ships. The amendment of the noble lord could not be pressed now, the bill having been already perfected in its present stage. The noble lord, however, might move his amendment on the third reading to-morrow. respect to what had been said of the state of the country between Newcastle and Carlisle, he could give no opinion, as he was not so well acquainted with that part of the country. No doubt the noble duke who had made that statement would explain it. He trusted their The Lord Chancellor said, that as far lordships would believe, that in the part as he could judge, the clause to which the which he took on this occasion, he was noble lord alluded, had been read in an auactuated by no other motives than a sin-dible voice. His lordship, however, had cere feeling for the state of the country. still the opportunity left him that was His sole wish was to co-operate with suggested by the noble secretary of state, those who exerted themselves for the of moving his amendment upon another safety of the state. God forbid that, to occasion. use the words of the poet, it should be said, "Si. mens non leva fuissit Anglia nunc stares." The Duke of Northumberland had been informed by those who were convinced of the fact, that there were 100,000 men ready to act between Newcastle and Carlisle, and that arms to a considerable extent had been purchased by different individuals. The report was then agreed to. PROTEST AGAINST THE SEIZURE OF ARMS BILL.] The following Protest against the bill was entered on the Journals: "Dissentient, "Because the right of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, is secured to British subjects Earl Grey said, in explanation, that by the ancient laws of these realms, is dethere was no man who had a greater ob-clared to be so by the Bill of Rights, and jection to the radicals than he had, but yet he must have regular proof before he could believe that there was any dangerous plan afloat to subvert the constitution of the country. The Earl of Darnley said, that during the discussion of the bill, he had more than once expressed his dissent from the clause which authorised the searching for arms "by night." He had admitted, that in the present state of the country, some measures of security were necessary, but he must still protest against the clause, and he thought he was so well understood by their lordships, that when the clause to which he alluded was read, his amendment that it should be expunged would have been discussed. It was with surprise he now heard all the proposed alterations gone through, but still the clause to which he alluded remained part of the bill. He would not undertake to say, that the clause had been read distinctly, but it certainly was not read with an audible voice; At least he did not hear it. He should therefore now press his previously intended amendment, that the clause authorising search for arms by night be omitted. is, in the words of Mr. Justice Blackstone, "a public allowance of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. "Because no sufficient evidence has been laid before the House to prove that arms and weapons of various sorts have in various parts of the kingdom been collected, and are kept for purposes dan'gerous to the public peace.' We doubt the fact, and we distrust the remedy. If arms have really been procured for such illegal purposes, the persons engaged in these criminal designs, will have had ample notice, before this bill can pass, to remove them to places of concealment. Whilst this power, therefore, is likely to be in a great degree inefficient with respect to its professed object, it is liable to be most imperiously and vexatiously used, in cases where arms may have been provided and kept for the legitimate purposes of selfdefence. "Because in former periods of much greater danger to the crown and constitution of these realms, when conspiracies by the adherents of the house of Stuart were Lord Sidmouth said, that the noble lord known to be directed against both; when was mistaken as to the manner in which preparations were making for rebellion the bill had been read. It had been done with the assistance of France; when men in an audible voice, and seemed to have of the highest rank, station, and influence been perfectly understood by their lord-in both kingdoms were deeply engaged in (VOL. XLI.) (3 C) these designs; nay, during two formidable rebellions in 1715 and 1745, no such power was granted to the crown; yet the new line of succession was defended, and our free constitution successfully maintained against all these dangers. The principles of the Revolution had been too firmly imprinted in the hearts and minds of our ancestors, to allow them, on the spur of any emergency, however alarming, to hazard the existence of a right which they had so recently asserted. "Because this law is, in its very nature, peculiarly liable to abuse. Interest, credulity, malevolence, revenge, party violence, and indiscreet zeal, may, equally with a sense of duty, contribute to call it into action; and the powers given for its execution, of breaking, either by day or night, into any house or place where information may have been received that arms are kept for illegal purposes, must unavoidably expose the persons and property of his majesty's subjects to injury and violence, which cannot be sufficiently guarded against by the provisions made in the bill for that purpose. This is not a mere apprehension. Experience proves that such effects may be expected from it. In Ireland, it is well known, nothing more contributed to irritate the people, and to provoke acts of private resentment and revenge, than the abuses which took place, and particularly the insults which were offered to women, in the exercise of a similar power. "Because we further object to the enactments of this law, as part of a system which, in a season of unexampled distress and misery, rejecting every proposition for conciliation or concession, rests on force alone for the suppression of the prevailing discontents, and is calculated to give additional weight to an opinion, already too generally entertained, that parliament is more ready to presume against the people, and to enact laws for their restraint, than to attend to their just complaints, and to afford them that protection which they have a right to claim against every species of injustice and oppression. GREY. (Signed) WENTWORTHFITZWILLIAM. YARBOROUGH. AUGUSTUS FRE COWPER. LAND. ROSLYN. DERICK. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, December 6. COVENTRY MEETING-PETITION OF MR. LEWIS RELATIVE THERETO.] Mr. Peter Moore, presented a petition from Mr. W. G. Lewis, of Coventry, complaining of the interruption which had been recently given to a public meeting held in that town. The petition stated that a requisition, signed by six or seven hundred resident householders of Coventry, had been presented to the magistrates, desiring them to convene a public meeting for the purpose of taking into consideration the melancholy events which had occurred at Manchester. The mayor objected to the manner in which the requisition was worded, and refused to call a meeting for such a purpose. In consequence of this refusal, the requisitionists called a meeting on their own authority, and the mayor then objected to the place. Determined to avoid giving the constituted authorities any just ground of reproach, the requisitionists changed the place on which they originally intended to have held their meeting, to a green at some distance from the town, whereby they deemed it impossible for them to disturb the peace of the town. After all this caution had been exhibited on their part, they had not the slightest anticipation that any attempt would be made to interrupt their proceedings; but, to their great surprise, in the midst of them, a body of constables burst in, and endeavoured to destroy the harmony of the meeting. It appeared that the constables were not authorized by the mayor to make this interruption, but were merely sworn in to act if necessary. The hon. member said, he was at a loss to conceive why it was thought necessary to interrupt this legal meeting of the people. No doubt could be entertained of the loyal and orderly conduct of the people of Coventry. He had, in the course of the last session, occasion to present to the House a certificate from the mayor and magistrates of Coventry, bearing their testimony to the loyalty of the inhabitants. The petition, he said, prayed for an inquiry into the causes of the dispersion of that meeting, but after an inquiry had been refused in the case of Manchester, he had little hopes of having it granted in this. Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.] Mr. Lambton rose to inform the House, that it was his intention, immediately after the Christmas recess, to bring the state of the representation under their notice. In order to explain the object which he had in view, he thought fit to state, that he should then move for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the Septennial act, and for the making of parliaments shorter and more frequent. At the same time he should propose the extension of the right of suffrage to all copyholders and householders paying direct taxes, and also the destruction of what were generally called the rotten-boroughs. In bringing the subject of parliamentary reform before the House, it might, perhaps, be requisite that he should explain his motives: he, therefore, made no hesitation in saying, that he did it because he deemed it a subject in which all classes of his majesty's subjects, and particularly the middling and lower classes, were most deeply interested; and because he firmly believed that the compliance of the House with the feelings of the people on it, would tend more than any other measure to alleviate the present disturbances, at the result of which, if they were to be permanent, no man could look for a moment without experiencing the profoundest horror. SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.] Lord Castlereagh, on moving the order of the day for the recommitment of this bill, thought it requisite to state to the House, before it went into the committee, certain alterations which he had made in the bill, and which he conceived might vary the opinions which certain hon. gentlemen had formed upon it. The necessity of the first alteration which he should mention to them was suggested by the consideration that the bill, as at present constituted, would affect certain meetings which were now held, and which had no relation whatever to either church or state. As the scope and object of this bill was not to suppress discussion, but merely to put down those large and tumultuous meetings which had of late so frequently menaced the public tranquillity, he had excepted from the operation of it the meetings held by the different trades, in order to consider any public matter of grievance affecting their interests. He had once thought of limiting the numbers attending such meetings; but as there was nothing on which it was so difficult to legislate as numbers, he should, instead of making any fixed number, as 300, the limit beyond which it would be improper to pass, say, that all their meetings that were held in private rooms and not in the open air were untouched by the present bill. With regard to that part of the bill which rendered it a misdemeanor for any