Page images
PDF
EPUB

'may be in the highest degree dangerous;"" and then proceeds to discuss the subject from a constitutional point of view. Nothing, he urges, but a grovelling materialism, which is the surest mark of the decay of a nation, and of its coming downfall, can seek to deny the need there is, that the people of every nation should be familiar with the use of arms. He insists, that to pretend that the liberties of a nation can be safe when the citizens are altogether given up to the pursuit of national wealth, and the defence of their liberties and nationality is altogether given over to those who are paid to fight, is the most alarming symptom that the age of national servility has ever reached. The constitution of England has always forbidden the existence of standing armies. The greatest feats of arms ever done by England were done when there was no standing army. We are now paying some forty (?) millions per annum as the result of the unconstitutional adoption of a standing army in England during the last 150 out of the 1400 years of our history. When a large standing army exists as a distinct profession, war is encouraged; but a people accustomed to the use of arms will never seek a quarrel, or hurry into war. Thus, Switzerland has maintained her independence without ever having been aggressive, because every man there knows the use of arms; and it is known that not merely a standing army, but the whole people, would have to be met and overcome before the invader could set foot upon the soil. He quotes Lord Bacon's sayings, that "walled towns, stored arsenals and armouries, goodly races of horse, chariots of war, ordnance, artillery, and the like-all this is but a sheep in a lion's skin, except the heed and disposition of the people be stout and warlike; and that, whatsoever prince doth rest upon standing armies for maintenance, the liberties and independence of a nation may be spreading its feathers for a time, but he will need them soon after." The fundamental laws of England, says Mr. Smith truly enough, "have always affirmed the obligation of every Englishman to have a knowledge of the use of arms. But they have affirmed it in a very different spirit from what might be inferred, if we look no further than

such acts as 44 Geo. III. c. 54, and 60 Geo. III. c. 1, or than what is being brought to practice in most of the new volunteer rifle clubs." We fear that another assertion of Mr. Smith, to the effect that "mistrust and exclusiveness, the characteristics of our time, were unknown to the law in former times," is both too general and too flattering to our ancestors to be entirely accepted. There were also jealousies, sects, orders, classes, parties, and dissensions in the days of old, examples of which may even be found in our statute-book. Human nature does not, in material points, change much; though it may be developed in different directions, and express itself in various forms, according to national instincts, and those circumstances which modify all life and history. However, the sketch of the laws relating to the use of arms among Englishman, is well deserving of consideration throughout the country at this time. The old law, 66 at which modern liberal statesmen are so much alarmed, is expressed in very clear terms in the laws in use so far back as the time of Edward the Confessor, and which were reduced to writing in the time of William I., and sworn to be maintained by him." By this we see that all free men of the whole realm ought, according to their ability and profession, to have arms, and to keep them always ready for the defence of the kingdom ; and a view of their arms must be publicly taken every year. Coming down to the statute of Winchester (A. D. 1285), we find that, referring to the ancient law, it reiterates that "every man between fifteen years of age and sixty years, should be assessed and sworn to arms, according to the quantity of their lands and goods," and two constables are appointed to take a view of the arms twice a year. Taking another leap of some two hundred and fifty years, we are brought to the 3 Henry VIII. c. 3, which requires that every man in the kingdom under sixty years of age, not being lame, decrepit, or maimed, or with other reasonable impediment, and excepting the clergy and judges, shall “use and exercise shooting," and have a bow and arrow for the purpose; and that every man-child shall, from six years old, be "induced, and learned, and brought up in shooting." Further, it is provided

