Lords Sitting of 3 December 1819

MISDEMEANORS BILL.—
The Lord Chancellorleft the woolsack, and moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, entitled "an act to prevent delay in the administration of justice in cases of misdemeanor." His lordship then proceeded to describe the enactments of the bill, which he observed, if found liable to objection, might be subject to discussion and amendment in the committee. The preamble stated, that great delays have occurred in the administration of justice in cases of persons prosecuted by indictment, or information in the court of King's bench, at Westminster, or by indictment at the sessions; by reason that the defendants have, according to the present practice, an opportunity of postponing their trials to a distant period, by means of imparlances in the court of King's-bench, and by time given to plead at the sessions. This preamble explained the ground of the delay which it was proposed to remedy. The object of the first provision in the bill was, to prevent the occurrence of delay in the court of King's-bench; and it was accordingly proposed to enact, that no person, prosecuted, either by information or by indictment found or removed into that court shall be permitted to imparle to the following term, but shall be required to plead or demur thereto within four days. He had experienced great difficulty in attempting to trace the origin of this practice of imparlance; but it appeared to have been thought that something like the delay granted in civil actions ought to be extended to defendants in the case of misdemeanor. His lordship was, however, of opinion, that there was no sufficient analogy in the cases. The delay granted in civil actions was founded on the ground, that the defendant ought to be afforded an opportunity of talking with his adversary, and settling the matter in dispute; and also that he might have time to ascertain what his defence ought to be. In a case of this kind, he had thought it right not to rely on his own opinion, but had sought, information from persons of experience in his profession, who had agreed, in the inconvenience of the present practice. As the case at present stood, a defendant had a right to three rules, and if the information should not be filed nine days before the close of the
680
term he could not be called upon to plead in that term; for the term would be expired before it was in the power of the court to require him to plead. In this state of things, the matter must necessarily go over to the next term. This unnecessary delay would be obviated by requiring the defendant to plead or demur within a certain number of days. It would be for their lordships to judge whether the number of days inserted in the clause were sufficient. It was not wished to call upon the defendant to plead instanter, but to oblige him to plead without any unreasonable delay. The remainder of the clause had reference to persons who might appear by their clerk in court, and it was followed with a prevision, making it lawful for the court of any judge, on sufficient case being shown to allow further time for defendants to plead or demur to an indictment or information. The next clause related to prosecutions by indictment at sessions of the peace. It provided that persons in custody are held to bail within days before the sessions shell plead to the indictment, unless a writ of certiorari be delivered before the jury be sworn. Whether this clause was of was not calculated to answer the object in view, would be proper matter for discussion when in the committee, if their lordships permitted the bill to be read a second time, and to proceed to that stage.—His lordship then went over the other clauses of the bill. With regard to furnishing copies of indictments to defendants which had been alluded to on a former night, that would be matter for the consideration of the committee. If any noble lord should bring forward a proposition on the subject, their lordships would consider how far such an arrangement was advisable. It would necessarily be attended with some expense. Having said thus much, he would again assure their lordships, that the measure which he had the honour to propose to their consideration was not one suggested by any circumstances connected with the present situation of the country. He had had it for some time in contemplation; for he was perfectly satisfied that the delays which took place in prosecutions for misdemeanor were a great evil. It might be thought necessary to make exceptions, and the propriety of introducing any into the bill would be a fit subject for discussion in the committee. In introducing this bill, he believed that he was correcting

681
an erreneous practice which had grown up contrary to the ancient law. His lordship here cited the case of the Seven Bishops, who wished to imparle, in order to postpone their trial to a subsequent term. The subject was on that occasion much discussed, but it was decided by the judges, on reference to the practice of the court, that defendants were not intitled to imparlance, but must plead immediately. His lordship next referred to Nair's case: in 1758, and said, that a similar decision was then given. He concluded by moving that the bill be now read a second time.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he would not occupy much of their lordship' time, as he did not mean to enter into the details of this bill. His view of the necessity of this and the other measures of severity was much altered since their lordships had come to the conclusion they had done the other night. He might still take the liberty of objecting to parts; but with respect to the question of adapting some such measures generally, their lordships had placed him in a very different situation from that in which he previously stood, and his opinion must be governed by his view of the state of the country under the circumstances of their lordships' decision. It appeared that they were determined to resort to no measures of conciliation, but to throw away the scabbard and depend upon the sword alone. It therefore followed, that their lordships must adopt this and other measures of severity, if they meant to preserve the peace of the country. The noble and learned lord had introduced this bill as a permanent measure, and not as one merely applicable to the present circumstances. Under these circumstances, he would have been happy to have seen provisions introduced in it to prevent delays on the part of the crown. A noble friend of his had on a former occasion pourtrayed in strong colours to their lordships, the evils arising from delay in prosecuting on ex officio informations. Now, when, such powers were left to the attorney-general, when that officer was permitted to hold informations over the heads of defendants for any indefinite period, it was adding greatly to that grievance to abolish the right of imparlance. By this proceeding the security of the subject was greatly diminished, while the power of the crown was increased. As he had observed, however, the view of the whole which he must take, under the altered situation produced by their lord-
682
ships' previous discussion, took from him the opportunity of contesting the necessity of the severe measures now in progress.
