Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

resolutions they had come to, given confidence both to the Government and to the public.

Lord Castlereagh was fully sensible of the beneficial effects of such meetings; but thought Guildhall would be sufficient for the purpose.

After debating on various proposed amendments, which were negatived,

Mr. W. Smith moved that the House should now adjourn, on account of the hour (half-past one).

which it is provided, that copies of indictments shall be furnished to defendants before instead of after appearance.

Lord Holland suggested another amendment, providing, that if defendants, who were indicted on ex officio informations, were not brought to trial in eighteen months, dating from the first process, no further kind of proceedings should be had thereupon, excepting where the trial stood postponed by order of the Court. Lordship, however, withdrew this amend

His

The Committee divided-For adjourning ment, on a promise from the Lord Chan36 Against it 166.

Some further conversation ensued, when Lord Castlereagh said, he would not now press a proceeding, but move that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

This motion was agreed to.--Adjourned at two o'clock.

Dec. 8.

The Drilling and Training Prevention Bill was brought from the House of Lords, and read the first and second time, and ordered to be printed. This bill was expedited through all its stages in consequence of alleged information that the practice of drilling and training was gaining ground to an alarming extent in the north of England.

Mr. Stuart Wortley stated, upon the anthority of information received by himself, that the practice had spread into the county of York; that bodies of from one to two hundred men assembled nightly in the vicinity of Barnsley, Burton, and several of the neighbouring towns, for the purpose of training.

Sir J. Graham said it had spread into the County of Cumberland, and had become frequent in the neighbourhood of Carlisle. They had recently cut down young plantations, chiefly for the purpose of titting pike heads to the staves which they formed from the young trees. One smith had received orders to make twelve dozen of pike heads, which he had communicated to a magistrate: orders to a large amount were given to other smiths, who did not inform the magistrates.

Another Member declared he had heard that these nocturnal meetings were very frequent in the vicinity of the manufacturing towns in Lancashire.

The Search for Arms Bill was also brought from the Loids, and read the first time.

The House sat in Committee for a considerable time upon the Seditious Meet> ings Bill, and about one in the morning the report was brought up, and ordered to be received next day.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 9.

An amendment was introduced into the Bill for Preventing Delays of Justice, by

cellor, that he would lend his aid in framing a separate Bill, calculated to accomplish the object in view, if not precisely to the same effect as the clause proposed.

The Bill for preventing and punishing Seditious Libels next occupied the attention of the House.

In the course of the discussion, Lord Ellenborough introduced, by way of amendment, the following definition of what was to be considered a seditious libel :- That after the words "Seditious Libels," should be inserted, " as were calculated to bring into hatred and contempt his Majesty's Person and Government, or either House of Parliament, or to aim at the subversion of the Constitution in Church and State, as by law established."

The Earl of Liverpool would not object to the amendment.

Lord Erskine and Lord Holland both spoke against the transportation, or banishment of persons convicted of seditious libels.

The

In the Commons the same day, Mr. Bennet addressed the House at great length on the state of the manufacturing districts. He described the extreme distress existing in various districts in England and Scotland, from the want of employment, the low rate of wages, and the severe pressure of taxation. In Lancashire this distress, and the discontents arising therefrom, were greatly aggravated by the animosities between the magistrates and the great mass of the population, and from the denial of all inquiry into the occurrences at Manchester on the 16th of August. magistracy of that place had uniformly been of high Tory politics, whilst the people, from having been Jacobites, had become attached to liberality of opinion and social liberty. If no relief was administered to a starving population, discontent must increase, and in the end produce despair. It was not fair to expect that the people should do every thing, and the Government nothing. Many public works might be undertaken, though not palaces. Roads and canals might be constructed, and the absurd laws against emigration might be repealed. All who could not earn a livelihood at home should be allowed to go abroad, and to people desart lands,

[ocr errors]

lands, which at no distant day might become important parts of the empire. He concluded by moving for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the present state of the manufacturing districts.

Lord Castlereagh objected to the appointment of a Committee, as tending to no practical good, whilst, under all the circumstances of the case, it would be a recipe for discontent and disturbance, by leading to a discussion of all the topics which had already occupied the attention of Parliament.

Mr. Canning, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Stuart Wortley, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Mr. Peel, Mr. Bootle Wilbraham, and Mr. Mansfield, were also averse to the motion, connected as it had been by the honourable Mover with so many extraneous subjects, and so much of party politics.

Mr. Baring spoke in favour of the mo tion; in the course of which he averred, that the great capitalists in the manufacturing districts were sending their property abroad.

Mr. Tierney spoke with great energy and ability in support of the motion, and was followed by Lord Folkestone, Messrs. Ellice, Phillips, Maxwell, and others. The motion was ultimately negatived without a division.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 10.

