The Sun. — London, England, 1848-04-15 00:00:00

~. 11 interested in endeavouring to such an evil —(Hear, hear.) Obe great atiae- ne t l if,this evil was that it was hardly possible to corima stsnrcs in that House because they would elasheuitb= privileges of the other House. He could not esugge4.se!remedy in their Lordships House, bur he sincerely trusted that the House of Commons would relax their prieile?ges, and that the ma tter would be taken into - consideration by the Committee who were appointed otahe subject of the pri vileges of the other House. Although he thought it de• airable that these restraints should be removed from their Lordships' original measures, he did not wish to see mea sures generally originated in their Lordships' House, for he considered their duty was "'rather to control the hasty legislation of the other, the popular branch of the Legis• lature; and he had observed that Bills originated in their Lordships' House were not often very favourably re ceived in the other House of Parliament. Now, to pre vent the drought in the beginning and the deluge at the end of the session, it would be necessary to propose a measure which should receive the sanction of Parliament. He might mention, in passing, that there was no induce. ment to the younger Members of their Lordships' House to attend, because their Lordships had so little business to do; and they, therefore, were not so well skilled in mat ters of legislation as th ey otherwise would be,—(gear.) The remedy which he proposed was, to grant to that House, and the other House of Parliament, by an Act the power, if they should so think fit, upon the receipt of any Bill passed by the other House of Parliament, and previous to the reference of that Bill to a Committee, to adjourn the consideration of the measure from a period of the session at which it could not be deliberately taken into consideration to an early day to be named in the next session of Parliament, and that the House should be at liberty to proceed with the 8i. 1 .1 as if it had been then sent from the other House of Parliament.— (Hear, hear.) Such a measure, 'Lie thought, would se cure employment at the commencement of the session, and at its close their Lordships would not have the painful alternative cast upon them of passing measures without due consideration, or rejecting them for want of time to consider them properly,—( Hear, hear.) And with regard to such measures, so postponed, he thought it would be desirable that their Lordships should have the power to refer them to some competent legal ad viser to ascertain the bearing that one clause might have on another—(Hear, hear)—and who should present to their Lordships, at the commencement of the session, a legal report upon every "Hill.—(hear, hear.) By such means he believed their legislation would be diminished in amount and impre jee d i n quality.—(Hear, hear.) He had endeavoured to suggest to his own mind the objec tions which m ; . f ght be urged against such a measure, and it would be said, no doubt, that it was an innovation. He was not alarmed, however, at the term " innovation;" and n uoubt, to a certain technical extent, it would be 11n . infraction of the prerogative of the Crown, as the 'crown had the power of stopping a measure by proro gation; but be could not believe that any Governm. nt would advise the Crown to prorocue Parliament fur the purpose of defeating a measure which had already passed the House of Commons. Such a case certainly might arise; but the prerogative would not necessarily be inter fered with, as the Crown would still have the power, by a short prorogation, of putting a stop to the Bill after it had passed this House. He was only anxious to give their Lordships the power, on receiving an dea importantrto n Bill late in the session, of postponing its consideration till early in the next session. He had endeavouredstto ascertain whether the privileges of the House o Com mons would stand in the way of the course proposed. taxes, As he did nut mean it to apply to Bills for levy in g it could not be objected to on that ground. Thanking their Lordships for their attention, he would lay on the table the Bill he had prepared, and, if their Lordship.' thought fit to give it a first reading, he would let it stand over till after Easter, convinced that it would apply a remedy to a great practical evil.—(Hear.) The Marquis of LANSDOW NE was understood to say that he could not accede to the first reeling of the Bill without thanking the Noble Lord for the attention he had given to a subject, the evil of which had been felt by so many Noble Lords session after session, and which in many cases had completely impeded important measures. The first reading of this Bill had his most entire concurrence.