Lords Sitting of 21 December 1819

SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.
The bill was read a third time. On the motion, that it do pass,
Lord Erskinesaid, that although he had long foreseen that ill-advised and imprudent meetings of persons too numerous to be useful for the objects they had in view, however legal, were likely to give occasion to alarms as they had done formerly, so as to be made the foundation of new laws depriving the whole nation of rights which he hoped would never be surrendered by Englishmen; yet he did not expect that a measure so totally unnecessary and so likely to aggravate all the evils complained of, would have been sent up for approbation from the House of Commons—but being here, and looking back to those sent down to them, he despaired altogether of making an impression by any thing he could say; a feeling which disqualified him from speaking as he ought. I have been accustomed, my lords (said lord E.) during the greatest part of my life, to be animated by the hope and expectation that I might not be speaking in vain; a sensation without which there can be no energy in discourse—I have often heard it said, and I believe it to be true, that even the most eloquent man living (how then must I be disabled), and however deeply impressed with his subject, could scarcely find utterance, if he were to be standing up alone, and speaking only against a wall. He meant no offence to the noble lords opposite by the comparison, nor meant to impute to them insensibility or injustice,

1375
but their minds were now so thoroughly settled on the question before them, that there was no thoroughfare through their understandings, however liberal they might be—and he should therefore be very short in the performance of what he felt to be a duty too imperious to be passed by. In looking at the bills before them, it appeared as if there had been no provisions against seditious meetings in the common law or in the ancient statutes of the country, and that they were beginning for the first time to legislate on the subject; and from the amendments they had rejected last night, they appeared to be little acquainted with what they were about. The objects they sought to point out from the statement of his noble friend the secretary of state—were meetings dangerous from their numbers—assembled from considerable distances; attended by itinerant orators, with music and seditious symbols to excite disturbance—marching in regular array. He admitted that none of these things were necessary for the great ends of meetings of the people constitutionally assembled to claim and to represent infringements of their rights. But did not the ancient laws sufficiently provide against such abuses—might not meetings, however, legal their objects degenerate into abuse and be attended with danger, and in all such cases not only by the common law but by the Riot act, might not all such excesses be Checked; and when there was no other safe remedy, might not such tumultuous assemblies be peaceably dispersed, and even by force, when necessity justified such unfortunate recourse?—Why then, if the people were well satisfied with these restraints upon the irregularities of freedom, why outrage and insult them by putting the exercise of their immemorial and unquestionable privileges under the absolute control of magistrates, whose existences might be terminated in a moment, by a stroke of the pen, by his noble friend on the woolsack, he being himself a magistrate during the pleasure of the Crown. Not that I anticipate from him (said lord E.), any abuse of his authority; but if instead of being an honest man, as I think him, he were an angel sent down to us, and I could see his wings peeping out from under his gown, I would not trust the liberties of England in his hands,—liberties the gift of God himself to a wise and an undaunted people. Consistently with these liberties, and
1376
wisely for their preservation, the Crown had great and salutary powers for the preservation of the peace, and nothing therefore could be so rash as to undervalue those laws which the people had long been familiar to, and to begin to govern them by new ones, which though most offensively restrictive, created no greater security against disorder of any description; but, on the contrary, gave rise to a dangerous spirit of disaffection by the sense that public liberty had been infringed. Against the evils complained how easy was the remedy, by only putting the ancient laws into vigorous execution, quieting at the same time the agitated minds of the multitude, by yielding to his noble friend's advice on the first day of the session, to institute a calm and constitutional inquiry into the abuses and unnecessary violences they complained of. He was glad to see, therefore, even a noble lord who in general acted with ministers proposing some modification of the bill before them, and it gave him pleasure, because he remembered him in his cradle when his father was a companion at the bar. The power given to magistrates was indeed an absolute repeal of all meetings of the people, except when held under a roof, meetings which had been most unqualifiedly admitted by Mr. Pitt in 1795, to be constitutional and legal, so that there was now no right left to hold voluntary assemblies of the people for any object whatsoever, but at the will of the ministers and magistrates of the Crown. This was but a short sighted view of the principles which could alone produce affectionate and lasting submission to authority. From the moment the bill before them was passed into law, it was in the power of any one man who might be sent to utter some seditious expression, or rather some spy resident on the spot for the very purposes, to put an end in a moment to any meeting however legally assembled or peaceably conducted. He wondered at first why the exclusion of non residents was so tenaciously supported by his majesty's ministers, as even their own spies might have been shut out from attending them; but it had appeared by an attentive examination of the papers before them, and by all information, that they had spies resident in every quarter, and actually engaged in their nefarious and pernicious duty. There might be some kind of excuse for these new and harsh alterations, if the people at large

1377
had become generally disaffected or discontented without cause. It was true undoubtedly that an universal distrust in parliament pervaded the country, and of course a desire for its reformation equally universal amongst the lower and middle orders, but was this spirit to be wondered at when the multitude were suffering privations and distresses unexampled, which they believed, and had the authority of the ablest and most public spirited men whom England had ever bred, for believing that all their sufferings had arisen from the irresistible power and influence of the Crown in the House of Commons from a deficient representation. Can I, my lords, for one (said lord E.), consent to consider the people as disaffected to parliament, and unjustly complaining of its neglect of duty to them, when I have myself for thirty years together been a loud and public complainer on the same account. They think that parliament blindly persevered for twenty-four years together in the war against France, after repeated opportunities lost of safe pacification, imposing upon our subjects whom it is now preparing to oppress for complaining of an insufferable and ruinous taxation. It is true that the period came at last when peace was impossible, and when imperious necessity demanded that Buonaparté should at all hazards be resisted, and I myself for that reason gave one vote for continuing our exertions, but which after even their almost miraculous termination, had left us rivals formidable to our prosperity, rivals in nations whom we had supported, and ourselves he hoped not fatally, but for the present miserably exhausted. Now if all these events were chargeable upon parliament in public opinion, was it sedition in the people to call loudly for reformation? Lord E. said, he was ready at all times to raise his voice against the mistaken clamours for annual parliaments or universal suffrage, and even if he thought that they would be an improvement of the constitution, he should equally resist them, from a perfect conviction that they never could be effected but through a sanguinary revolution; but this notion was not entertained by men capable of duly considering such a momentous subject, and was besides attributed to thousands who never had seriously considered or desired it. He had impaired his health and strength in defending the late Mr. Tooke, for being traitorously engaged to effect this object,
1378
though his letter to lord Ashburton which he (lord E.), had read upon the trial, was the ablest and most conclusive argument that the wit or wisdom of man could have composed upon the subject. Here he read several very striking passages in this letter, one particularly in which Mr. Tooke exposes, in the happiest manner, the difference between an equal right to a share in the representation, and a right to an equal share. If parliament did its duty, this nonsense of universal suffrage would soon pass away. It ought, therefore, by its conduct to redeem its character with the people, to secure their esteem and cultivate their affections. If this were done the people would feel with contentment and security that there was no other road to reform but by the consent of the legislature, and would duly appreciate whatever alterations its wisdom might enact. It was on that account he so highly approved of the measure which lord John Russell had suggested, because, whilst it established a principle, and pledged the House of Commons by its adoption, yet it imposed no limitation by its success, but left reformation open to all the arguments for its advancement, whilst it exposed the danger and the folly of seeking charges through tumult; which no wise man would consent to, even if peaceably and constitutionally within his reach. With regard to the irregularities against which all these new measures were directed, he thought their objects were grossly misrepresented, and their dangers overstated. He did not mean to enter into any defence of Mr. Hunt, but he saw no evidence whatever of his having any design or imagination to subvert the government, and thought the utmost extent of his offending, if he should be found to have been an offender, would be that he had been present at a meeting originally legal, but from its numbers most imprudent, and which had only become illegal and dangerous, if it were found to be illegal and dangerous, by the violences and the irregularities of others whom he had not at all offended, and to whom neither he nor those assembled with him were offering any resistance.—I conclude (said lord E.), by deeply regretting that public liberty which has been for ages the pride and glory of this country, is destined to undergo the degrading change which this and other measures are in my opinion so likely to produce.
The Earl of Darnleyrejoiced that his

1379
noble and learned friend, and his other noble friends, had so strenuously opposed the measures of ministers. Their eloquence had not been entirely thrown away, for some good had been done by the stand which they had made between the government and the people. The bill brought in by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, owed all its improvements to the suggestions and exertions of his noble friend near him (lord Holland). With regard to the bill for preventing blasphemous libels, the punishment of transportation, which had been so pertinaciously maintained in its passage through that House, was at last given up; and for that concession on the part of ministers the country was indebted to the exertions of his noble friends in this and his hon. friends in the other House of Parliament. Libels had been permitted to go on without any notice being taken of them; but the punishment of transportation, which had been given up, was said to have been introduced in consequence of a particular case. The unfortunate man referred to had, however, been visited with a punishment for his second offence, which, to judge from the principles of human nature, was not likely to encourage the repetition of such conduct. With regard to the object of this bill, ministers had acted as in other cases. They had suffered meetings for the pretended purpose of petitioning to assemble under the control of demagogues, acting on the distress of the country. These assemblages had been allowed to go on without any thing being done to prevent them. In the mean time, the unfortunate transaction at Manchester had taken place, and the manner in which all inquiry had been stifled on that subject had driven the people to despair. The refusal of investigation, after parliament had assembled, must have increased the irritation. But what he chiefly complained of was, that no steps had been taken to put the existing law into execution, and that ministers had not appealed to parliament so soon as they ought to have done, if they really needed new powers. As yet they had not shown that the existing law was insufficient, and therefore had no right to call on parliament to pass such severe measures. He was against universal suffrage, because that was a system which would lead to all the horrors of revolution; but he was by no means the enemy of reform, and approved very much of what
1380
had fallen from his noble and learned friend on that subject. He was a reformer, because he was convinced that the constitution contained within itself the principle of reform. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack had shown himself a reformer by his bill for preventing delays in the administration of justice. He must oppose this measure, as no evidence to satisfy his mind had been produced to show that the existing law was insufficient to correct the evils complained of.
Lord Ellenborough, having proposed several amendments on clauses of the bill, wished to state the reasons which induced him to support it. He was the friend of public meetings, for he was of opinion that they were of great advantage in preserving freedom, and that they had been the means of maintaining the fabric of the constitution in energy and vigour. The late war could never have been carried on, had it not been for the spirit with which public meetings animated the country. Though he had objected to some of the clauses of the bill, he voted for it as a whole; because he believed that many of its enactments were calculated to restore to the people what they had lost—the advantage of free discussion; also to give to parliament what it had long lost—the means of ascertaining the opinion of the country, which it was impossible to know without free discussion. Now, to discover the real state of public opinion was impossible, if great bodies of people were allowed to move from one place to another, and to assemble at a particular point, as had been the case at Manchester, and there out-vote the resident inhabitants. Thus a very small minority, acting upon malignant motives, might give the semblance of an overwhelming majority. He voted for this measure because it left untouched all those kinds of public meetings which were known when the Bill of Rights and the Habeas Corpus act passed;; because it left untouched all those meetings which had been legally known to the country for the last century and a half, during which this country had been raised to the highest pitch of prosperity. He voted for it too because it prevented such meetings as those of Manchester and Birmingham; because it prevented the harangues of itinerant orators, and the display of physical force. A very material change had within these thirty years taken place, with respect to this and every

1381
other government of Europe. The progress of education, and the influence of the press, had brought public opinion more in contact with the government than before. Was it advisable when such a revolution in the state of society had taken place, to add to it the influence of that kind of meetings, which consisted in the display of a great physical force, assumed for the purpose of over-awing the government? It was important neither too greatly to relax, nor to draw too close the connexion between the people and the legislature. If the bonds which unite them were too much relaxed, the people were apt to imagine that their interests were disregarded. If they were drawn too close, an undue impulse must be given to the representative body, which would thereby become liable to the most dangerous versatility. Great wisdom was necessary to preserve the proper balance. If the public meetings of the kind which had taken place were allowed to go on, he doubted not that many of them would still meet and disperse quietly, but then it would be to watch the opportunity to abate that nuisance of government against which they passed resolutions. Under such circumstances the government could not stand six months longer. It was the great advantage of parish meetings, that they admitted of free discussion. The speakers would be known to each other, and the character of each speaker would probably be known to all who attended the meeting. He considered the present bill as a solemn warning to the disaffected, that they would not be suffered to carry their designs into practice; and also a solemn pledge to the well-affected, that parliament was resolved to protect them. He was above all things anxious that the bill should pass, because he wished to legislate while we yet had the opportunity so to do. It would be too late if rebellion was suffered to show its head; for then there could be no question but to put it down. He was, however, most anxious to avoid that painful necessity; for in civil contests, victory and defeat were almost equally to be dreaded. In passing the bill on the table, their lordships would grant nearly all that ministers had demanded of them. But after all should be given that was asked, he must say, that that would not be sufficient unless their lordships resolved to look at the situation of the country, and endeavoured to discover the hidden sources of the danger which threaten-
1382
ed it. To show that parliament felt for and with the people, would tend more than any other measure that could be adopted to tranquillize the country. All the acts their lordships might pass, were in themselves mere waste paper, if they had not with them the hearts of the people. Of this he was convinced—that if, on investigation, it was shown to the country, that the public difficulties arose from unavoidable circumstances, and that nothing was neglected on the part of parliament to correct them, there remained in the national character sufficient firmness to bear with any calamity. An inquiry into the cause of the distress which had subsisted for the last five years would be of more importance than any bills that could be passed. Above all, it was necessary to show, that the people were united in support of that constitution, which, to sum up all its advantages in one short sentence, had raised man to a nobler, rank in this country, than in any other in the world.
Earl Grosvenorshould not have troubled their lordships upon the present occasion, but for a petition which he had been requested to present from the city of Westminster. The petitioners were anxious to state their case to their lordships, and to induce the House to sanction the introduction of a clause, by way of rider, which would have the effect of excepting them from the severer operation of this measure. The petitioners grounded their claim to this privilege, more particularly upon an expression which had fallen from a noble earl, a member of the administration and president of the council. That noble lord, the petitioners stated, had observed, in emphatic terms, upon the tranquil character of the meetings held in the city of Westminster, and had contrasted the meetings held in various parts of the country with those convened in Westminster. Whether the petitioners were or were not mistaken in this point, at least noble lords would allow that a petition from the city of Westminster was one worthy of attention. The petitioners so far flattered themselves, that they thought they were worthy of the character given to them, and were therefore most anxious that the clause which he had already alluded to should be introduced. For the purpose, of considering this clause, perhaps it might be advisable to adjourn the debate to some future day.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, it was impossible for the noble lord to do what he proposed in this stage of the bill, viz. to introduce a new clause after the bill had been read a third time. It was competent for the noble lord to move the adjournment of the debate, but the opportunity was past for introducing any new clause.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that after the third reading of the bill had been agreed to, the question then arose upon the passing of the bill. Upon this latter question their lordships were now debating; and, according to all the rules of debate which he had ever heard of, no clause could be introduced in this stage of the measure. The noble lord might, indeed, move for the adjournment of the debate, but no reason had yet been assigned for such a motion.
Earl Grosvenorfeared that it was now too late to propose the introduction of any clause. It was, however, competent for him to move an amendment to the original motion, for an adjournment, for the purpose of considering the contents of the parchment he held in his hand. The petitioners imagined that the officer to whom the power was given of calling these meetings, however respectable he might be individually, yet might probably be influenced; and instanced the case of the refusal of the high bailiff to call a meeting to consider the proceedings at Manchester on the 16th of August. With respect to the bill itself, he strongly objected to it in principle, inasmuch as it tended to check the disposition in the people to petition for the removal of their grievances; but he really thought some regulations were requisite with respect to the mode of holding the meetings. It had been observed by a noble lord, that the itinerant orators and demagogues were the cause of the discontent throughout the county. In this observation he begged to differ most widely from the noble lord, because he conceived that it was the discontent which gave rise to the demagogues; and if that discontent were increased by the coercive measures of the government, instead of these itinerant orators being confined to one or two local spots, the whole country would be covered with them, and every parish would have its particular demagogues.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that as far as he was enabled to recollect, the only expression which had dropped from him
1384
respecting the Westminster meetings were these:—He was observing upon the meetings which had been held in former times, and referred to certain assemblies convened in 1780. In touching upon this subject, he had alluded to a meeting held in Westminster, not consisting of all the populace of the city, but confined to the inhabitant householders only. With this explanation, which he felt it his duty to make, he should content himself, and leave the House to judge as to the propriety of receiving the petition.
The Earl of Blesingtonrose to repeat the objection he had urged last night to the extension of the bill to Ireland. However unsuccessful he might be in his efforts, he felt fully convinced that this measure was not in the least qualified for Ireland, although it might be calculated to prevent farther disturbances in this country. Under all the grievances under which Ireland had suffered, under all her oppressions and calamities arising from famine and disease, under all the distressing circumstances caused by the act of Union, that country had not complained, but had quietly borne the load of suffering. What then was the return for this praiseworthy conduct? Little relief had been afforded or attention paid; and now, as a farther reward to that unhappy country, the government was about to favour it with this protecting measure. He alluded to the hopes held out to the Protestants on the one hand against emancipation, and on the other to the Catholics in favour of their freedom; and affirmed that Mr. Pitt had resigned his office upon this very question. To neither party had satisfaction been given; for emancipation had neither been granted, nor entirely refused. He concluded with giving notice of his intention, after the recess, to move for a committee to inquire into the state of Ireland.
The Earl of Liverpoolfelt anxious to impress upon the House this fact—that the bill could not operate as a prejudice to Ireland. With respect to what had fallen from the noble earl as to the act of Union, he thought it was a little too much, after the lapse of many years, that the noble earl should now come forward to make a deliberate attack upon it. With regard to what had been said relative to the question of Catholic emancipation, he should be glad to know whence the noble earl obtained his information. Fortunately there was a most complete record, which per-

1385
haps it would not be quite regular for him now to refer to, of the sentiments of the right hon. gentleman referred to contained in his speech delivered in parliament. If the noble earl would look into that record, he would find no such intimation as he had stated. He could not allow it to be said that Ireland had been oppressed, and that this country had done nothing to relieve its distress. He begged the noble earl, before he made such assertion, to inspect the Journals of the House. By these it would be found that this country had relieved Ireland of the whole burden of its debt. This, he would undertake to say, was a most important relief to the people of Ireland, and as great a boon as ever was granted by one country to another. But this was not all; the noble earl seemed entirely to have forgotten, that from the burden of the property-tax Ireland was relieved altogether.
The bill was then passed

PROTESTS AGAINST THE SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.
The following protest against going into a committee on the bill was entered on the Journals by the earl of Lauderdale:
Dissentient,
"First, Because this bill, as well as the other measures extending the severity of our penal code, have been avowedly adopted under a belief that there at present exists amongst the manufacturers of this country, a very extended combination engaged in a plot for the destruction of our constitution, and the overthrow of all social order.
"Whilst to me it appears that no evidence of such a plot has been given; that if an inquiry into the state of the country had been instituted, it would have been shown that no such plot existed, and that the alarming symptoms of disaffection to the constituted authorities of the country, which have been locally displayed, arise from the arts and the evil designs of a few operating upon an extra population reduced into a state of misery from want of employment, and consequently of clothing and of food.
"That this is the real state of the evil under which we now labour, cannot be doubted by any man who reflects on the certain consequences of the policy which this country has for years pursued, who possesses a knowledge of the real state of manufacturing labour, or who gives credit to the scanty information
1386
which ministers have thought fit to lay before parliament.
"That the revenue and expenditure of all countries must be equivalent, if left to the natural course of things, is a proposition so generally admitted as to require no illustration.
"But in this country it appears that betwixt the end of the year 1794, and the beginning of the year 1819, there was added to our debt the sum of 899,537,144 l., which on the supposition that government, borrowing in 3, 4, and 5 per cents., received in cash 75 l. for each 100 l. of capital added to the debt, proves that during that space of time 674,652,858 l. were received out of the capital of the country, and expended by government, making on an average during these 24 years, an expenditure of 28,110,535 l. per annum.
"This extra expenditure, beyond what the revenue naturally afforded, must therefore have created a formidable increase in the demand for labour; a rise in the value of labour must have ensued; and it is not in the nature of things that this extended demand, continuing for 24 years must not have increased the population so as to adjust the supply of labour to the demand for it.
"But this is not all, every nation in Europe has been more or less engaged in similar practices; and in the state of our manufactures it is impossible that an extra expenditure on the part of any European nation must not have created an extra demand for labour in this country.
"In this situation of things, it appears to me obvious, that a general cessation from this practice must, by suddenly diminishing the demand for labour, leave this manufacturing country in a state in which the supply of labour must be lamentably great in proportion to the demand for it, and consequently that a great fall in the wages of labour must naturally ensue.
"Such a fall in the wages of labour cannot, however, take place without greatly adding to the evil. The man, who from his labour can acquire 3s. or 4s. a day, is, as experience teaches us, generally led from a desire of indulgence to work only four days in a week: whilst the man who, with the utmost exertion of 6 days' labour, can only obtain 7s. or 8s. a week, is driven, by a desire to secure to himself and his family a scanty subsistence, to renounce all relaxation, and even to add to the hours usually devoted to labour.
"It follows, then, that those who are employed must by their exertions execute a greater quantity of labour, and by that means greatly increase the numbers thrown out of employment.
"That this is no fanciful theory, but, on the contrary, a true detail of the origin and of the nature of the evil under which the manufacturing districts are now suffering, is known to every man who has access to accurate information upon the subject; and it appears to me to be fully confirmed by the scanty information which his majesty's government have laid on the table of this House.
"By the Manchester magistrates we are informed, ' that the secretary of state was fully apprised of the deep distresses of the manufacturing classes of that extensive population, and that the disaffected and ill-disposed lost no opportunity of instilling the worst principles into the unhappy sufferers; attributing their calamities, not to any event which cannot be controlled, but to the general measures of government and parliament: and they add, that when people are oppressed with hunger, they do not wonder at their giving ear to any doctrines which they are told will redress their grievances.'
"In Yorkshire, too, we are informed by the lord-lieutenant of that county, that the mayor of Leeds believed that the mass of the population within his jurisdiction was by no means disaffected, or seditiously disposed; but they were suffering most cruel privations through want of employment. Lord Fitzwilliam also states, as the general opinion of the county of York, that the real grievance of the people was want of employment.'
"Again, ' the acerbation of temper among the weavers (at Westleigh) is stated to be produced by severe privations from the lowness of wages;' and those who know the real situation of Glasgow and Paisley, can have no hesitation in asserting, that the manufacturers at present exhibit a scene of wretchedness unparalleled in the history of any civilized country.
"Secondly, because, if this is a correct view of the causes of the present discontent and disturbed state of the manufacturing districts; and if it be true, as lord Bacon has long ago wisely observed, ' that so many overthrown 'estates, so many votes for troubles;'
1388
'that poverty is the matter of sedition;' and ' that the first remedy or prevention is to remove by all means possible the material cause of sedition, which is want and poverty;' it appears to me that this bill, and the other measures which have been adopted, can of themselves effect no good, unaccompanied by measures for the relief of those whom our policy: has reduced to a state of want.
"I have no hesitation in admitting, that neither the political institutions of this or of any other country were ever framed to govern a people so nearly deprived of food, and that in this unparalleled state of distress, local and temporary alterations of our Jaws may be necessary, not only to suppress the evil effects which may arise from the sufferings of the people, but to curb the mischievous intentions of those, who, from views of interest or ambition, may attempt to mislead them.
"There are, therefore, no local or temporary regulations calculated to give vigour to the exertions of our military force, in repressing the mischiefs which we have but too good reason to expect, to which, if coupled with wise attempts to remove the present cause of discontent, I would not feel it my duty to give my support.
"But I must regard measures of severity, unaccompanied with any effort for removing the causes of the evil, or even with any expression of sympathy for the sufferings of those whom we have reduced to penury, as likely to lead to a feeling of despair, which can only add to the dangers so justly to be dreaded.
"For to me it appears, that by prohibiting public meetings, we may generate secret and private cabals; that by preventing vague threats, to divide property and to have recourse to force, we may give rise to a scene of pilfering, thieving, and perhaps of private assassination; that by suppressing the open and public expression of all those wild dreams to which distress and despair naturally give rise in the minds of men trained under a free government, we may debase the spirit and corrupt the morals of the people; but that it is by kindness and sympathy with their sufferings, and by administering as far as possible to their relief, to which we can only look, as the means of restoring that love and admiration of our political institutions, and that pride in the frame of

1389
our free constitution, which have heretofore formed the envy of foreigners, and the universal and well-founded boast of the people of this country.
"Thirdly. Because I cannot think it is fitting in the parliament of this country, who have expended millions in protecting foreign emigrants and African negroes, as well as in the relief of the peasantry of the various states of Europe, to abstain from all attempts to relieve the wants of our manufacturers, on the ground stated in these debates—that nothing can be done to mitigate their sufferings, without violating the true principles of political economy.
"If, indeed, this proposition (which alike impeaches all public institutions for the relief of the wretched) were true, I should feel great doubt whether the government had a right to revert to the strict observance of the principles of political economy, the moment it suited the policy of the day, though the preservation of our manufactures demanded a departure from them; more especially at a time when their sufferings clearly originate from government having violated every sound principle of political economy by a forced expenditure continued for 24 years.
"To me, however, it appears, that there is nothing inconsistent with the soundest principles of political economy, at a time when the class of manufacturing labours are reduced by the measures pursued for the supposed benefit of the community to a state of want, and when the labourers in agriculture as well as in the formation of articles which administer to the luxurious wants of the opulent, are comparatively well employed, in maintaining that it would be right to impose a tax on funded and landed property for the benefit of our manufactures; as this operation would only abstract a portion of the funds destined to reward the labour of one class of the community now at their ease, for the purpose of giving employment and subsistence to those who have neither.
"It is true that the produce of such a tax must not be employed in the manufacture of goods, which, by overstocking the market, might tend to deprive others of a demand for their labour.
"But, if prudently expended by furnishing employment to the destitute, in the improvement of roads, canals, and other works of permanent public utility, or in giving to them the means of emigrat-
1390
ing to our colonies, I must be of opinion that, under present circumstances, it is a measure not only consistent with the soundest principles of political economy, but even loudly called for by every feeling of a desire for self-preservation, and by every principle of justice and of humanity.
(Signed) "LAUDERDALE."
The following Protest against the third reading of the bill was also entered on the Journals:
"Dissentient,
1st. "Because the laws of England, when duly enforced, have always been found sufficient to prevent any confusion arising from popular meetings, or to punish any disturbers of the public peace; and a too ready acquiescence in the suggestions of ministers for imposing new restraints upon the rights and usage of the people (even if the provisions of the bill were in themselves neither harsh nor unreasonable), appears to us more calculated to add weight to calumny, and to exasperate discontent into hostility, than to defeat the designs of turbulent men, or to reclaim the alienated affections of a mistaken multitude.
2ndly. "Because the powers entrusted by this bill to magistrates are liable to great abuse, and those who disobey them exposed to dreadful and disproportionate punishment. On the surmise that a stranger is present in a crowd, or on the application of a vague definition to the words of a notice, or to the language of an orator, a justice of peace may proclaim a meeting to be unlawful; and an Englishman may become a felon for continuing, even through inadvertence, half an hour on a spot where no breach of the peace has been committed.
3rdly. "Because the numerous assemblies alleged in the preamble to be the occasion and justification of the bill, have been confined to particular districts, but the restrictions and penalties thereof are generally extended to the whole kingdom, and even to Ireland, where no such practices have ever prevailed.
4thly. "Because this bill, combined with the restrictions of the press, which have already passed, or have been announced in this House, is obviously intended to fetter all free discussion, and to repress, if not stifle, the expression of public opinion.—Large meetings, in periods of political ferment, furnish the means of ascertaining the designs and measuring the strength of the mal-con-

1391
tents; they tend to disunite and discredit the rash and mischievous agitators of a mistaken multitude, and they not unfrequently serve as a vent, comparatively innoxious, of that ill-humour and discontent, which, if suppressed might seek refuge in secret cabals and conspiracies, dangerous to the safety of individuals in authority, and subversive of the peace and happiness of society. (Signed)

VASSALL HOLLAND

DONOUGHMORE

AUGUSTUS FREDERICK

GROSVENOR

THANET

ERSKINE."