ing of this clause it had always been his Mr. Brougham begged leave to inform the noble lord, that the publication to which he alluded, and which he believed to be Cobbett's [lord Castlereagh bowed assent,] did, at the time when it paid the duty, contain news, and especially when parliament was sitting; ever since it had ceased to pay the duty it contained no articles of public intelligence. Sir M. W. Ridley entered his protest against the measure now proposed. He thought that it most materially affected the interests of the country; some of the other bills were local and temporary; this was general and permanent; he, therefore, felt himself bound to raise his voice against a bill which made so important an Lord Castlereagh said, that he should imitate the example of his right hon. friend, and say very little upon the resolution now before the House, inasmuch as it was merely formal, and arose from the necessity which existed of having a recommendatory vote from the committee before it could be brought into the House, owing to its being a money bill. The bill was not in the hands of hon. members at present, and that gave him another reason for not discussing its enact ments at present. If, in the debate of a former evening on this subject, he had said any thing incorrect or offensive, he was ready instantly to retract it; but he had then quoted the case of one Journal which appeared to have taken the same view of the subject as he himself had done; it had originally paid the usual newspaper duty, but it now escaped it by passing under the name of a pamphlet. He thought some such legislative enactment as that which this resolution contemplated to be actually requisite to protect what he had called the respectable part of the press. An acquiescence in the resolution of that evening would not pledge hon. members to support the measures which might afterwards be founded upon it. (VOL. XLI.) The resolution was then agreed to. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, December 2. TRAINING PREVENTION BILL.] Lord Sidmouth moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for prohibiting training. Their lordships, he said, had made an order, that two of the bills which had been read a first time on Mon day, should be read a second time this day; he might, therefore, now allude to both. The provisions of one of the bills were similar to those of the Temporary act which was passed some years ago, when the midland districts were in a disturbed state; and if their lordships compared the present bill with the act of the 52nd of the king, they would find that its provisions were much less rigorous. The papers which had been laid before their lordships contained instances of training and of the procuring of arms, more than sufficient to prove the necessity of the measures recommended to their adoption. But the evidence on this subject, irresistible as it already was, had been greatly strengthened since those papers were placed on the table. Within these last few days information had been received that military training was still going on, and that the practice of procuring arms, for purposes the illegal nature of which could not be questioned, was continued. If, then, there was evidence sufficient to warrant their lordships in countenancing this bill, the grounds which would recommend it to their adoption had, instead of being weakened, become much stronger. He should at pre(2 P) sent say nothing more, except to move, that the bill which stood first in order be now read a second time. gave Lord Erskine contended, that the papers before the House did not afford sufficient ground for the measures proposed, and in particular, that the allegation in the preamble of the bill respecting training was not made out. If their lordships found the enactments of the bill unexceptionable, still they ought not to adopt the preamble as a ground for such legislation. His lordship then argued, that the present measures were in themselves far more objectionable than the act to which the noble secretary of state had referred. He believed they would not have the effect which was expected from them. Transportation he considered much too severe a punishment for the offence of drilling. In the course of his long experience in the courts below, he had always found that severity of enactment defeated its purpose. He was therefore of opinion that ministers would be more likely to succeed in their object by making the penalty less. With regard to the bill for the seisure of arms, though it was only temporary the powers which it were so extraordinary, that their lordships would surely pause before they sanctioned it. After the assertion in the preamble, the bill proceeded thus "Be it therefore enacted, that it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace, upon the information upon oath of one or more credible witnesses, that he or they believe that any pike,pike-head,or spear, is in the possession of any person or persons, or in any house or place," &c. The clause then went on to say, or any dirk, dagger, pistol, or other weapon," and authorized the issuing of warrants to seize arms, and search any house by night or by day. From the terms in which this clause was framed, he must contend that the most loyal person in the country, within the operation of the bill, would be liable to have his house searched, and if any arms were found, might be made liable to all the penalties of this severe law. The people were entitled by the constitution to have arms for their defence; and if a measure of this kind were rendered necessary by local circumstances, it was fit their lordships should look carefully to its provisions. Lord Lilford, though aware that the noble and learned lord who had just sat down ought to be better qualified than himself for the discussion of evidence, could not look at the papers in his hand without being satisfied that there was ground, not only for the bills which had been introduced, but for more coercive measures. He referred their lordships to the papers on the table, where they would find a letter from Mr. Marsh, a magistrate at Westleigh, followed by the substance of certain depositions relative to the making of arms. Having communicated with Mr. Marsh, he had had access to the informations relative to the procuring of arms, and he could assure their lordships that he had sufficient knowledge of the parties to state that they were persons who deserved to be credited on oath. He thought it right to say this much, though the noble and learned lord had not, as on the former night, founded any argument on the anonymous nature of the correspondence. Some alterations might be necessary in the provisions of the bills, but if the noble lords on the other side had the opportunities which had occurred to him, of ascertaining the credibility of the evidence, he had no doubt that they would come to the same conclusion as himself. Lord Erskine gave full weight to the observations which had fallen from the noble lord, but still could not