Commons Sitting of 8 December 1819

TRAINING PREVENTION BILL.
Lord Castlereaghhaving moved that this bill be read a first time,
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that some circumstances had recently come to his knowledge which made him think it necessary that this bill should go through all its stages in as short a time as possible. Up to this time it had been said that training existed only in Lancaster. He had now documents in his hands which showed that it extended to Yorkshire, and was spreading to an alarming degree. He had been informed that a number of persons had been seen drilling in the neighbourhood of Barnsley last Friday night. He immediately wrote, desiring his informant to lay his depositions before sir — Wood. He held sir—Wood's letter in his hand. It stated that the training at Barnsley was notorious. He had also a second letter, containing the examination of persons whom it would be imprudent then to name, who had witnessed trainings of upwards of 200 men near Barnsley, on the nights of Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The men had poles about eight feet long, which they exercised as muskets. On Monday night deponent was within 150 yards of these men, and it being light, he could see on the tops of the poles something shining like bayonets, and which he believed to be pike-heads. This morning he had received a letter from a gentleman named Forbes, a man whose politics were rather opposed to his own. That gentleman had witnessed a body of from 70 to 100 training on the night of Tuesday the 30th ult. They had poles about 8 feet long in their hands; and be distinctly heard the
852
words halt—march—stand at ease, &c, repeated several times. Two of the party advanced towards him, and asked his business; he answered—"What the d—I are you about?" The men returned to the party, and he fearing danger, rode away. Since this he (Mr. Wortley) had been informed that the drilling was openly carried on, not only at Barnsley, but at Barton and the neighbouring towns, in defiance of the law. He hoped the House would see the danger which existed, and the necessity of preventing it from gaining ground, by speedily passing this bill into a law.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that no one could be more anxious than he was to put down any of those practices against which this bill was directed. But at the same time he was desirous of proceeding with due caution, and in such a manner as not to establish a precedent for mischievous measures hereafter. The House would see that they were now called on to proceed without observing their usual forms, not on any communication made by his majesty's government, but on a communication made by a private individual, however high the character of that individual might be, and whatever credit might be due to what had the sanction of his authority. It was singular enough that these communications, instead of being made by lord Sidmouth, or even by the lord lieutenant of the county in which the training was said to take place, who was a member of that House, should be made by one of the members for that county. With respect to the practice of training, if this practice was not already liable to animadversion, he was willing to make it so. He had thought that by the existing laws, this practice could be stopt; but he now understood this was not the case. If the practice was not now punishable, it ought with all convenient dispatch; to be made so. No friend of liberty, could wish a practice of this sort to go on unchecked. But, then, see how the House was placed. There was nothing on their journals as a warrant for their proceeding, which was merely founded on the communication of an individual member of the House. When the House at once passed the bill suspending the Habeas Corpus act, they proceeded on a message from the throne, and a communication from his majesty's ministers, and it was proper to pass the measure, if at all, without delay, because otherwise the par-

853
ties against whom the measure was directed, having notice of it might make their escape. But here there would only be two or three days more drilling at most, and if the numbers drilled, instead of 2 or 300 were 2 or 3,000, he did not think that would make much difference. He was on this occasion as sincerely desirous as the noble lord opposite could be of coming forward fairly to put down the practice of training, but he could not help thinking they would be laying the foundation for a dangerous precedent, if they were to pass this bill summarily, without evidence.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that the Crown had already made a communication to the House with respect to the existence of the practice of training, and, therefore, in passing the bill in the manner proposed, they would not be proceeding on the information of any individual member. But if they were to pass the bill two stages to-night, and to go into a committee to-morrow, perhaps this would be satisfactory to all sides.
Mr. Curwensaid, that much as he lamented the existence of the practice of training, he could not entertain the smallest doubt, that this practice had taken place in the neighbourhood of Carlisle, as he had received the information from various respectable persons who had seen the parties. He owned that at one time he was in considerable doubt as to the fact of trainings taking place; but now he had not the least doubt. The inhabitants of the neighbourhood were most anxious that a stop should be put to this practice without delay.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that his noble friend, the lord lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire (lord Lascelles), had felt it his duty to leave town last night for Yorkshire, after the adjournment of the House. He was the more anxious this bill should pass without delay, as a meeting was advertised to be held at Barnsley on Monday next, and it was held out by those people who proposed to attend the meeting, that they were to go armed—a circumstance which had caused no small alarm in that neighbourhood.
Lord Lowtherexpressed his conviction, that training in a regular manner, had been practised to a great extent in the northern counties.
The Lord Advocatebore his testimony to the existence of similar practices in Scotland.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the inhabitants of Carlisle were under very great alarm, lest they should be attacked. At the same time he must say, the inhabitants in general were well-disposed, and the number of the disaffected very small. He did not believe the number of those who were badly disposed exceeded 4 or 500; but still these persons had arms in their hands, and were able to destroy the whole place. The cutting down of plantations had taken place to a great extent, for the purpose of obtaining staves to their pikes. The magistrates discovered that pikes had been made by blacksmiths to a very great extent. One of those who communicated the circumstance to the magistrates had received an order to make twelve dozen of pikes; but the other blacksmiths who had received orders did not choose to make any communication. Every inhabitant of Carlisle looked up to his majesty's ministers for protection, and if they did not receive that protection from ministers, they would look up to the opposition for it [laugh]; for they must have protection.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he was rather surprised that any magistrates should entertain a shadow of doubt as to their power of preventing these nightly drills. If seventy or eighty men, even if they were armed only with clubs, but certainly if they were armed with pikes, met at mid-night, or under the cloud of night, for the purpose of training, there was only at shadow of difference between this crime and the highest crime known in law, that of levying war against the state. Surely those who thought the meeting at Manchester illegal, ought to think a meeting by night of persons, armed with pikes, illegal. Those who saw these practices ought to have given warning to the magistrates, who should have called out the yeomanry, and if the yeomanry were insufficient, the military also, to put down these trainings, and endeavour to secure some of the persons engaged in them. It was now between two and three months since he was in Carlisle, and he then heard the same account which was now given. Good God! where were the magistrates all the while? As to their saying they looked to his majesty's ministers for protection, and then to the opposition—he would merely observe, why did they not look to their own magistrates? He had no manner of doubt that the practice, of training was illegal, and a new law was

