time on the 17th, the House again divided: Yeas, 129; Noes, 23.

pike-bar, had been informed that it was a meeting of the Corresponding Society, which had dispersed a good deal, disappointed at an unlucky accident, by which Mr. Thelwall, one of their orators, had been deprived of a phaeton belonging to a certain noble duke, of which he was to have had the loan, and from whence he meant to harangue the multitude.

Mr. Stanley said, the privileges of Englishmen were extinguished, if they could not meet when and how they pleased for the discussion of public affairs. To render their conduct subject to the arbitrary control and summary interference of a magistrate, the purity of whose views might be questionable, was inconsistent with every idea of freedom and of the constitution.

Lord W. Russell said, that an imputa tion had been thrown out by a worthy alderman against the character of a noble duke, whom he thought it incumbent on the worthy alderman to name, and to state what reason he had to believe the story which, improbable and foolish as it was, if not properly explained, might be propagated upon the slight foundation of what had been stated in the House. He would therefore move that the debate be adjourned, in order that an inquiry might take place into the facts which had been stated as reasons for supporting the bill.

Nov. 17. On the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill,

The Solicitor General said, that he would not have presumed to have obtruded himself upon the attention of the House in this stage of the bill, did not the general interest it had excited, and the misrepresentations of its tendency which had taken place, render an explanation of its principle and object peculiarly necessary. The first object to which it was directed was the putting a stop to those meetings, which had of late been so frequently held. The sacred freedom of speech had, he said, been shamefully and dangerously abused. The sincere friends of the constitution would, he was persuaded, give their cordial support to a measure which professed to furnish a remedy to that disorder and abuse. Whether the provisions of the bill were calculated to meet the evil was another consideration. Its ob ject, however, was, to prevent the perversion of an important right, and to supersede the necessity of stronger restrictions upon it than the bill was meant to im pose.-The second part was intended to remedy the abuse of debating in public meetings. The particular object of this was, to prevent the egregious abuse of that privilege, which had of late risen to so extraordinary a height-to prevent private interest from prompting discussions of public grievances, and to put a stop to that traffick by which a turbulent spirit of discontent had been raised and encouraged, to serve the pecuniary purposes of individuals. It was to be considered afterwards how far this clause was suited to this purpose.-When the bill was examined, it would be found that if the provisions of it were at all defective, the fault was, that they did not go far enough. His own opinion was that they were not so extensive in their operation as they ought to be. The framers of the bill, however, had been guided by the best of motives. They wished it to meet the evils against which it was levelled, and hoped that the grand 135 purpose would be achieved by it, namely, that of giving a timely check to the desperate views of these clubs and societies. With regard to the principle of the first part, the bill went to establish the right to meet for the purpose of petitioning the legislature against any existing law, or considering any actual grievance, but to [X]

Alderman Anderson said, he had merely stated what he had heard on his way to

town.

Mr. Lambton said, that if the worthy alderman had acted as candour and liberality dictated, he would have told the person who gave him the information, that it was impossible the noble duke alluded to could in any way encourage seditious and disloyal meetings, instead of coming to the House with so miserable an anecdote, which could never impose upon any man who knew the noble duke only for the worst of purposes.

The motion, that the debate be adjourned, was negatived. On the question "That the Bill be now read a first time," the House divided:

22

The Bill was read a first time. On the motion, that it be read a second time, the House divided: Yeas, 133; Noes, 21. On the motion, that it be read a second [VOL. XXXII.]

the zenith of its liberty and fame, had never permitted the people to assemble but in a regular body, formally collected, and under the control of a magistrate. These provisions of the bill were all of them consistent with the spirit of our laws and the practice of our government. To those who would exercise it with discretion and virtue, they were calculated to pre

subject it to regulations, not to withdraw | sure which a regard for the public peace or impair it. It enacted that no meeting rendered fit to be adopted, where it was for such purposes could be held without a threatened by such extravagant attempts certain degree of previous notice. The as these meetings had encouraged. Eng persons at whose request is was called, land was the only country in the world would incur some degree of responsibility where meetings for a similar purpose were for the conduct observed at such meeting. allowed without the attendance of a maIt was not meant to comprehend any gistrate. The most free states that had meeting called by the lord lieutenant, she-existed; the Roman Republic itself, in riff, Custos Rotulorum, &c. It did not attempt to interfere with that kind of meeting which had generally been held formerly in this country, for the constitutional purposes alluded to. Whether this exception went far enough was, in his mind, a matter of doubt. The bill simply required that previous notice should be given for the purpose of explaining what was the nature of the busi-serve the enjoyment of a right by guarding ness for which the meeting was called, and against the abuse of it. The latter provito fasten upon such persons as announced sions were equally fitted to repress those this intention a degree of responsibility lectures, and other kind of political discuswhich would be a pledge for the peace- sions, which it was intended to prevent.— ableness of their designs, and the decency Political subjects, he said, might be disof their demeanor. In what way did this cussed under the idea of an existing enactment trench upon the sacred right grievance, which the sufferers wished to which the constitution bestowed, or give have redressed, and the bill was not inthat fatal stab to their liberties which was troduced to prohibit such a mode of consiapprehended? He was sure that it was dering them. That was a right too sacred calculated to obstruct no meeting which to be disturbed on any pretence whatever. either ought to be held, or which it was But where such discussions were meant to honest to hold. It could only mean, then, prove a source of pecuniary benefit to the to prevent those meetings in which the persons by whom they were promoted, true object skulked behind the pretext of a the bill interposed a salutary preventive. lawful design, and where the bad intention It was impossible not to perceive the imwas veiled by a plausible disguise. It was propriety of permitting discussions, in to be observed also, that the meetings which individuals, feeling themselves inthe bill was framed to discourage were terested would be disposed to advance those chiefly where vast crowds were as- the most dangerous and seditious docsembled, and where necessarily most mis- trines.-It had been asked, what is the chief and disturbance of the public peace necessity for adopting the measure? The were likely to be generated. Even this answer was simple and obvious; the notopractice was to be prohibited by existing riety of the daring proceedings of the selaws, by which tumultuous petitions were ditious. The discussion of pretended or prohibited, and the number of signatures even real grievances, and even the right of to be affixed to any one petition not only petitioning itself, had been employed as a greatly limited, but the object of it was medium to excite sedition and provoke disrequired to be approved by three justices, content. The report of the committee of or the grand jury. If meetings were held secrecy and the evidence adduced on the in defiance of the enactment of the pre- subsequent trials, contained variety of corsent bill, the assembly would be unlaw- respondence, from which it appeared that, ful, and might be dispersed by the magis- while the intention to petition was assumtrate in like manner as he was at presented as the ostensible object, no such deentitled to disperse a mob under the riot act. In order to prevent destructive views from being pursued under specious pretexts, the magistrate was authorized to put an end to the meeting, if his discretion suggested the necessity of such an exercise of authority. This was a mea

sign seriously existed. In what manner, then, was this bill to apply to meetings actuated by similar dispositions? It would not prevent the sober discussion of a real petition, but it would prevent the introduction of discourses, and guard against the perversion of meetings which were

France it had been fonnd impossible to maintain a government on the principle of universal suffrage. The constitution of 1791, in recognizing that doctrine, sealed the doom of the monarchy, and the fate of the king became inevitable. Did not the present period, then, particularly call on the House to adopt measures to prevent their introduction and propagation in this country?-It had been said, that the existing laws were sufficient, and it had been asked, why had not prosecutions been instituted against the authors of the crimes complained of? Prosecutions had, in some cases, taken place, but it was a matter of infinite difficulty to obtain that evidence which was necessary to conviction. The number of offences made prosecutions of all the offenders almost impossible, and even upon the existing laws, prosecutions would have occasioned great public expense. The existing laws were undeniably defective, as they did not reach the societies from which the evil originated. It was therefore the intention of the present bill at once to provide against the deficiency of the laws, by other means than punishment, and by preventing the meetings to anticipate the mischief they might occasion.

likely to lead to such purposes as those to which he had referred. The recent instance of the Westminster meeting had been adduced to show that great bodies of people might assemble in the exercise of a constitutional right, and conduct themselves with suitable propriety and order. But might not such a meeting have taken place, even if this bill had passed into a law? How, then, could the bill be represented as subversive of the best privileges of the people, or as stabbing the principles of the constitution?-Perhaps it might be said, that the inconsiderable number of men, to whom these seditious designs were ascribed, could not be so formidable as to sanction such a measure. He felt the highest pleasure in reflecting that their numbers were comparatively inconsiderable; but inconsiderable as they were, they were capable of doing infinite mischief. It had been laid down as a maxim, by the writers of their own sentiments, that all revolutions were effected by minorities. One of the most distinguished members of the constituent assembly (D'Andre) had remarked that the active, persevering spirit of the few would always triumph over the peaceable and inactive disposition of the more numerous class of the community. Considering the boldness which they manifested, the desire of magnifying their number and importance, and their assumption of a formidable appearance, the small number of people who composed these societies was no reason that the bill was less required by the occasion. The incessant activity of their machinations rendered it necessary for government to embrace strong measures to oppose their progress. Some of the gentlemen opposite had said, why adopt extraordinary measures? Had not the government of former times been protected by the existing laws? It was true, that during periods of danger, the existence of the constitution had been adequately defended by these laws, with this difference, that the object of these men was the total destruction of the constitution; that of the friends of the Stuarts only the change of the sovereign; liberty, religion, and property, if the present ob-vernment was newly established, during a jects of the societies were attained, were to be overthrown. Representative government was the demand of the Corresponding Society, as was proved on the State Trials. To these principles and their consequences they still adhered. In

