rose to present a Petition from the town and neighbourhood of Belfast, praying for an immediate Stoppage of Distillation from Grain. The petition stated, that there was a danger of an absolute want of food for the population of Ireland, a danger much increased by the great quantity of grain consumed in distillation. It was signed by every respectable gentleman and freeholder or merchant in the town of Belfast. From what he had heard the other night, he was afraid there was not much hope that a stoppage of the distilleries would take place, if he should move that the petition be taken into consideration. He should wish to know, however, whether the ministers were disposed to take any steps towards the stoppage of the consumption of corn in that manner. It had been urged, that if there was a scarcity of corn in Ireland, importation might take place; but it was to be considered, that other countries had also suffered, and that the chance of relief by drawing supplies from them was very small. The potatoe crop it was known had failed as well as that of grain. The hon. member then read a list of prices in different parts of Ireland, to prove the scarcity of oats. The price of oatmeal varied from 26s. to 36s. the hundred weight. When a question of such importance as the supply of food to the population was under consideration, the manner in which the revenue would be affected by the measures taken, was of secondary weight. He thought, however, that the revenue would not be injured by the prohibition of distillation from grain, as the sugar now bonded in this country, would be brought forward to pay the duty from the apprehension of a higher tax which might be imposed on it.

said, he was convinced there was much grain in Ireland unfit to be applied to any purpose but distillation or the manufacture of starch. It was to be considered, that if by the stoppage of the legal distilleries, illicit stills were set at work, the consumption would not then be, as it was now, limited to inferior corn.

said, he was surprised at what he had just heard, because on a former evening when he had brought this question before the House, the gallant officer had pronounced a decided opinion against the stoppage of the distilleries even in Ireland. It was to be remarked that the petitioners, consisting not only of the gallant officer's constituents, but of the whole inhabitants of Belfast, prayed for the stoppage of the distilleries as a measure necessary to save them from famine. If this assertion of the petitioners was true, it was certainly the duty of parliament to interfere. As to the prices which the gallant officer had quoted, if he meant to adduce them as an argument to induce the House to stop distillation, he thought he was erroneous, for he had omitted to state the prices in the distressed district. For his own part, he thought the ministers had been much to blame in suffering, when they knew in February the state of Ireland with regard to provisions, the distillation from grain to continue.

said, he had at first been of opinion, that it would not be expedient to stop distillation from grain, but that opinion had been shaken by what he had heard the other night, and still more so by the petition which had that night been pre- sented. The petitioners referred to the high prices as proofs of the scarcity of corn; they stated, that three millions of pound weight of corn would be consumed weekly in the distilleries, if they were not stopped—though the whole of the grain in Ireland was necessary for the preservation of the lives of the people. He thought the petitioners would not have made such assertions, if the facts had not been within their knowledge, and the statement derived weight from the acknowledged character of the men, who, they were told, were well affected to the government, and thus not disposed to throw odium on the ministers, or raise a clamour without grounds. He should offer a few observations, therefore, as to the suspension of the distillation from grain. Much had been said by those who objected to this measure, as to the encouragement which would thus be given to illicit distillation. But they were told, on the other hand, that illicit distillation had already received a check from the high price of grain. When, some years ago, a committee of the House examined the subject, they were informed, that though when corn was plentiful, illicit distilleries were encouraged by high and low, yet in time of scarcity the people themselves went about pulling them down, because they consumed the means of subsistence. It had been said also, on good authority, that that description of corn was used by the distillers which was unfit for human food. This was to be taken with much allowance; it was to be recollected, that the Scotch had been exporting their inferior grain, while they had been buying up in Lynn, and the other ports of Norfolk and Suffolk, the very best barley which could be procured, for the purposes of distillation. Experiments had been made in London as to the practicability of employing damaged corn in the distilleries, and much discoloured barley had been so used. But this was grain merely discoloured on the outer husk, and still fit for human food, for as to that in which fermentation had taken place, it was just as unfit for distillation as for nourishment. The delicacy of interference on this subject had been talked of; but it was to be recollected that they had passed the corn bill, in order to protect the landholder from low prices; they might, therefore, surely protect the people from too high prices, by the stoppage, of distillation. That prices were now very high could not be denied. The quartern loaf was here from 17½d. to 18d. and in Ireland prices were still higher. At this late period of the season it was said, but little could be saved by the measure suggested. Those who argued thus did not take into consideration, that the distillers would apprehend that if distillation from corn were not immediately stopped, it soon might be, and they would therefore distill from the cheapest material while it was lawful, even a greater quantity than would serve the remainder of the year. The prospect of the supply from the next harvest was not good; as the corn had remained last autumn two months longer on the ground than in ordinary years, the farmers had had so much less time to prepare their ground. It was said that prices would have risen more if there had been any scarcity of corn. The present method of threshing enabled the farmer to bring it to market so rapidly that this conclusion was not warranted. Above all things, it was to be considered that if the stoppage of distilleries should turn out to be inadvisable after that measure had taken place, the evil was easily reparable: but if, on the other hand, famine was the consequence of not resorting to that precaution, a serious responsibility would rest on the government.

contended, that the distilleries often used corn of the best quality. There was no danger at present from illicit stills, which were viewed by the people with jealousy, and were thus more effectually stopped than they could be by armies of excisemen. He most seriously urged the necessity of the suspension of distillation from grain. Tumult had already taken place, on account of the scarcity, and the stoppage of the distilleries was necessary to preserve Ireland not only from misery and famine, but from insurrection.

thought it would be highly impolitic to prevent distillation, as the distillers made use of corn which it was impossible to convert to any other purpose.

presented a petition from a number of settlers in New South Wales. The hon. gentleman observed, that he had taken some trouble to ascertain who the persons were whose signatures were affixed to the petition, and he found that they were not individual sent out of this country for their crimes, but bonâ fide colonists. The petition complained generally of the mode in which the laws were administered in the colony, and particularly of the unjust and oppressive conduct of the present governor. On the motion that the petition be brought up,

rose, not for the purpose of objecting to the motion, or of entering into any discussion on the subject, but to express his hope that the House would not allow any of the statements contained in the petition to operate unfavourably towards the character of the distinguished officer in whom was vested the government of that important colony. It was due to that gentleman to state that he had filled that important situation most respectably for many years. He had been appointed to it when he (lord C.) had the honour to hold the seals of the colonial department; the only recommendation which he possessed was his merit, and from all which he had since heard, he had completely fulfilled the expectations entertained of him in the administration of the government of that distant and important colony.

presented a petition from Arbroath, signed by all the respectable inhabitants of the place, and praying for a parliamentary reform, and a diminution of the public expenditure. Adverting to the assertion made the other evening by the lord advocate, that the people of Scotland were perfectly satisfied with the way in which they were at present represented, he declared that he differed from the learned lord in tota, for he was persuaded nine tenths of the people in Scotland were anxious for a reform in the representation.

said, that his opinion with respect to the wishes of the people of Scotland for a reform in the representation perfectly coincided with that of his hon. friend. A very large majority of those who were most respectable for character and talents in that country, maintained the necessity of parliamentary reform; and it was highly honourable to them, that although they asserted their rights with ability and energy, they in no case evinced the least disposition to recommend any thing that might lead to tumult and violence.

observed, that there was not a single petition from the landholders of Scotland in favour of parliamentary reform. In the counties, there were few-freeholders who were not voters, and though the roll was small, he believed there were generally as many voters as landholders who were freeholders. The petitions sent up on the subject he did not hold to be of much importance. Many of these petitions did not express the sentiments of those from whom they were supposed to come. They were sent up to London, like children to the Foundling-hospital, and left to their fate. From one little village, which did not contain more than 15 houses, a delegate had been sent to meet the other delegates lately assembled in the metropolis. Had all parts of Scotland engaged in the cause with the same ardour, the delegates sent to discuss the question of parliamentary reform would not have been fewer than 140,000.

expressed his astonishment at the declaration made by the hon. gentleman, that in Scotland the voters for the counties were commensurate with the landholders. He denied that the people of Scotland were satisfied with the present state of the representation. What was meant by "the people of Scotland?" Those who had the right of voting in Scotland were, as a body, absolutely a nonenity compared with the entire numbers of the people. Many of the towns were perfectly close, the very electors electing themselves. Let the state of Glasgow or of Edinburgh be considered as an instance. Did the House think the inhabitants of either of those cities were satisfied to see its police and government in the hands of a dozen persons, self-elected, a few of whom went out annually and were reelected, and who constituted the voters for its representation? The great advance which Scotland had made in wealth and improvement during the last fifty years, demanded some amendment in the representation.

explained. He had never asserted that the voters for counties in Scotland were commensurate with the landholders, but with those landholders who were freeholders.

of Scotland, in explanation of his statement on a recent occasion, repeated, that it was his firm con- viction that of the classes of the people in Scotland capable of forming a correct judgment on the subject, nine-tenths did not wish for any change in the representation of that country in parliament. In evidence of this was the fact, that no petition had come to that House from the landed interest, from any corporate body, from the commissioners of supply, or from any meeting of freeholders, praying for an alteration in the existing system. The presentation of petitions from two out of all the corporate bodies of Scotland did not diminish the strength of his observation. Nor were the petitions which had been presented from many of the boroughs of Scotland in favour of reform expressive of the genuine opinion of the respectable part of the inhabitants. For instance, a petition had been presented by the hon. general from the borough of Kirkaldy, to which not a single individual among the hon. general's constituents had signed his name; whereas a counter-declaration had issued from the same place, signed by one and all of the hon. general's constituents, and by every respectable inhabitant. What he had said with respect to the state of representation in Scotland, as settled at the Union in 1707, was, that he thought Scotland satisfactorily represented in that House, but that at all events the representation of Scotland had been settled by a Whig government in 1707. He had heard nothing to shake his opinion that that representation was satisfactory. The number of electors had considerably increased since that period, more especially in the counties; in some of which, as the noble lord well knew, the number was very seriously increasing [a laugh.] As to the municipal regulations of Glasgow, or any other place, that was a question quite distinct from parliamentary representation, and ought not to be confounded with it. And of this he was persuaded that the inhabitants of Glasgow, or any other city or town in Scotland, would much rather that the representation should stand as it did, than that the country should be exposed to all the evils of granting "the boon" (as it was called by many of the petitioners to that House) of universal suffrage.

maintained, that the enlightened part of the people of Scotland were so apprehensive of the dangers which might result from meddling with the existing system of representation, that they had serious thoughts of petitioning parlia- ment against any alteration on the subject. In order to show the way in which signatures to petitions for parliamentary reform were frequently procured, the hon. gentleman read a letter from the clergyman of Langholm, with reference to the petition lately presented from that place, in which the reverend gentleman stated that the most shameful acts were resorted to on the occasion; and, among others that an evening school had been entered by the framers of the petition, and the signatures obtained of every child who was able to write its name.

said, the counter declaration, as it was called, from Kirkaldy, opposed annual parliaments and universal suffrage—nothing else. It most decidedly prayed for that which was so painful a subject to the learned lord and his adherents—the most rigid economy and retrenchment.

said, that if the learned lord when he undertook to state the sentiments of the people of Scotland on this subject, had mentioned what the actual number of voters was, it would have been much more satisfactory to the House.

