Commons Sitting of 3 March 1817

GAME PRESERVATION BILL.
Sir E. Knatchbull, In pursuance of his notice, moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the law of last session, known by the name of the Game act. By that act, persons going out by night with arm? about them for the purpose of killing game, were liable to the punishment of transportation. His intention was, to continue this part of the act. But it also enacted, that persons going out by night without arms for the purpose of taking and destroying game, should be subjected to the punishment of transportation. It was his intention to repeal this part of the act. Another part of the act repealed two acts of the 39th and 40th of the King relative to rogues and vagabonds; and it was his intention to repeal this part, that the laws against rogues and vagabonds might be in full force. He concluded with moving. "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the prevention of persons going armed by night for the destruction of game, and for repealing an act made in the last session of parliament relating to rogues and vagabonds."
Leave was given; and the bill was brought in and read a first time.

PETITION FROM BLACKBURN RESPECTING SEDITIOUS MEETINGS.
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamrose for the purpose of presenting a Petition, numerously signed by the magistrates, gentry, clergy, freeholders, and other inhabitants of the hundred of Blackburn, in the county palatine of Lancaster, expressing their abhorrence of the conduct of those who, under the mask of reform, were endeavouring to subvert the constitution; who had emissaries at work all over the kingdom, endeavouring, by every art, to inflame the populace, and stir them up to acts of violence, and carrying about petitions ready made for the purpose of procuring the people by any means to sign them. The petition prayed the House not to consider that the feelings of the great body of the people were expressed in such pe-
838
titions. The hon. gentleman then stated that the meeting at which this petition was agreed to, was most numerously and respectably attended, and that it might be considered as expressing the sentiments of the great body of the inhabitants of Lancashire. He then mentioned that this meeting was first appointed to be held in. the Town Hall at Preston, but that on the day fixed for its taking place, the hall-doors were no sooner opened, than a great body of the populace rushed in and filled the hall to the exclusion of the more respectable part of the people; and that when the place of assembly was thus filled, an address was agreed to, which was quite contrary to the general feeling of the people.
Lord Stanleycould not let this opportunity pass by without adverting to what had fallen from his hon. friend. With regard to the signatures to the petition, they were in the highest degree respectable, and he believed the petition spoke the sentiments of those individuals who signed it. But he had to learn now, for the first time, that the sentiments of any body of gentlemen, however respectable, of any hundred of a large county, were to be taken for the sentiments of that county, in opposition to the sentiments of a meeting called by public advertisement, where an address had been agreed to, and signed by the high sheriff of the county in his public capacity. The meeting in question was very numerously attended, and, among others, by those who signed the requisition, but they were completely defeated with respect to the address they brought forward, an amended address being carried by a large majority. He was aware that it might be said that many of them were not freeholders; but this was not a meeting of freeholders—it was a general meeting of the county. The result of the determination of that meeting, however, would not come before the House; it was an address to the Prince Regent. Meetings of the county of Lancaster for petitioning were seldom called, on account of the extent and population of the county, and political opinions being so much divided. He protested against this petition being considered as the petition of a meeting of the county of Lancaster.
Mr. Cawthornewished to bear testimony to the respectability of the signatures to the petition. With respect to the meeting at Preston, it had no doubt been regularly convened, on a requisition numerously and respectably signed; but the

839
doors of the hall hail hardly been opened, when in rushed a rabble of cotton-spinners and weavers, and others of the very lowest order of people, with Mr. Casey, a man from Liverpool, at the head of them, an Irish renegado—[loud cries of Hear! from the opposition side]. He would not be deterred from saying what he thought of this person; he had heard him speak at Liverpool and other places, and he believed him to be as mischievous a man as existed in this country. The cotton-spinners and manufacturers of Preston did bear down by their voice those who called the meeting, and voted an amendment to the address proposed by them. The high sheriff, though this amended address was at variance with his private opinion, could not do otherwise than sign it. The address of the meeting at Preston was, therefore, not the address of the freeholders of the county, but of the cotton-spinners and weavers of Preston, of whom any person might collect together any number whenever he pleased. He would venture to assert, that there were not twenty freeholders who agreed to the amended address.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that it had been observed, that to be praised by him who was the object of all men's commendations was a rare felicity. This was not a felicity, however, which it seemed was to be enjoyed by, the worthy gentleman, Mr. Casey, whose name had, in so unaccountable a manner, been brought forward on this occasion by the hon. member,—he had not had the good fortune to be praised by a gentleman, whose name was the object of ail men's commendations. He would venture to say, that an individual who bore a more respectable character among his friends, or on 'Change, did not exist than Mr. Casey. He had, indeed, met with misfortunes in trade, but he should have thought these misfortunes would rather have screened him from, than exposed him to, objections, which till he had met with misfortunes, had never been heard of Whether the principles of Mr. Casey were or were not mischievous was a matter, the determination of which must depend on the opinion which every man entertained with respect to the particular question which now divided the country. That he was a powerful advocate of those principles no man would deny—and if he had not also been a successful advocate of them, his name would never have been heard in that House. That he had transferred his
840
residence from Ireland to this country was a most unusual ground of accusation against him; it was an accusation which, if it were to be allowed any weight, might be found very inconvenient to many persons in England from that country, and the more so, if on leaving that country, they also left their principles behind them [Hear, hear!]. He had only to say that he knew this gentleman by report some time before knowing him personally, but he was now personally acquainted with him; and there were other members in the House besides himself, who could give him the praise of being as steady and consistent in his politics, as he was amiable and respectable in private life. A most extraordinary attack had been made on the meeting at Preston. It had been said, that it did not speak the sense of the county—and why?—Because it did not speak the sense of the mover and seconder of the first address. In vain would any such objection have been urged if those who called the meeting had carried their object. His information came from a quarter as respectable as that from which the hon. gentlemen opposite derived theirs, and it was directly the reverse of what they had stated. Very many freeholders were at the meeting, and a decided majority of those present were against the address, and in favour of the amendment; and this had induced the sheriff, though it was contrary to his own private opinion, to sign the amended address.
Mr. Baringcould not help saying, that it was extremely desirable that county meetings should be regulated by some legislative enactments. He knew, from experience, that petitions often came before the House, as speaking the sense of meetings of large counties, which only spoke the sentiments of the rabble of the county town. With respect to this particular case, that the sheriff signed the address, was all the satisfaction that the House could have of its speaking the sense of the county of Lancaster. But speaking in general, he had no hesitation in saying, that the country was exposed to great mischief from the labours of a few active Jacobins, who went about influencing the lower orders of people to attend public meetings. From the way petitions were carried, of which not merely the gentlemen of a county, but even the respectable tradesmen generally disapproved, he thought that in all times, and in all situations of the country, it would be ex-

