ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

The bill was then read a second time.

SEIZURE OF ARMS BILL.] On the motion of lord Sidmouth, the House resolved itself into a Committee on this bill. The Earl of Darnley moved, that the clause authorizing officers to enter houses in the night-time to search for arms be omitted. He would ask the noble lord whether a person opposing an officer in the administration of his duty, would be guilty of murder if he should occasion his death? He conceived that all the purposes of the bill would be equally answered by confining the power of searching to the day-time.

The Earl of Blessington wished to put a question to the noble lord, before he proceeded to make any comments on the information which he had received. This bill, he understood, was intended to affect Ireland as well as this country. Now, they had been told, that all was quiet in Ireland, and therefore the extension of the bill to the people of that country could only tend to irritate them. The bill, in his opinion, had been rendered necessary, not by those persons whom he would call subjects, but by the conduct of those who were intrusted with the government of the country. He therefore begged to be informed by the noble lord, whether it was in contemplation to extend the provisions of the bill to Ireland. He might remark before he sat down, that formerly when a similar law was enforced in that country, the arms which had been taken away from the people were never restored? He trusted that would not be the case in the present instance.

Lord Sidmouth answered, that the bill applied only to certain counties in England which were expressly named. It certainly gave a power to the magistrates in any part of the united kingdom to extend its provisions, if necessary; but at present it was confined to certain counties in this country, and the noble lord would surely not say, that if it was necessary to apply it to other parts of the kingdom, the executive government should not have the power of so applying it. With regard to the amendment proposed, the noble lord had said, that by searching in the night-time great inconvenience might arise to individuals against whom information had been given of having arms in their possession. There was no doubt of this; but the safety of the state was paramount to any consider

ations of individual convenience. Was it to be permitted, that persons who were said to have arms in their possession, were to be allowed time from sun-rise to sun-set to conceal them? But the noble lord had asked, if a person opposed force, and killed the officer, whether he would be liable to an indictment for murder? The only answer he could give to this question was, that a man might be accused of murder, whether it was committed in the day-time or the night-time. This bill, it should be observed, had a provision, which was not in the act of the 52nd of Geo. 3rd, namely, that a search could only take place on information given on oath; and that being the case, he would ask, if they ought to sacrifice the whole bill by removing the provision to which the noble lord objected?

The Duke of Sussex perfectly coincided in opinion with the earl of Darnley on this subject. He did conceive that a great deal depended on the manner in which this law was to be put in execution. When they could carry the law into effect, without offending the private feelings of individuals, or making an attack on public feeling, that course should be adopted. The noble lord had said, that if this provision were omitted, it would not, in some cases, be in the power of the officers to act on the information they had received for ten or twelve hours afterwards. But if they had the power of getting that information secretly, they might surely conceal the circumstance from the party informed against for a short time; and thus, by delaying the search till a seasonable hour, they might avoid giving that offence which the present provision must inevitably give. It was surely most offensive for a man to be disturbed in the first hours of his slumber; and, though he was anxious to avoid saying any thing that could inflame the public feeling, he must declare, that were he disturbed in such a manner, he should certainly be ready to inquire if such a proceeding was legal.

The Earl of Blessington, in explanation, said, he should not state his authority for believing that it was in contemplation to extend this bill to Ireland, although he had good authority for entertaining such belief. In consequence, however, of the noble lord's answer, he should not insist on offering any remarks on the subject; he thought the alarm in this country was in a great measure unfounded, and he

must protest against any intention the noble lord might have of making the people of Ireland suffer for it.

The Earl of Rosslyn asked, whether the clause which made the possession of arms of a particular description primâ facie evidence that they were intended to be used against the state, was so guarded as not to apply to common arms, such as guns, pistols, &c.; and whether, as no oath was required to justify the seizure of the one, the necessity of an oath might not be evaded with respect to the other.

Lord Sidmouth said, that the clause expressly mentioned pike-heads or spears, as the description of weapon that should be considered primâ facie evidence of the evil intention, and seized without information upon oath. The common weapons which might be kept merely for purposes of defence, were regarded in that view, and an oath of the supposed purpose for which they were intended was required, before they could be seized.

The Earl of Rosslyn thought it hard, that the man who had in his possession pike-heads or spears without any design against the government, should have no protection against the breaking open of his house in the night.

armour, might ask at the quarter sessions for his property, and there be compelled to pay heavy expenses. The bill was of a nature which no one could assent to who thought of its consequences. All these things tended to increase the distrust and irritation in manufacturing districts; and if people were disposed to emigrate, he saw no choice between London and Constantinople, unless the preference were in favour of the latter. In London we once had the best laws, which were gradually changed for the worst, and in Constantinople the worst laws, in which no alteration could be made but for the better.

The Earl of Liverpool said, that the measure to which the attention of their lordships was then called, was not worse than one which had been enacted four years ago. That there were disturbances, could not but be evident to each of their lordships who had read the papers on the table. The noble lord denied the existence of a conspiracy; and yet who could doubt, after what had occurred at Burnley, where all the persons who composed that multitude, as it was admitted, were armed either with pikes, or with other weapons. For what object were the pikes and those other weapons, constructLord Erskine did not think that theed and collected, if not for a traitorous noble lord was in earnest in bringing the bill before the House. The preamble of it proclaimed the existence of a widely spreading and dangerous conspiracy, in the truth of which he could not coincide. Application, according to the bill, was to be made to a magistrate for a warrant, when the applicant might state, that he believed that arms for an improper purpose were in the possession of another, without however stating any facts. The magistrate would not be at liberty to refuse. Thus some poor man, who with his family might have retired to rest after his labour (if indeed any man could venture to go to bed at all after the passing of this act), might become the much-injured victim of malevolence and oppression. The onus probandi was thrown on the poor man, who would be forced to answer a rule to show cause why the door of his dwelling should not be broken open in the middle of the night, and his family almost tortured, in order to gratify the malignity or the cruelty of any other person. But he might apply for the restitution of the weapons which should be seized from him: and he, like the ghost of Hamlet in

purpose? There was a distinction, which could not but be evident from the bill, relative to the mode in which its operation was to take effect. Persons having weapons of the first description, were to be considered as if prima facie testimony had been offered against them, and they were to become liable to the penalties of the bill; but when it could be proved that the other weapons were detained for no improper purpose, the possessors of them were not to be liable to any penalties. In the former case, the possession of the weapons specified was to be regarded as having rendered the possessors subject to the consequences of the bill; in the latter, an oath was to be required before even suspicion could lay hold of the weapons, or leave their owners subject to any disagreeable result.

Lord Holland inquired if, in the first clause, there were any objection to insert

two magistrates" instead of "a magistrate?" He did not wish to press this amendment, but at all events the word "cannon" had been omitted among the weapons, as it had been stated that a good many had been about lately

Lord Sidmouth said that the word << gun" was to be found in the bill.

Lord Holland objected strongly to its insertion; admitting that, if an evil prevailed, it did not follow that this bill was a proper remedy; it might put an end even to some of the sports of the field; and though people in the country loved the constitution very well, they often loved the favour of an administration quite as dearly, and might give informations to answer any but useful purposes.

The question was put on the amendment, and it was negatived. Lord Darnley persevered in his amendment for omitting the words, "or by night," but the question being put, it was rejected. The House was then resumed.

TRAINING PREVENTION BILL.] Their lordships went into a committee on this bill.

the disaffected was rather below than above the mark. In confirmation of this statement he would refer to a noble dukej the lord-lieutenant of the neighbouring county to that in which he lived, whom he saw in the House. The laws which their lordships were enacting were not, in his apprehension, stronger than the ne cessity of the case required: he even doubted whether they would be sufficient for meeting the evils which they were intended to repress. Not a moment should be lost in putting them into execution, and most happy should he be to find that they affected their purpose without having recourse to more vigorous measures. There was not a man in the House more unwilling than he was to restrict or to suspend the constitutional rights of the people without the necessity.

The Duke of Northumberland said, he had had no intention of obtruding himself

Lord Holland objected both to the per-upon the attention of their lordships; but manency and generality of the measure; at least, he said it would be fit to exempt from its operation school-masters who might employ serjeants to drill boys under their tuition.

He

having been so pointedly called upon, he could assure their lordships that the statement of the noble earl was not only strictly correct, but rather short of the real fact. By a return which had been made to him, The Earl of Liverpool replied, that he upon the accuracy of which he could rely, could not see how it was possible to frame the number associated in the several colthe bill otherwise than as it now stood, if lieries amounted to 16,600 persons. He it was to be made effectual for its pur- understood that all these had arms. poses. The bill prohibited all drilling, had since understood, and they had thembut it authorized lords-lieutenant to selves said, that in the district between grant licences for drilling. This power the Tyne and the Weir, and extending to he had no objection to have extended to Carlisle, there were 100,000 men with other magistrates. It was not, therefore, arms, ready to rise and unite together. to be apprehended that any of the incon veniences alluded to by the noble lord could arise from the bill as now constructed.

The bill was then read, clause by clause, in the committee, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday next. Their lordships were about to retire, when

The Earl of Strathmore requested the attention of their lordships for a few moments. He was anxious that the bills which were now passing should be carried into execution with all possible speed, and with the desired effect. He understood that the statement he had last night made of the numbers who associated in a part of the country with which he was connected, had just been called in question, and denied in another place. He could assure their lordships that that part of the country was much disturbed. What he had said last night of the numbers of

Lord Redesdale said, he had that morning received a letter from Newcastle, which enabled him most fully to corroborate, as from the latest accounts, the statements which had been made by both the noble duke and earl.

The Earl of Strathmore said, he had just received intelligence that two of the most worthy magistrates in the county had been compelled to abandon their homes, through apprehension of the danger which threatened them. They were now actually residing with their families in the town of Newcastle. For his own part, he felt what was due to himself and the repose of that part of the country, and the moment he had heard of this transaction he had given orders to have his dedimus made out; and he could assure the House he would be found on his post in the hour of danger.

[ocr errors]

Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, December 3.

[ocr errors]

IRELAND ARTICLES OF UNION.] Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald said, he wished to put to his right hon. friend a question of considerable importance to Ireland, respecting the repeal or continuance of certain duties, which, by the act of union, were to be collected for twenty years after the passing of that act. They were duties imposed on articles imported into Ireland, being of British produce or manufacture. In the present situation of Ireland, with respect to manufactures, it was of great moment to those interested, that they should be acquainted with what his majesty's government intended to do, with reference to this subject, in the present session of parliament: for in this session it must be deoided, whether those duties should or should not be continued. His right hon. friend had, in courtesy to him, stated the course that was intended to be taken; but it was extremely important, that by a statement made in his place, the public in Ireland should also be apprized of his right hon. friend's intention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite aware of the great importance of the question put by his right hon. friend. The subject was one of the utmost interest, and he was bound to say, had engaged the previous attention of the Treasury. Sufficient time had not elapsed to enable them to come to a final decision. But he must state to his right hon. friend, that a farther continuance of the duties, beyond the period to which they were now restricted, appeared to him to be unavoidable. But, whether that term would be longer or shorter, and whether it would be advisable that the measure should be one of temporary or permanent policy, it was not in his power to say.

Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald did not mean to express any opinion on the subject; but he was anxious that those persons who were interested should bring their case before parliament, when he hoped a just and liberal view would be taken of it. He now begged to put another question to his right hon. friend. When parliament separated at the close of the last session, it was in the recollection of the House, that a bill was about to be submitted to its consideration, for regulating the distilleries of Ireland. In consequence of that measure, which had reference to illicit distilleries, having been abandoned,

considerable uncertainty prevailed with respect to the existing law, which affected very sensibly the agriculture, manufactures, and revenue of Ireland. Those who had large distilleries did not like to proceed, as they were ignorant of the measures that might be adopted. Those also who had no concern in distilleries, but who were interested in preserving the peace and morals of the country, by preventing illicit distillation, were anxious to ascertain the exact state of the law as early as possible. Any information on this subject would be most important indeed to the interests involved.

Lord Milton said, the subject of the duties imposed on goods imported into Ireland was one of the utmost importance to the manufactures of both countries, and he hoped that, when regulations were adopted, they would be rendered plain and intelligible. As the duties at present stood, the schedule was not sufficiently clear. Some circumstances, he understood, had in consequence taken place in the Custom-house in Ireland, the proceedings connected with which were considered vexatious on this side of the water.

Sir H. Parnell wished clearly to understand on what ground a continuance of those duties was to be supported. He begged leave to ask, whether the article of the union by which those duties were imposed had been carefully examined, with a view of fully deciding whether or not the duties could be continued beyond the period of twenty years, without an infringement of that article? At the time the union was under consideration, the question of the duties was argued and discussed; and it was supposed, that when the act of union expired, the duties must expire with it, unless the article by which they were regulated was infringed. He wished to know what the opinion of the crown lawyers was-whether or not those duties could be continued, without violating the compact entered into between the two countries?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it would be more regular if but one question were asked at a time. As to what the noble lord had said with respect to the regulations between Great Britain and Ireland, he admitted that the subject was one which ought to be fully inquired into; but any change in the system must evidently be a matter of ulterior consideration. With respect to the legal doubt that had been suggested by the hon. baro

it up by explaining several others. He therefore declined giving any explanation now. It would only give rise to a debate, for no useful purpose that he could perceive. The best course was, to render the bill intelligible, by filling up the blanks now, and on Monday he would give all farther information.

net, whether the continuance of those duties would or would not be an infringement of the act of union, he must observe that he had never heard such a doubt started before. He had always considered, that on the expiration of the twenty years, every subject connected with the country was open to parliamentary regulation. The only meaning which he affixed to the act of union was, that for twenty years a positive agreement was made not to inter-tered his opinion with respect to the passfere with or alter certain regulations. With respect to the second question put by his right hon. friend on the subject of distillation, he was not prepared to declare what might be done when that subject came under discussion. It certainly involved a question of great importance to the revenue and agriculture of Ireland; but he was not aware that he could at present give his right hon. friend any answer, except by referring him to the measures that were in progress last session. Every means, however, would be taken to obtain information, with a view to the correction of the evil that had been pointed

out.

Sir H. Parnell observed, that as the period to which the provisions in the articles of the union extended was on the point of expiring, he trusted that such arrangements would thenceforward be made as might conduce to the convenience of the members for Ireland; that a considerable part of the Irish business would be transacted at home, so that that House might not be troubled with the proceedings of Irish vestries, and that that useless piece of pageantry, the lord-lieutenancy of Ireland, might be got rid of,

SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.] Lord Castlereagh moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House on the Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill. His lordship said, this proceeding was merely pro forma. He would in the committee move, that the blanks be filled up; and on Monday he would state to the House, before going into the debate, what alterations were intended to be made in the bill.

Mr. Tierney said, perhaps the noble lord would now state what alterations were contemplated; particularly, whether it was intended that the bill should be temporary or permanent.

Lord Castlereagh said, if he gave an explanation on one point, he must follow

Mr. Tierney said, he was only anxious to know, whether the noble lord had aling a permanent measure. He could not see how an answer to such a question could provoke a debate. The noble lord's wrath against the people, which he had so strongly displayed within the last twenty-four hours, afforded but slight grounds for supposing that he had changed his opinion.

Lord Castlereagh.-I feel no wrath against the people. I am only doing my duty.

Mr. M. A. Taylor said, he conceived yesterday, that after the debate was over, the noble lord meant to state a general outline of the alterations he intended to make; but now he found the explanation would not be given until Monday. He wished, most undoubtedly, for the convenience of himself and other gentlemen, to know the extent to which the noble lord meant to press the measure. would not give him that information, and as he had no means of compelling him, he would take another opportunity, when the House was apprized of the noble lord's intention, to state the light in which he viewed the measure.

As he

Mr. Tierney gave notice, that he would in the committee, on Monday next, propose that the bill should not be permanent, but temporary.

Mr. Lambton rose, not for the purpose of discussing the question before them, but because he felt bound to state his opinions to the House and the country, in consequence of a statement made by a noble earl in another place, that there were 14,000 or 15,000 men on the banks of the Weir and the Tyne, ready for rebellion, Without in any way accusing those from whom the noble earl received his information (of whom he had no knowledge), or supposing, for a moment, that the noble earl made the statement in any other than the most temperate manner, yet, residing, as he did, in that neighbourhood, employing many of the inferior classes of the population, as he did, and representing the county of Durham, as he

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »