The Express. — London, England, 1848-04-13 00:00:00

In THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 13, 1848. land, on the ground that, had he persisted k that motion forward, there woulkhave been Sp a fair anemias. As to theball before th:6l=ll. is his opinion destroy the liberty of the prem awl la England and Ireland. The Name atoms Mfilwoardoilla France, and the result was that the tyrant wM wall from now with all his family a wanderer ever theist*, withers% • home or a country. He was glad he had gi to the ven way ton this occasion, as the hon. member toe lad e bed thereby been enabled to make the admirable speech which the house had heard from him. For his own part, he did ant see how it was possible for the noble lord to get the house to pass the bill after the luminous statement that had been made of the sentiments of C. J. Fox. He warned the government that if they should persist in pass ing the bill into a law, they would never get an Irish jery to convict under it, as they would no more subject a politi cal offender to transportation than formerly they would con vict • man of forgery when the punishment was death. He thought that the opposition offered to the bill by members representing such constituencies as sent the hon. members for Middlesex, the Tower Hamlets, and he might add himself— having 250,000 constituents —ought to have more weigsent ht than the support given to the measure by mem frost rotten boroughs of 100 or 200 constituents. The act of writing and publishing treasonable expressions he would never defend. That was deliberately done, and ought to bear an appropriate penalty. But to punish a man with trapportation who, in the excitement of speaking as an est to an audi tory, might let fall some unguarded l a nguage, w which he abhorred even in idea, and he could net sufficiently express his wonder that a measure containing such • pro posal should have proceeded from the noble lord. =at was not the only innovation upon the condi= liberties of Englishmen that the noble lord proposed tombs. Under the Gth clause (7th) a spy might be hired by a wicked and venal minister to go to a meeting and utter incendiary and treasonable expressions, and that clause enacted that all who were present at that meeting should be subject to two yeses' imprisonmeet and bard labour. abstained from ad - Sir G. GIiEY said he had purpose l y deeming the house in answer to the speeches that had been delivered, as he thought it was most conformable to the practice of the house to reserve his answers to the objections brought against the various clauses until those clauses were discussed in committee, when he should be prepared to answer the statement just made by the hon. member for Dublia, as to the operation of the 7th clause. Mr. HUME said that he too ehould have mowered silence, bad he not deemed it necessary that some should be extorted front the government to the speaker whhad just heard. Was th e government prepared, let om t him ark, to act on the old principles formerly avowed by each individual member of it, or were ministers going to act on tnoee prineiples which were formerly adopted by Mr. Pitt, ay, and to go beyond those principles, in tyranny and despotism (Hear.) When the house foiled a ministry composed of suck men as the noble lord and his colleagues, prepared to fling their former protestations and political avowals to the wind, and disavowing the doctrines of Fox. then the house had a right he know what they were prepared to do. He had beard the noble lord (.1. Russell) avow himself to be a disciple of Charles Fox. If that were to, let him ask the noble lord to give some definite answer to the speech of his hon. friend the member for Middlesex. Hampden declared that if the government presumed to med dle or interfere with the liberty of speech, or the right of de liberation poeseseed by Englishmen, they ought to be forcibly resisted. Those also were the principles adopted and avowed by Mr. Fox ; and so strongly did he avow and maintain them, that he was struck off the list of privy councillors for having at a public dinner given the toast, 'The people, the source of all sovereign power." (Hear.) The house was en titled to know whether the noble lord was any longer • disci pie of Fox, or whether, on the other hand, be was prepared to follow is the footsteps of the atrocious governments of former year,. He must beg to point out that the govern ment now possessed all the powers that the worst govern ments of former periods possessed in ordinary time. But if the noble lord came down to parliament 111111 stated that he had secret information which he was not prepared to disclose, requiring that additional power should be vested in the hands of government for a limited time, he should not object to grant such power. Why, even the atrocious bills of for mer ministers, which had been so strenuously opposed by the whip of hose times, were only passed for the period of three years, when they expired. If the law of England was now to be assimilated to the law of Scotland, of 1794-6, which was now repealed, he must say that no man would be safe; he would be liable to be dragged from his house, and on the testimony of his own servants , eubjecr ed to be transported for the rest of his life. The case of Muir and his brother reionnen offered a case in point, and although the learned SoheiterGeneral bad somewhat innocently urged that juries would not be too eager to condemn, he must caution the house as weil as his hon. friend, not to place too much reliance on merciful juries, for he should be sorry to trust himself to the tender mercies eta Scotch jury, such as condemned Muir, Gerrard, and Palmer. lie had himself headed a procession of 100,000 persona to present a peaceful petition, and none of the gen tlemen now on the Treasury benches bad dared to call his proceedings illegal. He had also presided at a meeting of 40,000 persons,: where it was resolved to pay no more taxes. (Hear, hear.) He had handed the resolution to the Attorney- General, who told him it was illegal. His answer was, " Try me." (Hear, hear.) Was he then to support a bill the object of which was to check free discussion, and to pre vent meetings of the people? (Hear, hear.) The hon. member proceeded to read f urther extracts from the trials of Muir and Palmer, contending that under the present bill simi lar proceedings mustinevitably be frequent. His advice to the government was to delay it for a week in order that the country might be made acquainted with its provisions, and have time to pronounce an opinion on it. At least let them have until Monday next, if it were only to avoid the disgrace of preiipitation in a measure of so much importance. Lord J. RUSSELL.—I should have been better satisfied if gentlemen who fouled fault with the provi sions of this tell had consented to go into committee and hear the reasons we have to give for the clauses which they so loudly condemn. But, as my honourable friend the member for Montrose asks me on what principle we propose to act, 1 say now, that, with regard to general princi ples of policy—with regard to the great maxims of the consti tution—l believe Mr. Fox to have laid down the true doctrine. But, sir, we are now living in extraordinary circumstances — k (Hear, hear)—in a time when p ers ons think it right, thin it their duty, to call together councils and confederations, in which they declare that war ought to be made egaitut the sovereign of these realms —(loud cheers) —and that the armed forces of the sovereign ought to be seduced or bribed, and that if seduction or bribery do not succeed, they should be opposed by force of arms--(cheers.)