CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 14 September 1893)

§ MR. HOPWOOD (Lancashire, S. E.,) Middleton
said, that if the Government intended to go on with this Bill, in spite of the opposition of their Radical supporters—though it was said that no contentious measure would be taken—he had no choice but to submit the Amendments standing in his name, which were many and important. He would first submit to Mr. Speaker a point of Order. He understood that on the Report stage, if he had Amendments to a clause, he should move those Amendments first, though he intended to move to reject the whole clause. If he were right in that, he would proceed to move the first Amendment, the insertion of the words "other than a householder, for protection of person or property," which was not upon the Paper, and which applied to Clause 1, Sub-section 3.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said he would so put the Question that the hon. Member might speak at first against the whole clause.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, the 1st clause contained the gist and effect of the Bill. He had several objections to make to it. In the first place, he contended that it was absolutely unnecessary; that it was not warranted by the Returns which had been furnished recently at the request of the Home Office; that it was non-effective, and that it attacked the natural right of everybody who desired to arm himself for his own protection, and not to harm anybody else. The Government appeared to think that there were so many accidents with firearms that some such Bill as this was required. But the evidence adduced in support of it was based on three Returns only—one, of the number of accidents arising from revolvers and other firearms which had been treated in hospitals throughout England during 1890–91–92; a second, of the number of Coroners' inquests on such accidents; and the third, of the number of outrages by burglars carrying firearms during five years ended 31st December, 1892. The first Return showed the small number of cases of suicide and homicide upon which the Government were prepared to found this Bill, which should never have been introduced by a Liberal Government, and he did not think it could be proved 1256 that in these cases—there were only 19 fatal accidents for three years—the pistols were purchased for the deliberate purpose of destroying life. Were the parties who sold such weapons to be responsible for the actions of those who purchased? In the case of Coroners' inquests, they had only 49 instances. Then, as regarded armed burglars, the statistics available were equally satisfactory from his point of view. The first column showed "No policeman shot," several wounded. The number of burglars who were found with arms not used was small—31—and the number who escaped by use of arms—he was taking a period of five years—was even smaller—18. On the basis of these Returns, which the Government had before them, they were not justified in proceeding with a measure of this kind. If the Bill were to pass, why should they have a prohibition as to children under 18 years of age? There were very few of those present who in their earlier years had not pistols in their hands, and who was the worse for it? He said this grandmotherly legislation was not required, and they should make a firm stand against it, so far as it was in their power as a minority to resist it. They regretted to see this relaxation of firmness on the part of the Government, and one so robust in character as the Home Secretary bring it in. Why should not Englishmen arm themselves? It was natural, and they ought not to interfere with such a right. Why did they not interfere with catapults?—these did more injury than the other weapons. Another objection he had to the Bill was that it was class legislation, tending to create class distinction, and sure to be injurious to trade. The Bill at first proposed to secure to the gunmakers and pawnbrokers a monopoly in the trade. He said the disabilities imposed by the Bill were of a character that the trade should not suffer under. While the Bill prohibited buying and selling, it did not prohibit barter and exchanging, nor lending, nor giving; its provisions were so contradictory that it could not be effective. He did not wish to detain the House, but he thought they should mark their sense of the Government action in introducing such legislation. The Bill had been amended, but the provisions introduced were not such as they could be content 1257 with. The provision as to the sale or purchase of pistols really effected no more than the Gun Licences Act did. He pointed out the vexatious restraint on naval and military officers. If any subject of the Queen wanted to buy a pistol or a revolver it was his business and his right to do so without being obliged to sign a document to show that he was an officer. Why were these irritating proceedings to be imposed upon Englishmen? Then, again, they had the provision requiring the production of a certificate from the Board of Trade as to whether a man desiring to purchase was the master or mate in the Merchant Service. Why should that be necessary? Suppose a man wanted to emigrate, he must produce a statement signed by himself, and attested by a Justice of the Peace, to the effect that he was about to emigrate within 14 days from the date of the purchase of the pistol. Was that not irritating, provoking, and absurd legislation? In the case of a foreigner, if he wanted to buy a pistol in this country under this Bill, he would have to produce a statement signed by him, and endorsed by the Consular officer for the country to which he belonged, that he was about to leave the