Star. — London, England, 1819-12-21 00:00:00

. . . „ _. • .. , • - ~ . -----' !, • „ ;. . 4 ll4 - 100,1"••% • ' • .5 C . '414 1 * eif ' 413 V 4. . hO r. / NI L 4 4. fM* ' ' . .,V Al. 7 . • ‘ • 0 . , ' ) ",............ . -'ltok.:l4V it 4i.iw 1 s , i ' : 1 -_-: 1 '''... "-t . ' .1 . ..* , i ISO . '' ' '.' . i il -', t;tr . •'.l . 6 , F i : : p.. ..;4 0 4 `0r e.e...e...._....." ) ... t 'F*ll, , -, - • • • ? , . , I 10. • TUESDAY, DECEMBEOL.IBI9. ' n frr l .. , P , r• hEvRN- Pr Nc • . ALTY OFFICE, December ia, laic sy given, that a Session of Oyer lid Gaol Delivery, for the Trial of Of e High Seas, wit►in the Jurisdiction of ind, will be held at Justice Hall, in the Friday, the Seth day of January next, Mom*. A W. CROZER. . . PARLIAMENTARY P.ROCEEDINGSk HOUSE OF LORDS, DECEMBER 20. " Mr. Stuart, from the House of - Commas; brought ul the Bill for repealing certain parts of an Att, passed during the last Session, respecting the employment of Children in Cotton Ma nufactories. On the mation for referring it to a Committee, Earl GROSVENOR rase, and expressed his wish that not only the particular chutes specified in the Bill were repealed, ' , but also the whole of the obnoxious measure with which they had originated. Nathing could be more dangerous. in a com mercial country, than any interference with the principles of free trade; and the measure alluded to was most objectionable on that account. It was true, however, that the Abolition of the Slava Trade did not interfere with t he principles of foie la bour, but there was uo analogy whatever between the cases. The Bishop of CHESTER said, he intended to submit a pro position fo their Lordships, the object of which was to enable children to appear with more regularity at their respective pinces.of devotion on the. Sabbath ; but would not press it, if be saw that it was likely to be opposed. At present, children left off working so late on the Saturday night, that they could nol on the following day evince that respect which it demanded ; though' it was true that several of the Mater Manufacturers Illeweel them to depart at a canvellent time. He hoped that at a June. tare when their Lordships wore passing Bills against blasphemy and sedition, which were urgently called for, that the proposim don which he contemplated would not be objected to, but if it were, he should not urgedt, as he felt satisfied in having dim dwrged his duty, and should say, " Exoneravi animam memo." The Earl LA CDERDA LE wi4sed that the third reading W the DIU should be. deferred, to afford time to several persons AI, wane Maned to petition against it. allisaiewsversatloa then took place between Land HOLLAIIIN t ir akelt Lavozanate.,•alsti Earl Goosysnos; after which,' fps went into a Committee on the Bill, and it was reported without amendment. SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. Their Lordships having gone into a Committee oss this Bill, Lord ELLEN BOROUGH objected to the chit* for attending Meetings held contrary to the Act, as no penalty could be inflicted by it till • a quarter of an hour after notice had been issued, while kti the termediate time the parties might continue to offend'. The LORD CHANCELLOR iv ;mated, that every such offence was indictable at common law. Lord HOLLAND thought it 'was needless to make the penalty more severe than it was already against strangers, who, whether from curiosity', or any other motive, might be present at Public Meetings. The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, that in towns, this clause gave power only to Mayors to . eall Meet inr though in some Corporations there were other The Mailuis - of LANSDOWN said l it' Vhia serious consideration, as it regarded the anitlikr", of the laws, as to whether a man who was worth £5O a yearonight, as this. Bill proposed, be allowed to at tend a County Meeting; while the forty-shilling . free holder found himself excluded ? Yet, in his opinion, the petson of small property had as much right to have his interests attended to at a Public Meeting, as his more wealthy fellow-subject ; and it was clear that his exclusion was in direct opposition to that fundamental ' principle, which allowed him to vote for Members to serve in Parliament. The Noble Marquis moved, as an Amendment, that the words " fifty pounds" be left out, for the. purpose of insert ing " forty-shillings." The Earl of LIVERPOOL °prised the Amend ment, and observed, though it Might not be expedi. to set about correcti;g z e i finciple, which was an evil in itself, still that i ing a nav•e . measnre, it was rieceisafy to avoid it. .402 The 11/hrquis of LANSDOWN contended, that the rich and poor resident, and the rich and poor not resident, had, by this measure, their interests entirely dissociated. It was clear that the clause created no new right, while it took away an old and