The Training Prevention Bill was received from the Commons with amendments, which, on the motion of Lord Sidmouth, were agreed to by their Lordships.

Lord Sidmouth moved the third reading of the Blasphemous and Seditious Libel Bill.

Lord Carnarvon moved an amendment for limiting the duration of the Bill to two years.

It was supported by Lords Rosslyn, Erskine, Holland, and Grosvenor, and opposed by Lords Sidmouth, Westmorland, and Lilford, the Duke of Wellington, and the Bishop of Llandaff. It was then nega. tived without a division, and the Bill passed, and was sent to the Commons.

In the Commons the same day, a long conversation took place upon a question of privilege, brought forwards by Mr. W. Courtenay, arising out of pamphlet lately published under the title, "A Trifling Mistake in Thomas Lord Erskine's recent Preface." The work, from which several extremely violent passages were read, was introduced to the notice of the House in the Debate of Thursday night by Mr. S. Wortley. The subject was disposed of for the present by summoning the publisher to the Bar on the 13th inst.

The Libel Prevention Bill was read the first time; and the Arms Seizing Bill a second time.

GENT. MAG. Suppl, LXXXIX. PART II.

G

HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 11.

The Royal Assent was given, by commission, to the Bill for the Prevention of Military Training.

Dec. 13.

The Lord Chancellor, on moving the third reading of the Traverse Bill, introduced a clause, fixing the time within which prosecutions for misdemeanors on information or indictment, by the Attorney-General, should be brought on. The clause enacts, that if the tria! does not take place at the expiration of 12 months from the time of pleading, the defendant may then call upon the Attorney-General to proceed to trial within 20 days; and if the latter should not then proceed, he must enter a noli prosequi, and the defendant would thus be entirely freed from the prosecution.

Lord Holland expressed his warm acknowledgments to the noble and learned Lord for this clause, and declared, that, united with another which had been introduced (that of allowing to defendants copies of indictments), he had no hesitation in giving the Bill his vote; for, compared with the law as it now stood, the measure, altogether, was a great improvement. The Bill was then passed.

In the Commons the same day, the question of privilege, as respecting the “scandalous libel" against the House, came under discussion. Previously to calling in the publisher of the pamphlet, Mr. Ellice stated in his place, that he was authorised to declare John Cam Hobhouse, esq. the writer of it. The publisher was accordingly dismissed; and after a short debate Mr. Hobhouse was ordered to be committed to Newgate. An amendment was proposed, that instead of being sent to Newgate, he should be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, which was negatived by 198 to 65.

Lord Castlereagh moved the third reading of the Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill.

Lord Archibald Hamilton supported the measure, on account of the disturbed state of the manufacturing districts; begging it, however, to be understood, that he assented to none of the proceedings that had taken place as to Manchester, and that he regretted that the House had not acceded to Mr. Bennet's motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the distressed state of the country.

The Bill was then supported by Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Robinson, Mr. L. Wellesley, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, Mr. Martin (of Galway), and Mr. Bankes, jun. ; and opposed by Mr. C. Hutchinson, Lord Milton, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. W. Williams, Lord Morpeth, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Scarlett, Mr. Denman, Lord Folkestone, and Mr. Honeywood; and on a division the motion

was

was carried by 313 to 95. The Bill was then read the third time.

A clause, proposed by way of rider, by Mr. Wharton, authorising reporters to attend meetings, on sending their names to the magistrates 24 hours before, was opposed by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Mr. Tierney and others. It was negatived without a division. One proposed by Mr. Hume, empowering magistrates to admit reporters, was negatived, on a division, by 262 to 83. A clause, proposed by Mr. Hutchinson, providing that the Bill should not extend to Ireland, was negatived, on a division, by 265 to 69. Some verbal amendments were then made, and the Bill passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 14.

The Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill was brought up from the Commons, and read the first time.

Lord Liverpool suggested that the Bill might be read a second time on Thursday, and that the debate on the principle should take place on the question for going into the Committee on Friday.

This arrangement, after a few observations from Lord Holland and the Marquis of Lansdown, was agreed to.

In the Commons the same day, Lord J. Russell said, he rose on the present occasion under considerable embarrassment, in consequence of the importance of the subject out of which his present motion arose, and increased by the change which had taken place in the state of the country since he gave his notice on the subject, at the end of last Session. At this period there were two parties in the country-one contending for extraordinary privileges, attached to old institutions; the other, desirous of overturning old institutions altogether. He was, however, encouraged to bring forward his present motion by recollecting that Mr. Pitt, in 1788, brought forward a motion and submitted a plan similar to that he was now about to propose. The Noble Lord then cited the opinion of Mr. Pitt, as to the necessity of Reform, and said, he founded his opinion now on that given by Mr. Pitt at that time. fle would not now enter into the abstract question of general suffrage, or into the argument whether universal or various suffrage was preferable, but only observe that, as circumstances varied, a variance in systems was necessary. A town which centuries ago sent Members to Parliament might now be scarcely able to superintend the repairs of a bridge; and places then merely villages might now be fit to send members to the Legislature; and this change might, he contended, take place without any invasion of the Constitution, and had repeatedly taken place. Till the

time of Charles II. places were frequently omitted in one Parliament to which the King sent his writ in another. Since the Revolution, however, no such changes had been made, the evil consequences arising from which had been, that the small boroughs had become notoriously corrupt, and in some instances called irresistibly for punishment. This was obvious in the cases of the boroughs of Cricklade and Shoreham. He believed there were various modes of election in these boroughs; one was, as he understood, by a direct negociation with the Treasury, in which the Treasury defrayed the expences of the election in consideration of having the vote. Others were taken by individuals themselves on private speculations, for contracts, privileges, &c. and these were the persons, who, by voting with Ministers, decided the great questions of peace, war, and taxation; and that too without the risk that would attend even an absolute monarch, the fear of public censure; for, as the names of the majority were seldom published, these persons sinned with the impunity of obscurity. The Noble Lord contended, that this was a system which ought not any longer to exist; the power of election ought to be taken from the rotten boroughs, and given to Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Halifax, Birmingham, &c. large towns which had increased in population within the last half century fourfold, and some of them now contained upwards of 100,000 inhabitants. Manchester, for instance, at present contained upwards of 110,000, being an increase from 28,000 within the course of the last century. He was persuaded, if the right of election were transferred to these towns we should have a House less inclined to war, and of course less called on to impose taxes. And it should also be considered, that this House was the guardian of the public expenditure, and as such ought not to encourage any useless expenditure or extravagant waste. The famous question of the increasing influence of the Crown brought forward by Mr. Dunning, was carried by a majority of 18, but, in the same session, a question of economy was lost, it appearing that though a majority of the county members of four to three were in favour of the economical measures, yet the majority of borough members, and at least eight out of nine of the members of a large county were with Ministers. The Noble Lord cited several similar instances up to the present time, and urged these facts as reasons for Reform: he would now propose certain resolutions to that effect. The first of which would be that boroughs convicted of corrupt practices should be deprived of the right of election. The second resolution that the right of election should be given to large towns. The third resolution

resolution was, that it was necessary the House should take into further consideration the subject of reform in election. The fourth, that the borough of Grampound, having been found guilty of corrupt practices, should no longer send Members to Parliament. And the fifth, that the right of election should be transferred from that borough to some populous town. The Noble Lord continued at some length, to urge arguments in support of his motion, but in a tone so low as to render it extremely difficult to collect what he said in the gallery. He, however, strongly urged the House to take this question into its most serious consideration, and throw out some measures of conciliation to the people, by which alone, he believed, the Constitution could be preserved.

Lord Normanby seconded the resolutious.

Lord Castlereagh thought it of the last importance that the House should attend to the practical question, and not suffer the subject to travel into the wide field of Parliamentary Reform.

The speech of the Noble Mover was extremely temperate ; but it did not completely separate the general topic of Parliamentary Reform from the particular question before the House. At no time had a more morbid feeling prevailed on that subject than the present, for there was a spirit abroad that undervalued any change that might be made in the state of the representation; and any steps that might be taken by Parliament on the subject, would probably be imputed to the influence of fear. It was much to be desired that the House should show the country, that no essential difference prevailed on the subject of Reform on either side of the House. To this principle of disfranchising a borough that had abused the right of returning Members to Parliament, he should freely give his support, and that this right should be transferred to others. As to the borough in question, no opposition, he presumed, would be made to the plan proposed by the Noble Lord; and in that point he perfectly concurred with the Noble Mover. The only question was, what was to be done with the franchise of that borough. He hoped the Noble Lord would not throw the apple of discord on a question where both sides of the House were disposed to co-operate with him. Let particular cases be disposed of as the cases might require; and he offered his assistance to the Noble Lord for a practical remedy; but he could not consent to the laying down of general rules which would furnish arms against the Reform that it was the object of the motion to obtain.

Mr. Tierney said, although he was in favour of a system relative to Parliamentary Reform, yet he was also glad to get what

he could on that subject; and the promise of the Noble Lord opposite, that should the Mover bring in a Bill to disfranchise Grampound, he should not oppose it, was no trivial concession.

Lord J. Russell expressed his satisfaction at the result of the debate, as the Noble Lord had gone much beyond what he had expected. He should not say a word that might disturb a harmony so desirable. He should withdraw the motion, and give notice that on Thursday he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of Grampound.

Lord Milton rejoiced at the turn the debate had taken, and thought the Mover justified in withdrawing the resolutions.

The Resolutions were withdrawn.