—(Hear.) Lord BROUGHAM also thanked the Noble Lord (Stanley) for the introduction of this Bill. The subject be thought had escaped the Noble Lord—how far an Act of Parliament was required for the purpose. Sup pose a Bill came up from the other House in July; this House had a right to drop it, and in the beginning of the next session take up the very same Bill and pass it through all its stages. The only difference from the plan proposed was, that the Bill must again be sent to the other House, which, however, had the power of passing it immediately. It should be remembered that the three readings and the Committee on a Bill were not required by any Act of Parliament; each House might pass a Bill at one sitting if they thought fit to suspend their standing orders. There was nothing either in Acts of Parliament or common law to prevent this. Bills might be passed at once or in a lump, as bad been done by the former National Assembly of France, which once passed thirty or forty most im portant measures in a single night. But for the sake of avoiding rash and blundering legislation, some further alteration in the mode of conducting the business of the Houses, was absolutely necessary. He thought the greatest possible improvement would be the estab lishment of a board of learned and practical men, to re vise the drafts of all Bills, watch their progress through the Houses, note the alterations made, compare the Bills with former Acta and with themselves to see that the same words were not used in different senses, so that the Acts might not contradict themselves and each other. At present, the Learned Judges were called on to put a construction on obscure passages, to reconcile contradic tions, and to elicit meaning out of absurdity —a task which might well move compassion for these learned personages, and sympathy for the unendurable labours they underwent in listening to subtle and ingenious eiforts perversely applied to the words of the law.— ( [ear, hear.) Thus was the public time squandered by ~ ee hour and the day, and there was a great chance of erroneous decisions taking place. Such being the case, a legislator could net apply himself to a more honour able and important task than that of improving the construction of our Acts of Parliament. He was compelled to observe that there was not now the same veneration entertained for this House of Parliament— he would not say for the other—which existed twenty of thirty years age. This was ascribable, in some de. gree, to the total incapacity under which this House was placed during the first two or three months of the ses sion, to apply itself to any useful purpose of legislation. The evil was assuredly grievous, inasmuch as this House could not be said to have any agency in law making ; for, when the crowd of Bills came up at the end of the session, the House had only the option of either passing them as they stood or throwing them out altogether. L(Srd REDESDALE would not object to the first reading of the Bill, but thought it involved so serious an alteration of the law that it demanded very mature con sideration. A measure might be passed by one House and suspended in the other for consideration next ses sion, when it was passed without opposition, and became the law of the land—whatever might be the altered opinion towards it in the House in which it had origi nated. This waa sufficient to show that the subject was one which demanded very grave consideration. The Duke of RICHMOND saw no difficulty in car rying out the principle of the Bill, which he thought very desirable. He believed the Noble Lord who bad last spoken was needlessly alarmed as to the effect of the Bill. The Bill was then read a first time . The House adjourned at Seven o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 14. --..............__ CROWN AND GOVERNNIENT SECURITY BILL. Edition of (Continued from our Afternoon yesterday ) Mr. OSBORNE said, as there amongst the Learned Members of the a great difference constituted the offence of treason, he wanted Hue as to what the people were to ascertain how to act when to know how the disagreed? The Act was a retrogreosive on doctors really was too bad for the Government to coin® It the House of Commons in the nineteenth century, ° down to every country in the world was making rapid progress w h en to ask for powers to render " open and advised og p ress ' in.'" a felony.—(Hear. hear.) Let the s-eak. n Gove rn ment bear in mind that a similar Bill to the one now before the House caused a split in the strong Government of 1792.—( Hear, h ear.) The Hon. Gentleman had made some allusion to a state ment he supposed he had made with respect to the Duke of Wellington. If that Noble Duke was a member of the Cabinet, he should speak of it with respect. He had called the Government " an old woman —it was an " old woman's " Cabinet in his opinion ; but it was for the House to judge whether t he old woman was the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the President of the Board of-Trade, or any other member of the Government.—(Laughter.) Sir DE L.:EVANS supported the motion for goines into Committee on the Bill; at the same time, he wished to know from the legal authorities in the House whether or not the law as it stood was sufficient to enable now the Governmentol,3etct4 to put down seditious speaking. He sp et a t i rig l?the introduction of the new principle of obi,,ction to to the legislature of the country. He had no vernment it ,nee extraordinary powers to the Go vv reAessed f,f s i ,fß e T *o'vn tbat they were not already shnwrr, he hol".1,11)""s, Unless such necesity ndreent in c ora ! - feel it his da n o nly f,,, a ~c , ,r ood r0i tt „ .1 ,. ,,,i duty to move after the c . • • oti , i 4, ng the severe punishment uusslon o f ' e"mmitte • • d within a month Mr. SUAR A As_ th e . first. opposition to the . Bili - --MV ° lt b cordially approved of wer e a i .. , t . said, that if the it had been productiv s . tba () t f c 'PPo c itT( U ) 1 One' he he h most much as several rniti g .