Mr. Erskine said, he found it extremely difficult to reconcile what he had heard from the learned gentleman, with what he had heard from gentlemen on the opposite side, on the night when the House granted leave to bring in the bill. When leave had been asked to bring in the bill, an hon. gentleman had said, that the criminal law of the land was amply sufficient for the security of the government, and the comfort of the people, but that a particular conjuncture of affairs had arisen, which made it necessary to enact the present law. The learned gentleman, how ever, had that day taken a different course; he had asserted, that the present act was strictly consonant to the principles of the constitution; an act never thought of in the reign of Charles 2nd, after the horrors and confusion of the former reign; an act never dreamt of in the reign of king William, when the go

disputed succession, or in the two rebellions that raged in the subsequent reigns; an act which even the present ministry never thought of passing, when they suspended that grand palladium of English liberty, the Habeas Corpus act; nor when

of the constitution, composed of mixed and separate parts? a direct and gross violation of the Bill of Rights, on the maintenance of which his majesty holds his title to the crown? Those, therefore, who advise his majesty to the measure, bring his title into question, and advise him to a breach of his coronation oath, by thus destroying the unqualified and undeniable right of the people to petition. Did the learned gentleman find in the Bill of Rights, that the right of assembling and petitioning had been a right claimed with such firmness, and contended for with so much glorious struggle, as a right to be exercised with the permission of magistrates, or even of the king himself? But the principles of the constitution and the Bill of Right were all forgotten; the principle of alarm seemed to jus tify every violation of the liberties of the people, and to afford a sufficient pretence of laying waste all the wisdom of our ancestors.

they had the reports of committees, stating the existence of treasonable plots, upon their table. Upon what grounds had the learned solicitor-general defended the necessity of passing the present bill? Upon any fresh reason that existed? Upon any new plots? No. Instead of adducing new evidence, instead of going over the new conspiracies that were supposed to be hatching, the learned gentle man had trodden again the dull track that he had trodden so often before. The learned gentleman, out of his bounty, had been pleased to say, that he allowed the right of the subject to petition the king and parliament, and that he considered that right not to be taken away by the present bill; not only not to be taken away, but even to be rendered safer by it. In contradiction to this position, he would maintain positively and distinctly, that the bill did absolutely destroy the right of the subject to petition. It was a maxim of law when any thing was prohibited by law, the means by which such thing might The learned gentleman had said, that be done were also prohibited: on the there was no country in Europe where contrary when the law permitted a thing meetings were allowed to be held without to be done, it also permitted all the means the interposition of the magistrate; no, by which such thing might be done. By not in ancient Rome: for his part, he did this maxim he desired the present bill not wish to look abroad for governments; might be examined. In the first part of he wished only to support the British the bill an exception was contained, constitution sacred and inviolable, as he which, it had been contended, was suffi- found it delivered into his hands, and as cient to preserve the freedom of the it stood at the Revolution. He was to country; it excepted meetings called by do his duty as a member of the British lords lieutenant, sheriffs, and justices of parliament: he was not then to consider the peace in their particular districts. what government was best; he wished to The constitution of England was, he said, support that which was already estamade up of balanced, mixed, and opposing blished, and which had stood the test of powers; the prerogatives of the crown, ages. It was one thing to make a goand the right of the people were equally vernment, it was another to rob the peopoised, consequently the right of peti- ple of their rights; which, if government tioning, perhaps against arbitrary mea- dared attempt, the people would be jussures, would be rendered nugatory by tified in resisting such glaring oppression. this bill. According to its enactments, He would say, again and again, that it po subject was to be discussed which the was the right of the people to resist that magistrates did not approve; thus, those government which exercised tyranny. magistrates who were appointed by, and It had been said, that bold language was removeable at the will of the crown (such held at public meetings; it was certainly as sheriffs, &c.) were to be the judges of the bold to say, that the people had a right nature of their petitions. The magistrates to resist, and that they ought to rise; but who represent majesty will therefore ne- there were some occasions which rendered ver permit the people to meet for the pur- the boldest language warrantable. — In pose of petitioning against a measure of his attempt to prove the seditious views high prerogative, or in any case where of the societies, the learned solicitor-gethe king may be supposed not to consult neral had neither cited any of the the happiness of the people. Will any speeches that had been delivered at Coman pretend that this is not a flagrant inva-penhagen House, nor had he even brought sion of the people's privileges, and abso- down his own Old Bailey speech; but the lutely destructive of the very existence people were discontented, and would not be

|