The House went into a Committee on the Seizure of Arms Bill,

Mr. Bennet moved that information on oath of concealed arms should be taken by two Magistrates, instead of one.

After a debate of some length, the House divided-For the motion 107, against it 215-Majority 108.

The other clauses of the Bill were gone through, the House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received the following day.

Dec. 15.

A Petition from the Booksellers of Lon don was presented by Mr. J. Smith, pointing out, in a temperate and respectful manner, the evils to which they considered they would be liable, in common with the trade generally, if the Bill for Repressing Seditious Libels were to pass in its present form. (See p. 559.)

The Petition having been brought up and read, Lord Castlereagh stated that when the House went into a Committee on the Bill to which it referred, it was his intention to propose an alteration in it which would, in a great measure, meet the views of the petitioners. He afterwards added, that he did not mean to press the punishment of Transportation, into the case of a second conviction for a seditious or blasphemous libel, but should substitute for it that of Banishment, at the discretion of the Court. If the person banished returned into the country without the consent of the Crown, he would then be liable to Transportation.

Ou the second reading of the Stamp Duties Bill, Lord Castlereagh took the opportunity of stating some of its details. The Act is to be framed as not to affect those periodical publications, whether monthly or quarterly, which are devoted to literature, science, and religion. It is intended, therefore, to confine its provisions to periodical works published in succession within the term of twenty-six days. This will, of course, exempt all monthly and quarterly publications. With respect

to

to the securities that are to be required, it was at first intended, that 500. should be the amount, generally; the printer himself giving his own security to that extent, and securities for a like sum, by one or more friends. It had been mentioned, however, that this sum was too large, and that it could be raised with much greater facility in some places than in others. To obviate these objections, and to make the law as little burdensome in its operation as may be consistent with the professed objects of its enactments, Lord Castlereagh mentioned that the sum was to be reduced from 500l. to 300l. in London and its vicinity, and to 2007. in the provincial

towns..

Lord Althorp moved for leave to bring in a new Bill for the relief of Insolvent Debtors. The Noble Lord said, that at the end of the last session, a Bill was brought in to renew the old act, which passed the House with great celerity. His Majesty's Ministers had since removed the Commissioner, and all the clerks of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. Instead of a Commissioner to take the previous examinations, he would now propose that an Examiner for that purpose should be appointed by the commissioner. The great objection to the Bill which he had introduced last session, was the power it gave to assignees of compelling them to dispose of the real property of the debtor; and though it was his own opinion that real property should be liable to be charged with the debts of the insolvent, yet he would obviate the objection by proposing that the real property should be sequestrated until out of the rents and profits the debt should be discharged; but the real property was not to be removed from the debtor's possession.-Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

Dec. 16.

Sir W. De Crespigny, after pointing out the advantages which might result in the amelioration of the state of the lower orders, from the adoption of Mr. Owen's benevolent project, concluded by moving for the appointment of a select committee to investigate the practicability of its Lord adoption upon an extended scale.

A. Hamilton, Mr. Brougham, Mr. J. Smith, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. N. Calvert, Mr. Waithman, Mr. Calcraft, Mr. Alderman Wood, and Mr. D. W. Harvey, spoke in favour of the motion being entertained; the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Althorp against it. On a division the motion was negatived by 141 to 16. Majority against the motion 125.

On the third reading of the Seizure of Arms Bill, several members, amongst whom was Sir J. Yorke, spoke against the clause giving a power to search houses by night, as repugnant to the feelings of the

country. Mr. Tierney declared he would divide the House upon the question, and thereby give an Hon. Member opposite (Sir J. Yorke) an opportunity of voting against Government twice in 27 years (a loud laugh). On a division the clause was rejected by 158 to 46. The Bill was then passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 17.

The Seizure of Arms Bill was received from the Commons with amendments, to which Lord Sidmouth moved that their Lord Darnley Lordships should agree. moved that the amendments should be printed, which motion being negatived, his Lordship moved that the consideration of the amendments should be postponed for six months. This motion was also negaThe amendments were then tived.

[blocks in formation]

In the Commons the same day, in a Committee of Supply, several sums, amounting together to about 1,500,0001. were voted on account of the Army.

On the Report of the Misdemeanor Traverse Prevention Bill, Mr. Denman wished that a clause had been introduced, preventing prosecutors, as well as defendants, from removing causes by certiorari, The except on very strong grounds. Attorney General moved, as an amendment to the Bill, that defendants under criminal informations should be enabled, after the expiration of 12 months from the filing the information, to move to bring on their trial free of expence. This was agreed to; and the Bill was ordered to be read the third time on Monday.

Mr. Hume wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether there was any intention of appointing a Committee, during the present Session, to inquire into the state of our commercial relations with Foreign Powers.

Mr. Vansittart said, the subject had engaged the attention of his Majesty's Government; but he was not prepared to answer the Hon. Member's question.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »