bill altogether would tend to repress the flagrant outrages which disgraced the country, he would give it his support and hoped it would pass into law. Mr. G. Hamilton stated that there was no disinclination among magistrates in his part of the country to grant licences to proper persons; he recollected very few instances in which licences had been refused. He could not subscribe to the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Waterford city, that in legislating the House was to assume that magistrates would do injustice. treated the matter as if the bill was founded heard no complaint on the subject. There on the opinions and suggestions of police certainly now was excitement in Iremagistrates alone. Now he, as a local land on the subject, but it was caused magistrate, as a resident observer, as one by the speeches of hon. Members in who had the best means of observation, this House. At the Repeal meetings felt himself bound to express his convic- throughout the country, where every topic tion as to the necessity which existed was greedily seized on for complaint, this for the measure now introduced, and the bill was not used as one of the intrinsic inefficiency of the existing law. He subjects of complaint. Believing that was sorry to be compelled to say, the under the present law crimes were frepractice prevailed of hiring strangers to quently committed with impunity, that commit ourages and crimes. If any per- the arms being branded would lead to son desired to have his neighbour in-identification of offenders, and that this jured or fired at, he employed strangers, unknown, and therefore not easily iden tified. If those persons employed for such evil purpose were met by the police before the outrage was committed, on theirway to the actual perpetration, with arms in their hands, they were not empowered to interfere, nor even to question the parties. An instance occurred, to his recollection, which would exemplify the matter. A gentleman residing in his neighbourhood was fired at in the open day. The deed was committed by two strangers. Those very men had been met by some of the police before the outrage Sir R. Ferguson could not see that the was committed, and they had arms. The branding of arms would give any security suspicions of the police were roused, to the public. There were gun clubs but, not being empowered to interfere, holding weekly meetings; at each meetthey could only make such observation asing money sufficient was subscribed to might enable them to identify the parties purchase one gun, which was raffled for; if necessary Would not the peace and at the end of the year each member posthe lives of individuals be better secured sessed a gun. Now, supposing one gun by some law which would have given the to be branded, was it not easy to have means of prevention? In another case that mark nine times over, and if those a murder had been committed about two guns were used in different parts, as they years ago; one of the men who committed would be, most probably, what security it was met, while running away, by a was there from the licence? The clause, magistrate, who, though strongly suspect- therefore, was only vexatious, and not ing from his manner and from his speed likely to be of any use. of flight that some bad act had been perpetrated, was unable to arrest him. These escaped punishment. He would mention one other case. He was himself returning from hunting one day when he met two very suspicious-looking persons with arms. Had the power intended by this bill to be given to magistrates then existed, he should have been able to call on the nearest police force, and ascertain whether these men were properly licensed, and bore registered arms. But the power did not exist, and crimes were subsequently committed by those very men, and the party to which they belonged. He had been in Ireland when the hill was brought into the House, and had men Sir D. Roche considered the branding of arms quite unnecessary, because a person could be punished if found with unregistered arms. He believed the bill would not avail in the protection of the public or the suppression of offences, whilst it would be regarded as an insult by the well-disposed. Mr. V. Stuart thought the clause unnecessary. Although he was prepared to support the bill generally, he should decidedly oppose this clause, and he warned the Government against the consequences of pressing it on the House. Sir T. Wilde said, all agreed in this, that it was of the utmost importance not to excite unnecessarily irritation in Ireland, and he confessed that, looking at the state of Ireland, and admitting that they could give effect to such a bill as this, still that they ought to have proved to them that this clause was indispensable, for he could not conceive a more powerful weapon to excite irritation and to produce ill-will against the Government than this clause. Every man who had any description of arms branded under this clause, would only have to hold it up to his fellow countrymen in order to excite irritation in their minds. He could not imagine any means better calculated to cause such a feeling than the production of some branded weapon for the purpose of manifesting their degradation. In the first place the House would observe that this clause would apply to what was generally called "arms." The noble Lord opposite had only spoken of fire-arms; but the branding was not to be confined to them. In other parts of the bill they found that a pike or a spear head were defined as arms. Might not a bill-hook? Might not even a spit be regarded as coming under the definition of arms? A person having a spear head was by a clause of the bill liable to punishment. Was not, then, every description of arms to be branded? It was to be remembered that the branding or mark was a thing that would endure as long as the arms themselves remained. It would be a constant memorial of the unfortunate state of Ireland. If it were not necessary, it would be called an insult to the country. He would not call it an insult if it were essential to the security of the peace of that country; but every coercive measure that went beyond that necessity became an insult. The reasons for retaining this clause should be obvious to every one. He found, however, that amongst those favourable to the bill itself, some objected to this clause. Unfortunately they had an Arms Bill for Ireland. Having that Arms Bill for some years before they introduced this clause, they were bound to show that mischief had arisen from the want of such a clause. Now, if mischief were designed to be done by arms, there might be a forgery of the marks. What, he asked, could be the nature of the marks, that it should defy imitation? Let them suppose, then, that a person was going to commit a crime, surely he might have his arms branded, or the brand imitated. Ought they not, then, to have it clearly in evidence, that the bill without this clause, could not have the effect that they desired. There was no statement made that the former bill was not found adequate for the purpose without this clause. They had no evidence all that was given to them was opinion. If the persons had facts on which they rested their opinions, why were not those facts given to this House, and then they might decide themselves upon their value and importance. They ought to consider, in connection with this clause, the large powers that were given to magistrates as to who should or who should not have arms. What was "the fitness" of a man that was to determine his retaining the privilege of having arms to defend himself? What was the test? His "fitness" was to be decided by the magistrates. It was of extreme importance for them to consider, and to pause, before they gave to those magistrates a discretion of so large a nature as that which related to the "fitness" of a man. Was there any man in that House who would venture to say, in the face of the country, that they could give a power liable to greater abuse than that which would leave to persons to say whether or not a man was fitted for a particular purpose? It might be that a man was suspected of being a poacher, that he was not a sober man, to make bim offensive to the magistrates. They did not know how much, independent of a man's loyalty, might weigh with those who had to judge of his fitness. How could a man legally complain of what had been done by magistrates who had to decide upon his "fitness?" If a man were refused his licence he might appeal; but when once he had appealed, the first magistrate he met might recall the licence, and that was without appeal. It was, he considered, extremely important that in passing such a bill they should do nothing that could make it be regarded as a national insult. The very word" branding," he thought, had been unfortunately chosen. If they attended to the speeches made in Ireland, they would find a strong contrast made between the legislation for England and Ireland; and they ought, therefore, to be cautious, unless there was an indispensable necessity for it, not by such a clause as this to give any aid to the excitement that now existed amongst the Irish people. The clause, in his opinion, was open to the objections made on that side of the House and those objections had not received any answer, nor had it been shown that former bills had failed without it. Mr. T. B. C. Smith observed that Gentlemen from Ireland had not stated that the marking of these arms would be degrading to them or regarded as an insult to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman was a law officer of the Crown in 1841, when that general discretion was given to the magistrates which he now objected to. The same occurred as to the withdrawal of the licences without appeal. The schedule described what was meant in Ireland as arms. He admitted the clause might be used as a subject for exciting irritation, by those who sought for such topics; but he would show by resolutions of the King's County magistrates, that the branding of arms was not regarded as an insult to them. In the recent case of Mr. Scully, men, the supposed murderers, were seen prowling about the neighbourhood with arms-two pairs of pistols, a musket, and a blunderbuss—and if some provision of the present kind had existed, they might have been examined, and the murder perhaps prevented. He thought sufficient evidence existed of the necessity for such a power. The committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the BillAyes 178; Noes 104: Majority 74. Norreys, Lord O'Brien, A. S. Follett, Sir W. W. Northland, Visct. Hope, G. W. Hussey, A. Stewart, J. Hussey, T. Stuart, H. Christopher, R. A. Ingestre, Visct. Sutton, hon. H. M. Irton, S. Jermyn, Earl Acton, Col. Adare, Visct. Adderley, C. B. Chute, W. L. W. Clive, hon. R. H. Baskerville, T. B. M. Cripps, W. Jocelyn, Visct. Joliffe, Sir W. G. H. Jones, Capt. Knatchbull,rt.hn.SirE Taylor, T. E. Tollemache, hn. F. J. Tollemache, J. Turnor, C. Verner, Col. Vivian, J. E. Antrobus, E. Arbuthnot, hon. H. Clive, Visct. Arkwright, G. Ashley, Lord Baillie, Col. Baird, W. Balfour, J. M. Bateson, R. Damer, hon. Col. Beckett, W. Denison, E. B. Egerton, Sir P. Brooke, Sir A. B. Eliot, Lord McGeachy, F. A. Estcourt, T. G. B. Mahon, Visct. Broadley, H. Dickinson, F. H. Welby, G. E. TELLERS. Fremantle, Sir T. Archbold, R. Baring, rt, hon, F. T. was no reason for postponing it. There were imputations of factious motives on the one side, and of improper insinuations on the other. Finally, a motion was made that the chairman do report progress. On the question the committee divided. Ayes 92, Noes 152: Majority 60. List of the AYES. Aglionby, H. A. Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Cavendish, hon. C. C. Cavendish, hon. G. H. Chapman, B. Colborne, hn.W.N.R. Collett, J. Dalrymple, Capt. Leveson, Lord Murphy, F. S. Ponsonby,hn.C.F.A.C Roche, Sir D. Ross, D. R. Russell, Lord J. Russell, Lord E. Scholefield, J. Craig, W. G. Crawford, W. S. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. Duncan, Visct. Ward, H. G. Ebrington, Visct. Smith, rt. hn. R. V. Hall, Sir B. Watson, W. H. Ellice, E. Stansfield, W. R. C. Hastie, A. Wawn, J. T. Elphinstone, H. Stuart, Lord J. Esmonde, Sir T. Stuart, W. V. Hawes, B. Wilde, Sir T. On clause 9, licenses to be applied for at subsequent sessions as at the first, Sir R. Ferguson moved to omit some words of the clause. The question was put, that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause. A discussion which lasted nearly two hours ensued, and which turned on the wording of the clause. The opposition contending that it was in a great measure unintelligible, and requesting it to be postponed, the Ministerialists denying the unintelligibility and contending that if it were obscure, that Hallyburton, Lord G. Hatton, Capt. V. Hollond, R. Howard, hn. J. K. Hume, J. Strutt, E. Tancred, H. W. Thornely, T. Trelawney, J. S. Tufnell, H. Vivian, J. H. Wallace, R. Watson, W. H. Wawn, J. T. Wood, B. Wyse, T. Yorke, H. R. TELLERS. Clements, Visct. Brotherton, J. Evans, W. Ewart, W. Ferguson, Sir R. A. Fitzroy, Lord C. Gill, T. Gore, hon. R. Grey, rt. hn. Sir G. Hall, Sir B. Jocelyn, Visct. Broadwood, H. Bruce, Lord E. Courtenay, Lord Cripps, W. Darby, G. Damer, hon. Col. Dawnay, hon. W. H. Duncombe, hon. O. Estcourt, T. G. B. Farnham, E. B. Hale, R. B. Hamilton, Lord C. Johnstone, Sir J. Knight, F. W. Knightley, Sir C. Milnes, R. M. Pennant, hon. Col. Rendlesham, Lord The original question being again put, it was again moved that the committee do Com The House adjourned at one o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, June 30, 1843. MINUTES. BILLS. Public.-2. Chelsea Hospital; Apprehension of Offenders (America); Apprehension of Offenders (France). Reported.-Sugar Duties Bill. Private.-1. Bishop of Kilmore's, etc. Estate; Ross and 2. Maryport and Carlisle Railway; Liverpool Watering; - Reported. Earl of Gainsborough's Estate; Neath Har- 3. and passed :-Borrowstownness Harbour; Hull Water THE REPEAL AGITATION (IRELAND).] Lord Carbery presented, pursuant to notice, a petition from the county of Cork, complaining of the present repeal agitation, and of the dangerous meetings which were daily held for the ostensible purpose of petitioning Parliament for the repeal of the act of legislative union. He would be cautious and not exaggerate the alarm and the danger consequent on the proceedings of which the petition complained; but his duty constrained him to declare that those proceedings were fraught not only with alarm but with peril to the loyal and peaceable portion of the Irish community. Up to the last month, the agitation had been somewhat confined in its operations-meetings had been held only in the smaller towns, and the people had congregated in comparatively smaller numbers. But those minor meetings were only preparatory to more alarming demonstrations. Within the county from which this petition emanated, there had been recently held, independently of several smaller meetings, two great district meetings, to which the population at large had thronged in immense multitudes. He was |