Lord Erskinerose, and opposed the motion. His noble and learned friend, he said, had intimated his inability to trace the origin of the right of imparlance. For his own part, he could look for it no where else than in the ancient law of the country, and this proposition of his noble and learned friend he regarded as a complete alteration of the law. Had any disadvantage arisen from the practice, it would surely have been felt in the lapse of time, and have been rescinded before now. In the time of chief justice Hale the question had been agitated, and there was then no diversity of opinion. That learned judge held that the traverser of an indictment was entitled to the postponement of his trial to the next term. But to show that this right had been recognised by the legislature at a very recent period, his lordship referred to an act of parliament passed some years ago, in which persons indicted for misdemeanor were allowed to traverse to the following sessions. This act was passed in their own time; and, though difference of opinion might arise in the course of years, he had expected that his noble and learned friend would have explained more fully the nature of the new lights which had operated on his mind on this subject. What had occurred the course of fourteen years to render this change in the practice of the law necessary? When he read in the preamble of the bill, that "great delays had occurred the administration of justice," he must say, that these delays were given to afford time for the defence. The defendant was justly entitled to them—entitled to them by law. The noble and learned lord stated, that he had consulted persons in the profession of the law acquainted with the practice. He wished his noble friend had stated what was said by the different persons he consulted. His noble and learned friend had stated, that exceptions might be made to the operation of the bill; but whatever exceptions his noble and learned friend might be willing to admit, were so many objections to the principle of the measure. This bill, their lordships were informed, had not originated in the circumstances which had given rise to the other measures before the House; but he must confess that when he saw the table covered with

683
other bills tending to abridge the rights of the people, he thought it a very singular coincidence; that this one should be brought forward at he same time. He conceived the origin of the delays granted in cases of misdemeanor to be the wish to preserve an analogy with the law of treason, which had rendered the law of this country celebrated through the whole civilized world. The protection of human life which that statute afforded was the glory of England. In cases of misdemeanor, as well as of treason, how hard would it be to send an individual to trial unprepared, amidst the effervescence of opinion? The delay made the charge undergo a salutary quarantine. Their lordships might recollect the case of a man who some years ago had attempted the life of the soverign. An application was made to the count, to appoint counsel for this man, and he (lord Erskine), then at the bar, was applied to. He asked lord Kenyon if he ought to accept the charge, and that learned judge gave his opinion in the affirmative. When they were pro-posing to take from defendants advantages which they possessed, their lordships would do well to consider the indulgence which the law allowed in this and other cases of treason. The defendant was allowed a list of the names of the jurors, with their description, and the places; of residence. There was given to him a similar list of the witnesses, that he might know who were to appear against him. Finally, he was allowed his right of challenge. All these rights were enjoyed in the case to which he alluded. The defence of the man was insanity, but his trial and the extraordinary circumstance which gave rise to it, attracted the eyes of all Europe, and gave still more celebrity to the wisdom and humanity of British law. This feature of humanity to the accused was, however, now about to be defaced; but, upon what ground? Had not former times experienced as great agitations as were felt at present? Had not the influence of the passions been as strong, the extent of discontents as great, formerly as now? It was not proposed to diminish the power of the attorney general. Let, then, the accused retain the few advantage's still left in his possession. The delays were allowed by the ancient law of the land, and were consistent with fairness and justice. But it was said the court had the power of allowing further time to plead, on sufficient
684
cause being shown. From what he knew of the practice of the courts, he could look to little advantage to the defendant from this clause. When the delay to which the defendant was entitled by law was exhausted, it was not probable that the court would grant a further postponement, unless some strong case could be made out, such as the absence of an important witness; and this was what the court could now do without this bill. His great objection to the measure was, that while it wrested from the subject an important and valuable privilege, it left the attorney general in full possession of all these grinding powers which were the subject of general complaint, and which ought long since to have been taken from him. Their lordships, in looking at the diseases of the country, differed in opinion as to the remedy, in the same manner as persons differed in treating a sick man. Some would blister and bleed him; others wished to apply only emollients and medicines of the mildest operation. Both parties were equally the friends of the patient, but his Safety depended on the choice which might be made. In his opinion in the present situation of the country, the mild treatment was the best. As the law now stood, if the attorney-general did not choose to bring on a trial, the defendant had means of compelling him; but in all cases where the king was not prosecutor, this indefinite delay could not take place. Was not this difference a fit subject for the consideration; of their lordships, when they were passing such a bill as the present? It was said, that to alter the law with respect to the power of the attorney-general, would be innovation. But then, why begin innovation? And why, when it is begun, let it be all on one side? If you wish to make changes, let them be equal to both parties. Looking at this, bill, coupled with the others on their lordships table, he felt himself bound to give it his decided resistance.
