Arms Bill (1843 Registration Act) Kilkenny Journal.

                                        Arms Bill  (Ireland)

The Irish Registration Act of 1843

  Schedule B., 6&7 Vic.,Cap.74,Sec 3.

                                   Licence to Keep Arms.

             Kilkenny Journal of Saturday August 2^nd 1843

      Details the House of Commons- Public Affairs of Thursday of that week.

Arms (Ireland Bill)

Under this proposed act it was necessary to licence and brand all weapons in private ownership. The county prefix and licence number were to be marked clearly on each stand on arms. Earlier legislation  of 1760’s, 1796 & 1837 had made it necessary to licence guns, pistols, bayonets and swords but the act being debated was a further tightening of gun controls.

With the political climate at boiling point many public figures were in fear of their lives and an “Open Season” for politicians was considered in progress.

Opposition to this act was vehement and continued right up until the introduction of the act on 22/8/1843.

Transcript:

Arms ( Ireland Bill )

Mr S. Crawford  said that he rose with the hope of inducing the house to assent to this bill. He did not suppose that any person would dispute the first part of this motion that any British subject had a right to carry arms.  To restrict that right would be to subvert the principals of public liberty. The arms bill before the house would have that effect. It placed in the hands of the magistracy or an arbitrary government the power of disarming the whole country, which they might exercise in a manner dangerous to public liberty.

But this bill not only restricted the right to carry arms but it violated

the liberty of the subject, because it gave a liberty to the constable to retain a person for twelve hours , and it also gave a power to commit him uncondemned, merely for the purpose of giving security to the House of Correction of the goal till the petty sessions. Nothing could be more oppressive and tyrannical than this.  The Bill also violated the sanctuary of every house, for it gave an absolute power to the magistrate or police to enter into it.

   

It was said that the Irish Parliament gave a precedent for the bill. He denied that. The 31^st and 36^th of George 111. had been alluded to; though they imposed certain restrictions, expressly declared that they were not intended to limit the right which before existed of carrying arms for the protection of the person. He was particularly opposed to this bill as applied to Ireland, because he could not forget the noble use the volunteers of ’82 made of their arms, in repelling foreign aggression and asserting the rights of the people. This arms bill showed in a marked way the dissimilarity of legislation which was maintained for Ireland and for England. This bill was proposed on the ground that there were disturbances in certain places in Ireland , but there were other parts of that country that were as well ordered as any portion of Her Majesty’s dominions. Why then should an universal limitation of that kind be applied to the whole of the people of Ireland? If there were parts of Ireland that required those limitations, why not let the bill apply only to those parts ( hear, hear)? It gave him pleasure to be able to read an extract of the Chief Baron to the jury of the County of Down, at the late assizes there. The judge on that occasion said “ He met the jury with pleasure, for after examining the calendar there was not an observation necessary for him to make except that there was not a single case which called for particular observation, or that was prejudicial to the peace and well being of the country” ( hear).

No doubt there were similar records of the state of several counties in Ireland. In other parts of the empire too, there were many parts of the country very much disturbed, and yet the government did not think of proposing for those parts such restrictions as they proposed for Ireland. He considered that there were no grounds for imperial legislation if that legislation were not founded upon similarity of rights, and similarity of protection for all the subjects of the crown. If the weaker country did not share in the advantages of constitution of the empire, that weaker country had the right to complain of the operation of the Union. He desired for his part to maintain the connexion between the two countries, but he did say that if Ireland were to be legislated for upon different principles from England, then it would be neither just or right the Union should exist.

He appealed to Englishmen whether it would not be dangerous for themselves and their rights to pass such a bill as the present for Ireland

Let them reflect the precedent of arbitrary measures for Ireland would be a precedent against themselves upon future occasions. It would in his opinion, be dangerous for the people at large, that a bill should be allowed to pass containing principles subversive of public rights (hear)

He desired to keep the Union, but there was something more dear to him than that. He could never consent to a charter of slavery for Ireland, nor to sustain the Union if it was not kept in its entirety…….. The hon. member concluded by moving the petition of which he had given notice and restricted power of having, carry or using arms for all legal purposes is a right enjoyed by Englishmen and Scotsmen, and is one potential safeguards of freedom.

That to limit or withhold this privilege , as regards Irishmen, creates an unjust , impolite , and insulting distinction , and is a violation of that equality of rights which can be the only safe and just basis of imperial legislation. That therefore, it is the duty of this house to reject any measure which would impose or continue such restriction.

Lord Eliot: trusted that the honourable member for Rochdale would not think him wanting in respect to him if he did not follow him through all the objections he had urged to this measure. He would content himself with stating what the government intended to do with respect to some of the objections that had been urged against the measure. It had been stated the great inconvenience would be felt from the length of time it would take for a re-registration: to obviate that the government proposed taking up a clause, by which power would be given to the magistrates to appoint additional days for re-registration. He proposed to introduce a clause to the effect that any person having at present a licence to keep arms should have that licence renewed at the sessions without being put to the trouble personal attendance, unless five days before the sessions he should receive notice in writing from the inspector of constabulary, that it was intended to oppose the renewal of the licence, such notice set forth the grounds upon which such renewal was opposed ; so that all who at present possessed a licence would be considered  prime facie entitled to have that licence renewed. These were the only alterations which he purposed to make in the bill. He was prepared to state the grounds on which he thought it was not advisable to accede to the suggestions of the noble lord, but he thought he should be enabled to do so much more effectually after he had heard the arguments which the noble lord had had to urge in their support.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the house divided, when there appeared _

For Mr S. Crawford amendment   44

Against it………..                         99

Majority against the amendment 55

On our admission to the gallery we found

Lord John Russell: addressing the house

The noble lord said that the house had agreed to the arms act for Ireland with certain additions, some of which went to make the law more stringent, and others tended to the relaxation of the law. He believed that it would have been better if the government had contented themselves with proposing the renewal of the existing law  for a year; but the noble lord had , without one moments consideration, rejected that proposition (hear, hear, hear) The house had agreed to the principles of the bill , but he proposed to the house now to make considerable alterations in the measure –alterations which would have the effect of doing away with some of its most offensive and odious provisions ( loud cheers). He alluded more particularly to that portion of it which authorised the magistrates or constables acting under their authority, to enter any house by force at any hour of either of the day or of the night.  He need urge that there was nothing more sacred among Englishmen the immunity of their dwellings from invasion or intrusion. It was a proverb in this country that an Englishmen’s house was his castle, and that however humble might be his hovel – though the wind may sweep through it  and the rain may beat upon it , yet the King could not enter it. Such were their proverbs and their sentiments in this country. He might still further illustrate this by the disposition shown in the house with regard to a new point of the bill; he meant the clause which, ordered the branding of arms. The noble lord opposite had very sensibly , in his opinion introduced a clause which would exempt the rich from the  harsher provisions of the law but the noble lord, the member for Lynn, much to his honour , and other honourable gentlemen, said that no such distinction ought to be made between the rich and the poor. It was not likely that this would be enforced against the rich, and he thought that it ought not be forced at all beyond what was required by the strongest necessity ( hear) – for nothing could be more insulting and offensive than the invasion of domestic  rights ( hear, hear) . Let them only consider for a moment what would be thought upon this subject if it was enforced in this country (hear,hear,hear) – if the inhabitants of an English county were subjected to such invasion. They should therefore, be careful not to extend provisions of this kind beyond what was mere necessity of the case and to conform it as far as possible to that which public peace requires (hear hear). They should not go beyond this in giving to magistrates – to men who may be indiscreet, hasty in their suspicions of their neighbours, who might have opposed them in politics – to men who be seized with a sudden panic which, infact, might have no foundation – a power of provoking and irritating the feelings of the people, and of making them consider that the legislature and the administrators of the law were their enemies ( hear and cheers). Now what was the necessity of the case?

He must assume especially after the late division of the house, that some law of this kind was necessary in the present state of Ireland (hear). It was considered that in counties that were disturbed arms might be used for unlawful purposes, and it was enacted that persons might enter houses to search for arms.  But the operation of the act was confined to certain districts or counties where, to the magistrates, it should from time to time appear fit. Why not adopt the same course with respect to Ireland on the present occasion. Let the Lord Lieutenant proclaim such counties as were in a state of disturbance to be so, and to require the operation of the powers given by this act. If they did that, he believed they would confine  the operation of the law to some two or three or four counties in Ireland, and by so doing  they would relieve the greater part of Ireland  from any apprehension that such outrage would take place. If the clause he proposed was adopted, then they should know the necessity that existed in each special case, whereas at present the law applied to every county whether disturbed or not. He thought, unless in cases of very great necessity, the general law of the constitution ought to prevail. On these grounds a clause to prevent the entry of house, grounds, or premises, unless representation had been made by them to the Lord Lieutenant, by whom the county or district had been proclaimed according to the provisions of the act. In adopting that provision they would be following the model of the act which had been in force for a year or more in that country.

Lord Eliot complained of the inconsistency of the noble lord in proposing, by his clause, to renew the provisions of a law under which a right of search of a much more extensive character existed. Under the existing law the magistrates might dispute the right to search of any third party; whereas , by the proposed law that power was limited to cases in which a magistrate or some other party named in the warrant was present. It appeared to him that it was impossible for the lord lieutenant to proclaim a county as being in a disturbed state, unless the presence of armed body of men was ascertained: because merely agrarian outrages and disturbances would not form a sufficient ground for such a step. The noble lord required that the lord lieutenant proclamation should be substituted for the warrant, but he could not conceive that any benefit would be derived by adopting such a course and it appeared to him that the only benefit likely to result from it would be to give the parties having unregistered arms in their possession due notice and thereby enable them to conceal those arms. In the case of a party applying for a licence to carry arms, and the magistrates refusing him, they would have no power

to deprive him of those arms, if he thought proper still to carry them, unless the county had been previously proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. He believed that the adoption of the noble lord’s proposition would actually frustrate the main objects of the bill, and would be tantamount to giving  a permission to all parties to carry arms, of which the magistrates would have no power to deprive them. The noble lord had referred to the bill of 1819, which had been enacted in that country, but it had been introduced under entirely different circumstances. On that occasion there were large bodies of armed men acting in open resistance to the law, which, he was happy to say , was not the case at present in Ireland (hear, hear). In the northern counties of Ireland the practice of carrying arms was followed to a great extent; but they could not be said on that account to be in a disturbed state. He believed the right of search would give the loyal and peaceable inhabitants a feeling of security they

would not otherwise possess and on these grounds he must oppose the clause.       

Mr M.J. O’ Connell , fully concurred in one observation of the noble lord- namely , that Ireland was in a very different state from what England was in 1819, and yet that was the reason that the noble lord had assigned for refusing to the more peaceful country the safeguard of proclaiming the district in the first place. He made the noble lord a present of all the benefit that argument would do him with the public, that because Ireland was less disturbed he would apply the most stringent law on her. He thought it was only in extreme cases that such powers should be thrown into the hands of the magistrates and police. The advantage gained by the right of search, of putting down one, or two outrages, would be more than counterbalanced by the reflection in the minds of the people that they were indebted for its less frequent exercise, more to the forbearance of the local authorities than to the legislature.

After some further discussion a division took place when the numbers were,

For the amendment…… 65

Against………………..109  

Majority………………...44                           

Some additional clauses were brought up by Lord Eliot and agreed to.

Mr Hamilton   proposed a clause of exemption from branding percussion arms, the owners of which have a licence.

Lord Clements  objected to giving so much power to the Lord Lieutenant, and said that so many new clauses , though they were harmless enough , might make the bill unintelligible.

Clauses added to the bill.

Several verbal amendments were made upon the clause with respect to the branding of arms.

Mr M.J.O’Connell opposed the clause at some length. He said the government seemed to have all their information from police whose inquisitorial conduct in making of the census was illegal and absurd as to delay it so long that the country, he believed , would have to begin a new one before they completed that which was required from them in 1841

(laughter)

Lord Eliot said that, as it has been found necessary to require the registration of arms, it was necessary likewise to have proof of registration which proof mark supplied. The government had adopted

this measure on the mere suggestion of police officers; but when they had resolved upon the principal of it they had certainly thought it prudent to consult practical men on the best mode of carrying that principle to execution. He distinguished firearms from other weapons, with respect to the necessity of precaution; because murders committed with firearms were usually perpetrated from an ambush, or from a distance, so that there was great difficulty in indentifying the criminal while assaults with other weapons were usually hand to hand, and left some mark or other on the person of the malefactor.

Lord Clements remarked that lawless persons did not mind their bringing in the bill for registering arms- those persons concealed their arms in places and in such a manner that they could not be got at. They ought to remember that when Oxford shot at Her Majesty in St James Park, the judge told the jury that it was necessary not only to prove that Her Majesty had been fired at, but the pistol had been actually loaded, because if the ball were not found it was evidence to go to the jury. Now if the trial had taken place in Ireland, and a judge had such a charge , how much would they have heard of it! In England popular opinion did much’ popular opinion in Ireland had no weight at all. But why, he asked did not the noble lord bring in a clause for the branding of the balls

(Laughter)?, and then when they were fired , to have something behind to catch them ( laughter)?

The house divided-

For the amendment……..37

Against……..                   74

Majority……..                  37

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed. To be read a third time next day.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cartoon showing the diminutive Lord John Russell in his attempt to control 
the movement and ownership of weapons in the unsettled counties of Ireland.         

Our sincere thanks to the above newspaper and journalists for capturing this interesting piece of social history.

                                   Dave Stroud. ramrodantiques.co.uk