Lords Sitting of 20 December 1819

SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.
The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill. On the clause respecting the persons allowed to attend meetings, the earl of Lauderdale objected to the phrase, "usually residing," and moved to leave out the word "usually."
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the word was necessary, as by law a person I might be an inhabitant of a place in certain cases without residence.
Lord Hollandremarked upon the mischievous absurdity of the clause thus worded, which would exclude from attending the meeting, in many instances, persons possessed of property or interest in the parish in whichߞthe meeting was called, or subject them, for attending, to severe punishment.
Earl Grosvenorobserved, that if this clause passed, it would be necessary to obtain an inspector of faces in every dis-
1304
trict, in order to ascertain those who had a right to attend meetings.
The Lord Chancellorexpressed his surprise that the noble earl, who had such an aversion to sinecures, should desire the creation of a new sinecure.
Lord Erskineobserved, that though this clause allowed freeholders, copyholders, and inhabitants, to attend these meetings, yet there were other persons who were not permittedߞhimself, for instance, who had a lease for 1,000 years, of about 1,000 acres, in one parish where, nevertheless, he was not an inhabitant. He could not, under this bill attend any meeting in that parish, however much his interests might be connected with the object of it, because he did not come under any description of persons within the parish authorized to attend meetings. He objected, however, to the whole of the clause, conceiving that it only tended to irritate the public mind, whilst, in point of fact, it was unnecessary to the object which the framers of the bill had in view. There were provisions to prevent persons coming armedߞto prevent military arrayߞto prevent banners, &c.; and surely these provisions would be sufficient without enacting vexatious and irritating regulations as to the classes of persons who were to be authorized to attend public meetings.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, the question for the House to consider was, whether they were seriously disposed to get rid of tumultuous and violent meetings. If so, they must adopt enactments similar to those proposed. Every man in the country had sufficient means of knowing the penalties that attached to a breach of the law, and therefore could not plead ignorance. It had been objected, that the clause as it now stood was made to apply to meetings respecting trade; but the reason of that was, that meetings in rooms, were allowed to take place free of the operation of the bill. Before this exception was admitted, it was thought right to make the restriction applicable only to meetings relative to church or state. With regard to meetings in the open air, there were only two ways of regulating themߞeither by limiting- them as to numbers, or as to locality. The limitation of numbers was best; but that was found impracticable, and therefore the limitation of locality was adopted. Country meetings called by the sheriffs or others having authority under the bill, were left untouched, though originally county

1305
meetings consisted only of freeholders. The meeting formed the county court. He knew that a different practice had grown up, and nothing in the bill was inimical to the continuance of that practice. With respect to parish meetings, the object of the bill was, to exclude all persons not inhabiting the parish, with the exception of freeholders and copyholders having property to a certain amount in the parish. He had no objection to state the ground on which this qualification had been introduced. There had been recent instances of persons having got colourable freeholds for the purpose of voting at elections. It was, therefore, thought right, in the concoction of this measure, to adopt some means of preventing that fraud by which persons who had nothing to do with a parish might be enabled to attend meetings. The property was therefore fixed at as low an amount as possible, with the view of the possession of it in the parish being readily known. He had no doubt that, when the bill came into operation, no difficulty in holding meetings would arise from this part of the clause.
The Marquis of Lansdownewished to know why the privilege of attendance was given to freeholders of 50 l. a year and denied to persons of less property. This was making an unjust distinction, and was contrary to analogy with respect to the right of voting, as every freeholder having 40 s. a year in property had that right. Every institution was liable to abuse; but if colourable freeholds were not a reason for interfering with the important right of 40 s. freeholders voting for members of parliament, how could it be thought a sufficient ground for preventing their attendance at parish meetings? A principle sanctioned by the practice of ages, was thus far done away by this bill. He should therefore move, that the words "fifty pounds" be omitted, in order to substitute "forty shillings."
The Earl of Liverpool, in reference to what the noble marquis had said on the subject of freeholders, observed, that if his object was to ascertain whether he did not think the practice of 40 s. freeholders voting at elections an evil which might be corrected, he would answer in the affirmative. He certainly was not prepared to offer any proposition to parliament on the practice of voting for colourable freeholds, which had grown up contrary to the original intention of the law; but if any pro-
1306
position on the subject came before parliament, it would receive his consideration. The case was, however, very different, when it was proposed, in legislating for a new object, to prevent assuming a right from colourable freeholds. That surely was a question fit for their lordships to entertain. The clause made no distinctions for persons resident in the parish, as they were all allowed to attend.
