something which was not to be abandoned. It had been said of the course pursued hitherto by the present Government, that of the measures they had proposed, those that were new were not good, and those that were good were not new; but of this clause it might be most truly affirmed, it was neither new nor good. Could he, however, be induced to believe that peace would be preserved through its means—that the crimes which disgraced his country could be prevented by its operation—he would not oppose it. Under the conviction that it could not have such an effect, he deemed it to be his duty to ask the House to reject this clause. It was a new measure. It was not to be found in any previous enactment, and with reference to it they need no experience from the past. He did not now call their attention to the absurdities to be found in the clause. The time was past for doing that. He said to them let them either strike out this new provision from the bill, or let them give to the people of Ireland something in the shape of a tangible reason for passing it. He moved, as an amendment, that in page 5,

1371
from the word "and" to the end of the clause be struck out.
Lord Eliotobserved, that it was admitted by all parties that this clause was not one of those provisions which would prove inoperative, or which in its operation was liable to evasion. For his own part, he thought that if they required a registration of arms, they also required some proof that the arms found in any person's possession were arms which had undergone the registration. At present it was impossible to determine this point, and the object of the clause, instead of being to degrade the people, as was asserted on the other side, was merely to enable the authorities to decide whether the other provisions of the act had been properly complied with. The hon. Member said that the police were the originators of the clause, and that the police were not the most proper advisers of the Legislature. He perfectly coincided in that doctrine, but at the same time he would take leave to say that it was not only necessary, but highly advisable, to consult practical men on the subject of any bill submitted to Parliament, and it was as practical men that the magistracy and the police had given almost unanimously their opinion in favour of the clause. He begged also that Members would recollect that this clause only applied to firearms. With respect to other points, the hon. Member had said that no sufficient reasons in support of the clause had been alleged. Reasons, however, sufficiently conclusive had been stated, to induce the majority of the House to pass the clause in committee. The magistrates of Ireland, as high-spirited men as either the noble Lord or the hon. Member for Kerry, did not see that any disgrace would attend its operation; the opinion of the respectable farmers of the country was in favour of it, and the only class who murmured at the provision were those lawless persons who now found it easy to evade the law, but who, if this clause were carried, would hereafter find it difficult to possess any arms which were not properly and duly registered.
Lord Clementsremarked, that the lawless and desperate persons whom the noble Lord had referred to would in no way be prevented from possessing illegal arms by such a clause as this. Those persons kept their arms concealed in such a way that they could not be got at by any
1372
body of searchers. Their arms were not to be found in their houses—they were concealed in caves or buried in the ground. As for the argument about the prevention of murder by fire-arms, it was perfectly worthless. Why, when Ox. ford was tried for firing at the Queen, the learned judge who tried him told the jury that it was necessary to have proof, not only of the firing, but of the fact that the pistol was absolutely loaded; and the circumstance of no ball being found, went on that occasion, to the prisoner's advantage. Probably, however, that was not the state of the law in Ireland. If they had had a trial of that sort in Ireland, they would, no doubt, have heard a different story, for the very good reason that in England public opinion had its full weight, whilst in Ireland it had no weight at all. But if they wanted such legal evidence in order to convict a man, where was the use of branding the arms? Would it not be much better to brand the bullets at once, and to have something behind every man who was shot at to catch them after they were fired? He should vote against the clause.
The House divided—that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the bill:—Ayes 74; Noes 37: Majority 37.

List of the AYES.

Arkwright, G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Attwood, M.

Hervey, Lord A.

Blakemore, R.

Hodgson, F.

Boldero, H. G.

Hodson, R.

Borthwick, P.

Hope, hon. C.

Botfield, B.

Hope, G. W.

Boyd, J.

Hussey, T.

Broadwood, H.

Jermyn, Earl

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Jones, Capt.

Bruce, Lord E.

Kemble, H.

Clayton, R. R.

Knatchbull, rt. hn Sir E

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Lefroy, A.

Cripps, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Duncombe, hon. A.

Lyall, G.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Mackenzie, T.

Eliot, Lord

Mackenzie, W. F.

Escott, B.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Flower, Sir J.

Masterman, J.

Forman, T. S.

Meynell, Capt.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Northland, Visct.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Polhill, F.

Greene, T.

Pollington, Visct.

Grimston, Visct.

Pringle, A.

Hamilton, G. A.

Rashleigh, W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Richards, R.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Round, J.

Henley, J. W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

1373

Scott, hon. F.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Vivian, J. E.

Smith, rt. hon. T.B.C.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Stanley, Lord

Young, J.

Stewart, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

TELLERS.

Tennent, J. E.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Tollemache, hn. F. J.

Clerk, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Archbold, R.

Power, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Rice, E. R.

Blake, M. J.

Roche, E. B.

Blewitt, R. J.

Ross, D. R.

Bowring, Dr.

Russell, Lord J.

Brotherton, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Clements, Visct.

Stuart W. V.

Crawford, W. S.

Thornely, T.

Dundas, Adm.

Tufnell, H.

Ewart, W.

Villiers, hon. C.

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

French, F.

Wawn, J. T.

Hall, Sir B.

Williams, W.

Heathcoat, J.

Wood, B.

Hill, Lord M.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hume, J.

Wyse, T.

Napier, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

O'Brien, W. S.

O'Conor Don

O'Connell, M. J.

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

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
On the motion that the House resolve itself into a committee upon the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. M. O'Ferrallrose to call the attention of the House to the memorial of the board of guardians of the Edenderry union; the facts contained in which could not be controverted, as they had already been sifted by the Court of Queen's Bench. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet, after considering these statements, would make such an alteration in the measure as should remove the grounds of complaint. He would observe that lie believed the fault was not so much that of the bill, as of those who had to carry it into effect. [The hon. Gentleman then stated the case of the Edenderry union, on behalf of the guardians, for which see ante p. 1274]. Now, he complained that there was no appeal to any authority by which a board of guardians could be protected from excessive and extravagant demands. The Poor-law commissioners did not in this case enter into any explanation. They treated all appeals of this nature with indifference. He only asked,
1374
that with a view to prevent the recurrence of such cases, a clause should be inserted in the Poor-law Bill, which would give a cheap and summary appeal from the Poor-law commissioners. Among the greatest evils in the administration of the law were the appointments made by these commissioners in Ireland. They were beset by applications from people in England, and situations were thus given to individuals unconnected with Ireland, and ignorant of the customs, &c., of the country. He particularly complained of the appointment of the architect in this case; that gentleman might have been influenced by the best intentions, but he was ignorant of the way in which different kinds of work, &c., were carried on in Ireland. He could assure the House that the frequent instances of mismanagement upon the part of the Poor-law commissioners excited much opposition to the law from the ratepayers; indeed, much of the opposition manifested by them towards it arose from the mismanagement of the commissioners. If no remedy was applied in the case which he had brought forward —if the demand of the commissioners should be allowed—every member of the board of guardians would resign, and he felt sure that not one shilling of the rate necessary for the collection of the 1,250 l, would be levied; and this too in a district which was always amenable to the law. By persisting in this demand, they would drive the district into the same state of opposition to the Poor-law as that which characterised the west and south of Ireland. He merely wished for a cheap and simple appeal, without the complication of proceedings of mandamus and certiorari, like the appeal given by the Municipal Act. If they would agree to something of this sort, it would show a disposition to afford a remedy for the grievances so much complained of.
Sir James Grahamhad had no conception that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to bring this question before the House, and he was bound to say, that connected as it was with minute detail respecting the administration of the Poor-law in Ireland, he had been but imperfectly acquainted with it. It was the duty of the commission, before bringing into operation the means of affording parish relief according to law, to cause a large number of workhouses to be built at once. This operation—under a law