855
only advisable to adopt penalties more specific than those of the common law of the land. The measure would also have the effect of a parliamentary denunciation against those mischievous persons who dared to commit such an offence.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that several individuals had been committed for trial, at the last sessions, for, the offence of training, but they had traversed. It was undoubtedly true, that if it were possible to establish the purpose for which men met armed; by night, that amounted to high treason; but the hon. and learned gentleman must know, that there was a great difficulty in getting at that proof; and then they could only be indicted for the lowest offence in law—misdemeanor. But, in consequence of the traversing, there had been as yet no conviction, and consequently no example had been made. He needed only to state also, what was seen from the papers before them, the difficulty of getting evidence as to such training, the persons who had gone to see them having been attacked and maltreated. He trusted that the alarm now felt would induce individuals, at all hazards, to put down this practice, and that they would not suffer themselves to be intimidated by threats from doing so. After this act, he had hopes that the specific punishment would have the effect of preventing the repetition of this act. It had been said, if the Manchester meeting was illegal, surely there could be no doubt these nightly meetings were illegal; but the Manchester meeting had been held up to the country as a legal meeting, and thereby considerable difficulty had been thrown in the way of magistrates.
Lord Stanleywas surprised at the incredulity which the hon. member for Carlisle intimated, that he had till recently entertained with regard to the existence of these practices. All he could say was, that in the county of Lancashire they had been going on for a long period, and it was matter of general astonishment that legal proceedings had not been before instituted. Several persons had indeed been apprehended, but no prosecution had followed, and they were dismissed on promises of good behaviour. This was done, he believed, from doubt as to the illegality of the offence charged. He agreed with Mr. Brougham, that it was an offence at common law; but if it were not, it evidently ought to be made one; for it created not only alarm, but real danger.
856
At the same time he did not wish to see it adopted without some time for consideration.
Mr. Curwensaid, his original doubt existed, because he had not at that time met with any person who had actually seen this drilling and training practised. Whatever might be the case in Lancashire, he was firmly persuaded that the far greater part of the people in Cumberland were loyal and well disposed. He never would believe until the fact was proved; to him, that any men could be desirous of overthrowing a constitution under which they enjoyed so many blessings.
Mr. S. Woortleywas quite satisfied with the mode proposed by his noble friend, which would mark, in some way, the feeling of the Houses He had no hesitation, on the part of the magistrates of Yorkshire, in saying that they considered themselves perfectly warranted in proceeding against the persons who met for training: the only difficulty was in obtaining proof against individuals—but he believed such proof was now obtained, and he expected some of them were in custody.
Mr. J. P. Grantconcurred in all that had been said, as to the immediate necessity of putting down practices which were as illegal as they were dangerous. He wished, however, to learn whether they were not understood to be confined to very small districts in Scotland.
The Lord Advocatereplied, chiefly to the neighbourhood of Glasgow.
Sir C. Burrellthought that the information communicated by magistrates should always be treated with respect. It was too much the custom, on one side of the House, to represent such information as coming from government spies.
Lord Folkestonegave his assent to the object of this measure, which he should have thought useless if the magistrates had done their duty.
Mr. Calcraftagreed that training was an offence which ought to be put down. The House by showing an unanimous opinion to that effect, would, he was satisfied, recover many from delusion, and secure the punishment of irreclaimable offenders.
The bill was then read a first and second time.

NAVAL EXPENDITURE.
Mr. Humecalled the attention of the House to the

857
subject of our present naval expenditure. A resolution, he observed, had been passed respecting it, when the last three millions of new taxes were imposed. Six months had since elapsed without any attempt at reviewing this expenditure. His own opinion certainly was; that not one pound ought to be spared in order to render our naval force efficient. This was due to the honour as well as to the safety of the country. It was at all times of more vital importance than the state of our army; and however splendid the recent achievements of the latter, they had been preceded, and an opportunity opened to them, by the unrivalled victories of our navy. When he compared, how-ever, the present expenditure for this branch of the public service, being between 6,000,000 l. and 7,000,000 l. whilst we had only 19,000 seamen, with that of the years 1791, 1792, and 1793, it appeared, enormous. The chief cause of the increased expense was the much greater number of ships now employed. We had no less than 607 ships of which 97 only were at sea. Although at the present moment there Were 607 ships in his majesty's service, yet there were no less than 120 other vessels building in the different dock-yards. From the estimates on the table for 1819, the expense for building alone was 1,850,000 l.—a sum which, at a period like the present, he submitted, was far beyond any necessity which could exist. The great point, however, to which he wished to call the attention of the House, was the extraordinary disproportion between the disbursements in this department during the years 1792, 1793, and 1794, and those of the present period. If the papers for which he should move were granted, the House would be enabled to see the real state of the case. Surely, no satisfactory reason could be assigned for buildings new ships, which would cost upwards of a million sterling, at a time when we had more than 600 sail capable of being called into immediate service; and at a time, too, when every consideration demanded a decrease, rather than an increase of the public expenditure. He could not refrain on this occasion, too, from stating how much he regretted the addition which, within the last few days, had been made to the marine force. These corps might now be considered almost as a part of the standing army. They were no less than 8,000 strong—a number far exceed-
858
ing their strength at any former period. Their utmost amount heretofore was 5,000 at any one time. He had submitted the motion with which he should conclude, to the proper officers, and he believed there was no objection to meeting his wishes; It was thought that some difficulty would arise in furnishing the details of the accounts which he required; but this difficulty would be obviated when he stated, that he only wanted the totals or aggregates of the expenditures during the years to which his motion would refer. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, That there should be laid before the House ft return of the total number of Ships and Vessels belonging to the royal navy during the years 1791, 1792, and 1793, and during the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, distinguishing their different rates, the number of each employed at se, and the number in ordinary during each year; a return of the number of ships building for the royal navy during each of the above years; a return of all charges incurred for building the same; a return of the total amount of the charges under each separate head, with a statement of the sums actually ex-pended during the three years ending in 1794, and the three years up to the pre-sent time. If these accounts were submitted in a succinct manner, the House would see that the question was of the first importance, and that, in the single department of building, a very considerable saving might be made.
The question having been put from the chair.
Sir George Cockburnsaid, he did not rise to promote debate, nor to oppose the production of these papers, so far as they could be given. But it appeared to him, that the larger part could not be made up with sufficient accuracy for the hon. gentleman to found any argument upon them. As far as they could be given, however, they should be laid on the table of the House. There would be no difficulty whatever in furnishing correctly the accounts for the last three years; but those for the years 1792, 3, and 4 were kept in such an irregular manner as almost to preclude the possibility of laying them before parliament in a satisfactory state. The hon. gentleman in the course of his observations, had indulged in remarks which were altogether erroneous; one of these was, that a great many ships were rotting. This applied of course to the

