O'Conor, Don Glynne, Sir S. Hamilton, Lord C. Ker, D. Kerrison, Sir E. Mackenzie, W. F. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, July 13, 1843. MINUTES.] NEW MEMBER SWORN.-The Lord Vaux of BILLS. Public.-2a. Episcopal Functions. Argyllshire Roads; Northampton Improvement; 3a and passed:-Saggart Inclosure Award Estate: Por- PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Carbery, from 122 HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, July 13, 1843. MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.-10. Limitation of Actions (Ireland). 2o. Metropolitan Buildings. Committed. Appeals, etc., Privy Council; Cathedral Churches (Wales). 3o and passed:-Scientific Societies. Private.-1° Saggart Inclosure Award Estate. 3o and passed:-Gorbals Police. PETITIONS PRESENTED-By Mr. Muntz, from Birmingham, for Amending the Post-Office Regulations.-By Mr. Hindley, from Ashton-under-Lyne, and Dukinfield, in favour of the Scientific Societies Bill.-By Mr. E. Tennent, from the Wesleyans of Ireland, against the Repeal Agitation.-By Sir E. Knatchbull, from Ashford, and by Mr. Macauley and Mr. Palmer, from Chertsey, Stroud, Calne, Sandgate, and Hungerford, in favour of the County Courts Bill.-By Mr. R. Palmer, from Newbury, for Carrying out Rowland Hill's Plan of PostOffice Reform.-From Richmond, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.-From Dumfries, against the Factories Bill.-From Clifton, Dartmouth, Hardness, and Northampton, against, and from Christopher Swan, in favour of the Coroners Bill.-From Manchester, for Amending the Warrant of Attorney Act.From Lochmaben, for Amending the Condition of Parochial Schoolmasters in Scotland. ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.] Lord Eliot moved, that the Speaker do leave the Chair | successful in that opposition, it would be for the House to go into a committee on his duty to vote against the bill on the the Arms (Ireland) Bill. third reading. Viscount Clements again protested against the bill, and thought it the duty of hon. Members to oppose it. He complained of the system of Government, by which the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland was invariably a party man. Her Majesty had no party, and it was unjust to the Irish people that her Majesty's representative should act only from party motives and feelings. Until such a system was abolished, they could never expect Ireland to be in reality united in her own people, or united with Great Britain. Mr. Wallace felt justified in saying, that the entire course of the debate showed that there was no necessity for this bill; and, therefore, every Member attached to Liberal opinions should oppose it to the utmost. Such was his antipathy to this bill, that he should move that the committee on this bill be postponed until this day six months. The Irish in the west of Scotland were fast becoming repealers in consequence of the conduct of the Government. The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:-Ayes 104; Noes 27: Majority 77. List of the AYES. Acland, Sir T. D. Mr. Sharman Cranford seconded the amendment. He had once opposed the agitation for Repeal, as he hoped for just-Clayton, R. R. ice from the United Legislature; but if this bill received the Royal Assent, he should say that they must either repeal this act, or Repeal the Union. He should offer every opposition to the further progress of this bill. Mr. Oswald denied that there was any strong feeling amongst the Irish in the west of Scotland, in favour of Repeal. Clerk, Sir G. Duncombe, hon. O. Mr. Villiers Stuart said, that he found he was already suffering from the misapprehension which his constituents were under, from its having been stated to them that he supported the Government Arms Bill, whereas he had only voted for the second reading of the bill, because he considered some Arms Bill necessary, and had voted against all the clauses which his Friends around him had opposed as too stringent. Notwithstanding the misap-Goulburn, rt. hon. H prehension which he was already suffering under he found himself on this occasion compelled to expose himself to probably further misapprehension, as he was not prepared to stultify his first vote by supporting the amendment of the hon. Member. He should steadily oppose those clauses in committee which he considered objectionable; and that if he were not Graham,rt. hn. Sir J. Halford, H. List of the NOES. Aglionby, H. A. Barnard, E. G. House went into committee. On Clause 13, setting forth the exemptions from the penalties for possessing arms not duly marked, Viscount Clements protested against having the arms of the Irish people marked or branded at all. He, for one, would never submit to the disgrace. He should divide the committee against the proposition for either marking or branding arms. He moved that the clause be omitted. Lord Eliot took the opportunity of defending Mr. Warburton from an imputation cast on him on a former occasion by the noble Lord who had just spoken, and quoted a letter justifying Mr. Warburton's conduct. Lord Clements denied the correctness of the statement. The treatment he had received from Captain Warburton was unjustifiable, and he had found it his duty to complain to the high sheriff. Sir R. Peel really thought that after the ample discussion which had been taken upon the principle of this measure, it was rather unfair to delay the progress of the measure before them, by offering opposition to a clause, as though it were a branding clause, whereas it was one which gave exemptions from branding. He trusted the committee would allow the remaining clauses to be discussed in the same spirit of moderation in which those already agreed to had been considered, and that no unfair obstruction would be offered. Viscount Clements was of opinion that every course which that side of the House could take for the purpose of impeding this most nefarious measure would be perfectly fair, He, for one, was determined to oppose this bill, stage after stage, in every possible manner. Sir R. Peel admitted, that the bill had been considered with fairness and moderation, and all he asked was that it should throughout be discussed in the same spirit. Lord J. Russell coneurred that as far as the debate had hitherto gone, it had been conducted with the greatest temper and fairness by the Gentlemen connected with the country to which the measure referred, and by the House generally. He would beg to remind his noble Friend, who seemed desirous of renewing the debate upon branding, because, in the clause before the House, the word branding happened to occur, that there had already been two divisions on the subject, and, at all events, the clause was not one inflicting branding, but exempting from it. He denied that the Gentlemen from Ireland had resolved, either at the meetings they had held, or in the House, to obstruct the measure; but this question having been already decided, he recommended his noble Friend to withdraw his opposition. Amendment withdrawn. A conversation then arose on the necessity of defining the word “arms." Mr. T. B. Smith stated, that the word had hitherto been interpreted to mean guns, pistols, swords, and bayonets. Sir D. Norreys showed that swordcanes, halberts, and spears had been registered as arms. Lord Eliot promised to define the arms to be branded, and if it were possible the word should be confined to fire-arms. Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt, did not expect that an Attorney-general would have proposed an Arms Bill, and yet not be able to tell them what "arms" were, and this too, in a penal act. He thought the Attorneygeneral should tell them what the word arms meant. Mr. T. B. Smith admitted that halberts were arms. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not discover this difficulty till they got into opposition. The hon. Gentleman who made this objection was himself Clerk of the Ordnance under the late Government, and ought therefore to know something of what arms were. Mr. Jervis asked the Attorney-general for England what was the meaning of the word arms? No English lawyer could have any doubt on the subject. What was the meaning of the passage, ર appearing in arms against the Government?" Was not being " in arms" the carrying of any offensive weapon? Mr. M. O'Ferrall suggested that if the noble Lord would declare that arms meant fire-arms, it would at once get rid of all the difficulty. The Attorney General having been ap The Attorney General suggested that air-guns should be included in the same category as fire-arms. Mr. Muntz thought the whole bill a ri pealed to, said, that he had no doubt that the legal meaning of the word "arms," as referred to in acts of Parliament, as, for instance, "bearing arms against her Majesty," would include every offensive wea-diculous one. If people wished to kill pon. The law had been in operation for each other, none of its provisions would forty years, and the question had never prevent them. They first made bad laws been yet raised; but he thought that the for Ireland, and then punished the people moment any doubt appeared to exist upon for the effect produced by bad laws. As the point, a definition of the meaning to what was to be considered arms, why, of the word "arms" should be adopted. he could make a bow and arrow in five In the present clause, however, the defini- minutes, which would kill any of them. tion was not of importance, but if in the Clause amended was agreed to. future progress of the bill it should be found to be so, he should be prepared to introduce a clause on the subject. On clause 14, persons carrying arms to be apprehended, if they refuse to produce their licence and tell their names. police and the justices of the peace by this clause, when they remembered the bad state of feeling between those functionaries and the people. He trusted that Government would not press the clause in all its stringency. He proposed to restrict the power on the part of the police of making inquiries to the hours between sunset and sunrise. Mr. G. A. Hamilton thought it would be Mr. Wyse objected to the clause, as quite sufficient for all the purposes of the being one of the most stringent and desact, that the meaning of the word "arms' potic of the bill. It gave power to mere should be restricted to fire arms and air guns. policemen to examine arms, and interroMr. Philip Howard rose to support the gate their possessors, at any hour of the recommendation of the hon. Member for four-and-twenty. Peace-officers might inthe county of Dublin (Mr. Hamilton) as trude into private houses for these purposes to the propriety of confining the operation at any hour of the night, and bring whom of the branding clause to "Fire Arms"- they conceive to be offenders before a jusit would greatly simplify the measure (sup- tice of the peace, the clause would produce posing Ministers persisted in what would a great increase of that excitement and be deemed an obnoxious law) that it should bad feeling which it was the declared obbe enforced only in the case of "fire-arms," | ject of the bill to control. The committee and perhaps also in the case of "air-guns," could judge of what would probably be the which were among the most insidious of consequences of the powers given to the weapons. The unhappy declaration of Government made during the preceding debates, that the angry feelings which the "Arms Bill" might excite, were not to be softened and assuaged by any measures of conciliation, made him (Mr. Howard) doubly anxious to divest the bill under consideration of all that was irritating in its tendency. It was remarkable, that under the rule of Austria, even in her newly acquired Italian dominions, no regulation, so far as he knew, required the registration of arms, and in the Tyrol most certainly, the rifle was the daily companion of that hardy peasantry; dearer to them than the sound of music was the twang of their rifles; he would not advert to Switzerland, because there liberty had taken its highest soar, but he would ask, why was England the constitutional monarchy of England, to display a jealousy of those under her sway which seemed unfelt by many despotic powers? But leaving the more general question, he would again press upon the confining the operation of the bill, as much as possible to " fire-arms." Lord Eliot was willing to accede to the proposition for restricting the meaning of "arms" to fire-arms, Mr. Bernal would ask, if Government were prepared to say, that a respectable, or even for that matter a disreputable yeoman, or a gentleman out shooting, should be stopped at any time during the day that a person in the garb of a police or peace officer chose, and compelled to give up his name and place of residence. Such a provision would be insufferable. Lord Eliot admitted that individuals might be subjected to inconvenience by the clause, which was only to be justified by stern necessity. He could assure the committee, that if they omitted or essentially modified the clause, the remainder of the bill would be good for nothing; the greatest number of murders against which the bill was intended to provide, took place during the day time. He contended, that by the English game laws and the Irish Fishery |