Earl Grosvenorallowed that the rich and poor, who were resident, were put on an equal footing; but a great distinction was made between the rich and the poor who were not resident. Their lordships should recollect that this bill was not giving a right, but taking it away. When all distinction was abandoned with respect to inhabitants, why should it exist for non-residents?
The Earl of Harrowbyobserved, that as the clause now stood, it would have the effect of preventing itinerant orators, and other persons who had no property in a parish, obtaining a colourable right to attend meetings.
Lord Hollandcould not agree with what the noble earl at the head of the treasury had said respecting county meetings. He believed that if the ancient history of such meetings were examined, it would be found that every man, whether freeholder, copyholder, or no holder at all, might attend them. It was true that if a meeting of freeholders only were called, others were excluded by the terms of the summons; but what he contended for was, that every man had a right to meet with those of his own class in county meetings, or some way or other, to consider of grievances and to petition. The noble earl had contended, that this bill did not take away the right, but only regulated it. It, however, did take away the right of meeting in parishes from all non-resident freeholders who had not property to the amount of 50 l. a year. It was very much the custom with the supporters of measures like the present to attribute every evil to the French revolution; and yet what they pretended to correct were evils which never existed in the French revolution; and the remedy was one to which he believed the horrors of the French revolution were chiefly owing. There had been no great public meetings in France, but innumerable parish or small meetings. When their lordships came to another stage of the bill, he would show what mischief might be expected to

1307
arise from the division established between the poor and the rich, which must be the consequence of these parish meetings. He had no doubt that the effect of this invasion of the constitution would be to rob the people of England of the right of meeting. It had been said, that two objects had been entertained,ߞnamely, to limit meetings as to number; and as to locality. The first object had been found impracticable, and he should be glad if the other also proved impracticable; for of this he was certainߞthat it could not be accomplished without trampling on the constitution.
The Earl of Harrowbycontended, that not one individual in the whole country would be excluded from meeting by the bill. Could the noble baron show him a case in which such an exclusion would take place? It was true, that a small freeholder or copyholder could not meet in a parish of which he was not an inhabitant, but such a person must be an inhabitant of some parish or other, and he could meet with the people of that parish.
Lord Erskinewould put a case, to show the hardship of the operation of the bill. Suppose that he was no freeholder, but lessee of a thousand acres of land for a thousand years, he could not meet in the parish where his property was chiefly situated, if not an inhabitant, though the meeting might be on a subject most important to his interests.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that in that case his noble and learned friend might get some person to attend in his room.
Lord Erskineobserved, the effect would be, that he could not attend a county meeting, because he-was no freeholder; nor the parish meeting in which his property lay, because he was not an inhabitant. A noble countryman of his had been displeased with the manner in which his noble friend noticed what fell from him respecting the overwhelming majorities of that House; but the effect of those overwhelming majorities had been almost to overwhelm the vessel of the state. When a measure went out of that House with so powerful a gale, it appeared that it soon got aground, and, after undergoing repairs came back to be examined in the dock again.
The question was put on the omission of the word "usual," and negatived. The marquis of Lansdowne then pressed his motion for omitting the words "fifty pounds," which was also negatived. On
1308
the clause relating to the punishment of persons assembled contrary to the act, and not dispersing after being required so to do by proclamation,
Lord Erskineobjected to the severity of placing on the same footing with felons, persons who might, not be aware of the act, and who might be innocent of any intention against the laws. He contended, that the effect of milder laws should be tried, before one so severe, and possibly so unjust, was resorted to. As for the argument, which denied the sufficiency of the present laws, there was no force in it. The only evidence which the House had to form their opinion on, was that contained in the papers on the table, and in those papers he could find no proof to countenance the belief that other laws were necessary than those at present in existence. From the wording of the clause as it stood, the penalty was not confined to itinerant agitators, but embraced the class of persons he had already described, and therefore he should move that the word "felony" be omitted.
The Earl of Liverpoolreferred to what had been done by the Whigs themselves in other cases of danger, and particularly to the Riot act passed in the reign of George the 1st. By that act the magistrate was empowered to read the proclamation in riotous meetings, or meetings disposed to riot, and all persons who remained after the expiration of an hour were subject to the penalty of death. The noble and learned lord must know that the greater part of the persons assembled on such occasions were attracted by idle curiosity, yet no exception was made, or could be made, in their favour. Such was the state of the law under the Riot act. But by the present act, if any person knowingly and wilfully attended such a meeting, and refused to depart on notification being made, he was only liable to transportation; and after all, the question must be tried before a jury, who would consider the case with all its circumstances, and determine accordingly upon his guilt or innocence.
Lord Ellenboroughcould not admit that the severity of one act was any justification for the severity of anotherߞA second objection which he had to the present measure was, that except the case was extremely strong they would find a great difficulty in getting a verdict,; and it was of importance that they should avoid as much as possible the evil of driv-

1309
ing juries to the alternative to which he alluded. Even if they should succeed in obtaining a verdict, it was a question whether any person could be found in the country, out of the immediate influence of the Secretary of state's office, who would agree to the justice of inflicting the penalty.
The Lord Chancellormaintained, that if the bill was not passed with the clause as it stood at present it would not be sufficient to the protection of his majesty's subjects. He might say, without being accused of a paradox, that the weakness of the law, with respect to the suppression of illegal assemblies, was found in the strength of the law; for if they looked to the ancient and statute law, they would find that the subsequent enactments were a mitigation of the existing law, which was found too strong for legislation. By the Riot act the meeting of only three persons might be considered a riotous assembly, and dealt with according to its provisions, and they would find in statutes of great antiquity that the magistrates had not only a power of patting down such meetings, but were liable to prosecution if they did not. The magistrates had a power to arrest all persons attending such meetings long before the reign of George the 1st; and in the posse comitatus, on which they had a right to call, he could prove, though it was generally represented otherwise, there was no distinction taken between peace officers and military assistants. If the persons assembled did not yield peaceably to arrest, bloodshed must ensue, for, which one party must be answerable and the other not. Under the Riot act it was a capital felony not to disperse, but there was a more summary way of proceeding. Such of their lordships as were prepared to maintain that the persons who knowingly attended such meetings ought not to be punished might vote with the noble lord; but he would ask what sort of an act would that be which declared that the refusal to depart after the proclamation should not be more severely punished than the mere circumstance of being present without a right? Upon this ground he should certainly object to the amendment.
Lord Hollandassented to the observation of the noble and learned lord, that the strength of the law constituted, in many instances, its weakness, but he would have him to apply the argument to
||
1310
the present clause, in mitigation of its severity. To make the mere loitering of a person after the proclamation was made a felony liable to transportation, was a severity which must defeat itself. The noble earl had alluded to what the Whigs had done in former times; he professed himself to be as good a Whig as the noble earl, but he thought it was doing as much as could be required of him to defend the conduct of the Whigs with whom he had acted, without justifying the conduct of former Whigs, whose errors the noble earl never quoted except when he proposed to imitate them. But though the noble lord had alluded to the act of George the 1st, he confessed it after all to be a mitigation. For his own part, though he should never have selected it as a subject of praise, he could not but look to it with some favour as compared with the bill before the House. It referred to riotous assemblies, to assemblies that, proceeded to a breach of the peace; but the present act impowered the magistrate to read the proclamation in assemblies where there was no tumult. The noble lords had spoken of attending knowingly and wilfully but there were no such words in the bill applicable to the clause under consideration. It was to be wished that when the noble and learned lord, looked back to see how laws became inefficacious by their severity, he had taken a lesson from the fact. The consequence of neglecting it was this, that when disturbances arose new laws were resorted to. The people were thus taught to look not to the laws, but to parliament, and finally to regard parliament not as their protectors but their taskmasters. The introduction of the word "felony'' in the clause exposed the person transported, he believed, to greater severity than the mere sentence of transportation, it was therefore an aggravation of the punishment, and consequently required to be expunged.
Lord Erskinesaid, that on turning to the acts of past times, at the suggestion of the noble and learned lord, he could not help comparing the state of things at present with that which existed in the reign of George the 1st, when the Riot act was passed. That act was the offspring of disturbed times, and the object of it was not to prevent the abuse of a right, but to put down tumultuous meetings. His lordship then quoted the authority of lord chief justice Eyre,

1311
who had stated, that all men might and must reason on the constitution, particularly of their own government; from whence it seemed to follow, that human laws ought not to interfere with a view to prevent the declarations of such opinions in assemblies of men. The object of parliament ought to be to protect the people, and to conciliate those who were misled; and he agreed with a noble lord in thinking, that it would be difficult to find a jury who would bring in a verdict under the act as it stood at present.
The amendment was then negatived without a division, and the clause agreed to in it's original shape. To the next clause, which declared the punishment of persons obstructing justice,
Lord Ellenboroughwished the word "obstruct" to be more particularly defined; he should think that it would have been better to have specified a certain time, such as ten minutes during which the obstruction should continue, and the number of persons so obstructing should be declared to be three or four, either more or less. At present it was entirely left to the magistrate to put what construction he pleased upon it. He considered it also a very great hardship, that by the misbehaviour of a few, the subject should be deprived of that right of petitioning which he would otherwise have enjoyed. With the view of correcting this omission he should move the introduction of a clause to the effect of making it lawful for those justices of the peace who dispersed the meeting to authorize the re-assembling of that meeting within the space of forty-eight hours.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that the clause which the noble lord had objected to was the same verbatim as that which was introduced into the bill of 1796. He believed there was scarcely a word in the clause which was not already the common law of the land. As the law now stood, a magistrate had the power of taking into custody any person uttering words tending to degrade the government, and to disperse the meeting.
Lord Erskinedenied that a magistrate, by the common law, was enabled to disperse the meeting, by the act of one man, who might be a spy employed for the occasion.
The clause was then agreed to, and lord Ellenborough proposed his new clause, authorizing magistrates, to give their consent, in writing, for the re-as-
1312
sembling of the meeting so dispersed within the space of 48 hours. At the recommendation of Lord Liverpool the amendment was postponed until the third reading of the bill, when it might be introduced, if approved of, by way of rider. To the next clause indemnifying justices in cases of killing and maiming, lord Holland contented himself with merely entering his protest against it. In the following clause, declaring that it should not be lawful for persons to attend meetings with arms, he moved that the word "bludgeon" should be omitted. The amendment was negatived. He then objected to the whole of the clause which deemed places for debates and lectures unlawful, unless previously licensed. There was nothing, he said, in the preamble of the bill, which authorized the introduction of this clause; but he supposed the admiration in which the noble earl held the act of 1796, induced him to bring it forward on the present occasion. The clause was ultimately agreed to.
The Marquis of Lansdownein that clause of the bill excepting lectures delivered at the universities, &c, from the operation of the bill, wished to introduce an amendment. There were four principal institutions in the metropolis at which lectures were delivered occasionallyߞthe London, the Royal, the Surrey, and the Russel institutions: the two former of these establishments were excepted, and he should propose to include the two latter in the exception.
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that the objection he had to the proposition was single, but as he conceived decisive. The saving clause extended only to chartered institutions: and if the line were once broken through, there would be much difficulty in knowing where to stop. He reminded the noble marquis, that the institutions not excepted were only required to obtain a licence, which might be done at the small expense of one shilling.
Lord Hollanddenied that the payment of the shilling was the only inconvenience attendant upon the exclusion. The debates and lectures thus licensed would be constantly subject to the visits of the magistrates, who might make what remarks they pleased, however unpleasant; and, who, without notice, might withdraw the licence at pleasure.