—when persons are advised to arm themselves, and are told that if they procure arms they will gain a signal victory, and that the soldiers and police will not be able to withstand them—(loud eheers)—when persons think it advisable, even in this house, to show in what manner they mean to proceed, and how they shell advise their countrymen to prepare measures ne cessary for the success of rebellion. (Loud cries of " hear, hear.") Now, I believe, that according to the spirit of the constitution, gr e et latitude of discussion should be allowed, that inflammatory language should be permitted, nay, that even language which might excite alienation from our monarchical constitution should not be absolutely for bidden. I could go great lengths on this point, because I know that without the toleration of occasional abuses, free dom of discussion could not be maintained. But, instead of being reproached with having acted intemperately or harshly, I believe the general opinion of this country to be that we have waited too long. (Hear, hear.) However, having come to the conclusion that it is necessary to take measures of precaution, that those measures of precaution should be such as to enable us to defeat the designs of traitors--(loud cheers)—that they should; be such as to prevent a part of the United Kingdom from being deluged with blood by those who have advised the commiseion of acts the most atrocious— (loud cheers) and who have sat down actually in their closets to show how, by various infernal engines, by pouring cold vitriol, boiling oil, and other means, they may procure the deaths of their fellow-subjects—l say that under these circum stances, I should be 'Ashamed of myself if, when I eee the danger approaching, T should be so overawed by the autho rity of Mr. Fox, so afraid of having his words quoted against me, as to desert my duty and not to take those measures of precaution which I believe to be neeessary. That is my answer to the hon. gentleman who asks me upon what prin ciples we propose to proceed. (Cheers.) But I think that the hon. gentleman has shown that he will not come to the discussion of the bill fully understanding one portion. I mean that which relates to words spoken. The hon. mem ber has taken the trouble to read to the house at some length the indictment framed against Messrs. Muir and Palmer. That indictment charged Mr. Muir and his associates with having used words calculated to excite disaffection and to alienate the people from the constitution of this realm, and which were also of an inflammatory character. I agree that to transport a person for an &Nue° of that kind which although no doubt vety mischievous does not go 'beyond the offence of seditious language, would be very oppressive and unjust at the present time. For my . own part, I have always been of the opinion that the conviction of Mr. Muir and his associates under that indictment was unjust. (Hear.) There is, however, a very great difference between using language of that kind and language tending to excite to the levying of war against the sovereign or producing in surrection; and it is the latter which must be the intent wider the bill which we now propose, that must be the de sign of the words so spoken, or otherwise these words are harmless, end cannot be punishable in the least degree. The hon. member talks of the atrocity of condemning spoken words. Does not the hon. member know that there are even now cases in which words may be brought forward on a trial for con de mn son, and in which the use of i ns " the words may be das an overt act ?It is stated East's Pleas of the Crown" that " any person who, by any advice, persuasion, or command, shall excite, en courage or procure oth ers to make an attempt against the K i ng ' s person, is guilty of • plain overt set of treason, and of compassing the King's death." And yet all the objections which have been made as to the chance of words being misunderstood and misreported apply to the law of treason as it now stands. Perhaps the hon. member objects to the law of treason. That may be the ease. But at all events let hint not condemn us for intro ducino a similar law with a minor punishment for the offence of designing, composing, or levying war against the Queen. The hon. member ought to be aware that there is now a law upon the statute book, by which, if any person prints in this country, or publishes any writing, with intent to promote the keying of war against the sovereign he may be found guilty of high treason, and be capita ay punished. That is the law of this country by statute, and I ask him is it fit or proper that one person who site down to write a news paper which he afterwards publishes, and in which be commits this offence of treason, shall be punished capitally, while another , his confederate and ally, adeisedly sad with preparation make, dayaller day speeches, with the reporters for the newspapers fore hint, who he knows will report every word ke says—speeches opal or ourpoidoi is soligainoy thowritton onielomai rot that while one is found guilty of treason and capitally exe cuted, the other is brought up ea a a nd of using intentions =Lib allowed to give bell, and ran only be tried for or ? (Hear, hear.) Is that equal or fall Jodie. ? (Hear, hurl Lea the hon. member propose in sesuaittee *at the Intent to levy war in publication be redound to *gen tian " =bilk if bes me this wunls7 and laud be disturbed Icy eta Let him propose that Ohmage, bat let him not say that we are proposing measseitutional Menges in the law, when, while reducing the penalty fee one offence, we raise it with regard to the other.. oonsidesing them to be offences equal in amount, the one showing as great a di-po sitlon to &Mob the peace of the gooier, sad overthrow the government as the other offenco of high treason. I readily admit that proof in the one case is more difficult than in the other. If you have a book or a newspaper before you, and the roof that by the comsat ot the author the words therein contained have been published, a jury must at once admit that thus were the words which the author or writer intended to publish ; but with regard to words spoken there is not the ssms facility of proof. I therefore admit that jury should require, and I have no doubt would re quire fuller proof with regard to words spoken than with reference: to written words. But these are metiers which can be well misidered in committee. I will say more, that, considering that this part of the law is new, while we think that all that pert of the bill which tends to mitigate the penalty from h4h treason to felony, from death to tran sportation • end that part of the bill which extends the whole act to Irelind,should be maintained permanent, we are will ing to ooncede that those other parts which refer to open and advised speaking shall have only a teniporary operation — (loud cheers), and be subject to be again brought under the consideration of parliament. For my own part, I believe that the enactment will be a right one, but that of which I ant profoundly convinced is, Out such sauteeing is sr ansery, if we mean to cope succ essfully with r tte rt Ztes which surround us. Allusion ha been made to w on the subject of aliens. That measure will be in this house ia a few days, when I shall have an opportunity of giving ex li planstions concerning it. At present I will only say this, that any measures we introduce now are introduced under a deep conviction that the peace of this country is worth pre serving, and that the institutions of this country, rte mo narchy, and its constitution, are not to be lightly.given up, and that, the trust being placed in our hands, it is our duty to preserve them intact. (Loud cheers.) The house then went into committee on the bill. that the Mr. RORSMAN expressed his high satisfaction objectionable clauses of the bill were to be operative for only limited period. It was not for the first time, or with oat authority, that the opponents ef the bill claimed that a difference should be ms. between words written and words Arlon. The hon. member here quoted Blackstone and Ohm legal authorities to show that the difference he eon lor had always been observed. Ile would trouble the hems with one moo and a very recent authority, to which he begged the particular attention of the noble lord. Lord Campbell, in is " Chancellors of Eng land," stated of Lord Hides that he (Lord able Eldon) ad, w h en Attorney-General, prepured the Treason Attempt ill, giving legislative exposition to the statute of Ed ward B 111., but adding to its penalties the; vague offencs of " imr ginisg" high treuon. On this passage Lard Cam b elle c omment was, that the whip leaders, although with a as billowing, made a most noble stand against this onscsards ment on public liberty. (Cheers.) Lord Campbell added his fear that under the provisions of that act the speeches at Mr. Cobden, so lauded by the right hon. member for Tam worth, might be open to indictment. (Laughter.) The writer added that when prosecuting Frost he had relied solely on the statute of Edward, and bad procured a coop victiee. In 1796 Fox and Erskine had raised their voices against bills like the present, which he (Mr. fr