Star.
London, England, 1819-12-14 00:00:00

to limit-the number of Reporters to three or four at
each M.eetiog.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said the Magistrates might,
if they pleased, admit Reporters. Constables, and
other assistants of Magistrates, 'were excluded from
the operation of the Bill, and Reporters might, by
connivance, come under the denomination of assist-
ants, and be permitted to attend.
Mr. TIERNEY said, it was evident the Noble Lord
objected to the principle of Reporting.
Lord CASTLEREAGH repeated, that the Magis-
trates had a discretionary power to admit Reporters.
Mr. TIERNEY observed, that the apprehension of
being charged with felony would pi übably prevent
Reporters from making the dangerous experiment of
abiding by a Magistrate's will.
Mr. W. SMITH said, that if Reporters were-ad-
mitted by connivance, it could be easily imagined
what Reporters would be admitted, and what roused
admission, the power of the Magistrates being dis-
cretionary. . •
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said, the only way •
of getting correct reports was by authorizing men of
education, who were accustomed to the employment,
to attend. It was pretty well ascertained that they
were more capable-of giving reports than the parties
immediately interested:
Mr. J. P. GRANT stated, the Magistrates were
prevented by the- Act, from permitting Reporters to'
attend ; for the moment it was determined to read
the Proclamation, all persons not belonging to the
parish in which a Meeting took place, must with-
draw, or transportation would follow. Magistrates
might, perhaps, take upon themselves the power of
allowing Reporters to remain, but they would still
have the power of transporting those whom they
granted the power to.
The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. HUME then moved a modified clause, giving
the Reporters a right to attend Public Meetings after
a•notice of twenty-four hours to the Magistrates.
A division took place bpon this clause, when the
numbers were—For the clause, 88—Against it, 262
—Majority, 174..
, Mr. HUTCHINSON then, rose to propose his
Clause for exempting Ireland front the.operation of
the Bill. • The Honourable Member repeated all his
former arguments against the extension of the mea•
sure to that pan of the Empire,. and called on the
Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Plunkett) to state the circumstances,' in the present
state of Ireland, which called for its adoption.
Mr. PLUNKETT repeated his former arguments
in favour of extending the Bill to Wand..
Mr. TIERNEY said, in 1794 Ireland was exempted,
and. so it was in 1817 : why then should it now, in its
qniet.state, be included ? ' '
Lord CASTLEREAGH considered, that by at-
tending the Bill to Ireland, they were protecting her
against an evil which might otherwise overtake her.
Mr. BROUGHAM thought there was no necessity
for extending the punishment to Ireland.
The Gallery was then cl6red for a division—For
the Clause, 69—Against it, 265—Majority, 196.
Mr. P. GRANT-, moved an Amendment in the Clause
empowering Magistrates to suppress Riots, the object of which
was to define their power more accurately. It was negatived
without a division.

Mr. BROLTGIIAM wished to know, from the Noble Lord
opposite (Castieree.gh), if the-provisions of the Bill were to be
extended to Agricultural Meetings? Such Meetings were usually
held in the open air, and therefore. as speeches were delivered
at them, they were liable to the consequences of the proposed
enactment, unless a specific Clause were introduced to protect
them. It was quite clear they could not be held in houses, as
it would be an impracticable task to procure accommodation for
the cattle exhibited upon such occaslu.3 ..—(A laugh).
Lord CA STLEREAQH said, he never heard of any elo-
quence beirg displayed at the Meetings adverted to by the Ho-
nourable and Learned Member, till atter the bottle had circu-
lated rather freely, and then it was only over the feolve board !
--(A laugh).
Mr. BROUGHAM assured the Noble Lard, that an Hon.
Member for Norfolk was equally satisfied as he was, that the
provisions of the Bill must necessarily extend to the Meetings in
question, and would, if he (Mr. Brougham) had nut done so,
call the attention of the. House to the fact.
The question was then put, and the Bill read a third time and
passed.
The ether Orders were disposed of, and the House adjourned
at Two otloek.