"that butts be made in every city, town, and place, according to the law of ancient time used; and that the inhabitants and dwellers in every of them be compelled to make and continue such butts, aud to exercise themselves with long bows in shooting at the same, and elsewhere, on holidays and other times convenient." Bacon is cited to show that the practice of arms belonged to all classes; for he says, "servants, and attendants upon noblemen and gentlemen, are in no ways inferior unto the yeomanry for arms."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Not only does the law at this period refer to the use of the bow, but Mr. Smith quotes 23 Hen. VIII. c. 6, to show that "handguns" were also practised in like manner, for the purpose of aiding in the "defence of the realm when need shall require.” "The butts were, as they still ought to be, maintained in every parish, at the expense of the parish, for the use of all the parishioners The regular inquiry used to be always made by the jury at every quarter sessions, if there were any youth or man within the jurisdiction who did not have and exercise arms, as he was bound to do; and if there were any parish or place that did not keep the butts, as ought to be done." "The law," continues Mr. Smith, "remains still the same." The acts of Henry VIII. happen indeed to have been recognised so lately as 3 Geo. IV. c. 42, s. 4, when a particular clause of each, but not any part that has been above named, was repealed. And there is nothing in either of the acts 44 Geo. III. c. 54, or 60 Geo. III. c. 1, which does in reality affect the principle that has been shown to have been thus embodied from the earliest times in the fundamental law of England. On the contrary, the former of these acts has the express proviso, "that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, in any manner to alter, vary, or repeal any of the provisions of any of the acts passed in the last session of parliament, relating to the defence of the realm, and for the purpose of enabling his Majesty more effectually and speedily to exercise his ancient and undoubted prerogative in requiring the military service of his liege subjects, in case of invasion of the realm."-(44 Geo. III. c. 54, s. 35.)

The writer proceeds to give further illustrations of the principle laid down in the Bill of Rights, that one of the "ancient rights and liberties of Englishmen is to have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." This last doctrine, we may in passing remark, would hardly justify arming uniformly gentle and simple with either the Enfield rifle or Lancaster breach-loader.

Mr. Smith then proceeds to shew that the more expensive kind of arms used to be provided, not by individuals, but by the parishes, in their corporate capacity, just as the latter maintained butts for common practice. These more costly arms were usually kept within the church for safety's sake when not in use; and hence got to be often called "church armour," or "harness." With the "constitutional system," where the genuine object was that all should have a knowledge and practice of the use of arms, so that, if need were, every man could be ready to defend his country, and when drillings and dress uniforms were not thought of, but each marksman learnt to hit the bull's-eye, Mr. Smith contrasts the pedantry, ornamental outside, and vanity of the new volunteer rifle clubs, which has bestowed far more eloquence and thought "upon the cut and colour of their uniform, than the sort of weapon they are to handle, and how they are to practise it." This, we think, is not quite just. It exhibits in a minute instance, it is true, somewhat of the writer's exaggeration and undue generalisation when working on a favourite subject; for in modern warfare between rifle corps, it is of no small importance, as the deer-stalkers will testify, to be aptly clothed, and in the next place there has been (goodness knows) debate enough, though not conclusive, upon the comparative merits of a multitude of weapons, and the modes of getting sites and opportunities to practise shooting. To sum up the subject, Mr. Smith, as might be expected, insists upon his beloved parish. "It has been shewn," says he, in a couple of characteristic paragraphs, "that the fundamental law of England neither recognizes nor allows of any exclusiveness or distinctions of classes in the use of arms, such as the new rifle club move

ment has made so prominent. It was reserved for our day to exhibit that gross form of cowardice which would trust arms to the few, but dreads their being put into the hands of the manywhich would drill and arm exclusive castes and professions, but trembles lest the mass of the people should be such as their fathers were.

"It has been seen that the practical method heretofore in active use, and still the law, is, that every parish should find the means for learning the practice, by all its inhabitants, of such weapons as are most efficient; if these are costly, the parish should provide enough at the general charge for the practice in turn of every inhabitant. The device now on foot, of either forcing every 'volunteer' to buy his own rifle, or getting the government to furnish them-while they are ingeniously contrived to keep the rifle clubs exclusive, and to give government the excuse for interfering in their arrangements-are neither convenient in themselves, nor, as has been shown, are they consistent with the only ground on which the importance of the knowledge and use of arms by a free people rests."

We have now given to the reader, who may hitherto have been unacquainted with "The Parliamentary Remembrancer," an opportunity of judging for himself of its merits and utility. If he agree with us, he will be glad to commence next session a regular acquaintance with Mr. Smith's work. Whether as a lawyer, or one of the body politic interested in constitutional history, and willing to know accurately the actual deeds and misdeeds of the legislature, we can promise him, if indeed we have not persuaded him, that he will not regret at the end of the session having applied himself to the perusal of “The Parliamentary Remembrancer."

« PreviousContinue »