observed, that the House must consider it extremely material to know whether it was true that the petitions from Scotland, in favour of parliamentary reform, did not speak the opinion of the people of that country. The learned lord went the length of saying, that they were adverse to that measure—that they were not only not zealous for its adoption, but most anxious that it should not be even entertained. Another hon. gentleman declared that the sound part of the Scottish nation were preparing to petition against the extension of the elective franchise. From whom, he begged to ask, would these petitions proceed? Why, from the few who monopolized that right against the many under the present system excluded from the enjoyment of that privilege. What would be thought in this country of a petition from the holders of burgage tenures against parliamentary reform? Would it receive any serious consideration? There was no very great difference between such a petition and one from the freeholders of Scotland, respecting the right of representation. A man might have 20,000l. per annum in Scotland, and yet have no vote, whilst men without an acre of landed property had the power of returning members. The learned lord had observed, that the electors in the counties had increased since the revolution; the fact was so, but by no means in proportion to the population that had very nearly doubled.

denied, that the petitions presented from Scotland in favour of parliamentary reform, afforded any fair criterion to judge of the well educated part of that country. The real fact was, that those reform petitions were sent to the manufacturing districts of Scotland, as they were in this country, where operating on the minds of men suffering under temporary distress, they were at once voted as a panacea for every evil. The enlightened part of the people were, in his opinion, wholly adverse to any change in the system of the representation.

could not suffer this opportunity to pass without stating what he believed to be strictly the fact—that in the county of York there were 60,000 freeholders, while in Scotland there were not above 2,000. He did not profess to know what the feelings of the great body of the people of Scotland might be on this subject, but it would be a most singular occurrence if they should petition the House against a reform. He could not believe that they would adopt such an extraordinary proceeding until he actually saw the petitions on the table.

said, that the vote he was about to propose, was for the half year ending in June next. He thought it would be proper that the general discussion should be postponed until after Easter, when the report of the finance committee would be laid on their table, and they would be called to decide on an establishment for the rest of the year. He should propose a vote for the number and charge of the land forces, up to the month of June, in order to enable him to bring in the mutiny bill, which would be co-extensive in duration with the vote. It would be a short mutiny bill, extending from the 24th of march to the 24th of June next. Another object would be to give time to consider of the means by which the remaining part of the expense of the service was to be covered. He should take a vote on those items relative to which no dispute could arise; for instance, on the Chelsea and Kilmainham establishments, and also on the yeomanry and volunteer corps, for the half-year, ending the 24th of June. He should now state the general bearing of those estimates, and the difference in charge, compared with those of last year. The difference in expense between the estimates of the preceding and the present year, was 2,165,000l. The number of men voted last year, including officers and non-commissioned officers, was 196,000; the number to be voted this year, 140,000, including those in India and France—being a reduction of 56,000 men. The foreign corps being struck out of this number, the reduction, including officers, would be 33,492 men: or, reckoning only rank and file, a reduction of 26,176 men. In addition to this, there would be withdrawn from France, in April next, in consequence of ah arrangement with the allied powers, 4,800 men—which, added to 26476, would form a gross reduction of 30,976 rank and file. The first resolution which he should move was, "That a number of land forces, not exceeding 121,035 men (including the forces stationed in France); and also 15,585 men, proposed to be disbanded; and 1,863 men proposed to be transferred to the Indian establishment, in the year 1817 (but exclusive of the men belonging to the regiments now employed in the territorial possessions of the East-India company, or ordered from thence to Great Britain), commissioned and non-commissioned officers included, be maintained for the service of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 25th day of December 1816, to the24th day of June 1817, both inclusive,: being 182 days."

said, he was not then prepared to enter into the subject in detail: but after the committee had made their report, the House would be able to ascertain what was intended to be done by government. What he understood was, that they were then only called upon to consent to the numbers up to the 24th of June.

, trusting that the committee above stairs would recommend a farther reduction of our enormous military establishment, would abstain from any observations till he saw the report. He was decidedly of opinion, that all the retrenchments which had been made were totally inadequate to the situation of the country.

said, it would be better to reserve any arguments till the House proceeded to the discussion after Easter. He should now merely state, that the 26,176 rank and file included reliefs to foreign garrisons.

, in answer to a question respecting the forces in Ireland, said, that an assimilation had taken place in the services of the two countries, and a considerable saving had been made in the Irish regiments. The resolution was agreed to. Lord Palmerston next moved, that a farther sum of 237,600l. be granted for the army in England, and 438,000l. for the land forces in Ireland. The sum for troops intended to be reduced on the British establishment would be 131,600l., and on the Irish establishment 16,700l. These sums being agreed to, his lordship then moved, that the sum of 37,500l. should be voted for six months, at a calculation of 3l. a man for the volunteer corps in England. His lordship observed, there had never been any question as to the utility of this force; the events of the last six months had shown the absolute necessity of keeping it in an efficient state; and he was happy to say, that these corps had on all occasions conducted themselves in such a manner as fully entitled them to the consideration of that House, and to the thanks of the nation at large.

thought he should be wanting in his duty, if he did not bear testimony to the full efficiency of these corps. On two occasions, very recently, he had as a magistrate witnessed their exertions. Though scattered over a district of 49 miles, and summoned in the course of the night, they were all assembled for duty by nine o'clock in the morning. He would beg to press it on the noble lord, that the original sum of 4l. was fully necessary for the due efficiency of that most useful force.

concurred most decidedly in the general merits of that species of force, than which none more constitutional could be called out in aid of the civil power. So impressed were his majesty's government with the efficiency of the yeomanry force, that unless under that conviction they would not have been justified in proposing to parliament the low estimates now in contemplation. With every disposition to afford the fullest means of efficiency, yet in time of peace he must think the allowance of 3l. per man sufficient.

congratulated the House upon the perfect disposition there appeared throughout the country, to strengthen the hands of government by the powerful aid of this constitutional force.

thought government might avail themselves of the services of that loyal body the light horse volunteers, most seasonably, and at a very trifling expense. It was only necessary to have it made known to them, to create a strong disposition to muster, under the present circumstances, for the preservation of the public peace.

contended, that the yeomanry ought not to be expected to maintain themselves. He wished their allowance to be fixed at 4l. per man.

hoped, before a permanent vote was come to on this subject, that the noble lord would consider of the propriety of making such an arrangement as would satisfy those who gave up their time for the service of the country. He was glad to hear these eulogiums on the yeomanry, as he thought they would hereafter furnish him with unanswerable arguments in favour of a further reduction of the army.

doubted if the yeomanry would be made more efficient by increasing their allowances. In Paris there were 40,000 national guards, well clothed, and in every respect a most efficient body of men, who did not cost the country sixpence, and whose pride it was to receive no pay.

said, the allowances could not be considered as a remuneration for the services of the yeomanry. Such an imperfect reward could not degrade them, and it was two much to expect that farmers and shopkeepers should bear all the expense of their equipments themselves.

said, the House would recollect, that 50,000,000 of francs had been appropriated by the allies to the British and Prussian armies, for their services at Waterloo, over and above their respective shares of the contributions exacted from France. Some difficulties had interposed, and as this sum could not be conveniently furnished by the time at which it was desirable that it should be distributed, a hope had been held out that a grant in advance would be proposed to parliament. The regularity with which the French government had made its payments was such, that a csnsiderable part of the sum had been laid by, and the sum of 500,000l. sterling had been already ex- ended. The advance of 1,000,000l. was however necessary, for the reasons he had given; but lie had the happiness to say the British military chest was so well furnished, that no further provision would be required for the troops in France between this and the end of the year. The sum advanced would be repaid in that time if there occurred no failure in payment of the French contributions, which was not at all to be expected, from the punctuality hitherto observed; more especially as the withdrawing of 30,000 troops from the army of observation, would so greatly diminish the amount of the payments France would have to make. Under these circumstances, the grant he should propose must be considered as a mere temporary grant. He then moved, "That a sum, not exceeding one million, be granted to his majesty, to enable his majesty to grant unto field marshal the duke of Wellington, and his majesty's forces and those of his majesty's allies serving under his grace's command at the battle of Waterloo, and the capture of Paris, in such manner as his majesty shall direct, the sum of twenty-five millions of francs assigned to his majesty from the pecuniary indemnity payable by France under the treaty of the 20th day of November 1815, by the protocol of the ministers of the allied powers of the same date."

took occasion to say a few words on the subject of an operation with which he had been connected, and which had certainly been noticed more out of that House than in it. What had been said would have little effect on him, as he was rather in the habit of consulting his own understanding to determine what it was his duty to do, than of regulating his conduct by the prejudices of others. In the present instance there had been much misapprehension as to the extent to which he had been engaged in the transaction alluded to. He had unquestionably put himself forward with other individuals, gentlemen of Holland, Hamburgh, and Paris, to advance such a loan to the French government as was necessary to enable it to fulfil its engagements. Doing this he had first considered what was his duty to his country. Though, as a merchant, his conduct was regulated by views of general interest, yet in every thing that related to politics his first care was to ascertain how his country would be affected by any transaction in which he was concerned. In the present case he was sure there had been a British object in view, and the interest of the nation had been looked to, he believed, more than was common in such pursuits. Though not in that House, in other places, many attacks had been made on his conduct. These, be believed, arose out of some misapprehension, as the share he had had in the affair in question was very inconsiderable. This would easily be believed when he stated the operation, so far as any one in this country was concerned, to be completely closed. Supposing that no British object had been in his view, and considering the transaction to have been wholly of a commercial character, he would still contend, that no injury could be sustained by this country. A noble person who was in the habit of giving the public instruction every three or four months in pamphlets which he sent forth to the world, had noticed this transaction, in doing which he had taken some liberties with his (Mr. Baring's) name; but the principles he had advanced were in themselves so absurd that he did not think it necessary to answer them. The sum of his argument was this, that no merchant was justified in sending money out of the country. If this were admitted to be true, what, in many instances, could the merchant do? And what danger was to be apprehended, he might ask, from the conduct thus condemned? When the merchant sent money out of the country, it must always be with the certainty, with the hope at least that it would return and bring more with it. The argument, however, which had been used against him was this—that as mechanics were prohibited by law from sending their tools out of the country, so the merchant who carried on his business by means of money had no right to send his capital abroad. This was really so ridiculous that he was ashamed to trouble the committee with any further explanation on the subject. He would only say, that no harm could result from the transaction to this country. Had it been otherwise, he would have had nothing to do with it. In what had taken place, to promote British interests had been constantly his object.

was persuaded no man could have acted with more candour or propriety than the hon. gentleman who had just sat down had done, in the transaction with the French government. Before he entered into any negociation with that power, he had candidly told the government of this country what proposals were made to him, and had expressed in the most manly manner his willingness to relinquish any share in the transaction, if it could prove directly or indirectly injurious to this country. No pledge, no guarantee, no security of any kind was given him by government; but he was told that they saw no injury whatever likely to result to the country from the loan, but on the contrary, thought it might be beneficial to Europe, and to this country in particular, by contributing to the stability of France. This was the view ministers formed of the transaction; and he repeated, that no individual could have acted with more candour, more uprightness, or more integrity, than the hon. gentleman had done.

