The Earl of Darnleysaid, it would be in the recollection of their lordships, that when the Seditious Meetings bill was under discussion, there was no objection which had been so much insisted upon by those who opposed the bill as the discretionary powers given to the magistrates; but he believed that even those who had urged that objection most strongly, had never anticipated a case so extraordinary as that of the Academical Society, to which society a licence had, been refused by the magistrates of the city. This society had existed for 20 or 30 years, and consisted of most respectable persons, members of the universities and inns of court; and they intended, as he was informed, to present petitions to both Houses of Parliament, which would bring the subject before the House in a more regular and formal manner. He did not think it proper, therefore, at present to go more at large into the case of that particular society; but he could not suffer a day to pass without asking, for the sake of the public, whether this was the construction really put upon the act by the framers of it, or by the legislature? He conceived it impossible that such could have been their meaning. Application was made to the magistrates, in behalf of this society, for a licence, and they were informed that it was the practice of that society to discuss literary, historical, and political subjects. The magistrates insisted, that no licence ought to be 2 granted, unless the questions were previously laid before them; and ultimately refused the licence, giving as a reason for the refusal, that the object of the act was to prevent all political discussion whatever. It was not on account of this society in particular that he was now speaking, but on account of all the subjects of this country. They had been taught to believe that they were living under a free constitution; and though he had not concurred in the provisions of the act in their utmost extent, yet even after that act passed, he had conceived that some freedom had still been left to the people of England to discuss political subjects. He did not believe that the noble secretary of state had interfered in this business as he had done on a late occasion in another matter. He could not believe that the noble secretary could have sent instructions to the magistrates to act as they had done: but rather thought that the noble secretary would feel himself under some obligation to him for giving him this opportunity to explain. But if it was possible that such a construction could be put on the act, unless the House was willing to forfeit every claim to the confidence of the country, it ought not to lose an hour without proceeding to a revision of the act, in order to amend it, so as to prevent the possibility of such a misconstruction.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, he had no objection to state that, according to his belief, neither the framers of the act, nor those who supported it, ever intended that it should put an end to all political discussion whatever. He would be ashamed to give any answer to the nobles earl's insinuation, 3 that he had interfered in this business. He was too little acquainted with the case to give any opinion upon it even in a private room, far less to give any opinion upon it in their lordships House. He did not know who the magistrates were, except by name. But the true question was, what was the meaning of the act? Their lordships might examine that act, and sec whether there was any clause which could by possibility bear such a construction as that which, according to the noble earl's statement, had been put upon it.