• n - ; " c n , ide'r 1, 1 . -- - teought Bill had been obtained -ati t " - 6i the' a ,;,Pl3cl, inas good proposition, enr ,,id • Ie thought it 4 :, - ,V,Y, of the existed upon the sutijecterg the great cliff (.. .'"' o a very in the House shouldlte o ftreason that l"ren" Which a I th laws" order to define clearly s e n t wha t °P stairs to a c,„ l "rs and until they had decidedltu treason and sedi na tion tt" i ther progress of the Bill sholindnbethe question the wanf Sir W. CLAY thought that theri!ltarded. fur_ placed in the same category, an d • in as it now stood punishment upon crimes of a very inflicted the SUM ) and criminality .—(Hear, hear.) yTdiheftr'erent character difference between words spoken and , w as a, great the heat of debate and an article excited in prepared by a person, and afterwarddebberately s : print e d th e and circulated, for the purpose of exc people to provide themselves with arms, and rally into the details of the mode of using procuringandentering them. Both reason and experience sho we d that , the tc, wiser cour se f or a G o vernment to a d o p t be enient towards political offences. There was nOts to a al in Europe where such language as had recently been aPi y teed in this country wou ld have been telerated f aoment, and what was the re s ult? all those o t h er o or a fad fallen, while England alone remained calm and erene amid. the storm. He called upon his Noble THE Friend to reconsider that portion of the Bill. It was, however, moat unfair to call the Bill a gagging Bill, or coercion Bill, or a Bill or pains and penalties, or to throw anything like aspersions upon her Masjesty's Government. The measure was one of a mitigatory character in all its phases, except in that portion which did not harmonize with the constitutional character and institutions of the country. Mr. MUNTZ was of opinion that a large portion of the people of this country considered this to be nothing more nor less than a gagging Bill. After the differ ences of opinion which prevailed among members of the legal profession as to the effect of this measure, it was hardly to be supposed that simple-minded laymen like himself and other Hon. Members should be able to un derstand its effects. A great deal had been said about Mr. Fox and his opinions. The people of this country were of the opinion that the Foxites had forgotten all the principles and opinions of Mr. Fox. Now what had this Government done for the country? Their first measure was an Irish coercion Bill, their second the appointment of a one-sided Committee to inquire into the distress of the country, and their third and last was the present gagging Bill. He was most decidedly in favour of assimilating the law of treason between the two countries, but he warned the Government that if they passed the Bill in its present shape, they would not long continue to hold the reins of Government. If this Bill had been in force from the year 1832 and up to the present time, he should have been, with the very best intentions, transported as a common felon. He certainly never would give his support to any clause which would give power to a Go vernment to transport any person for speaking his mind openly and honestly, upon the evidence of persons who could easily be bribed, and whose testimony might be i bought or purchased, if they would only pay them well enough. There was great distress in the country , and it was his most decided opinion that where there were persons able and willing to work, and were tof the notable to obtain it, it was the fault of the Government o country, e and causeif o t h f e t present t r G e e o e v , e t r b n e n i s e o n o t o e c r o u t b l d e y n r o e t t i d r di cover from the position they occupied the better it would be tor themselves and the country. Mr. H. GRAT LAN did not believe that if the present Bill were passed it would have the effect of giving any greater security to the Crown and Government than was now afforded by the existing laws. He was sure that this measure would fail, but if it did not, he was cer tain it would have the effect of revolutionizing Ireland against England. The Irish were not, he was happy to say, traitors or rebels, but they were agitators for the purpose of improving their condition.—(Hear, hear.) What was that condition ? why, starvation and misery.. He believed the law, as it at present existed, was quite. strong enough to secure peace and good order, and he could not see any necessity for so stringent a measure as the present Bill. He thought that the Irish people had great cause to complain of the way in which they , had been treated; everything that had been done b) the Government was done after an English fashion: Englishmen had been preferred for every appointment; in Ireland, and Irishmen overlooked.—(Hear, hear 4 Such being the case it was useless to attempt to unite Eng-. -lishmen and Irishmen as long as they were severed by the. law and the constitution.—(Hear, bear.) He recollected ownel Marquisl w u h p i upon fo o lcv n c e ae sl o li eo c s c nl a e yh i . o e n wuhs h ei, a nd vsing t an i nterview memorableo fwwlirtoehridastnh—de, Lord-Lieutenant hes e " The system in Ireland must be changed, or the time will come when Ireland must be governed either by the military or the mob."