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

fey v.-ere totally subversive of the British Conatitu-
' inn. He knew, indeed, that there were some very
high Anthmitbos who thought very differently, and
who maintained such doctrines to be perfectly consti.
tutianal, instead of being destructive of the Constitu-
tion s yet a Magistrate might, either from ignorance
or prejadice, take it into his head to believe that such
opinions had a tendency to sedition, and might, on
such a belief, dissolve an assembly whose proceedings
were perfectly legal.
Lord cAsTLE REACH—The argument of the
Honourable Gentleman would destroy the Bill alto.
gether. Some dint inn must necessarily be lodged
with the Magi,trate. The ride on which he was to act
was.-not tl:at he s!iettiit disperse an assembly regu-
larly convened, tn u Ito discussions were conducted
in a Constitutional way, although the debate might
be intemperate, or even disrespectful—he was only
jostitisd in pryceeding to an exercise of his power
whose there was art motored object of any speaker to
excite the multitude to sedition and rebellion. The
Magis•rate, even in this case, would act under a legal
responsibility; and 3 Jury of his country would after,
wards have to decide on the propriety of his conduct
and runtives. Unless the Magistrates were armed
with such a power, the cctintry would at once be
given up to the consequences of those inflammatory
harangues which might ha made at such meetings.—
The orty meeting put no let the law was one whose
object was to excite rebellion against the State. There
Was no reason sit suppose that the Magistrate would
escape his liability, it he should gbuse his power—
there would always be at such meetings sufficient per-'
sans to watch him, and who \vould afterwards detail
his conduct to the July which might try him. In fact.
it might be said that this Bill would in many respects
cause more inconvenience to the Magistrates than to
the multitusle assembled.
Mr. W. SMITH replied, that the responsibility of
the Magistrate was more nominal than real ; for it
was well known that if he had acted fronr.weakness
or error in judgment, he would not be liable; cor-
rupt motive must be proved ; nd such corruption
was not likely to exist, or it it ex hied, was not easy
to be proved.
The Honourable Mr. LYTTLETON agreed with
the Member for Can.bridge, that the punishment of I
transpot tation was likely to be quite as efficacious as
the punishment df death. Ile objected •to the
words 44 and Government," as coupled with the word
" Constitution ;" because he thought them liable to
popular misapprehension. From liahitual looseness
of expression, both in and out of the House, the word
Goverroment" w;•s generally supposed to mean the
I. Administration." And a Magistrate might, finin
pique or ignorance, think pri.pet to arrest a man who
in fact was not attacking the Coustifution of the coun.
try, late merely the existing Adinioisttation.
Mr.. B. BATHURST thought that it was impos-
sible for any per,ons,esfecially Magistrate;, to be so
ignorant as to suppose that the words " the Govern.
meat as by law established" could possibly mean the
Administration of the day. At any rate, such antis
tpke in a Magistrate would sul'ject him to an action;
and as a discretion must be lodged some where, he
did not s:e where it could be better lodged than in a
person who would be answerable for any abuse of this
power before a Jury of his country.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, it was a mistake
to suppose that the Magistrate was empowered by
these clauses to disperse a Meeting regularly consti..
toted ; his duty was merely to arrest any particular
person whole speech was exciting the multitude to
rebellion.
Mr. LYTTLETON Mit the case of a Meeting,
which,• thaugh not ,regularly called by the Sheriff,
might consist of persons exceedingly respectable.
Lord CASTLEREAGH repeated, that a Meet-
fpg regularly convened at the requisition of seven
householders could not at once be dissolved by, a Ma-
gistrate : any individual holding seditious or trea-
sonable language might be arrested ; and if the
Wring obstructed the arrest of such person, then it
became tainted ; and then, and then only the
Ma-
gistrate had the power to dissolve it.
Mr. W. WYNN thought that in some cases it
would be better to, bold to bail the seven-persons who
might lend their .uames to an inflammatory or seta.
Cetus notice.
Mr. W. SMITH, in order to chew that a Magis.
trate might, from error, think it his duty to dissolve
even the most constitutional meeting, referred to a
recent case which he said had occurred in Cornwall.
A requisition had been sent to the High Sheriff of
that County, desiring him to call a meeting. The
High Sheriff refused, and gave certain reasons for
such refusal. A meeting was therefore held without
big aid, and certain resolutions were passed. The
persons assembled were respectable, and their remit:.
tioas constitutional. Now, it was highly probable
that this Sheriff would, if the Bill now under discus-
sion had been in force, have thought it his duty to
disperse that meeting; and might have argued on
the same grounds as he had stated in his answer to
the requisition—that the doctrines there maintained
brought. the Government into hatred and contempt.
The Noble Lord's construction of the clause was

,Liberail; but would.a Court of Justice construe it in
Tie same way ? The Learned Gentleman knew very
well that the Court would look merely to the lan-'
gunge of the Statute, and would not refer Co the'
speech of any Gentleman of that House for its pro-
per interpretation. As to the words " Government
mad Constitution," as it seemed to beackptitted that
they meant the same thing, one of them would be
sufficient.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the
construction laid down by Lord Castlereagh, and ob
served, with respect to the suggestion of Mr. Wynn,
that doubtless persons might be held to bail for a se-
ditious notice ; yet as the Meeting might, notwith-
standing, be held, it was fit that a power should be
lodged with a Magistrate to watch over and check
its proceedings.
After a few words from Mr. Serjeant Btsv and
Lord CASTLZRZAOII, the clause was carried ; the
amendment for leaving out the words "and Govern.
Wig" being negatived ; as also an amendment by
Mr. W. SMITH for substituting the words" Iwo or
more Justices," instead of " one or more Justices."
On the readies of the next clause, for apprehend-
lag prams who offended ma before described, Sir S.
ItosuLta proposed to leave out this clause altogether:
hia 'risked to know how the Learned Gentleman
wbo had paid so much attention to this Act,
• '