The Earl of Liverpool, in rising to support the motion of his noble and learned friend, did not mean to go into those technical consideration which, on such a subject, must be necessarily referred to. He agreed in some respects with the noble and learned lord who had last addressed the house. Although not competent to enter upon a discussion of the legal part of this question, he felt disposed to make some general observations on its main

685
principle, and the effect which it was intended to produce. That principle seemed to him clear and intelligible. He was, convinced that, if their lordships did not pass this measure, they had better at once declare that every kind of blasphemy and sedition was to be tolerated in future. It might be fairly concluded, that to justify, any innovation upon the ancient law of; this country, some strong case of necessity ought to be made out. He was also willing to admit that, supposing the law to be erroneous in theory, yet if no practical inconvenience ensued from it, it might be unwise to alter it upon speculative views alone. But, if he was not grievously mistaken, the ancient law was favourable to the principle pf this measure. It seemed to him, that no analogy could be discovered in a state of law, which permitted little or no delay, in cases, of treason, murder, or felony, but allowed it in misdemeanors and bailable offences. Persons charged with the higher crimes; were in most instances put immediately on their trial, whilst, in those of a lesser description, a delay might be claimed, extending sometimes, to the period of a year. Such delay, if granted at all, appeared to him likely to prove less injurious in cases of superior atrocity, because in them the person of the offender was secured. But, in cases of libel, the of- fence might be repeated (as, their lord-ships must well know had been frequently, done) day after, day, and hour after hour, before the, party, accused could be brought to trial. All, this mischief would be prevented by a more seasonable prosecution. An instant trial, might, afford an adequate correction to the evil, By the present measure it was also provided, that when-ever any special reason, could be assigned, the courts of law should, have authority, to interfere, and, to allow, the party further time. He agreed, that they ought not now to consider themselves as legislating de novo. He should be the last man to propose or recommend any additional restrictions on the liberty of the press; for he regarded, it as one of the best securities of public freedom. But that it stood, in need of some regulation, would, he thought, be denied by no man, who had attended to that mass of licentiousness, of wickedness, indecency, and profaneness, by which it had recently been contaminated. When doctrines contrary to every principle of religion and morals were openly promulgated the law
686
ought to be made effectual for its own purposes. Could the imperious necessity of applying some remedy be controverted? Could the progress of this formidable evil be arrested without some proceeding of this nature? The House had been engaged in a great deal of discussion with respect to public meeting? and the dangers arising from them; he believed, however, that no remedy, even in relation to those dangers, would be so effectual as the pre-sent measure. Still he was ready to admit, that the choice of a remedy might be a matter of difficult consideration; but the existence of the evil, and the importance pf some remedy, was obvious and indisputable. It was that about which all men could at once see and judge equally well. He asked for the support of no man to this proceeding, who did not acknowledge the present evil. If that were acknowledged, could it be maintained that it was fitting that the law should continue unaltered? It was with reference to that evil,, that his noble and learned friend had introduced this bill. The question was, whether they ought, in the case of those offences to, which he had alluded, to extend to parties accused the favour of traversing or imparling for entire months. He agreed that the measure was an innovation, and that the House was bound to require evidence of a strong necessity. Was there not, then, sufficient evidence pf this description in the actual circum-stances of the country, and in all those practices which notoriously prevailed? His majesty's government had been asked why more prosecutions had not been instituted. He could only say, that the answer to that question was of itself a strong argument in defence of this proceeding. No effort had been left untried during the last twelve months to bring persons charged with blasphemous and seditious libels to justice. It had, not-withstanding, been found impossible in the present state of the law to obtain more than one conviction. If, then, there did exist a lamentably great and pressing evil, he trusted the House, would not be indisposed to adopt some measure of this kind. The noble and learned lord; who preceded him, had objected to it on the ground that it took away an advantage from the subject, whilst it left untouched the power of the attorney-general to file ex officio informations. But he (lord Liverpool) was desirous that this latter question should be tried on the same

