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 2nd
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 31st and
36th 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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment