T

O the surprise and disappointment of many of those who had assisted the present Ministers in defeating Sir Robert Peel's Government on their Irish measure, the renewal of the Irish Arms Act was announced by them as one of the first of the Government measures to be pressed forward this session. Mr. Bernal Osborne called the attention of the House of Commons to the subject on the 7th of August, by asking Mr. Labouchere (the new Secretary for Ireland) what were the intentions of the Government, and the reasons which influenced them in this proceeding. Mr. Labouchere explained the circumstances of the case. He could assure his hon. friend that the step the Government had determined to take with reference to the measure to which he had alluded had not been resolved on without mature consideration. He (Mr. Labouchere) had not altered any opinion he had ever held with regard to the Arms Act. He considered that many of its provisions were most objectionable, and the working of the measure had not tended to change the unfavourable opinion he had originally entertained of it. He would state, however, to his hon. Friend and the House, what was the position of the Government with regard to this measure. They had come to the conclusion that it was impossible altogether to dispense with it; they were satisfied that they would not be justified in leaving

Ireland without some of the provisions contained in that measure, and he believed that this feeling was entertained by a great majority of those Irish gentlemen who were really acquainted with the condition of Ireland. The Government had to consider whether they should endeavour to alter the present Arms Act-to take from it those provisions which they thought objectionable, leaving those which they considered necessary and useful. With that object the measure was carefully considered; but it was found that the provisions of the Act were so much complicated and mixed up, that it would have been utterly impossible, without a very long period of consideration and deliberation, to adapt the measure to their views. The Government had, therefore, to consider what course they should pursue, and they came to the conclusion that the best course was to ask the House to intrust to them the powers granted by the existing Arms Act, to be exercised on their responsibility, and to be continued only for a limited period, promising that early in the next session they would bring forward such a measure as, after due deliberation, they might feel justified in recommending. He begged to call the attention of the House to a circumstance which would indicate what were the views of the Government on this subject. The measure proposed by the Government was a continuance Bill, but was not a continuance Bill of the

usual kind for one year. The Government had introduced an express provision into the Bill that it should expire on the 1st of May next year, thereby giving a pledge to the House that they would at as early a period as possible bring the subject under the consideration of the Legislature.

The intention of the Government to renew this measure created great dissatisfaction among the Members of the liberal party, and opportunity was taken, on subsequent occasions, to give vent to the strong feeling which had been excited. Upon Mr. Labouchere moving the second reading of the Bill on the 10th, he was much pressed with the inconsistency and impolicy of the Ministerial plan. He vindicated their proceedings at first with some warmth. He was prepared to maintain, in the face of the House and of the country, that a Government would desert its duty, and would act a part utterly unworthy of the dignity of the Crown, if they allowed the Bill to drop. The spirit in which he asked the House to pass the Bill was not one of approval, in spirit or detail. The Bill would only be in force till the 1st of May; and he gave the House not only a pledge but security of the intention of Government to bring in a measure on the subject. All that the Ministers asked was time. As to any odium which would be provoked by the licensing and branding of arms, all the arms were already licensed and branded. The mischief was done already, and no harm could be done y continuing this measure for only nine months. He should be sincerely sorry if the necessity for proposing such a Bill were to be taken as a specimen of the feeling and a sample of the legislation that the present Govern

ment would adopt towards Ireland.

A long and desultory discussion ensued, and drew forth a host of opponents from all quarters.

Mr. Hume had a very simple plan which he would recommend to Mr. Labouchere. It was to drop the Bill altogether-not to dirty his fingers with it. Sir James Graham, the late Home Secretary, had twice admitted that the measure had failed. Mr. Hume wished to know why the House should place an unconstitutional power in the hands of a set of men who declared they disapproved of that power, merely as a mark of confidence? The present step seemed to be quite unnecessary. There were no petitions-no applications from Ireland; no Irish Members had asked for it.

Mr. Shaw, though not friendly to the Bill, was, nevertheless, of opinion that it was but fair to allow the Government time to look into the subject.

Mr. Escott said, it was to him a matter of the most curious conjecture what wild infatuation could have induced the Government to take such a Bill under its protection. Mr. Labouchere had himself admitted that the measure was a failure; and Mr. Sheil, in opposition, had mercilessly denounced it. Was the honourable and learned member going to support that Bill now?

Mr. Muntz felt, that to support Ministers in the present case would be to degrade and disgrace himself. They had fallen to a great discount in his estimation by their conduct on this occasion.

Mr. Sharman Crawford considered the Bill, as it stood, a breach of the constitution; and he would oppose it.

Mr. Redhead Yorke would do the same.

Mr. Bellew declared that the effect of the present proposal upon the character of public men would be most injurious.

Mr. Pigott, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, said a few words in support of Ministers. In 1843 he thought there should be no legislation on the subject; but the circumstance of legislation having been introduced modified the question.

Mr. Horsman thought it was positive infatuation in Ministers to force such a Bill on the House.

Sir Robert Ferguson thought that at any rate some restrictions ought to be placed on the sale of gunpowder and the importation of

arms.

Mr. Protheroe should oppose the Bill; but it was with the greatest concern that he appeared as an opponent of Ministers.

Mr. Spooner had always supported the principle involved in the Bill. Those Members who supported the late Government in the Coercion Bill were bound, as men of honour, to support the present

measure.

Mr. Bernal Osborne felt deeply mortified that Ministers should have been so untrue to their professions in opposition as to have introduced such a measure now that they were in office. The present Government had come into power avowedly with the intention of making the same laws for England and for Ireland; and, with these professions on their lips, how were they justified in advocating such a measure as the present a measure which had not been bequeathed to them by their predecessors, but which, on the contrary, their predecessors decried and admitted

to be a failure? He was willing to support the Government when he could do so honourably; but he would not repose that confidence in any Government that would induce him to support them when they proposed measures which were unconstitutional and destructive of liberty. Why were they to have enactments of this description?

66

Mr. Thomas Duncombe thought that explanation was required from Lord John Russell. In 1843, the noble Lord spoke after this fashion, in reference to the Arms Bill :— But, really, if we are told that it is the intention of the Executive Government to propose such plans, and such plans alone-if we are told that this is a sample of the measures by which Ireland is to be governed-I think before long that this House should address the Crown, or take some mode or other of expressing their opinion as to the government of Ireland."

That was "the principle" on which the noble Lord had always acted; and he supposed that now, as a sort of tribute to the memory of his predecessors, he was going to pass another Coercion Bill. Mr. Duncombe wanted to know upon what principle they had turned out the late Government, unless it were upon the principle of non-coercion. Never was a Minister turned out so much against the will of the people of this country, or so much to the discredit of the party who had succeeded him.

Some of the Ministers now came forward, hinting at concessions. Lord Morpeth said it had been his lot frequently to propose Irish Arms Bills and never to oppose them. The Ministers found the present Bill in force; and the question was, whether, having legislation now,

not being prepared to dispense with legislation altogether, and intending to have recourse to legislation next session, the Government was called upon to introduce a third piece of legislation on the subject. He hoped the House would not think that Ministers intended to cling to that system of legislation, or to hold it up as the model of their wishes.

Lord John Russell was more explicit. He defended his own consistency. During the ten or eleven years that he had held office, he had supported measures which had for their object the preventing of improper persons from having firearms, and preventing the introduction of ammunition and fire-arms into Ireland. With regard to these two main objects of the Bill, he gave every support to them in 1843; but he opposed other parts. In particular, he had opposed the branding clause. He agreed with the Recorder of Dublin in thinking that a good deal of the vexation caused by the objectionable clauses which the Bill contains was now

over.

46

If gentlemen think with regard to any of those clauses that they ought to be expunged from the Bill, it will be in the power of the House to accede to their wishes, and to make those amendments in Committee. I cannot shrink from the duty of asking this House, however unpopular the measure may be, still to continue some restriction on the possession of arms in Ireland. The declaration in the preamble of all these Bills is, that they are to prevent improper persons having arms. Now, I wish the House to observe, whatever ridicule may have been thrown on the argument of the right honourable the Recorder of Dublin, that

The anticipations which most persons had been led to form, from the wavering anguage of the Ministers respecting this measure, were not long in being realized. On the 17th, Lord John Russell announced to the House the abandonment of the Bill. He said that, in asking for a temporary renewal of the Bill, the only object was to enable the Ministers to consider the whole of its provisions, with the view of determining whether the system should be altogether abandoned or modified. He looked upon this as a reasonable proposition, seeing that Parliament had placed restrictions upon the

possession of arms in Ireland for the last fifty years, nay, almost since the Revolution. In consequence, however, of the opposition which the proposal had met with, they had agreed to withdraw the more objectionable provisions -the clauses which related to branding and domiciliary visits: but, on withdrawing these, other questions occurred in reference to the remaining provisions of the measure, which presented much difficulty. On consultation with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was well acquainted with the usual course of proceedings in that country, and was willing to dispense with coercive power, Lord John Russell was of opinion that it would be far better to dispense with the Bill altogether, than to continue it thus divested of some of its principal provisions. He would much rather have had longer time to consider the whole question; but, on mature consideration, they had resolved to drop the Bill. In coming to this decision, they had been influenced by the absence of all impediments to the administration of justice in Ireland, by the disposition displayed by juries to do their duty, and by the diminution which had taken place in crime.

Mr. Escott and Mr. Hume offered their congratulations to the Government, upon the determination which they had just announced.

On the same evening, Lord John Russell developed his plan for meeting the existing and impending scarcity in Ireland, occasioned by the failure of the potato crop, by employing the people under Government upon public works. He commenced his statement by adverting to what had been done in the preceding year, and in the spring of the present year, by the

late Government for the same object. Having shown that in the purchase of Indian corn, in donations in aid of subscriptions, in public works, in general presentments, and in various smaller items, the Government had expended for the relief of the people of Ireland 852,4811., of which 494,851. was either repaid or to be repaid, he proceeded to examine in detail the amount of the evil which this money was expended to remedy, and to describe to the House the benefit which was derived from that expenditure. He expressed his sorrow at being obliged to state, that although there were at present, in the greater part of the counties of Ireland, harvest work and wages sufficient for the support of the labouring population, the prospect of the potato crop was this year even more distressing than it was during the last. Having corroborated this statement by private letters from Lord Shannon, Lord Enniskillen, Lord Bernard, Colonel Jones Smith, and other individuals in various districts of Ireland, he proceeded to explain to the House the measures which he intended to propose for its adoption, in order to make provision for some employment for the labouring people of Ireland. He proposed to introduce a Bill to this effect-that the Lord Lieutenant should have power, on recommendation made to him, to summon a barony sessions or a county sessions for works for relief of the poor; when those sessions should have assembled, they would be empowered and required to order such public works as might be necessary for the employment and relief of the people. The choice of the works would be left to them, and they would be put into execution by the officers of the Board of