rose and said, he must again call the attention of the House to these atrocious clauses. That their being found in the riot act of George 1st, was no ground at all for introducing them in this; the preamble of that act stating it as made against "rebellious riots, and tumults," the preamble to the present bill "that such meetings had been used to the danger and disturbance of the public peace." That, indeed, all the riot acts in which capital punishments had been awarded, went on the ground of outrage carried to a length approximating to rebellion. The first of them, 2nd and 3rd Edward 6th, cap. 5, was enacted after the rebellions of York, Devon, and Norfolk, all commencing in simple riot; the latter of 30,000 men, who beat the king's army under the marquis of Northampton, and were with difficulty overcome by Warwick. That this act was repealed 1st Mary, c. 1, of which act Mr. Gurney read from the preamble, "forasmuch as the state of every king standeth and consisteth more assured by the love and favour of the subject toward the sovereign, than in the dread and fear of laws made with rigorous pains and extreme punishments, &c. whereby people are trapped and snared, yea, many times for words only without fact or deed done or perpetrated." —Mr. Gurney stated, that the acts of the 2nd Mary and of Elizabeth against riots, after those which occurred on account of the changes in the religion of the country, both went on the same ground of acts of violence perpetrated, as was sufficiently proved by the giving triple damages against a less number than 12, for the property which they might have destroyed or injured. — That these laws had slept from the accession of James 1st to the 1st George 1st, when the riot act, of which the enactments were so strangely grafted into this bill, was passed on occasion of the great tumults on the impeachments of Oxford and Ormond.—Mr. Gurney expressed his decided conviction, that so far from these clauses, which were abhorrent to the common sense and feeling of mankind, having any tendency to secure tranquillity, their direct operation was, to bring the legislature into that "hatred" with the people, which the act alluded to, as arising from the artifices of disaffected men. That it was awarding to the suspicion of incipient sedition, the punishment of consummated treason; and on these grounds he trusted some gentleman more competent than himself, would move an amendment that should substitute some other punishment more commensurate with the offence committed.

wished to remind the House of the object of the bill, and more particularly the clause in question. That object was to prevent the meeting of tumultuous assemblies, and to disperse them if they should have met. The hon. gentleman who spoke last, was afraid that the clause was of a nature to excite discontent against the legislature; but there had been a long experience of a law of a similar description, and that experience had demonstrated that no such effect was to be apprehended. The clause would operate as a preventive, and it therefore was not likely that the actual infliction of the punishment it enacted would ever take place. There had been no instance of any punishment under the act similar to the present bill, which passed at a former crisis, nor under the riot act. The apprehension of punishment had prevented the offence: but how could it be expected that seditious meetings could be dispersed, if, after an hour's notice given by a magistrate, it should still be necessary to enter into parlance with the multitude? It was necessary to have a definite penalty specified, in order that the parties might know what would be the consequence of their continuing longer together; and the severity of the punishment would be a security against the violation of the law.

considered the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman as one of a very singular kind. He had insisted on the necessity of punishing persons offending against the law, as if his hon. friend who had opposed the clause, had' maintained that there should be no punishment. To agree to enact that persons persisting to remain together after notice to disperse was given, should be an offence, and yet to say that no punishment should be inflicted on the offenders, was an absurdity of which his hon. friend certainly never was guilty. The question was, whether the punishment of death was the proper punishment for the offence. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that there had been no instances of punishment under the similar clauses m the riot act, and the act of 1795, which he believed was the fact; but if there had been no cases of punishment, the inference was, that there had been no occurrence of the offence. The multiplication of unnecessary statures, and the enacting of penalties too severe in proportion to the offence, only tended to weaken and degrade the authority of the law. The order of the magistrate to disperse, it was supposed might be disobeyed. That disobedience would either bring the parties offending within the riot act, or it would not. If it brought them within it, then this clause was useless; for what necessity could there be for loading the statute book with sanguinary enactments? If it did not bring the parties within the riot act, then this bill went farther than that act, by punishing a less offence with equal severity. He would ask the committee whether they were prepared to enact a law more severe than the most sanguinary of the criminal code of this or of any other country, namely, the riot act?—a law which nothing could excuse but the peculiarly difficult circumstances of the period in which it was passed. He must again ask, of what use the clause could be if it enacted nothing more than was already enacted by the riot act? and unless he received a satisfactory answer, he would propose to leave out the words, "shall suffer death without benefit of clergy," in order to substitute the punishment of transportation for not less than seven and not more than fourteen years.

saw no reason for the amendment suggested by the hon. gentleman. Many laws were enacted merely with a view to the prevention of crimes, and it was therefore very inconsistent to contend that such laws were useless because no punishments had been inflicted under them. That circumstance rather proved that they had answered the purpose for which they were enacted. On this principle it might be said, that the riot act was unnecessary; for he did not recollect one instance of the trial of any persons for not dispersing within an hour after proclamation under the riot act had been made; and yet no statute had been of greater advantage to the county than that act. The hon. gentleman had observed that the clause either came within the riot act, or did more than that act. It certainly did do more than the riot act in the way of preventing disorder. According to the riot act, persons must not only be assembled, but must be assembled riotously and tumultously. The object of the present bill was to prevent assembling at all except under the sanction of lawful functionaries, as he might call the magistrates, who were to superintend such meetings; and the clause in question gave to magistrates authority to disperse meetings so assembled, though there might be no actual riot or tumult. As the object of the bill was to prevent riot, it must be regarded as wise and proper to put the offence contemplated in the clause on the same footing as resistance to a proclamation under the riot act. The House, too, would bear in mind that this bill was not proposed to be permanent, like the riot act, but to be passed to remedy a temporary evil. The offence was not one for which any reasonable excuse could be offered. It was not one committed on a sudden impulse of passion or inadvertently. The penalty did not attach, unless the persons assembled should continue together one hour after proclamation made by a magistrate for their dispersion. Now, unless assembled for some other purpose than passing resolutions or agreeing to petitions, it was not probable that any individuals would resist the order to disperse. This was the effect he anticipated, and consequently expected that the punishment enacted never would be inflicted. He was far from wishing for sanguinary laws, but he was convinced that the effect of the present act would be greatly weakened were any alteration to be made in the clause under consideration. Many per- sons, he was persuaded, would risk the staying together, if the punishment were only transportation, who would not venture to resist the law if they knew that such resistance made them liable to suffer death.

wished to know whether it was meant to assert, that when proclamation had been made under the riot act, it had always happened that the persons assembled dispersed in due time, and returned to their homes? For his part, he believed the contrary was very frequently the case. There having been no punishment under the law was no proof the offence had not occurred. In his opinion the severity of the punishment had prevented prosecutions. He trusted that his hon. and learned friend would propose the attention which he had suggested in the shape of an amendment.

was of opinion that the solicitor-general had not been aware of the consequences which might follow his argument, nor the extent to which it might be carried. Humane and mild in his disposition, as that hon. and learned gentleman was justly acknowledged to be by all who knew him, he was afraid he had on the present occasion been unfortunately misled. He had described the offence as deliberately committed. What crime might not be punished on the same grounds? The law obviously defeated itself by its own severity. Suppose, for example, that the infliction of torture was still a part of the law of this country, the same argument might apply to it in this case. If the crime was to be prevented by the severity of the punishment, why, he would ask, had the hon. and learned gentleman not proposed that the punishment of high treason should be inflicted? He begged the hon. and learned gentleman would really consider the nature of the case before he proposed so dreadful a punishment. Men met together to debate on a given subject and to come to some resolutions on that subject —a justice hearing of the meeting comes forward and orders them to disperse— they are, it may be, disposed peaceably to debate whether they shall disperse or not, and while they are occupied in so doing the hour elapses—they then become subject to this dreadful punishment merely because they have, perhaps, been disposed to doubt the propriety of the justice's conduct and have remained a little longer together. This view of the case struck him very forcibly. A pickpocket might be considered a deli- berate offender. His stealing was certainly a deliberate act. If, therefore, the deliberate manner in which the persons remained together was to be considered a sufficient ground to justify the infliction of death, there was no saying how far that punishment might be awarded. Between the riot act and the one now before the committee there was no comparison. The riot act supposed those against whom it was directed, were violating the public tranquillity and commiting outrage. The one now before the committee subjected those who did not disperse in one hour after proclamation, to the same dreadful punishment as if they had been guilty of the most aggravated crimes. It was a matter of no moment, whether they were peaceable or not; it did not avail them any thing to have conducted themselves in an orderly manner, for the punishment was the same. Viewing, then, the subject in this most serious light, he hoped his hon. friend would move the amendment he had already suggested.

said, it was now a century since the riot act had passed, and it had proved of the greatest advantage. He had recently had personal experience of its utility. In the course of last week he had felt it to be his duty to read the riot act to an assembly which, though not actually riotous and tumultuous at the time, had riotous objects in view. Had the act been less penal, he was convinced he should not have had sufficient influence to cause the dispersion of that assembly. He was perfectly confident, that it was only by his stating to the people the high penalties to which they would expose themselves if they continued together, that he prevailed on them to separate. If the punishment under the riot act had been transportation, he certainly should not have succeeded. With regard to the difference between the present measure and the riot act, the important difference with regard to the number allowed to continue together had not been noticed. Under the riot act the number was twelve, but by the bill now under consideration it; was fifty. He would vote for the higher: penalty, as he considered it necessary for the peace of the country.

decidedly thought the act would be of no avail unless the punishment of death was the consequence to those who violated it. Not to disperse after the proclamation was read, was an act of the highest rebellion, and certainly en- titled those who were guilty of it to the severest penalties of the law. The very circumstance of no case having ever occurred under the riot act, where death had been inflicted, showed the excellent effects that the dread of that punishment bad on the mind. Convinced that those who should violate this act were guilty of direct and open rebellion, he did not by any means conceive the punishment disproportionate to the offence, and should therefore give it his support. Every circumstance connected with the present times justified its being the case, and led him to think it indispensably necessary.

agreed with his hon. friend, that such a punishment could only be justified on the ground of its being applied to rebellion; but he contended that the offence was not one of that description. When the punishment of death was inflicted under the riot act, it was for actual violence and resistance; but here it was proposed to enact the same punishment for the mere non-compliance with the order of a magistrate. A century ago, it had been thought fit to punish resistance to a magistrate with death; but he called upon any hon. gentleman to show any instance in which the law of England had made non-compliance with the order of a magistrate an offence punishable with death. He now moved, that the words "shall suffer death as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy," should be left out, and the words, "shall suffer transportation for the term of 7 years," inserted in their stead.

said, that many gentlemen had appeared disposed to seize upon the present opportunity to discuss the abstract question of crimes and punishments, but into that branch of the subject he should not enter. With regard to the riot act, he was of opinion that there was not on the statute book a law which had been more advantageous to the country. The question was not whether the principle of the riot act was applied to the present bill, but whether there was a necessity for the measure. There was this difference between the two laws, that the riot act was applicable to tumult which had commenced, or was intended: whereas the present bill was intended, not merely to stop the incipient but apprehended riot. An hon. baronet had stated to the House, that he had dispersed persons because he knew they had assembled for a riotous purpose. The operation of the riot act was not, therefore, merely confined to actual riot. He would contend, that whenever resistance should be made to the order of a magistrate under this act, there would be such an opposition to the law as constituted rebellion, and he would ask, whether it was more prudent, by mitigating the penalty, to invite the people to make resistance, or to arm the magistrates with that precautionary authority which would enable them to preserve the peace? If the two laws, the riot act and the present bill, were allowed to go into concurrent operation with different penalties, the result of that operation would be the greatest inconsistencies. Suppose in the same field one magistrate should order the people to disperse, under pain of transportation, and in another part of the same field the riot act should be read, it would be impossible for the persons assembled to know to which penalty they were exposing themselves. He could conceive nothing worse than to leave any doubt on this subject, and therefore thought that the House ought to be guided by the principle of the riot act. He was confident that the amendment would not be adopted unless it was determined that there should be a complete doubt raised as to the situation in which persons assembled in opposition to the act should stand.

