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

. .
1 -

i
• i
~ .•
•
• .
•
~',
i
i ..
c .
tr • .;
. 1 • ' ' '
. ' .
it
i

Apiculture? He could not assemble them out of the
larish;neither could he go to a neighbouring parish.
le would nut the case of Lord Shefield or any other
man. It was. therefore, an anomaly to divide into
crstriczs and townships, and yet say, the People could
only meet in parishes. The measure, he continued
would produce any thing but Conciliation, as
it rol;lied the-P'ople of those rights which they had
enjoyed ever since they were a People, and to which,
more than any other, they felt themselves attached—
(Cheers). He would not enter into the quesition how
'far the exigencies of the times required a measure
like the present, now that it was conceded, by a Right
Iloneurable Gentleman opposite, to be an infraction
of the liberties of Englishmen—(/fear, hear)—he
would only put it to the HOuse to consider, whether,
after the manner in which they had defended their
berti,m against a foreign the, and resisted, during five
and twenty years, all the attacks which he could make
Upon them, it was prepared to see them fall at once
before such beings as Hunt and Cobbett T—( Cheers):
It was paying too high a compliiaent to those indi-
viduals, to supptwe welt- a sacrifice to be necessary;
but it really Appenred,-is if Ministers paid them that
compliment, by the measures which wet,: taken to
preserve the Country from their machinations. For
these- reasons he should vote aeainst the Bill.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL rose, in reply to
some of the arguments of the Hononrable and.
I.earned Gentleman who had just sat down, argu-
ments which, he ctratended, could only be founded
n;•on an unacquaintance with the enactments of the
Bill itself—(Hear). if he understood him rightly,
he said, that Meetings in themselves were not dan-
gerous, an.t should not be udder the eye of the law,
as they only served as the organ of popular feeling.
If this were true, the House had lost a great fieal of
tim:: in their endeavours effectually to meet a danger
which never existed ; for. all the new measures went
noon an assumption, that a real and great danger did
exist—(Hear, hear). He next objected to some ( 'ituses
in the de;..iii of the Bill,' particularly that giviag to
the Magistrates the power of .dispersing a Meeting,
upon a proposition being made, which did not meet
with their acquiescence. Now, he distinctly deniod,
that under the present Bill, Magistrates had power
to disperse a Meeting; they certainly could put any
into custody--and in the event 'of being
resisted in so doing, could have recourse•to force—
( Loud and repeated cheering from the Opposition).
Gentlemen might cheer, but he had more than once
before, stated the same opinion. Now. with regard
to the argument, that a Magistrate might act upon
a speculation of there being persons at the Meeting
whose appearance would warrant him in dispersing
it, he asked, did the Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman forget, that' in that case the Magistrate acted
upon his own responsibility ? This Bill did not give
a greater discretion to Magistrates than the Riot
Act. It there were no improper persons at the Meet-
ing, a Magistrate could no more interfere-than he
could proceed to read the Riot Act to a peaceable
assembly. It was impossible so distinctly to draw
a line for a Magistrate's duty, for in cases of
great panic and terror, that guide had he but his
own discretion? As to the case of the spy, that was
too monstrous to be answered, for it was not na-
rural to suppose, that a Magistrate would put his
own friend in a way of being convicted of a felony.
All these objections, however, he could not help tell-
iag his Honourable and Learned Friend, was a little
out of time, as the Committee would-have been the
most proper place to make them, and not upon the
third reading of the Bill. In answer to the objection
about Trade, he observed, that it was admitted rooms
were excepted ; he would ask, was not that enough,
or could it be necessary for ten thousand 'persons tod
meet in the open air, to discuss a matter of trade
or profession?—(Hear!)—lf a necessity .for such
Meetings existed at Leeds, or Norwich, or any where
else, surely they could use their Town Halls. Ha
concluded by expressing a hope, that he had an-
swered all the arguments of the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman opposite, and unmasked their
fallacy to the House, by shewing that they were
founded upon an unacquaintance with the provisions
of the Hear!)

