Star. — London, England, 1817-03-11 00:00:00

P tilt%) to advance such a loan to Or? )etnnient as was necessary to enable it t termer ts. Doing this, he had first con was his duty to his country. Though, it, his conduct was regulated by views of !vs. jet in every thing that related to po- Care was to Mout tin bow his country etetitsy any transaction in which he was _. In the present Case he was sn o t there ~d been a British object in view, and the interest of e station h td peen Indeed to, he believed, more than cuurnon in such pursuits. Though not in that t .lause, ;n other pl•ees, many attacks had been made to o rs conduct. Thcise, he believed, arose out of v iew m•sapprehension, as the share he had had in the :lair in questinn was very incensiderable. This would g uilv be believed when he stated the operation, so far as any one in this country was concerned, to be corn tlett•ly closed. Supposing that nu British object h a d Dcr i r eiew,andeonsideringthe transaction to have iv'. , :iy of a commercial character, he would still eertz.n.!, that r.o injury could I,e sustained by this coun try. A Noble Person wh was in the habit of giving u s e pe).:c instruction every sew months an pamphlets w:.ich he sent forth to the world, had nt.ticed this transaction, in doing which he had taken soma libcr. ties with his ( Mr. Baring's) name : but the princi ples he had advanced wet,: in themselves so absurd that he did not think it necessary to answer them. The sum of his arguments was this, that no mer chant was justified in sending money out of the coun try. i t t hi s were admitted to be true, what, in many hut Well could the merchant do? And what danger srgi ta be apprehended, be might ask, from the coo duct thus condemned ? When the merchant sent inlay out of the country, it must always be with the certainty, with the Ilppe at least, that it would return and bring more with it. Till no he (Mr. biting) had never heard that the merchant had not a right t , send foreign money out of the country.— The argument, hewever, which had been used spina him was this—that as mechanics were prohi bited by law from sending their tools out of the cowry, so the merchant whb carried on his business IT means of money, had no right to send foreign ca pital abroad. This was really so ridiculous that he was ashamed to trouble the Committee with any fur ther explanation on the subject. He would only say, ao harm could result from the transaction to this caentry. Had it beep otherwise, he would have had astbmg to do with it. In what had taken place, to promote British interests had been always his object. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sod, it was perfectly true, that the expenses of out army in France, as they exceeded those of the Con tinental armies, were partly met nut of the indemnity paid to the Allies by France. He was happy to say, the ailuwances and contributions paid in the first two years of peace, would not only cover the expenses tit out ainy in France, but make good the sum it was thought right to advance. He begged to bear witness to the upright conduct of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Baring) in the transaction to whieli he had found it necessary to advert. He had stated his intentions to Ministers in the most honourable and candid manner, offering at the same time to Tell& quish all concern in the business, it the operation was objected to by them. They had not thought it their duty to start any objection ; they had not seen that any injury could be expected to resolt from it, but el the contra, y, as it went to enable France to fulfil I:cr engagements with the'Ailies, they held it bad a tendency to promote the general good. Sir C. MONCK expressed satisfaction at bearing the whole expense of our army was borne by France, Lut at the same time considered its being stational. e7tre an injury to England, as the Officers with it racially drew their wealth out of this country to s;1-nd it there. After a few words from Mr. CALORAFT and the Cfmcsumn of the ExcatEQueu, the Resolution for Valuing £/,000.000 to be distributed to the English and Prussian armies, .was agreed to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then proposed that a sum of 412,152,000 be granted to discharge outstanding Exchequer Bills as yeton provided h,r. - Mr. PONSONBY wished to know what the Right Honourable Gentleman would consider the Boating debt of the country to be after thepresent vote ? The CHANCELLOR the EXCHEQUER statel that its amount would remain as at now atood, between forty and fifty millions. Mr. PONSONBY contended, that the total of the unfunded Debt of the United Kingdom, even after the present vote, would amount to 51 millions. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that it might amount to a little more than fifty tnilions, but that it nad not incurred any depreciation, :.)d that by the reduction of interest on the Exchequer kil;s, the Government had effected a saving of o: , .;itli3O(X) in the course of the year. - Mr. BARING inquired whether any step had been 1.,11 p:td to place the Irish currency on the same Max i:l4 4 the Engli , h the CHA‘ACELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stid, that a measure was in preparation to effect that ovct. Alre PONSONBY asserted, that as far as taxation sent, it WAS already accomplished, for that all the Irish taxes were paid in English money. The Resolution was then agteed to, as well as the fohowing_ For other Exchequer Bias ....CI 010.900 For the [merest on Exchequer Bills-- .. 1,500,001 And for Amanties en the Loya:ty L0an..... 31,029 The House resumed, and the Report was ordered VI be received io-morrow. SEDITIOUS ASSEMBLIES. On the Order of the Day for the further conside- TajOII of the Report of the Seditious Assemblies Bill, The SOLICI'FOR•GENERAL moved, that the 4 ePOlt be re-committed, which was agreed to, and trte House resolved into a Committee. Several verbal Amendments were proposed, and reed to without discussion. On the dense inflicting the punishment of destb on persons as do not disperse within one hoar after Doing ordered so to do by a Magistrate,. Mr. GURNEY rose, an 4 objected to the infliction so great a p ena l t y as de a th. He considered the. t:'ase much too severe, and thought that it was on lz•tt account calculated to excite much disttilifie .—n• He recommended the - Substitutioo of some `zher punisiimt • 4 . 1 . 10 ii.N E 1-GENEKAL wished P 3 retninsel t t em s of the Uject ut 'he Dill, and more pant • . cUl:trly the clause in iteestion. That object was 10 prevent the meeting Of tumultuous assembliei, surf to diiperse them if they should have met. The Honourable Gentleman who spoke last was afraid that the clause. uas of a nature to excite discontent against the Legislature; but there had been a long :f xperience of a law of a similar description, and that exper;ence had demonstrated that no such effect was to be apprehended. The clans,: would operate as a preventive, and it theretnre was not likely that the actual infliction of the punishment it enacted would ever take place. There hid been no instance of any punishment under the act similar to the present Bill, which passed at a former crisis, nor under the Riot Act. The appr.hension of punishment had prevented the offence; but how could it be expected that Sedi tious Meetings could be dispersed, if, after an hour's notice given by a Magistrate, it should still he vie , cessary to enter int ) pat lance with the inultitu.le ? ft was necessary to have a definite penalty specified, in order that the parties might know what would he the conseqn.nice of their continuing kept tog..th:r ; and the. severity of the punishment wuuli be a secatity against the violation of the law. Sir JAMES MrsClUNTosli considered the ar gumeut of the Learned Gentlemin as one of a very singular kind. He had insisted on the necessity of punishing persons t,ffeeding against the law, as if his Hon. Friend, who had opposed the clause, had main. tained that there should be no punishment. The question was, whether the punishment of death was the proper punishment for the offence ? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated, that there had been no instance of punishment under the similar I clauses in the Riot Act, and the Act of 1795, which, he believed, was the fact ; but if there had been no cases of punishment, the reason to he inferred was • that there had been no occurrence of the' offence. .The multiplication of unnecessary statutes, and the enacting of penalties too severe in proportion to the offence, only tended to we..ken and degrade the au thority of the law. The order of the Magistrate to disperse, it was supposed, might be disobeyed. That disobedience would either bring the parties of le.ding Zvithin - the Riot Act. or it would not. If it brought them within it, then this clause was useless t for what necessity could there be for loading the statute bank with sanguinary enactments t If it did not bring the parties within the Riot Act, then this Bill went farther than that Act, by punishing a less ,offence with equal severity. He would now ask the Committee whether they were prepared to enact a law more severe than the most sanguinary of the crimi nal code of this or of any other country, namely, the Riot Act ?—a law which nothing could excuse but the peculiarly difficult circumstances of the period in which it was passed. He must again ask, of what use the clause could be if it enacted nothing mote than was already enacted by the Riot Acil and unless he received a satisfactory answer, would propose to ' leave out the words —" inflicting death without Be neht of Clergy," in order to substitute the punish ' meet of transportation for seven years. The. SOLICITOR-GENERAL saw no reason for the Amendment suggested by the Honourable Gentleman. Many laws were enacted ;newly with a view to the prevention of climes, and it was there fore very inconsistent to contend that such laws were useless because no punishments had been inflicted under them. That circumstance rather proved that they had answered the purpose fur which they were enacted. On this principle it might be said, that the .Riot Act was ntintoamary ; fur he did gat my& lest otie instance of this trial of any persons for not dispersing ;Tour after proclamation under the Riot Act had been made ; and yet no statute had been of greater advantage to the country than that b i Act. The Honourable Baronet had observed, that! the clause either came within the Riot Act, or did more than that Act. It certainly did do more thau the 1 Riot Act in • the way 'of preventing disorder. Ac cording to the Riot Act, persons must not only be assembled, but must be assembled riotously and tu multuously. The object of the present Bill was to prevent assembling at all, except under the sanction of lawful functionaries, as he might call the Magis trews, who were to superintend such meetings; and the clause in question gives to Magistrates authority to disperse meetings so assembled, though there *say be no actual riot or tumult. As the object of the Bill is to prevent riot, it must be regarded as wise and proper to put the offence contemplated in the clause on the same footing as resistance to a procla. mation under the Riot Act. The House too, would bear in mind that this Bill was nut proposed to be permanent, like the Riot Act, but to be passed to remedy a temporary evil—(Hear, hear, hear).—. The offence was not one for which any reasonable excuse could be offered. It was not one committed on a sudden impulse of passion or inadvertently. The penalty did not attach, unless the persons assembled should continue together one !lour after proclamation made by a Magistrate for their dispersion. New, un less assembled for some other purpose than passing resolutions, or agreeing to Petitions, it was not pro bable that any individuals would resist the order to disperse. This was the effect he anticipated, and consequently that the punishment enacted never would be inflicted. -He was far from wishing for sangui nary laws, but he was convinced that the effect of the present Act would be greatly weakened were any al teration to be =Adele the ciartse.under consideration. Many persons, hr was persuaded, would risk the staying together, if the punishment were only want portaticio, who would not venture to resist the lair if they knew that such resistance made them liable to siffer death. Mr BAR.CLAY•wished to know whether it was ', meant to. assert, that when proclamation bad been made under the. Lot Act, it had always happened that the persons assembled dispersed in due time, and returned to their homes ? For bit part-be believed the contrary was very frequently the case. There having been no punishment under the law, was no proof the offence had not occurrod..lo his opinion; the severity of the punishment had prevented prosecutions. Mr. W. SMITH had been of opinion, that the Ho- , noorable and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor Ge. neral) was one of the List men in the country whin would lend his .upport to the enactment of sangui nary laws ; and gave him full credit for the huma nity of hi. intention in that respect. He believed, however, that on the present occasion the Honourable and I d earned Gentleman had suffered his understand ing to be misled. Did he consider where his argu ment would stop t if doilibtratiost wets to be the _.