he was not sure whether, by any subse attacks-one on the whole of these mea quent law, it had been repealed; but sures, the other on his majesty's governsupposing it remained on the Statute- ment. "The bill is unconstitutional," said book, that clause would exclude from the one; and exclaimed another, "it is without possession of arms no small portion of precedent." Those, however, who dethe inhabitants in some of the disturbed clared that it was unconstitutional, apdistricts. Would he then exempt the peared to have forgotten themselves a professors of the Catholic religion from little. From the situation in which the the right of having arms for self defence? House was placed at that moment, it No; he had always argued in a contrary seemed that the objection was never direction; but the Bill of Rights, correctly thought of before. Here they were in quoted and properly construed, brought committee-not to consider the principle him to the provision of the bill on the of the bill which had been conceded, but table, which, in fact, recognized the ge- to inquire into the best mode of applying neral right of the subject to have arms, and adopting its provisions. With respect but qualified that right in such a manner to the other charge, that there was no as the necessity of the case required. As precedent for the measure, his noble the Papists at the Revolution, were armed friend had fully answered the objection. against the existing government, and were He had shown that there was preexcepted in the Bill of Rights, so the act cedent of a recent date. He had gone before the House excepted the disaffected farther; and if gentlemen wished him to in the disturbed districts who were in cite times and persons intimately conarms against the law and authorities of nected with the Whig influence in this the land. He appealed, therefore, to the country, he had cited those times and Bill of Rights in defence of the step he those persons as perfectly applicable to now called upon the House to take; and his argument. But when this was done, he contended that it would only be to and done so that it could scarcely be miscarry into effect the very doctrines our taken, the learned gentleman turned forefathers had shown that they admitted. round and asked, "Well, where is the In the spirit of the Bill of Rights, he precedent?" His noble friend had quoted called upon the legislature to interpose to precedent; but as the measure to suspend a right, and take away arms that which he applied it did not partake of could not be held without danger to the such bold aspiration, did not savour of tranquillity of the state. He admitted such harsh severity, as those which the that a case must be made out justify this Whigs had supported, then he was told interposition; but he had imagined till that it was no precedent. But the use to-night, from the general course of the made of this sort of management was very discussions in parliament from the unani- clear. When one objection was really anmity with which the training bill had been swered and the other ostensibly remained passed, that danger, and the species of though, in effect, it was also answereddanger, was not denied. Whether it were then those who opposed the bill said, or were not conceded that large meetings" See, we have done away with all your ought to be restrained that some limitation logic, your whole course of ratiocination ought to be put upon the abuses of the is destroyed." It was true the hon. and press, or that a permanent measure might learned gentleman did not push his logic be required to prevent the possibility of a quite so far, but he did not fall much military rising, and a disciplined array, short of it. To the charge of its being he had supposed that it was not denied, unprecedented, his hon. and learned that those who were marching and coun- friends had answered, by stating that it ter-marching, and accustoming themselves was copied in its very terms, and he might to obedience to the word "fire" without say, with a servility of imitation from arms, had at least a distant design at some former acts. But then the hon. and time or other to practice it with arms, learned gentleman turned round and said, He had also concluded that when the" what signifies whether you can plead Speaker left the chair, and the House went into a committee, it was not intended to dispute the principle of the bill, though differences might arise out of particular clauses. It was evident that, on this occasion, it was intended to make two distinct precedent in favour of it or not, it is.objectionable in itself, and upon that ground ought to be resisted." For his own part, he did not mean to contend, that because there were precedents in favour of it, there could be no objection; but when he was asked, what use was precedent, he So much so, that when he read it, he imawould answer, that precedent was one ar gined it was one of those libels on the gument, and that when the others were names and characters of great men which answered, if that too could be overturned, were so extremely current at the present the triumph of the question was complete, momenta libel on persons whose stations, The hon. and learned gentleman had also whose habits, the tenour of whose whole expressed his surprise that this bill should lives acquitted them of the suspicion of be so defective, after having been subjected not having read, "Smollett's Continuato that species of animadversion which tion of Hume's History of England." was denominated “ protest," ," and which, Names of the first celebrity were, howif it were not founded in sound reason, ever, affixed to this statement, which was ought to be answered by a " counter pro- so completely erroneous, that the making test." Now he had never heard of a pro- use of those