—(Hear.) He trusted the time was far distant when such an event would take place. Mr. MOWATT wished to know from the Attorney- General whether it was the intention of the Government to retain the 36th of George 111., so far as related to that part of it relating to the compassing the life of the Sovereign, which required the evidence of an overt act ; and whether they intended also to retain that part of the 57th of George 111. which made it high treason to imagine or compass the death of the Sovereign which did not require the proof of an overt act ? The ATTORNEY GENERAL said it was proposed by the Act to mitigate the punishment of high treason, and to preserve the enactment that had been referred to. There was no intention by the Act to jeopardise the liberty of the subject. Mr. WAKLEY thought this Bill was a most atrocious libel upon the people of England He could not see how the Government could, after the people had acted as they had done within the last few days, endeavour to shorten their liberties by the Bill. He warned the Government from trusting the support they got on the Measure from the other side of the House.—(Hear.) They might say what they pleased, but if ever there was a gagging Bill, this was one. Out of doors the middle classes were astonished at the acts of what was called a Liberal Government. The Government were adopt ing harsher measures than ever were adopted in the worst of times. If these things were persisted in, it would be the Government that was undermining the constitution of the country, and not those who were asking for reform. It was proposed by this Bill to punish the people of England and Scotland for the sufferings of Ireland.—(Hear.) If a Tory Government were to adopt the course of the present Ministers it would not be tolerated for a moment by the people, and it was only tolerated now because the present Government had come into power under false colours. He trusted that Honourable Members would not allow the objection able words in this clause to be continued in it, for although they might be in a minority on that point, there was a course warranted by the forms of the House which would enable them to compel Members to allow the words to be expunged.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Government, ere it was too late, would con sent to the erasure of the objectionable words in the clause; if they did not, he would offer every opposition in his power to the Bill, let that opposition be designated however it might.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. AGLIONBY appealed to the Government whether, after the discussion that had taken place and the opinions that had been expressed against them, they would still persevere in retaining these words in the The House then divided, when there appeared— For going into Committeee Against it Majority for going into Committee —254 The House then went int* Committee. Mr. HUME wished to know whether Government had any objection to adjourn for an hour.—(No, no.) Sir G. GREY said, the Hon. Member for Nottingham having given up his motion, he proposed that the House should sit on till they got through this Bill.—(Cheers.) On the question that " open and advised speaking" stand part of the Bill, Mr. MOWATT rose to oppose it. He said he had no sympathy with the fools and madmen who spouted sedition either in Dublin or at the so-called National Convention, but he did not think that their insane ravings were any justification for the passing of such a clause as this.—(Hear, hear.) H e admitted, with the Noble Lord who introduced this Bill, that they lived in extraordinary times, but he could see nothing in them to justify this retrograde policy.--(Hear, hear.) In 1792, ' when the French Revolution had had the effect of almost overturning the institutions of the country, and when the life of the Sovereign was openly threatened, Mr. Pitt introduced a similar clause, but Parliament even then refused to pass it.—(Hear, hear.) Wny, then, should they at this advanced period ce enlightenment attempt to inflict upon the public such a measure? The law as it at present stood was amply sufficient to meet all cases, and he for one never would consent to the creation of this new offence.—(Hear.) He thought the Government was perfectly justified in pressing this Bill in order to put a stop to the seditious proceedings of certain persons in Ireland. He objected to the clause before the House, because it merely had reference to the deposition of the title of the Queen, and not, to the regal state and dignity of the Crown. Why, after this Act, it a man, at a public meeting or at his own dinner-table, stated that he thought the time had arrived when the union with the sister country should be put an end to, and that consequently the Queen should no longer reign over it, he would render himself liable to punishment for felony. The Government might depend upon it that so soon as the reaction of public opinion set in upon this question, the) would most grievously repent their indecent hurry in Pressing forward this measure. The two main consti violateth tau:a the nts of th e B r i tish Constitution were freedom of speech f a r , e 2 e d f o u m n d a t' e theprinciples press, would t o show to the Ho • use . the dan g erous effect which this 