that the right to have arms could never be called in question; and that no circumstances of public danger could ever induce him to vote for an infraction of that right. He appeared to have pushed his assertions to that extent. Now, he (lord Castlereagh) did not think that since the last century, particularly since the two rebellions which marked the beginning of it, any measures of public safety had been framed less calculated to trench upon the rights and liberties of the subject. The hon. member had, however, argued this question as he generally did other public questions. He felt alarm lest the liberties of the subject should be infringed upon by government, without allowing himself to look to the measures necessary for the protection of society generally from dangers of more serious nature. He seemed always to fear a blow from the hand which was stretched out to protect him. What he meant to say was, that the hon. gentleman never seemed to look at this or any other question in any other way, than as if he were invariably jealous of the magistracy, and of the operation of the laws of his country. An idea also appeared to prevail, that measures of this nature were quite new-altogether unheard of-entirely without a precedent in the history of the country. The hon. gentleman, however, appeared to admit, that there might be, by possibility, something in the state of the country to authorize some measure of a severe character, but he objected to the power of granting the warrant being given to a single magistrate. It was extremely odd that this should be supposed to be a provision entirely new, and now for the first time promulgated. In the year 1812, a measure of much more extraordinary rigour and harshness had been enacted, on which he had the assistance of several members on the opposite side of the House; among them of the late Mr. Whitbread [a cry of " No, no"]. He did not mean to say that it had received that gentleman's explicit approbation; but certain it was that that bill passed through the House with as little opposition as perhaps any one of its important nature had ever experienced. But the present measure was more calculated to guard against any abuse on the part of the magistrates than that of 1812. By the bill of 1812, the magistrate was empowered to search for and seize arms, by day or by night, not only upon information upon oath, but upon a bare sus picion that arms were concealed in any House. Was this deemed a better security for the country than the securities of the present bill? By another clause of the bill in 1812, the magistrate was not only entitled to search, but had the power of calling upon the whole district to deliver up their arms of defence for safe custody, and lest they should be used by the banditti at that time infesting the country. He would now state his conviction, that if the power of which the hon. gentleman complained were not given to a single magistrate, the bill would be entirely ineffectual. Suppose a magistrate were to receive information that arms for illegal purposes were lodged in a particular quarter, was it to be supposed that he must take no steps to seize them until he sent, perhaps a considerable distance, for a brother magistrate? The delay in such a case would afford an opportunity for removing the arms, and thus, as he said before, the bill would be rendered useless. The value of the information in such cases depended upon the rapidity with which it was acted upon; a moment's delay would in many instances render it wholly useless. Then, as to searching by night, he knew nothing more likely to fail than a search by day; and nothing more likely to succeed, if their information was correct, than a search by night. The means of communication were so organized and complete among the disaffected, that the magistrates could not move by day, without their knowing it; and so of course the whole object would be lost. He did not mean to say that this was not a very strong measure; God forbid he should! He did not mean to say this was not an enormous power. But then it was a choice of evils-a question, whether they would give a strong power to the legislature to protect peaceable people, or leave them a prey to another power, tyrannical and destructive. It had been said, that these measures were neither known nor practised in England before; but they were, in fact, to be found in what the hon. gen tleman would consider the very best authority; in those times of Whig principles, in which the Whigs were in the govern ment of the country. It had been asserted, that no such measures had been resorted to, after the rebellion either of 1715 or of 1745; that even then there had been no such thing. Instead of all this, however, it happened in reality, that two bills passed between the years 1715 and 1745, and three, after 1745, all founded upon the same principle as the one before the House, but carrying them to a much greater extent. And one thing particularly to be noted was, that they were passed at a period very little subsequent to the date of the Bill of Rights; they were passed in the first year of the reign of George 1st, and only twenty-seven years after the Bill of Rights had been established; so that the Whigs of that day did not consider themselves bound not to desert, in these instances, the provisions enacted by that bill. What was thought of the disarming of the Highlanders? Was not that a measure introduced by a Whig administration? And yet surely the hon. member opposite would not persuade hon. gentlemen behind him, that there was no distinction between the cases of those rebellions in the Highlands and these seditions; surely it was a much more generous spirit of resistance to the laws which actuated the persons engaged in those rebellions, than any thing which had influenced any proceedings out of which the necessity for the present measure might have arisen. The hon. gentleman opposite deprecated any measure that was to be permanent. Yet the act of