arise from the division established between | the clause relating to the punishment of persons assembled contrary to the act, and not dispersing after being required so to do by proclamation, the poor and the rich, which must be the consequence of these parish meetings. He had no doubt that the effect of this invasion of the constitution would be to rob the people of England of the right of meeting. It had been said, that two objects had been entertained,—namely, to limit meetings as to number; and as to locality. The first object had been found impracticable, and he should be glad if the other also proved impracticable; for of this he was certain-that it could not be accomplished without trampling on the constitution. Lord Erskine objected to the severity of placing on the same footing with felons, persons who might not be aware of the act, and who might be innocent of any intention against the laws. He contended, that the effect of milder laws should be tried, before one so severe, and possibly so unjust, was resorted to. As for the argument, which denied the sufficiency of the present laws, there was no force in it. The only evidence which the House had to form their opinion on, was that contained in the papers on the table, and in those papers he could find no proof to countenance the belief that other laws were necessary than those at present in existence. From the wording of the clause as it stood, the penalty was not confined to itinerant agitators, but embraced the class of persons he had already described, and therefore he should move that the word " felony " be omitted. The Earl of Harrowby contended, that not one individual in the whole country would be excluded from meeting by the bill. Could the noble baron show him a case in which such an exclusion would take place? It was true, that a small freeholder or copyholder could not meet in a parish of which he was not an inhabitant, but such a person must be an inhabitant of some parish or other, and he could meet with the people of that parish. Lord Erskine would put a case, to show the hardship of the operation of the bill. Suppose that he was no freeholder, but lessee of a thousand acres of land for a thousand years, he could not meet in the parish where his property was chiefly situated, if not an inhabitant, though the meeting might be on a subject most im-posed to riot, and all persons who reportant to his interests. The Lord Chancellor said, that in that case his noble and learned friend might get some person to attend in his room. The Earl of Liverpool referred to what had been done by the Whigs themselves in other cases of danger, and particularly to the Riot act passed in the reign of George the 1st. By that act the magistrate was empowered to read the proclama tion in riotous meetings, or meetings dis mained after the expiration of an hour were subject to the penalty of death. The noble and learned lord must know that the greater part of the persons as sembled on such occasions were attracted by idle curiosity, yet no exception was Such was the state of the law under the Riot act. But by the present act, if any person knowingly and wilfully attended such a meeting, and refused to depart on notification being made, he was only liable to transportation; and after all, the question must be tried before a jury, who would consider the case with all its circumstances, and determine accordingly upon his guilt or innocence. Lord Erskine observed, the effect would be, that he could not attend a county meeting, because he was no free-made, or could be made, in their favour. holder; nor the parish meeting in which his property lay, because he was not an inhabitant. A noble countryman of his had been displeased with the manner in which his noble friend noticed what fell from him respecting the overwhelming majorities of that House; but the effect of those overwhelming majorities had been almost to overwhelm the vessel of the state. When a measure went out of that House with so powerful a gale, it appeared that it soon got aground, and, after undergoing repairs, came back to be examined in the dock again. The question was put on the omission of the word "usual," and negatived. The marquis of Lansdowne then pressed his motion for omitting the words " fifty pounds," which was also negatived. On Lord Ellenborough could not admit that the severity of one act was any justification for the severity of another.A second objection which he had to the present measure was, that except the case was extremely strong they would find a great difficulty in getting a verdict, and it was of importance that they should avoid as much as possible the evil of drivs ing juries to the alternative to which he alluded. Even if they should succeed in obtaining a verdict, it was a question whether any person could be found in the country, out of the immediate influence of the Secretary of state's office, who would agree to the justice of inflicting the penalty. the present clause, in mitigation of its severity. To make the mere loitering of a person after the proclamation was made a felony liable to transportation, was a severity which must defeat itself. The noble earl had alluded to what the Whigs had done in former times; he professed himself to be as good a Whig as the noble earl, but he thought it was doing as much as could be required of him to defend the conduct of the Whigs with whom he had acted, without justifying the conduct of former Whigs, whose errors the noble earl never quoted except when he pro noble lord had alluded to the act of George the 1st, he confessed it after all to be a mitigation. For his own part, though he should never have selected it as a subject of praise, he could not but look to it with