13 111 would h ave in of th e people in f exetie; the sympathies of one portion resseadviso' favour of those who would be most grievously oppressed hoped th at the Government would not press forward the The Marquis of GRANBY to be a wide distinction kept thought that there ought should sit down and advisedlytlp between the person who person who in the excitemer.owf rite sedition, and the make utie of expressioes tendine• to Public speaking might It was also to be borne in mindthe came result. % vast power which eloq uence h ad over the'h:tumwas the He thought for the reasons h e h ad stated thatan mind. necessary that the words " op en an d advised speaki it was should remain part of the clau se . Whi le he et- ng" stated that he regretted that Ministers should not hay • econtinuedth e i r confidence in the loyalty of the people, instead of rely ing it on their forbearance in bringing forward the pre sent measure.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. CLAY agreed in the general provisions of the Bill because he thought a measure like it was required for the and safetycf the country; but he never could con sentpence of the words in the third clause of open to the retaining speaking." He did not think it • f open and advised • h felony two offences that wise weretotally to brand wit different, that of writing and speaking. He could not believe that it was wise orjudicious in them to leer© a hole in the law f or a courtof law to fill up, and he ec tionable words in the therefore thought t hese ojV Clause ought to In his opinion, be struck o ut. impossible for be utterly however, it would a court of law or a jury to decide whether words premeditated, and every spoken had previously been a clause friend of humanity was called upon to oppose injustice. doubt and which was calculated to lead to much iie hoped Government would not content themselves R with the precautionar power proposed to be given . _ the m by this clause, but, for God's sake, that they would Werewhichncalculated to remove the discontent which prevailed i amongst the working 'this country.—(Hear.) 1 Mx. ele vArT claws of necessity for ref really t i did not think there was any should thereforep,al,n." the objectionable words, and he amendment for th'etit of justice to the people, support the ) gest that the e t ause rex pulsion.—alear.) He would sug- . of the words ~ putilischould be amended by the insertion not be prosecuted foraPe4keing and that a man should uttered, unless he had r- sentiments he might have He objected to the punishmentrather see imprisonment in Government to expunge tiseeise* ment. tie recommended and advised." By doing _o3eetionable words " open a they would do an act SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 15, 1848. which would prove satisfactory to a great number of their fripporters. Mr. AGLIONBY also objected to the words in the clause, and as one who had supported every stage of the Bill, he recommended the Government to expunge them. He intended in Committee, however, to move, should the omission of these words be agreed to, the insertion after the words " be guilty of misdemeanour," of, " and be liable to be committed to prison, and there to- be kept without bail and mainprise until delivered in due course of law ; and any per son wile, shall be convicted of that offence .shall upon being convicted by the Court before which siren j person shall be tried be liable to be im prisoned with or without hard labour for any time not exceeding ( ) years." He thought that that amend ment would meet with the almost unanimous support of the House. Mr. BAINES was happy to see that some modifica tions had been introduced into the Bill. It was originally proposed as a permanent measure, and no degrees of punishment were intro duced into it, so that the person who should be convicted of open and advised speaking must, under the Bill, be liable to the great punishment of transportation. The period of the duration of the Bill had been limited to a comparatively short period, and the amount of punt ottnent considerably mitigated. He could not adopt even as a temporary measure the clause in its present shape, because the temporary measure of to-day might be the temporary measure of a t welvementh hence. He was not to be told that there were precedents for the measure in the statute book or the State Trials; that would be no ground with him for the adoption of such a measure as r u a am n n sd t A , a n c Ic t oe os h k e n gm underu a s t t thislook e h b t e oi f t o r t e hwea h s e t c mb o re n o s u e ga n hn t t e d d f to ()t rh we such ardc the time and the circumstances, he did not see any thing to justify such a clause as the one now under discussion. He thought that all the statutes in existence were evident proof of the injustice of such a clause. There was the authority of Mr. Pitt, Lord Granvi.le, and Lord Eldon, against placing open and advised speak ing upon the same footing as writing.—(Hear.) Hon. Members one after the other bad expressed their inability to understand this clause, and he would venture to say that the most practised lawyer in West minster-hall would not understand it till he had read it over most carefully three or four times.— (Hear, hear.) West it not, therefore, highly desirable that the clause by which it was proposed to establish an offence that had never before existed should be rendered as intelligible as possible?