George 1st, though a local act, was not a temporary one. It was entitled "An act for disarming the Highlands," and, in point of fact, remained in operation, and was virtually the law of the country, during the whole of the reigns of George 1st, and George 2nd. In the interval which elapsed between the years 1715 and 1745 they brought in an act (11th George 1,) to re-enact the former one. They, the Whig government of that day, even went so far as to make it penal for any persons to retain arms in their hands, after being summoned to give them up; and a person convicted of so retaining arms was compelled to serve as a soldier in North America. The act of 11th George 1st, was passed for seven years. The rebellion of 1745 broke out during the 19th of George 2nd, when they re-passed the former act of George 1st, but in much stronger terms; for the act contained a provision making the second offence of retaining arms punishable by seven years transportation. This act was successively continued for periods of seven years and seven years each; and during the whole of the reign of George 2nd, there was no repeal of it. But now, hon. gentlemen, professing the same political principles as the authors of the measures which he had just described, denounced his majesty's ministers, and held them up to the execration of the country, for introducing the comparatively mild bill before the committee. It was generally admitted that some restrictive measures were necessary to preserve the tranquillity of the country. If so, was it not humanity to the people to make those measures effectual? If this were not done, the country would undergo the painful feeling of having their liberties restricted, without enjoying the protection which the measures were intended to afford. The bills introduced after 1745 vested the power in a single magistrate, in the same manner that that now on the table did. He was not arguing this question on the principle of the seditious meetings bill. He was aware that the principle of the bill was not congenial with the constitution, that it was an infringement upon the rights and liberties of the people, and that it could only be defended upon the necessity of the case. But that necessity now existed; the security and general interests of the subject demanded the sacrifice, and therefore he could not feel justified to himself if he did not press the original clause. Mr. Brougham observed, that thus much had been conceded—the noble lord did not present the bill upon the table as constitutional in its principle or in its spirit, for he had frankly avowed that it was an infraction of the one and a violation of the other. It did not follow that the same opinion would be felt by all who ranged themselves on the side of government; from an ultra portion of the House the country might still be doomed to hear sentiments of an ultra description, in which it would be represented that, in truth, this measure, like the restriction upon the right of meeting and the trammels upon the liberty of the press, was an improvement, a notable improvement, upon the system which our ancestors had thought so perfect, but which their wiser descendants had discovered to be defective. However, it was something to gain the admission of the noble lord that this bill was to be dealt with as an infringement of the acknowledged and ancient rights of the people. In what way had the noble lord argued against it? He had adopted his usual and favourite mode of reasoning; for no sooner was an objection started to the nature of the bill, than he turned round and inquired, what objec the exterior ornament of their habitations. It was ridiculous to suppose, that they would thus lay themselves open to the malice of their neighbours, and to the do far then the bill afforded no protection, unless it was intended that it should go farther than had been yet stated; if not, he would venture to say, that not a single stand of arms could be seized under it. Besides, as now presented to the House, it was most essentially defective. True, it had had its birth in another place; and notwithstanding all the wisdom, and sagacity, and acuteness, and perspicacity and accuracy of the allies of the noble lord in that place, and particularly of the most wise, sagacious, acute, perspicacious, and accurate secretary for the home department, notwithstanding the enlightened abilities of those who were represented as giving the tone of opinion, and taking the lead in the cabinet, notwithstanding, the labours of those who had sent their sage directions through the country, in such tion could now be fairly urged against so mild and conciliating a measure, when only seven years ago the House had adopted a law of ten times its severity; and he followed it up by this special interrogatory-miciliary visits of the magistrates. Thus "What, do you think there is no necessity for the interposition of parliament in this way, when I have brought down six bills, where only two were formerly introduced? Shall not we now require the seizure of arms on the oath of the belief of a person before a single magistrate, when in the bill of 1812 you omitted all oaths and only rested on the bare surmise of a justice of the peace?" The reply to all this was obvious. How could those be bound by what parliament had formerly done, who had resisted its proceedings to the utmost? Such as had supported the bill of 1812 might, indeed, be called upon to lend their aid in making a new attack upon the constitution; but to those who had formerly maintained the rights of the people as they now maintained them, the appeal of the noble lord was inapplicable. The noble lord had insisted that the mea-perfect grammar and such classic English, sure would be crippled, if not defeated, by abstracting the clause authorizing a search for arms at night; that it would give the disaffected warning; that when they heard that a magistrate was heading a troop of horse to seize their weapons by day, they would straitway take especial care to conceal them. But what answer could be given by the noble lord to this statutory warning, the bill upon the table? It must be granted (or the whole foundation sunk under the noble lord's new structure), that there were numbers in the various districts now actually in arms against the state, and the moment notice was given them by this bill, that a magistrate might come and search, would they be so weak, so childish, as not instantly to place their weapons beyond the reach of the civil or military power? Every man knew that he was liable to be informed upon by his neighbour. What was easier than to put his arms out of the way? The noble lord had frequently said much of the artifice and subtilty of the disaffected, and would he now desert his former story, and for the sake of his present argument, insist, that while all the magistrates in all the districts were to be on the alert, peeping into every hole and corner for a pike or a pistol, the disaffected would ostentatiously pile their arms in the open fields, or display them as in armories, in stars, circles, and triangles, for (VOL. XLI.) notwithstanding the bill had passed through the ordeal of the protesters, whom the noble lord had so struggled to confute in an elaborate speech, he was obliged to take it under his protection, and to vindicate the defects by which it was disfigured. The noble lord had mainly relied upon precedents, but he (Mr. Brougham) denied that that on which he had principally depended had the slightest application to the case before the House. The noble lord had quoted what he had been pleased to call the good old Whig times of 1715, when the Scots were disarmed with far greater severity than the present bill recommended. It must be admitted that however severe the old law was more effectual, because one part of the argument of the opponents of the new law was, that it would by no means accomplish its object, for, though it enabled a magistrate to search, it was destitute of any power by which he could get at the arms he discovered. Did our Whig ancestors pursue this course? No; they said, "Summon those who have arms, and require them to give them up; and if afterwards it turns out that they have concealed them, then they may be fairly subjected to the severe penalties of the law." That measure was only to be justified by necessity, but it had a recommendation which the noble lord's bill did not possess-it was effectual for its pur(4 D) The Whigs of that day had not the experience which the country now had, that disarming was not the way of pacifying a kingdom. While the noble lord, with that example before him, had adopted its mistakes, and persisted in the error. It was not the rigour of that or of any other measures that at length subdued and pacified that part of the united kingdom; it was reduced to submission and obedience by a series of conciliatory measures, the first foundation of which was laid in the statute abolishing the remnant of the feudal system, which was followed up by other measures, as consistent as they were prudent. It was the wisdom of lord Chatham in placing confidence in those who had not been trusted by his predecessors, that finally completed the harmony that had now so long continued. He had thrown himself upon the people-he had gone, as he afterwards proudly and justly boasted, to the north, to seek for merit, and he found it where his predecessors had only sought for and found rebellion. The precedents of George 1st and George 2nd were therefore to be employed rather for the wise lesson to be gathered from them, than for the mere dry and naked support of a case, supposed to be analogous. He gave his hearty concurrence to the opposition made to the principle of the bill. That the subject had at all times a right to keep arms in his possession, of which the government could not, under given circumstances, deprive him, was a proposi tion that he would not maintain; but before the subject was deprived of them, a case of necessity must be fully established. Another point most material to be considered was, that in dealing with so sacred a matter as the rights of the people, any one of them must be suspended in the mode, under all the circumstances, least likely to affect the rest, or to abridge the other privileges or comforts to which he was entitled. When the noble lord maintained that the subject had only a right to arms for the protection of his property, or for self defence against the midnight plunderer, or an unauthorized police officer, he (Mr. Brougham) could only state, that he had not so read the constitution. He even believed that the noble lord would pose. And why, at that period, was it necessary? Was not open rebellion then stalking through the land? Was there not then a disputed succession to the Crown? Did not a foreign enemy aid the efforts of the domestic rebel, and threaten an invasion? War was then menacing without, and his ally, insurrection, was at work within; yet the noble lord with the utmost assurance asserted, that the precedent of 1715 should now govern the deliberations of parliament. Where was now the foreign foe, where the domestic levies? where the central commission? where the organized insurrection? Had we at this moment the first peer of the realm in open hostility, and sent to the Tower for his crime? Had we now a disputed succession, an open rebellion, or even an appearance of rebellion? Rebellion! Good God! was it to be asserted, even after all the evidence that had been so industriously collected and so ostentatiously displayed, that there was any thing in the country bearing even the semblance of rebellion? Where was the general rising that had been threatened by ministers and their agents from day to day? First it was said, that it was undoubtedly to take place on Wednesday; and after all the fears of all the old women had been excited to the utmost, they were respited until the Monday following: now it appeared that it had been postponed, positively