841
tremely desirable to regulate the mode in which meetings should be held. There ought to be some regulation to secure the House against delusion.
Mr. Birchsaid it was rather too much to state that the sentiments of the present petition were the sentiments of the freeholders of the county of Lancaster. The hon. member for Lancaster had talked of the cotton-spinners and weavers who composed the meeting at Preston. But he would ask him how many cotton-spinners and weavers had been influenced by their masters to sign the present petition? [Not one, from Mr. Cawthorne]. This was a bold assertion. It did not become that hon. gentleman to talk of Irish renegadoes. He had never heard any thing against the gentleman whom he had so characterized, either as a merchant or a man; nothing which could lead him to infer that he ought to be considered as a mischievous person.
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamsaid, that, in what he had observed, when he presented the petition, he meant not to make any personal allusion. He, however, must declare it to be a notorious fact, that the Preston meeting was irregularly conducted. The room appropriated for the purpose was of very confined extent, and, before those who had signed the requisition made their appearance, it was almost completely occupied.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

MOTION FOR A NEW WRIT FOR ST. MAWES IN THE ROOM OF MR. HORNER*.
Lord Morpethrose, and spoke as
* Extract from the Morning Chronicle of Friday, the 28th of February 1817.—" It is with deep concern we have to announce the death of Francis Horner, esq. Member of Parliament for St. Mawes. This melancholy event took place at Pisa on the 8th instant. We have had seldom to lament a greater loss, or to bewail a more irreparable calamity. With an inflexible integrity and ardent attachment to liberty, Mr. Horner conjoined a temperance and discretion not always found to accompany these virtues. The respect in which he was held, and the deference with which he was listened to in the House of Commons, is a striking proof of the effect of moral qualities in a popular assembly. Without the adventitious aids of station or fortune, he had acquired a
842
follows:—I rise to move, Sir, that the Speaker do issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a burgess to serve in this present parliament for the borough of St. Mawes, in the room of Francis Horner, esq. deceased. In making this motion, I trust it will not appear presumptuous or officious, if I address a few words to the House upon this melancholy occasion. I am aware that it is rather an unusual course; but, without endeavouring to institute a parallel with other instances, I am authorized in saying that the course is not wholly unprecedented.
My lamented friend, of whom I never can speak without feelings of the deepest regret, had been rendered incapable for some time past, in consequence of the bad state of his health, of applying himself to the labours of his profession, or to the discharge of his parliamentary duties. He was prevailed upon to try the effects of a milder and more genial climate—the hope was vain, and the attempt fruitless: he sunk beneath the slow but destructive effect of a lingering disease, which baffled the power of medicine and the influence of climate; but under the pressure of increasing infirmity, under the infliction of a debilitating and exhausting malady, he preserved undiminished the serenity of his amiable temper; and the composure, the vigour, and firmness of his excellent and enlightened understanding. I may, perhaps, be permitted, without penetrating too far into the more sequestered paths of private life, to allude to those mild virtues—those domestic charities, which embellished while they dignified his private
weight and influence in parliament, which few men, whose lives were passed in opposition, have been able to obtain; and for this consideration he was infinitely less indebted to his eloquence and talents, eminent as they were, than to the opinion universally entertained of his public and private rectitude. His understanding was I strong and comprehensive, his knowledge extensive and accurate, his judgment sound and clear, his conduct plain and direct. His eloquence, like his character, was grave and forcible, without a particle of vanity or presumption, free from rancour and personality, but full of deep and generous indignation against fraud, hypocrisy, or injustice.—He was a warm, zealous, and affectionate friend—high-minded and disinterested in his conduct—firm and