important one. It drew a most invidious line of distinction be tween liersons of large and small property, and he should, therefore, oppose it to the last. Lord HARROWBY made a few observations in favour of the. clause. ' Lord HOLLAND supported the Amendment, and maintained, that the efftct of the Bill would be not Only to prevent Comity Meetin;s from being held, but Meetings of any description. This Bill evi dently interfered with the subject's right to Petition. All the evils now complained of were said to have arisen from the French Revolution, yet the remedies by which they were to be removed, were exactly those which occasioned the French Revolution. NO principle could be more dangerous than that which tended to separate the poor from the rich. As io the clause before the House, it was, in its nature, so very bad, that he knew not' how it could be improved by any Amendment ; and he thought it ought not to be urged, unlenit was-determined entirely to trample down the laws of the country, a proceeding, however, which wouldnot be unattended with danger to the Government—(//ear, hear). The Earl of HAI tROWBY could not agree with , T-INDL4 HOUSE, Octokr 27, ism r DIRECTORS ?f the UNITED lERCHAN TS .f ENGLAND, trodin. - ; do hereby sere Notice, neral Court of the said Company will be Leaticnhall-street, en WEDNESDAY, , at Ficven o'rlcwk in the Forenoon, for g a Dividend from Midsummer best to JOSEPH DART, Seemhwy. f.V.1)1.1 HOUSE, October 2's, 1819. IDIRECTOIZSIT the UNITED lERCHANTS ENOLSVP anilines I) hereby girt Notice, oaks of the said Compsey's Stork will be the 24 December sem, at Three o'Clock, UESDAY, the 18th Jamaary, 18W. nti Warrants on the said teak, date on the 11 be ready to be deihrered on THURS. tame Month. JOSSPM DAR aa.•y. I I .INDId HOUSE, Nernst Eer 10, 1819. V DIRECTORS of the UNITED MERCHANTS of ENGLAND, trailing 4 do hereby give Notice, ERLY GENERAL COURT of the said to be held at their House. in LesdenbaH DAY, the 22d December next, is made sose of laying before the Proprietors, for tesolution of the Court of Directors of this GPIORMS HILARO BARLOW, Bart. G.C.B. s r Annum, on the grounds'therein stated. rtl by the \Eye-Laws; Cap. 6, Sec. 19, to intents upon which the said Resolution has n for the inspection of the Proprietors at . JOSEPH DART, Brinslery. gs, per a sons, !NI by the existing law, had that power. He therefore wished to propose as an Amendment to this clause, that no Meeting should be convened es.- cept by the Mayor, "or persons authorized." • The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought the amend n entunnecessary, as the operation of the Act was not to extend to Meetings held in buildings, and as provisions were made for Parish Meetings. The clause was agreed to- The Earl of LAUDERDALE -reposed shit the words," usually resident be omitted in the clause, stating the right of persons to attend Meetings in consequence of residence. He had not, he said, ever learned from any law book what the difference isiti between inhabitant and resident, nor did he believt that there was any legal definition on the subject. • The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that many pars , sons were inhabitants who.were not residents. Lord HOLLAND objected to the clause, as it went to prevent persons from attending Meetings in • particularly die Noble Lord, that this Ylill had any tendency to interfere with the right of Petition, which was recog nized to all classes. • Lord ERSKINE said, that no answer had been gives to his .objettion - regarding leaseholders, nor had it been pointed out how he, as a leaseholder for 1,000 years, in a palish where he did not reside, could sittend a meeting, of that parish, however his Own intsrists, as eornseeted with his perty, might tenocentever e4en,yr ineettng to 'mak a - piper 1 The LORD CHANCELLOR said ; if the Noble and Learned Lord would only give notice in what eironi he intended to smoke his pipe, he would, * doutie, be attended by a full meeting of the parish Lord ERSKINE said, he did not allude to that; but to meetings in the open air;' and it was surely case of unprecedented hardship that persona should be prevented from meeting to discuss even the most ordinary matter; of business, or that persons whose interests might be deeply affected, should be pre _ _ • description. T-INDI.I HOUSE, November 44, 1819. eDIRECTORS Vas UNITED MERCIIA TS of ENGLAND grading do booby give Noike, 'ERLY GENERAL COURT of the said to be held at their Souse, in Lt IDAY, the :led December next, Leaden purpose of submitting, foe atatirmation, e General Court of the 291 September solution of the Court of Directors of the ng to Mr. LAW Witeutsox, under the cir. acrd, the sum of seventy-five thousand Seca rreut Rupee, with letwen thereat, at Six 1, from the tub October r 4 816, to the day be made. -- ed by