§ 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 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 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.