of 84 at the late Westminster election was sufficient evidence to the contrary. Next it was said, that they were the disciples of Carlile; but he was convinced from intimate knowledge, that the indignation of the House against the pernicious doctrines of that man was not so great or so sincere as that which was felt by the great body of the tradesmen of this kingdom; they feared that the odious principles recently promulgated would make an inroad upon their children, and destroy the harmony and happiness of their domestic circle. A force of this kind might easily be collected round the government and the constitution that would set at defiance irreligion and disaffection. It must be accomplished, however, by satisfaction and conciliation; and if it were asked, as it had been, what plan of conciliation ought to be adopted, he would fairly say that he would begin by rejecting the present bill, which was to suspend for five years a valuable part of the constitution. He firmly believed that that single act would give more satisfaction, would diffuse more content throughout the whole empire than any other, and would produce more tranquillity than all the laws of force and compulsion that could be brought into action against the people. Another measure of conciliation, and a measure of the utmost value at this time was, a declaration of economy, followed as it ought to be by carrying that declaration into effect. There was a glaring inconsistency in the argument of a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), on a former night; he had shown with great clearness and truth, the wide difference that existed between the inhabitants of Manchester and of other parts of the country-that when trade flourished, the inhabitants of Manchester were contented; and when it was depressed, that they were clamorous for the remedy of some supposed grievance. Yet what was his conclusion from this admitted state of things? That the law which might be so necessary for Manchester ought to be inflicted on the whole British empire [Cheers]. He concluded by stating, that if any gentleman would move that the present bill suould be limited to three years, he would support it; but if not, he would rather vote for the extended period of the noble lord, than for the short time proposed to be inserted in the instruction to the committee. was he opposed to the reasons urged on the other side for the longer continuance. The noble lord had declared that he thought the bill would be an improvement on the constitution; but he was content to take it as our forefathers had left it, without any alteration beyond what pressing circumstances required. Surely it could not be seriously argued, that the complicated machinery of petitioning five magistrates, or the majority of the grand jury, in case the sheriff refused to call a meeting, was an advantage not enjoyed under the old system. A right hon. gen. tleman on a late occasion, with a facility of language peculiarly his own, had supposed a case in which he should be called upon to instruct a mere stranger on the laws and constitution of the country, its external and internal policy, and in all the arcana of government. If such a task had fallen to him (Mr. Buxton), he would have referred the stranger to that part of the bill which called upon any justice or justices, if they thought fit, to prevent any individual from addressing a meeting, and inflicted severe penalties on parties resisting or refusing to obey. What would a stranger think of such a law? Suppose a magistrate, endeavouring to retrieve his broken fortune by a supererogation in zeal and loyalty, should deem it right to stop an individual who was casting reflections on the government. [No, no; hear.] Honourable gentlemen would observe, that it depended on the discretion and interpretation of the magistrate, and he might order any speaker at the meeting to prison for resistance; and then a clause of indemnity was inserted to screen the magistrate in case death or wounds ensued, while the parties resisting were subjected to transportation. The stranger to whom he would show this part of the measure might study from that time until doomsday, and not at last discover that this was an improvement upon the constitution [Cheers!]. The arguments on this question had been so exhausted, that he should confine himself to evidence. He lived in connexion with a class of the community not the richest nor the poorest, the tradesmen of this country; and the more he had seen of them, the more he had learned to admire and respect them. Among them prevailed the most genuine attachment to the principles of the constitution. It had been insinuated that they were disciples of Mr. Hunt; but the celebrated minority Mr. Perceval said, he was fully convinced that the bill would be attended with the most evil consequences; that it would have an immediate and injurious tendency, and on this account he was called upon to oppose those with whom he generally acted. He would shortly lay before the House the estimation in which he held the right of the people to meet to petition the legislature. In the first place, it had been acknowledged by parliament, in his opinion, much more effectually in the temporary restrictions to which it had been subjected, commonly called