out of the bill; but, as it had seemed good to a large majority to retain them, be should vote for the bill, rather than allow so necessary a measure, as it was to be lost altogether. Mr. Dickinson said, that no man was more anxious than he was to justify the right of the people of England to have arms; but, in the present state of the public mind, he thought it expedient to place this right under some restriction. Lord James Stuart could have wished the government to have come forward with some more conciliatory measure. He would have agreed to the bill now before the House if the clause, allowing the search by night, had undergone the amendment which an hon. friend of his had proposed. The bill in its present form contained something so hostile to the spirit of the constitution, that he could not possibly support it. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the forms of the House to know how to proceed, in order to throw it out; but he trusted, that some gentleman of greater parliamentary experience than he possessed, would take the proper course to effect that object. Mr. Tierney said, that he should move to leave out the words " by night," if for no other reason at least for this-to give an hon. baronet on the other side (sir J. Yorke) the opportunity of voting twice in 29 years against the government [A laugh]. The Speaker then put the question, that this bill be now read a third time, which was agreed to without a division. on the motion that the bill do now pass, Mr. Tierney moved to leave out the words "by night," on which the House divided For the motion, 46; Against it, 158: Majority, 112. The bill was then passed. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, December 17. SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.] Lord Sidmouth rose to move that the bill for more effectually preventing seditious meetings and assemblies be referred to the consideration of a committee. After all that had passed in the course of the session, he was unwilling to suppose that there could be any opposition to the present measure. He could indeed with confidence say, that notwithstanding all the measures which had already been adopted, their lordships would very imperfectly perform their duty, unless they added to them the present, which was calculated to avert one of the greatest dangers to which this country was exposed. Considering, however, the discussions which the measures proposed by his majesty's government had already undergone, and considering the manner in which the public attention had been called to them, he should feel himself warranted in taking up but a small portion of their lordships time in explaining the details of this bill. The principle of the measure was founded upon the preservation of one of the most important rights of the people-a right which he hoped would ever be maintained and to secure its exercise in a manner consistent with the free constitution of this country. He could not better describe the evil which it was the object of the bill to prevent, than by referring to the words of its preamble, which stated, that "in divers parts of this kingdom assemblies of large numbers of persons collected from various parishes and districts, under the pretext of deliberating upon public grievances, and of agreeing on petitions, complaints, remonstrances, declarations, resolutions, or addresses, upon the subject thereof, have of late been held, in disturbance of the public peace, to the great terror and danger of his majesty's loyal and peaceable subjects and in a manner manifestly, tending to produce confusion and calamities in the nation." It was matter of (4K) of the magistrate, under certain limitations, to alter the day and place of the meeting. It prohibited the holding of meetings by adjournment. But what was most important was, that this bill, in reserving to the subject all his rights, the better secured them. It established by law, what had hitherto been only matter of practice. It sanctioned the free assembling of the people to petition the throne or either House of Parliament, and to discuss any public grievance of which they might have to complain, it guarded, however, against simultaneous meetings, and other abuses of that important right. In all these guards the existing law was deficient, and the deficiencies were supplied by the present bill. He therefore could not but persuade himself that while their lordships would admit the existing law to be inadequate, to meet the present danger, and to require amendment, they would think the provisions in the bill contained satisfactory remedies for the evil which was to be corrected. There were two points with regard to which objections had been urged against the present measure. Upon these he should not say much. The first regarded its locality; whether the bill should be general or li perfect notoriety, not only that meetings of such a description had been held, but that for the last few months scarcely a week, or even a day had passed without some of these meetings being assembled. Supposing therefore that their lordships should approve of the principle of the bill, which proceeded on the admission of the danger described in the preamble, their next consideration would be, whether the existing law were sufficient to prevent it. He had a right to take it for granted that their lordships would admit the principle. Assuming, therefore, the danger, they would have to inquire what regulations were necessary, and whether the provisions of this bill were capable of answering the end proposed. Those who had inquired into the state of the existing laws on this subject were satisfied that there were many dangerous features in the