The Sun.
London, England, 1819-11-26 00:00:00

THE RIGHT OF POSSESSING ARMS.

The privilege of possessing Arms, as saticiinned
by the Bill of Rights, is mainly relied on by the
Radicals.—That the privilege exists, 1 am very
far from denying :—but I do contend, that it is a
modified privilege only; and to be considered
Avid, reference to the time and the occasion, and
the circumstances of its enactment.—We cannot,

in a state of Society, insist Upon abstract or va-
toral tights. The security of the Commonwealth
is the principal, nay, the sole object of the Legis-
lature: in every insecure crisis, individual fran-
el.ises must be postponed—such postponement is
the implied condition of their creation and con-
tinuance. Here I reitera e the axiom.—To sAvit

THE CONSTITUTION, ALL ACTS ARE CON-STITU-

TIONAL.
The Bill of Rights—which is in fact, the Na-

tional accusation against King James—states as its
gravamen, that he had endeavoured to subvert and
extirpate the "Protestant Religion and the Laws
and Liberties of ibis Kingdon►"—by (among other
means) " causing several subjects, being good
Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time
".when Papists were both armed and employed,

" contrary to law."
It is almost superfluous to observe, that no HU.:
stract right of carrying arms is here either recog-
nized or inferred ; that the only right existed in
Protestants: and in them ,!t not any other 'time
than when Papists were illegally armed. I defy
the most thoroughpaced Radical to extrAct from
this clause a general right of carrying arms, in
persons who are not Protestants, or while Papists
are not• sanctioned iu their illegal possession.
Whatever may be the language of the Statute
wnich iticormi ; ated the Declaration of Rights
it:to the Law of the Land, it must be interpreted
N%ith'reftrence to the Declaration itself, and the
circumstances which produced it.

Let us now examine the proceedings of the
Convention-Padiatnent, and its understanding of

this claim of possessing arms.
On the 2d February 1689, the Committee ap-
pointed by the House of Commons reported the
following Resolution :

" It is necessary tor the Public safety, that the
'' subjects, which are Protestants, should provide
" and keep arms for their common defence ; and
" that the arms which have been taken from them

" be restored."
On the 7th Febrnaty, the repott was again
brought up ; wherein the above Resolution stands
tout--" That the subjects, which Protestants,
" may provide and keep arms fur their common
" dvfence.•'

When these Resolutions were sent up to the
House of Lords, they proposed the following ai-
teration—" That the subjects, which are Pro-
" testants, may have 14 rm s for their defence, suit-
" able to their condition and as allowed by Law."

This was agreed to by the Commons.
I pause to observe, not only tlie'ev.c_lusive-clia-
rawer of Protestantism, which conditioned ,he

right of having arms, and the apprehension of
Popery, which chimed the object of using that
ril►t ; but the extteme caution of the Legislature
in preventing its use for any general purpose, or
under any general privilege. Itle Lords expung-
ed the word " common from the declared pur.
pose of " defence," and limited the right to " the
" allowance of the Law." And to this the Cont-
i
mons agieed,
How little this private privilege was suffered to
stand in the hindrance of the public safety,—let
the following' extracts from the Lords' Journals,

March 5, 1689.—Upon report by the Lord
PAGET from the Committee concerning rapists,
This Home bring informed that there are di-

" errs arms in the house of one FiLKINS, in the
" of Saint Giles ; it is thereupon ordered
" by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parha-
" went assembled, thm the doors of the rooms
wheie those aims are, be broken open by the
" Writ:cis of the Ordnance, in the presence of a
" Constable ; and that the arms thtie found be
" taken, and sent to the Tower of London:'
" This House being informed that there a!'!
" arms in the custody of -- MoLiNcex,
" pawnbroker : it is ordercd by the Louis, Spiri-
" hied and Temporal in Parliament assembled,
" that what arms or belts sliouldbe found in his
" enstody, with the King's mark on them, be
" taken and sent to the 'tower of London : and
" that such whet arms as shall be found in his
" cus,ody be inventoried and secured until further

