PETITION OF THE ACADEMICAL SOCIETY. (Hansard, 28 April 1817)

§ Mr. Wilberforce
rose to present, a Petition from certain members of the Academical Society, who had applied for a licence under the bill passed in the present session for preventing seditious meetings, and to whom that licence had been refused. The society was of the most respectable nature: but when a deputation of the members had applied to the London sessions for permission to continue their discussions, some of the sitting magistrates refused to grant the licence, on the ground that it was the intention of the act of parliament to prevent political discussion altogether. How such an interpretation of the act could have been put forth by these magistrates, he was at a loss to imagine. He could only say, that he himself, as well as others who had assented to the bill, had never imagined that such a construction would be put upon it; and, indeed, the declaration implied total ignorance of the act itself. However, as the question had been decided against this society, and as no appeal was open to it, the members were compelled to have recourse to the House.
The Petition was then read, setting forth,
"That the Academical Society originated in the year 1793, in a private circle of students in the University of Oxford; but most of the members having become resident in London, the society assembled there in the month of November 1798, and has since continued its meetings without interruption to the present time; that the objects of the society, as settled by its rules, are, the investigation and discussion of philosophical, literary, and historical questions, subject to the following restrictions, that controversial theology shall not be introduced, and that no observation shall be made upon any living character of the United Kingdom, under which regulations the general principles of poli- 18 tical science, together with the practical illustrations of them which history affords, are discussed at its meetings; that, under the regulation for the admission of members, the society consists, and has always consisted, exclusively of persons who have been members of one of the Universities of the United Kingdom, the college at Maynooth, one of the four inns of court in England, the faculty of advocates of Scotland, or King's inns in Ireland; that visitors are permitted to be introduced by members as hearers only, each member being considered responsible for the respectability of every stranger he may introduce; that, upon the passing of the former acts of parliament for the suppression of seditious assemblies, the society caused applications to be made for a licence to hold its meetings, which was granted and renewed from time to time during the operation of those acts; that, upon the passing of an act in the present session, intituled, "an act for the better prevention of seditious meetings and assemblies," it was determined again to apply for a licence; that, in pursuance of such determination, a petition was presented, by a deputation of members of the society, to the magistrates of the city of London, in general quarter sessions assembled, at the Justice hall in the Old Bailey, on Tuesday the 15th instant, praying that a licence might be granted, authorizing them and the other members of the Academical Society to hold their meetings as heretofore for the investigation and discussion of philosophical, literary, historical, and political questions; that, on Friday the 18th instant, the court, after having considered the petition, refused to grant the licence, it being stated by two out of the four magistrates present, that the object of the act was to prevent all political discussion whatsoever? that no appeal from the decision of the court of quarter sessions being provided by the act, the petitioners are compelled to apply for relief to the House; that the members of the society being persons either in or preparing for the learned professions, or other departments in public life, the acquirement of the habit of public discussion is to them of the greatest importance; and that feeling the benefit derived in that respect from the Academical Society, they beg to present their grievance to the attention of the House; and they regret that they are compelled to intrude themselves upon the attention 19 of the House, and pray that they may receive such assistance and relief as under the circumstances the House may think fit to grant."

Mr. C. Grant
, jun. said, he had the honour of being a member of the Society of Academics, and was greatly astonished when he heard of the very unwarrantable exercise of authority by which a licence had been refused to so respectable and intelligent a body.

§ Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that before he had known that this petition would have been presented, he had given notice of a motion en the subject. He wished to call to the recollection of the House, that one of the strongest arguments urged by that side of the House against the bill was this very circumstance—that a power would thus be put into the hands of magistrates which might be (as in this case it had been) misused; and which would tend to destroy the most valuable right of Englishmen—that of political discussion. It was almost impossible to conceive how such a construction could have been put on the act; but after such an occurrence, it became the duty of ministers to take this opportunity of declaring their opinions on this important subject. Though the magistrates, who in this case had out-Stepped the bounds of the law, had not wilfully transgressed it, yet it was not improbable, that among the motives which induced them to take the course they had pursued, was the opinion that their interference might be agreeable to those high in office. He would call to the recollection of the House and the magistracy, the explanation of discretionary power, as those words were used in acts of parliament. "That discretion," said lord Mansfield, "should be a sound discretion guided by law; it should be a rule, not determined by individual humour, arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular." He would ask whether the conduct of the magistrates in this instance had been guided by a discretion sound, legal, and regular—whether it had not indeed been in the extreme, vague, arbitrary, and fanciful, and prejudicial to the best interests of the subject? He hoped ministers would stand forward and declare that the magistrates had totally misunderstood the act, if they did not do so, he should give notice immediately of a bill to explain the act in question.

§ Mr. Bathurst
knew nothing of the case which had been brought before the House 20 but from the petition itself, and consequently could not ascertain whether the conduct of the magistrates had been guided by any private opinion as to the nature of the society or the characters of its members. But taking the allegation of the petition that the licence was refused under the idea that it was the intention of the legislature to prevent all meetings for the purpose of political discussion to be correct, he could only say, that no one who had sat in the House during the discussions on that measure could imagine that such was its intention. The discretion left to the magistrates under this bill was that which had been described in the eloquent words of lord Mansfield. It never entered into the heads of those who proposed the measure to prevent every discussion by any gentlemen however enlightened, and for purposes however innocent.

§ Lord Milton
was as ignorant as the right hon. gentleman of the motives of the magistrates in the present instance; but he hoped, as the right hon. gentleman was ignorant of the motives of their conduct, he would feel it his duty to mode some inquiry; because, as the petition now stood, it was as much a petition against the House for passing the act in question, as against the magistrates for refusing the licence. In the present instance, where the grievance admitted of speedy complaint from the proximity of the parties, the House might interfere and afford a remedy; but this could not so easily be the case in transactions which might take place at a distance from town. He hoped, therefore, that some mode might be found of keeping the act operative as to its good purposes, and entirely suppressing the possibility of such abuses as the present.

§ Mr. Brougham
said, that as parliament had intrusted a discretionary power to the magistrates, without appeal, it was no longer in the power of the government to control it. But it would become the House to consider how cautious such an occurrence should make it, in parting out of its own hands with such a power. If that power had been vested in some of the gentlemen opposite, or the hon. member who had presented the petition, in such hands such powers might perhaps have been safely entrusted. But the House, on the first alarm of some society, with an uncouth name, which hardly any one had heard, and to the exact nature or ex- 21 tent of which no one could speak, had delivered to every magistrate in the country a power so liable to abuse. It was to such men as alderman Domville and alderman Joshua Jonathan Smith—he named them to their honour—who read the act of parliament, to apply whatever meaning to it they pleased. Their decision was final and without appeal—the case, therefore, of the petitioners was without a remedy, He trusted, however, when any of the magistrates who were so zealous in their exertions under this act made applications to government, they would show the same impartiality towards them as they professed towards their acts in a judicial capacity. No names could be more respectable than those affixed to the petition, but the blunder of the magistrates, for such he was compelled to call it, had not been stated in sufficiently strong terms: they had not merely gone out of their way to Stifle political discussion, but to suppress societies instituted purely for the purposes of instruction. But this operation of the act had not been confined to them. He had reason to know that a similar society had been "put down," as it was called by the vice-chancellor of the university of Cambridge. That this circumstance was connected with the late act he only conjectured from its being immediately subsequent to the passing of that measure.