some favour as compared with the bill before the House. It referred to riotous assemblies, to assemblies that, proceeded to a breach of the peace; but the present act impowered the magistrate to read the proclamation in assemblies where there was no tumult. The noble lords had spoken of attending knowing The Lord Chancellor maintained, that if the bill was not passed with the clause as it stood at present it would not be sufficient to the protection of his majesty's subjects. He might say, without being accused of a paradox, that the weakness of the law, with respect to the supposed to imitate them. But though the pression of illegal assemblies, was found in the strength of the law; for if they looked to the ancient and statute law, they would find that the subsequent enactments were a mitigation of the existing law, which was found too strong for legislation. By the Riot act the meeting of only three persons might be considered a riotous assembly, and dealt with according to its provisions, and they would find in statutes of great antiquity that the magistrates had not only a power of putting down such meetings, but were liable to prosecution if they did not. The magis-ly and wilfully, but there were no such, trates had a power to arrest all persons at- words in the bill applicable to the clause tending such meetings long before the reign under consideration. It was to be wished of George the 1st; and in the posse comi- that when the noble and learned lord tatus, on which they had a right to call, looked back to see how laws became inhe could prove, though it was generally efficacious by their severity, he had taken a represented otherwise, there was no dis- lesson from the fact. The consequence tinction taken between peace officers of neglecting it was this, that when disand military assistants. If the persons turbances arose new laws were resorted assembled did not yield peaceably to to. The people were thus taught to arrest, bloodshed must ensue, for, which look not to the laws, but to parliaone party must be answerable and the ment, and finally to regard parliament other not. Under the Riot act it was not as their protectors but their taskmasa capital felony not to disperse, but there ters. The introduction of the word was a more summary way of proceed-" felony" in the clause exposed the pering. Such of their lordships as were prepared to maintain that the persons who knowingly attended such meetings ought not to be punished might vote with the noble lord; but he would ask what sort of an act would that be which declared that the refusal to depart after the proclamation should not be more severely punished than the mere circumstance of being present without a right? Upon this ground he should certainly object to the amendment. Lord Holland assented to the observation of the noble and learned lord, that the strength of the law constituted, in many instances, its weakness, but he would have him to apply the argument to son transported, he believed, to greater severity than the mere sentence of transportation, it was therefore an aggravation of the punishment, and consequently required to be expunged. Lord Erskine said, that on turning to the acts of past times, at the sugges tion of the noble and learned lord, he could not help comparing the state of things at present with that which existed in the reign of George the 1st, when the Riot act was passed. That act was the offspring of disturbed times, and the object of it was not to prevent the abuse of a right, but to put down tumultuous meetings. His lordship then quoted the authority of lord chief justice Eyre, who had stated, that all men might and must reason on the constitution, particularly of their own government; from whence it seemed to follow, that human laws ought not to interfere with a view to prevent the declarations of such opinions in assemblies of men. The object of parliament ought to be to protect the people, and to conciliate those who were misled; and he agreed with a noble lord in thinking, that it would be difficult to find a jury who would bring in a verdict under the act as it stood at present. sembling of the meeting so dispersed within the space of 48 hours. At the recommendation of lord Liverpool the amendment was postponed until the third reading of the bill, when it might be introduced, if approved of, by way of rider. To the next clause indemnifying justices in cases of killing and maiming, lord Holland contented himself with merely entering his protest against it. In the following clause, declaring that it should not be lawful for persons to attend meetings with arms, he moved that the word "bludgeon" should be omitted. The amendment was negatived. He then objected to the whole of the clause which deemed places for debates and lectures unlawful, unless previously licensed. There was nothing, he said, in the preamble of the bill, which de-authorized the introduction of this clause ; but he supposed the admiration in which the noble earl held the act of 1796, induced him to bring it forward on the present occasion. The clause was ultimately agreed to. The amendment was then negatived without a division, and the clause agreed to in its original shape. To the next clause, which declared the punishment of persons obstructing justice, Lord Ellenborough wished the word "obstruct" to be more particularly fined; he should think that it would have been better to have specified a certain time, such as ten minutes during which the obstruction should continue, and the number of persons so obstructing should be declared to be three or four, either more or less. At present it was entirely left to the magistrate to put what construction he pleased upon it. He considered it also a