Lords Sitting of 24 March 1817

SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL.
The report of this bill was brought up. When the clause respecting Licenses to be granted to Lecture Rooms and Debating Societies was read,
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he thought the exceptions from the operation of this clause did not extend far enough, and that there could be no objection to include in

1223
those exceptions lectures merely on physical science. He was the more anxious upon this point, because in Edinburgh, where the magistrates were the patrons of the university, they might be induced for the sake of promoting the interests of the university, to put down all private lectures, and it was well known that the students frequently derived more advantage from the latter, than from what they learned within the university. He wished to confine his amendment to the physical sciences, in order to obviate the objection that lectures upon morality, religion, and some other topics, might be liable to be abused. His lordship then moved a clause exempting from the operation of the licensing enactments lectures on anatomy pharmacy, midwifery, astronomy, chemistry, or other branches of physical science.
The Earl of Liverpoolopposed the clause, contending that it was not to be presumed that magistrates would from any private motives prevent the delivery of lectures, such as had been alluded to by the noble lord, and it would appear invidious to exempt physic or medicine in particular.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that the magistrates connected with the university of Oxford, uniformly prevented private lectures, and the same might be expected at Edinburgh.
Lord Melvillestated, that the power to grant these licences extended to the sheriff and justices of the peace, as well as to the magistrates of Edinburgh, There was no ground, therefore, for the noble earl's alarm.
Lord Grenvillesaid, that the powers of the magistrates, to whom the noble earl alluded, as being connected with the university of Oxford, were confided to them for the exclusive purpose of protecting the interests of the university; but it was otherwise with the magistrates of Edinburgh, whose duty it was to attend to the interests of the public, as well as those of the university.
The clause was negatived. On the clause respecting clubs or societies, the members of which were required to sign any test or declaration,
Lord Hollandobserved, that it was too extensive in its wording. There were many clubs or societies in this metropolis, in which the members were perhaps called upon to sign some declaration merely relating to the pay meat of a subscription, or
1224
the drinking of certain toasts, or some other matter equally trifling, and this; might be so construed as to subject them to all the inconveniences of this clause.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the next clause enacted, that these tests or declarations might be approved of by two justices of the peace, but there was no intention whatever of subjecting to restrictions societies which were merely convivial, and had no political object in view.
Lord Hollandobserved, that the members of these societies might naturally feel repugnant to submit mere nonsense to the inspection of justices of the peace, and he saw no reason why they should be subjected to the inconvenience. Freemasons were excepted, and why should not other societies, equally harmless in their object or at least what objection was there to introduce words that should obviate any inconvenience to clubs or societies merely convivial, and having no political object whatever in assembling?
Lord Erskinesaid, that this part of the-bill was intended to be permanent, and therefore they should be more cautious as to what they enacted. Their object ought, to be to impose as few restrictions as possible upon the people, because by imposing unnecessary restraints they might produce discontent, and excite a spirit of hostility in place of that love which persons bore to a country having the sacred character of freedom. There were other societies besides freemasons which might have, perhaps, tests equally solemn, but which were equally harmless.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, there was no intention whatever of subjecting to inconvenience mere convivial societies, which might be productive of pleasure or advantage to individuals. But if any clubs or societies had any test or declaration, attended with any solemnity, it was but fair that they should be subjected to the superintendence in that respect of justices of the peace.
Lord Erskineobserved, that there were the quizzes, the bucks, the odd fellows, and several other societies, whose object was equally harmless with that of the freemasons.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, as his learned friend seemed to be so well acquainted with these societies, he would perhaps employ a short time to-morrow morning in framing some amendment to meet the object in view.
The clause was then ageed to. An amendment, proposed by earl Grosvenor, to limit the duration of the bill to the 1st of July 1817, was negatived. Lord Sid-mouth then proposed a clause to prohibit public meetings within a mile of the two Houses of Parliament when sitting, or of the courts of justice when sitting at Westminster.
Lord St. Johnthought the clause highly objectionable, as tending to embarrass the right of holding public meetings, for the purpose of petitioning the throne or either House of Parliament, upon subjects of public interest.
The Earl of Rosslyncontended, that there was no reason why the inhabitants of Westminster should not have the exercise of a privilege, which was possessed by the inhabitants of every other part of London. He should have preferred that a clause of so much importance had been introduced into the bill at first, rather than now, towards the very close of any discussion upon it.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the clause had originated in the suggestion of a noble earl on the other side of the House, upon a former evening. With respect to its principle, he did not think there could be any difference of opinion. Their lordships must be perfectly sensible of the indecorum of permitting meetings to be held within the purlieus of parliament, which from their nature, often led to scenes that never should be tolerated. It was certainly most desirable that the members of the two Houses should not be exposed to those gross outrages which had sometimes occurred, when coming down to parliament in the exercise of their public duty. With regard to the proposed distance of a mile, he did not apprehend that would throw any serious impediment in the way of lawfully assembling to petition either the throne or the legislature. A line must be drawn somewhere, and he was informed by a noble friend who was commonly accurate upon such matters, that a mile and a half would not extend further than the top of St. James's street. A mile therefore, would leave sufficient opportunities for the inhabitants of Westminster to meet whenever they might deem it necessary.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he should like to know why the inhabitants of Westminster were to be alone excluded from a privilege which would be found to belong to the inhabitants of other parts of the
1226
metropolis, who might hold their meeting where they thought proper?—[Lord Sid-mouth here intimated across the table, that the clause did not specify the inhabitants of Westminster, by prohibiting all public meetings within a mile of Westminster hall.] The noble earl said, he was glad to hear that explanation, as it removed at least one objection which he had to the clause, but still he wished to be informed, if the inhabitants of Westminster were not permitted to meet within a mile of Westminster-hall, where they were to meet?
Lord Grenvillesaid, the object of the clause was, not to prevent, in any manner, the people of Westminster from enjoying the fair and just exercise of their right to assemble, for purposes authorized by the constitution, but to put a stop to that practice, which, if he did not agree with the noble earl was an indecorum, he at least considered as an inconvenience, of holding meetings within the vicinity of parliament, which often led to conduct as affecting the members of both Houses, which ought to be repressed. With that view, and as they merely wished to protect the immediate avenues from interruption, perhaps if they were to substitute half a mile, for a mile, the end would be answered, as he understood Charing-cross was within that distance, and thus Whitehall and Parliament street, down to Westminster-hall, would be preserved from any obstruction. There would be time, before they were called upon finally to agree to the present clause to ascertain that point. He would also suggest a slight verbal alteration in the clause, making it applicable to wherever parliament or the courts of justice might sit, instead of Westminster-hall generally, as it was at the discretion of the Crown to call parliament together wherever it might judge proper, and also to order, at its own pleasure, the place for holding the courts of law.
Lord Erskineperfectly concurred in the propriety of prohibiting public meetings from being held near the Houses of Parliament during the sitting of parliament; but he did not see the same necessity with regard to the courts of law. He was not aware that any inconvenience could be sustained by them, in consequence of a meeting held in Palace-yard, while they were sitting; and it should be remembered, that the operation of the clause, by comprehending both cases, would go to prevent meetings during almost the whole of the year.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, it would be for their lordships to determine whether they would extend the same protection to the courts of law as to the Houses of Parliament. He merely wished to observe, that a case had occurred, during the time in which he had sat as chief justice of the court of King's-bench, where a tumultuous and disorderly meeting assembled in Westminister-hall, and he had found it necessary to suspend the proceedings of the court. Not that he himself felt any alarm, but he did not deem it right to sit there and administer the law of the land under such circumstances, and he waited till the sheriffs were sent for, and the mob was cleared out. He was aware that was a case of great rarity; but it had occurred, and having occurred, there was no reason why it might not happen again.
Lord Erskineobserved, that the noble and learned lord had proved there was no necessity rather than that there was a necessity for the present clause. He had mentioned an instance, where a meeting was held in Westminster-hall during the sittings of the court of King's bench, and he had shown, that by sending for the sheriffs, a power already existed to remove any such inconvenience.
The clause was then agreed to, and the amendments being all gone through, the bill was ordered to be read a third time tomorrow.