The amendment was negatived, and the clause agreed to. On the clause for the recovery of penalties,
The Earl of Blesingtonsaid, he should divide the House on the question of the measures being extended to Ireland. No information was laid before the Committee as to the state of that country, and the very terms of the preamble of the bill (stating that it was intended to prevent seditious meetings), evidently showed that it was not originally intended to have embraced Ireland within its operation. There was a peculiar division of counties in Ireland, not noticed in the bill, namely, baronies; and if Ireland was to be visited with the severities of such a measure, some attention should have been bestowed on its adaptation to that country. A degree of party spirit existed in Ireland, which could not be very easily put down, do what they would; but still the military power was very seldom called in to quell any partial disturbances it might occasion, while the present bill held out every encouragement for the military being more frequently employed. That of itself would make the bill objectionable to him; but it was rendered much more so, when he considered that the very objects against which it was directed, did not at all exist in that part of the empire. Many as were the grievances of the people, severe as were the hardships they endured, they had no tumultuous meetings, and they bore their privations without numerous assemblies to petition for their redress. It was urged that the bill did not mainly affect the Irish people, for they could meet in private rooms. But what private room could hold an aggregate meeting of the Roman Catholics? There was no ground before the committee to inflict such a measure upon Ireland.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, the noble earl was mistaken if he thought Ireland was not originally intended to have been included in the bill. Although it originated in the other House he could state that fact upon his own knowledge. He understood it would not very materially affect that country; it would not go to alter any of the people's habits or feelings as to public meetings; for they were not in the practice of so holding them as the people of England had long been. The measure would go to the prevention of evil, and applied as forcibly to Ireland as to any of those counties in England which were not infected by the present contagion. The nature of the evils proposed to be remedied was, that they were very likely to spread, and if the bill were only
1314
to apply to particular districts, nothing was more certain than that those persons who made a trade of diffusing their prejudicial opinions would proceed to all places not included in the present measure. He conceived the bill as a favour to Ireland; inasmuch as it would prevent her from being visited by itinerant orators. There were old evils existing in Ireland which should not be increased by the danger of new evils, and it should not be forgotten that the leaders of the radicals in this country were in communication with the leaders of Ireland. He saw no inconvenience whatever in extending the bill to Ireland, but, on the contrary, as a measure of prevention, it was better to comprise Ireland within its operation now, than to wait perhaps until it became absolutely necessary, and then legislate in haste upon the subject.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, the communications alluded to by the noble earl, had been wholly unattended to in Ireland, The condition of that country was now extremely peaceable; and he thought she was entitled to an exemption from the operations of this bill, as an act of grace for her loyalty and tranquillity. The effect of such an exemption would be sensibly appreciated by that generous people.
The Earl of Blessingtonsaid, that the emissaries from Hunt and others sent to Ireland had totally failed in the object of their mission. When he considered how-long Ireland had been neglected, misgoverned and ill-treated in almost every respect, he thought it too much to have her now told, because she was peaceable, because she was steady in her loyalty, that her only repayment would be a bill of pains and penalties.
The Earl of Donoughmoresaid, it would have been somewhat satisfactory to the committee if the noble earl opposite, in stating the communications made by the leaders here to the leaders in Ireland, had also added what he must have known to be the fact, that they proved totally abortive, and were received with contempt, nay, even with abhorrence. Was not that a strong argument why Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the bill? or did their lordships mean to give the people of that country the most gratuitous offence? Bills of the greatest severity had been hurried through both Houses in one night, and when they were directed exclusively against his unhappy

1315
country; but did the noble earl then say that the contagion which they were to remedy, should also be guarded against in England, and that she should share in their inflictions? No; he did not then say, how easily the evils that existed in Ireland might travel to this country. Ireland then was to meet her own punishment for her own sins; but now that she sinned not, now even that her patience and her loyalty were so highly and so deservedly panegyrised, she was to be told, "you must share in the punishment of crimes of which it is admitted you had not been guilty" There were, no doubt, meetings in this country which every man could not approve; but in Ireland there were no meetings of a seditions, much less of a treasonable character. There were agitators in this country who made foolish speeches, to meetings more or less of a tumultuary character; but he believed their tendency to have been very much exaggerated. As far as dangers really existed, he had no objection to the enactment of sufficient measures to meet and to repress them, but he would proceed no farther; and if the committee stopped there, all would be right.
The Earl of Blesingtonsaid, he was about to ask a question which might appear of little consequence; but as the people of Ireland, generally went to all public places, with a shillelah in their hands, he begged to ask the learned lord opposite if a shillelah was to be considered as a weapon.
The Lord Chancellorcould not answer the question of the noble earl, but should rather apply to him for information on that subject.
The division was not pressed, and the clause was then agreed to. The Earl of Lauderdale objected to the wording of the clause as to the limitation of the period of the bill,ߞand moved, that it continue until the 1st of March, 1825, which was negatived without a division. The report of the committee was brought up, and agreed to.