The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-11 00:00:00

GAME-LAWS.

Mr. COLLETT saii,.seelngilie Member for West Glou-
cestershire in his rlace,he wished to ask him whether it was the
intention of the Hon. Gentleman to bring the subject of which
he had given notice before the House, or whether he was to
bring forward the grounds of the allusions to him (Mr. Col-
lett)? He would certainly be present, but he wished to know
what the Host. Member meant to do.
Mr. G. BERKELEY said he certainly meant to bring the
subject of the game-laws before the House, and would allude
to all who had lent their aid to bring those laws into con-
tempt.— (Laughter.)
ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day being read for reading this Bill a
second time,
Mr. LAIJOUCHERE said he wished to take the discussion
on this Bill, and the second reading of it, on Wednesday, as
several were absent whom he thought would better be present.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE expressed his amazement at the
course proposed to be pursued by the Government. He won-
dered especially who those gentlemen were for whom the dis-
cussion had been postponed.
Mr. L ABOUCHERE thought it would be better for all
parties that the second reading should be postponed, that all
might have due notice, and especially the Irish Members. He
was afraid also that it would be late before the House could
enter upon it ; but, if it was the wish of the House, he had no
objection to bring on the second reading to-night.
CUSTOMS DUTIES ACT.

On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
House went into Committe on the Customs Duties.
On the article spirits being read,
Mr. MACKINNON said he begged to press the motion
of which he had given notice, on the equalisation of duties
on colonial spirits with British spirits. In Ireland the duties
were 2s. Bd. ; in Scotland, 3s. 4d. ; and in England, 9s. 4d.
The consequence was, there was a differential duty between
England, Scotland, and Ireland. He asked the Government
why they should violate the principle which' they had recog-
nised in the, Sugar, Bill? Nay, more; recognised in a late
measure, which admitted spirits made from sugar in the
Channel islands, at a lower rate than spirits from the colonies.
That only encouraged a monopoly, which discouraged the co-
lonial trade. He should wait till he heard what the Govern-
ment would say on the subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Hon.
Member was under no obliea, ion of apologising for the intro-
duction of the subject On which he had occupied the attention
of the House. It was one of great importance. With regard to
the duty imposed on colonial rum, the difference between the
duty imposed on it and British spirits was made, he would not
say whether rightly or wrongly, in order to equalise the fiscal
burdens upon the two classes of producers. It was quite clear
that colonial rum should not be admitted on the same duty as
British spirits, when they considered that there was a duty on
the raw material of the latter—malt, which was not imposed on
the raw material of the former. He was perfectly willing,
equal burdens and fiscal impositions considered, to place colo-
nial spirits on the same footing as British spirits; and it was
in the spirit of this proposition that the present alteration was
submitted. If this change was not a sufficient equalisation
between the two products, he would do what he could
hereafter to make it so. With regard to the duty imposed on
Irish or Scotch spirits, when the duty was high, continual at-
tempts were made to evade the duty, and illicit distillation
prevailed to a great extent. But since the reduction of the
duty had taken place, illicit distillation had almost ceased, while
the consumption of regularly produced spirits had greatly in-
creased. The present duty, therefore, was as high in each
country as could be, without giving great encouragement to
illicit distillation. The facilities tor evading the revenue in
Scotland and Ireland, from the nature of the countries, were
so great that it would be impossible safely to retain any higher
duty than the rates now imposed. In England the spirit
duty was regulated according to the circumstances of
the country, and if it was higher, smuggling
would inevitably prevail to a great extent. There
was a large amount of unprotected coast in England, especially
in the west, and to raise the duty higher, would be to offer
the greatest inducements to smuggling. He did not throw out
these observations as an answer to the objections of the Hon.
Gentleman, but rather to show that great care and considera-
tion should be observed before any change was made. The
lion. Member concluded by a review of the scales of duties
rnposed on British spirits, at various periods from 1802, with
he object of illustrating the course of argument he had been
nrsuing with regard to the duties that should be imposed.
Mr. HUME was satisfied with the explanation of the Right '
lion. Gentleman with regard to English spirits, but he was
not so satisfied with that relating to Scotland and Ireland. He
could not see any reason why the people of these two countries
should be obliged to pay more for colonial rum than they paid
for whisky.
Mr. GOULBURN would take the proposal of the Right
Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) as an in-
stalment of what was due to the colonies. In the year 1830 he
had occasion (being then Chancellor of the Exchequer) to re-
vise the whole subject, and proposed an additional duty of Is.
upon British spirit. Corn was then subject to a higher duty
than it was by the existing tariff, and then it would be three
years hence. Unfortunately, he was unable to carry his ar-
rangement into effect. With respect to the differential duties of
Scotland and England, he thought there were departmental
difficulties in the way of their equalisation ; but these were not
insuperable. He considered that in consequence of the disad-
vantage under which the West Indian colonies laboured by
the recent measure, which affected their interests,
to adopt the proposed reduction on rum was an instalment of
what they were justly entitled to. He thought, therefore, the
equalisation of the duties on rum and British spirits was a
measure to which they were entitled in accordance with
every principle of justice.
Mr. P. M. STEWART told the Right Hon. Gentleman
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to proceed in the course he
had commenced. He deprecated the anomaly which existed
between the duties on Irish and Scotch spirits, and contended
that on one article, drawing a revenue of five millions yearly,
such a principle should not be applied. Be hoped they would
not attempt to settle the sugar question without eqnalising the
duties on rum and British spirits, and regulating the supply of
labour, two measures which the West Indies were entitled to
in consequence of the measure which had. lately passed for the
equalisation of the sugar duties.
Mr. BERNAL said, if the West Indies and British Guiana
were to be considered as integral parts of the British empire,
there was ne reason why their commodities should not be
allowed to come in on the principle of competition with the
same commodities the produce of the United Kingdom. He
said he would not say a word on West Indian grievances, all he
would say was, do justice to the colonies and the West Indian
interest. He remembered well that the landed interest in
this country was always made the foundation of these differ-
ential duties ; but he hoped the House would deal with the
sugar grower as they had done with the corn grower, and
equalise the duties.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to explain, and said all that
he meant was that some time was necessary for the Govern-
ment to consider this question, lest injustice might be done to
any parties. It was certainly his wish to avoid this, and he
hoped his Hon. Friend would allow the Government time to
take it into their consideration.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer
to a remark from Nit. Goulburn, said that the duties in the
tariff, of this year, were put down exclusive of the 5 per cent.
Mr. GOIJLBURN said when rum was pat in the schedule
reduced to t 33• 10d , he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was aware there was a 4d. additional to the nine shillings of the
former tariff. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of
the Exchequer was aware that he might only be reducing the
duties on that account by merely 2cl.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
under.tood the suggestion, and would see that his intention was
attained,

Mr. MACKINNON then withdrett his motion.
The several articles were then gone through and agreed to.
The report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
The House then resumed.
ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill
being read,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was with extreme reluctance
that he rose to more the second reading of this Bill ; but that
feeling, he said, did not arise from the Bill as a whole, for the
Government, and he agreed with it, was of opinion that this
Bill was necessary for the well-being of Ireland. He did not
agree with all the provisions of this Bill, and had he been con.
suited on it, he could never have been a a party to the introduc-
tion of kt into the House.—(Hear, hear.) But he hoped to
show the House that it was perfectly in consistency with this
op.'isien that be rose to move the House to Fs° the measure for
so litnit.eizi a period as would give the Government time to con-
sider wlsat might be the best course to take in the Govern-
ment a Ireland. Ile said the House would agree with
him in this, that it would be no part of a wise
.pokey to have the peace and security of that country
mnguarded. He said this was n.it a continuance Bill ; the Go-
vernment in that respect had adopted a most novel course, for it
came int,o the House, and asked it to pass this Bill only till the
first of 4ay next, th.it it might have time to consider the cours •
of poicy it should adopt. Ile did not know any other course
the sArternmont could have pursued on this question, as the
terms otzthe Bill made it imperative that the whole
,ariiquestion
should by fully considered early in the next session of
eena-t
"It might have been said, why not withdraw the present
Arnie Bpi, and introduce the Arms Bill previously in
opera.
Lion? ? But he had objections to that Bill, greater objections
than he )iad to the present one, and, therefore, the best course
be thought would be to renew the Bill for the short period he
darned. While he proposed this, his objections to the
resent I Bill, which he had stated on a former
v
oe.easion• still remained, both as regarded the registering of
ar.vas and " branding." With regard to the former, the re-
gisft.ations were over, and no harm could arise from that
Clause between now and next May ; and with regard to
branding that had already taken place. No harm could there-
fore arise from the continuance of the Bill for nine months
onger. • By so doing her Majesty's Government would have
the oppOrtunity of fully considering the question. A great
deal in the meantime would depend on the way in which the
Government would carry the provisions of the Act into opera.

tion, and while he pledged himself that it would be carried out
in the least objectionable manner, he must bear his testimony
as to the forbearing way in which the late Government had
carried its provisions into effect. He would, therefore, merely
as a temporary arrangement, move th.:t the Bill be read a
second time.
Mr. HUME said the easiest way for the Right Hon. Member
to have met the difficulty would have been to allow the Bill to
drop altogether.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
had ,s 1 _
had not given the shadow of a reason for the continuance f
the Bill. He admitted that the Bill had been a failure, and
yet he asked the House to consent to the continuance of this
bad Bill for nine months longer. The only argument
used was, " I have confidence in her Majesty's Ministers, as
to the way the provisions of the Bill shall be carried into effect.
But he would not consent to place the question on that tenure,
and be considered the Government would do itself great injury
if it adopted and carried out this Bill. He had a greater re-
spect for her Majesty's Ministers than they had for themselves,
and he wished to save them from attempting any further coer-
cion. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government himself
moved that the branding clause should be expunged from the
Bill, and yet he now sought to perpetuate the measure which
he then condemned. He would advise her Majesty's Govern-
ment to drop coercion and try conciliation ; and, depend upon
it, they would find that much more advantageous for the wel-
fare and peace of Ireland. The Hon. Member concluded by
moving that the Bill be read a second time this day month.
The amendment being seconded,
Mr. SHAW denied there was any thing coercive in the 13111.
The principal clauses objected to were inoperative now—those
relating to registration and branding ; and, therefore, there
could be no objection to acceding to the request of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. The course pro-
posed by the Government was the most reasonable that, under
present circumstances, could be adopted.
Mr. BICKHAII ESCOTT said if the Bill had been
found troublesome, useless, and expensive, as asserted by the
Hon. Member, who had just sat down, he would ask where
was the necessity for re-enacting it now ? He could not
understand the motive for bringing it forward again. The
Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, gave no
reason for passing this tyrannical Bill, or why the constitutional
rights of the Irish people should be handed over to the excel-
tive Government. The Right Hon. Gentleman to.d them
three years ago, that it was the custom of the executive Go-
vernment to resort too much to their unconstitutional proceed-
ings. If that was his opinion, then, and if it was as he called
it, a tyrannical measure, why did he now, when he passed over
to the other aide of the House, propose and support what he
then so violently and unhesitatirgly condemned? No man
pretending to common honesty could adopt such a course. For
his own part be called upon the House to reject the Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ said that public men were at great discount
now, he might say that they were at Birmingham discount, 75
per cent.—(Laughter.) And he thought that the late change
which had taken place in the opinions of the men who composed
the present Government, as compared with those which they
held when they were on the other side of the House, would not
tend to raise them in the estimation of the country. He thought
he would be degrading and disgracing himself by supporting
the present Government in this measure, though he was gene-
rally in the habit of supporting them.
Mr. SH ARM A N CR A WFORD condemned the Bill. He
thought that- the branding system was very disgraceful ; and
entertaining as he did the views with which he formerly re-
garded it, he would vote against it.
Mr. REDHEAD YORKE would reluctantly vote against
the Government; but, to be consistent with the opinions which
he formerly expressed, he must oppose them on the present oc-
casion.
Mr. BELLEW would vote against the Bill. The Govern-
ment were inconsistent with regard to it, and he would oppose
them.
Mr. PIGOTT supported the Bill. The Recorder for Dub-
lin had truly stated that all the mischief of the Bill was past.
The greater portion of the arms had been registered. During
the last six months very few registers had taken place. He
called upon the House to allow the Government time to consi-
der the whole subject, as he believed that, under all the circum-
stances, such a course would be most expedient.
Mr. HORSMAN said his regret at the introduction of this
Bill formerly wag greatly increased on this occasion. The
members of the Government, when out of office, had opposed
this measure—had said that coercive measures had been a signal
failure, but now, when in office, they not only abstained not
from such measures, but they adopted them. This was surely
infatuation; certainly it was humiliating to the Right Hon.
Gentlemen to uphold what they had previously opposed. He
said he could not give the measure his support.
Sir J. FERGUSON said he would certainly support the
measure.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he could not understand the dis-
tinctions which were to be drawn in this legislation between
England and Ireland; that English people were to be allowed
to use their powder without restriction, and the Irish were not.
The Government came in with protestations of good-will to
Ireland, and a wish to destroy distinctions between that and
this country, but here, with a measure which was not be-
queathed to them, they contradicted their own previous pre-
tensions. The Bill was not bequeathed to them. The Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had said that the Bill was
entirely a failure. Why, then, he asked, should the Govern-
ment allow this Bill to remaia on the statute-book? He would
certainly give the measure his opposition.
Mr. T. DUNCOM tiE thought the Noble Lord, who by
some means or other was considered the Prime Minister in that
House—(Laughter)—would have occasion to explain his
votes. He had, a few nights ago, asked the Noble Lord on
what principles he meant to carry on the Government. The
Noble Lord talked about everything except what would have
been an answer to his question, and said at last he would
carry on the Government on the principles which he had al-
ways advocated. What? Was it thus that he was to carry
out the principles advocated by him in 1843? By a measure like