person to attend a meeting who was not a freeholder, householder, or inhabitant of the district in which the meeting was held, it had been suggested to him, that a person might be accidentally there, and thus violate the law without intending it; he, therefore, submitted to the House, whether it would not be enough to make this clause apply only to those who wilfully and knowingly attended such meetings, and who refused to depart, after the proclamation for strangers to disperse had been read by the magistrates. Another case had also been put to him, that strangers might be purposely sent there; were they to be excepted from this act? By no means; if they remained after proclamation made, the parishioners might constitute themselves into constables, and carry before a police magistrate any person so staying there. It had also been thrown out, that persons having property in one parish, and yet residing in another, should be allowed to attend at the meetings of those parishes in which they had property: he had no objection to such a proposal, and therefore would allow them to attend, if their freehold reached a certain stipulated amount, and had been in their possession a certain stipulated time. He had now stated the principal alterations which were to be made in the bill, and would not detain the House any longer, than to say a few words on what had fallen from hon. members opposite, namely-that it ought to be a local and temporary measure. If it was to be made local and temporary, it would be better to entitle it a bill for propagating tumult and sedition; for if it were confined to certain counties, and was not to be extended beyond them, without either a proclamation of the council, or a recommendation of the lord-lieutenant and magistracy, could any person, who had viewed how little the radicals and their itinerant orators thought of marching twenty or five-and-twenty miles, doubt for a moment that they would transfer their meetings from the counties included in the act, to counties which were ye expiration. If, therefore, they should propose that period, he would acquiesce in the proposal; if they fixed on a shorter period, he should as certainly oppose it. At all events, it was his determination to take the sense of the House on the propriety of rendering the measure of a general nature; neither should he submit to limiting its duration to a less period than five years, unless he was compelled to do so by finding a majority of the House entertaining a different opinion from his own. He then moved, that the bill should be re-committed. untainted with their doctrines? And, considering the delay which would be necessarily incurred in gaining a proclamation of the council, would it be right to give them so much time during which they might circulate their notions with impunity? He, therefore, thought that the House would not be consulting either the interest, security, or tranquillity of the country, if they did not give to this bill a general operation. As to the policy of rendering this measure one of temporary duration, he had previously stated to the House his impression; and he was now, on further reflection, convinced of the propriety of it, because it was expedient Colonel Beaumont maintained, that a to deprive all future meetings of the tu- measure of this nature ought not to be multuous and menacing character which passed for so long a period as five years, they at present possessed. He had, how-but from one session to six weeks after ever, no objection to pass this bill under restrictions similar to those which the House had adopted upon former occasions. When the Grenville act was passed for the decision of controverted elections, parliament was fully aware of the necessity which existed for enacting some permanent law on that subject; it did not, however, at once determine that the Grenville act should be that law, but passed it for seven years, in order that the country might have full experience of its efficacy before it was entered as a permanent act upon the statute-book. It was to such a view of the question that he had now bent his judgment. A right hon. gentleman opposite had said, that he should certainly move, that this measure should only be of temporary duration. Mr. Tierney begged leave to correct the noble lord. He had only said, that he would make a motion to that effect, if no other member in the House was found willing to do it. the commencement of the ensuing session, till the danger which called for it ceased to exist. The hon. member was proceeding, when he was called to order by The Speaker, who informed him, that if he had any alteration to propose in the bill, it must be either done in the committee, or by a mandatory instruction of the House to the committee, to take such alteration into their consideration. i Mr. Tierney thought that the most so→ lemn course which the House could adopt would be to give mandatory instructions to the committee to limit the duration of the measure either to five years, or any other period which they might think proper to appoint. Lord Castlereagh said, that if the instructions to the committee were of a general nature, he should not oppose them: if they were specific, he should op pose, or amend, or agree to them, as he should think good, after they were proposed to the House.. Lord Castlereagh trusted, that if either Mr. Curwen said, it was now clear to the right hon. gentleman or any other the House, that the noble lord found the hon. member proposed an amendment to bill itself so faulty, that he was obliged to that effect, they would not limit the dura-propose very material alterations in it. tion of the measure in question to too short a time; for he could assure