H ee and open pen be lieved to be unnecessary. In his °Owes discussion was the very best security for public safety. The prevention of public discussion had never been the means of putting down but had been always the precursor of insurrection. What he feared was, that government did not consider the impotence of puliamentary majorities, and the omnipotence of public opinion. With regard to Ireland, he was sorry to say that in the circumstances of that country there was something like a necessity for some measure of this kind. He saw much in the past history and present con dition of Ireland for whic h the imperial parliament had to reproath itself. lie believed that many of the grievances of Ireland proceeded from bad legislation. If it were not so, that would form a good argument for • domestic legislation for Ireland. With regard to Ireland, therefore, he was con tent—seeing that the operation was to be but temporary—to assent to the measure. NVith regard to the general applica tion of the law, it had been urged that the alarm which had been occasioned by circumstances existing in this country was a sufficient justification of the measure. He, however, believed that, looking at the condition of the country gene rally, there had never been • period when there was less reason for alarm—(hear, hear)—and it was gratifying to see that, in all thechanges which had taken place or were taking place on the continent, the demand on the part of the people was, " Give us • constitution on the model of cons tbatitu t of England, which we look upon as the perfection of tional liberty." (Hear, hear.) Mr. MARTIN should certainly move so an amendment that the words " open and advised speaking " should be struck out of the clans', believing that they involved a great constitutional principle. This was the first time in the history of the country that spoken words were equivalent to written words, or that the former bad been declared to be a felony. Under the common law it was always understood that spoken and written words rested upon totally different principles. This was the view taken by Lord Co re , ke L Hisord , Hale, Blackstone , and other high legal authorits. experience as a lawyer led him to the conviction that there was no dependence upon the reports of spoken words—and though generally he had every reliance on urors he had no confidence in a panic-stricken jury—(h j ar, hear) —and he would as soon leave it to a jury of madmen to try • case of felony under this bill, Hieing out of spoken words, as he would to such i a jury as could have been obtained in London last Monday. It might be said that government would take precautions to have correct reports, by employing their own short-hand writers, but he placed no reliance on short-hand writers' notes, and judge atter judge had refused to admit reports so furnished as evidence. As he understood brio reat importance was attached top reventing such speeches made as they bad lately beard of, and a' he was not dispose to say that some check should not be placed on such speeches, lie should, besides moving the omission of the words , "open and advised speaking," move that a proviso be added, that if any person present at any assembly or meeting of more than twenty persons should by public or advised speaking advocate or advise either of the three dome ef offences referred to in the third section it should be held to be a misdemeanor. He would also provide that the trial should take place within a month after the commission of the offence. He was quite aware that under the common law an indictment in such a me would lie, hut he saw no objec tion by a declaratory law to show that the intention of the legislature was directed to the subject, and to prevent parties pleading ignorance of the law. lie (Mr. Msrtin) had always folliwed the noble lord (J. Russell) and his government,and he called upon the noble lord to do for his friends what Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville in 1795 did for their opponents. (Hear, hear.) The ATTORNEY GENERAL opposed the amendment. His hon. and learned friend had objected first that there was no authority for dealing with spoken words as felony, and second that no dependence could be placed on parol state ments. If there was anything in the second objection, it should go to prevent prosecution for sedition in all cases; and he could not understand how, that being his bon.'and learned friend's opinion, be could justify, with env regard to consis tency, the remedy he proposed for punishing such offences in cases of emergency. But did h a hon. and learned f iernd mean to say that, as the law now stood, language calculated to incite to the levying of war against the crown would not be indictable and punishable as treaeon ? (Hear, bear.) His hon. and learned friend, however, admitted fleet severe that cases migh t arise in which it would be proper to in p ment for such language. But how would he do this? Not by the ordinary tribunale, but by new courts established for the purpose. (" No," from Mr. Martin.) Why the hon. and learned gentleman proposed to enact that the trial should in every woe take place within a month after the commis sion of the offence. The ordinary tribmals would not, per haps, be sitting within that period. How, then, would he try such cases except by means of some other tribunal ? Mr. MARTIN —By a special commission. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —Then special commis- I sions were to be appointed for the trial of misclemeanon. (H e ar, hear.) And this was the remedy propmed by an has. and learned gentleman, who, from his own experience as a l aw yer, had no confidence in pool testimony. (Hon I hear.) But, with regard to the existing law of treason, ee was well known that until lately persons indicted for felony were denied the aid of counsel in their defence ; and tresses' being • felony, it was but just that some difference should be made between the overt act of treason and mere sedition. That, however, was not the state of the law new when persons indicted for felony had counsel assigned them. But it was not the case that spoken words had never been treated by the law as felony. The statutes of Charles, of Anne, and of George, declared that spoken words, to the under cer t a in circumstances , would render the partyliable penalties of preemonire, those penalties being imprisonment for life and the forfeitare of goods; and a very high authority ' on criminal law (Judge Foster) had laid it down that words of advice or persuasion, uttered in contemplation of, or to promote, some greater event or act of treason, were to be themselves regarded as an overt act of treason, and punish able as a felony. (Hear, hear.) His hon. and learned friend was wrong, therefore, in saying that the law had never hitherto recognised spoken words as felony. It was only fair to say that Lord Hale, and some other authorities, had expressed opinions adverse to this dictum, but the law, as laid down by Judge Foster, and in accordance with which decisions had been given, was, that language spoken with intent to compass the death of the sovereign amounted to Wesson. He thought it a defect in the law as it stood, that it recognised no intermediate offence between treason and sedition—or between the capital felony and the misdemeanor. There were some cases of aggvated sedi tion for which the punishment which attached ra to a misde meanor was by no means commensurate : so there might be cases of treason of so light a character as not to deserve to be treated as capital felonies. This defect in the law the pre sent bill would in some measure remove, and though he was aware that some objections might be urged against the change in this respect, still, coupled as it was with the secu rities provided by the bill, he trustedunless the house was prepared to say that as to every class of sedition the law should remain as it was—that they would agree to the clause as it stood. In his opinion even were it proposed to make the act permanent, thd safer course would he to retain the words which his hon. and learned friend had moved to omit. Mr. MARTIN denied that he had said that in no case could parol evidence be trusted. Mr. MILNES showed by a reference to the book that the opinion which the Attorney-General had quoted as Judge Eater's was merely the comment of Attorney-Clonal Pollock on J u dge Foster's words. et Hear," end a limpet