859
ships which were in ordinary. Now, the fact was, that so far from such ships being in a situation to rot, they were actually improving; and, in proportion to the time they were in ordinary, their excellence increased. Thus it was said, "if you let her lie two years longer in ordinary she will run ten years; or, if you let her lie four years, she will run twenty years;" and so on. In truth, it had long been a subject of anxiety to discover the means of curing that most destructive enemy to ships of war, the dry rot. It had, at length, been ascertained, that exposure to atmospheric air was, the true remedy; and, therefore, vessels were opened from; one end to the other, and exposed as much as possible. The effect of this management was, that the navy had never been in a better state than at the present moment. With regard to the necessity of continuing to build, be could only state, that many of the old ships were falling to decay, and therefore it was necessary to supply their place. The policy of keeping up this vital force of the country was too obvious to require a single comment.
Sir Joseph Yorkesaid, he thought the object of his hon. friend, in bringing for-word this motion, had been mistaken. What he conceived to be his hon. friend's intention was, that by the production of these papers, such a disproportion would be found to exist between the expenditure of 1792, 3, and 4, and the expenditure of the last three years, as would lead the House to see that a very great reduction might be made in the supplies granted for the service of the navy. In the propriety of this proposition he fully agreed, and he saw no reason why there should not be as great a reduction in the manufacture of ships of war as in the other manufactures of the country. He perfectly recollected an answer which he gave to an hon. member who had formerly belonged to that House (Mr. Whitbread) on tins very subject. On that occasion, allusion was made to the great extent of ship-building; and he said, that this must be the case as long as the dry rot was permitted to continue its ravages, and that until vessels were built under cover, it never would be undiminished. Since that period every vessel and every ship was covered; consequently the destruction must have became much less. He perfectly agreed in the expediency of preserving unbroken the naval strength of
860
the country, but he saw no sort of necessity for carrying on such enormous expenditure. As he was now on his legs, he would take the opportunity of alluding to the manner in which a very meritorious individual, to whose services the country was greatly indebted, had been treated. He alluded to sir Robert Sopping, who, although he had received the honour of knighthood, and had been particularly recommended by that House as deserving of pecuniary reward, had not received a single shilling. He would say no more on, this subject at present, and should conclude by expressing his conviction, that a considerable reduction might be made in the naval estimates.
Sir Isaac Coffinfelt it his duty to offer a few words in defence of that highly meritorious corps to which the hon. mover had alluded—he meant the royal marines. If it had not been for the integrity and loyalty of this corps, the whole fleet under lord St. Vincent, at the time of the mutiny, would have been carried into Ireland. It was to the conduct of the marines alone that the safety of the fleet, as well as the preservation of the lives of the officers; was to be ascribed. He had repeatedly seen them in service, both on shore and on board, and never knew an instance in which they had not manifested great courage, zeal, and loyalty. He therefore maintained, that in adding 1,000 men to the marines, the House was not turning them into a standing army.
Mr. Crokerregretted that the hon. mover should have brought forward this subject now—not that he meant to say that a subject of such importance ever came amiss, but that many of the papers included in the motion would, as a matter of course, be laid on the table of the House, with the navy estimates for the year; and therefore, an additional degree of trouble and expense would be incurred. From what quarter the hon. gentleman had obtained his information respecting the expenditure for the navy for the years 1792, 3, and 4, he was at a loss to conceive; but most certainly ho did not seem to be in possession of all that might be collected on the subject. If he had consulted the Journals of the House, he would have found, that, in addition to the estimates for those years, there was always a very large disbursement, the effect of which was, the creation of the navy debt which had subse-