— (Hear, hear.) Words of themselves had never till now been taken as sufficient evidence of a compassing or imagining the death of the Sovereign, and looking at ' the severity of the punishment with which it was proposed to visit this new offence, namely, trans portation for life, he thought some further time ought to be allowed fur consideration before the clause was agreed to. Let the Commit tee remember the stigma that attached to the name of a convicted felon ; not only, how ever, was the name of a convicted felon stig matised, but his goods and chattels were for feited, and he was decidedly of opinion that the House would be acting most unjustly and most eneonstitutionally if it. inflicted the severe punishment ,f transportation for life upon the almost harmless iffence of " open and advised speaking."—(Hear.) Believing that they would violate a principle of the constitution of England by adopting the clause a s it at present stood, he should support the striking out of the clause the words " open and ad vised speaking." Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said he had arrived at a conclusion painful to himself, inasmuch as it placed him in the position of differing from friends whose opinion he greatly respected, namely, that it was the imperative duty of the Committee to retain the words in question. —(Hear, hear.) He had not come to that conclusion under the influence of any panic or dread caused by the emergency of the times, but he supported the retention of the words in the clause because he believed them to be necessary and just. The experience he bad had in the outbreaks in Monmouth and Staffordshire had led him to the opinion that a very different and unequal measure of justice was meted out to agitators and to their dupes. —(Hear, hear.) When he called those events to mind he could not but remember that, while the punishment of felons was inflicted upon the perpetrators of those outrages, the men who had caused and incited the whole of them escaped with the punishment of mis demeanants.—(hear, hear.) From the experience he had collected in those scenes of the effects of inflammatory harangues, he could not but arrive at the conclusion that words in writing were not half so mischievous as words that were spoken. He who wrote appealed to those capable of reading; and not to men congregated in masses, where a spirit of frantic enthusiasm might spread from eye to eye and from heart to heart, but to individuals alone; while he who spoke, seizing the pre cise moment when treasonable excitement would be most effective, who could paint scenes of sorrow and privation, who understood how to play upon the nerves of agony, and at the proper instant to instil into minds worked up to vehement excitement the principles he wished to convey, wielded a far more formidable and dangerous power against the public peace.—(Hear, hear.) When he was told by friends whose opinions he greatly esteemed that freedom of discussion was in danger, when words spoken with the deliberate purpose of deposing the Sovereign, or levying war against her, were made evidence of felony, he asked those gentlemen if they had forgotten that other safeguard of the consti tion which was attacked in the very same paragraph— the liberty or the press? For it was enacted that who soever printed and published such words would be guilty of the same offence. He thought that his Hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, whose writings and speeches he had always regarded with the highest admiration, had been misled into confounding two things essentially dis • tinct. There was no relation between the speculations of the philosopher reasoning in the abstract or viewing things in the distance, and the treasonable language of a lied and corrupt heart, any more than there was analogy between the most wreched productions of slander or obscenity and the noblest productions of genius, because they each alike happened to be published to the world through the same medium—the printing machine.— (Hear, hear.) But it was said that words were not to be taken as statutable evidence of an offence, because they were liable to be misinterpreted or misreported ; but, if that were so, how was it that so many persons had been convicted of murder upon words alone ? Al though loose words were not overt acts of high treason, would anybody deliberately contend, for example, if one person had been heard instructing another how be might use a gun to take the life of another—he might say her Majesty, for an example—that, although no such act might afterwards take place, the words were not an overt act of treason ? Would that be evidence of words which were merely those of violent discussion or intemperate language, or of words which were those of incitement and counsel ? What he feared was the effect of the spoken words of agitators upon the minds of the ignorant and the starving—men knowing nothing, perhaps, of the Charter or any political subject, but who might be stimulated to acts of violence and outrage. Why, of the persons tried at Stafford there were few who had any notion of a political principle, and of the deluded thousands who followed Frost in the dead of the night not one in' twenty knew anything about the six points of the Charter. They had dim notions about the management of the poor in workhouses, or about larger wages for labour, or of some of the dazzling social errors which had been preached abroad, but they were destitute of political knowledge, political principle, or political hope. Where the greater guilt was, there the shame and punishment should fall.