very great hardship, that by the misbehaviour of a few, the subject should be deprived of that right of petitioning which he would otherwise have enjoyed. With the view of correcting this omission he should move the introduction of a clause to the effect of making it lawful for those justices of the peace who dispersed the meeting to authorize the re-assembling of that meeting within the space of forty-eight hours. The Earl of Liverpool observed, that the clause which the noble lord had objected to was the same verbatim as that which was introduced into the bill of 1796. He believed there was scarcely a word in the clause which was not already the common law of the land. As the law now stood, a magistrate had the power of taking into custody any person uttering words tending to degrade the government, and to disperse the meeting. Lord Erskine denied that a magistrate, by the common law, was enabled to disperse the meeting, by the act of one man, who might be a spy employed for the oc casion. The clause was then agreed to, and lord Ellenborough proposed his new clause, authorizing magistrates to give their consent, in writing, for the re-as The Marquis of Lansdowne in that clause of the bill excepting lectures delivered at the universities, &c., from the operation of the bill, wished to introduce an amendment. There were four principal institutions in the metropolis at which lectures were delivered occasionally-the London, the Royal, the Surrey, and the Russel institutions: the two former of these establishments were excepted, and he should propose to include the two latter in the exception. The Earl of Liverpool replied, that the objection he had to the proposition was single, but as he conceived decisive. The saving clause extended only to chartered institutions: and if the line were once broken through, there would be much difficulty in knowing where to stop. He reminded the noble marquis, that the institutions not excepted were only required to obtain a licence, which might be done at the small expense of one shilling. Lord Holland denied that the payment of the shilling was the only inconvenience attendant upon the exclusion. The debates and lectures thus licensed would be constantly subject to the visits of the magistrates, who might make what remarks they pleased, however unpleasant; and who, without notice, might withdraw the licence at pleasure. The amendment was negatived, and the clause agreed to. On the clause for the recovery of penalties, to apply to particular districts, nothing was more certain than that those persons who made a trade of diffusing their prejudicial opinions would proceed to all places not included in the present measure. He conceived the bill as a favour to Ireland; inasmuch as it would prevent her from being visited by itinerant orators. There were old evils existing in Ireland which should not be increased by the danger of new evils, and it should not be forgotten that the leaders of the radicals in this country were in communication with the leaders of Ireland. He saw no inconvenience whatever in extending the bill to Ireland, but, on the contrary, as a measure of prevention, it was better to comprise Ireland within its operation now, than to wait perhaps until it became absolutely necessary, and then legislate in haste upon the subject. The Earl of Blesington said, he should divide the House on the question of the measures being extended to Ireland. No information was laid before the Committee as to the state of that country, and the very terms of the preamble of the bill (stating that it was intended to prevent seditious meetings), evidently showed that it was not originally intended to have embraced Ireland within its operation. There was a peculiar division of counties in Ireland, not noticed in the bill, namely, baronies; and if Ireland was to be visited with the severities of such a measure, some attention should have been bestowed on its adaptation to that country. A degree of party spirit existed in Ireland, which could not be very easily put down, do what they would; but still the military power was very seldom called in to quell any partial disturbances it might occasion, while the present bill held out every en couragement for the military being more frequently employed. That of itself would make the bill objectionable to him; but it was rendered much more so, when he considered that the very objects against which it was directed, did not at all exist in that part of the empire. Many as were the grievances of the people, severe as were the hardships they endured, they had no tumultuous meetings, and they bore their privations without numerous assemblies to petition for their redress. It was urged that the bill did not mainly affect the Irish people, for they could meet in private rooms. But what private room could hold an aggregate meeting of the Roman Catholics? There was no ground before the committee to inflict such a measure upon Ireland. The Earl of Darnley said, the communications alluded to by the noble earl, had been wholly unattended to in Ireland. The condition of that country was now extremely peaceable; and he thought she was entitled to an exemption from the operations of this bill, as an act of grace for her loyalty and tranquillity. The effect of such an exemption would be sensibly appreciated by that generous people. The Earl of Blessington said, that the emissaries from Hunt and others sent to Ireland had totally failed in the object of their mission. When he considered how long Ireland had been neglected, misgoverned and ill-treated in almost every respect, he thought it too much to have her now told, because she was peaceable, because she was steady in her loyalty, that her only repayment would be a bill of pains and penalties. The Earl of Liverpool said, the noble earl was mistaken if he thought Ireland was not originally intended to have been The Earl of Donoughmore said, it included in the bill. Although it origi- would have been somewhat satisfactory to nated in the other House he could state the committee if the noble earl opposite, that fact upon his own knowledge. He in stating the communications made by understood it would not very materially the leaders here to the leaders in Ireland, affect that country; it would not go to al-had also added what he must have known ter any of the people's habits or feelings as to public meetings; for they were not in the practice of so holding them as the people of England had long been. The measure would go to the prevention of evil, and applied as forcibly to Ireland as to any of those counties in England which were not infected by the present contagion. The nature of the evils proposed to be remedied was, that they were very likely to spread, and if the bill were only (VOL. XLI.) Was to be the fact, that they proved totally country; but did the noble earl then say,that the contagion which they were to remedy, should also be guarded against in England, and that she should share in their inflictions? No; he did not then say, how easily the evils that existed in Ireland might travel to this country. Ireland then was to meet her own punishment for her own sins; but now that she sinned not, now even that her patience and her loyalty were so highly and so deservedly panegyrised, she was to be told, you must share in the punishment of crimes of which it is admitted you had not been guilty." There were, no doubt, meetings in this country which every man could not approve; but in Ireland there were no meetings of a seditious, much less of a treasonable character. There were agitators in this country who made foolish speeches, to meetings more or less of a tumultuary character; but he be lieved their tendency to have been very much exaggerated. As far as dangers really existed, he had no objection to the enactment of sufficient measures to meet and to repress them, but he would proceed no farther; and if the committee stopped there, all would be right. The Earl of Blesington said, he was about to ask a question which might appear of little consequence; but as the people of Ireland generally went to all public places, with a shillelah in their hands, he begged to ask the learned lord opposite if a shillelah was to be considered as a weapon. The Lord Chancellor could not answer the question of the noble earl, but should rather apply to him for information on that subject. The division was not pressed, and the clause was then agreed to. The Earl of Lau. derdale objected to the wording of the clause as to the limitation of the period of the bill, and moved, that it continue until the 1st of March, 1825, which was negatived without a division. The report of the committee was brought up, and agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, December 20. PETITION OF THE BOOKSELLERS AGAINST THE NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.] Mr. J. Smith presented a petition from a great number of the booksellers and publishers of London, on the subject of the new duties proposed to be raised on works of a particular size and description, to which he begged to call the particular attention of the House.The petitioners stated, that they were in the constant habit of reprinting and publishing certain standard works in numbers, some of them only containing a sheet and a half, and having a most extensive circulation throughout the country, which, they feared, would from their size come under the operation of the bill before the House, if it was carried in its present form. He apprehended it was not the intention of ministers to pass any measure which would injure this trade; for he maintained that there was no trade in the country which contributed more to the improvement of the religious and moral habits and charac. ter of the people than this. They published works upon agriculture, commerce, history, divinity, astronomy, &c. in a cheaper manner, by which means these works came into the hands of those who would not be able to procure them, if printed together in large volumes; for it was a common practice for three or four in a family to join in subscribing for them in those small and cheap numbers. This was in itself a most important and valuable circumstance for the great body of the people, whose means did not allow them to buy such works altogether. But there was another circumstance to which he wished to call the attention of gentlemen opposite as he was sure it would be grati, fying to them. It was this-that they published no work which had not a moral or religious tendency. No plan, he conceived, could be devised, better calculated to instil moral and industrious principles into the minds of the middle and lower classes, than this, of giving them the opportunity of purchasing such works on their own terms. They published no works of political matters, nor on the pas sing occurrences of the day; and they required fromthose who circulated their works that they should not sell political tracts or pamphlets, which bond they most rigidly enforced. The petitioners further stated, and he could prove it at the bar if necessary, that there was not less than 1,000,000l. of capital employed in this manner, which would in a great degree be rendered useless if the present bill passed. He contended, that if the House consented to let the bill pass in its present form, it would destroy the little reading in the country, inasmuch as it would cut off so fertile a source of the means of carrying it on; |