this—a measure which he supposed they were to pass as a tribute
to their predecessors, whom they had turned out gf office on the
principle of non-coercion for Ireland. They had turned them
out, and now the first act of the Government was an Act of
coercion. One Hon. Member had called this a piece of infatu-
ation; it was a measure which would have died of itself, and
no one would have heard of it. For his part, considering
what would be said in Conciliation Hall, that here another
Saxon Parliament had passed another Coercion Bill, he would
stand to the last in his place and oppose it.
Mr. PROT HEROE might have, under other circumstances,
voted against the Arms Bill, but, at present, he must support
the Government. He believed if the present Government
was thrown out there would be no chance of getting a Minis-
try so well disposed to do justice to Ireland.
Lord MORPETH claimed no gratitude for himself in rela-
tion to Ireland, as be had on various occasions proposed Arms
Bills to Parliament, but he did so on those occasions from a
pressure of necessity. The Hon. Member ( Mr. Duncombe)
spoke very harshly in relation to the members of the Government
in voting against the coercion, and proposing the present mea-
sure. Now, there was this difference in the two case; while they
objected to the plan proposed in the Coercion Bill for tran-
quillising Ireland, it did not follow that they were against all
regulations applicable to the proceedings of the people of Ire-
land. He, for one, was nit prepared to say that Ireland
could do al: :igether without some form of an Arms Bill, and
some measure to regulate the sale of gunpowder ; and while
they objected to many of the provisions of the present Bill,
all they asked of the House was to continue it a little longer,
in order that the whole question might be considered, and
that a measure might be digested, which would be more in
accordance with the feelings of the people of Ireland, and cal-
culated, with the measures that might be proposed, to improve
the general condition of that country.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPOONER thought the proposition of the Govern-
ment a very fair and reasonable one, and it had his most un-
qualified approbation.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, after the various attacks
made on him by Hon. Members, to occupy the House a short
time as to his consistency, and as to the provisions of the Bill.
Now, in preparing the present Bill, he had only one of two
courses left him to pursue—either to propose the Bill as it stood,
or to throw it out altogether. Had he done the latter, he
would have acted more inconsistently than he had done in bring-
ing forward the proposition for the continuance of the measure.
When the measure was previously before the House, the Bill
submitted contained two parts ; one providing for the regis-
tration of arms, and the other had relation to the sale and
transfer of gunpowder. There were two main objects sought
to be obtained by the Bill, and he gave them his
support in 1843, reserving to himself the right of proposing
amendments when in Committee. It was, therefore, perfectly
consistent in him now to support what he did in 1843, and for
ten years before. He, therefore, in 1843. voted for the Bill
going into Committee, and when in Committee, he otjecied to
the branding clause, though even that clause was not so tyran-
nical as represented to be. He was defeated in his attempt to
improve the Bill in Committee, and, in consequence. he aban-
doned all further opposition to the progress of the measure.
He had now, therefore, to choose between a continuance of the
Bill, containing, he admitted, certain very objectionable
clauses, and giving it up altogether. He adhered to the former
course, as he did not think the power conferred by the Bill
should be entirely taken away From all the consideration he
had given the subject, he was not prepared to take upon himself
the responsibility of abandoning the measure altogether. If
there was any particular objection to the clauses, as they were
now on the second reading, why not reserve their opposition till
they went into Committee, when the obnoxious clauses might
be considered. He believed that without this Bill, life and
property would not be safe next winter in Ireland, and, believ-
ing that, he could not shrink from his duty in proposing the
second reading of the Bill. Should the House reject the Bill,
he felt persuaded that many of these degraded characters,
whose proceedings they read of in the Irish papers, would
think they had an impunity to do what crimes they dleased.
An Hon. MEMBER—Then the Bill is to be permanent in
that case.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not say that it would be per-
manent on that account. What he meant was that the sud-
den withdrawal of the Bill would have the effect he
stattd on the minds of those unhappy creatures.
He was ready to incur all the unpopularity which the proposal
of this measure might entail on the present Government. but
a regard for the necessities of Ireland required that he should
proposeits temporary continuance. He should be very glad
when the time for altering the Bill came, but at present he
hoped the House would sanction the course which the Go-
vernment proposed to pursue.
Lord SEYMOUR would vote for the Bill if the Noble
Lord (John Russell) would promise to expunge the clauses to
which he objected when he sat on the other side of the House.
Mr. MILDMAY came down to the House to support the
Bill, but in consequence of the arguments brought forward by
the Treasury Bench in support of the measure he was deter-
mused to oppose it. The Noble Lord, the Member for the
West Riding of Yorkshire, said
,that there was no time to
consider the Bill with a view to its alteration; and on that
account tht ught it would be better to propose its temporary
continuance. As. however, the Government themselves
thought the measure ebjectionable—(Laughter)—hecould not
sanction the course pursued by the Government with regard
to it.
Mr. GOULBURN would support the Bill. The late Go-
vernment had thought the present Bill necessary, and as he
,
considered the same circumstanee which called for the Bill
still existed he would support the Government.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply to the Hon. Member behind
him (Lord Seymour). had no objection to accede to the ex-
punging
theW wouldNGov
er themoepnptosweith r
egßairl ld,
of the objectionable clauses. -
taondthletembeealiseuvreednitohiet
c o ni‘dj ru.c
inconsistent.

---
Mr. COLLETT thought the Bill uncalled for,
6a
inapplicable, and inefficaious. The Noble Li rd freuqnuncenctelsy2'
je:tted to the sliding-scale of the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth ; he had, however, followed that
Right Hon. Gentleman with regard to dogging in the army,
which he proposed to continue during the life of the Duke of
Wellington—(Laughter)—and he now proposed to try the
FAograithnssti‘fita
sliding scale with regard to the present measure He would,
theretore, oppose the second reading of this Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP would adopt the same course now
as he did when the Bill was last before the House. lie would
never support a truckling Government. If a stringent
measure was considered necessary, why not at once bring in a
coeTrhcienHßouilsle?then divided, when there appeared,
amendment .. ............ ...
jority in favour of the Bill
Mr. ESCOT t requested that the former Bill shouldl-363 be
printed.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL consented.
Mr. T. DUNCONIBE said it inaa generally understood that
certain objectionable clauses were to be omitted ; inde4 several
votes had been given the Noble Lord on that ground. If they
were excluded, he would give the Government very little troa-

ble. Ho hoped, and he saw no reason against it, that Ireland
and England would be governed on equal principles. How-
ever, the Noble Lord had not yet said he would exclude those
clauses ; he had merely said to the Hon. Member opposite, that
he would take it into consideration. But all knew what that
meant.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the question proposed was a diffi-
cult one, and it might require consideration ; but he would con-
sent to the exclusion of the clauses in question.
Mr. HUME said if he had heard the same from the Noble
Lord sooner, he would not have divided the House on the
subject.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted on Monday next.
FORMS (ASSESSED TAXES) BILL.

This Bill was rea'd a third time and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS (ADVANCES) BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up and agreed to.
CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up.
Mr. WILLIAMS could not agree to the mode in which the
public money was to be appropriated under this Bill.
Mr HUME objected to the charge, and felt inclined to take
the sense of the House upon it. He believed the advance of
the money would be no relief to Ireland.

Mr. CABOUCHERE defended the vote, and stated it
would cause great dissatisfaction in Ireland if the vote %in
withheld.

The report was then received and adopted.
THE COUNTY WORKS PRESENTMENTS
(IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
_ _ _ _

The Report of this Bill, after a very few remarks from Mr.
Hume, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and some other Hon.
Members, was received and agreed to.

DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.

The report of this Bill was brought up and received, and
several additional clauses to the Bill added by way of rider
agreed to.
FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.

Mr. B. ESCOTT wished to know if the Noble Lord had any
objection to lay on the table a return of persons flogged in the
army in Great Britain and Ireland, in the years 1845 and
1846 to the end of July; specifying, 1. The offence. 2. The
regiment, the place of station, the time. 3. The sentence.
4. The order for its execution. 5. Whether the trials were
open to the public, or only open to the regiment, or with closed
doors. 6. The number of lashes inflicted, and the day. 7.
How soon after punishment the man was able to return to his
duty, and at what place he was then quartered. 8. Whether
death had followed within twelve uronths of the flogging, and
the date of such death. 9. Whether the punishment was
inflicted, if in cavalry regiments, by the trumpeter or farriers;
if in infantry regiments, by the privates or drummers, and
with what instrument. 10. Copies of the surgeon's minutes
of all such punishments, and any subsequent observations on
their consequences.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had an objection to
the motion in its present shape.
Mr. B. ESCO TT then said he would postpone it till a
future time.