The Sun.
London, England, 1813-06-18 00:00:00

IRISH DNTILT,ERIES.

Sir G. Ilit.t, moved the second leading of the
kb Dist.'llexies Bill, which he observed was
a nleaSore most universally called for:. The pre.
valence of illicit distillation in Ireland, which it
was intended to check, and it possible to cure,
was thesource of nous, abuses, corbbinations, and
atrocities, which disgraced that country. From
destroying the moral habits and feelings of the
people, it was the cause of perjuries, lyings in
wait, and even of murder, which disgraced flit..
Irish charabter. To remedy these dreadful evils
was a main recon»»endation with him, but even
in a financial point of view, the Bill was deserving
of" support, for he believed it would be so produc-
tive to the revenue as to raise more than one hall-
of the interest of the whole national debt of lie-
laud.

fir. W. POLE contended at great length against
the measure, though .he was sorry to oppose that
which .was almost nnaniniously approved of by the
Representatives of Ireland. He did this, however,
from a conviction that the Bill was in principle
unjust and oppressive, and such as never was sub-
mitted to by a free conntry. The system had already
been tried, and found to he injurious, tyrannical,
and inoffectual. He entered into a history of the
former enactment, and traced it to its repeiil, con-
tending that the levying of penalties on town
lands, where stills or appendages, or parts of stills
or love‘vities were found, was punishing the in-.
ttocent for the guilty, and very often making those
who were entirely ignorant of the fact,. amenable
for the act'. of the illicit distiller. He narrated
malty examples of this •liaving biten the case, and
stated numerous illStalleef; Of frauds and crimes to'
which this law had given rise. He also referred to
the opinion of the fudges, Law Officers, &c. of
Ireland, for its inefficacy, inequality., and inquity
and further contended, that the COMmittee who
had recommended the Bill to ,the Honse had done
so on in nfficient and delusive evidence. Another
absurdity
.of the measure was, that in towns the
fines were levied on the town lands and • in the
country on the parishes. He concluded by mov-
ing as an amendment, that the Billthould be read
a second time on that day three months.'
llAw•rnbax was against the principle of
the Bill ; lint' he was willing -that it should be
tried again, and he hoped that in the mean time
the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland
would apply his mind to the subject, and devise
some remedy, for the many evils of the present

system. . •
Mr. CHICIIESTEItsaid a few words in favour of
the BM.

Sir J. NEWPORT said, that the principle of mak=
ing a vicinage liable for crimes committed within
it, wits one of the very earliest to he found in
the British Statute Book. He censured the Right
Honourable Mover of the Amendment for the
-language which he had used in reprobation of a
measure which had repeatedly received the appro-
bation, not only of the Irish, but also of the Bri-
tish Parliament. It was with a view to the re-
venue of Ireland that he supported tLie. measure.
He wished to impress upon the, House, that it
was muebbetter, to continue a system even with
some defects, than to vacillate between measures;
the effects ot the latter mode, in any thing re-
specting the revenue, were incalculably ruinous.
Mr. PEEL said, that not only the Judges of
the Land, but the Commiisioners of the ReVenoe
had •been said by the Right Hon. , Gentleman
(Mr. Pole) to be adverse to the :measure; 'he.
could only say that the only one of. the Judges,
whose opinion he knew on t!tc snbject,.was the
Chief Justice of !refund, who no longer ago than
the 4th of June in the present year, had declared
that his opinion was favourable to the ineasnre:
IVith respect to, the opinions of the Officers of the
Revenue, he knew that some of them were averse
to the renewal of the law; but many were favour-.
able-to it. He wished it to be observed, that the
operation of this law, by leyying floes. cm a whole
vicinage, for a transgression committed Within it,
was in the case of,this law much less
.oppressive
titan that of many others on the Statute_ Book.--
Ile was sincerely a friend to the measure, because
he thought it highly injurious to inal;e soldiers re-
venue officers, bectutse it made them be 'looked
upon by the people with a degree of odium, in-
stead.of being considered as their protectors,
PoLy. explained. ' •
A Member whose moue' we could, not 14arn,
spoke in favour of the Bill.
Sir IL MONTGOMEXY said a few words, which
were nut audible in the (3,4111!IT.