861
quently been funded. When, however, the House proceeded to the discussion of this subject, he pledged himself to prove, when they looked to the size of the ships, and the other necessary differences in the state of the service, that there was by no means that enormous difference of expense which the hon. mover would insinuate. With regard to what had fallen from his gallant friend (sir J. Yorke), though he differed from him in the view which he had first taken of the question, yet he felt satisfaction in the opportunity which was afforded of paying a most de-served compliment to him for the great attention which, for many years, he had devoted to this particular branch of the public service; and he had the pleasure of stating, that the very system which that gallant officer had recommended was that which those now in office were studiously pursuing. When ships decayed it was necessary that their places should be supplied. The hon. mover had said, that there were 120 vessels on the stocks; where he had got this information he knew not, but had he consulted the papers which were already before the House, he would have found his error; for most certainly his account was greatly exaggerated. With reference to the actual state of the navy, without any regard to the temper or disposition of foreign powers, it had been considered expedient to keep a proper number of ships fit for service. Beyond this number, which was founded on a sound view of the policy of the country, no increase had taken place. The House would therefore see, that they were not building at random; and that they were not, as had been stated, manufacturing vessels merely for the sake of building them. He begged also to allude to the observations which had been made with respect to sir Robert Sepping. Of the merits of that individual no man entertained a higher sense than himself. It was only last year, however, that the recommendation had been given to the committee of finance, to grant him a sum of money in consideration of his great merits. So far the admiralty had done all that was in their power to farther his claims. The committee of finance had since resolved, that he should receive 5,000 l., and the Prince Regent had confirmed that resolution. From the shortness of the period which had elapsed since the meeting of parliament, no opportunity had been afforded for completing
862
this object. The Prince Regent had also been pleased to confer upon Mr. Sepping the honour of knighthood.
Sir Byam Martinsaid, that when the papers which had been moved for were produced, he would take upon himself to say, that the hon. gentleman would be found to be incorrect in every point to which he had alluded. He would pledge himself to prove, that he was wrong in every instance to which he had called the attention of the House. He wished to say, that the accounts referred to in the motion could only be obtained with great inconvenience, arising from the incorrect manner in which the naval accounts had been kept in the years 1792, 3, and 4; and when they were produced, he thought they would be more likely to mislead, than to inform the House. He begged leave to say also, that, two years ago, the committee of finance kept him before them for a full hour, with a view to ascertain whether they could not get rid of one poor unhappy clerk. If, therefore, his department was now to be called upon to undertake an increased portion of labour, he trusted no objection would hereafter be made to a considerable addition to the estimates; for it was impossible to go on without an enlargement of expense.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume, in reply, pledged himself, when the accounts were produced, to prove every one of his allegations; and, with regard to the expense of these accounts, he would undertake for five pounds, if they would give him the inspection of their books, to obtain all he desired. He could not but complain of the spirit in which this motion had been met, after he had endeavoured to reduce it into that shape which was likely to be the least objectionable. For his own part, he could see no rational ground for objecting to the papers, nor could he discover what difficulty would be found, unless indeed it was said, there were no accounts at all for the early period to which he referred. If there were such accounts, and this had not been denied, then all he wanted was an abstract of their totals or aggregates. He was particularly anxious that these papers should be in the possession of the House before the discussion of the estimates for the service, of the year.
Mr. Crokerthought the hon. gentleman had no reason to complain of the spirit in which his motion had been met, when all that he had asked had been at once ac-

863
ceded to. The hon. gentleman was however mistaken when he supposed that the papers for which he had moved were to be obtained without trouble. He was ignorant of the manner in which the public accounts were kept and therefore could form no correct judgment on the subject.
Sir Joseph Yorkeobserved, he did not wish to make any invidious comparison; yet be considered, when the services of sir Robert Sepping were contrasted with those of Mr. Graham, a Bow-street magistrate, who had received 5,000 l., that such a sum was extremely inadequate to the merits of the former. He thought that he should at least have had 10,000 l., at all events, the grant of 5,000 l. was very paltry.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the 5,000 l. to Mr. Graham had been granted upon his resigning a lucrative situation, in consequence of ill health; whereas sir R. Sepping still continued to receive the emoluments of a profitable office.
The motion was then put and carried.

SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.
Lord Castlereagh Lord Castlereagh moved the order of the day for the House resuming the committee on this bill. The House having resolved into the committee accordingly, the chairman proceeded to read the eighth clause of the bill, which enacts, "That if notice shall purport, that any thing by law establish may be altered, except by authority of King, Lords, and Commons, &c, the meeting shall be deemed an unlawful assembly."
Mr. Denmansaid, he considered this clause, as totally unnecessary, inasmuch as before the meeting could be assembled the magistrates must be satisfied that the objects for which it was called were not of an improper nature. According to this clause, after the meeting had been assembled with the sanction of the magistrates, they would have the power of exercising their caprice and dispersing it.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that this act did not give a magistrate the power of dispersing a meeting without previous notice.
The ninth clause, which enacts that if any person or persons shall attend a meeting contrary to the provisions of this act, and shall not depart within a quarter of an hour after proclamation to that effect has been made, the meet-
*
864
ing shall become illegal, and every such person remaining shall be guilty of a felony —having been put by the chairman,
Lord Althorpsaid, he thought that some amendment to this clause should be proposed, to prevent a magistrate from dispersing a meeting while there was any one person of a different parish present.
Lord Castlereaghapprehended it would be dangerous to oblige a magistrate to draw a line of distinction respecting the number of strangers that should render a meeting illegal.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that the first proclamation directed to be made by the magistrate, declared the meeting to be unlawful, and the second made the persons so remaining liable to the penalties of a felony. Now he begged to know, what was the right construction of that clause? because, from the ambiguous manner in which it was worded, 20,000 or 30,000 people might be made guilty of felony by the obstinacy of one person.
Mr. Denmansaid, that once or twice a-year a greater number of persons than was allowed by this clause attended at Lloyd's and if one stranger was to intrude himself among them, and refuse to. withdraw, they would all become subject to the penalties of a felony. He should wish to be told how it was to be known that a person was a freeholder. Was he to take his title-deeds in his pocket; or was the magistrate to take the word of the party himself? He needed not, surely, remind the supporters of the bill, that no language admitted a greater latitude of construction than that which applied to residence. This clause rested the case of persons attending a meeting who had no right to be present, and it gave the magistrate the power of dispersing the assembly if those strangers did not withdraw. Now, supposing that, in the execution of the order for dispersion, death should ensue, would the magistrate be guilty of murder, if it was shown to the jury on the trial, that the person on whose account the meeting had been dispersed was really an inhabitant of the parish? These, he conceived, were topics that deserved the consideration of the noble lord, and of the learned gentle-men opposite.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that when a magistrate had read the Riot act in ordinary cases, individuals who did not depart,

865
subjected themselves to the penalties of the act, with a full knowledge of the consequences; and the same would be the case after the reading of the proclamation according to the provision of this clause. The learned gentleman had not stated any circumstance that would not justify a magistrate to act in other cases where the law had been violated.
Mr. Denmansaid, that here were facts on which a magistrate was to judge, while not one of the facts was within his knowledge; and yet the noble lord had said, that this case was the same as any other riot. The distinction was evident and important.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that the moment a magistrate had read the Riot act, persons remaining culpably on the ground subjected themselves to the penalties of the law. This provision was merely a transcript of the Riot act, with this difference only, that the parties offending were guilty of a felony, instead of a misdemeanor. In all cases, the magistrate ought to decide on the law, and it did not become the subject to sit in judgment on the magistrate.
Lord Folkestoneremarked, that the noble lord did not seem to understand the objection of his learned friend. The magistrate, not knowing the fact himself, but acting on the information of others, might be liable to commit a mistake; and the case put by his learned friend was, that if death ensued in consequence of this mistake, the magistrate might be guilty of murder. The right of the magistrate to judge of the law was not questioned; it was only alleged, that by acting on the information of others, when he had himself no means of knowledge, he might be led to the commission of murder.
Mr. Leslie Fostersaid, the objection of the learned gentleman was, that by the attendance of one stranger, or rather of a person erroneously supposed to be a stranger, a magistrate might be brought into the situation supposed. The objection, however, did not apply, because the object of this clause was, to prevent individuals who were known certainly to be strangers from interfering in the business of a meeting.
Lord Miltonconsidered the clause to be one of a most savage description. The noble lord had endeavoured to draw a parallel between actual riots and constructive riots, and had contended, that
866
the penalties annexed to the latter, after the reading of the proclamation by a magistrate, were analogous to those which were annexed to the former after the reading of the Riot act. There was, however, a most important distinction between the two cases; for, supposing even that the penalties were the same, which was not the case, the Riot act allowed a whole hour for the dispersion of the meeting, after notice of its illegality had been given, while this clause allowed only a quarter of an hour. Thus the present clause subjected persons guilty of a constructive riot to the penalties of a felony, after a quarter of an hour's notice; while, by the provisions of the Riot-act, those guilty of a real riot were exposed to the penalties of a misdemeanor only, and that not till an hour after notice had been given.
Sir J. Marjoribankssuggested the introduction of a clause, purporting that a meeting should not be dispersed as illegal, unless the order of a magistrate for the arrest of any unqualified person present should be resisted by such meeting.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that as the clause stood at present, the meeting became unlawful when the magistrate declared it to be so. His object was, that after a declaration to that effect by the magistrate, time should be allowed to the people to disperse before they became subject to the penalties of the bill; and he wished the attorney-general would frame an amendment to that effect.
Mr. Denmanobserved, that a man pointed out by the magistrate as a stranger, might, in reality, be a freeholder, while another person, not pointed out, might be a stranger. As the clause was at present worded, that person's presence would make the meeting illegal; though surely that never could be intended by the framers of the bill. The magistrate, therefore, should be required to point out the individuals whose presence rendered the meeting illegal.
The Attorney-Generalagreed to alter that part of the clause, so as to have the following effect:—that when any person who was a stranger had been ordered to withdraw and had refused to comply with that order, the party so refusing should, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of felony.
Mr. Denmanproposed that the provision in this clause: which empowered a single magistrate to disperse a meeting,

867
should not extend to meetings called by the lord-lieutenant of a county or riding, by a sheriff, by five justices, &c. or to any other than parish meetings.
A conversation ensued, in which lord Castlereagh, lord A. Hamilton, sir J. Sebright, lord Milton, Mr. Ellison, the Solicitor-general, Mr. Denman, the Attorney-general and Mr. Primrose, took part, when the amendment was negatived, and the original clause carried without a division.
The clause indemnifying magistrates in case of killing or maiming in dispersing meetings, being read,
Mr. Denmanobjected to it, as introducing a new and dangerous principle in law. By the riot-act, the remaining together, or not dispersing on proclamation made, rendered the parties guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy; but even there the magistrate was not indemnified for ordering those who disobeyed the proclamation to be killed.
The Solicitor-Generalcontended, that the magistrates, by the statute of Henry 7th, and by other statutes founded on the commission, had the right to disperse an unlawful assembly by force.
Mr. Denmanmost positively denied this principle, and would appeal to the whole body of lawyers in support of his opinion. Hawkins, who was in opposition to the principle of the learned Solicitor-general, had put the case of an assembly for the purpose of hearing Mass, which was then unlawful, but could not be dispersed by force. Force could not be used but when there was a breach of the peace. Unless, therefore, every thing cruel and despotic were to be raked into this measure—unless a contradiction was to be given in it to every principle of law and justice—unless a complete power was to be placed in the hands of magistrates over life, limb, and liberty, without responsibility, this clause he was confident could not pass.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that the proposition of the Solicitor-general was the most alarming that he had ever heard, and the most opposite to the principles of law or the opinions of any lawyer. Let the hon. and learned gentleman consult Mr. Justice Hale, who said that it required an act of parliament to indemnify a magistrate who had caused death in dispersing an unlawful meeting, from the charge of having committed murder. Was the Riot-act to be brought up here?
868
That act applied to a riotous assembly; while the assembly here contemplated was merely an unlawful one; and yet a magistrate was to be justified for sending troops of horse to trample down and destroy them! He never heard a more monstrous proposition than this—that by implication any assembly might be made unlawful, by implication any unlawful one might be dispersed by force; and if lives were lost, the magistrates would be indemnified against a charge of murder! If this was the meaning of the clause, why was it not openly declared, that his majesty's subjects might be put on their guard?
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that if he looked at the statute of Henry 7th, and other acts founded on the commission of the peace, he found that the magistrates had the right of dispersing unlawful assemblies, even before the Riot-act. Suppose 50,000 people had assembled to the breach of the peace, they might have been dispersed without the provisions of that act. If a magistrate was called to any riotous meeting, or to any unlawful meeting, in breach of the peace, he was justified in using force to put it down, and was indemnified against the consequences. The force, however, was only to be a proper force; he was not allowed to exert more force, or to apply greater violence, than the dispersion of the assembly required. He acted under a heavy responsibility in this respect, but his power by the law could not be denied.
The clause was agreed to
The Attorney General, before he alluded to the clauses relative to unlicensed places for debating and discussion, would only call the attention of the House to one or two of the many questions of the sort which had been debated and discussed, as it was called, within the last six weeks, ill different parts of the metropolis. Perhaps it would be sufficient to observe that what he held in his hand purported to have been a question propounded at a place called Hopkins's Chapel, near Berwick-street, Soho, on the 24th of November last. The notice of the meeting ran in these terms: —"This evening the following question will be debated; Which of the three professions has the greatest tendency to harden the human heart—the hangman, the grave-digger, or the parson?" He need not say in what manner that question was decided. Another question was, "Whe-