•' oriirr:'

valou3 as the Whigs always were in their

maintenance of popular freedotn, that jealousy
mast be supposed to have been most wakeful in
the very infancy of the Revolution. Yet we see,
tiidt the grtaf and wise feadets of that party, the
tu..a who tr,,lned the Bill of Rights, and de-

Itiv,:tieti ao arbitrary Sunreign, were the first to

postpone the privileges of that Bill, and to adopt
measures to the full as decisive as any which King
JAMES had ventured. No man can charge them
with inconsistency. The proceedings of Jamms
were only bad, in proportion to the bad\kess of their
object : the sante proceedings WILLIAM and his
Whig, Senators were good, as theit 01.jeCt wasgood,
in the earliest part of his reign, a dangerous
conspiracy against his person obliged WILLIAM
to throw the tfai!ors jut° prison. To liberate
them upon bAil, or to bring them to trial, was
equally inconvenient : the Parliament avoided both
difficulties, by suspending 'the Habeas Corpus Act.
Thus, a revolutionary Sovereign infringed the
main bulwark of the liberty of his subjects, hilt! a
revolutionaly raltarnent confirmed and conti-
nued the infraction ;—proving, beyond all ques-
tiou, this indisputable position-,--that, to save the
Constitution, no act can be unconstitutional.

And this was done by the Revolutionists them-
selves. Ar►d who were the clamourers against it ?
Who were the accusers of \VILLIAM, as having
more deeply infringed the Constitution than ever
CHARLES or JAMES had (Omitted to infringe it
The enemies of the Revolution, and the tricnds
of the exiled Tyranny. The Nation, however,
was satisfied that the temporary suspension of the
Constitution's principal franchises was in perfect
accordance with the Constitution's real spirit;
that while nothing was legal for its injury, every_
thing. was legal for its benefit ; that the conse-
quence of a measure, and the purpose of its agent,
were rather to be regarded than the abstract qua-
lity of the measure itself.
Even so will the Nation argue now. The wis-
dom of,our Ancestots suspended a part of the
Constitution for the sake' of its whole ; and their
descendants willotot hesitate to whew equal wisdom
in equal danger. It is worse than puerile, to ar-
gue upon abstract rights of doing aught, or pos-
sessing aught, which can endanger the Common-
wealth. It cannot he predicated of tl►e Consti-
tution, thaf it contains in itself any one principle
of its own destruction ; or that it does not con-
;sin in itself any one principle of its own pre-
servation. If an act, the most apparently con-
stitutional which can be imagined., were danger-
ous to the State, it is unconstitutional ; while
the most apparently utsconssitntiossal_act, if neces-
sary to the State, is co►►stitutional.
The very formalities of our Legislature, the
process which they roust go through, the time
• which they must occupy before a Law can be en-
acted, or altered, or repealed, speak trumpet-
tongued to the tact--that the trainers of the Cons
stitution reposed in its Administrators the power
of suspending any or all its franchises in the mo-
ment of their abuse. And this trust is especially
consonant to the genuine, spirit of freedom : be-
caose unrestraine-tie freedom would destroy itself;
while its perpetual restraint would be equally de-
structive. Easy as tile Radicals find it to preptre
treason svi:hout one fleet t act on which the Law
Can lay hold—who shall contend that they may
provide arms muter the Bill of Rights, and walk
at large under the Habeas Corpus Act, while
conspiring the destruction of that Constitution to
which that Bill of Rights and that Habeas Corpus
Act .owe their existence ?—Who shall contend,
that they are privileged, under the Riot Act, to
subvert the King's Throne, provided they can ef-
fect its subversion within fitly-nine minutes ?
No—nei, her the forms nor the spirit of the Con-
stitution were made for its enemies. The Parlia-
ment which suspends the privilege of i►aving arms,
and of bail or.trial in State offences, will prove
its teal regard for that Constitution, which can-
not be saved without the suspension of its own
rights. I will insist farther—that the Minister
who, while the Parliament was not sitting, bad
for such a purpose suspended those dangerous and
perrertible privileges, of his own mere authority,
would have deserved not only the 'indemnity of
the Parliament but the gratitude of the Nation,
What !—lf a gang of Robbers are setting out
to plunder, and to shed blood—are they to keep
their weapons drawn, and their persons
uncon-
;incd, until the intent of their expedition is
loured; which most probably can only be proved
by its execution ? If a desperate Qaack is about
to vend arsenic—shall not his shop '►e shut up
and his phials broken, until the (heath of his vic-
tims has proved the mischief of his commodity ?
If a needy Bookseller is about to vend the moral
poison of his blssphernies and treasons—shall not
his corruption be stayed until the tedious process
of law has given time enough for its dissemina-
tion ?—But, why argue a question so evident !
We act upon this principle every (Icy, whets we
pull down a house to stop the progress of a con.
Bagration. Yet it is as illegal to poll down "an
Et,glishmat►'9 Castle," as to send his pistol into
the Tower, or his person into Newsate.
In reference to the privilege of polessing arms
—The Lords, with much prosper ive wisdom,
qoaLfied it in the very outset of thclicvolutioo

