HOUSE OF LORDS. SATURDAY, JULY 25. The Assessed Taxes Allowances Bill, and the Woods and Forests Bill, were read a third time and passed, ESCAPE OF PRISONERS OF WAR. A clause was added to this Bill, on the motion of the Lord Chancellor, rendering persons knowingly assisting on the high seas, in the escape of prisoners of war, guilty of felony, and enacting that they might be tried in any county in the same manner as if the offence had been committed within the county: also another clause (his lordship stating that the offence of aiding the escape of prisoners of war might, under certain circumstances, amount to high treason), providing that nothing contained in the Act should be construed to prevent such offenders from being prosecuted in any other manner than under the Act; but that, if prosecuted in another manner, they should not be prosecuted under the Act for the same offence; or if prosecuted under the Act, they should not be prosecuted in any other manner, TOLERATION BILL. On receiving the Report of the Toleration Bill, Lord Erskine expressed his satisfaction at the progress of those liberal sentiments upon which this measure was founded—a measure with which he was perfectly satisfied. He had on a former occasion presented a great number of petitions against a Bill relative to this subject, brought in by a noble viscount, but he had no doubt that that noble Viscount, in bringing forward the measure to which he alluded, was actuated by the best intentions. He was perfectly satisfied with the present Bill, and should only now observe, that the Established Church, so far from being in danger, would stand as upon a rock, by granting the most liberal toleration to all manner of persons. The Amendments were agreed to.-Adjourned. 1 HOUSE OF LORDS. MONDAY, JULY 27. TOLERATION BILL. On the third reading of the Toleration Bill, an Amendment was introduced, on the motion of the Lord Chancellor, enacting that the Bill should not be construed to extend to any places of worship of the Established Church. This Amendment his lordship stated to be necessary, to avoid the effect of an ambiguity of expression in the Bill, and to prevent collegiate chapels, &c. from being affected by it: but the Amendment did not in the least interfere with the principle of the Bill. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. PEACE PRESERVATION BILL. On the third reading of the Peace Preservation Bill, Lord Holland adverted to the evidence upon which this Bill was founded, as detailed in the Report of the Committee of Secrecy, and contended (though he did not mean to impeach its truth) that it was not of a nature to ground upon it such a measure as the present. It chiefly consisted of letters from Magistrates, stating rather rumours and reports, than what could with any strictness be called evidence, and therefore he thought that parole evidence ought to have been examined, particularly as, from the comparative vicinity of the disturbed districts, witnesses might have been brought from thence with facility to testify as to the actual state of those districts-a measure which he considered the more necessary, as in point of time they had no evidence of transactions, or of the state of those districts, later than the 23d of June. It had been admitted by the noble viscount opposite, that necessity alone could justify a measure like the present-but it was equally true that that necessity ought to be clearly proved. He (Lord Holland) was far from saying that no case of necessity could exist which could justify the enactment of a measure like the present; but what he meant to contend was, that the necessity ought to be satisfactorily proved to exist, and he would apply to this subject an expression of a noble and learned lord on a memorable occasion, that what necessity creates ought to be limited by that necessity. In the Report of the Secret Committee, he could see no čase made out which called for the strong enactments of the present Bill. The disturbances had not assumed any malignant political character-any character which tended to endanger the Government; they appeared to have originated in certainly most mistaken notions--but notions which, it was very likely, would be corrected by that return of employment which recent measures would probably create. It appeared also from evidence adduced on a trial, at the Special Commis sion at Lancaster, that of the 40 persons assembled on Dane Moor (a meeting much relied upon for the purpose of establishing the alleged character of these disturbances), ten of these forty persons were actually the spies of the Magis trates. With this fact therefore known, and with the additional fact which he believed also to be correct, that these spies were the most active in what was called twisting in, there was surely great reason to doubt how far the evidence before them was sufficient to authorise the present Bill. The Report of their lordships' Secret Committee also was contradicted by inference, by the Report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons, in not mentioning circumstances on which the former mainly relied; and was also contradicted by a Petition he had presented from one of the districts referred to in that Report; which Petition was signed by respectable persons who had been appointed by the Magistrates constables of watch and ward, and who stated that tranquillity was completely restored in that district, and that the provisions of the Watch and Ward Act had in consequence ceased to be enforced. He maintained, therefore, that the necessity of the case did not justify the principle of this Bill, and he was prepared to shew that the detail of the Bill went even beyond the principle itself. The Bill might be stated to consist of three parts; the first giving authority to search for and seize arms concealed, or suspected to be stolen; the second giving them a power to take arms from persons whom they suspected to be unable to defend themselves; and the third, for the purpose of preventing unlawful assemblies. In this latter object he was disposed to acquiesce, but at the same time thought that, by executing this purpose, the former provisions of the Bill would be rendered unnecessary, as if arms were stolen in consequence, as stated, of the organization of secret meetings, to destroy these unlawful assemblies would be to destroy the organization which led to the stealing of arms. 1 725 With respect to the power of searching for arms, he could not think that any ground had been laid for its enactment. There was no proot of the discovery of any concealed depôt of arms, no proof of any body of men appearing armed capa-pee, or assembling as an army, or any thing like an army. The main principle which distinguished a free constitution from an arbitrary Government, was the right of bearing arms for self-defence. This was a right secured to the subjects of this country by the Bill of Rights; it was a right essential to the existence of a free constitution. He did not, however, mean to state that no case could exist in which this right ought not to be infringed; all he contended for was, that the necessity ought to be distinctly proved. This Bill, however, gave to one justice of the peace or magistrate power, upon mere suspicion, to search a man's house for arms, and to take them away. The words which were inserted in the Act applying to Ireland, in 1807, namely, "reasonable ground of suspicion," were not in the present Bill, so that a party aggrieved by an unjust seizure of his arms, was deprived of all remedy, with a view to subsequent compensation. for the injury, as a Magistrate might, from mere whim or caprice, from the impulse of a suspicion, for which he could state no reasonable ground, seize the arms of any individual. He wished most distinctly to be understood as not intending to cast any reflection upon the Magistracy, whom he considered, generally, as a most respectable body of men, but he must be allowed to say, that he would rather entrust the power given by this Bill to his Majesty's Government than to the Magistrates. With respect to the noble viscount (Sidmouth) opposite, he was satisfied that there was no man in the country less likely to abuse power entrusted to him than that noble viscount; he believed the same also of his noble friend near him (Lord Liverpool), but he could not forget that there were persons in the Cabinet who had either proposed or been instrumental in enacting measures of a similar character to this in a neighbouring country-measures of which they had reaped the bitter fruits. He knew it had been answered to an accusation relative to these measures in Ireland, on the part of those who were instrumental in enacting them, by saying, we know there were great atrocities practised, but we could not help it, we could not pre-vent it. Why then this was the strongest argument against the present Bill, against giving a power which might be exercised from whim or caprice, from party motives, or from prejudice, or from an honest but mistaken zeal, to the great oppression and injury of individuals. He should therefore move to amend the Bill by inserting two Magistrates instead of one, and that they should only act upon a reasonable ground of suspicion. He hoped, however, at all events, that noble lords on the other side would agree to an amendment, that the Magistrate should go himself to make the search, and not leave it to the delegated power of the constable, who might then go with a mob to the house of an individual to search for arms, from which act the most dangerous consequences might ensue. What, for instance, could have been an act of greater injustice than to have taken away the arms of Mr. Cartwright, who so bravely defended his mill? and yet this might have happened under this Bill, had it been in force. He was aware that at this advanced period of the session, and in the present state of the House, he could do nothing more than state his opinion of this Bill; but feeling as he did upon the subject, he could not reconcile it to his duty to abstain from at least declaring his dissent to the provisions of this Bill, except that part of it for preventing unlawful assemblies, and that clause, of which he highly approved, placing in the hands of Government the power of withdrawing any district from the operation of the Act. Lord Sidmouth thought, that if the friends of the noble baron had concurred with him in the censure he had be stowed upon this Bill, they would have been present this night to state their dissent, more especially as on a very recent occasion they had attended to vote a large sum of the public money on the laté Comptroller of the Post-Office. He was rather surprised at the noble baron himself had not, during some of the previous stages of the measure, urged those objections which he now appeared to feel so warmly and had urged so vehemently. The noble lord had complained of the Report of the Secret Committee, and had insisted that parole evidence ought to have been adduced. Such was not now the question; all the House had to decide at present was, whether the Bill upon the table was justified by that Report. He (Lord Sidmouth) was persuaded that a case was made out to induce Parliament not to lose an instant in affording the protection it owed to the peaceable inhabitants of the disturbed districts. Even if the Secret Committee had not been appointed, his lordship, on his own |