869
ther lord chief justice Abbott's refusal to allow Mr. Carlile to read the Bible, in the course of his defence, arose out of a real respect for the sacred writings, or from the fear that their supposed absurdity and folly might be thereby exposed?" With the leave of the House he would just read them a passage from a publication called the Black Dwarf. The hon. and learned gentleman here read a short extract, which was to the effect "that the radical reformers wanted concentration; that reformers should deal only with reformers; that they should carefully endeavour to keep their body in force by their holding together; lastly, that they should subscribe, so that in every considerable town there might be public dinners, or other meals provided, of which reformers might partake at a cheap rate; and from which all exciseable articles, as much as possible, should be banished; that delegates should be paid to repair to them, in order to exhort and instruct them in the cause; and that in every town where they possessed a reading room, they should keep books which might be lent out upon the cheapest terms possible." Now it was with a view to the mischief likely to be caused by such practices, that the provisions relative to debating societies, both in 1817 and 1796, where blasphemous or seditious opinions were read or maintained, had been enacted. This clause, relative to unlicensed places for holding debates, was founded upon the 36th of the king, and upon the act of 1817. He should therefore propose by way of amendment, that the operation of the act should not only extend, as at present, to "places used for the purpose of delivering lectures and holding debates, at which discourses have been held of an irreligious, immoral, and seditious nature,'' but also to all places whatever, where persons not licensed should publicly read or debate.
Sir R. Heronwished to ask the hon. and learned gentleman whether any prosecution had been instituted against the authors of the two first papers which he had read?
The Attorney Generalsaid, that no prosecution had been commenced; but a bill had been found against one of the persons who attended at the meeting, for the seditious and blasphemous opinions he had there maintained.
Mr. Alderman Wooddesired to know, whether the clause was meant to apply to meetings for the discussion of philosophical or scientific subjects.
The Attorney Generalsaid, the clause only applied to places where money was received.
The amendment was carried without a division. The next clause was, that all houses, &c. where meetings should beheld, and money taken either for admission or refreshment, such places not being previously licensed for that purpose, should be deemed disorderly houses.
Mr. Denmanobjected to one part of this clause. He did not know what disorderly houses meant, except in one sense, which he did not care to name. He should move that those words be omitted.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. Denmanobjected to the clause relative to the revocation of licences. As the bill now stood, a man might be ruined, and never know the cause of his misfortunes. He should therefore move, that after the words "complaint made," the words, "upon full evidence and information on oath," be inserted.
This was also negatived without a division.
Lord Folkestone, adverting to the clause relative to the limitation of actions, said, that if he read it rightly, actions against individuals charged with the offences contemplated by this bill, might be proceeded in, within a term of six months; but if any of those individuals should happen to have been committed under an erroneous impression, they must prosecute the magistrates, upon whose warrants they had been so falsely committed, within three months. This surely required explanation. The clause went on to say, that if the plaintiff in the latter case should become nonsuited, or the jury should find a verdict for the defendant, or if, upon demurrer, judgment should be given, as against the plaintiff, the defendant should have double costs. This, too, was to be noticed; because it was evident how very cautious it would have the effect of making persons in adopting proceedings against any magistrate.
Mr. G. Lamb Mr. G. Lamb moved, that the words, "three months" be omitted, and "six months" substituted in their stead. After some observations from Mr. Barham, and Mr. J. P. Grant, this amendment was put and carried. In answer to a question from an hon. member, why in the case of Scotland the costs should be trebled? the lord advocate observed, that it was the usual custom. Mr. J. P. Grant thought,

871
that the sooner the custom ceased to exist, the better it would be for his unfortunate countrymen, who were thus liable to pay more than their southern neighbours, who could afford it so much better. He should move that the word "double" be inserted in the place of "treble." Mr. Martin (of Galway) thought, that some security ought to be given to magistrates who might be proceeded against for the payment of their costs in case of nonsuit. The amendment was carried without a division. The other clauses of the bill were then agreed to, after which
Lord Castlereaghrose, for the purpose of proposing some new clauses. His first clause was, that in those cases where strangers, or persons who had no right to attend at a particular meeting, were present, and after being ordered to withdraw. refused to go, it should be lawful for any person or persons (having a right to attend at such meeting) to take the person so refusing into custody, and bring him before the next magistrate, to be dealt with according to the act. This clause was read a first time. On its second reading,
Mr. Broughamobjected to it, and contended that it would be manifestly absurd if carried into effect. It went to give any man who had a right to attend at such a meeting a power of a special constable, and also to take away all those who had not the right to attend. Now suppose, as he understood was the case at Manchester, there were 20,000 out of the 30,000 who might have attended, who had no right at all to attend under this bill, what would be the consequence? Or suppose, to take small numbers, there was a meeting assembled of 1,500 persons, of whom only 500 had a right to be present, did the noble lord mean to say that every man who had a right to attend should arrest one who had no right; or, to speak in short terms, that each lawful man should arrest his radical and take him off? Now, in such a case, all the 500 men who would have a legal right to attend, would be engaged in taking away 500 of those who had no such right; or, as he might say, in "pairing off" with them, (laughter), and thereby leave 500 of those present who had no right so to be. Would not this, he would ask, be a manifest absurdity, if the object was, to put down the seditious meetings mentioned in the bill?
Lord Castlereaghwas surprised at the extravagant construction which the hon.
872
and learned gentleman had put upon the clause. He should recollect that it could not have the effect alluded to, as it was not compulsory on any man who had a right to attend, to take any other not having the same right from it. Every such man was not bound, as the hon. and learned gentleman had supposed, to take his radical and walk away.
The clause was then agreed to.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp, on rising to propose a clause for limiting the operation of the bill to the disturbed districts, observed that he had many disadvantages to surmount. These disadvantages did not consist merely in the lateness of the hour, or in the disposition of the noble lord to repel every important alteration. He felt, also, that any suggestion coming from himself must come with this disadvantage—that as he was known to object to the whole principle of the bill, he might be suspected of an intention to interfere with that principle in recommending a clause for their adoption. The clause, however, which he felt it his duty to propose, did not interfere in any degree with the useful operation of the measure, though it was calculated to prevent its unnecessary and vexatious application. The papers before the House did not make out a case of alarm beyond some of the great counties of England and Scotland. His majesty's ministers had described the measure as an improvement of the law; but that was not the opinion of the House, or they would have made it permanent. But it was not enough, according to his view of it, that it should be temporary; justice seemed to require that it should be local also, and that those parts should be exempted from its severity, where no case of disturbance could be made out to justify its introduction. The Bill which authorized search for arms was limited to the disturbed districts; why should not this be limited in the same way? It was more easy to remove a magazine of pikes from one county to another, than to remove such meetings as this bill was intended to prevent. The clause, which he should propose might appear, on the first view, to impose restrictions upon certain counties; but it only affected some counties, while the bill, as it stood, affected all, and therefore was rather to be considered in the light of an exemption. It might be argued, that it was an odious task for magistrates to apply for an extension of the bill to their respective counties when the

873
state of things required it. But, disagreeable as the task might be, he was sure that no magistrate would refuse to do his duty. Another argument which might possibly be urged against it was, that it gave too great a discretion to magistrates; but their discretion was not increased beyond the powers of the present act, and was, after all, a discretion to exempt where it might be expedient. The noble lord concluded by moving a clause to limit the operation of the measure to certain counties therein mentioned, but empowering the lords lieutenant or magistrates of counties, now quiet, to introduce it by proclamation whenever disturbances might render it expedient. The counties named in the clause were the west riding of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, Durham, Cumberland, Northumberland, Nottingham, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Renfrew, Lanark, and Derby.
Mr. Cartwrightopposed the clause, and denied that it was more easy to transport arras than assemblies from one county to another. The tranquil part of the country, he was satisfied, would feel themselves aggrieved if the bill was not extended for their protection.
Mr. Honywoodthought it strange that any of the quiet counties should feel aggrieved at not being placed under the ban of this act; and he was sure he might say for his own constituents, that they would feel much aggrieved, if, without any act of disloyalty upon their parts, they were exposed to all the hardships and severities of such a measure.
Mr. W Lambsaid, that with the opinion he entertained as to the danger of the country, he could not refuse his support to the bill; but, on considering its provisions, the amendment proposed by his noble friend appeared to deserve the adoption of the House. He was sure the noble secretary of state would feel the necessity of carrying along with him in those measures as much of public opinion as possible; and when he considered the measures of 1817, he would find, that nothing had tended so much to render the Habeas Corpus act odious in the eyes of the community as the indiscrimate universality of its operation. There were many who admitted the existence of danger, and yet thought it hard, unjust, and iniquitous, that those who had committed no fault should be exposed to its severity. He could assure the noble lord, that the same feeling would operate with regard to
874
the present measure, if it was applied with the same indiscreet latitude. The bill, if properly limited, was not essentially an abridgment of the rights of the subject; for right, when properly used, was under a better limitation than that of law; But, when rights were abused, as that of petition had been, the law was a necessary corrective. An hon. gentleman had observed that the disturbers of the public peace might carry their effects into other counties, but his belief was, that in no other part of the country could their projects be brought to act. As to any abuses that might arise out of the plan proposed by his noble friend, they might easily be met by other provisions, and therefore he did not hesitate to press seriously on the attention of ministers, the feeling which they run the risk of exciting by extending the measure in the first in-stance to the whole country.
Mr. Grantadmitted the necessity of carrying along with these measures as much of public opinion as was possible; but the first object was, to carry their purpose into effect. No fact could be more plainly proved than the necessity upon which they were legislating. He would not now discuss the extent of the danger, as he might assume that it was admitted by the House. This danger did not arise merely from distress, a system had been pursued which was not the creature of distress, though it had availed itself of the advantages supplied from that source. The question therefore was, whether, with the conviction that such a spirit was in existence, with a knowledge of its increasing activity in making converts, and of the distress which constituted its chief aliment, they should anticipate the danger, or leave the country, not to the chance of a small evil, but to the chance of an evil growing to that extent which might soon require, not measures of prevention, but of suppression and dispersion. Two engines were employed for the propagation of a system, the object of which was national and not local—those engines were public meetings and the press. Could any one imagine that local bills would succeed in putting it down— or was it not more probable that they would have to follow the disaffected with unequal steps into other counties? It was necessary to destroy their hopes, and show them that parliament was determined to crush their designs. An hon. gentleman had said, that the system could not be

875
carried into other parts of the country, but he was not willing to see the experiment tried, how much poison the frame of the country could bear before it was destroyed. It was in behalf of that population with which he was officially connected, and to whose interests he was bound, that he was anxious the bill should stand in its present shape. It was said to be a bill of coercion; on the contrary, it was one of protection. It was coercive, not against the people, but against the enemies of the people, whose name, was so often usurped by revolutionary demagogues. He must say, that if this measure was made local, it would be an encroachment on the high privileges and liberties of the undisturbed counties; as it would deprive them of that protection to which they were entitled. To use the words of lord chief justice Holt, it would be "an assault upon the, people of England." It was not the nobility, nor the commons, that were to be protected by this measure; it was the honest the un-contaminated, the industrious peasantry of the country whom they were to protect against those who wished to deprive them of the privileges of the constitution, and the consolations of religion; thus rendering them miserable in this world, and hopeless as to the next.
Sir M. W. Ridleydid not mean to say that something of this kind was not necessary; but he thought that it should be strictly confined to the necessity of the case. If the bill was limited, as proposed by the amendment, it would be adequate to all its objects, for magistrates could correspond with ministers sufficiently early to prevent inconvenient or dangerous meetings.
Lord Ebringtonfelt that he should be wanting in the duty which he owed to the populous and loyal county which he had the honour of representing, if he did not oppose the extension of these measures to it. He entered his protest against including the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of Devon in this measure. It was urged, that the seditious leaders would, if the measure was made local, extend themselves to the peaceable counties. Even if they did, it would be impossible for them to produce any effect in the county where he resided. He therefore felt it his duty to support the amendment.
Mr. W. Courlenayagreed with his noble friend, that infinitely the largest
876
portion of that part of the country with which they were connected was free from any disposition which might require restraint; but, at the same time, they all looked for something of this kind; and if they were left exposed to the attacks which might be made by itinerant agitators, they would consider themselves unfairly treated.
Mr. Macdonaldsaid, that whatever difference might exist as to the necessity which called for coercive measures, he thought they all agreed in feeling reluctance in passing them. There was but one way of demonstrating that general feeling, and that was by limiting those measures to the strict necessity which called for them. This measure was to be limited in a two-fold way—in point of time and in point of extent. The time had been already fixed, and for a period which he regretted as he thought a much shorter time would be sufficient. The extent in point of district was still to be limited. He would ask, whether his noble friend had not provided for any emergency in counties proposed to be exempted from this bill? He should like to hear something like an answer to this from the other side of the House. What could be required more, than that the magistrates should have the power of proclaiming their county, in whole or in part, subject to the operation of this bill? At least the onus was upon the other side.
Lord Miltonfully concurred in the reasons urged for limiting the bill, and felt disposed to support the amendment for other reasons. The hon. member for Exeter had stated, that the part of the country with which he was connected was well disposed. His noble friend, the member for Northamptonshire, had said the same of that county. He could make the same statement respecting the county in which he lived—he meant Huntingdonshire. It was a French saying, that where nothing exists, the king loses his rights; so he would say of this bill. Whatever ground there might exist for passing it in the manufacturing districts, no necessity for its extension to agricultural districts could exist, but in the imaginations of men who saw nothing but radical meetings all over the country, threatening fire and destruction to all within their reach.
Mr. Mansfieldopposed the amendment. If the measure was made local, the evil would spread itself, and parliament would

877
in a short time again be convened, in order to enact additional measures of restriction.
Mr. Barhamsaid, that if he was convinced of the efficacy of the clause he would vote for it. It was the wish of all that some efficacious measures should be adopted. It was urged that the great bulk of the people were loyal. Why, then were the great bulk of the people to be subjected to the same restrictions as the disaffected? There were several counties in England where the term radical reform would not be understood. The most certain mode of spreading the evil would be by passing this law, as it would excite the curiosity of the people to discover what it was enacted to prevent. The best way of convincing the people of the benefit of entertaining loyal principles, would be to let those who did not abuse their liberties, continue in the enjoyment of them; while those who abused were punished by being deprived of them. The bill would have a dangerous tendency, by showing that the loyal and the disaffected were treated with equal rigour.
Mr. Cooperconsidered the present bill as intended for the defence of our rights and liberties. What was liberty? Was it not the right of doing what a wise and good man would wish to do? They were legislating, not for mischievous agitators, but for the liberties of the people.
Mr. W. Parnellstrongly objected to the clause. He also objected to the measure altogether as it regarded Ireland, where according to the statement of the noble lord himself, the greatest tranquillity and prosperity existed. Even in this country he did not think it would effect the end proposed. The conduct of ministers reminded him of a little French tale which he read some time since. There was a very ugly knight, but a man of great wisdom, who fell in love with a beautiful young lady, who, notwithstanding was very indiscreet. The knight thought the folly of the young lady could make no obstacle to their union, "for," said he, "our children will possess all the beauty of their mother, with all the wisdom of their father." Unfortunately the knight was mistaken. The children possessed all the ugliness of the father, with all the folly of their mother. Now, so it was With the question before them. This boasted beauty, the privilege of the people, was as a corrective to its indiscretion
878
to be coupled to the ugly but wise knight; the measure proposed by ministers. He feared, however, that the produce of the union would be similar in both instances —namely, that it would possess the ugliness of the father, and the folly of the mother without retaining any trace of the boasted wisdom or beauty of either.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, he was anxious to impress upon the House, that, in the event of the amendment being negatived, he was determined to bring it forward, as far as Ireland was concerned, on the bringing up of the report. In doing this, he trusted that he should receive the support and co-operation of every independent member of that House. Though he had not any immediate connexion with the right hon. the secretary for Ireland, he could not but express his regret at the speech which he had made that night. When he recollected the brilliancy with which that right hon. gentleman had conducted himself, both before and since he commenced his public career, when he considered the efforts he had made in another quarter, he could not help feeling a sincere anxiety, for the consistency of his political character. He did not express this regret from a feeling that his country could be benefitted by the exertions of any right hon. gentleman, but from a respect for the right hon. gentleman's former exertions.
Sir W. Guisesaid, his constituents deprecated the extension of this measure to them, and had told him that there was no-occasion for it in Gloucestershire. He would therefore support the amendment.
Mr. R. Martinpledged himself to oppose any attempt to prevent this measure being extended to Ireland. It was calculated to produce peace and happiness in that country.
Sir R. Fergussonprotested in the name of his country against the measure. It was said that it would be a blessing to the sister kingdom. It may be so, but from such blessings good Lord deliver us.
The committee then divided: For the Amendment, 51; Against it, 191: Majority against it, 140. The original clause was then put and carried; after which the House resumed.

List of the Minority.

Barham, Jos.

Calvert, G.

Barnet, J.

Cavendish, lord G.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Churchill, lord C.

Brougham, H.

Clifton, lord

Calcraf, J.

Crompton, S.

879

Dundas, Thos.

Nugent, lord

Denman, T.

O'Callaghan, Jas.

Ebrington, lord

Palmer, C. F.

Fergusson, sir R.

Parnell, Wm.

Folkestone, lord

Philips, G.

Graham, J. R. G.

Price, Robt.

Grant, J. P.

Primrose, hon. W. F.

Guise, sir W.

Ramsden, J. C.

Hill, lord A.

Ricardo, D.

Honeywood, W. P.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Howarth, H.

Robarts, A. W.

Hume, Pat.

Rumbold, C. E.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Russell, R. G.

Heron, sir R.

Smith, hon. R.

Kennedy, T. F.

Smith, Wm.

Lamb, hon. W.

Tavistock, marq.

Lamb, hon. G.

Walpole, hon. G.

Lambton, J. G.

Webb, Edw.

Macdonald, J.

Wood, Matt.

Martin, J.

TELLER.

Milton, lord

Althorp, lord.

Monck, sir C.