We are still without any arrival of Paris Papers.
Three days' Journals are now ►lue.

Halifax Papers arrived this morning to the 22d
ult.—They state from Bermuda, that the Fever
had greatly subsided in the Island, and that but
few deaths had taken place.

The number of the Minority in the House of
Commons, " on an Amendment to the Address on
the first day of a Session, is unexampled in the
Annals of Parliament," says The Morning Chro-
nicle of this day; and it proceeds to assert that
this Minority " proves, beyond contradiction, the
strong sense which THR COUNTRY entertains of
the system of Ministers, in• their hasty approba-
tion of proceedings which have filled the breasts
of all good men with alarm and dismay." This
reasoning, and the conclusion drawn from it, are
exactly what might be expected from the logical
acumen of The Morning Chronicle. Other Writers,
less enlightened, might rather draw an inference
from the large majority, as more likely to express
the sense of the people in favour of the conduct
of Government. There is an old paradox, which
says, that the " half is more than the whole,"
but The Chronicle seams to have improved upon
this problem, and would perhaps attempt to prove,
that much less than ball exceeds the greater num-
ber. Such is the reasoning of The Chronicle, but
it cannot conquer its prejudice and malevolence,
notwithstanding the decided Majorities in favour
of Ministers an the Manchester Question, from
which the approbation of the Country might
more justly be inferred than from a ,Minority.--
That the proceedings at Manchester may have
" filled the breasts of all, good men with alarm
and dismay," is highly probable, because all good
men must view with deep concern and apprehen-
sion the lamentable change in the minds of the
lower orders of People ; but the energy of Go-
vernment, and the firmness of the Manchester
Magistrates, however they have been defamed by
Fa'ction, are calculated to raise the spirits of " all
good men," in the full confidence that the Consti-
tution will be resolutely supported and finally pre-
served,—l3ut " all good men" may still be alarmed
at the audacity of the democratical Newspapers,
which openly or insidiously prop the cause of
Rebellion. When the WooLaas, the WaTsoNs,
the CARLILES, COBBETTS, &c. &c. are endeavour-
ing, to bring the Government into disrepute, they
are oily labouring in their vocation ; but The
Chronicle and The (Old) Times, which would
themselves be ruined by the uuiVersal partition of
p: nperty which the former desperate is retches
have in view, might be expected to check, instead
of stimulating the cause of the Radicals, who
would laugh at them as soon as they acquired that
ascendency Which it seems to be the intention of
those degenerate Papers to promote. We bear
no ill-will towards any of our Competitors, arid
only oppose thou *km we MAI them Adopting

principles, and supporting measures, tending t°
the destruction of the Country, and shook' be
truly glad to see them repent of their errors, and'
for their own safety, endeavour to uphold the
security tilAtie Empire.
, vtlirream!..---7-k ''llo,lk • .
-7There has hardly bee'ira more brilliarit'speCifuen
Of wit, combined with sound argument And cur
ported by solid fact, than characterized the Speech
of Mr. CANNING 011 Wednesday night in the Houte
of Commons. The Radical Baronet received whet
may be styled a complete dressing 011 the occasion'
and we may venture to predict, whatever sPiril
he may display of the epistolary , kind, or on
Radical Scafold, we do not mean of the putibuial
description, that he will be little disposed toward!
senatorial Oratory in the presence of Mr. COP