1375
entirely novel in the country—under a system, the machinery of which they had no experience in managing—was a most difficult one, and naturally led to some disappointment. From all he could gather, he believed that in the case of the Edenderry workhouse there had been a lavish expenditure of money, and he believed that one portion of the building was ill executed, and another was expensively executed. But having said so much, he was bound to state that he differed from the hon. Gentleman opposite with respect to the course of proceedings taken by the Board of Guardians. The hon. Gentleman founded his complaint upon an alleged infraction of the 30th clause of the Poor-law Act, which clause declared that when a workhouse should have been pronounced by the Poor-law commissioners fit for the reception of paupers, they might make one declaration of the expenditure incurred, and after such declaration being made, they should not have power to raise any further sum, to be expended in the buildings. above 400 l., without the consent of a majority of the Board of Guardians. The hon. Gentleman stated, that after the declaration had been made by the commissioners that the workhouse was fitted for the reception of paupers, the commissioners found that the sum originally intended for the erection of the workhouse was deficient by 1,250 l., and they, therefore, called upon the union for a rate to levy the amount, a demand which was resisted, as stated by the hon. Gentleman, upon the technical ground that the paupers had been admitted before the balance had been declared; and that this further balance—this balance outstanding, and due, did not form a part of the original outlay—now the hon. Gentleman, in alluding to the 30th clause of the Act, had omitted to state an important exception contained in it, to the primary provision of the clause. The clause enacted that no sum exceeding 400 l. should be levied after the workhouse had been declared fit for the reception of paupers, without the consent of a majority of the Board of Guardians. There was an exception made, however, in favour of money to be levied for the completion of buildings already in part erected, according to the plans and specifications originally sanctioned by the Poor-law commissioners. The second order had been issued by the Poor-law commissioners under this
1376
exception to which he had alluded. The 1,250 l. was claimed as an outstanding balance falling under the exception. The question was, whether the Board of Guardians could show that this was an irregular order on the part of the commissioners. If they could show that this balance did not fall within the scope of the exception, then they would be successful in their case—the question was quite an open one. It was a question for a court of law, not for the House to decide; and as he understood that his hon. Friend had stated the case merely for the purpose of introducing a clause to remedy the grievance of which he complained, all he could say was, that if his hon. Friend would bring up a clause to this effect he would be very happy to discuss it. The hon. Gentleman seemed to say that it was not his duty to bring up such a clause. He said, upon the other hand, that he was not prepared to interfere with the jurisdiction of the competent tribunal before which this question might be brought to issue, and satisfactorily determined. The hon. Gentleman asked the Government to provide a cheap and summary mode of appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. He did not, for his own part, see any course more cheap or more summary than that which was now open to parties who felt themselves aggrieved. If the hon. Gentleman would point out any mode of proceeding more summary and less expensive, he would gladly consider it; but, as at present advised, he contended that if there should be injustice perpetrated towards an union, redress was open to them in the mode he had referred to.
Sir C. Denham Norreysagreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that there should be some mode of calling in question the discretion of the commissioners. It would give great and general satisfaction to the rate-payers to know that there was some cheap appeal open to them from the decisions of the commissioners.
Mr. Smith O'Brien.remarked, that the case of Edenderry was not without parallel. The appeal, as at present existing, to the Court of Queen's Bench, was not upon the merits of the question, but as to the legality of the acts of the Poor-law commissioners. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman would not say there was no remedy that could be applied to this evil. He hoped the case brought before the House would induce them to introduce some such

1377
clause into the bill as his hon. Friend had alluded to.
Captain Jonesthought it his duty to inform the Government, that the case stated by the hon. Member for Kildare was not a solitary one, and that the same complaint was made in many other Unions —the only difference being that in Edenderry the Poor-law commissioners committed a legal blunder in making an order which they had no right to make. In the Derry Union they committed the same blunder, and on sending a person down to inquire, they pared off a few of the charges. So badly was part of the work done in the workhouse of that Union, that when the paupers were in there, he himself saw the rain falling through the roof. This was by no means a solitary case; and he believed, that if every Gentleman were to state what occurred in his own district, he would make a similar complaint to that of the hon. Member for Kildare.
Lord John Russelldid not exactly know what remedy his hon. Friend would wish to propose to the House, and he thought that, if he could devise one, he should prepare a clause embodying it. At the same time he must say, that with respect to the case which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward, he thought there should be some inquiry made, and some decision come to, particularly as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had spoken last had stated, that the case of Edenderry was by no means a solitary one. His hon. Friend, in stating that case, had spoken of the appointments of commissioners in putting the Poor-law into operation in Ireland. Now, with regard to that Poor-law in all its main features, and also with regard to these appointments, he was certainly far more responsible than the right hon. Baronet opposite, who was not at all sanguine as to the results of the measure. He was not going to discuss the general question of the Poor-laws in Ireland, but as to the appointments spoken of, he would observe that they were certainly made in the same way as appointments in England—that was to say, it was left to the commissioners to find persons who they thought would be most fit for the duties to be entrusted to them. The Poor-law commissioners were originally appointed by the Prime Minister, and it was thought proper to entrust them with the discretion of select-
1378
ing assistant commissioners. He believed, that in appointing these assistant commissioners, the principal commissioners looked to fitness—to capacity—they looked to vigilance and zeal, as much as did any men who were ever invested with patronage. These were the motives by which, to the best of his belief, they were guided in making their appointments. When such appointments were to be made in Ireland, the commissioners thought that it would not be a successful mode of operation were they to appoint gentlemen who had never seen the Poor-law in operation, and who were unacquainted with the method of managing workhouses, and they thought that persons who had been conversant with the details of the English Poor-law would be more fit to carry the law into operation (with the assistance of those who were Irishmen and knew the country well), than could any Gentleman who up to the time of his appointment was unacquainted with the subject. He was so far responsible for the appointments which had been made, as he had sent over to the commissioners many hundreds of applications which he had received, and which he supposed they duly considered. He knew not how far the gentlemen appointed had performed their duties. Of those of whom he had heard, he heard a very high character. The hon. Member for Roscommon had spoken very highly in praise of one of those gentlemen. With respect to the architect alluded to, admitting that Gentleman's professional talents, he yet, since his appointment, had seen reason to have some doubts as to its expediency.
Sir J. Graham:Looking at this subject retrospectively, must say that he had not altogether neglected this subject. He had consulted Mr. Nicholls as to the construction of the workhouses, and also his brother commissioners in England. He had directed Sir E. Head to make a general inquiry on the subject. The outlay was said to be extravagant for the work done, and many imperfections were attributed to buildings, such as not being weather tight, but the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had admitted with perfect candour, that the architect was riot deficient in skill, and that he could alone be censured for having superintended so many works at the same time. Eighty workhouses wet e erected simultaneously, with the view of bringing the act into operation

1379
as speedily as possible, and though he was bound to say that there was in some instances a larger outlay than was necessary, the result of the best investigation he could give the subject was, that there was no malversation in any quarter. He entirely acquitted Mr. Nicholls, and he also thought the architect free from blame. With respect to the past, then, he did not consider it consistent with his duty to visit any party with punishment. With regard to the future, whether there should be an appeal from the commissioners, and to what tribunal, that was a matter for consideration.
Mr. Archboldthought that the commissioners had conducted affairs very unhappily; and he observed, that the bill formed a bad legacy from the last Government; but its management certainly had been rather improved than the reverse by the present Ministry. Still, there were strong grounds of complaint; and he himself could instance a case in which, despite all information and admonition, the commissioners had, neglecting numerous eligible situations for the workhouse, insisted on having it erected actually on a swamp, the only swamp in the country; passing by places where both dry ground and clear springs could have been found,—on the banks, too, of a good river, they pitched on a marshy position where hundreds would have to be spent in draining, and water could be got at with difficulty. Thus it was, that unhealthiness was actually encountered, and expense needlessly entailed. Affairs were rather getting worse than improving, and if the evil was not soon remedied the Government would learn the necessity of strong measures of redress.
House went into committee.
On clause 6, "goods to whomsoever they may belong, found on premises, may be distrained."
Mr. Collettmoved, that it be struck out.
Mr. T. B. Smithsaid, the object of this clause was to prevent persons from evading payment of the poor-rates, by transferring their property to other members of their families. The clause provided that any property on the premises might be seized for payment of the poor-rates.
Mr. Wysesaid, that in the case of county or grand jury cess no power was given to seize the property of lodgers;
1380
and he thought there was no reason for giving such power under this act.
Mr. F. Frenchsupported the amendment. He believed, that if the Government pressed such measures, they would call another Rebecca into existence in Ireland. He was convinced, that under this objectionable law they would be unable to obtain payment of the rates, even with the aid of the 30,000 soldiers now stationed in that country.
Committee divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the bill. Ayes 99; Noes 18;—Majority 81.
Clause agreed to.
8th and 9th clauses agreed to.
The House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at one o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1a Loan Societies Act Continuance; Slave Trade Treaties Act Continuance; Controverted Elections; Bills of Exchange Act Continuance; Militia Ballots Suspension; Stock in Trade Act Continuance; Municipal Corporations; Commissions for Affidavits (Ireland and Scotland).
Reported.—Woollen, etc., Manufactures; Bridges (Ireland).
3 and passed:—Defamation and Libel.
Private.—1a Spalding and Deeping Roads; Liverpool Docks; Leicester and Peterborough Road.
2a Burry Navigation (No. 2).
Reported.—Rochdale and Manchester Roads.
3a and passed:—Edinburgh Water; Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Bandon, from Sligo, against the Irish Poor-law.—From Carrigaline, for Encouraging the Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society.

DEFAMATION AND LIBEL.
On the motion of Lord Campbell, the Defamation

1357
and Libel Bill was read a third time. The noble and learned Lord said, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had suggested amendments in the 3rd and 9th clauses, of which he entirely approved. The object of those amendments was, that where a party charged with libel set.forth that the alleged libellous matter was published for the benefit of the public, he should also be liable to be called on to show in what particular respect it was for the public good.
The Lord Chancellorentirely concurred in the amendments, which were for the purpose of carrying out more effectually an amendment he had himself proposed in an early stage of the measure.
Amendments agreed to.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in the sixth section of the bill an improvement had, on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench been effected in the law, which he regarded as being the most important of any in the whole measure. It appeared that for years past a certain infamous and detestable class of persons—. than whom there could not exist a more infamous and contemptible class in any condition of society—had carried on an odius traffic by threatening persons with the publication of libellous matter through the press, for the purpose of extorting money. His noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, had truly remarked, that there was a marked difference between the case of such persons, and the case of those merely guilty of the publication of slander. He had suggested a clause imposing as a punishment for such offence, imprisonment with hard labour, for not less than three years. He found, however, that in order to render the enactment of the measure in this respect more effectual, it was necessary to propose a slight alteration. By the clause as it stood its enactment only applied to the actual publication of defamatory matter, for the purpose of extorting money; but he was anxious to see the object of the law carried out still further. In most cases of the kind the libellous matter was not published at the time of the threat, in which case it was difficult to get hold of the offender. Or, as in many cases it happened, the offender merely said" Give me money, or I'll publish a libel against you." [The Lord Chancellor Yes; or he says, "Give me money, or I'll
1358
mention you."] Yes. Yet here was no defamatory libel. It was merely a threat to "mention." Now, there were many persons who did not like even to be mentioned in a newspaper, particularly persons of the other sex. Such a threat was just as bad as the threat to publish a defamatory libel; yet, as the clause now stood, it would not affect such a case. Another common mode of extorting money was to say to a public man, "Give me 50 l, or give me a place, or I'll show you up." Or a man would say to another, "Unless you give me money, I'll say something of you, which you will not like." All such cases would not be affected by the clause as it stood; because by that it was necessary to show that the matter published was a defamatory libel. A threat of this kind was to make use of the press as a pistol was made use of by a highwaymen on the highway. To meet the difficulty he had suggested, he would propose an amendment, which would leave the clause thus:—
"That if any person shall publish any defamatory libel touching any other person with the intent to extort money, or if any person shall threaten to publish any matter or thing touching any other person with the intent of extorting money, or any security for money, or any valuable thing, from any other person."
And so on—then the clause shall take effect. He believed, that the additional words would secure the attainment of the object he had referred to.
Lord Campbellsaid, that as the law now stood, there was no limit to the power of imprisonment for libel. He allowed that there was no difficulty whatever in finding that words employed in a certain way would amount to a defamatory libel. Now, suppose a person said, "If you don't place money under a certain stone, or send me a certain acceptance, or give me a certain place, I will show you up in a certain newspaper, or mention you, or do something you do not like," could any man doubt that that threat would amount to a defamatory libel? But what did his noble and learned Friend propose?—" That if any person should threaten to publish any matter or thing, &c" [Lord Brougham: Touching any person.] Yes; but that was too general, too vague, and might be converted to improper purposes; "not only with a view to extort money, but to induce a person to confer an appointment, or obtain any place of profit or trust,"—that

1359
that should be a misdemeanour. [Lord Brougham: It must be a threat.] It would be a threat, but he really hoped his noble and learned Friend would allow the clause to stand as it was at present.
The Lord Chancellorfelt very anxious about this clause, and thought the objections to it were well-founded; but he was not prepared to say whether it was requisite to go so far as his noble and learned Friend suggested. The matter required consideration, and had better stand over for a short time.
Debate adjourned till Monday.
Their Lordships adjourned.