The Sun.
London, England, 1817-03-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAAIENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY, MARCH 21.

ROYAL COMMISSION.

The Royal assent was given by. Commission to
the•Arniy and Marine M tiny Bills, the Silk Ex,-;
portation liount Bill, and Imilemnity
Commissioners, the Lord Chancellor, Earl of
Shaftesbury, and Lord Redesdale.
The Court of
~Exchequer Proceedings Bill, the
Exchequer Bills Bin, the Mad ,houses Bill, and
Bar-lrou Exportation Bill, were brought up from
the Commons, and reail a first time.
A,persoo from the .Comtnissioners- of High-
land Roads and Bridges presented their eighth
Report.
SCOTCH PRIVATE BILLS.

The Dike of Arrtor,, pursuant to notice, moved
an alteration in the order, 158, relative to pro-
ceediup with respect to Private 1131 s. • Certain
dir •.cred to he paid tinder that order were,
as jr stood at present. to be paid into the-Royal
Bank, or Illnk -of Scotland. The alteration con-
sisted in this—that to these Banks be added the.
Bank .i.t* the British Linen Company in Scothrtul.
The Motion was agreed to, and the addition
made aceordi4ly.
SEDITIOUS MEETINGS.

The 11)ase having gone into a Committee on
he secli inus lectingq Bill,
Lord (iamstVILLK, with reference to the clauses

for punishing- with death the unlawful assembling
and nut dispersing when commanded, obwved,
that when the subject of the penalty of death had
been, on a former occasion, under consideration,
there had been an understanding that it ought
never to be enacted merely by referring to the pro-
visions of another Act ; but that it should be
clearly and distinctly expressed in every Act by
which it was imposed. tVith some little alteration
in these clauses, they would be clear of that ob •
jection. It was remarkable, however, that there
was no power distinctly given to make proclama-
tion, and an addition must be made in these re-
spects.
Lord Hor.tatin.—lf the punishment of death
were .to he relahred tt all, certainly the amend-
ment was N proper one. From page 4to page 8,
these clauses related to u•lawlid assetnblies. Now
these unlawful assemblies were of • three sorts :-
Ist, where there was art as,embly without any au-
thority ; .2d, where there•was an assembly law-.
fully convened, but for an unlawful purpose ;
where the assembly was lawfully convened, and
for a lawful purpose, but where something illecal
arose in the course of the proceedings. Now,
with respect to the clause relating to unlawful as-
sembling,, he thought it extremely harsh that per-
sons should suffer as felons, without benefit of
Clergy, for ...tbe mere act worts goitisr await 111)011
Or the leaving out the work enactrug Inc pu-
nishment of death, for the purpose of substituting
imprisonmeut, or seven years! transportation.
Lord ST. JOHN,—Under the clause as it stood,
it the clerk of the' peace neglected to give notice

to the Jostices, the assembly, though notice bad
been given to the. clerk of the peace, would be an
unlawful assembly, and the persons notolispening,
on Proclamation would he liable tin the puniSh-
ment of death. This was infinitely too severe.
The clause under consideration Was liable to this
observation -also—that the authority to proclaim,
and thus render the persons not dispersing liable
to the punishment of death, ought not to he con-
fided to one justice only. Ile concurred therefore
in the proposed amendment to leave out the pe-
nalty of de.tth.
The Loan CHANCELLOII.—The clause was mis-

understood ; for if notice wt•re given, by advur,
tisement, or by communication to the Cie; k of the
Peace, the assembly would be lawful, though the
Clerk of the Peitve might be indictable for not
giving notice to •the Magistrate.: The assembly,
however, would be lawful, and the 'Magi,ti ate
could hove no authority to proceed to disperse,

unless something illegal took place at the Meet-
ing. With respect to the pen,ilty of death, under
the present circumstances of the country, he
thought that even in this clause it was a proper
enictment. It was well known, that cOnsequeuees
of a dangerous• nature had arisen from such Meet-
ings, and the well-disposed ought, for a time, to
have the protection of this enactment.
The Earl of LtvEßPout. conceived, that there
could be no doubt., that -the true construction was
as the Noble and Letirned Lord had stated.
The Earls of Rosst.vn and LAUDERDALE con-
curred
with Lord St. John:
Lord, ELLENBOROUG II had no doubt as to the
construction a Court of Justice would .put on the
words ; yet,• in majori canteht, he would have no
objecaon to some words to put the matter beyond
dispute.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE; and Lord ST. JOHN
proposed Some words to render the construction
clear, which were iirtroduCed into the clause:
Lord GRENVILLE then proposed his amendment,
which was also adoed.
Lord ST. JOHN proposed no amendment, that
the proclamation to disperse must be made !by the.
authority of two justices, at least.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought that the amend-
ment was altogether unnecessary in this part of
the DM, .which related to the mere act of assent-•
Wing without authority. That was a fact which
one magistrate was as competent to decide upon
as m o.could be.
Theamendment was negatived.
Lord HOLLAND moved his amendment, that the
words imposing the punishment of death" should
1 he left out • _

Lord GARNVILLF.,—If the Act, in respect of
Nvhich the punishment of death Was imposed, bad