gagging-bills, than it had been contravened by the statute of Charles 2nd. He was prepared to contend, that the meetings of the people to petition parliament, whether summoned or not summoned by the sheriff, was their undoubted and constitutional right. He held it to be a most salutary vent for discontent: the saying of Mr. Burke, that this right formed the safety-valve of the constitution, had been already quoted, as it merited, in terms of the highest applause. Let not parliament, then, when the commotion within was at its height from the extraordinary heat applied at the present moment, increase the pressure upon that safetyvalve, and thereby perhaps occasion, or at least endanger, a terrible explosion. This might be called an active advantage derived from the right; but of a different nature was that benefit which was derived from the consciousness in the subjects of this country that their complaints could be heard, whenever they thought fit to lay them before their representatives. It was this that gave an Englishman that proud character of independence, that distinguished him from all the nations of the earth. Was it nothing, he would ask, to destroy, or at the best to diminish, this proud independence. It was said that it was a dangerous right-a right that might be injurious to its possessors; but when we took even from the child the sword by which he might be wounded, and supplied its place by a leaden weapon, it exhibited some feeling of indignation at the cheat which was practised. The people of England had too much understanding to be thus imposed upon by those who affected to deprive them of their rights, under the pretence that they would be injurious. Surely there was something of fensive in the words "parish meeting;" and this circumstance, trifling as it was, deserved attention, and the solicitor general well knew it, when, from the beginning to the end of his speech, he so studiously abstained from employing them. It was answered, that if the people could not call themselves together, they might still be convened, as of old, by the sheriff or lord-lieutenant ; but he had much doubt, whether after the passing of this bill, even those meetings still allowed would not rapidly decrease. Such was his opinion of this bill, that though he thought it ought not to pass for one year, he would rather that it should be passed for five years; because, at the expiration of that period, the whole country would be so dissatisfied with it, and that dissatisfaction would be so loudly expressed, that there would be no diffi culty in casting it away for ever. On these grounds, he should vote for the motion, which continued these restrictions for five years, rather than for that which continued them for three years, though he must confess that it was to the latter motion that he felt the best inclined. A Member said, that he should vote for the amendment of the chancellor of the exchequer, because he considered this bill calculated to serve as a protection to our best and dearest rights. Nothing could be so dangerous to the constitution of the country as the tumultuous meetings which had recently taken place, and if they were allowed to continue, our liberties would certainly fall a sacrifice to them. The act ought to be continued so long as to render the cause which it was intended to repress desperate: this could only be done by continuing it for five years. If it was to be passed only for one year, the disaffected would resume their labours with fresh vigour, as soon as its operation expired. Mr. Wilberforce, after complimenting his honourable young friend on the other side of the House, for the strong and ardent manner in which he had that evening declared himself in support of the liberties of his country, gave his cordial thanks to the noble lord opposite, for having given up his intention to render the measure permanent. It was one of the peculiar excellencies of the British constitution, an excellency which none of the republics of old had ever enjoyed, to be able in times of popular commotion to strengthen the hands of the executive government; and afterwards, when the danger was past, to revert to our former state of liberty and freedom. He should have had great diffi culty in bringing himself to vote for the measure, if the noble lord had determined | "Now, half a patriot, half a coward grown, "I fly from petty tyrants to the throne." Lord Milton asked, what feelings ought to actuate the House when they passed their judgment on the present ministers, who, after acknowledging the value of the right of petition, had come forward and proposed to abrogate it for ever? The only right left by the present bill would be, not the right to meet, but the right to ask an officer of the Crown for leave to meet. Lord Clive wished to correct a misrepresentation, under which several honourable members appeared to labour in the course of the debate. A noble relative of his had never said that there were 100,000 men furnished with arms in the northern counties: he had never stated from his own knowledge whether they had arms or not; he had merely said, that their own estimate of their numbers and strength was to that amount. to persist in his original intentions; but first in some doubt; but when he recolnow that he had so far conceded to the lected the character and views of such wishes of the House as to limit their du- men as Hunt, he felt convinced that they ration to five years, he had not the were ten times more dangerous enemies to slightest objection to strengthen his hands liberty than any bad minister in this counwith these powers for that period. He try possibly could be: so that he felt himshould therefore advise the House, if they self justified in adopting the sentiments of thought the danger to be so great as to the poet, justify them in passing the bill at all, to select that time for the period of trying its efficacy which was fixed on by the average opinion of all parties; because, if there was any injury done by passing these measures, it was in the way of precedent; and gentlemen who argued in behalf of their duration for three years rather than five, erred equally with their opponents against precedent, and, besides that, endangered the success of the measures themselves, by the reluctance which they evinced to grant the two additional years. This reluctance could only arise from the circumstance that they thought the danger not to be so great as was represented; and if that was the case, how did they reconcile it to themselves to vote for their continuance for three years? To confine these restrictions to certain counties, was also highly objectionable; because, if these radicals would abandon their principles in three years, under the restrictions now proposed to be established in their own districts, would it be right to allow them to have another field to which they might resort? Would it not be giving them a fresh place in which to carry on their trade and occupation? They all knew with what art those deluded and deluding men conducted their designs; and it was but too probable that the publications, which they would disseminate to effect their purpose in the districts not yet contaminated, would be of such a nature as would induce those who read them to go any lengths in the prosecution of the criminal objects held up as worthy of pursuit, though they would not be of such a nature as to render those who disseminated them liable to prosecution in the eye of the law. He should not detain them any longer at the present late hour of the night. He had only been led to express the sentiments which they had just heard from the love which he bore to the constitution, and the conviction which he felt that it was beyond all other things worth preserving. When he heard the question agitated, whether we were in the most danger from the encroachments of the Crown or of the people, he was at (VOL. XLI.) Mr. Marryat said, he could not but regret that the question respecting the duration of the bill, should have been brought forward in the present stage of their proceedings: it would have been much more convenient, in his opinion, to have gone through the different clauses of the bill in the committee first, and to have settled the duration of it afterwards. If the clauses were filled up in that spirit of moderation which had marked the speech of the noble lord on the treasury bench, he should have felt the less difficulty in agreeing to the more extended term proposed; but if, on the contrary, when it came out of the committee, it contained what he considered as severe and unne. cessary restrictions on the liberty of the subject, he should then vote for limiting its duration to the shortest possible period. At present, the House were called upon to decide how long a bill should continue in force, the spirit and character of which they had yet to learn. As far as he could then judge, the period proposed by the motion was too short, and that proposed by the amendment too long; and he inclined to the opinion of the hon. member opposite (Mr. Buxton), that three years (3 F) sure. Mr. Maxwell bore testimony to the people of his county assembling in arms, and firing off pistols on retiring from the spot. He considered it under all circumstances, his duty not to oppose the measure of the noble lord. He saw no objection to its extending to the manufacturing districts for five years, and to the whole empire for one year. Lord Compton thought that circumstances would necessitate a much stronger measure if the present were not carried. Mr. Benett, of Wiltshire, hoped that three years would be sufficient for the operation of the measure, as before that period, something might be done to better the condition of the people. He trusted that a select committee would be appointed to consider the distress of the country, and propose some relief. would be a more eligible term than either. | be unnecessary to resort to such a mea, He thought six weeks after the commencement of the next session of parliament too short a period, because the House would have to decide upon the renewal of the measure, before sufficient time had elapsed to enable them to form a correct judgment of its effects; and to excite fresh agitation in the public mind, before the present agitation had well sub sided. He thought five years, and from thence to the end of the next ensuing ses sion of parliament, too long, because he recollected that the allied sovereigns, after stipulating by treaty that their armies should continue in the occupation of France for five years, considering that period would be necessary for the restoration of tranquillity in that country, voluntarily evacuated it at the end of three years. If then, France, at the conclusion of a war in which the passions of men had been excited to a degree of fury that perhaps never was equalled, could completely Lord Cranley said, he should vote for recover her tranquillity in the course of the amendment of the chancellor of the three years, surely this country, under exchequer, though he was of opinion that present circumstances, could not require it would have been more beneficial to the longer term of probation. Being called country, that the bill should have been upon to decide between two extremes, he made permanent [Loud cries from the considered, in the first place, that to re-opposition of " Move that it be made pernew an expiring law, was easy, usual, and manent."] almost a matter of course; but to repeal an existing law, was on the contrary always attended with great difficulty. In the next place he considered, that if he must err at all, it was his duty to err on that side that was most favourable to the rights and liberties of the people; and for these reasons he should give his vote for the shorter, rather than for the longer period. It Mr. Wynn did not consider the measure before the House an infringement upon the rights of the people. He denied that it confined that right; on the contrary, it left it undiminished. It was not illegal, according to the provisions of the act, to hold meetings within doors; and before the American war it never was the practice to hold meetings in the open air. had been said that it was left to the discretion of officers of the Crown to call public meetings; but he did not know that the sheriffs of counties were generally speaking, liable to the influence of the Crown. He knew there was a spirit of loyalty throughout the kingdom that would be sufficient to put down, even by force of arms, the disloyal and disaffected; but he had great confidence that it would The gallery was then cleared for a di vision. Colonel Beaumont's motion was negatived without a division. The House afterwards divided on the motion of Mr. Buxton to limit the bill to three years. For it, 153; Against it, 328: Majority, 175. The Chancellor of the exchequer's amendment was then carried in the affirmative; after which the House resolved itself into a committee, resumed, and the chairman obtained leave to sit again to day. List of the Minority. Allen, J. II. Calvert, N. Campbell, hon. J. Carter, John Cavendish, lord G. Cavendish, Henry Clifford, capt. Coke, T. W. Concannon, Lucius Crespigny, sir W. De Crompton, Sam. Curwen, J. C. Davies, T. H. Mostyn, sir Thos. Russell, lord G. W. Hamilton, lord A. Harvey, D. W. Hill, lord A. Ridley, sir M. W. Hornby, Ed. Howard, hon. W. Howorth, H. Robarts, W. T. Hughes, W. L. Hume, J. Hurst, Robt. Hutchinson, hon. C. Russell, R. G. Stanley, lord Latouche, John Milton, visct. Mouck, sir C. Moore, Peter Morpeth, visct. Buxton, T. F. HOUSE OF LORDS. Mackintosh, sir J. Mildmay, P. St. John TELLERS. Tuesday, December 7. mouth moved the third reading of this bill. The Earl of Darnley did not rise to offer any opposition to the principle of the bill in this stage. He was disposed to allow that a temporary necessity for such a law might exist, though at the same time he thought that necessity had been, in a great measure, occasioned by the improper manner in which the existing laws had been administered but though he might admit the necessity of some enactment of this kind, it did not follow that he should approve of all the powers proposed to be given to the magistrates. What he chiefly objected to, was the power given to search houses by night. Besides, he did not see any advantage that could be derived from retaining that clause, as, after what had passed, it was not to be supposed that persons having arms in their possession, for an improper purpose, would keep them in their houses. On the contrary, it was to be presumed, that they would conceal them somewhere else. The noble lord then alluded to two local acts formerly passed, authorizing the seizing of arms, and particularly to one in the reign of William 3rd, which required the warrant of two justices to authorize the seizing of arms in the daytime. This example, he thought, ought to have been followed in the present bill; and he felt it his duty to protest against the power of entering and searching houses in the night-time. Lord Sidmouth observed, that if the measure were really more severe than the circumstances of the country required, he would willingly consent to any proposition for softening it; but such was far from being the case. He did not set much importance on a precedent either of a remote or recent date, as the necessity of the present measure must be judged from the circumstances which gave rise to it. He could not agree to any alteration in the clause. The bill was then read a third time, and passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, December 7. STATE OF THE COUNTRY-PETITION OF THE CORPORATION OF LONDON.] The sheriffs of London presented a petition from the lord mayor, alderman, and commons, of the city of London, in com SEIZURE OF ARMS BILL.] Lord Sid- mon council assembled; setting forth, |