Star. — 1819-12-11 (London, England)

SEIZURE OF ARMS. Lord CASTLEREAGH moved the second reading of the Seizure of Arms Bill. Mr. TIERNEY stated that he bad no objection to the principle of the Bill, though he had to some particular parts, especially to the Clause empowering a single Justice of the Peace, upon information of which he was to be the sole Judge, to order an officer to enter a house and search for arms in the night. But as the different Clauses in the Bill Might be debated in two subsequent stages, he should reserve his objections till the Bill came into a Committee. Mr. BENNET hoped that the whole of the Northern Counties would not be put under the operation of the Bill, as tbe disaffection was confined to some particular districts. Mr. LAMBTON wished to ask the Noble Lord, if he had not received a communication from the Deputy Lieutenants of the County:of Durham, stating that the County was in a state of tranquillity. Lord GASTLEREAGH observed, that he had not asserted the County to be in a state of disturbance, but in a state that might lead to it. A letter bad been addressed to Lord Sidmouth, on the Sd of December, by the Deputy Lieutenants, that an application had been made to them by four Magistrates, for the raising of a body of Yeomanry Cavalry. Mr. WHARTON stated, that much disaffection prevailed in certain Districts of the County of Durham. The authority whence be derived his information he could not name, as it might lead to the murder of the parties. Much discontent prevailed among the Colliers, who were organized and divided into classes of twenty each, under certain leaders, and had a communication with the Colliers of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The Honourable Gentleman then read a letter from a Magistrate of the County of Durham, mentioning that the Lambton property had been parcelled out by an Agrarian Law. He understood that it had been stated by the Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lambton), that there was no disloyalty among the Colliers, but only a great zeal for Reform. That Reform, however, was not Parliamentary Reform, but a transfer of ie property of the present possesors to others. Mr. LAMBTON said, that he had lived for many years among the persons to whom the Honourable Gentleman alluded, and he was enabled to .state that the charge was unfounded. He had written to his agent on the subject, and had been informed by him that, at a full Meeting of Gentlemen connected with the coal mines, none could take upon himself to state that the Colliers had arms, and he (the writer) was convinced they had none ; that the Colliers at no time had been more peaceable, and more inclined to work ; and that many of them had left the classes into which they had been divided. He should move in the Committee that the provisions of the Bill should not extend to the County of Durham. Lord MILTON could take upon himself to state that the Colliers in.the West Riding of Yorkshire had no communication with those of the County of Durham, and were as loyal as any class of his Majesty's subjects. He thought the continuance of the Bill for two or three years wholly unnecessary. Mr. H. CLIVE stated, that depositions from four Magistrates had been received, that many of those who attended the Meeting near Newcastle, had been secretly armed, and had pikes in their possession. Mr.