said, he was not quite old enough to remember the riots of 1780, but he should like to know if the riot act was found useful either then, or in 1793, when Dr. Priestley's house was burnt down. In 1780, as he was informed, the riot act was read many times without effect. He could not help thinking, that with men of common sense the apprehension of the penalty of transportation, which they knew would certainly be enforced, would go as far to deter them from disobedience to the law, as the threat of a higher punishment, which they might hope would not be inflicted on them. In the course of his experience he had always found, that when death was the punishment for slight offences the difficulty of prosecution was almost insuperable.

condemned the distinction attempted to be set up between a mere non-obedience to the law, and a resistance to the law. Perhaps some of the hon. members opposite thought the meetings, on receiving the command of the magistrate to disperse, ought to deliberate whether they were to disperse or not.

observed, that the punishment in the present law was not more severe than that in the act of 1796, and the subsequent acts.

, of Cambridge, thought the punishment of transportation, the second in point of severity in our law, was sufficiently severe to deter from the offence against which they were now legislating; and of two punishments, both effectual to the object in view, it became them to take the lighter.

said, he had another amendment to propose in that most important clause which related to public meetings—not meetings held without observance of the conditions required by law, but all meetings whatever—meetings legally holden in pursuance of notice properly given by seven householders. He had no objection to the first part of the clause, that part which authorized magistrates to take into custody any person who proposed an alteration of any thing established by law, otherwise than by the authority of King, Lords, and Commons: neither should he object to the words "or shall wilfully and advisedly make any proposition, or hold any discourse for the purpose of meeting and stirring up the people to hatred or contempt of the person of his majesty, his heirs, or successors." All libellous and slanderous words against the king, or person exercising the sovereign authority, were perfectly inexcusable—they were inexcusable when they referred to acts done in the excercise of the royal authority, because this was transferring the responsibility from the ministers of the Crown to the sovereign. If they referred to the private conduct of the sovereign, they were equally inexcusable—for he held that all conduct purely private, whoever the individual might be, ought to be exempted from animadversion. His objection was to the same power being given in the case of propositions stirring up the people to hatred or contempt of the government or constitution of this realm as by law established. No man in that House would say that there was any intention of using the word government in any sense where it might be confounded with administration—that there was any intention of putting a stop to the canvassing all measures of administration, the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. But if that were true, what was the use of inserting the word "government." It was either no more than constitution, and in that case it was unnecessary, or it was meant for administration, and in that case it was mischievous. He desired to have some sense of the word government adduced in which it was different from constitution. The use of the word government in this clause could have no tendency but to create the most dangerous misapprehensions, and the greatest confusion in all public meetings. The House had received many petitions complaining of many acts of the legislature, and they always received such petitions when there was no intention to insult the House. But the right to present such petitions involved the right to discuss the subjects contained in them. He should propose, therefore, that which would leave the beneficial operation of the clause as full and entire as before, without giving a latitude of discretion to bigotted, servile, and narrow-minded magistrates. He should propose the omission of the words "or the government," leaving the passage to run, "or the constitution of this realm as by law established."

contended, that the word government had been used in every indictment for high treason from the earliest times. The persons indicted were charged with levying war against the king, and insurrection against the government. In all indictments in cases of sedition and seditious libels, the word government of the country was constantly used, as a phrase which no lawyer could misapprehend. He should not wish to have the word constitution left out; but if they were to leave out one of the two words, standing there as a lawyer, he would rather leave out the word constitution than the word government, as the latter word was better known in the language of the law.

agreed that the word government was better known to the law than the word constitution, and that it was a proper expression in the clause, but he objected to the clause altogether, as the only end which it could be intended to answer was provided for in the former part of the bill, or by the law as it at present stood. It would be better to allow the justices to prevent such meetings when they thought the terms of the notice improper, than to give them the power of dissolving them when a great number of persons were collected together, the exercise of which would lead to disorder.

wished to know whether it was to be understood that all power of assembling to petition for parliamentary reform was taken away by the present clause? If that had been the intention of the framers of the bill, what more could they have done? Persons who convened meetings to petition for reform were obliged to prove that there was something wrong in the constitution of that House; and how was that to be done, without saying something which might be construed into an intention to bring the constitution into hatred and contempt? He should take, for instance, the septennial act, which was a part of the established law. If any one were to tell the people that this act was an infringement on the rights of the subject, or a gross fraud on the people, would it not be said that his speech came within the clause? Now would they vest in any magistrate the power of going to any meeting, and at once dissolving it? As no one supposed that to petition for parliamentary reform was unconstitutional, to put into the hands of the magistrates the power of preventing meetings to petition was surely unconstitutional. They might judge of the construction which magistrates might put upon parliamentary reform meetings, by the words of a report made in another place. That report talked of the Union Clubs as professing to suppport parliamentary reform, "by which they understand universal suffrage and annual parliaments, projects which involve not any qualified and partial change, but the total subversion of the British constitution." For his own part, he was not friendly to these measures, which he thought would be most injudicious alterations and not reforms, but he did not think them subversive of the constitution. There were indeed very high constitutional authorities against that assertion. However, there might be found in the country, magistrates who thought that much less important changes than these would be subversive of the constitution. If the real intention of the bill was, to prevent parliamentary reform, it should be so avowed.

