§ Lord Sid- 806 mouth moved the third reading of this bill.
The Earl of Darnleydid not rise to offer any opposition to the principle of the bill in this stage. He was disposed to allow that a temporary necessity for such a law might exist, though at the same time he thought that necessity had been, in a great measure, occasioned by the improper manner in which the existing laws had been administered but though he might admit the necessity of some enactment of this kind, it did not follow that be should approve of all the powers proposed to be given to the magistrates. What he chiefly objected to, was the power given to search houses by night. Besides, he did not see any advantage that could be derived from retaining that clause, as, after what had passed, it was not to be supposed that persons having arms in their possession, for an improper purpose, would keep them in their houses. On the contrary, it was to be presumed, that they would conceal them somewhere else. The noble lord then alluded to two local acts formerly passed, authorizing the seizing of arms, and particularly to one in, the reign of William 3rd, which required the warrant of two justices to authorize the seizing of arms in the daytime. This example, he thought, ought to have been followed in the present bill; and be felt it his duty to protest against the power of entering and searching houses in the night time.
Lord Sidmouthobserved, that if the measure were really more severe than the circumstances of the country, required, he would willingly consent to any proposition for softening it; but such was far from being the case. He did not set much importance on a precedent either of a remote or recent date, as the necessity of the present measure must be judged from the circumstances which gave rise to it. He could not agree to any alteration in the clause.
§ The bill was then read a third time, and passed.