• - . . criterion for iiitte:rng the petrel( y pi opLsed in the pie. sent case, what other clime deliberately Committed ought not to be punished with death? The Leaesied Gentleman was of opinion, that if the Atneudintert which had been suggested were adopted, the persons improperly assembled would persist in staying Loge. ther ; but he, on the contrary, thought their obe dience would be better secured by their conviction that punishment would follow their offence : fur, as had been well observed by the Honetireble Gentlem in who spoke list, the pun i shment of death, enacted by the riot act, appeared so severe ir. comparison with the crime, teat the le w had I..itier been enforced. Hed torture remained the law of this country, every ar gument w:iich had been used by the Learned G:•n tlemen in support of this clause would apply wilt equal force in favour of that horrible practice._. s's pose a number of persons assembled together, deliberating without any disorder, should, on re ceiving notice from a Magistrate to disperse, vent.ire to coetitiue their deliberation, or to debate whether they (night in tartly to disperse, and it sh )01,1 happen that they remained together some moments linger than the limited hour, every man so assembled vouk!, in treat case, be liable to the punishment of death. This was a case which might happen. There was a great distinction with respect to the Riot Adct. —ln the case of Proclamation miler it, there was an actissi breach of the peace ; arid if resistance took pi tee, immesh ate blood4hed would follow ; but this was not the case under the present Bill. He did not state this with a view of defending the Riot Act, but to shew the difference between the two measure.. He hoped his Honourable Friend would move the amendment he had suggested. Sir JOHN COX I - lIPPISLEY saii, it was now a century since the Riot Act had passed, and it had proved of the greatest advantage to the State. He had recently had personal experience of its utility. In the course of last week he had felt it to be his duty to read the Riot Act to an assembly, which, though not actually riotous and tumultuous at the time, had riotous objects in view. Had the Act been less - penal, he was convinced he should not have had sufficient influence to cause the dispersion of that assembly. He was perfectly confident, that it was only by his stating to the people the high penalties to which they would expose themselves if they continued together, that he prevailed on them to separate. If the punishment under the Riot Act had been traits, portation, he certainly should not have succeeded.— With regard to the Jitftrence between the present measure and the Riat Act, the important difference with regard to the number allowed to continue toge ther had not been noticed. Under the Riot Act the number was twelve, but by the Bill now under con sideration it was fifty. He would vote for the higher penalty, as he coPeidered it necessary for the peace of the country. Mr. WYNN contended, that on every analogy to the laws of England, and to general justice, the leo malty for not dispersing ought to be the hi t ;ileLt In flicted by the law ; for the offence was actual rebel. lion. He declared lie would vote for the clause as it stood, bring convinced that the punishment was not disproportionate to the crime. , Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH agreed with his Honourable Friend, that such a punishment could only be justified on the ground of it 4 being ..pplied to rebellion ; but he contended that the idietice was not one of that description. When the pnas.hroetst of death was inflicted under the. Riot Act, it was far actual violence and resistance; but here it was pro. posed to enact the same punishment for the mere bon• compliance with the order of a magistrate. A cen tury ago, it had been thought fit to punish resiitince . to a magistrate with death; but he called upon any Honourable Gentleman to shew an instance in which the law of England had made non-compliance with the order of a magistrate au offence punishable with ieatli. He now moved that the words " shall suffer death as is case of felony, without benefit of clergy," should be left out, and the words, ~ shall suffer trims portetion for the term of seven years," inserted. Lord CASTLE RE AG fil row° oppose the amend. meat; Many Gentlemen bad appeared disposed to seize upon the present opportunity to discuss the ab. strati question of crimes and punishments, but into that branch of the subject he should not enter. With regard to the Riot Act, to which Honourable Gentle men had so strongly objected, he was of opinion with his Honourable' Friend near him, that there was not on the Statute Book a law which had been more ad vantageous to the country. The question was not, whether the principle of the Riot Act was applied to this Bk 11? but whether the measure WAS necessary ?.._ There was this difference between the two laws, that the Riot Act was applicable to tumult which heti commenced, or was intended; whereas the present bill was ietended, not merely to stop the incipient but apprehended riot. The Honourable Batenet (.•iir J. C. Hippisley,) bad *fated to the House, that he had dispersed persons because * knew they had as sembled tor, riotous purpose. The operation of the Riot Act was not, therefore, merely confined to ac ttiel riot. He would contend, that whenever resis. lance ,should be made to the order of a Magistrate under this Act, there would be such an oppositiou to the law as constituted rebellion ; and he would ask, whether it was more prudent, by mitigating the pe• natty, to invite the people to - meke resistance, or to arias the Magistrates with that precautionary autho rity which would enable them to preserve the peace? If the two laws, the Riot Act and the present Bill. were allowed to go into concurrent operation with different penalties, the result of that operation would be the greatest inconsistencies. Suppose in the same field oue Magistrate should order the peo,de to dis perse, under pain of transportation, and in another part of the same field the Riot Act should be read, it would be impossible for the persons assembled to know to which penalty they were exposing them selves. He could conceive nothing worse than to leave any doubt on this subject, and therefore thought that the House ought to be guided by the principle ! of the Riot Act. He was confident that the amend- I ment would not be adopted unless it were determined i that there should be a complete doubt raised as ti the situation in which persons assembled in opposition to the Act should stand. •Mr. JOHN SMITH did not rectllect the riots in 1 178 u, but had heard much of the burning of houses, ' mad the other mischiefs they occasioned. He telt in- t dined to think, that the punishment of transportation had observed, in cases where the punishment of death' WAS CA44lllitted to deter rioters from offences. lie • • • •• ft " • • W4c enacte of an o_Lltem calbpintive.y L.p_t, it bcession••J dilictilties its the w.ty punishing ;so offender. Ha khew of nu such cap;t3l sentence havicg. in ruck cases : been citr;esi execution ; be vi.t,:tl:ercloge ititn:fly to the oh/re:ions vulie clause. Sir R. WILLIAM said a few words in support of the clause. TIeAT'i'ORNEV-GENERAL said he wouLl trespass oaly fora few moments. He t:,:iti g ht the arguments for t h e o bj ect i on vague . H:s armed Fl lead had spoken of tarn: non-obedience to t4.1111w; but what was the diAitiction to be drawn beFt+V nure oheillencc to tl ie l aw , an d a resista,.ce to ;V? It was to be particulariy,c , .roids•red how ti.e dause applied to meetings cri ti itl.il y assen•bled illegally. acid not c flied by the notk au.t signames of 'even fontseitoldurs. Magistrates were as hosiced to Jiiparse an trapraper meeting ; but was the meeting to be allowed to.dount and debate on tie legal power of the blagiwacy. to oppose the Legislature, and to remain in deli4eration as to what they thought St its do ? He had a high 11p:oion of his Learned Fr;endss legal knowledge ; but he thought there would be great (aver is people were t o entert a in doubts rar... spectineo law. Mr. W. SMlni thought transportation still:lent. Mr. WYNN regretted that riots were not sooner stopped, but it was the Rio: Act that enabled the mi litary to enter and iniertete. It a meeting were ille4 gal in its origin, the non-compliance of the people with the Magistrate's re:pie.t and orders JS a V/O. lition of the laws. To remain together when ordered legally to disperse WAS resistance and rebeliien against the law. Se' jeant BEST observed, that, according to the Riot Act, a riotous disposition should :appear to the Magistracy ; but if the mob did not disperse within the prescribed time, punishment might foilow. That had lasted since George 1. about a century. Why should the cimtre for capital puniam nt be deemed unnecessary when it was enacted, not only by that Act, but by a subsequent one ? It had i.een found, by experience, that dangerous crimes were prevented by holding out the threats of the severest puti;sliment; Mr. SMITH thought the term of transimrtation was not light When two sorts of punrslimelit were proposed, both of them apparently effectual for the object, he should prefer the le tst severe 6ne. The Gallery was cleared, and a division took place on Sir J. Mackintosh's amendment—Noes 7i)_Ayes t.'6—Majority against it 44.--0 a the re.opening of the G4lterr, Sir J. MACKIN rosu was speaking on other parts of the Bill, and particularly as to a clause re specting the notices of meetings by five or -seven ine, elividual housekeepers. To various parts . of the Bill, . concerning the power of Magistrates, he did nut ject ; especially when persons were attempting to ex cite resistance or' disaffection to his Maksty, of his Aiijetty's Government, strictly speaking. Ail such Or t on', and all writings of that :name, he considered inexcusable; because they tended most dangerously to transfer the constitutioual responsibility ut the Mi nisters to the Sovereign himself. He with all eatirieat writers on the liberty of the press, that pt.:- vide security should be attended to, without- which s.a.iety would scarcely be toltrab:e. He had a strong objection to one clause which spoke of hatred to the Government, and not simply id the King's Gm•arts -meat, and the constitution of the realm. The an, thors of the Bill surely could net mean to app:y the weed ‘. CrAternment" in a seine in which it sathr be contused with the Administration of the slay, the li betty of canvassing whose conduct was the s icred bit th-r ight of the people. The word" Government" in the way it was inserted in the Act, he considered either mischievous or useless. Was it to be distin guished Irons the words a Constitution," or " GU. ferment by KiNg, L.rds , and Cogunions," which last mode of expression he valued deeply ? The word " Constitution" was supicient. In the present Ste. sion many petitions had been received ag.iitist the acts both of the Ministers and of that How there appeared nu studied insult in them. 11 therefore, to let the clause have a full art I. to leave the Magistrates an imploper discrete therefore moved, that the word " goose or used, And the word a Gov e rnm e n t " omit' • The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected as Government ws a word constantly used indictments for sedition and treason, and insist and one which every lawyer n 11 understood, iirg o therefore, as a lawyer, he would say, should prefer the word Government" to it 1 , Constitution." His Learned Ft iend did in lice to Ministry when be supposeJ that tbei not to COiiilLbe Government with Administc ‘ 0 Government" was clear legal language. Mr. WYNN observed, that by Governs must be undei:anod the Gi,irei 'intent by and Commons, as lb established by law. be advisable that a Magistrate should reser omit) , a r,•gular legal notice of a meeting I was held, af,ich would prevent wank impair? add, it the Magistrates acted wrongly, the) lib apprehended, be li , llle to an►wer lox st. del Omit of King's Ben.:11, Sir IA MES MACK INTOSH said, he un( sutliciently the legal meaning of the word mcnt," as applied to cases of treason and n but It more con.ideration, as ap t merely seditious .words. To avoid errors, it la, to speak of the Constitution of Government, King's Obit; rnmnit. Mr. W. SMITH made two objections clause :—First, he thought it improper to large a discretion in cote Magistrate alone s at coadly, he conceived tha;., from the latitoch --- pres,ton adopted in this cl.tuse, a Alagistratt think himself Authorised to disperse a Mectini discussiot.s were perfectly constitutiodal. illustrate his Incafling by rtferring to a Repo) in another place : that Report spoke of some called Union Clubs, and described theps as ing t►,e object of Parliamentary Refotm; but chow. words, understanding, Universal Sulfriq Parliaments—prokcts wjtieb evident valve, not any qualified or partial change, but subversion or die Constitution." Nf (Mt. W. Smith) had no hesitation in saying, t tooked upon all such schemes as wild and .in j cable; and even if they "'ere practicable, he consider them as itijutici.,us alterations, and twin : but at the scue tiro: Le. did not hold bliULd tD tow to thy ;;;Jst who slid . t-1f,..5. and P ! rah Ge•ti . Nifil its e gal .;feted w at I t a s a merchant general int ere , . pies kis Ora I r /mad be Ares ~ teraaTJ• I • s k...... • RI piust the use, when le wished, t, but nit -twit. lie istitution," itted. ed to this, e4l iu all - .urrection, d. Speak- that he the word ohly jus- ley meant .tratiun.— riiment, it 'Ards, It would c: ire end g before is ruprieties: ey would, before the • auderbtood '• Go►ern- rebellion ; rpplied to W 46 better , or di the is to Ole ) lodge so and, er- ode cf ex- am miett ng wttoee rie wou!J lon made e Societies "Pestles:- et, seder 'sage, and Wally lb- ,ut a total Now be ;, that hie .niprac ti- tre abould nd no re- d hint.clt said that