redress, and prayed for an inquiry into the nature of the transaction. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by hoping that some member from that part of Scotland, where the act was said to have been committed, would be prepared either to give some explanation as to this business, or to make the necessary inquiries into the facts of the case. At present be would content himself by moving that the petition be brought up.-It was then brought up, and read at the table. Mr. Finlay knew nothing of the circumstances alluded to in the petition, but he thought some consideration was due to the situation of a sheriff, who was very often compelled to discharge a painful duty, and to act at the suggestion of others. If the facts should turn out to be as they were set forth in the petition, he was satisfied, from the respectable cha racter of the sheriff substitute, that that officer must have acted upon information, which at the time, he believed to have been correct. As to the early hour when the arrest was made, all he should say was, that in the part of the town where the warrant was executed, it was often necessary, if late in the day, to provide the civil power with military aid, to enable them to execute their duty, in consequence of the resistance which the neigh bourhood sometimes afforded on such occasions. As to the circumstances of the mode of confinement, he was sure they were grossly exaggerated, for there was no prison in which more comfortable apartments and general accommodation were afforded than in that at Glasgow. He hoped the House would not decide on hearing an ex parte statement. Mr. W. Smith thought the petition entitled to serious consideration. It sat forth a number of gross grievances, and the commission of several acts of hardship, quite needless for the safe custody of a prisoner. The hon. member who had last spoken, seemed to think that his own flat negative would be sufficient to warrant the House to reject all inquiry. He condemned this hasty and intemperate proceeding on the part of magistrates, whereby the personal liberty of the subject, was endangered without cause. Mr. Finlay did not wish to prevent, but to suspend inquiry, until the state ment of the sheriff substitute was obtained. For this he should himself immediately apply. Ordered to lie on the table. GAME LAWS.] Sir S. Romilly moved the second reading of the bill for repealing the act passed in the last session for the preservation of Game. Mr. Bankes said, that as another bill (sir E. Knatchbull's) was then pending in the House, which met with general approbation, and had the same object in view as the present one, he thought that the measure of the hon. and learned gentleman should be suspended, until the other came under their consideration. He would, therefore, move as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time on Monday se'nnight. Sir S. Romilly said, that this bill was intended to repeal one which had been passed last year, in order to punish persons going out at night with arms in their In its application, hands to steal game. however, the bill had been made to punish persons who had been taken with nothing about them but nets, for the purpose of ensnaring game with seven years transportation, which punishment had only been intended to meet the other offence. He did not object to that offence being punished with transportation, and what he had in view would be in a great measure accomplished by the bill brought in by the hon. member for Kent, but that bill could not now be passed till the next But for this quarter sessions were over. circumstance he should not be anxious to press the bill now under consideration. When, however, he reflected, that if the subject were suffered to lie over till after the next quarter sessions, many persons, comparatively innocent, would probably suffer under the existing law, he thought it of importance that this bill should pass without loss of time. He had heard of several cases of great hardship which had occurred under the act now in forcecases, in which persons, whose offences were not of an aggravated nature, had been sentenced to transportation, partly on account of the character they had previously borne. In some cases, its opera tion had been peculiarly hard on those them tried under it, as it had come upon like an ex post facto law. The late Mr. Horner had been said to have approved of the bill now in force. To any person who knew that most respected individual, it must seem, when they were told this, that he had, on the occasion referred to, forgot for a time those principles which were nearest to his heart; for among all his good qualities there was no one by which his lamented friend was more distinguished than an anxious wish to protect the people against any measure of a character that at all approached tyranny. He, however, knew most positively that Mr. Horner had disapproved of the bill passed in the last session; for he (Mr. Horner) had attended with him night after night, for the purpose of opposing it. They were prevented from doing so by the circumstance of its being found impossible to get to the bill, from their being 30 or 40 orders a day before the House, while they came down for the purpose he had mentioned, and at last they had given up their opposition, as the hon. member who had brought in the bill agreed to strike out that clause which they considered most mischievous in its tendency. As originally brought in, the bill left persons taking at night without arms, but with nets and wires about them, liable to be transported for seven years, without a trial by jury, on a conviction before two magistrates. The omission of this clause was the cause of the bill passing without opposition from Mr. Horner, as, though still objectionable, he considered it to