Mr. AGLIONBY supported the enessfisMut. Them of this country mould never, in this nineteenth antler', be brought to beam that there was on dilemma Warm written ea& woken wade. Sir r. YABBSIGEK referred the boa. masabr far Poem; fret to page t of "Foster's Crown Law," in me w' o f 4 the Attorney-GeneraL It bad boss aged theby hemelembers th at th is chins' prOpeeed *Mahe a pe se indlidable, as a felon, for words spoken. Now. that was nothing likethe effect of the clause. Any indictment under it would sot be fur words spoken, but for and imagining—(cries of "oh ")—the different o=Z2 fled in the bill, end, if properly framed, would go on testate either that there was something published or spoken openly and advisedly— (loud cries of " hear" from the oppo nents of the clause) —which would be the proof, the overt set, of the compassing and imagining. If the hon. member for Montrose would refer to the debates on the bill of 1796, be would find Mr. Erskine stating that the words "com passing and imagining" were as wily understood end as clearly intelligible as any words in law—their meaning being • settled, formed, and deliberate de sign and intention which were to be manifested and proved by . some overt act. He could not sit down with out expressing his deepest regret at the intention of the go vernment to yield to the opposition to this the most Unto/t -ut part of a most important =misers, and consent to make it temporary instead of permanent (Vehement cheers.) Mr. HUME referred to " Johnson's Dictionary" to show that imagining meant fancying, and — The ATTORNEY-GENERAL referred the hon. gentle man to the fourth volume of Blackston e, page 78, for the legal construction of the terms compassing and ima ergining. - Mr. P. WOOD mid that the law at prevent ..s simply this, that any words spoken of the seditious character described in this bill would be • high misde meanor, and punishable with fine and imprisonment to any extent. Nay, more, thoee words were spoken with the peril of being followed by an overt act, in which clue, even if there were but one overt act, an act of treason had been committed, and the party using those words was liable to be indicted as an athesset7 to that act. The hon. gentleman referred to " Foster's Criminal Law" to show that that learned judge concurred with Hale and Coke in the opinion that words spoken were not in them selves an overt act of treason. It was with surprise, there , fore, that he had heard the Attorney-General cite Foster to show that words alone could amount to high treason. Hav ing reiterated his objections to the words, • open and advi. sadly spoken," the hon. gentleman enured the ho s, use that he felt no sympathy with those wretche either in England or in Ireland, who uttered such fiseoeions stuff as had been brought under their notice. He bad recently voted against the motion for allowing that dastard Frost to return, which did not look like sympathy with such men. But while he joined in the indignation against them, and in the repudiation of their sentiments, he must say that he thought the present a most unhappily chosen moment for introducing such a measure as that new before the house. He should much prefer seeing chartists put an end to by extending the franchise (cheers), and giving them an opportunity of occupying their time in sending members to parliament instead of to the c ,nvention. If that were done he was sure the parliament would never again have encesion to resort to such a blister u this bill. Mr. M. O'CONN ELL objected to the bill even fora tem porary period, for he could not forget that all coercion acts, although at first temrery, were either continued or revived. Mr. GROGAN r ose to address the house, but owing to the constant cry fur • division, he was obliged to resume his seat. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when Mr. KOWLTT presented himself, and being received with still more vociferous sh -uts of interruption, was compelled to give way to Mr. Gutman, who merely defended the juror. of Dublin from an imputation which he suppoeed bad been cast upon them by the hon member for Kerry, whi :h, how ever, that hon. member denied, by explaining that there were many honest end impartial jurors in Dublin, only that the government of fi cers had not the knack of finding them. Mr. H. GRATTAN said a few words to the same effect, upon which Lord J. RUSSELL, perceiving that it was near 6 o'clock moved that the chairman report progress, and nth leave to sit again. Mr. REYNOLDS also made an attack upon the cha racter of Dublin juries, and the mode in which the panels were struck. Sir G. GREY said he should ask the house to meet to morrow (this tidy), at 12 o'clock. Mr. Hone, Mr. MVNTZ, and Mr. PeARSON positively ob jected to such indecent haste. Mr. M. O'CONNELL called attention to the difference between granting and sacrificing the privileges of the people. During the progress of the Reform Bill the government never asked for day sittings. After a few words from Col. SITITHOHP and Mr. BRIOHT, Mr. MO WATT moved the adjournment of the debate to Monday next, and Mr. FAGAN was addressing the house, as seconder of the motion, when the hour of 6 arrived, and the Speaker de clared the house adjourned. result would be that every person p re sent would be liable to two years' imprisonment And bard labour. Mr. Humes advice to the government was, to stay farther proosedings for $ week, in order that the country...might be made acquainted with the provisioas of the bin, sAd thus avoid the disgrace of precipitation Lretention to a measure of such vital importance. Lord J. iittssatt expressed his belief that .ox had laid down the tree doctrine for the period ; but they were now livin g in extraordinary times—la times when persons thought it right, thought it their daty,tooall together councils and confederations, in which they declared that war ought to be maibr against the sovereign of these realms, and that the armed foroes of the sovereign ought to be seduced ce bribed, and that if seduction or bribery did not sue coed they should be opposed by force of arms—when I persons were advised to arm themselves, and were I told that if they procured arms they would gain &sig nal victory, and that the soldiers and police would not be able to withstand them—when persons thought it advisable, even in that house, to s how in what manner the y meant to proceed, and how they should advise their ceuntrymen to pr ep are measures necessary for the success of rebellion. Under these circumstances he should be ashamed of himself if, when he saw the danger approaching, bs should be so overawed by the authority of Mr. FOX. so a fraid of having his words quoted against him, RO I to desert his duty and not to take those measures of precaution which he believed to be necessary. After some further ;observations the noble lord said that with reference to the words to which such serious o b. I jections had been taken —viz., " b y o p en and advised I speaking," the government were willing that the clause I should only . have a temporary operation. The Louse then went into committee. Mr. HottssuiN expressed his satisfaction that the objectionable clauses of the bill were to be in operation for a limited period only. Mr. MARTIN moved that the words in question should be struck out altogether. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL followed against the amend ment; and after some observations from Sir F. TDB /310ER, who expressed his deep regret at the determi nation of the government that this most important feature of the bill should have only a temporary endurance, and from Mr. P. WooD, who considered that Chartism might be exploded by extending the' franchise, which would supersede the necessity of reporting to such a blister as the present measure applied, and various desultory and time-engrossing observations from other bon. members, Sir O. GREY said he should ask the house to meet at 12 o'clock this day, for the purpose of resuming the committee. This proposition was warmly opposed, and Mr. MoWATT moved the adjournment of the debate until Monday, Mr. FAGAN being in the act of seconding the motion when the hour of six arrived, and the chair was vacated. When the debate is to be re sumed will be fixed this evening. THE most obvious objection to the third clause of the bill for the better security of the crown and government of the United Kingdom, is the difficulty, not to say impossibility, a plain man finds in under standing it. The involved and ungrammatical struc ture of the colossal sentence which composes it, defies interpretation ; and the words descriptive of the offences are vague in the extreme, admitting of almost any latitude of interpretation. We believe it is meant to declare that any persons who have conceived the design of compelling the sovereign or the legis lature to change their measures or councils, by deposing or levying war against the sovereign, or by inviting foreign aid, and who shall pub lish this design by printing or writing, or by "open and advised speaking," or by overt acts, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and liable, at the discretion of the crown, to be trans ported beyond seas for life, or any term not less than seven years. Of the exact meaning of the word " advi•ed " we have as yet seen no explanation offered. Passing from the vagueness and confusion which Pervade the language of this enactment—a grave ob jection to a law, the object of which is to entail such severe penalties—let us see what change it will effect in the existing law, the consequences of that change, and the reasons for or against it. As the law at present stands, the publication of such designs as are enumerated in the bill, by printing, has a more imposing name attached to it, and draws down a heavier punishment on the offender than is therein proposed. It is treason and infers capital punishment. Publication by speaking is only called a misdemeanor, has a lighter punishment annexed to it, and is more diffi cult to be enforced. The bill now before the House of Commons proposes to place both kinds of publication on an equal footing, to give them the same name (felony), and subject them to the same punishment. Why has the distinction which at present exists been made ? Two reasons suggest themselves. First, the act of publication by printing is evidently deliberate and premeditated. The act of publication by speech not so evidently. What a man writes out distinctly, commits to the press, and issues to the world, has pre sented itself to his mind in a distinct and tangible form ; time has intervened to cool down a sudden impulse, and allow of the words being sup pressed. What a man utters in the course of a speech may be the chance suggestion of the moment, its full import and consequences may not be present to the speaker's consciousness ; the expressions may be stronger—may imply more than he means. In the first case the full consciousness and deliberate will, which are essential ingredients of criminal intent, are present beyond a doubt; in the other their preemie° is lees certain. The law, it seems to us, with proper diffidence and humanity, has refrained from classify ing under one rubric acts which may be so materially different in their character. The second reason has reference to our English mode of criminal procedure. To be punished for either offence the offender must first be convicted by a jury. As a safeguard against the biases which beset men in authority, we regard the intervention of twelve men taken at hazard from the class of citizens as in valuable. But every human institution has its draw backs as well as its advantages. Men taken at hazard from the mass of citizens cannot be expected to be nice in their discrimination of the values of evidence, 1r skilful in disentangling the workings of their own minds and distinguishing between those conclusions which judgment, and those which prepossession or passion, dictate. There is comparatively little danger in leaving such a tribunal to decide on the culpability or innocence of a printed book or essay traced by clear evidence to its author; but there is great danger in leav ing such a tribunal to decide on the difficult and delicate question, whether the exact meaning of a speaker has been seized by those who heard him. The uncon scious biases of each juryman will hero infallibly come into play ; the alarmist will be swayed one way, the political sympathiser another ; the decision of the jury will depend to a considerable extent on the leanings of the parties composing it. The public, aware of this, will form an exaggerated estimate of the extent to which these leanings have influenced 1 the verdict. The verdict and the consequent sentence will not give satisfaction to the public mind. The accused, if condemned, will be an honoured m artyr in the eyes of many ; if acquitted, an escaped felon — a living witness of the inefficacy of the law—to many. It is a weighty ground for opposing the enactment of any law, that it shall thus be uncertain in its opera tion. These two reasons, we entertain little doubt, are really the reasons which have hitherto caused the law to remain as it at present is. They seem to us sufficient reasons for allowing it still to remain as it is—at least in so far as a distinction between printed and spoken publication of designs to intimidate or subvert the government, are concerned. To the sub stituting the term felony for treason, and imposing slighter punishment, in the case of printed exhor tations to forcible subversion or coercion of govern ment, we of course have no objection. To bringing spoken exhortations ander the same category, we object. No man can have had occasion to ad dress a public meeting without being aware how liable he is to " say more than he would infer." The most practised speakers are not safe from this tendency ; the less practised are of course in greater danger. No man can have listened to a public speaker and con versed with others about what he said without being aware of how difficult it is to catch with certainty the meaning of words which fall on the ear, and have their impression immediately effaced by those which succeed. We have argued this question on abstract principle —aswe would a mathematical problem—for only thus can a correct decision be come to. We cannot, how ever, overlook the fact—and it is one main ground of objection to the clause—that it is in form an abstrae , legal doctrine, but in reality a special measure of pre caution with reference to events now in progress. And it' PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. HOUSE OF COMMONS. CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL. Slimo:ore of 19 to 32 1 who voted again st a g ain going into commdtel as this WI. Blewitt, R. J. Grattan, IL Reynolds, J. Walmaley, Sir J. Callaghan, D. Greenr, J. Scholeftekl, Devereux, J. T. Meagher, T. Scully, F. Fagan, W. 0'01.1.'13, W. S. Sullivan, M. Crawford, 8. 100, K. M. O'Connell, J. Thompson, COL O'Connor, F. Gardner, R. Osborne, R. Thorniness, O. BEWDLEY WRIT. Ilnroarry of Sit to 80 who voted against the issuing of this writ, with out further inquiry into the alleged corrupt electioneering practices a ...—. ein the borougli. ' - Battle., M. T. Hoed, 81r A. O'Connor, Z. William, J. Blenard, E. G. Hutt, W. Pinney, W. Wilton, M. Clifford, H. M. Kershaw, J. Plowden, W.II.C.Wytm, Ilan. C. Cobden, R. Lacy, 11. C. Power, UT. Wpill, M. Cochrane, A. Lushingtan, C. 'lmel, A. Yorke, EL G. R. Drumlanda, Vit. Mucnamara, Maj.rtm, T. I. A. Duncutt. J. Meagher, T. &madam, G. TNT LIMI. Ewart, W. Martin, J. Sir li . Hammer, air J. Pagan, W. alonaell, W. •Tennent, IL J. flume, J. Gaabell, J. H. Mort i•, O. 'Mammon, CoL Greene, J. O'Connell, J. Thornley, T. Ike effVMS MAILS. T Waite for British North America, and the Bailed Halm will is mu up en the evening of the 13th ApriL The West India Mails, excluding Bermuda, Nassau, Havanna, Henanns, New Gesso, Vera Cras, mean and Porto Rico, and indelibly throe for Madeira, Jecmel, gens, Sante Martha, CORA% Nalallll, ` mule up of South America, end St. Juaa.cle- Niesenva, will he made up on the evening of the 17th ApriL The malls for Vigo, Oporto ? Lisbon, Madeira, Pali; end (Muskat wb bi made up on the morning of the 17th April. TM overland mails for Gibraltar, Malta , Greece, the lonia Islands, Egypt, Aden, Ceylon, India, }long-Kung, end China, via Southamp ton, will be made up oe the morning of the 211th ApriL The overland cloned nulby era Marseilles, to the Medlterrenesn, Egypt, Ades, Ceylon, India, Hong-ii•De, Be., will be nude up on the evening of the 24th April. The mails for New South Wales, Van Dieman's Lead, sad New Zealand will he made up ou the evening of the 30th April. The mails for the West Chant of Africa and Madeira will be made vip on the evening of the 30th April. The mane for the Brasile, the River Plate, Moats Video, Pernam buco. Bahia, Medeire, and Buenos Ayres, will be made up on the evening of the 4th May. NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS. The number of STAMPS issued by the authorities of the Stamp.otice, during 1847, to the DAILY NEWS was 3,447,009 This, we believe, is within eight per cent. of the number issued to the Morning Berate', Morning Chronicle, and Morning Post, ALL PUT TOOETILEIt. In addition to the above, issued to the DAILY NEWS, Morning Paper, there were issued for the Evening Edition , THE EXPRESS 778,714 Which wu more, we believe, than were issued either to the Globe or Standard, Evening Papers. TO CORRESPONDENTS. raM Istes44 W.' TM Lamas," Wades rents; ma, moat m Gem, 10. 11011•Vr1O•trOfft, T. o'clock o . Om M HIOU WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE. To. DAT3lO•lli.g. 13 sla peal 10; Afternoon. 53 min rut 10. To-Nonwer—Hol mug, M dn. put 11; Aftwoonn. 0 I.PO 0. LONDON, THURSDAY,APRIL 13. Tae House of COMMONS met yesterday at 12 o'clock, when, after the routine business of the day and some notices of motion had been disposed of, the order for again going into committee on the Crown and Government Security Bill was read, Mr. G. THOMPSON opposing the motion on the ground that the people a.; large were in ignorance of the nature of the measure, which was one of the most objectionable introduced in the present century. Mr. B. OSBORNE strongly protested against the bill, quoting a speech of Mr. Fox's (in reply to Mr. Purr), who said the power and influence of the crown was so great, that all the liberty that existed in this country was preserved only by freedom of speech, and the liberty of the press ; if either of these was given up, the only barrier they had against the annihilation of liberty would be completely destroyed. The hon. member concluded by calling upon his constituents to rally round those honourable men who were prepared to fling from power those professedly liberal ministers who had so disgracefully deserted their principles.— Mr. AGLIONBY urged going into committee, in order that the objectionable features of the bill might, if possible, be removed. Mr. F. O'CONNOR said he had never heard one single chartist raise his voice against the Queen or her crown. It was the conduct of the government itself, it was their apathy, if not hostility, towards the welfare of the working classes, which was calculated to excite disaffection. Mr. P. HOWARD urged the adoption of the amendment of Mr. HORSMAN, giving the court power to mitigate the penalty of trans portation to three years. Mr. REYNOLDS contended that by a clause in the bill a spy might be hired by a wicked and andester to go to a meeting and utter incendiaeasonable expressions, and the is not calculated to arrest or check the evil against which it is directed. It is meant to elevate the atro cious speeches of the Mrratems and MEAGHER...4 1 from the rank of misdemeanors to that of political offences. Now, their monomaniac disposition to fa miliarise the imaginations of the populace with acts of bloodshed and cruelty, and thereby to dull the na tural horror of them or superinduce a morbid appe tite for committing them, is more a social than a po litical crime. MrtatELL's lectures on preparing ex temporary instruments of cruelty would be quite es culpable, if intended to promote agrarian outrage, asthe yla, they are when levelled against the stability of govern ment. Their inevitable consequence is, to render men savage and bloodthirsty ; and they do their work by the means of constant ite ratio —of incessantly repeating the same images. Both these features of the crime are overlooked by the bilhich govern ment has introduced. Should it l w become law, MITCHELL would, under it, only stand on the same level with a FITZGERALD or an Emmen ; the latter were misguided, dangerous, but not brutalised and d , moralised men. Should it become law, one hasty unreflecting speech, in a moment of intense excite ment, might subject a man to the same responsibility as the Dublin professor of carnage and brutality, who lectures his scholars weekly on the arts of murder and anarchy. We object therefore most strenuously to the clause of the bill upon which we have been commenting, in so far as " open and advised" speaking is concerned, and hope that as Lord JOHN RUSSELL has an nounced that the operation of this provision is to be of limited duration he may be in duced to withdraw it altogether. This part . of the measure as it stands may be rendered subservient to political oppression, and it leaves untouched the offence against which it is more particularly levelled. We have sought to divest our remarks of passion ; we have avoided all appeals to popular sympathies; we would address ourselves to the judgment of ministers alone in begging them before they again bring in their bill, to withdraw a provision of so objectionable a character. We have avoided all reference to the circumstances in which the bill has been introduced, or to any inconsistency it may imply on the part of ministers : these considerations, not without weight in themselves, have been exhausted in the able speech r of Mr. OSBORNE. IF there were any guarantee, or could be any fair possibility of the repeal of the union between England and Ireland turning out a mere political revolutioi, a tran-ference of power from the parliamentary class of English politicians to the more capable and emi nent of the Irish themselves—if this could be achieved without any social anarchy, dispossession of the pro prietorial class, destruction and persecution of religion— a great many Englishmen would be most ready to waive whatever remains to this country of a trouble some and unprofitable ascendancy. But, unfortunately, it is too evident that was Ireland, abandoned to herself, especially in the present time, her upper sawn, her institutions, and her legislature could not but be at the mercy of the most ignorant, the most bigoted and the most destitute population in Europe. An Irishman of birth and educa tion, bconging to the morentent, declared in the House of Commons that the property of any landlord opposing his schemes should be confiscated. ROBESPIERRE never uttered anything so audacious ; nor would the Jacobin club of Paris, for the first three years of its stormy existence, have suffered such a threat. Mr. S. O'BRIEN, indeed, forms his categories and classifies his proscription lists. Landlords behaving in one way he will respect—land lords behaving in another he will reduce to beggary, and landlords behaving in some other way he, no doubt, will guillotine. But who is to guarantee the observance of Mr. S. O'BRIEN'S categories by the mob? The English power and army once withdrawn, and, in case of repeal, the QeEEN'S forces would be as little tolerated in the country as in case of separation ; there remains no source of power but in the mob, and no means of retaining power but by flattering it. The NiITCHELIS and the MEAGEEBS must reign. Let Englishmen be ever so disgusted, can they abandon to fiends like these that class of persons in Ireland, who from race, creed, habits, property, are looked on by the ultra-Irish as Englishmen ? Could her Majesty's government or a British parliament give up the settlers of Welling ton to be devoured by the New Zealand savages? Very little different from this is the question of immediate repeal. And we believe that if ever the English chartists could see clearly the inevitable consequence of repeal to men of English race and tongue, and to men of English creed, they would shrink in horror from aiding to give up their fellow country men to slaughter, and the great principles of religious and civil liberty to inevitable degradation and ex tinction. Gradual repeal is, however, a different thing; or at least, the gradual concession to the Irish, without revolution or social anarchy, of every boon and every act of justice, and of every sacrifice of pride, that repeal in its happiest achievement could produce. All these concessions Englishmen should be prepared to give, as fast and as completely as they can be safely given; and this, not only because the Irish are strong enough to conquer them, but because by refusing them, we perpetuate the present relations of the two countries, in which Ireland is a weakness and a drag upon the power and wealth and happiness of England. The feeling of Englishmen in general, that is, of the liberal English and of parliament, has been, that the present, whenever that present is considered, is an exceptional state of things, and that its difficulties are to be got over as best can be done, without too much concession. For, that bad as things are, still, now that the attention of the legislature has been turned to Ireland, its wisdom cannot fail to work due reforms, remove inveterate abuses, and lay the foundation for a new state of things in the future with which the Irish themselves must be contented. English men and politicians are, we fear, too sanguine in their hopes and too self-complacent in their schemes. They give themselves credit for more wisdom than they possess. And their policy to Ireland does not warrant such self-laudation. Let us consider the great acts of the English government and legislature with respect to Ireland these late years. These have been the poor law, and the relief during the famine, which grew out of the poor law. In both, England was most generous, most humane, moat well intentioned, and it employed its wisest heads to imagine, and to examine, and to execute. Yet what has been the result? The poor law, that great act ofjustice, and the relief measures, that monument of monster charity, have in their carrying into effect contri buted immensely to increase the alienation of all classes of the Irish from England, and inspired all with a disgust and a contempt for English rule. The lower classes received both with grudges and un thankfulness. The middle classes have made use of the sell-government, and local power given them by the Poor-law, to discredit the Poor-law itself, and to make the government that sent it odious. The upper classes, which it mulcted and coerced, have been of course its enemies. Previously, English rule, or the superseding of Irish by English authority was felt in Dublin, or by professional classes. But in the working of the poor law and of relief, there was not a court, nor a district, nor a square, that did not feel itself set aside and slighted by engineers and in spectors and whole hosts of foreign subaltern autho rities. Thus if the poor law was left to local guardians, these turned their power to defeat and discredit the law ; if they were super seded by poor-law pachas , grudg ensued, resistance, and disaffection. And parliament has been as unsuccessful in meddling with the Irish, as government. Thus, when a committee was asked to inquire into the working of the Irish poor law, it was instantly assumed in the house that it was but a trick of the Irish landlords to weaken or neutralise the law. The demand was rejected. And Lord MILTOWN, followed by other gentlemen, instantly re pudiated English colours, and took his seat in Con ciliation-hall. Let not the English parliament and government, therefore, lay the flattering unction to their souls, that because they have been well-intentioned to Ire land, they have been wise. And let both, in consi dering and discussing the question of repeal, admit that they have shown great ignorance of Ireland, and committed the greatest blunders in dealing with it. Repeal, indeed, we think impossible. The consequenses do not so much affright us for England's power as they make us shudder for Ireland's fate, and above all for the fate of certain things and classes in Ireland, that England cannot in honour and humanity abandon. Mr. Joint O'CoNNELL made an able and temperate speech on Tuesday. Did he always speak so, he would do his country more service in parliament. Lord Monrwrit's speech did honour to his heart and to his head, bat neither his Lordship nor the Secretuy for Ireland seemed empowered to make those pro. mists and declarations, which appear called for, and indeed indispensable, in the present state of Ireland. Or the conservative triumvirate to whom we yes. terday adverted, the Duke of WELLINGTON is the e only one whose consistency entitles him to speak decidedly. More modesty might be expected from neophytes like Lord BROUGHAM and the Times, • their denunciations of what, if it is sin, they ha ve ul themselves been guilty of. The complacent tone in which they talk of monster meetings and processions as illegal and a " nuisance," looks like the weakness of a great author who was said to " hate for arts which taught himself to rise." The JONE-ES and Northern Stars of 1848 have, after all, a strong family-likeness to the BROUGHAMS and Timeses of 1830-32. They are coarse copies, indeed, bearing much the same likeness to their originals, that the cuts in a certain class of cheap publications do to those f rom which they are pirated, or the publications of Mr. REYNOLDS to those of GEORGE SAND. The o was much more taste and tact in the diatribes of the ' Times than in those of its more recent copyists, but ' the question is one of law and morals, not of taste. The Times is (at least was on Tut oday last, for it is difficult to catch ere it change this " Cynthia of the minute") of opinion that if we are to be threatened with a repetition of monster meetings or processions, "it will be time to think of some cheaper, less troublesome, and more summary way of suppressing the nuisance," thus the law at present provides. Not so thought or spoke the Times in the merry month of May, in the year of grace 1832. During that month the whole of England was in a stsee of intense and angry ex citement. Political unions were organised in every town and village, and in active communication with each other : men talked of arming, men talked of refusing to pay taxes, and the Times cheered them on like a whip. per-in encouraging his staunch fox-hounds. From the 4th to the 24th of May , the Times kept threatening the House of Lords and the Court with popular (ego. initiation and physical force. All this may have been right, or it may have been wrong, but it is not decent in the journal which acted thus, when one branch of the legislature was actually awed into submission, to invoke coercive laws on the heads of those who may have the will, but have not the power, to emulate it. This is too palpable an avowal of the doctriae, that laws are cobwebs in which flies are caught, but which wasps break through. It is scarcely possible to convey to readers, who did not actively participate in the scenes of 1830-32, an idea of the exact nature and tendency of the leading articles in the Times at that period. Oar iioritegium will give as faint an idea of the ensemble of the articles imbedded among reports of public meet ings, the letters of "Radical," &c., &c., as a specimen of coral in the British Museum does of the glistening and variegated beds which adorn the depths of the ocean. Our specimens, however, will show that if the Times thundered as it did, and did no harm, we may be at oar ease with regard to the squibs and crackers now going off about oar shins. In the beginning of May, 1832, the Reform Bill (No. 2) got into the House of Lords. The Times opened its batteries up 's their lordships before they had an opportunity of showing their teeth. On the 4th of May it lectured them after this fashion : We have some reason to su-pect that the metropolitan clauses of the bill are those which the whole body of anti. national peers have doomed the foremost to destruction. U so wild a vote he passed, we once more warn the noble per. sons who may be guilty of it, that twelve hours will not Face elapsed before they will repent themselces in sackcloth and ashes. The spirit of the nation will brook no such unworthy proceeding. • • • The country will not endure a rejee tinn of the metropolitan, or of the 101. clause of this bill. The measures consequent upon a vote fee the rejection of them are already . at this moment organised throughout ths kingdom, and grievous will be the self-reproach of those who compel the people of England to put in force their roo tlet issu. This is pretty well for a beginning. The overture does not open pianissimo. The Lords are told that an organisation exists throughout the country, which will make them within twelve hours, "repent them selves in sackcloth and ashes," if they do not do as the Times bids them. On the ith of the month the warning was repeated, with more direct allusion to the numbers of the supporters of the Reform Bill. Will the nation bear to be duped or dragooned out of this idolised clause of the bill [the 101. clause] ? 1.10 noble led' hear anything of what is passing around them ? Do they know that such places as Edinburgh, and Glasgow, aid Leeds, and Manchester, and Birmingham (the population of which , mests this day) exist within the island ? And with proots before them of what the nation has r • esolved ox, will they set Great Britain at defiance ? • • the be forced upon us by these Go d s pe ed why then we cry ' Old England for ever! God speed the people, the constitution, and the right! " We maybe told that the wager of battle here alluded to is metaphorical. Be it so. The great meeting at Birmingham noticed in the above quota tion passed, among other resolutions, one which de clared that the people ought to provide themselves with arms. At the suggestion of Mr. SALT, the immense multitude assembled solemnly " d evoted" themselves, their wives, and children, to the cause of their country ; and one of the speakers declared with vast applause—" The people of IVolverharopton were convinced that if the Reform Bill should be re jected, some dreadful convulsion would take place, but they would be ready whenever the time came to stretch out their hands against their oppressors." Of the proceedings of this meeting, the Times, on the 9th of May, spoke in the follow in g suggestive and eulogistic strain : Monday will long be a memorable day in the annals of Birmingham and of the British parliament. On that day I was assembled in the great unrepresented mart of our iron trade a meeting of reformers the most magnificent for its numbers and strength, the most formidable front its 'mime and enthusiasm, the most impressive from its order, disci pline, and resolution, that ever was seen in England or the world. On that day this mighty host of 200,000 persons, ranged under trusty leaders and appropriate banners, ani mated with one spirit, breathing one hope and wish, assem bled to petition the 'louse of Lords to pass the Reform Bill in its integrity. • • • We shall not attempt to estimate the strength of these patriotic feelings which could bring such masses of people from such distances. We shall not advert to the speeches by which their enthusiasm tots kindled, or the in/mess - with which their opinions were expressed and their purposes formed. The topic might lead us to reflections which we would rather avoid mires sing, and which will suggest themselves to the minds of the reader without assistance. On the 12th of May the Times, which on the 4th had announced the existence of an organisation throughout the kingdom to overawe and coerce the House of Lords, and which, on the 9th, had spoken approvingly and encouragingly of a resolution to arm, passed by 200,000 men, intimated its approbation of a determination not to pay taxes: Birmingham refuses to pay taxes, Manchester refuse' to pay taxes, Westminster and London, there is reason to be lieve, will not pay taxes until the Refor • m Silt —the 'outgun nt - toted Retorts Bill—shall have missed. • The sentime is . verywhere ; the obligation to nonpaymert, except only of those rates by withholding which the poor might suffer,is, throughout the United Kingdom, felt by a large majority of in n to be the most sacred of political duties. It is generally believed that about the period of which we are speaking, the Times recommended bludgeons or brickbats as a means of making political converts. We believe that in this, injustice has been done to it. Mr. Coenetr, if we recollect right, twisted some unguarded expressions of the Tinies linto such a suggestion, but the journal itself, we be lieve, did not go beyond such expressions as occur ill I the following quotation from its leader of May 24. It must be confessed, however, that in this passage it sails close to the wind. Some attorney-generals might try to convert the words " more legitimate and effective powers" into a declaration that the use of paving stones was legitimate in a less degree. Those who posses' the franchise make it in 99 cases out of 100 their organ for expressing whatever opinion guides, or whatever political passion or prepossession moves them. They give their vote and interest cordially in favour of the cause and the champion which they mean to support. Yelling', Footings, filth, and paving.stones are th e weapons of at.' es whom the law has excluded from the exercise of mo re kyl mate and effective power. Now really, the Times, which in its uncalculating enthusiasm was carried each lengths in 1832, might have more sympathy with the unguarded language of its imitators in 1848. Of the reckless way in which the Times pointed oat particular individuals to popu lar odium, at a period when the passions of men were roused to excess, we have had no example in these latter days. It was after the meeting held at New castle, where one of the speakers startled his hearers and shocked the majority of them by reminding them that the annals of the French Revolution told how " • fairer head than that of ADELAIDE had rolled on the scaffold," that the Times published in a leading all ide the following piece of court gossip : There is a lady of very high rank who must be taught I salutary lassos. She may be bold as sa Amason sii be troublesome and imam ifi ciao from which owl folio' ~,b ar has she so eagerly_ pi " not despair 1" mill-be well if tho king can madam, but England wit without the unmutilated bi Indeed the ferocious Times continued day QUEEN, the FITZCLARR: members of the court, vi maid spirit of the g the nauseous and IRC BROUGHAM uniformly i scandal. We advert to these tl showing that the Times consistent in its determil which it believes to be! not for the purpose of gieal as, that because publish seditious and I others may do the mu n minding those whose shaken by the late alai merit organ, that men, talk and hear and rea which they are hearti' went has subsided. 1' rings of the Times did (once of popular feeli s uppressed, under prete of a newspaper, either kat, or they must gained at the cost of rections. Such things in the Times or in the cable from free discus! tares without pulling u They must be listened we can command, whiff by the law if they pr NEWS F PARIS, Vf been Th little eom result no, Ministry lec comTpulsion sreGenie ordering e om n er i t n pfb g ned r : p i la t s uhvohc a ljaef t i a esce a a t i threm ct for toeathihilnici;l, o n ton rnment m to ace the state is nut yet members of the gm agreement upon it. tiers, where the draft most probably take a to the railway comps The 200,000 Natio mobilised as . a prate actual army there a itiado fhltoth fro ntiers . could, mpu con n ectedut hb k ::B ericn uee Tuileries, museum and decides aaa,tr teal h innddd:be aarrg hospital for civil inc Ns" APRIL lt. —Nee p i n rac.„77n: Do . A., 61 ; 16 —• N-Oes Re 43; ' Bank Shama ac.ioaa Paris u Botha and Harr!, 165; bourg and Hide, 75; Can —.; Bordeaux, 325 ; Nor' The Madrid mai Duke and Duchess the Spanish capital a royal villa (fiat Madrid. All fears ( sided, although gove cautionary Measures MADRID, A l PRIL 8. IN piper ; re', Yerdmand, 184 rseh. 106 I After Bourse: Threes, 22, Wo have dates the 6th. The Austrian foi line of the Oglio ai on that of the Mine published by the Sardinian journals, the enemy was not represented. Aco cation was still ix Treat by the east Mantua, the fortr several times, in I people, does not s by the Austrians. It formed the es lions at the dept occupied from th Mincio, running c the lake. The ccr at Verona, and t Peschieca. Charles Albert 1 day, to Bozzolo, ei vices, advancing u trims at Mantua. Manua. One of with the Roman a 'lacing by the lel Oa the night of bad occupied Mor places in advance ca the road leadin bona, and rctreate to., and the othi they were closely montese troops. General Bits v with the main 1 mend, at Monte up between this sal Trotti, at Cs CIO the road to Bi Along the line everywhere capit and Comacchto evacuated, arms Those of Bonder Pontifical troop telid in the e Zucciti occupitd frontier. The important was seized by su had been streng' by i t .e h t e te A r s u at ra from in that large deer trians. An enti !neat Albert," I haying given hi dinner, surrend, Charles Albert, The inhabits pared for every and cannons tal is now in mini voured to open have been and governs. P.S. I have j have retired to that river now !llsorgents. A Intover the rit The estimate Posed to them • Ibe Property of At tinder seqd A NEw e relate% an T er nrazda evenq group in Trills how that '" to fight. A leiat partite "Im!e the itn ,L Limey ji,; p ; hhoors hra of pl uc k „„ &log the to mat aud, son, ~~ t , M