843
character. I may be permitted to observe, that, as a son and as a brother, he was eminently dutiful and affectionate: but I am aware that these qualities, however amiable, can hardly, with strict propriety, be addressed to the consideration of parliament. When, however, they are blended, interwoven, and incorporated in the character of a public man, they become a species of public property, and by their influence and example, essentially augment the general stock of public virtue.
For his qualifications as a public man I can confidently appeal to a wider circle—to that learned profession of which he was a distinguished ornament—to this House, where his exertions will be long remembered with mingled feelings of regret and admiration. It is not necessary for me to enter into the detail of his graver studies and occupations. I may be allowed to say generally, that he raised the edifice of his fair fame upon a good and solid foundation—upon the firm basis of conscientious principle. He was ardent in the pursuit of truth; he was inflexible in his adherence to the great principles of justice and of right. Whenever he delivered in this House the ideas of his clear and intelligent mind, he employed that chaste, simple, but at the same time nervous and impressive style of oratory which seemed admirably adapted to the elucidation and discussion of important business; it seemed to combine the force and precision of legal argument with the acquirements and knowledge of a statesman.
decided in his opinions—modest and unassuming in his manners. To his private friends his death is a calamity they can never cease to deplore. To the public it is a loss not easily to be repaired, and, in times like these, most severely to be felt.—Mr. Horner was born in 1779, admitted member of the faculty of advocates in 1800, and called to the English bar in 1S07 He came first into the House of Commons in 1806, and has been member of three successive parliaments. The only official situation he ever held was the laborious office of commissioner for the liquidation of the Carnatic claims, which he kept only for a short time, having resigned it many years ago, because he found the duties which it imposed on him were incompatible with the application due to his professional pursuits."
844
Of his political opinions it is not necessary for me to enter into any detailed statement: they are sufficiently known, and do not require from me any comment or illustration. I am confident that his political opponents will admit that he never courted popularity by any unbecoming or unworthy means: they will have the candour to allow, that the expression of his political opinions, however, firm, manly, and decided, was un-tinctured with moroseness, and unembittered with any personal animosity or rancorous reflection. From these feelings he was effectually exempted by the operation of those qualities which formed the grace and the charm of his private life.
But successful as his exertions were, both in this House and in the courts of law, considering the contracted span of his life, they can only be looked upon as the harbingers of his maturer fame, as the presages and the anticipations of a more exalted reputation. But his career was prematurely closed. That his loss to his family and his friends is irreparable, can be readily conceived; but I may add, that to this House and the country it is a loss of no ordinary magnitude: in these times it will be severely felt. In these times, however, when the structure of the constitution is undergoing close and rigorous investigation, on the part of some with the view of exposing its defects, on the part of others with that of displaying its beauties and perfections; we may derive some consolation from the reflection, that a man not possessed of the advantages of hereditary rank or of very ample fortune, was enabled, by the exertion of his own honourable industry—by the successful cultivation of his native talents, to vindicate to himself a station and eminence in society, which the proudest and wealthiest might envy and admire. I ought to apologize to the House, not, I trust, for having introduced the subject to their notice, for of that I hope I shall stand acquitted, but for having paid so imperfect and inadequate a tribute to the memory of my departed friend.
Mr. Canning.—Of all the instances wherein the same course has been adopted, as that which my noble friend has pursued with so much feeling and good taste on this occasion, I do not remember one more likely than the present to conciliate the general approbation and sympathy of the House. I, Sir, had not the happiness

845
(a happiness now counterbalanced by a proportionate excess of sorrow and regret) to be acquainted personally, in private life, with the distinguished and amiable individual whose loss we have to deplore. I knew him only within the walls of the House of Commons. And even here, from the circumstances of my absence during the last two sessions, I had not the good fortune to witness the later and more matured exhibition of his talents; which (as I am informed, and can well believe) at once kept the promise of his earlier years, and opened still wider expectations of future excellence. But I had seen enough of him to share in those expectations; and to be sensible of what this House and the country have lost by his being so prematurely taken from us. He had, indeed, qualifications eminently calculated to obtain and to deserve success. His sound principles—his enlarged views—his various and accurate knowledge—the even tenour of his manly and temperate eloquence—the genuineness of his warmth, when into warmth he was betrayed—and, above all, the singular modesty with which he bore his faculties, and which shed a grace and lustre over them all; these qualifications, added to the known blamelessness and purity of his private character, did not more endear him to his friends, than they commanded the respect of those to whom he was opposed in adverse politics; they ensured to every effort of his abilities an attentive and favouring audience; and secured for him, as the result of all, a solid and unenvied reputation.—I cannot conclude, Sir, without adverting to a topic in the latter part of the speech of my noble friend, upon which I most entirely concur with him. It would not be seemly to mix with the mournful subject of our present contemplation any thing of a controversial nature. But when, for the second time within a short course of years, the name of an obscure borough is brought before us as vacated by the loss of conspicuous talents and character,* it may be permitted to me, with my avowed and notorious opinions on the subject of our parliamentary constitution, to state, without offence, that it is at least some consolation for the imputed theoretical defects of that constitution, that in practice it works so well. A system of
* Mr. Windham, who represented St. Mawes in 1806, died member for Higham Ferrers in 1810.
846
representation cannot be wholly vicious, and altogether inadequate to its purposes which sends to this House a succession of such men as those whom we have now in our remembrance, here to develope the talents with which God has endowed them, and to attain that eminence in the view of their country, from which they may be one day called to aid her counsels, and to sustain her greatness and her glory.
Mr. Manners Sutton.—I know not whether I ought, even for a moment, to intrude myself on the House: I am utterly incapable of adding any thing to what has been so well, so feelingly, and so truly stated on this melancholy occasion; and yet I hope, without the appearance of presumption, I may be permitted to say, from the bottom of my heart, I share in every sentiment that has been expressed. It was my good fortune, some few years back, to live in habits of great intimacy and friendship with Mr. Horner: change of circumstances, my quit-ting the profession to which we both belonged, broke in upon those habits of intercourse; but I hope and believe I may matter myself the feeling was mutual. For myself, at least, I can most honestly say, that no change of circumstances—no difference of politics—no interruption to our habits of intercourse, even in the slightest degree diminished the respect, the regard, and the affection I most sincerely entertained for him. This House can well appreciate the heavy loss we have sustained in him, as a public man. In these times, indeed in all times, so perfect a combination of commanding talents, indefatigable industry, and stern integrity, must be a severe public loss: but no man, who has not had the happiness—the blessing, I might say—to have known him as a friend; who has not witnessed the many virtues and endearing qualities that characterized him in the circle of his acquaintance, can adequately conceive the irreparable chasm in private life this lamentable event has made. In my conscience I believe there never lived the man, of whom it could more truly be said, that, whenever he was found in public life, he was respected and admired—whenever he was known in private life, he was most affectionately beloved. I will no longer try the patience of the House: I was anxious, indeed, that they should bear with me for a few moments, whilst I endeavoured, not to add my tribute to the regard and veneration in which his memory ought, and assuredly

847
will be held; but whilst I endeavoured, however, feebly, to discharge a debt of gratitude, and do a justice to my own feelings.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that his noble friend (lord Morpeth), and his right hon. friend who had last spoken, had expressed themselves concerning their departed friend with that feeling of affection and esteem which did them so much honour, and which was heightened by their habits of intimacy, and their opportunities of observing his character; but the virtues by which he was distinguished were not confined within the circle of his acquaintance, or concealed from the view of the world. Every one who saw Mr. Horner had the means of judging of his temper, his mildness, and his personal virtues; for they were seen by all. He carried with him to public life, and into the duties and the business of his public station, all that gentleness of disposition, all that amenity of feeling, which adorned his private life, and endeared him to his private friends. A-midst the heats and contests of the House, amidst the vehemence of political discussion, amidst the greatest conflicts of opinion and opposition of judgment, he maintained the same mildness and serenity of disposition and temper. No eagerness of debate, no warmth of feeling, no enthusiasm for his own opinions or conviction of the errors of others, ever betrayed him into any uncandid construction of motives, or any asperity towards, the conduct of his opponents. His loss was great, and would long be regretted.
Sir S. Romillysaid, that the long and most intimate friendship which he had enjoyed with the hon. member, whose loss the House had to deplore, might, he hoped, entitle him to the melancholy satisfaction of saying a few words on this distressing occasion. Though no person better knew, or more highly estimated, the private virtues of Mr. Horner than himself, yet, as he was not sure that he should be able to utter what he felt on that subject, he would speak of him only as a public man. Of all the estimable qualities which distinguished his character, he considered as the most valuable, that independence of mind which in him was so remarkable. It was from a consciousness of that independence, and from a just sense of its importance, that, at the same time that he was storing his mind with the most various knowledge on all subjects connected with our internal economy and foreign politics,
848
and that he was taking a conspicuous and most successful part in all the great questions which have lately been discussed in parliament, he laboriously devoted himself to all the painful duties of his profession. Though his success at the bar was not at all adequate to his merits, he yet steadfastly persevered in his labours, and seemed to consider it as essential to his independence that he should look forward to his profession alone for the honours and emoluments to which his extraordinary talents gave him so just a claim. In the course of the last twelve years the House had most some of the most considerable men that ever had enlightened and adorned it: there was this, however, peculiar in their present loss. When those great and eminent men to whom he alluded were taken from them, the House knew the whole extent of the loss it had sustained, for they had arrived at the full maturity of their great powers and endowments. But no person could recollect—how in every year since his lamented friend had first taken part in their debates, his talents had been improving, his faculties had been developed, and his commanding eloquence had been rising with the important subjects on which it had been employed—how every session he had spoken with still increasing weight and authority and effect, and had called forth new resources of his enlightened and comprehensive mind—and not be led to conjecture, that, notwithstanding the great excellence which in the last session, he had attained, yet if he had been longer spared, he would have discovered powers not yet discovered to the House, and of which perhaps he was unconscious himself. He should very ill express what he felt upon this occasion, if he were to consider the extraordinary qualities which Mr. Horner possessed apart from the ends and objects to which they were directed. The greatest eloquence was in itself only an object of vain and transient admiration; it was only when ennobled by the uses to which it was applied, when directed to great and virtuous ends, to the protection of the oppressed, to the enfranchisement of the enslaved, to the extension of knowledge, to dispelling the clouds of ignorance and superstition, to the advancement of the best interests of the country, and to enlarging the sphere of human happiness, that it became a national benefit and a public blessing; that it was because the powerful talents, of which they were now deprived, had been uniformly exerted in

849
the pursuit and promoting of such objects, that he considered the loss which they had to lament as one of the greatest which in the present state of this country, it could possibly have sustained.
Mr. W. Elliot.—Amongst his other friends, sir, I cannot refuse to myself the melancholy consolation of paying my humble tribute of esteem and affection to the memory of a person, of whose rich, cultivated, and enlightened mind I have so often profited, and whose exquisite talents—whose ardent zeal for truth—whose just, sedate, and discriminating judgment—whose forcible, but chastened eloquence—and, above all, whose inflexible virtue and integrity rendered him one of the most distinguished members of this House, one of the brightest ornaments of the profession to which he belonged, and held him forth as a finished model for the imitation of the rising generation. The full amount of such a loss, at such a conjuncture, and under all the various circumstances and considerations of the case, I dare not attempt to estimate. My learned friend (sir S. Romilly) has well observed, that, if the present loss be great, the future loss is greater: for, by dispensations far above the reach of human scrutiny, he has been taken from us at a period when he was only in his progress towards those high stations in the state, in which, so far as human foresight could discern, his merits must have placed him, and which would have given to his country the full and ripened benefits of his rare and admirable qualities.
Mr. C. Grant, junr.had known his lamented friend before he had distinguished himself so much as he had subsequently done: and could not be silent when such an opportunity occurred of paying a tribute to his memory. Whatever difference of opinion they might have on public questions, he could suspend that difference to admire his talents, his worth, and his virtues. It was not his talents alone that were developed in his eloquence. His eloquence displayed his heart: through it were seen his high-minded probity, his philanthropy, his benevolence, and all those qualities which not only exacted applause, but excited love. It was the mind that appeared in speeches that gave them character. He would not enter into the account of his private life, although his private virtues were at least on a level with his public merits. Amid all the cares and interests of public life he never lost his relish for domestic society or his at-
850
tachment to his family. The last time that he (Mr. G.) conversed with him, he was anticipating with pleasure the arrival of a season of leisure, when he could spend a short time in the bosom of his family, and amid the endearments of his friends. When he looked at his public or private conduct, his virtues, or his talents, he would be allowed to have earned applause to which few other men ever entitled themselves.
Lord Lascelleshoped to be excused for adding a few words to what had been said, though he had not the honour of a private acquaintance with Mr. Horner, whom he knew only in this House, where they had almost uniformly voted on opposite sides on every great question. Notwithstanding these differences, he had often said in private, that Mr. Horner was one of the greatest ornaments of his country; and he would now say in public, that the country could not have suffered a greater loss. The forms of parliament allowed no means of expressing the collective opinion of the House on the honour due to his memory; but it must be consolatory to his friends td see that if it had been possible to have come to such a vote, it would certainly have been unanimous.
The motion was then agreed to.

SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL.
The Solicitor-Generalrose to move the second reading of the bill for preventing Seditious Meetings. Before he made his motion, he would briefly explain the reasons for passing this bill, and the different enactments which it contained. To those who thought the report before the House contained no proof of combinations and conspiracies, he deemed it useless to appeal, but to those who had deemed that conspiracies not only existed, but were dangerous and alarming, he should be able to give sufficient reasons for adopting the bill on the table. Of the various means employed by the fomenters of discontent, one of the most efficacious was, to call together a number of persons to inflame them by harangues, to persuade them that the evils arising from the circumstances of the times would be remedied by their application to parliament, and to persuade them that they had a right to force parliament to comply with their demands. These meetings, which might be turned to every mischievous purpose, the bill was intended to control by some regulations precisely of the same kind as those adopted at other critical

851
times. There were some meetings which it was not intended to touch by the bill. These were meetings called by lord lieutenants, Custos Rotulorum, or sheriffs of the county, or any riding, or division of the county, or the mayor, or alderman, or any head officer of any corporation or division of a corporation. Such meetings were not touched nor regulated by the bill, and it would be thought that if there were any grievances, real or imagined, the people would never want means of expressing their feelings on it through the medium of such meetings. But there was another opening left to petitioning, for on a requisition being signed by seven resident householders, a meeting might at any time or place be convened. There were other provisions of the bill upon which he felt it his duty to enlarge. A meeting when convened according to a requisition signed by seven resident householders, would still be liable to certain regulations. The justices who attended at such meeting would be authorized to declare it an unlawful assembly, if it proceeded to discuss any subject tending to alter matters of state, without the authority of king and parliament. It was evident that any such discussions could only have a mischievous effect. Another regulation was, that any person propounding matters of that sort, or propounding any seditious matter, might be taken up for so doing. All those regulations were precisely similar to what had been introduced into the bill of 1796. The first object of the measure, therefore, was, to prevent any meetings or assemblies of above fifty persons, except such meetings of corporate bodies, &c. as he had already mentioned, and except Such as were called together upon a notice signed by seven householders. In the committee, however, it was his intention to propose a clause, which he should mention now, as it partly involved a new subject matter, though in no respect contrary to the avowed spirit and purpose of the bill. The object of his clause would be to prevent those meetings, so convened by seven householders, from being adjourned, and to prevent them from being held at any other time or place than what should be at first specified, by way of adjournment. If that evil were not guarded against, it might be contended, that the original meeting being legally called, an adjourned meeting would be equally legal; but he need hardly say how dangerous such a practice might become, by keeping such large bodies of men in a state of fancied
852
continuity; nor how, if adopted, it would substantially defeat the present bill. The clause, therefore, would declare all meetings to be illegal which were adjourned to any other time or place than that mentioned in the notice, and such person or persons as proposed such adjournment liable to a penalty. A second object of the bill would be to prevent the existence of debating societies, lecture rooms, reading rooms, &c. for admission to which money was received. A similar measure was enacted in 1796; but that law was not found so explicit as to comprehend all societies for discussions, debates, and lectures, it was, therefore, altered in 1799, but as the offence, though more clearly defined, was only made an offence within the meaning of the statute of the 36th of the king, when the 36th expired, the 39th, so far as that part of it was to be considered, expired also. He should further observe, that the 39th of the king had for its object to suppress by name certain societies, whose existence was regarded as detrimental to the state; it also declared other societies to be unlawful which were constituted in a particular way, such as imposing oaths, engagements, tests, declarations, &c. or having branches, divisions, employing delegates, &c. And all those enactments were still in force, but they did not touch the evil as it existed in the societies that were now formed. The latter had no branches, divisions, or separate parts, but they had the same pernicious effects, though they were professed to be distinct and independent clubs, for they employed delegates or missionaries to diffuse their doctrines throughout the country. He should therefore propose to adopt that part of the act of 1796, which declared unlawful all societies that had delegates or missionaries for the purpose of confirming others in the principles they professed, and to make them liable to the same penalties as were enacted by that law. Another object of the bill would be to suppress a particular society or societies, calling themselves the Spenceans, or Spencean philanthropists. If ever there was a society, the doctrines of which were utterly subversive of every well regulated state, subversive of all property, order, and good government, it was that society. At the present moment there was an immense number of persons who belonged to it; and therefore, without inquiring whether it employed delegates or not, it was condemned by the very doctrines which it promulgated, and

853
was rendered as unlawful as any corresponding society that ever existed. With respect to the employing of delegates or missionaries, he was aware that many societies of the most exemplary kind did so; he believed the Quakers had persons who visited their different communities in that character, though under a different appellation, and therefore it would be a provision in the act, to except from its operation all societies constituted for charitable or religious purposes. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving the second reading of the bill, after expressing his firm conviction of its necessity in the present alarming crisis.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that as there would be several stages of the bill in which its principle and provisions might be discussed, he should abstain from entering upon them at present. It was so framed, indeed, and so mixed up with two other acts of parliament, that it was difficult to ascertain what its principle was. He had no objection to that part which provided that seven resident householders should sign a requisition, because he did not think it would throw any real impediment in the way of the constitutional right of petitioning the throne and parliament. But there were some clauses to which he greatly objected. He thought, however, it would be better to let the bill go into a committee, and when they fully understood its provisions, they would then be able thoroughly to investigate its principle. He would merely suggest that there were two clauses in the act of 1799, which ought to be adopted, one from policy, and the other from consistency. The first related to the indemnifying a person against all acts which he might have committed as a member of those societies, previously to the passing of the law. Such a provision would operate as an inducement to many to quit and renounce those unlawful assemblies. The second referred to a limitation of time in which actions could be brought against an individual. They had already protected the magistrates in that respect, and for the sake of consistency they ought to secure the subject.
Mr. C. Calvertsaid, he should certainly oppose the second reading of the bill. There had been a meeting that very day in the borough of Southwark, originally convened for the purpose of petitioning against the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, bat the rapidity with which that measure was hurried through, rendered it
854
unavailing. They came, however, to a unanimous vote upon the propriety of petitioning parliament against passing any other laws for taking away or abridging the liberty of the subject. That petition he should present to-morrow, and coinciding as he did in its prayer, he did not know how he could avoid taking the sense of the House upon the bill.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he felt it impossible to avoid entering his protest against the measure at its outset. It was a direct infringement upon the bill of rights, which secured to the poorest man in the kingdom the right of petitioning upon the grievances of the country. But if the present law passed, he could not exercise that right, unless he found seven householders who would sign a requisition. He was persuaded the chief cause of the bill was on account of the number of petitions which the people were sending to that House. The people complained so loud that members, as they did not choose to listen to their prayer, were resolved to stifle their voice by this code of despotism. He regarded the present bill as the most objectionable of all, because it attacked the right of petitioning. Notwithstanding all that was said of disturbances, yet it was a fact, that innumerable petitions (there were now above 600 lying on the floor, signed by nearly a million of persons) had been drawn up at meetings where order and regularity prevailed, to a degree that was really surprising. He believed that no other country in the world could exhibit a population, suffering under such accumulated distresses, where so much forbearance and temper were manifested. Their conduct took away every pretext for infringing the constitution; and he was surprised that the absurdity of the Spencean doctrines did not render gentlemen ashamed of expresing any apprehensions from such a cause.
Lord William Russellconceived it to be his duty, as a representative, bound to defend the purses and liberties of his constituents, to enter his protest against the present measure. He would cheerfully give to the government all the security that was consistent with the principles of the constitution; but he considered that the House had already, by suspending the law of Habeas Corpus and trial by jury, given them as much power as the Romans gave to a dictator, when they directed him to provide ne quid detrimenti, respublica capiat.
Mr. Lawcontended, that so far from taking away the right of petitioning, the bill in question tended to give that right greater security and effect, by guarding against tumultuary and seditious proceedings. He would suggest, however, to the law officers, a provision which he thought it might be desirable to enact. It was extremely possible that combinations might be entered into, to require meetings in different parts of a county, at one and the same time, with a view to distract the civil and military force. In order to prevent that it might be provided, that persons anxious to have a meeting convened, should communicate their desire to the magistrates, who should be compelled to call the meeting within a specified time (suppose seven days) under a heavy penalty.
Sir John Newportexpressed his determination to postpone his opinion on the bill until it should be committed. He trusted that whatever clauses honourable gentlemen intended to propose would be submitted in that stage. As the bill now stood, it was confessedly an imperfect measure; but, after the committal, he most hope that the bill would not be varied in after stages.
The Attorney-Generalobserved, that the promoters of the bill felt it to be their duty, as well as their inclination, to bring forward all the clauses they meant to propose at once, and that they would have nothing to add in the committee. The hon. and learned gentleman then entered into similar explanations of the nature and tendency of the measure as had been afforded by the solicitor-general.
Mr. Calvertsaid, that not wishing to set up his own judgment against the opinion of both sides of the House, he would not insist on a division.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that he wished to have some explanation from the attorney-general respecting the meaning and operation of that clause in the bill, which,; as it appeared to him, would prevent persons from resorting to any rooms for the purpose of reading books, pamphlets, and the daily journals. As he read this clause, he conceived that it went to prevent persons from resorting to reading rooms and circulating libraries, for the purpose of reading newspapers and books, which would be a most unwarrantable oppression of the subject. In the town in which he lived, there was a reading room, which was frequently attended by the most re-
856
spectable persons; and yet, under this clause, the person who kept it, and the parties who resorted to it (unless, indeed, it were regularly licensed, which appeared to him to be a very arbitrary mode of collecting money) would be liable to be prosecuted. But this was not his only objection to this bill; he objected to the preamble, which stated, "whereas assemblies of divers persons, collected for the purpose, or under the pretence, of deliberating on public grievances, and of agreeing on petitions, complaints, remonstrances, or other addresses to the Prince Regent, or to both Houses of Parliament, have of late been made use of to serve the ends of factious and seditious persons, to the great danger and disturbance of the public peace, have produced acts of riot, tumult, and disorder, and may become the means of producing confusion and calamities in the nation." Now, what was this but a libel on the whole people of England? It asserted that which was not true; for he maintained, from all that he had seen or heard on the subject, that in none of the meetings held for the purpose of petitioning had any acts of riot, tumult, or disorder taken place. The riot in the metropolis, on which the secret committee had founded a great part of their report, did not commence in Spa-fields, but was committed by some disorderly persons whose object was totally unconnected with the purposes for which meetings had been called in almost every part of the kingdom.
Lord Cochranehoped the House would pause before they gave ministers the power to suppress all the public sources of reading and information. He adverted to what had been mentioned in the report respecting the disposition of the people at Glasgow, and begged leave to read an extract of a letter from Mr. M'Arthur (whose name had been introduced on a former occasion) on that subject. It stated that people were persecuted by the spies of government. One gentleman had been seized in his bed at one in the morning, charged by a malicious spy with disaffection, and having arms in his house. He was thrown into a dungeon and kept for two nights; but when examined, he was liberated, the whole being false. The letter added that the reign of terror was begun. And that the people were indignant at the practices that were resorted to ensnare the, unwary, as the above was a plot of the creatures in the pay of