names became in his opinion ceeding by counter-protest, in the venera- a species of scandalum magnatum. This ble assembly where the measure originated; circumstance occasioned persons a little but perhaps the hon. and learned gentleman more curious, a little more anxious to thought it ought to be invented to meet know what had really taken place at a the exigencies of the present occasion; former period of our history-to examine and that, having engaged in a war of what the proceedings had been during the words in the first instance, they ought periods alluded to. The result of their next to be engaged in a war of quills. investigation was this: they found, that But without dwelling upon that topic, or in the year 1715, one of the periods seconfessing himself a convert to the opi- lected, the Whigs had passed an act as nion of the hon. and learned gentleman, nearly as possible, similar in principle to he would allude to an extraordinary pub- the measure of the present day, but infilication, containing an unfounded asser-nitely more severe in its enactments. It tion, to which, however, some highly respectable names were attached, he knew not how. The publication to which he referred, denounced the bill before the House upon various grounds, and among the rest, upon the following: "Because, in former periods of much greater danger to the Crown and constitution of these realms, when conspiracies by the adherents of the House of Stuart were known to be directed against both, when preparations were making for rebellion with the assistance of France, when men of the highest rank, station, and influence in both kingdoms, were deeply engaged in these designs; nay, during two formidable rebellions in 1715 and 1745, no such power was granted to the Crown; yet the new line of succession was defended, and our free constitution successfully maintained, against all these dangers. The principles of the revolution had been too firmly imprinted in the hearts and minds of our ancestors to allow them, on the spur of any emergency, however alarming, to hazard the existence of a right which they had so recently asserted. To this extra-ed to transportation for seven years. Not ordinary publication the signatures of "Grey, Thanet, Erskine," and many other eminent and distinguished individuals, were attached. But any man, even the most ignorant of the English history, would see that the position laid down in the passage he had quoted was incorrect. was worth while to mark how the Whigs, act Penalties were enacted to prevent the wearing of arms by the class of persons noticed in the bill, which set forth that a conviction might be had on information being laid before one justice of the peace. The first offence was visited with a fine of 40%. and imprisonment; the second offence with a fine of 80l. and more imprisonment; and ultimately, in default of payment, the party convicted was subject content with this, in the year 1726, being the 11th of George 1st, and ten years after the passing of the bill, which he had just quoted, a new act was brought into parliament, enforcing that which had been previously enacted. By that bill persons not giving in their arms, or forth in the preamble, "Whereas, the acts for preventing the carrying and using of arms have been found useful and beneficial to the country." On this recital, two years after the highlanders had fought their country's battles, those acts to which he had alluded continued, and they had not since that period been repealed. He thought it was too bad, after this statement, for any gentleman to say that there was no precedent for the proceed not paying the penalty inflicted on them, learned gentleman appeared to have forwere liable to service as soldiers. Be-gotten, namely, that these bills were ensides this, the owners of those houses on acted after lord Chatham had made use whose premises arms were found, were of the highlanders as soldiers. While on to be deemed concealers of arms, and were the one hand lord Chatham was calling on in consequence subject to the same penal- the highlanders to fight the battles of their ties of fine, imprisonment, and transporta- country, he was on the other enacting a tion, to which persons regularly convicted measure, with what the hon. and learned were liable. He was sure what he was gentleman would term an odious preamble. now about to state would shock the feel- That act which kept in force the meaings of the hon. gentleman who had open-sures of which he had been speaking, set ed this debate, who had dwelt with so much energy on the situation in which females would be placed in consequence of the operation of the present bill. The act to which he was referring treated females with as little ceremony as itdidmales. By its provisions, two years imprisonment, and a fine of 100l. were inflicted on any female who was convicted of concealing arms. So much for the mitigated severity which distinguished the measures of the Whigs. In the 19th of George 2nd, another acting now before the House. It was quite was passed to enforce that which he had recently quoted. It provided still greater penalties, the whole of which he would not then read. By that act, those who did not bring in their arms, or refused to pay the penalty, were liable to serve as soldiers. Here again women were not forgotten. A breach of the act committed by them was visited by a fine of 100l. and by imprisonment. This act was passed for seven years, and before it expired it was renewed for seven years longer, with this remarkable preamble "That the act not being sufficient to answer the purposes intended, it was found necessary to enforce the same with new provisions." This was passed in 1746 for seven additional years, and continued till 1753, when it was again renewed. In 1753 the act as he had observed, was renewed, though he knew not any particular reason that called for it since the renewal took place in a period between two wars. In 1759, the last year of the reign of George 2nd, he found it still in force. Men were subject to fine, imprisonment, and transportation, if they did not give up their arms, and women were also fined and imprisoned for assisting them in concealing them. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that there was no precedent for the present measure; but till long after the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 had subsided, it would be found that bills far more severe than that now before the House were renewed. He also wished the House to recollect what the hon, and clear, that the acts which he had quoted, acts of extreme severity, had been continued in force long after the rebellion of 1715 and 1745 had wholly subsided. It was a most extraordinary circumstance to see it proclaimed to the country, under the sanction of the great names he had mentioned, that no precedent could be found in our history; when the truth was, that from 1715 to 1745, and from 1745 till it pleased God to put an end to the Whig administration, acts more severe than those which were now in contemplation were constantly operating; they were not mere dead letters in the Statute book; they were not suffered to lie undiscovered, but were carefully renewed from seven years to seven years, as if it were intended, when the Whigs had given to parliament a septennial duration, they were determined that every thing connected with the government should be septennial also. He knew that with the hon. and learned gentleman this would not be considered any reason for passing the bill; but he never would suffer any statement against precedent, to be made by those gentlemen on the other side of the House, who were in the habit of using all manner of precedents themselves, without taking a proper notice of it. If precedent could be advanced to the purpose, unprecedentedness ought not to be introduced as an argument against any measure. Let gentlemen consider the temper of the present administration with the temper of some of those which had passed; let them consider the tone of this measure as compared with the legislation to which he had alluded, and then declare whether the bill upon the table demanded or authorized any of the observations which had been made upon it by the hon. and learned gentleman. It might be said, with respect to the act of the 1st of George the 1st, that it was of a local nature, as it extended only to the Highlands; but it should also be observed that it had no limit to its duration. The reason why he inferred that it had no limit was, because the act of the 19th George 2nd, which renewed the act of the 11th of George 1st, which expressly recited both the acts of the 1st, and the 11th, contained a clause which appeared to him to bear cut his proposition, that no limit was affixed to it. Let the House, then, look at the difference between the present bill, and the acts to which he had referred. The latter embraced a great portion of time, while the former was limited to two years-a period beyond which it was not expected that the evil would extend. By all those acts, warrants to search for arms, by day and night, might be granted by one magistrate, without information on oath. By the present bill, one magistrate might, indeed, grant a warrant, by day or by night; but the information must be given on oath. In those acts of Whig legislation no right of appeal was allowed, but in this bill the right of appeal to the quarter-sessions was admitted, which he considered an important provision for the protection of the public. By those acts to which he had called the attention of that House, it was provided, that in cases of obstruction by 15 persons or more, the peace-officers might call in the mili tary force to their assistance, and would be indemnified if the death of any individual ensued; in the present bill there was no such provision. By those acts, an individual refusing to give up his arms might be sent for a soldier, or he might be transported for life; by this measure he could only suffer imprisonment for a misdemeanor. By those acts, a woman was subjected to a fine of 1004. or might be transported to the plantations; in the present bill there was no such provision. When, therefore, ministers were told that they introduced acts of uprecedented severity, those who made the assertion were manifestly in error.. They might taunt ministers by adverting to what they called the wise provisions of their ancestors; but they could no longer reproach them with the want of constitutional precedents; they could no longer say that ministers had acted with more severity than their ancestors adopted, when they saw a just occasion for it. The bill might be charged with insufficiency, with the fault of not being severe enough; but to accuse its framers and supporters of forgetting the rights which our ancestors held sacred, was an imputation which the enactments of the bill and the evidence of history concurred in repelling as untenable. Mr. Brougham in explanation, declared that the right hon. gentleman had quoted expressions and arguments which he had never used. When did he ever say that this measure was unprecedented? When did he ever argue on what the right hon. gentleman was pleased, in a fine word, to call it unprecedentedness? When did he ever turn round and say, "O what is the use of precedents ?" These were atfew of the points that the right hon. gentleman had grappled with; but they were points of his own making. It was easy for the right hon. gentleman to answer arguments which he was pleased to attribute, not to collect, from others. There was another point of more