GENERAL HISTORY. 



[33 



of each was mustered, though no 

 doubt could be entertainfd how 

 the decision would terminute. In 

 fact, nothing was left but the 

 mere repetition of exhausted ar- 

 guments ; and Mr. Canning found 

 it necessary to revert to former 

 (Usplays of oratory, by saying, "It 

 is ill this view oidy that we re- 

 commend to the House of Com- 

 mons to pass tlie present bill ; 

 not (as I have so often said, but 

 as cannot be too often repeated) 

 for the extinction of the sacied 

 light of petition, but for its pro- 

 tection and preservation." 



After the amendment had been 

 disposed of, the third reading 

 was carried by 179 to 44. A 

 chiuse having been introduce*! in- 

 to the bill by the Attorney Gene- 

 ral, enacting that it should nttt 

 extend to Ireland, Sir John New- 

 port opposed it, with a view of 

 keeping down tlic Orange men ; 

 but the original question was 

 carried. 



Oa tlie introduction of tlie pre- 

 amble of the bill, Sir M. IV. Rid- 

 ley moved the following amend- 

 ment : " NV^hereas assemblies of 

 divers persons collected for tiie 

 purpose of exerci-ing their un- 

 doubted right of offering petitions, 

 comphjnts, renions' ranees, de- 

 tlarations, or oilier addresses to 

 his loyal highness the Prince 

 Regent, or to both houses, or 

 to either house of parliament, 

 have of late taken place ; and 

 where.is riots may be apprehended 

 from large meetings of p^-rsons 

 suffering under the pressure of 

 distress at the present time." 

 This ameiuhneiit was ncgativeil. 



Mr. Ponsonhy then moved, that 

 instead of the words "one or 

 rnore justice or justices," there 



Vol. LIX. 



should be inserted in the bill 

 " two or more justices," which 

 was also negatived. 



He next moved, that instead of 

 the words "constitution and go- 

 vernment," there should be in- 

 serted the word " constitution" 

 only ; which was also negatived. 

 The bill was then passed. 



On the 21st of March tlie House 

 of Lords went into a committee 

 on the bill relative to Seditious 

 Meetings. On reading the clause 

 fnnn the Commons concerning 

 what would constitute the assembly 

 unlawful. Lord St. John observed, 

 that as the words now stood, if 

 the clerk of the peace should neg- 

 lect to communicate the notice re- 

 ceived of an intended meeting, 

 signed by seven househohlers, to 

 three magistrates, it might be 

 deemed an unlawful assembly, 

 ;ilthough the persons calling it 

 had complied in every respect 

 with the enactments of the clause, 

 and would, in consequence, be- 

 come subject to the punishment 

 of death. The Lord Chancellor, 

 though he had no doubt that the 

 omissioa of the clerk of the peace 

 would not invalidate the legality 

 of the meeting, said that he had 

 no objection to an amendment 

 which would render the clause 

 more clear : and it was ae:reed 

 that tlic words " in such case" 

 shr)uld be omitted. 



Lord Ilolhmd moved that tbe 

 words "imposing the punishment 

 of death" should be left out, as he 

 considered it as glaringly dispj-o- 

 j)ortionate to the crime. This 

 amendment was negative I. 



At a meeting of the committee 

 on March 54th, when the clause 

 resjiccting licences to be granted 

 to lecture rooms and ilebating so- 



\p] cieties 