meetings referred to, for which no remedy could at present be found. The existing law did not prescribe any mode of giving notice or superintendence by magistrates. It in no way regulated the manner of attending meetings; it did not prohibit going to meetings in military array, or carrying to them weapons; it did not prevent simultaneous meetings, nor the continuance of meeetings by adjournmited. On this subject he should only rement; it did not prevent assembling with mind their lordships of the bill brought flags and banners: if seditious or treason- into parliament for regulating meetable language were spoken, it did not, ings in 1796. The introduction of that besides empowering a magistrate to order bill followed the meetings at Copenhagenthe person offending into custody, also house, which were supposed to have a enable him, in the case of resistance, to connexion with the atrocious attack made declare the meeting illegal; it did not on his majesty at the opening of that sesprovide against a great abuse, the evil ef- sion. But if a general measure were fects of which had been extensively expe- thought necessary to meet the evil in rienced, namely, that when the inhabi- 1796, how much more requisite must it tants of a particular town or district, were now be to bring in such a bill as the summoned to a meeting, so many stran- present, when their lordships recollectgers attended, that the majority of the ed the state of the country, and all that meeting did not consist of such inhabi- had within these few months occurred; Neither did it provide against the when they knew that meetings, against most pernicious practice of itinerant ora- which it was then thought necessary to tors attending public meetings, and col-guard, now took place, week after week, lecting vast multitudes to hear their ha- and day after day, in different parts rangues. Now their lordships would of the country. Whether the bill ought find, that all these great evils for which to be permanent, or of shorter duration the existing law had no remedy, were than that to which it was now limited, provided against by this bill. It required was the other point. As it at present that six days notice of the intention stood, it was limited to five years. He of holding any meeting should be given should think that he acted disingenuousto a magistrate, and that that notice ly with their lordships, if he did not should be signed by at least seven house- state that he thought the measure ought holders. It forbade all military array to continue beyond that period; and he bearing of arms, and the display of must express his hope, that the time banners and flags. It put in the power would never arrive when the legislature, tants. let the government be in whose hands it might, would permit the country to be without the means of guarding against danger which this bill afforded. In the mean time, he was persuaded that their lordships would allow the bill to go into the committee, in which all its details would come under their consideration. In stating the great difficulties and dangers against which their lordships had to provide, he never was one of those who despaired of the country; but feeling, as he did, great anxiety for the public safety, his mind was much relieved by perceiving, that their lordships, and the other House of parliament, had proceeded to investigate the evil, and to apply remedies with an energy suited to the occasion. Their lordships, he was confident, would not temporize, but would meet the crisis with the firmness and energy which the times required; for, by so acting, the country would overcome all its difficulties. He would not detain their lordships longer than to move that the bill be now committed. The Earl of Carnarvon, in rising to address their lordships on the motion, observed, that from the hurried manner in which the measure had arrived at this stage, little time had been allowed him to decide in what way he should proceed. He considered the bill so objectionable in all its parts, that if he consented to its going into a committee, that consent would arise from the necessity in which he was placed by the previous proceedings of their lordships. He could not, however, allow the measure to be any thing else than an evil which ought not to be acceded to, unless farther limited. It was only upon that condition that ministers ought, if the state of the country required it, to have the advantage of such enactments. He was aware he could not apply the principles of the old law of the country to every new emergency. Although he was cautious of every proposition which might appear to modify that law, he could not deny that, within the century which followed the revolution of 1688, when the principles of the constitution were settled, the situation of the country had undergcne considerable change, and that not a little difference had taken place in the state of society. He felt himself, therefore, bound to admit, that some difference might be necessary in the details of the laws, in order to make them answer the great purposes for which the revolution was accomplished; but when he came to this admission, it did not follow that he should agree to severe and restrictive measures without proof of their necessity. If he admitted the principle at all, he could not but the more strongly feel the necessity of great deliberation in carrying it into practice. In the present case their lordships would do well to recollect, that they were called upon to sanction the measure without having had sufficient time afforded them for its consideration; and that this call upon them was accompanied by the expression of a hope, that the time would never come when the law should be repealed. If the danger to be provided against arose from delusion, the cause of that delusion ought to be the first object of their lordships' attention. Under these circumstances, although he did not mean to oppose the bill's going into the committee, because he was ready to allow that some measure might be necessary, it was his intention to move, that it be an instruction to the committee to restrict the duration of the bill to the 1st of July, 1822. To that period he would consent, though it was his wish, if he could carry it into effect, to render the time of its duration as short as possible; but considering the state in which the country was represented to be, he was willing that one session more should pass away before the law expired. When he looked at the bill, he could not agree with the noble secretary of state in wishing it permanent. It appeared to him, that it could only be endured as a particular remedy to meet a temporary evil. Viewing it in quite a contrary light from the noble viscount, he sincerely hoped that, when it expired, such enactments would never again become the law of the land. By this bill their lordships were told, that no county meeting could be called except by the lord-lieutenant, the sheriff, &c. or by five or more magistrates. Cities and large towns could have no meetings except in parishes, unless under the authority of the mayor. Indeed, with regard to large towns, it appeared to him very doubtful, whether, in any one consisting of more than one parish, a general meeting of the inhabitants could be assembled. In a large town like Manchester he was not sure that, under this bill, any meeting, having for its object the general interests of the place, could be called. It was not to be presumed that every meeting in that either by a lord-lieutenant or by a sheriff, for any object not agreeable to ministers. What remedy did the power given to five magistrates afford? As the magistrates were at present constituted, he was ready to admit that it was difficult to suppose that in any, except perhaps some small counties, five justices of the peace could not be found willing to put their signatures to a requisition for any purpose for which a county meeting ought fairly to be called; but when the law in which this power was given was to last for five years, and when their lordships were told that it ought to be made permanent, it would be well for them to consider, not only what the magistrates, to whom the people must at last have resource for the exercise of a constitutional right, were, but what they might become. Their lordships, doubtless, knew that the whole of the magistrates were nominated by the lord chancellor, on the recommendation, but not exclusively so, of the lord-lieutenant of the county. What a lord-lieutenant was, their lordships very well knew; what a chancellor might be, they had yet to learn. If the noble lord who now held the seals were always to make these appointments, he should fear no partiality. But it was not by the lord chancellor of the present day their lordships were to judge. They had to look not at the individual, but at the office. If this measure were to be made a part of the permanent law of the land, their lordships must look to this consideration, that at some period or other it might very probably be wished to call county meetings to arraign the conduct of the ministers of the crown, and that the lord chancellor, who had the appointment of magistrates, was one of those very ministers of the crown of whose conduct it was sought to complain. It might therefore happen that hereafter the magistracy would not be selected in the manner they had hitherto been. This view of the subject afforded strong reasons against the adoption of a measure which might have a tendency to alter the character of the magistracy. Their lordships all knew the laudable manner in which the unpaid magistracy discharged their important duties. The institution was one peculiar to this country; for in no other state of Europe could the materials for composing it be found. Consisting, as it did, of gentlemen of property and character, the country were indebted to it for the transaction of great part of its judicial busi town must necessarily be a political one. It might be desirable to call one with reference to local interest and trade. The inconvenience thus created by the bill would alone be a strong objection against it. When he observed that by the clause, no meeting could be held in any county, stewartry, or place, except by the authority he had already mentioned, he could not but strongly feel the difficulty that was thrown in the way of county meetings, that ancient and constitutional mode of assembling. It was said, however, that if the lord-lieutenant and the sheriff refused to call a county meeting, five magistrates were empowered to call it. When the jurisdiction given by the bill was conferred in this manner, it was necessary for their lordships to look at the magistrates who were to possess it. He had already expressed his doubts, whether in a town which had more than one parish, any ge. neral meeting could be held; and their lordships would do well to consider, whether such partial restrictions might not tend to create the disaffection it was wished to repress. He would not discuss whether parish meetings would be advantageous for political purposes or not. They might be beneficial, or not; but that could only be seen by the result. This, at least, appeared-that the division into small portions was likely to give less weight and energy to public meetings. Their lordships, in viewing this question, should consider whether it was not possible that a time might come when it might be necessary for meetings to be called to defend their own privileges, and whether they might not then have reason to regret the having done something which deprived these assemblies of all consideration and importance. To return to County meetings-with respect to them, all their respectability was destroyed. In the first place, the lord-lieutenant was an officer of the crown, and their lordships had been recently shown, that if ministers were not satisfied with a lord-lieutenant, he was to be immediately dismissed. If he simply differed from ministers on a constitutional question, he was no longer to hold his office. So much for the situation of one of the persons authorized to call a county meeting. The next officer was the sheriff, and with regard to his appointment, considerable influence was always understood to be exercised. It was probable, therefore, that few instances would occur of county meetings called ness, and of much of its public business, gistrate, perhaps incapable of drawing a and that too in a manner the most satisfair inference from what he had heard? factory, and the most beneficial to the He would suppose that such a sovereign public interests. It was, therefore, of the as James 2nd now occupied the throne, greatest importance to keep this most re- and that a meeting was called under his spectable body of men as much as possible sanction for the purpose of passing resoout of the vortex of the influence of the lutions to overturn the Protestant religion, crown, and to prevent their conduct from which, he believed, if that sovereign had being liable to the operation of party feel- continued to preside over these realms, ing, which might injure their character in he would have attempted; would not the the eyes of the population of the coun- people, in such a case, be justified in retry. As it was a most important duty sistance? In such a case, would any of of magistrates to avoid carrying their their lordships say, that the people had political feelings with them to the bench, been guilty of treason? And yet, such he objected to the power given to a was the nature of the power which this single justice of the peace to put an end act vested in the magistracy, that any to meetings. This might be done too hot-headed individual of that class might, by under-sheriffs, who were very often upon a supposition that he had heard merely attornies, and sometimes ready to alterations proposed otherwise than with become the tools of power. He objected the consent of King, Lords, and Comalso to the clause making persons liable mons, take the supposed offender into to fine and imprisonment who might custody. The clause, however, did not from mere curiosity go to a public meet- stop there; it proceeded in this strain :ing in a place of which they were not" or if any person shall wilfully and adinhabitants. But what would the House say to another clause which had been introduced into this bill-a clause which he thought demanded their serious attention? This clause provided, that if any one magistrate present at a public meeting, should hear any speech made at such meeting which should appear to him" to propound or maintain any proposition for altering any thing by law established, otherwise than by the authority of the King, Lords, and Commons, in parliament assembled," he should have the power of committing the person who delivered such speech to prison; that was to say, that a single individual, upon his own authority, and unsupported by any other magistrate, perhaps acting from ignorance, perhaps from malevolence, should have the power of taking into custody any individual, however great his talents, however high his rank, or however distinguished in virtue, whom he might suppose had said something at variance with the principles laid down by this act. He would ask, could any thing be more preposterous or less consistent with those rules of action by which society had hitherto been governed? Would not, under such a provision, many of the noble lords whom he then saw around him be liable for the expression of sentiments which had hitherto been permitted without an observation, to be ignominiously seized and thrown into a dungeon; and this too at the discretion of a single ma visedly make any proposition, or hold any discourse, for the purpose of inciting and stirring up the people to hatred or contempt of the person of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of this realm as by law established, he shall be taken into custody, and dealt with according to law.” So that any thing which a man said, even to bringing into contempt the government of the country, was to render him equally liable to incarceration; and this too upon the judgment of one individual, who would be thus entitled to draw a conclusion as to what was, and what was not a libel, although that House, after repeated discussions upon the same subject, had been unable to come to any practical definition of it. He could only say, that if this law were to pass, it would not be safe for any individual, however elevated in station, or independent in principle, to trust himself at a public meeting. He was willing to admit, that the exercise of some coercion was necessary, and with that feeling he should not object to the bill going into the committee; but he should make a motion, that the committee should be instructed to limit its duration. He thought that he had a right, from what had been proved by the returns on the table, to assume that a great part of the mischiefs which had been described were attributable to the supineness of the government during the year 1818; and he also thought, that if the present distresses |