them, that nothing would, in his opinion, be more prejudicial to the safety of the country, than to pass such a bill for an inadequate period. At the same time he would candidly inform them, that if the period which they proposed appeared to him sufficiently long, he would not object to their amendment. What he conceived ought to be the shortest period was five years, and to the end of the session of parliament ensuing immediately after their He hoped the noble lord would proceed in the same way, and would make alterations still more important. He did not think the measure was called for by the state of the public mind; he did not think the power or the influence of those who called themselves the leaders of the radical reformers, was at all of the nature that had been represented; he acknowledged, however, that it was both important and desirable that those persons should be put down; they should not exist in a wellregulated government. He would gladly lend his support to measures for their suppression. The bill before them would not effect that object it would not put down the radicals; it would not accomplish the objects it had in view. He was convinced that if the noble lord had expressed in that House a favourable opinion of reform, the radical leaders, who were objects of contempt and abhorrence, would feel most affected and distressed at that declaration. The noble lord had admitted that the great body of the people were sound in their principles; why, then, should he innovate on the rights of the whole people-why should he introduce a measure which went to impair the constitution? This, he feared, was but the beginning of a system which might be carried further, to the injury and misfortune of the country. Why did not the noble lord apply those measures, which, under alarming circumstances, were found effective in other parts of the empire? In Ireland the Insurrection act gave power to the magistrates to prevent all meetings; he thought such an act preferable to the present measure. The noble lord had stated, on a former occasion, that he was anxious to conciliate the country. If he was sincere, he had now the opportunity; but that object was to be gained by measures far different from those which ministers pursued. He could not but complain of an attempt made by gentlemen from the treasury bench to implicate the opposition side of the House with the radicals. Such conduct he considered extremely unparliamentary and unfair. He could not but disapprove of the conduct of the right hon. member for Liverpool, not now in his place. He had made exaggerated statements of the public situation, which he (Mr. Curwen) could not agree to. As to the conduct of the magistrates of Manchester, he never did believe they had been guilty of the great cruelties imputed to them; but he did believe they had been guilty of great rashness and indiscretion. The noble lord had spoken the other night of the jealousy and discontent of the disaffected, and of the leaders of the reformers; but did he think that jealousy and discontent were confined to these? He could assure the noble lord, that a great proportion of the people-of the loyal and respectable people were extremely jealous of the measures of ministers that they doubt very much of the noble lord's veneration for the constitution, or regard for the liberties of the people. The noble lord could not doub but that this was the real feeling of the country. Those measures had sunk deep into the public heart. Many late measures, indeed, had disgusted the country; particularly, he would say, the act of Indemnity which had passed that Housean act which was opposed to the principles of justice-which deprived individuals of redress, whose liberties and whose fortunes were invaded, and who were deprived of all means of vindicating their innocence, if they were innocent. He disliked, he said, the principle of the present bill; yet if it were limited to one year, he would support it. He would wish for a measure more intelligible-he would prefer a bill similar to the Irish Insurrection act, which would give power to the magistrates to prevent all meetings, if they thought necessary. He would give them that power for a limited time; because no one who knew the magistrates of this country could suppose that they would exercise that power unjustly. He repeated, that the danger of government was not most to be apprehended from visionary men- there was a danger of greater magnitude. The best informed, the most respectable were of opinion, that there was a power operating on that House, which did not make it the provident and faithful guardian of the public purse. They desired reform-it was expected speedily-and if the House did not grant it, he feared it would be reformed in a manner which no rational or moderate man would wish. He should lament to see any reform which would go to overturn the constitution. Distress was one of the great sources of the public discontent-distress created by taxation. This distress, no bill, no measure of coercion, would mitigate. It was impossible to continue their manufactures to the extent that they had been carried on. They should look to other sources of prosperity, besides the sources of foreign markets. When he heard the assertion of the noble lord, with respect to the distress of this country as originating from the distress of America, he was astonished. He was satisfied the noble lord would not assert what he did not think was true, but it only proved that the noble lord had not paid that attention to the real situation of the country which he ought to have paid when he made that statement. We had practised on foreign countries an unmixed system of monopoly; but they |