He

the amendment of the noble earl.
found now that meetings were to be pro-
hibited, not merely when called by dema-
gogues, or by the lower classes, but when
called by persons of property. They
were told, however, that the people might
meet in smaller divisions, but even in
those cases the magistrates, by frittering
away the time, might render the privilege
in many cases nugatory. This opinion
had actuated him in voting on the last
night for making the duration of the bill
as short as possible, and the rather, be-
cause he felt that he could not vote for
limiting the bill in point of space. He
should most willingly support the amend-
ment, but would suggest that the number
of freeholders should be greater than
twenty.

Earl Compton said, he would willingly alter the number to thirty.

might be got in any county, who would call a meeting for improper purposes. What reason was there for confining all the virtues of the community to freeholders of 100%. a-year? Why not extend them to freeholders of forty shillings ayear? Were they not as loyal as those of 100l. a year? He thought the proposed amendments were extremely absurd, and calculated to destroy the object of the bill.

Mr. Brogden reminded the committee that the amendment of the noble earl was not under their consideration.

Lord Althorp said, that the amendment of the noble lord, and that of his hon. and learned friend, were the same in principle. His only object in rising was, to state that the qualification proposed by his noble friend, to entitle 20 or 30 freeholders to call a meeting, was precisely the same as that which qualified an individual to become a justice of the peace. The only difference was, that the noble secretary of state made 5 freeholders of 100l. a year each, sufficient to watch over the safety of the public peace, while his noble friend proposed that that number should be extended to 20. He did not conceive that there was any danger in this regulation, and therefore he should vote for the amendment.

The Lord Advocate said, that if the amendment of the noble lord were adopted with respect to England, he should have no objection to its adoption towards Scotland. But he apprehended that, with respect to Scotland, it was not at all necessary. The persons authorized to call meetings in Scotland were, in the first place, the sheriffs or the stewartry. It was very true that the sheriff was appointed by the Crown, but he was not removable The Attorney General appealed to the by the Crown; and he believed he might experience of the committee, whether the with perfect confidence state, that there mere fact of holding a freehold of 100%. was no instance in which this officer had a year was considered a sufficient qualifi ever sacrificed his duties from any influ- cation for appointing a magistrate. It ence used on the part of the Crown. was true, that a qualification of that na The conveners of the county were ap- ture was considered necessary; but there pointed for the express purpose of con- were other qualities still more important vening public meetings; and he believed that it was requisite he should possess. there was no occasion on which a convener The principle of the present bill was to had been called upon, in which he had re- prevent those meetings which were so fused to call a meeting. He thought frequently called without legal authority. those persons fully adequate to all the It had often been doubted whether a purposes of assembling the people in sheriff had, in point of fact, the power to Scotland. He might add, that from the call the county together. This doubt nature of the commission of the peace in the present bill would set at rest. Scotland, all persons qualified for becom should be recollected too, that the grand ing commissioners of supply were injuries of counties, to whom a power was cluded, whether they were in favour of also given to call meetings, were almost government or not. all magistrates. [Cries of "No!"]. During his experience on the circuit which he had been in the habit of going, this had been the case; and in addition to this, the same power was given to the lord-lieutenant, and custos rotulorum; so that no restrictions could exist which were not in all respects necessary to suppress meetings, which no man who had looked to the state of the country for some time

Mr. Mansfield considered that if this amendment were adopted, the bill might as well not be passed at all. This bill was intended to protect the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of the country, and if the restrictions proposed were agreed to, it would prove fatal to those who wanted to put down sedition and rebellion. He believed twenty freeholders

It

past could deny were highly dangerous to the public peace. He denied that the sheriff was an officer of the Crown; it was true that he was appointed by the Crown, but then the names of three persons were sent by the county as fit persons to hold the office, and the Crown only selected one of them. In his opinion, however, no sheriff who valued his own character, would merely from political differences refuse to call a meeting of the county. With respect to the amendment, he conceived that it struck directly at the principle of the bill, and if it were adopted, the House might as well not pass the measure at all. It could not be denied that in such a county as York or Lancaster, twenty freeholders qualified in the way which had been stated, might be found capable of giving their sanction to proceedings directly at variance with the good order and peace of society.

to be done in the other, there would clearly be no difference between them. The attorney-general had said, that the clause as it now stood was consistent with the other parts of the bill, which required the sanction of some legal authority to a meeting; but this he denied altogether, for there was, in fact, nothing in the principle of the bill that said the constituted authorities must be present. It appeared to him, that the proposition of the noble lord coincided perfectly with the other provisions; and the argument of his learned friend was clearly unfounded, because, of all the authorities mentioned, the sheriff was the only one that could be considered legal; and the lord-lieutenant, if he attended at all, must do so in the character of a military officer. As to the argument of another hon. member, that this provision was intended to support the right of the people to meet, he could not see on what view it was founded, unless taking away the rights of the people was synonymous with supporting them.

Mr. Kennedy thought, that even if the amendment proposed with respect to England were rejected, yet that the amendment respecting Scotland ought to Lord Binning, in reply to the argument be adopted. In Scotland, the people would of the hon. and learned gentleman, said, labour under greater disadvantages than he would mention, with submission to the those in England; while in justice both learned gentleman, that there was a difcountries should be placed on the same ference between the principle of the footing. In the first place, Scotland had amendment proposed respecting county no such person as a custos rotulorum. In meetings, and that which in the bill was the next place, the lord-lieutenant was a applied to parish meetings; and that difmilitary officer, and therefore one upon ference consisted in the notice of meeting whom the people could not rely for afford- which was required in the latter case. ing them the means of political discussion. His hon. friend had said, that in Scotland Then the sheriff was an officer appointed there was no custos rotulorum; but it by the Crown, and held a judicial situa- should be considered that in that country tion, with which it would be extremely the lord lieutenant had, in some degree, improper to mix up political animosities. the appointment of the magistracy. It would be highly injudicious to impose The next security provided in the bill upon that officer a duty which was calcu- was the sheriff of the county. lated to diminish the universal respect in hon. and learned gentleman, however, which he was held. As to the convener had described the sheriffs of Scotland of the county, it was true that that indi- as persons who looked to the Crown for vidual was liable to be removed from his preferment, and therefore not likely to act office, if he did not act according to the in opposition to the wishes of ministers. pleasure of those who appointed him; He doubted whether this was generally but he was one of the people themselves, the case; but at all events, admitting it to and had only the power of calling toge-be in some instances true, it did not unither the commissioners of supply. It was customary, indeed, for that officer to summon meetings of the county; but he had no right to do so.

Mr. Denman supported the amendment of the noble lord. This provision, if inserted in the bill, would be expressly the same in principle as the clause relating to parish meetings; for, supposing notice to be given in the one case, as was required ။

An

versally apply to the sheriffs of Scotland.
The matter, however, did not rest with
the sheriff; for the convener also might
call a meeting, and though the convener
was entitled only to assemble the com-
missioners of supply, still it was known
that county meetings were generally
called together by that officer.
saying that magistrates would not be
found who would call a meeting contrary

As to

Mr. Bathurst said, the hon. baronet did

to the will of the minister, it could not not seem to know that if the person ap¬

denied, whatever gentlemen, might say for the sake of argument, that there were pointed to the office of sheriff made an as many magistrates attached to opposi-excuse, the Crown had no power to aption principles as there were to ministerial. point another, except from the list of Lord Ebrington observed, that it had those nominated. It was evident, therebeen asked whether in such counties as fore, that if Mr. Calcraft refused this York and Lancaster, the requisition of office, the person who did accept it could twenty freeholders of 1001. a year each not have been appointed by the Crown, could be called a sufficient security: in except according to the regular forms. reply he would state, from his knowledge of the fact, that there was no class of his majesty's subjects better disposed towards the constitution than that description of persons-the independent yeomanry. If the object of the noble lord was to put down dangerous meetings only, the proposition of his noble friend, if adopted, would have that effect; but if the original clause were carried, it would take away the right of meeting altogether. He should therefore give his hearty support to the amendment.

Lord Castlereagh said, that no meet ings were touched by this provision, but those that were held out of doors; and, therefore, the question was narrowed to this—whether the House would have the security of the magistrates for the safety of such meetings, or throw them open to the will of evil-disposed persons."

Mr. Boswell suggested, that by omit ting that part of the 25th clause which preceded the words "within that part of the united kingdom called Scotland," the power of calling a meeting would be reserved to the same magistrates in Scotland as in England,

Sir Robert Heron wished to set the Attorney-General right in what he had said respecting the sheriffs. He himself knew an instance in which a sheriff had been hired by the Crown after the per son appointed to the office had refused to accept it. [Cries of name, name.] He should not name the gentleman who accepted the office, because he did not wish to hold him up to public view; but the person who refused it was Mr. Cal craft, of Lincoln,

Lord Strathaven begged leave to inform the hon, baronet, that Mr. Calcraft did serve the office of sheriff.

Sir R. Heron said, that was perfectly true, but it did not in the slightest degree contradict what he had asserted. Mr. Calcraft, did serve the office of sheriff for the county of Lincoln last year, but the proposition to which he had alluded had been made to him several years ago.

Mr. R. Martin declared, that if the amendment was passed, he would immediately apply for leave to return to Ireland. He thought it very likely that, twenty persons of the description proposed by the noble earl might be disposed to call a meeting for a very improper purpose. He would appeal to the committee, whether the sense of a county might not be better taken in small sections than by assembling large meetings. He protested against such meetings as the noble earl proposed to call by his twenty freeholders, at which no person would be able to make himself heard by his lungs, or in any other manner than by banners and flags [A laugh.]

Sir C. Monck said, that if the object of the noble earl was only to regulate these meetings, and not to prevent them altogether, he ought to state what would be a proper amount of the tenures of freeholders to constitute a sufficient security for the proper conduct of a meeting. If this were specified, the requisitionists, might send the requisite security to the lord-lieutenant, and the latter ought then to be bound to call a meeting. If this was not to be the case, parliament was taking away the right of meeting.

Earl, Compton suggested, that if twenty freeholders did not afford a sufficient, security, the number might be increased to thirty, in those counties which were supposed to be in a disturbed state, such as York and Lancaster.

Lord Castlereagh said, that if he under stood the noble lord, he had now three distinct propositions before the committee. Finding that the first was not tenable, the noble lord had told them to throw the bill over the table, and thus send his hon. friend off to Ireland. The noble lord had said, that it should be compulsory on the sheriff to call a meeting; that because the people were not pleased to meet in parishes, and because twenty persons could be found in the county who wished to call a meeting, the magistrates should charge themselves with the public peace