importance, to which he wished to advert. He was stated to have said that the people had a right to arm, notwithstanding any interdict of the legislature? when did he assert that they had such a right? He had all along admitted that the legislature had clearly a right to disarm the whole people; but then it was necessary that a case of the most decided necessity should be made out. Good God! Mr. Canning observed, that he might have made use of the hon. and learned gentleman's argument, as he himself must have felt with greater effect than he even had done. Mr. Brougham replied, that it would have been very unfair in the right hon. gentleman to have done so, since he had stated his qualification in very strong terms, and had not pushed his argument so far as some people thought. He knew from experience the powers of misrepresentation possessed by the right hon. gentleman, and he thanked him for his courtesy in not making use of them to the greatest possible extent on the present occasion. He very sensibly felt that he should not now have had an opportunity | of making this explanation had the right hon. gentleman not been so civil. All the neighbourhood of St. John's and St. Margaret's would have been echoing to the praises rung in his ears from the hon. gentlemen around him, if the right hon. gentleman had made that exhibition from which he had so obligingly abstained. Mr. Tierney expressed his surprise that the impression of gentlemen opposite always should be to treat this and other important subjects as mere party questions. The whole wrath of the right hon. gentleman-Well, he did not wish to use the same word that he had used on a former occasion, and he would therefore say that the whole speech of the right hon. gentleman had been one continued attempt to devise some mode by which he could throw a slur on gentlemen who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House. Having no ground on which he could support an accusation with reference to their present actions, the right hon. gentleman went back to the old topic, and began to revile them as Whigs-"Whig, Whig, Whig," were the first and the last words in the right hon. gentleman's speech. Night after night this epithet was introduced in order to annoy them. The right hon. gentleman never made a speech in the course of which he did not declare that the Whigs were the persons whom the country ought most particularly to guard against as having done a great deal of harm. The Whigs had, however, done the country some good, which the right hon. gentleman overlooked; but if they were the authors of any mischief, that was exactly the precedent the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues quoted in order to justify the ill which they were willing to do to the constitution. case might be made out which it was necessary to meet by such a law. He objected also to one magistrate being empowered to grant warrants, instead of two; and he stated his dislike to the power of searching by night. He had declared that if two magistrates were substituted in the place of one; and if the search by night was given up, he would not oppose the measure. He had, however, expressly reserved his right to discuss the measure in some future stage, and now, though the points to which he had objected were retained, he was charged with having conceded the principle, or at least forfeited his right to oppose it. He denied the assertion: he had not abandoned the principle: for he would maintain that the subject had a right to arm, in terms still more broad than those which had been used by his hon. and learned friend. The right hon. gentleman had noticed a qualification of the principle in the Bill of Rights which was the introduction of the word Protestant, but the House should bear in mind the circumstances under which the qualification was made -a Catholic king had been just expelled, and the legislature was called upon to provide against his return. Unless persons meant to use arms unlawfully, they had a right to procure them? God forbid that he should ever oppose that opinion. It was borne out by the Bill of Rights; and the paper which had been quoted, and which originated elsewhere, was in unison with that bill; and its reasoning was borne out also by facts. It was a fortunate paper for the other side of the House; for, having no argument that applied to the case, they looked for an argument in something that had occurred in another quarter. They were anxious It was to produce a debate, and they had no a pity that they would not imitate some other means of effecting it than by adof the good works of the Whigs, as well verting to that paper. His hon. friend as their bad ones. An hon. member under said, "I object to the principle of the the gallery had said, how fortunate and bill; but, notwithstanding that, I will not how happy an event it would be if gen- oppose its passing, if two points are contlemen coming to these discussions would ceded to me." "No," said the noble throw aside the spirit of party, if they lord, "I must have a debate; I must have would endeavour to render those measures an opportunity of introducing a little party palatable instead of opposing them alto- spirit into the proceeding." Not being gether. Now if ever an effort was made able to conduct a business of that nature to do this, it had been attempted with with so much delicacy as his right hon. respect to the bill now before the House. friend, the noble lord, he handed to him When that measure was brought forward, the document, and it became his task to he stated his objection not to its peculiar comment on it, with a view, no doubt, principle, but with a reference to the si- that his observations should go through tuation of the times. He desired that a all the newspapers. The document as |