be much better than it had been. The game laws, as they at present stood, had a tendency to multiply crimes. They had the effect of exciting a ferocious spirit, not only among the lower classes, but also among those in the higher walks of life; as was seen by the use made of spring guns, and other engines of death, or of great bodily harm, now placed in inclosed grounds and woods, from which so many accidents occurred. The act now in force went to make offenders more desperate, as had recently been seen in the case of some poachers taken in the North of England, who, when informed that the offence they had committed subjected them to the punishment of transportation, immediately exclaimed," if they had known that, they would not have been taken so easily." This was the consequence of a law of such severity; those against whom it was di rected thought they might as well take the chance of a desperate resistance. Under all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the House would suffer the bill to be now read a second time. Sir C. Monck said, he had committed the persons just alluded to, and they certainly had appeared very much surprised when informed of the punishment which they might expect, and had declared that if they had known such was the penalty they had incurred, they would not have been so easily taken. Under the present law, transportation did not necessarily follow on conviction. It was left in the breast of the magistrates to take this course, or to sentence the offender to imprisonment. He, however, would willingly consent to an alteration being made in the law, to define the different shades of offences, and the several degrees of punishment by which they were to be met, so as to leave as little as possible to the discretion of the magistrates. To repeal the present act would be to revive the Joddrell act. Of this he did not approve, and he had a great objection to the bill brought in by the hon. member for Kent. He thought a bill between the two might be beneficial, but as he wished the passing of the present bill to be at all events deferred, he should vote for the amendment. Mr. Huskisson should vote for the postponement of the bill. He was unwilling that it should pass before the ensuing quarter sessions were over. The present law, if its application were looked at, would not be found cruel absurd, and unjust; and there were many laws which left the magistrates as much room for the exercise of their discretion, as could be claimed under that which was now made the subject of complaint. He had been surprised to hear it spoken of as an ex post facto law. Such a character did not belong to it. He considered it not a law for the prescrvation of game, but a police law; and, when the bill brought in by the member for Kent came again before the House, he thought it would be as well to leave out the word "game" altogether, and make the act against all who went out at night in armed bodies, with any unlawful object in view. The House divided: For the second reading, 14; for the amendment, 30; majority, 16; the second reading of the bill was of course postponed. HOUSE OF LORDS. SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL.] The report of this bill was brought up. When the clause respecting Licenses to be granted to Lecture Rooms and Debating Societies was read, The Earl of Lauderdale said, he thought the exceptions from the operation of this clause did not extend far enough, and that there could be no objection to include in those exceptions lectures merely on physical science. He was the more anxious upon this point, because in Edinburgh, where the magistrates were the patrons of the university, they might be induced for the sake of promoting the interests of the university, to put down all private lectures, and it was well known that the students frequently derived more advantage from the latter, than from what they learned within the university. He wished to confine his amendment to the physical sciences, in order to obviate the objection that lectures upon morality, religion, and some other topics, might be liable to be abused. His lordship then moved a clause exempting from the operation of the licensing enactments lectures on anatomy pharmacy, midwifery, astronomy, chemistry, or other branches of physical sci ence. The Earl of Liverpool opposed the clause, contending that it was not to be presumed that magistrates would from any private motives prevent the delivery of lectures, such as had been alluded to by the noble lord, and it would appear invidious to exempt physic or medicine in particular. the drinking of certain toasts, or some other matter equally trifling, and this might be so construed as to subject them to all the inconveniences of this clause. The Earl of Liverpool said, that the next clause enacted, that these tests or declarations might be approved of by two justices of the peace, but there was no intention whatever of subjecting to restrictions societies which were merely convivial, and had no political object in view. Lord Holland observed, that the members of these societies might naturally feel repugnant to submit mere nonsense to the inspection of justices of the peace, and he saw no reason why they should be subjected to the inconvenience. Freemasons were excepted, and why should not other societies, equally harmless in their object or at least what objection was there to introduce words that should obviate any inconvenience to clubs or societies merely convivial, and having no political object whatever in assembling? Lord Erskine said, that this part of the bill was intended to be permanent, and therefore they should be more cautious as to what they enacted. Their object ought The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that to be to impose as few restrictions as posthe magistrates connected with the uni-sible upon the people, because by imposversity of Oxford, uniformly prevented private lectures, and the same might be expected at Edinburgh. Lord Melville stated, that the power to grant these licences extended to the sheriff and justices of the peace, as well as to the magistrates of Edinburgh. There was no ground, therefore, for the noble earl's alarm. Lord Grenville said, that the powers of the magistrates, to whom the noble earl alluded, as being connected with the university of Oxford, were confided to them for the exclusive purpose of protecting the interests of the university; but it was otherwise with the magistrates of Edinburgh, whose duty it was to attend to the interests of the public, as well as those of the university. The clause was negatived. On the clause respecting clubs or societies, the members of which were required to sign any test or declaration, Lord Holland observed, that it was too extensive in its wording. There were many clubs or societies in this metropolis, in which the members were perhaps called upon to sign some declaration merely relating to the payment of a subscription, or ing unnecessary restraints they might produce discontent, and excite a spirit of hostility in place of that love which persons bore to a country having the sacred character of freedom. There were other societies besides freemasons which might have, perhaps, tests equally solemn, but which were equally harmless. The Earl of Liverpool said, there was no intention whatever of subjecting to inconvenience mere convivial societies, which might be productive of pleasure or advantage to individuals. But if any clubs or societies had any test or declaration, attended with any solemnity, it was but fair that they should be subjected to the superintendence in that respect of justices of the peace. Lord Erskine observed, that there were the quizzes, the bucks, the odd fellows, and several other societies, whose object was equally harmless with that of the free masons. The Lord Chancellor said, as his learned friend seemed to be so well acquainted with these societies, he would perhaps employ a short time to-morrow morning in framing some amendment to meet the object in view. The clause was then ageed to. An amendment, proposed by earl Grosvenor, to limit the duration of the bill to the 1st of July 1817, was negatived. Lord Sidmouth then proposed a clause to prohibit public meetings within a mile of the two Houses of Parliament when sitting, or of the courts of justice when sitting at West minster. Lord St. John thought the clause highly objectionable, as tending to embarrass the right of holding public meetings, for the purpose of petitioning the throne or either House of Parliament, upon subjects of public interest. The Earl of Rosslyn contended, that there was no reason why the inhabitants of Westminster should not have the exercise of a privilege, which was possessed by the inhabitants of every other part of London. He should have preferred that a clause of so much importance had been introduced into the bill at first, rather than now, towards the very close of any discussion upon it. The Earl of Liverpool said, that the clause had originated in the suggestion of a noble earl on the other side of the House, upon a former evening. With respect to its principle, he did not think there could be any difference of opinion. Their lordships must be perfectly sensible of the indecorum of permitting meetings to be held within the purlieus of parliament, which from their nature, often led to scenes that never should be tolerated. It was certainly most desirable that the members of the two Houses should not be exposed to those gross outrages which had sometimes occurred, when coming down to parliament in the exercise of their public duty. With regard to the proposed distance of a mile, he did not apprehend that would throw any serious impediment in the way of lawfully assembling to petition either the throne or the legislature. A line must be drawn somewhere, and he was informed by a noble friend who was commonly accurate upon such matters, that a mile and a half would not extend further than the top of St. James's street. A mile therefore, would leave sufficient opportunities for the inhabitants of Westminster to meet whenever they might deem it necessary. The Earl of Lauderdale said, he should like to know why the inhabitants of Westminster were to be alone excluded from a privilege which would be found to belong to the inhabitants of other parts of the metropolis, who might hold their meeting where they thought proper?-[Lord Sidmouth here intimated across the table, that the clause did not specify the inhabitants of Westminster, by prohibiting all public meetings within a mile of Westminster hall.] The noble earl said, he was glad to hear that explanation, as it removed at least one objection which he had to the clause, but still he wished to be informed, if the inhabitants of Westminster were not permitted to meet within a mile of Westminster-hall, where they were to meet? Lord Grenville said, the object of the clause was, not to prevent, in any manner, the people of Westminster from enjoying the fair and just exercise of their right to assemble, for purposes authorized by the constitution, but to put a stop to that practice, which, if he did not agree with the noble earl was an indecorum, he at least considered as an inconvenience, of holding meetings within the vicinity of parliament, which often led to conduct as affecting the members of both Houses, which ought to be repressed. With that view, and as they merely wished to protect the immediate avenues from interruption, perhaps if they were to substitute half a mile, for a mile, the end would be answered, as he understood Charing-cross was within that distance, and thus Whitehall and Parliament street, down to Westminster-hall, would be preserved from any obstruction. There would be time, before they were called upon finally to agree to the present clause to ascertain that point. He would also suggest a slight verbal alteration in the clause, making it applicable to wherever parliament or the courts of justice might sit, instead of Westminster-hall generally, as it was at the discretion of the Crown to call parliament together wherever it might judge proper, and also to order, at its own pleasure, the place for holding the courts of law. Lord Erskine perfectly concurred in the propriety of prohibiting public meetings from being held near the Houses of Parliament during the sitting of parliament; but he did not see the same necessity with regard to the courts of law. He was not aware that any inconvenience could be sustained by them, in consequence of a meeting held in Palace-yard, while they were sitting; and it should be remembered, that the operation of the clause, by comprehending both cases, would go to prevent meetings during almost the whole of the year. Lord Ellenborough said, it would be for their lordships to determine whether they would extend the same protection to the courts of law as to the Houses of Parliament. He merely wished to observe, that a case had occurred, during the time in which he had sat as chief justice of the court of King's-bench, where a tumultuous and disorderly meeting assembled in Westminister-hall, and he had found it necessary to suspend the proceedings of the court. Not that he himself felt any alarm, but he did not deem it right to sit there and administer the law of the land under such circumstances, and he waited till the sheriffs were sent for, and the mob was cleared out. He was aware that was a case of great rarity; but it had occurred, and having occurred, there was no reason why it might not happen again. Lord Erskine observed, that the noble and learned lord had proved there was no necessity rather than that there was a necessity for the present clause. He had mentioned an instance, where a meeting was held in Westminster-hall during the sittings of the court of King's bench, and he had shown, that by sending for the sheriffs, a power already existed to remove any such inconvenience. The clause was then agreed to, and the amendments being all gone through, the bill was ordered to be read a third time tomorrow. HOUSE OF LORDS. The Tuesday, March 25. SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL.] order of the day being read for the third reading of this Bill, Lord Erskine said, that his objections to the principle of the bill in almost all its parts, lay within a very narrow compass, and he desired to preface them by admitting the whole of what had been so ably and eloquently said the other night by his noble and learned friend upon the woolsack, except in its application to support the measure now under consideration. He agreed with him that there might be times and seasons in which it would not only be wise and expedient, but indispensably necessary to suspend the strongest provisions of the law for the protection of public liberty, and he would go farther and say, that the more excellent the constitution to be protected (and none could be more excellent than our own) the greater sacrifices ought to be made, and willingly submitted to by the people, to se$ cure it from the danger of subversion. The first question, therefore, for decision was, what evidence the House had before it of impending dangers, to justify the passing an act of the description now before them, supposing its provisions to be well framed to avert them? and 2dly, whether, admitting all the facts collected by the report, though standing upon ex parte evidence, without any knowledge in the House at large of the sources from which they proceeded, the bill was either necessary or a proper remedy? As to the first, he regretted that the real state of the country at large had not been examined by the whole House, instead of by so very select a committee. Equal secrecy might have been preserved, and there was not now the same objection to publicity as in the year 1795, when nevertheless the whole evidence was made public. At that time it was improper in the extreme, because several persons were then in custody for high treason, whose trials were immediately to be had upon the very charges authenticated by the report; whereas no individuals could at all have been implicated or affected at present, if the whole case had been openly and impartially sifted at the bar of the House, and even then it need not have been made public.—If that course had been pursued, he should have known precisely the grounds on which he was to act on a subject of such vital importance. He reposed the greatest trust in the honour of the committee, yet he could not be satisfied with ex parte evidence, without even knowing what it was, but only the general results. The committees of both Houses in 1795 were equally composed of men of honour and capacity, yet all their conclusions from the evidence before them, was falsified upon the trials which followed. The act, like the one now before them, gave them the power to arrest at their pleasure, and to postpone the trials till the period of full preparation; yet they could justify the arrest of but very few, and not one whom they arrested was convicted. Of all men living, therefore, he thought he had a right to pause from the experience of that period, so very different from the present, and so comparatively alarming. In 1795 his majesty's message informed the House, that he had detected a formed and widely extended conspiracy to subvert the government by holding a convention to assume all the functions of parlia |