United Kingdom within 14 days from the date of purchase. The clause further stated— A pistol or ammunition suitable only for a pistol may not be sold to a person apparently under the age of 18 years, or bought by a person under that age. They were going to protect these young people against themselves, but yet, whilst it was proposed to restrict the sale of pistols, any of these young people could buy half a pound of gunpowder and blow themselves and their relatives up. Sub-section 5 of the clause said— This section shall apply only in the case of the sale of a pistol by any person in the course of trade or business. As he had pointed out, any person might barter any number of pistols he liked, and this Bill did not prevent any system of exchange in any form. A man might import pistols wholesale from abroad, and then give them to whom he pleased, and the Bill would not touch him in the least. In another clause it was provided that a person under 18 years of age who used a pistol was liable to be fined £10 or sent to gaol for a month. Just fancy that! Who was to pay the fine—the 1258 father or the mother? And who was to be sent to gaol? He supposed the child. Then in this same clause the laws of evidence were reversed. It was provided— For the purpose of this section a person on whose behalf any sale is made by an apprentice or servant shall be taken to be the seller, but such a person will not be liable under this Act if he proves that he has taken all reasonable means to prevent the; committal of an offence against this section. The moment he proved his own innocence he was not liable to any penalty. But would it be believed that, although this was a criminal offence, there was no provision in the Bill to enable him to be a witness; therefore he could not prove that he had taken reasonable means to prevent an offence being committed if he had to depend upon himself alone. It was clear the Bill was controversial, and he hoped the House would pause before proceeding with it, and would support him in rejecting this clause, which was a vital part of the measure.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
desired to move the Adjournment of the Debate. It was quite evident this was a contentious Bill, and it ought not, therefore, to be gone on with. The Government had dropped many good Bills, including Bills that would be of use to the country, pleading that for want of time they could not pass them. Another reason for the Adjournment of the Debate was that the present Bill was thoroughly bad, as his hon. and learned Friend had shown, and they ought, at the very least, to have further time for considering it. With a view of obtaining that further time he begged to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
thought it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had allowed a Division to take place on the clause—a course which would have enabled them to have seen how far the Bill was contentious or not. It was desirable they should know how 1259 many Members there were who were really hostile to the Bill, and when they knew that they should know how to deal with the Bill.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have seen by this time that there was quite enough contentious matter in the Bill to induce several of the Radical Members, at any rate, to fight it with very considerable inconvenience to the House and the Government; therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in the Division which he was inviting, would be satisfied that it would be better to drop the Bill, so that the efforts of the Government might be devoted to some more worthy measure.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, he would now like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the Bill contentious? The minority, though small, were resolute upon the subject.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he was prepared to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he was not disposed to push matters too far, and he would agree to the adjournment of the Debate if the hon. and learned Member would move it.

COLONEL NOLAN
moved the Adjournment of the House. That, he thought, would meet the difficulty.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Amendment before the House is, that Clause 10 be omitted. The Question I have to put is as to the omission of that clause.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to agree to the Adjournment.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Question I have to put is, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. W. S. B. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)
said, he would point out, as a matter of Order, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway had moved the Adjournment of the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Motion before the House is with regard to the retention or omission of the clause. The Amendment is, "That this House do now adjourn."

§ MR. M'LAREN
was understood to suggest that he believed the Government and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were willing that the Debate should stand adjourned.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, he was willing that the Debate should be adjourned.

COLONEL NOLAN
said, he was willing to move that. He only moved the Adjournment of the House, as he thought it would be more convenient.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, there was a little confusion, and to put matters in order he would move, "That the Debate on Clause 1 stand adjourned."

§ MR. HOPWOOD
rose, but—

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the Question is, "That the Debate on Clause 1 stand adjourned."