Mr. SCARLETT explained. Upon referring to
the clause in the 13111, he observed, that the words
were, "if any subject was discussed connected wit:. the
Constitution, the Magistrate 'was empowered to in-
terfere." Now, upon this, considerable differences of
opirion would exist. There was little danger that
the !lon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney Ge-
neral), and he (Mr. Scarlett) would differ upon what
was likely to. bring the Constitution into danger ;
but sedition was a term which admitted of a large
construction. He would state a case within his own
knowledger where this difference of opinion proved
very injurious to an individual whose Counsel he
harpened to be. This was a person of the name of
Lloyd, who for saying, at a Meeting, Damn all
Corporations," was taken up, tried at the Lancaster
Assizes, and sentenced to tw•o years imprisonment,
on the ground that the King was a Corporation!—
(Hear, hear, hear).
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that he had
nothing to do with the explanation the Learned Gen-
tleman might have made as to his statement ; but he
had fairly met his argument as he put it first.
Mr. DENMAN had not been reconciled to the
Bill since its progress through the Committee, and he
would consequently not cease to oppose it in every
stage--(hear, ear !) The Learned Gentleman then
took occasion to repeat the arguments he had used
before, asserting, that, as the law at present stands,
Magistrates had no power to disperse a Meeting,
tuber by the Statute cf Henry IV. Henry VII. or the
D.7agistrates' Oath. He observed, that the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor.
General) must hare confounded these two Statutes
together, in arguing; that Magistrates had that power.
"Ali,: Bill. he contended, would be inefficient for its
purpore; for how easy was it for itinerant orators to
assemble fifty different small Meetings within a short

greatly alarmed—('Hear,• hear):--In conclusion, as
a Lawyer, And a Member of that House, he de-
clared it as his opinion, that a Magistrate had no
other power than that of arresting individuals at a
Meeting—(Hear, hear). •
Mr. It. MARTIN stated, that the Irish Members
had come over to defend the Constivition of the
Countri. •He acknowledged that he was in some
degree an alarmist, and conceived that great danger
would ensue to the.Constitutioa of England and Ire-
-lan4s ifahe present measures did not pass. It Might
be taken•as a proof of his sincerity, that Lie was ready
to bear any share of unpopularity which the course-
he took might excite, and he knew that in England
it would be attended with no popularity—(Loughter)
—but he was convinced that he should earn great
popularity in the county which he had the honour to
represent, for having contributed to save the Consti-
tution of England and Ireland, by the passing of such
Acts. Had he been.a Lawyer, some of the wor-
thy Gentlemen opposite, lie would have written a
note to the Attorney and 'Solicitor General, telling
thent—,, I approve of much of what your Bill con-
tains, and 1 request a conference, that we may see
whether we may not so arrange the rest as to come
to an agreement '—(Laughter). He complained that,
as it was now sure the Bill would pass into a Law, it
was acting improperly towards the People to teach
them to believe that the system under which they
would have to live was, unconstitutional.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL asked his Honour-
able and Learned Friend opposite, on what groundi,
or what shadow of grounds, he had brought a charge
of so grave a nature against his Majesty s Cabinet, as
to say, that.they had discussed the propriety of im-
posing a Censorship .upon the Press? There was no
foundation whatever for such an accusation. He
then contended, that there was an Act of Henry VII.I
confirming that of Henry IV. and giving to Magis-
crates the same power of dispersing Meetings as the
Riot Act. It was oaly necessary to look at the wads
of the Proclamation to ascertain the fact; for it said,
,‘ Ms Majesty our Lord the King commands you to
disperse," &c. This was not, therefore, a new prin-
ciole. The clause had, in fact, been enacted before,
both in 1796 and 1801. 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 df tiftt or silty thousand
persons together, and those displays of physical
power, which were intended to overawe the S.ate,
whilst they were preparing its overthrow. That di-
ll jest would be completely attained. It was not, as it
had been represented, to prevent itinerant orators
I from holdinz forth harangues in rooms or apartments
(where, if they did, they might be apprehended), but
Ito deprive them of the power of addressing and in-
flaming large multitudes, 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 dis-
rersing Meetings by force, but only that of doing it
through the medium of the apprehension of individuals.

Lord FOLKSTONE 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 variance
amongit themselves, for whilst the one said it was in
the spirit of the Constitution, another admitted that
it was a direct but necessary infraction of it. If, as
it had been said, the People had acquired new lights
sa as to see the blots and stains on the Constitution,
which would be the better course, to have prevented
them from seeing, or to remove those blots and stains
which they had perceived?—(Hear, hear, hear). He
then complained of the extensive operation given to
the Bill for allowing the seizure of arms, and con-
tended, that although the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) might not know
of it, as he was not a Cabinet Minister, the propriety
of imposing a Censorship on the Press had been
discuised in the Cabinet—(Hear, hear). It was
true that the proposal had not been entertained, but
he had it from a person who must have known the
fact, that it had been made—(Hear, hear, hear).—
He then took a view of the measures adopted by
Continental Sovereigns against the establishment of
Representative Governments, and the L'aerty of the
Press. He had seen pamphlets threatening the Eng-
lish People with the introduction of foreign troops,
to reduce them to obedience, if they were not quiet.
He considered the BiJ demanding security from
Newspapers as worse than the imposition of a Cen
sorship on the Press. The whole of the measures, in
fact, would serve to disarm the people of the means
'which they bad hitherto possessed, of counteracting
the natural tendency of power to swell into despotism,
and if they were passed, he should look upon the
li-
bertics of the country al abolished.—(Hear, hear!)
Mr. HONEY WOOD allowed that the people were
in certain-cases disaffected. But they were not dis-
affected to the King nor to the Country, but, to his
Majesty's Ministers—(.Near, hear!)—And if disaffec-
tion to his Majesty's Ministers was a crime, it was
one in which he deeply shared, though no man could
exceed him in loyalty to the Crown and the Conititu-
tion. To his Majesty's Ministers he owed not, nor
never would give any allegiance. He thought that
in the present case they attempted not only what
would innovate on the Constitution, but what would
destroy it—(llear, hear!)
Mr. G. BANKES spoke in favour of the Bill.
After whiCh a division took place, when there ap-
peared for the 13i 11,313—Against it,9s—Majority,2lB.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed. .
Upon the re-admission of strangers, Mr. JOH'
WUARroN, was proposing a Clause for the admission
of Reporters to Meetings. tie observed upon the neces-
sity of having accurate accounts of what took place,.
the only means of obtaining which, could be by ex-
empting Reporters. from the operation of the Bill.
Lord CASTLEREAGH objected to the Clause,'
upon the ground that the. House would be, by such
enactment, recognizing a body new to the Constitu-
- The d -so generally complained, of, had
fitted by those who had an oppor-
ig, the tendency of reports increased
statements which had been made.
were sufficient to lead the House to
Clause of the kind, but certainly
erecting a body of men with licence to
'eetings, when the rest of the Public,
was the principal ground of refusal.
said, he should have no objection

distance of each other; whilst the people at large, who I tion. The dangers
• would be obliged to meet in large number!, when beeir, it was admit
. • ( ii 0 they had any particular grievances to discuss, would tunity of observing,
• alone come under its operation—(Hear, hear, hear). by the fallacious sta
, When he looked at the other measures, he was still These objections we
more alarmed, particularly at that now in progress discountenance any
in the House, for curbing the liberty of the Press. the danger of erecti
When he recollected also, that this came from ,a- attend Public Meeti
Cabinet which doubted for a time, whether they were excluded, was
would not appoint a Censorship to the Press, he was l Mr. TIERNEY
• •
.