687
principle. Did any positive inconvenience arise from the exercise of this power? The attorney-general was invested with this discretion—a greater discretion, he admitted, than belonged to any other individual; but it was exercised under a responsibility to both Houses of Parliament. If any strong case of abuse in the administration of this power could be brought forward, he, for one, should be willing to consider the propriety of withdrawing it; but he could see no reason for going into such a. discussion,, when, for the last thirty years, through the whole duration of his political life, from the time at least when his noble and learned friend on the woolsack was appointed to the office of attorney-general down to the present, the only blame or public complaint had been, that the prosecutions were not more numerous. With this experience then, that there was no ground of accusation or suspicion that this power had been improperly directed against the subject, he could not but feel adverse to the introduction of any provision respecting it into the measure under consideration. There was no charge of abuse, but the error, if there had been an error, was entirely on the contrary side. He could not assent, therefore, at this moment, to any proposition for altering the law in that respect, and trusted that he had shown sufficient cause for the measure immediately before them.
Lord Hollanddeclared that he felt some very decided objections to this proceeding. He did not consider himself competent, any more than the noble earl, to look at it in a technical point of view, but should endeavour to state the general nature of his reasons for opposing it. The noble earl had argued this question in a way not very respectful to his noble and learned friend. A great part of his speech was filled with reflexions on that ancient law by which the subjects of this country had hitherto been governed. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack had not uttered a single word on the necessity or intended operation of this measure. He had, therefore, as it appeared to him, received a severe rebuke from the noble earl who had last addressed the House. The wisdom of our ancestors, about which they had often beard so much rant, was at length represented as inadequate. Our boasted constitution was now, at least in some of its parts, described as absurd in theory, and in-
688
effectual in practice. Some of its most important regulations were to be renounced. It had, however, been truly stated by his noble and learned friend, that these laws had been fully revised and re-considered, at the time of our glorious Revolution. They had then been approved by some of the wisest and most excellent men that ever sat in parliament. Among them was lord Somers, who, taking for his guide the opinions of sir Matthew Hale, went still farther, and condemned proceedings by information. He thought, proceedings by indictment a safer and more constitutional course. The noble earl had rebuked his noble friend, and traduced the constitution; but he had not shown that blasphemy and sedition might not be punished by the law as it now existed. It had been urged, that the offence of the libel had frequently been repeated before trial, but every one of these additional acts of publication might be already prosecuted. Such acts were, moreover, always referred to in aggravation of punishment. Another difference between the noble earl and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack seemed to arise from a fact mentioned by the latter, and which was that this measure had been long in his contemplation. The noble earl on the other hand had treated it as a parcel of the present budget—as called forth by an immediate necessity, and not as a subject of calm dispassionate judgment. If the House, therefore, could have the benefit of another speech from the noble and learned lord, he had no doubt that the statement of the noble earl would be repelled. Could it be gravely maintained that we had hitherto lived under a state of law that was not adequate to the punishment of vice? They had been told that the attorney-general was a responsible officer; so he apprehended were all persons in public situations. The noble earl had said, that if any system of abuse could be shown to exist in the exercise of that officer's discretion, he would willingly go into a consideration of his powers, but that no such abuse had even been alleged. Upon this point, however, he roust beg to refer them to a bill which he had wished to introduce some few years ago, and the object of which would have been to take away, all ex-officio informations. It was not satisfactory to him to be reminded, that the attorney-general was liable to an impeach-

689