the Bye-Laws, Cap. 6, Sec. 20, to ments upon which the said Resolution has m for the inspection of the Proprietors at JOSEPH DART, Secretary. inburgh. Monthly Review, we have cle on Whiggism and Radicalism, thus :-- 3yalty and irreligion rolling rapidly award, a vast portion of the labouring population, mitive simplicity and integrity • character, women from the accustomed modesty and stir life, to the corruption of political ani egratiation of an infamous publicity, from nest of them would once have shrunk with he first fruits of Radical Reform, and of the s Revolutions. Whether the arms of the law igh to put down this hydra, or whether we defended by temporary despotism Cress the we know not ? but if we ate to be ruled , Got: avert, we shall yet have a preference we shall vote for a tyranny of men of honour, to of vagabonds, and prefer a Castlereagh to ruing more than Toryism ; but we can lers that there are much deep re id argument in this review of Lord ie Radical Reformers. —Among the company present on ig, we noticed the following : r knesses the Duke and Duchess; of Rent and ake of Bedford, Marquis and Marchioness of ess Cowper, Lord Melbourne, Sir W. Elliot, Earl of Yarmouth, Hon. Mr. Villiers, Lord Vincheitea, and Miss Finch, Lord Lowther, E TVEATRE.--Mrs. Wm()); re af I , ogene last night in a still more ,1,71 o er first appearance. The an to have received the most favourable er talents—she was much applauded. ►T TATTERSALL'S YESTERDAY. • svioiviii.—Sit to one on the Field. ri bUY &MIST. 'ierse's gr. e. 17 to 1 apt Briseise. ( ) taken'. rn . 20 to 1 agst Cat (taken -r to 151urber 2Q to 1 apt Kestrel (taktl). 22 to 1 Ago Norab. 1 17 to 1 apt Whalebone HUNTING: gent's Brag-Hounds meet on Friday, at Long- Esse% Fos-Hounds meet on Thursday, at Mi r. at Alark'r-hall ; Monday, 27th, at St. Ann'sl ighs ; Wednesday, 29th, at the Black Boy, kisday, 30th, at the Griffin, Danbury.--Mr. s meet on Thursday, at the Ilalfmcron, God . Jolliffe's Hounds meet on Friday, at Chip ke Pitchley Hounds meet to-morrow, at Blue at Hodford.—The Oakley Hounds meet on infield Green ; Friday, at Ravensden Grange. el meet to-morrow, at Melbourne Guide Post; eta ; Friday, at Burry. places where their interests might be , IT vented from a meeting of that . concerned, though they did not happen to reside The question was put on the Earl of LADDER - there. It had, besides, the injurious effect of sep- DALE'S Amendment, which was negatived without a rating the mutual interests of the different classes division ; as was also the Marquis of LANSDOWN'S from each other, by excluding from Parish Meetings -Amendment. The clause was then agreed to. all the respectable part of the community. PENALTY ON CONVICTION. The Earl GROSVENOR observed, that if this Lord ERSKINE expressed kis abhorrence of tf. clause passed, it would be necessary to appoint an clause which subjected persons convicted under the inspector effaces in every district, in order to aster- Act to the penalty of transportation for seven years. tam those who had a right to attend Meetings. I t was an i nsu l t on soc i e ty to place men on a level' The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his surprise with felons, who might have perhaps inadvertently i that the Noble Earl, who bad such an aversion to transgressed, by subjecting themselves to the provi sinetures, should desire the creation of a new sinecure. sions of this Bill. He should not, perhaps, object tot Lord ERSKINE opposed the clause in decided the clause, had it been confined to itinerant demo terms. He should suppose a man were ne i th er a gogues, who went about inciting the people to mis freeholder. a copyholder, nor a householder, but still, chief; but it was barbarous in the extreme when er as was the case with himself; possessed property un-. tended to others. Any offence against the Actmight der a lease, in a certain parish, yet was it just to ex- be punished as a misdemeanour, and he should there chide such a man from attending a Meeting in that f ore m ove th at the word " felony" be left out. parish, where his interest was manifestly concerned? The Earl of LIVERPOOL begged to recal the The Noble and Learned Lord commented on the attention of the Noble Lord to measures of much severity of the clause, as it must operate against greater severity than the present, which were passed Meetings held for the purposes of trade , and con - in a former period of our history, when the princi tended that its necessity was precluded by the other pi es o f liberty were supposed to be well understood. prohibitory clauses in the Bill. Among these, he might mention the Riot Act, which The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that the 'ob- was passed in the reign of George 11. and which did jection of the Noble and Learned Lord did note;- not, like the Bill now under consideration, subject ply to the clause under consideration, but to two or the party only to be transported for seven years, but t hree others, which were no less essential. The gr eat to lose his life. That Act made it felony without question fdr their Lordships to consider was, whether - benefit of clergy for persons to continue assembled the tumultuous Meetings, with which the country after an hour's notice had been given for them to dis: had been so long agitated, ought to be got rid of or In his opinion, no more lenient measure could not ? If the affirmative were admitted ( and who with safety be devised than the ()resent. could oppose* it ?) then that measure ought to be . Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought that the seve4 adopted, which appeared most effectual ;and such a rity of this Act was not to be justified by that of any one was that which had been framed for t he pur other. For himself, he was decidedly opposed to the pose. The application of this measure to trade was clause, for two reasons ; first, because he was perswaded considerably narrowed by the circumstance that it It it would he for Juries to give verdicts did not, in any respect, interfere with M eetin g! he l d of conviction under it, and that they would be fro. ] in rooms or buildings. With respect to Meetings in quently placed in a most embarrassing predicament, the open air, two limitations obviously su gg est ed between their feelings as men, and thew scruples as themselves, those of number and locality. The first, sworn arbitrators; and, secondly, because if Juries however, was rendered impossible, from the nature should return verdicts of conviction, no Secretary of of the thing itself ; and the second, which was a h- State .would venture to cany them into executiosi, mitation of locality, was, in consequence, indispens- and the law would thus become a nullity. - ~1, ably necessary. But the measure now proposed seas The LORD CHANCELLOR declared hii: . not, by any means, at variance with the-basting law d scientious belief that the clause was one of the upon the subject, which allowed none to attend County Meetings under the Sheriff, except f ree- necessary provision& of the Bill. It behoved him, , from . th b e e si . tuation which belied the honour of fill holders, while, if others were disposed to intrude themselves, he called what was termed a Count log. to Jealous of the rigour of the_hter; Yeesfulterl Court, into which no one was admitted who could net ' y , the most attentive consideration which be eould..bur expa- ' stow upon the subject, he felt.himself called 00440 prove his qualification.that. the clause coald oat with safety, use. - tiated on the merits of thelptiopoiNtmassureßarl then o t. st6' say, as it might" trasted with the existing law, and espoused his opi- auY aroeFlametit. nion that the clause ought to lie adapted. I we:duress of the It= saw— . . - - Meetings was to be ibund in the strength of tbela*: and it hadiseets the policy of latter yearia and it V one upon which they were now legislating, t.) miti gate that strength. The peculiar severity' of the. existing law might be inferred from the circumstance that, the small number of three persons met together in a riotous manner constituted an illegal assembly. He contended, that progression of crime should be visited with increase of punishment, and that they who were guilty of a misdemeanour before the pro& clamation, should be 'visited with some punishment for the new offence of remaining after proclamation' had been made. Their Lordships would observe how severe the Riot Act was in -this respect; it erfabled the Magistrate to inflict a summary punishment on those who persisted in not dispersing-'-one much more severe than that to which they would be sub• jt bY the verdict -of a Juty under this Act. His ordstiip admitted;that if the House came to a mil' %Weil that theie-Meetings were not dangetens, and should not be suppressed, then, indeed, it would be to forego the clause ; but when the necessity of suppressing them was assumed on all bands, hat o.oper was at a loss to know why an opposition should be made to a clause which merely apportioned a punish.; I . ment as the offence increased? This attention to'the 1 r ion of crime, he repeated, had been in our a r 7lUt s i s terto too much overlooked; and there was `some reason in the assertibn, that the strength of the law in some measure constituted its weakness—for ! those in the adrniaistratitin- of the law-were enwil ling to apply it rigidly to cases of no yea t aggrata. tion. It appeared to him, that the clause now tmdet Consideration obviated this Objection, and on these grounds he would vote'that it stand part if the Bali Lord HOLLAND was afraid the Noble and Learn. • led Lord had not well understood the maxim, that the strength of the law formed its weakness, when by this Clause he put Juries in the awkward and dangerous predicament of convicting a'rrian of felony who by accident found himself at a Meeting, and had delayed with some ten or eleven of his friends, talking . perhaps about business, a short time after a certain Proclamation had been made, of which .he knew nothing. With regard to the course of jipti. fication set up -by referring to the Act of tketst of George I. in which the Whigs of that day had so large a share, he could only say, that for the con duct of these-Whigs he did not feel it incumbent on him to account. Ile never praised that Act, he never would defend it. But it- would seetn, that calling this Act one of severity was all a mistake. The Noble and Learned Lord, who had just sat down, had as% gued toshew, that so far from its being an increase of severity in the law, it was actually a mitigation of it, when compared with the . provisions of the Riot Act—(Neer, hear).—Now, he would look at it a little, and see what truth was-in this position. lathe Ont phsee, - theofftince In the Riot Act was-clearly defined, it was necessary That there should be an overt riot, or tumult, in the assembly, before the law could be resorted to. Every one saw the tumult; that which was evidence of its being an unlawful assembly was visible to the eyes of all. Rut by this Clause it was impossible for any one to know when the Meer ing began or ceased to be illegal. A man might be qualified to be there, listening with great attention to hit neighboui, a proclamation is read in a part of the square where he is, hesees no caubeao be alarm ed, all is quiet and yet if in this unconscions4itua. don he is detected with eleven . of his neighbours in half an hoar after, he incurs the penalties of fidony --(Hear, hear). —Would their Lordships sanction such a doctrine as this ; or where wasthe jury that would convict him to circumstanced ? It was true they were bound by their oath to give their verdict ae cardinof to law and evid e nce ; but there was a prin- . ciple justice in human nature,' that even this obli gation was not able to silence—(Hear,- heat).--He advised the Noble and Learned Lord to look back to the practice of past ages, and he would see the force the maxim, that the strength of the law made its weakness. He would see the futility of ill-judged seinnity, which ever defeats its own purpose; and he would - .also see that it was the constant policy of all the great men in our history to endeavour by all means to conciliate the goodwill of the. People by acts of kindness towards them—(Hear, hear).—The Noble Lord recommended the course proposed by the Noble Lord near him, of making the offence .a greater misdemeanour, and punishincit by more fine :and imprisonment, rather than making it a felony, . nishable by transportation--(Hear, hear). —He voted for the Amendment .Lord ERSKINE denied that the Riot Act was a precedent applicable to the present times, as it was . at a time that Government was in an unsettled . ' People did not then meet to discuss this or that .Constitutional principle, but to cornplot against the very existence of the Government. It was not therefore made against Assemblies who debated the abuse of a right, but to prevent rebellious ones. The moderate discussion of political 'subjects by the People, could never be a consideration of danger, he coo tended, to the Government of this country—(Hear). His Lordship then quoted the opinion of.a great man in support of this doctrine, he meant Lard Chief. Jistice Eyre, in his charge to the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey, on the trial of Hardy, Tooke, and the others, in 1794, when he there laid it down, that all men had a right to think, and that the Constitu tion of this country was a legitimate subject of die. cussion—(Hear, hear). —Society itself depended on the unrestrained liberty of opinion, and no)aw could interfere to bridle it. These were bad times when this opinion was given, and if it applied thin, it was still more applicable now. He would wish to call the attention of the Committee to the argument put l by the Noble Lord near hip, that Juries would net be found so convict men under the new law%, who were guilty e( no offence. . Under these circum stances, be wank recootmend Abe adoption of the Asessihaent—(Heer, hear). ' ns The Amendment was then nesOled. : •, Lord ELLENBOROUGH pilot6d an, Amend. INDIA 110 USE, Noorasbee 17, f DIRECTORS e* the UNITED MERCHANTS of ENGLAND, Sanding , do hereby give Notice, lurnaLy GIi.NEELAL COURT ap ris Douse on the Ind of December next, nada agreeably to the notice tabled at the ltel September last, to place in their of the late Right Honourable Vilaseen, Lstimony of approbation of the long, see ►ices rendered to the East-India Corpany !weever JOSEPH DIRT, Scrctary 0 1