for the last time, until yesterday; fortunately for the country, and unfortunately for the prognostications of the noble lord, no rising had yet taken place. Several of the warm adherents of ministers had been terribly alarmed a few days ago by seeing chalked upon the walls of the metropolis the ominous words "Remember the 9th of December;" and just as they had concluded that on that fatal day a bloody civil war was to commence, they were agreeably surprised by hearing that it was only a lottery puff of the richest wheel ever known with 8 prizes of 20,000l." which like some of the other promises of the chancellor of the exchequer, turned out in the end to be only four. To revert to the precedent of the noble lord, the history of Scotland proved, that the rebellion which the act against arms was meant to suppress, was hastened by it. The peo-be ready to agree with him, that he had ple were exasperated, their feelings were aroused rather than softened by those measures of the Whigs, which, though honestly meant, were highly erroneous. two narrowly stated the right. Not only was an Englishman's house his castle against the unwarranted intrusion of the police, or against the attack of thieves, but it was so in another and a higher | admit was no other than the doctrine of sense of the word, as giving him a prero- the British constitution. If he was at gative to have arms for his defence. all disposed to quarrel with the doctrine, He maintained that he had a right to it was not in consequence of the prinarms for his defence, not merely because ciple upon which it was founded, but he would preach it up to him that he in consequence of the occasion upon might use them against the lawless which it was stated: for if it were to measures of bad rulers, but to remind go abroad at this particular moment, those rulers that the weapons of de- and under the present circumstances fence might be turned against them if of the country, that the hon. and learnthey broke the laws, or violated the con- ed gentleman had contended for the prostitution. If this were dangerous doc- priety of an armed resistance, he would trine, he addressed it not to the country, ask any man of common understanding but to its rulers; and he begged them to whether more danger was not likely to recollect that, in broaching it, he was arise from mooting the possible case, than only following a venerable authority, not security from the qualification the hon. to be disputed even by the other side and learned gentleman had made when he Judge Blackstone-who twice over had asserted it? Without, however, pressing laid it down in his book, that such was the this further, he would only state, with reuse of arms, and such the privilege of ference to what had fallen from the other English subjects. These were not times side, that there was no general and abfor any man to assert opinions that might stract right belonging to the community, be misapprehended or perverted; and he which was not subject to the control of would therefore follow up what he had the governing power of the state, on the advanced by adding, that no act of the showing of an adequate necessity. If in rulers of the country, in which they were the instance before the House any proof supported by the constituted authorities, were wanted of this qualification, he would could warrant any part of the community refer those who doubted to that immortal to talk of, nay, to dream of resistance. statute so often quoted within doors and If the law of the land were to be altered, without, in regular debates and at public it could only be altered by parliament; meetings, but, he knew not by what and he would as vehemently and sted- fatality, never quoted accurately-the fastly, to the last drop of his blood, resist Bill of Rights. It was most true, as had any encroachment by the people upon the been laid down, that all subjects were enlegislative right, as he would oppose stre- titled by the Bill of Rights to have arms, nuously and firmly any invasion by the but with one small qualification, which he crown or the parliament of the known mentioned not in praise of, or with a view to privileges of the community. These were establish the qualification, but as showing the doctrines of the British constitution that at the very time when our ancestors -doctrines as serviceable to good rulers laid down the principle they contemplated as they were dangerous to evil rulers- the exception. Those who had cited the calculated to promote and secure the Bill of Rights had uniformly omitted the peace and good order of society, and important words" All subjects being calculated too, as a warning to those Protestants have a right so to be armed." who would violate that liberty they How had it happened that in all the disought to preserve. The hon. and learn- cussions for the last three weeks, in all the ed gentleman sat down amidst loud public addresses for the last three months, cheers. that clause had been carefully excluded? What was to be inferred from those words?-That the Papists ought now to be disarmed? Certainly not: he only brought them forward to illustrate the position, that this general right, like every other, was subject to qualification; and nothing could more satisfactorily prove its subjectness to qualification than the fact, that at the very moment the right was conferred it was actually qualified. Though the current of opinion was at present againt such an exception of the Catholics Mr. Canning allowed that, as he should be sorry to push any expressions beyond their fair and obvious meaning, he was perfectly ready to admit the right of the subject to hold arms according to the principle laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman, especially when accompanied with the qualification which the hon. and learned gentleman had thought proper to annex to the right, after having stated it on the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone. The doctrine so laid down, he was willing to ။ |