The Sun.
London, England, 1819-12-14 00:00:00

ert foundstion whatever for such an accusation.—
le ,hen contended that there was an Act of Henry
• VII. confirming that of Henry IV. and diving to
iNt aeis!rates the same power of dispersing meetings
t tie Riot Act. It was only necessary to look
at the words of the Pt 0(1 an; t ion to ascertain the
tact ; for it is -said, " His Majesty our Lord the
Keig commands you to disperse," &c. This was
not theretore a new principle. The clause had in
tact been en.,eted before, both in 1796 and ISOI.
As to the objection, that the Bill would be
nugatory, it stood refuted, if the object of
the Bill was considered. That object was
to prevent the assembling of fifty or sixty thou-
send persons together, and those displays of pity-
eke! power which were intended to overawe the
State, whilst they were preparing its overthrow.
'flint object would be completely obtained. It
'lves not, as it had been represented, to prevent
itinerant orators from holding forth harangues in
ro-ms or apartments (where if they did, they
might be apprehended) ; but to deprive them of
the power of addressing and inflaming large multi-
tudes, and leading them to acts of violence.—
(Hear, hear !)
Mr. DENMAN repeated his assertion, that
neither the Commission of the Peace, nor the
Statute of Henry VII. gave Magistrates the direct
power of dispersing meetings by force, but only
that of doing it through the medium of the ap-
prehension of individuals.
Lord FoexesTotle recalled the House to the dis-
cussion of the principle of the measure, which had
been lost sight of in the examination of the,
clauses. He contended that its advocates were at
earißnee amongst themselves, for whilst the nee
seid it was in the spirit of the Constitution, aeother
ndmitted that it was a direct hut necessary intree-
tion of it. He then took a view of the measures
adopted by Continental Sovereigns against the
establishment of Representative Governments,
and the liberty of the Press. The whole of the
measures, in fact, would set VC to disarm the people
of the means which they had hitherto possessed of
counteract ine the natural tendency of power to
swell into despotism, and if they were passed, he
should look 'Toe the liberties of the Couutty as
abetistied —(Hear, hear !)
Mr. HONEY wool) allowed that the people were
in certain cases disaUcttd. But they were not
dise&cied to the King nor to the Country, but to
trig ,Majesty's !Ministers.--(dear, hear !)—And if
disaffection to his Majesty's Ministers was a
crime, it was one in which he deeply shaseit,
though no man could exceed hirn in loyalty to tiie
(hoe n am! the Constitution. To hi. Majesty's
Ministers he owed not, nor never would give aey
allegieece. Ile thought that in the present case
they ettempted not only what would innovate en
the Constitution, but what would destroy it.—
(Hear, hear !)
After a few words from Mr. G. BaNKeis, which,

from the at xieiy rtiattife,tect by the (louse to (1i-

vide, were only so far beard in the Gallery as to
induce us to think the Hon. Metnb,::r supported
the
The House divided
For the third Reading'
Against it,
Nlajoi ity —2lB

- -- -
On beim: re-adatitted we found

Mr. T. ‘VHA:RTON proposing to add a Claw:, authorizing
It4loatiTs to attend public meetings, en giving in their
names twenty-four hours beforehand to the Magistrates.
Lord CASTLEREAGH had a considerable objuction to
suet. a Clause. He did not wish to prevent Reports front be-
ing gir. n, but be objected to erecting that class of persons
into a sort of oollyge hitherto unknown to the Constitiition.—
He was unwilling to admit any recognition of their claims to
attend public meetings, and the more so, as he must say, that
the dangers of the country had been increased by very falia-
thins and pernicious Reports. He, therefore, should resist
any Clause tending to incest thatbody of individuals with the
right of claiming admission by authority.

Mr. TIERNEY submitted that the Noble Lord might, per-
haps, not object to a limited number of Reporters, such as
two or three, to attend. But as the Noble Lord went On, his
objection did not seem to apply to the number, hut to the
very principle of reporting.

. .
Lord CXSTEF.REAGI-1 would not object, if it was the
wish of tic Alagistrates' that they should allow the attend-
;mice of Reporters. He should only refuse to anthurise them
to claim it as a right.
Mr. TIERNEY contended that that was not possible, as
the Bill made it a misdemeanor for ;my stranger to attend.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that the clause Wd nut ex-
tend to Magistrates, Peace Officers, or their Assistants. If
they chose to admit Reporters in the capacity of the, tatter,
they might therefore do it without the authority of a new
clause.

Mr. WM. SMITH objected to such connivance, as there
could be no doubt towards which side it would lie exerted.
Mr. Alderman WAITHNIAN and Mr. J. GRANT main-
tained the necessity of sonic regulation on that point. It
was not in the power of Magistrates to permit the attendance
of Reporters, as they might be prosecuted for so Doing by
any individual, on the authority of the clause, even it they
should have obtained lease front the Magistrates to attend.
The clause was then put and negativeJ without a division.
Mr. HUME then proposed another clause which he thought
would not justify the objections which had been urged agaiuit
the former. It would not recognize any claim nu the part
of Reporters, but would invest Magistrates with a discre-
tionary power to allow their attendance.
The Home divided,
For the clause .... 85
Against it
Majority a,gainst the clause -177

,
itlr. lIITTCHIN,..iON rose to more the insertion of a clause
of winch he had given notice in the early part of the debate.
The object of it was to exempt Ireland front the operation of
the Hilt, and he called upon the Noble Lord, as well as the
Right Holt. Member for the University of Dublin, to explain
how it happened that Ireland, which had been described to be
perfectly quiet on the first day of the Session, was then to be
made subjuct to pains and penalties?
PLUNKET said, the allusion made by the Honourable
and Gallant Member to his personal conduct, required a few
observations. In the first place, the Honourable and Gallant
Member had called on him to address the House ; and in the
second instance be complaisted that his argument was a bad
ono. Ile could assure him it was not iatentionally bad ; he
had no recollection of any meetings held in the open air in
Iceland ; and as the Bill was not to extend to meetings in
romns, his country would have no cause to complain. The
Eight lion, Member was of Opinion it ought to extend to
!elan t, in order to prevent the occurrence of tumultuous
or improper meetings.

Mr:MARTIN (uf Galw.ay) ryas of opinion the Bill ought
to ,xtend to Ireland.

Mr. TIERNEY said, the danger was greater in 1917, and
on hat occasion Ireland was excluded from the operation of
restrictive measures. It was consequently extraordinary to
see the then before the House extend to that country.
Lord CASTLEREAGH, in explanation, said, the danger
was more systematic than it► Dll7, and Government felt it
was necessary to make the Bill apply to Ireland, in order that
iodiiiiluals who, by their misconduct, were exposing the
country to danger, might. see that protection was general in
hot!) countries. It was better at first to .provide a remedy,
than wait for the necessity.

BKOUGHANI could not admit that the country was in
mon• danger now than in ti 17 ; but every crisis wa, ~tid to
the crisis of the greatest dancer, iu order that Ministers
laight impose measures of a novel nature. He implored his
Linn. Friend to pause before be voted for the cxten-
snni of the Bill to Ireland. It would appear an ungracious