ment. He had stated upon the occasion before alluded to, what ho could have proved, that there had been an increase of twenty to one criminal informations in proportion to the other modes of proceeding. He could also have established something further, namely; that out of twenty filed, only one or two had been prosecuted. The House had frequently heard of the dangers to be apprehended in touching the sacred ark of the constitution. It was a common argument, that it was better to resist inquiry than to innovate upon any ancient law. Here, however, it was proposed to repeal a branch of the law favourable to the subject, and which appeared to him to have been enacted in the same spirit as many other of our free institutions, and which, in his conscience, he believed had often saved this country from being deluged with blood. It appeared to him to involve the same principles as the law of treason, and to have been passed on account of that in-equality which was supposed would always exist where the subject was prosecuted by the Crown. —The noble and learned lord had confined his observations to a technical view of this question, and he must confess he had heard with astonishment, that, framed as the measure was, it had long been under his consideration. The very title appeared to him to be loose and inapplicable. The noble and learned lord's legal knowledge had not often been equalled, and certainly, never surpassed; yet he had utterly failed in making the House understand what the extent and nature of the delay was for which this proceeding was to afford a remedy. How were misdemeanors of this kind usually prosecuted? He believed in the court of King's-Bench, by information or by indictment at sessions of Oyer and Terminer. There were two species of information; the one filed by the attorney-general upon his own mere authority; and the other granted by the court of King's-Bench, upon cause shown. By which of these modes of proceeding was the greatest delay incurred? Upon criminal information filed, there was a right of imparlance granted to the ensuing term. This was granted as an indulgence upon application, and was matter of usage on the first process. This was not the case, he apprehended, upon an indictment; for although the party might there traverse,
690
it was only by mutual consent and arrangement. Now, he should have liked to have heard from the noble and learned lord, in what cases these delays occurred most frequently. He had looked into the bill in vain for the opinion of the noble and learned lord on that point; and; indeed, he must say, notwithstanding the great legal knowledge of the noble and learned lord, that a more clumsy, a more disjointed, or a more unintelligible bill, never was drawn up. What would the late earl Stanhope have said of it? Nothing, certainly, would have given him (lord Holland) greater delight than to have heard the eloquence of that noble earl on such a bill as this. Assuming a falsehood for its foundation, it went on to assert that which was not the case; even supposing the first assumption true. After having had the advantage of being assisted in framing it by all the learned gentlemen in the employment of the Crown, the noble and learned lord had said on the second reading; that the preamble must be altered. If the noble and learned lord, with all the legal assistance of which he had had the benefit, had been unable to make the bill intelligible, how were its provisions to be understood by those whom it was to affect? This reminded him of an anecdote which he had read of a great man, who had been a member of that Houses He alluded to the earl of Shaftesbury, the author of the "Characteristics," and who was one of the purest: and' ablest writers that this country sever produced. He seldom mixed in the affairs of the world; but when the bill for allowing counsel to persons accused of high-treason was introduced, he came forward in the House of Commons (for he was then lord Ashley), and for the first time in his life attempted to address the House in support of the measure. Eloquent however, as his writings were he was so overpowered by the emotions which the numerous assembly around him excited that he lose the train of his argument, and was unable to proceed. "Sir," said he, "if I who rise only to give my opinion on the bill now depending, am so confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I proposed to say, what must the condition of that man be, who, without any assistance, is pleading for his life, and under apprehensions of being deprived of it?" The noble and learned lord, in

691
one of his speeches on this momentous occasion, after stating all the evils that arose from the present practice, had expressed his regret that the assizes were not more frequent. There the noble and learned lord argued well; as he always did when he was willing to do so; and he (lord Holland) was of the same opinion on that subject. But it was surely lamentable, that after two years preparation, they should have crammed down their throats a morsel like this, which, with the assistance of so many eminent lawyers, the noble and learned lord could not render palatable.—The noble lord then proceeded to quote several parts of the preamble, and contended, that it was shown in the bill that the delays complained of arose from defendants being allowed time to plead after indictment.—After what he had shown of the nature of this bill, it was manifest that its title was grossly deceiving, it professed to be a bill to prevent delays in prosecutions for misdemeanors, but it did not say one word of the greatest delays—those which occurred in proceedings by ex-officio informations. By the wise provision of those great men who lived at the time of the Revolution in 1688, and to whose authority their lordships often referred, improper delay could not occur by allowing the accused time to plead, because, in prosecutions by indictment, the defendants were obliged to enter into recognizances, which they must forfeit, if they did not appear to plead. But in proceedings by ex-officio informations, the attorney-general had the power of punishing a person accused, though not convicted of a libel, by keeping a prosecution hanging over his head for life. He did not say that this had been done by the present attorney-general, or his predecessors; but this he would say, that there were at present forty informations depending, some of which had been hanging over the parties accused for one, two, three, four, five, and some for ten years. And this must surely be admitted to be a shocking state of the law. He would not at present enter into the views which he entertained respecting the danger said to exist in the country—a subject on which he differed, perhaps, from many noble lords who had stated their opinions to the House. Whatever might be the extent of the danger, he thought it was owing, in a great measure, to the distrust of the people in parliament. If
692
their lordships' went on to increase that distrust by passing measures such as the present, they would, by shaking their confidence in parliament (which he thought the greatest safety of the constitution), inevitably increase the evil He could not hope that his opposition would prevent the bill from passing, even in its present state; but if it were so altered as to legislate on both sides, by preventing the delays which occurred in prosecutions by ex-officio informations, as well as in those by indictment, he should perhaps give it his feeble support on the third reading.
Lord Lilfordbegan by making some remarks respecting the apprehensions which lord Holland seemed to entertain of giving too great an influence to the Crown, and those which the earl of Liverpool held with respect to the absolute predominance of the people. For his own part, he was equally jealous of the absolute authority of both:
"Justum et tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni,
Mente quatit solida."
The noble and learned lord, when he first proposed this bill to the House, had told them that it was not suggested by the exigencies of the present time; and he was much pleased to hear that declaration. There was no doubt that the subjects of the realm had reason to complain of legislative enactments, made to meet temporary exigencies. When he looked over the Statute book, he found the laws enacted for temporary purposes extremely numerous. In his view of the case, experience showed not only what was true, but also what was expedient. It was or it was not true, that by the present practice a long interval elapsed between indictment and trial, during which many innocent persons were compelled to stand in the situation of criminals; whilst others, who were not indeed criminals but certainly culprits, stood in the situation of innocent persons. It had been said, that the reason of the noble and learned lord for introducing the bill was, to expedite trials for seditious and blasphemous libels. Now, the only question was, whether this was a sufficient reason for disturbing the law of the country; and as he believed that the delay which the law at present permitted retarded the course of justice, on that view he should support the bill.
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 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 Blessingtonwished 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 Sidmouthanswered, 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-
694
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 Sussexperfectly 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 pre-sent 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

695
must protest against any intention the noble lord might have of making the people of Ireland suffer for it.
The Earl of Rosslynasked, 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 Sidmouthsaid, 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 Rosslynthought 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.
Lord Erskinedid not think that the 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
696
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 Liverpoolsaid, 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, constructed and collected, if not for a traitorous 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 primâ 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 Hollandinquired 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 emitted among the weapons, as it had been stated that a good many had been about lately.
Lord Sidmouthsaid that the word "gun" was to be found in the bill.
Lord Hollandobjected 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.
Lord Hollandobjected both to the permanency 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.
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that he could not see how it was possible to frame the bill otherwise than as it now stood, if it was to be made effectual for its purposes. The bill prohibited all drilling, but it authorized lords-lieutenant to grant licences for drilling. This power he had no objection to have extended to other magistrates. It was not, therefore, to be apprehended that any of the inconveniences 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 Strathmorerequested 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
698
the disaffected was rather below than above the mark. In confirmation of this statement he would refer to a noble duke, 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 necessity 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 purpose1 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 Northumberlandsaid, he had had no intention of obtruding himself upon the attention of their lordships; but 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, upon the accuracy of which he could rely, the number associated in the several collieries amounted to 16,600 persons. He understood that all these had arms. He had since understood, and they had themselves said, that in the district between the Tyne and the Weir, and extending to Carlisle, there were 100,000 men with arms, ready to rise and unite together.
Lord Redesdalesaid, 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 Strathmoresaid, 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.
Their lordships then adjourned.