The Sun.
London, England, 1819-12-18 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 17.

AItNIS SEIVTRE BILL.
This Bill was returned from the Commons (pre-
sented by Mr. BROGDEN) with several amend-
ments, which they requested their Lordships'
concurrence.
A private Bill was also presented by the same
Gentleman.
The Irish Election Law Amendment Bill was
brought up by Mr. WYNNE, anti read the first
time.

Lord ERSKINE presented a Petition from the
Borough of Southwark, against the restrictive
measures now pending.
Viscount SIDMOUTEI • moved, that the: Amend-
ments made by the Commons in the Arms Seizure
Bill, be now taken into consideration.
The 4axi Qf DARNLEY objected to an immediate
consideration of the amendments made to a mea-
sure of so much importance. Time should be al-
lowed for that purpose; and in that view he
should move that the amendments be printed.
He felt, however, the strongest objections to the
measure itself, as allowing the Magistrates an
arbitrary power of search, even in the night time.
Indeed, he so deemed of the measure, that he felt
it his duty to oppose it in every stage, and filially,
to protest against it.
Viscount SIDMOUTH adverted to the thorough
discussion the Bill had already received, and the
extensive approbation it met with from their
Lordships. He trusted, that when the nature of
the case. was dnly.considered, their. Lordships
would see the propriety lit not delaying their de-
cision upon the amendments offered by the Corn-
mons.—l'be amendments were then regularly
stated by ;he Noble Secretary of State, who press-
ed an immediate decision upon them.
Earl Gaosvalloa thought the objection urged
by his Noble Friend (Lord D.), well worthy
the attention of the House; for his part, he
conceived the measure to be a most objectionable

one.

Viscount SIDMouTH shortly .explained, and
pointed out the regular course of proceeding, if
the Noble Lords were determined to oppose the
amendments.
The Eirl of LAUDERDALE seemed of opinion
, that the amendments required a deliberate consi-
deration; so short an interval was not sufficient
for the purpose.
The Earl of DARNLEY having moved, that the
Amendments be printed, the same. was negatived
wilhout a division ; as was a motion from the
same side of the House, that the said Amend-
ments be taken into consideration on that day
six months.
The question was then put respectively on the
Amendments, which were all agreed to by their
Lordships. ,

SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.
Viscount SIDMOUTH, on the Order of the Day
being read, rose to state generally the nature of
the measure then before their Lordships, and the
grounds on which it was proposed for their con-
currence. All those salutary measures (observed
the Noble Viscount) which that House had al-
ready adopted would be of little avail unless fol-
lowed up by that now under consideration, which
was most essential towards averting those dangers
with which the country was menaced. He felt it
unnecessary to take up their Lordships' time,
now, with a detail of those eircumstaiices which
rendered the measure necessary. Its object ‘% as
to secure the couivry front the dangers which
grew out of the abuse of privileges justly dear to
Englishmen, and eventually to support and uphold
the inestimable Constitution of the Country.--
Those dangers were clearly, as may be seen, set
forth in the preamble of the Bill. They were, be.
sides, in a great degree of public notoriety ; one
consideration, then, remained, whether the exist-
ing law was in itself sufficient, and whether these
new provisions to be made by the Bill were fit to
be adopted, in order to supply the deficiency ? In
the existing laws there was no provision against
the dangers of simultaneous meetings. There was
Ito power in the existing law, in case seditious or
inflammatory language was held, to enable the
Magistrates effectually to interfere, or to provide
that none but the inhabitants should attend local
meetings, with a view to prevent the inflamma-
tory haranguing of itinerant orators, and who at-
tracted great numbers of a dangerous description
of people. No provisions of this kind were to be
found in the existing law, and all those were now
but too. well known to he necessary. The Bill
required that six days notice should be given, it,
order to legalize these public meetings ; at the
saute time all the rights of the subject, with re-
ference to every good and salutary purpose, were
carefully. attended to, Such %vas the effect of the
Bill sent up from the other House of Parliament.
The measure, which proceeded somewhat upon a
similar principle, and which passed in 1796, it was
found necessary to renew three several times; the
immediate cause of that measure was a dangerous
meeting held in the neighbourhood of London,
and which led to the atrocious outrage which hail
been committed towards the sacred person of his
Majesty. If such a measure was then deetned ne-
cessary, how much more so it had now become
may be collected from a view of the present state
of the country. With respect to the duration of
the Bill, the term of five years was provided, anti
he trusted the salutariness of its operation would
evince the propriety of its longer continuance,
thereby securing the country against a recurrence
of tile danger. The whole measure proceeded on
the principle of affording safety w the Throne,.
and security to the Laws and Established consti-