857
government. The meetings alluded to at Glasgow were not political, but merely for obtaining parochial relief, which was not obtained in Scotland as in England. He was afraid the intention of all these bills was, the destruction of the press, as no man would be safe after they had passed; for if he went into a box in a coffeehouse, and gave a free opinion, a waiter might inform against him, on whose oath he would be committed. This was really not a state in which the people deserved to be placed. The lord mayor had, he understood, stated at the common council, that he himself had furnished two-thirds of the contents of the green bag, and he did not believe in the serious opinions that had been entertained about them. It might be very convenient for ministers to divert the attention of the public from those objects which were really injurious to the country, and which struck at the very roots of trade and commerce. But he trusted the good sense of the House would see through this. He read further extracts from the above-mentioned letter, which stated, that the people of Glasgow had published a declaration, in which they stated, that they had seen with grief the reports laid before parliament, which as far as they related to them, contained not a shadow of truth. They had never heard even the name of the Spenceans till they had seen it in the newspapers. The lord mayor (his lordship continued) had estimated the whole number of these visionaries as not exceeding one hundred, and there was plenty of room in Bedlam for them all. The noble lord concluded by urging the necessity of full discussion, and referred to the observation of the attorney-general on a former night, that he had been sixteen hours engaged in his professional duties before he came to that House to give his opinion on the measure before them. Surely it became members to consider the subject more maturely, before they came to decide upon it by their votes.
Mr. Baringsaid, he would not object to this measure if a clear and decided case could be made out for its necessity. He conceived, however, that every gentleman in the House was as able to judge of the state of the country as every member of the committee; and certainly, as far as his knowledge extended, there was no occasion whatever for invading the liberties of the people. He had not the least doubt that some blasphemous publications had
858
been brought before the committee; bat he could not for a moment believe that such publications prevailed throughout the country. There never was a time within his recollection, when there existed a stronger religious feeling and veneration for those sacred subjects, the detestation of which seemed by the report to be one of the grounds of these proceedings. This was a period in which enthusiasm seemed to have taken hold of the minds of men, and a disposition had sprung up in the lower classes to dive into unknowable mysteries, and to puzzle themselves with what they had better leave alone. As to the not which followed the meeting at Spa-fields, a very inconsiderable part of the population of the metropolis had been concerned in it; half a dozen people got down from a waggon, and very few joined them on their way to the city. With respect to the Spencean plan, he had never once heard of it till he saw the report: and, even then, he knew so little of the founder of that sect, that he thought he had been a Mr. Spence who wrote a pamphlet a few years ago on foreign commerce. Connecting these circumstances together, he was decidedly of opinion, that there had been very great exaggeration in the apprehensions of the committee and of his majesty's ministers. He could not but think, that all the plots or plans, or whatever they were to be called, might have been put down, if left alone, with perfect security to the country. It did not appear that there was any intention of opposing the bill going into a committee, and therefore, he should not deliver his opinions upon it at present; but he could not suffer it to pass even thus far, without stating that it contained, some provisions, which, if ultimately carried, would give ministers a discretionary power over the most harmless intercourse of society.
Mr. Wynn, as he had not been a member of the secret committee, had had no opportunity of knowing the nature of the evidence on which they had founded the report; but from reading that report, he had no hesitation in believing that the danger extended to a much greater length than was generally thought. How the lord mayor could have searched through the contents of the sealed bag, and have known the evidence that the members had before them was to him a mystery. The report did not state those societies to be prevalent over every part of the kingdom, but over a very great part. He could

859
not do otherwise than give his confidence to those who framed the report; as it was pot possible, nor would it have been justifiable for them to give the evidence. He would not, however, pledge himself to give his support to the whole of these measures, particularly to those that applied to reading-rooms and libraries, which he thought went farther than any thing that was ever in the contemplation of any man before. The hon. gentleman adverted to the nature of the not act, which was as old as almost any law in existence. It made the hundred liable to the damage committed by rioters; but it had been decided that damages could not be recovered unless it was proved that it was the intent of the rioters to destroy the House. In the not on the 2d of December, one person had his house entered and robbed of property to the amount of 1,000 l. and he could gain no redress whatever. He therefore suggested, whether it would not be advisable, to extend redress incases of riots of all descriptions.
Lord Rancliffediffered from the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and thought the lord mayor competent authority as to the validity of the documents that passed through his hands. He agreed with the chief magistrate in thinking that there never was a green bag which gave birth to so foolish a child.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.

PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he was intrusted with the presentation of certain petitions for a reform in parliament, about 600 in number, and signed by nearly a million of individuals. He would not occupy the time of the House by attempting to particularize these petitions, but would merely move that they be brought up.
The Speaker—Are they all to the same effect?
Sir F. Burdettreplied in the affirmative, and proceeded to the floor, near the table, which was strewed for a large space with these petitions. On the question that they be brought up, a laugh was caused by the difficulty in which the hon. baronet was placed, owing to the great mass of these petitions. Sir Francis, assisted by the clerks, went through the labour of lifting the petitions upon the table. When those from Blackburne, Derby, and some other towns were read, several of the petitions were found to be printed.
The Speakerobserved, that he was afraid the hon. baronet must take them all back [a laugh!]. Sir F. Burdett replied, that there appeared several not printed. He then selected those from Preston, Hull, Manchester, Bolton-le-Moore, Loughborough, Ashton-under-Line, and others; which were laid on the table. Lord Cochrane then assisted in selecting several petitions from Scotland, which were laid on the table. In the course of selecting these petitions from the quantity on the floor, an address to the Prince Regent was read among the number, which induced the Speaker to observe, that he was afraid the hon. member had not read the documents, that he was about to lay before the House.
Mr. Manningsaid, that when the hon. baronet proposed to bring up the 600 petitions on the floor, he thought it not too much to expect that he knew something about them. It now appeared, however, that he did not. The hon. baronet would consult the convenience of the House, by ascertaining, before he brought petitions down to the House, what could, and what could not be received.
The Speaker, since the attention of the House had been called to this subject, thought it right to state, that the hon. baronet owed it to the House and to himself, to see what it was that he took upon himself to present. Had the hon. baronet looked over the mass of documents now before the House, he would have seen that some of them were not petitions. As the matter now stood, it was not too much to expect that he should proceed no further with them that day.
Sir F. Burdetthad no objection to postpone the reading of the remainder, as he should then have an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on the course pursued by the House in rejecting printed petitions.
Mr. Serjeant Bestremarked, that some of the petitions had long lists of names attached to them, which were all evidently written by one hand.
The Speakersaid, the House had a right also to expect that the hon. baronet would not present any petition couched in the same terms as those which had been rejected. Much of the business of that House was done on the faith and confidence had in its members. If the rules of the House should in consequence be inadvertently overstepped, that confidence must be diminished for the time to come.
Mr. Lawput it to the House, whether justice could be done to the sentiments of the country, whatever they might be, by presenting petitions in this manner.
Sir F. Burdett, in explanation, stated, that it had devolved on him as a duty, painful as it was in many respects, to present these petitions to the House, their number must be his excuse, for not acquainting himself with their contents. Some of them he found were printed, but he could see no rational ground for objecting to them on that account, for it could not be denied that a printed petition might express the sentiments of the people as correctly as if it were written.
The Speakersaid, the House had been in the habit of reading a single petition, and of receiving from members others on the same subject in confidence. Hence the practice of bringing up many petitions at once, had become common, but this night it had been carried to an unprecedented extent. At present, though many had been read, not one had been ordered to lie on the table; it was therefore competent for the House to postpone all further proceedings on them, and this, he thought, might be the best course that could be taken.
Mr. Swansaid, he had seen a list of many names attached to a petition, all evidently written by one hand, and there was one list without a petition.
The Speakerinquired, if any one moved that the further proceedings on them should be postponed.
It was then moved, that the further consideration of the petitions should be postponed till to-morrow.
Mr. Lawnoticed the extraordinary coincidence in the wording of these petitions, which were almost all that he had seen, nearly the same.
Mr. Calcrafthad no objection to the motion for postponing the petitions, but he begged leave to observe, on the assertion of the hon. member respecting the number of names said to have been written by one person, that it was difficult for any person to hazard such a conjecture on the cursory view taken of the names by the hon. member. He could see no advantage to be derived from such a circumstance, for among the hundreds and thousands of persons petitioning in the kingdom there was no necessity of affixing any false names to petitions.
Mr. Serjeant Bestsaid, that the right of petitioning was the dearest and most va-
862
uable privilege of the people, but in proportion as it was clear and valuable, the House should evince an anxiety to preserve it from abuse. It was easy to get hundreds and thousands, and even millions of petitioners, if one man were suffered to represent others, and subscribe any names he might think proper. The House was also bound to protect itself from insult, by not receiving several of the petitions on the floor, asserting, that the House did not represent the nation, that taxes were tyrannical impositions, and many such violent and insulting expressions.
Sir C. Monckcould not agree with the learned serjeant, that it was a gross insult to the dignity and authority of the House, for one man to affix the names of other persons to petitions, if duly authorized to do so.
The Speakerwas again called upon to state the rules of the House. The House had frequently refused petitions on the sole principle of their having names affixed to them not written by the persons themselves, and it was an established rule that no name should be affixed by any other person to a petition to the House, unless the person whose name was so affixed, happened to be out of the realm, and had sent a full and legal authority to another to subscribe his name.
Lord Cochraneobserved, that sheets for signature, without any petition or address attached to them, were now sending round, as it was said by persons in office. It had been offered to prove at the bar of that House in what way the majority of its members were returned.—
The Speakerreminded the noble lord, that he was not speaking to the question. He might show his ingenuity by bringing the same topics before them in various shapes, but he must see he was striving against the feelings of the House.
Lord Binningthought it probable the hon. baronet in bringing in the 5 or 600 petitions as he found them in the vote office, had only wished to save trouble to the House and himself, but had he given himself time to think on the subject, he would have seen that it was due to the House first to examine them. In a day or two, he and other gentlemen who acted with him, might have looked into them so far as to discover what could or could not be received by the House—what were petitions, and what addresses to the Prince Regent.
The motion for the adjournment of the

863
proceedings on the petitions was then put and carried.