said, that the magistrates were by the same bill invested with a discretionary power as to Debating Societies. He did not think they incurred any greater risk, by granting them the discretion to determine whether the proceedings at a meeting, convened by seven householders, tended to parliamentary re- form or to sedition. As to the case which the hon. member had put, he apprehended a magistrate would be not only blameable, but punishable, if he attempted to interfere with a debate, even not very temperate, on the state of the representation of the people. But when he had fully admitted that an exercise of the discretionary power against such meetings would not be justifiable, would it not be conceded to him, that when discourses were held, manifestly tending to sedition, there should be some power in the magistrate to put a stop to them? It would be afterwards left to a jury of his countrymen to determine, whether the magistrate had acted warrantably, or whether he had strained the power granted for the prevention of sedition, to the suppression of constitutional discussion. The House must take the course marked out in the clause, or leave the public mind open to all the inflammation which these meetings might be used to extend.

said, he had given his vote for the mitigation of the punishment to transportation in the former clause, not from any design to clog the operation of the bill, but from a conviction that it would be equally efficient if the amendment had been carried. He had the same feeling as to the amendment now proposed, and he supported it, not from any idea that the word "Government" would be misunderstood in that House, but because there was a great popular misapprehension as to the import of that word. The looseness of expression which prevailed, was to be attributed to the freedom which the people enjoyed, and which rendered it unnecessary to weigh minutely every word which fell from them. Was it not usual, he would ask, to apply the word "government" to the administration, and might not the most loyal man in the course of a long speech speak of the government in a way which, though his meaning might be perfectly justifiable, would bring him within the letter of the law, and enable some officious magistrate to put him on his defence? As all that could be meant might be comprehended in the words, "constitution as by law established," he should vote for the amendment.

thought no one could be so ignorant as to understand by the word government, the administration of the day. As it was only the perversion of the law by ignorant men which could be ap- prehended, it was an objection which equally applied to all discretionary power. After some further conversation the amendment was negatived. On the reading of the next clause, for apprehending persons who offended as before described,

proposed to leave out this clause altogether. He wished to know how the learned gentleman opposite, who had paid so much attention to this act, could explain the operation of this clause. Dreadful penalties attached to persons not dispersing, or who obstructed the arrest of any persons by the magistrate. Now, if it should turn out that the magistrate had acted wrong, had arrested a person for no sufficient cause, would this error of the magistrate be a good plea for a person who should be tried for obstructing, or for not dispersing; or would the penalties still remain, and thus be made to depend on the bare opinion of a magistrate, and that, possibly, an erroneous one?

conceived, that the clause was sufficiently explicit. If a man should make any treasonable proposition, he was to be seized, and not otherwise; if the meeting adopted the treason by obstructing the arrest of such a person, it was to be dispersed and not otherwise.

said, that a magistrate would by this clause have the power which he possessed in every other case, with this difference, that he would act on what he heard as well as on what he saw. He was in the legal predicament of a constable or magistrate, acting "upon the view." He was also responsible for any abuse or misapplication of his power.

said, that the clause before the committee pretended to give certain privileges to assemblies convened by seven householders; but under the construction now put upon it, he had not the least difficulty in asserting, that it would be far better that the clause should be expunged, since some officious magistrates might only make it a pretence for denouncing the most peaceable and constitutional meetings, and arresting all those who took part in the discussion. The clause, as at present framed and understood, tended rather to occasion riot and confusion, than to prevent sedition and rebellion. The most important rights might be invaded, if it were not amended. Suppose, for instance, at an assembly legally convened, a gentleman should state, that it was a mockery upon the constitution that Old Sarum should have as many representatives as Westminster, some justice of the peace might think that, as by the law and constitution, Old Sarum was allowed that privilege, it was illegal and seditious to assert that it was a mockery, and the result might be the dispersion of the meeting. The whole representation of Scotland was in his (sir S. R.'s) opinion no less a mockery; and yet if that opinion were stated out of doors, any magistrate might step in with his constables, arrest the individual, and dissolve the meeting. This pretended privilege on the signature of seven householders was nothing more or less than an allurement to mischief.

contended that the case put by the hon. and learned gentleman would not justify the magistrate in apprehending any person at a meeting which had been legally convened.

contended, that the object the clause had in view was not the mere words spoken, but the intention with which they were uttered.

argued, that the clause did not give the magistrate a greater power than he had at present. By the existing law a magistrate, if he heard seditious words, might order the person uttering them into custody. If the meeting at which they were uttered exhibited any tumultous disposition, he might read the riot act, and order them to disperse. Did the committee mean to circumscribe the existing power of the magistrate? They must choose between leaving the magistrate his ordinary jurisdiction, or making these meetings sanctified places, in which treason and sedition might be vented with impunity.

said, that if the noble lord was right, the proposod act was altogether nugatory. On a division, there appeared: for the clause, 43—against it, 16. Sir J. Mackintosh proposed that the exemption extended to lectures in the universities, the inns of court, and Gresham college, should be extended to the East India college, to places for lectures in medicine, surgery, chemistry, or to any lectures really and bona fide intended for the improvement in learning, the sciences, and the arts. The amendment was rejected, with the exception of the part referring to the East India college.—On the clause declaring the societies called Spencean Philanthropists to be unlawful combinations,

said, that he was quite ashamed to have the names of such contemptible enthusiasts introduced into a solemn legislative enactment.

said, that he felt as much contempt for those poor lunatics as any one could, but he expressed his conviction that the clause should stand, because they were making numerous proselytes.