rely on the truth the truth of the evidence generally. He had been taught by experience to place no implicit faith in such informations. Their lordships might recollect, that a great mass of similar informations had in 1794, been referred to committees of both Houses of parliament; and that, upon the reports made by those committees, indictments for high-treason were found against certain individuals. When, however, the persons accused were tried they were acquitted. There was evidence enough to satisfy parliament, but not evidence enough to satisfy a jury of the country. Recollecting these things, he could not place confidence in such evidence as appeared in the papers on the table. The noble lord surely would not say, that anonymous informa. tion was to be relied upon by the House with as much assurance as the evidence of persons whose names were made public, and who might be called before them. When testimony was given, he liked to see the witness's face; and if an opportunity for that was afforded, it might be ascertained whether the evidence came from a spy or not. He must say that the mea sures were altogether inconsistent with the principles of free government. When he looked at all the bills on the table, and thought how little England would be like England, when once they were passed, he could not help being filled with indignation and disgust at such a melancholy prospect. How fortunate would it be for the country if another course were adopted. Conciliatory measures would do more to restore confidence and tranquillity, than all the rigorous enactments that could be adopted. The Lord Chancellor, in consequence of what had fallen from his noble and learned friend, thought it necessary to state, that when he found it his duty, in 1794, to prefer charges of high treason against certain individuals, he did not proceed on the credit of any report of either House of parliament, but upon the credit which he gave to information on oath. His noble and learned friend thought that England would be unlike England when these bills were passed; but he would ask their lordships what they supposed England would be like if they did not pass? It was only by passing these bills that they could preserve the country from destruction. He always paid the highest respect to the opinion of his noble and learned friend, but it appeared that, on the present occasion, he had misunderstoood the clause in the act relative to the seizure of arms. It was not the mere possession of any dirk, dagger, pistol, or other weapon, that gave the power of searching a house, but the possession of some such weapon "for any purpose dangerous to the public peace." The overlooking of these words made an important difference in the view of the clause. A man might be possessed of a dagger, not only without any improper, but for a laudable purpose. He recollected being in the House of Conmons when a great man, now no more (Mr. Burke), but whose memory was stamped with immortality, threw down a dagger on the floor in the course of his speech. That dagger was still preserved, but the person in whose possession it was, certainly did not hold it "for any purpose dangerous to the public peace," but in order that it might be transmitted to posterity as a memorial of that great man who had been instrumental in bringing about the adoption of the course of policy which had saved the country, and rendered England what England now was. With regard to the constitutional question of the right of the people to possess arms for their own defence, which had been alluded to, the noble and learned lord observed that, in looking at the bill of rights, the principle was not laid down in so broad a manner as it was frequently represented, and that it was accompanied with the strong qualification, that subjects might have arms suitable to their conditions. There was, therefore, little force in the objection urged on this ground. But if their lordships had any doubt of the propriety of passing these bills, it would be removed on giving a fair consideration to the evidence contained in the papers on the table. If the persons to whom that evidence referred, were arming and training with the intention attributed to them, then were they guilty of nothing less than high treason. If their object was to give to meetings, by the collection of great numbers, the quality of physical force, for the purpose of procuring, by the display of that physical force, any alteration in the government, in church or state-if this were done by any individuals, either in this city or any other part of the country, he must declare that such a proceeding was an overt act of treason. With respect to the bill before the House, it never could be supposed that it was wished to render it one of unnecessary rigour. It would be for their lordships, when it went into the committee, to consider all the details, and to render it as lenient as possible. Lord Redesdale regarded the reports of the secret committees of 1794 as standing on unquestionable authority. There was not a single fact in them, which, when brought before a jury, wasdisputedordiscredited. The attempt to lessen their authority was, therefore, perfectly fruitless. The charges of erroneous statements which had been made against these and subsequent reports were all unfounded. That which had been advanced against the report of one of their lordships committees consisted in an evasion. It referred to a word which had been inserted in the report without a qualification. The word "correspondence" should have been "correspondence by messengers." Lord Holland, when he saw so many tremendous bills on the table affecting the liberty of the subject, did not think it necessary to dwell much upon the transactions of 1794. He was not now disposed to consider in what manner the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had that training for a seditious purpose must be a crime of some description or other. This acknowledgment was not, however, sufficient to induce him to agree to the present bill, as it began with an allegation, of the truth of which he was not convinced. The noble lord opposite (lord Lilford) thought the evidence sufficient: he did not, and there they differed. He wished for more evidence, because the experience of former testimony had taught him to doubt the present. He was therefore anxious to have it understood, that in agreeing to any of the details, he by no means sanctioned the preamble of the bill. It was said, that training for seditious purposes was a misdemeanor; but that there was a difficulty in obtaining legal proof; and to remove this difficulty it was necessary to come to parliament. This was a reasonable proposition; but if all that was wanted was to remove a doubt as to the law, why introduce the at that period performed his duty. But another noble and learned lord had asserted that the facts stated in the reports of 1794, and upon which no verdict was obtained, were not disputed. Mark the able reasoner! Did he not know, that all the facts in the reports which were made the subject of charges against the gentlemen tried for high treason, were after the investigation of juries, discredited? How could it be said that they remained undisputed? It was not said, that because the reports of 1794 or 1812 had proved false, the evidence now laid before the House must necessarily be false; but what had occurred with respect to these reports afforded reason for caution now. The noble and learned lord had alluded to the use which Mr. Burke had made of a dagger in the House of Commons. No man had a higher opinion of the talents of Mr. Burke, than that which he entertained; but if he had wished to cite an example either of his eloquence or judg-measure with an objectionable preamble? ment in debate, he certainly should not have fixed on that particular argument which the noble and learned lord had chosen to select. For his part, he should have preferred some of the profound political maxims which he had often uttered in the House of Commons. The present discussions might have brought to the recollection of the noble and learned lord, what that celebrated statesman had said on popular discontents. He had on one occasion observed, when the people were charged with being discontented, that if that charge was true, this at least must be allowed-either that they were a very bad people, or had a very bad administration. That was a maxim which would keep its place in his mind at least as long as the scene of the dagger. The noble viscount, from the manner in which he had introduced these bills, had placed him in a considerable degree of embarrassment-not on account of any deficiency in the explanation of his object, for that he had given in the most candid manner, of all the bills in the aggregate. But though there might be details to which he did not wish to object, the whole of the measures rested on grounds which prevented him from giving even these details his unqualified concurrence. For instance, he perhaps, with some qualifications, would not object to the measure for preventing secret training, or to the seizure of arms. Though he was no lawyer, he could easily understand But The details of the bill were not, however, speech must have made. He must, however, observe, that he believed the whole policy of his majesty's ministers to be founded in error. He would not say of them, or of any other set of men, that their intention was, to subvert the constitution, in order to acquire for themselves unlimited power; but if they had such an pect to the second bill, it had been contended, that it contained no violation of any constitutional right. The noble secretary of state had not made such an assertion on introducing the measures. On the contrary, he very candidly admitted, that with regard to the bill on the subject of the press, there was, to a certain extent, a violation of principle. He was as-intention, he knew no better method that tonished that it should be supposed that could be pursued, than that of occasional this bill was sanctioned by the words of remissness in checking the progress of sethe Bill of Rights, which said that the dition, in allowing it to grow to an alarmpeople might have arms for their defence ing height, and throwing on parliament suitable to their conditions. He looked the duty of putting it down. In such a back with gratitude to those great men state of things, many honourable and good who, at the period of the revolution, set- men could see no other course left, than tled the government on the principles of to adopt the measures of rigour which liberty. Was it to be supposed, that by were recommended.-But he should say the introduction of these words, they no more on this part of the subject. The meant to deprive the mass of the people two bills under consideration were the of their right to possess arms for their least objectionable of the whole series of own defence, to make a distinction be- measures. If he gave any opposition to tween the rich and the poor, and to de- them beyond the point in which he disprive the latter of the advantage given to agreed as to details, it was because he the former? The principal record in the considered them as parts of an objectionBill of Rights was applicable equally to able whole. On the contrary, if he conthe rich and the poor, and it was most in- curred in parts of these measures, he sulting to the people, to tell them that this begged it might not be therefore undermeasure for the disarming of certain dis-stood that he gave any approbation to the tricts was according to the provisions of whole. He admitted, as he had said bethe Bill of Rights. Bet if, unhappily, it fore, that this bill, by disarming only cerwere necessary to depart from the princi- tain districts, and by being limited in its ple of that great constitutional act, let at duration to a certain time, did as much to least the disarming be done with as much render the measure palatable as it was tenderness as possible; let it not be ac- possible to do. But still their lordships companied with any questioning of that should recollect, that the necessity of disprinciple. He saw with satisfaction, that arming the people, if that necessity really information on oath, before the arms were existed, implied a will and intention on seized, was necessary; and though the the part of the people to oppose the goclause referred to by his noble and learned vernment of the country. He believed friend was liable to the construction he that the greatest power that could be exhad put upon it, yet the bill altogether ercised by any government, either despotic was better than that of 1812. There or limited, was to attempt to disarm the were some of the details objectionable, people. He stated it, therefore, as one but what he had to say on them would be of his strongest objections to all these better reserved for the committee. As laws, that if they did not succeed in acthe bill was contrary to a great principle complishing the object for which they of the constitution, their lordships ought were framed, they must prove highly dan to be the more careful to prevent the evil gerous, on account of the impressions they from being aggravated by unnecessary would make, and the wounds they would rigour in the provisions. Into the great leave on the minds of the people. On all question of the unconstitutional nature of these considerations he could not say the measures, he should not now enter,"content" to the second bill. As to the more especially as his noble friend (earl Grey), whose absence from indisposition he lamented, had discussed that part of the subject much better than he could. His noble friend had fully stated all his sentiments and feelings, and he did not wish to weaken the impression which his first, it certainly was better than that passed in 1812, and therefore it was not a measure on which he would express that abhorrence and detestation with which he viewed the system of coercion about to be established. The Lord Chancellor, in explanation, |