—(Hear, hear.) It was because he thought that equal justice would be done by making this evidence tell against the inciter, which so often had convicted the deluded perpetrator, that he was desirous of seeing these words retained in their full force in the Bill. lie was not one of those who were stricken by panic at the events which were taking place around. If the great experiments now trying on the continent should fail in re-establishing peace and order, still he felt assured that the observation of them would only tend to endear still further to the people of this country the laws, the Church, and the Throne. Mr. MOORE said he should opposed this measure, not because it was to impose upon Ireland a provision of English law, but because under that pretence it armed the Executive with a new and terrible power over the expression of opinion in this country. The programme drawn by the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary in introducing this measure had been absolutely full of alurement and attraction. The Bill, he had said, was only to assimilate the law between England and Ireland, and that, in that kind feeling which the Legislature had always evinced towards the Irish people, it was intended in applying the law to them, that it shout! be shorn of its severity, and that thus the English people also would reap the benefit of this most merciful act. Such had been the profession of the Government, but the debate bad shown the reality of the case to be the very reverse. So far from this Bill being a diminution of the stringency of the existing law, it appeared that because the edge of the weapon was too fine, delicate, and razor-like to hew at some of those rough blocks of offence affected by the Bill, it was to be ground down so as to make it properly applicable to them. Thus a blow was aimed at the liberties of the whole empire under the pretence of striking at Irish crime. As to the ex planations that had been given, he could only say that, after Gentlemen, he was rlistnng tothmeorsetaatet a lossments t ° o ffinp nd both f c adoz r e e n he Learne t d h what the law actually was, and what it was proposed to make it, than he had been before he had heard a word they had utter , el (Hear, hear.) He begged to ask the Ilolvvoheinrcutttiiravivecebtrls:omafn:dtdree.Lsroerlanolnedy Attorney-General whether he meant to assert that ea a 1 words and modes of expression, what ground was it proposed by Mr. Pitt, by the present Act, would be under the old law? If not, on that, when such an enactment was was opposed by the old Oppo sition, and withdrawn by Mr. Pitt? if they were not indictable under twheoldlat thisw, :nd did b ecome f e l ony b y re s i e n n t e t r i ß e i r l e l , with the right g n t of free ew law o ffelony woolrdds law, were then overt h the sic authoriti es w t h h e p i c h d as no treason a discus sion? l u f ndr s e uch the which had been hitherto look e d to with respectts of hi g h totally mistaken, and the Hon. and Learned Memberw were Reading bad revealed a new discovery. The Right Hon. Baronet who opened the debete, in referring to a speech of the Hon. Member for Nottingham, showed that there were distinctions which only persona learned in the law could comprehend, and was it not terrible to think that guilty men, who knee , the law, might escape a punish relent which ;the ignorant, but less guilty, might incur ? They were in the habit of considering themselves an en lightened, and liberal , and reformed Parliament. H e wo uld read what an unenlightened and uninformed Par liament held at the at t h e close of one of the most arbi trary reigns in our history, had sa id—the Parliament held at the beginning of the reign of Queen Mary. In repealing one of the arbitrary enactments of a preced ing, the stet. I Mary, seas. 1, c a p . 1 , said, "Forasmuch as the state of every King, rules, and governor of any more assured by the love mid favour of the subject , mrnonalts,,standeth and consisteth realm, dominion, or co toward their sovereign7rttl-eovernor, than in the dread and fear Of laws made with rigorous pains and extreme punishment fur not obeying of their sovereign ruler and governor ; and laws also justly made for the preservation of the commonweal, without extreme punishment or great penalty, are more often for the most part obeyed and kept than laws and statutes so made, whereby not only the ignorant and rude, unlearned people, but also learsed and expert people, minding honesty, are often and many times trapped and snared, yea, many times for words only, without other fact or deed done or perpetrated." He called upon those gen tlemen who were in the habit of speaking, and properly so, of the wisdom of our ancestors, to take care that they did not now pass a law which, in the time of Henry VIII., was thought oppressive, which might trample down the right of free discussion, and choke the voice of the people. Mr. OSWALD wished to express his sincere and heartfelt regret that the Government had brought in this Bill without first considering what was the smallest amount of penalty that could repress the crime. He re gretted that they did not take the lowest amount of pe nalty, and he regretted still more that they did not re solve that the measure should be a permaneneone. Mr. M. MILNES said it must be remembered that it was possible that we might not hereafter have a Minister at the head of the Government so liberal as we now had, and it would be very easy for any Minister to say, when called upon to abandon his power, that it had been in troduced by a liberal predecessor, supported by a large majority of the House of Commons, and he thought it necessary to retain it. He had, therefore, made up his mind that he was bound to oppose the introduction of those words into the clause, assuring her Majesty's Government that he did so without any feeling of dis respect towards them, or any sympathy with the views of some Hon. Friends of his, who regarded the Bill, in his opinion, with too much and unnecessary asperity. Care should be taken, whenever the power of political prosecution was extended, that it should be so extended as not to be liable to be abused. In this country we had gone on without such a law through times most perilous to the peace of society, to the majesty of the Crown, and to the dignity of that House; and a case sufficiently exceptional had not been made out to induce him to give these powers, when our ancestors, for so many generations, had done without them. The very case which the Hon. and Learned Member for Reading ( Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) had dressed up with so much poetical imagery, in order to prove the dangerous and fatal effects which such acts produced in the country, had been met and punished by the existing law; it was, therefore, most illogical to deduce from such a case an argument that the present Bill was ne cessary. He warned Ministers against pursuing a course which, at this critical moment, might cause Europe to conceive that we entertained the slightest doubt as to the stability of the constitution. Mr. COCHRANE expressed his approbation of the recent conduct of Ministers, particularly with reference to the precautions taken on Monday for the preservation of the peace of the metropolis. The measure before the Committee also met his approval; but he regretted that Ministers had consented to limit the enactment respect ing open and advised speaking to two years; for his part, he could not understand how that which was sedi tion in 1848 should not be equally so in 1850. He had heard language uttered in that House within the last fortnight which astonished him; and it appeared to him surprising that the Member who made use of that lan guage should have been suffered to sit in the House afterwards. The Honourable Member for Limerick had uttered language in that House which he (Mr. Cochrane) did not hesitate to say was downright sedition and trea son. The Honourable Member had said that he was prepared to advise his friends to take up arms against the monarchy. Mr. J. O'CONNELL rose to order. The Honourable Member for Limerick ought not to be attacked in his absence. Besides, he had not advised any one to take up arms against the Government. The CHAIRMAN declared that the Hon. Member (Mr. Cochrane) was not out of order. Mr. COCHRANE said that he would be sorry to misrepresent what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Limerick. He certainly understood him to say that he was prepared to recommend his fellow-citizens to take up arms.—(No.) Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the Hon. Member was out of order when he referred to what had passed in a previous debate. Mr. COCHRANE said that he would content himself with expressing a hope that the speech of the lion. Member for Limerick would be as soon forgotten out or the House as it appeared to be necessary to forget it, in compliance with " Order," within those walls. Mr. O'CONNOR implored the Committee not to make what he conceived to be an innovation upon the consti tution. The powers which this Bill proposed to confer upon the Government were dangerous to liberty. It was not improbable that the Bill would be carried into operation by the Hon. and Learned Member for Abing don (Sir F. Thesiger), who bad informed the House that he would not think it necessary to insert in an in dictment the precise words used by a man prosecuted under this law, but merely the construction of those words. To show how the language of a speaker might be mistaken by a reporter, he referred to a report in The Sun, in which he was made to say that in the event of the Bill passing hundreds of secret clubs would be formed, and he would be the first to join them; whereas what he did say was, that he would have nothing to do with secret societies. The Hon. Member for York last night referred to an article written by him (Mr. O'Connor) in terms which were calculated to make the House believe that he had advocated a republican form of government in England. Now, the article was written only with reference to the Government of France, and in it he recommended that the president of the French Republic should be appointed for life instead of being elected every four years, like the Presi dent of America. The article did not contain a word with reference to England. The press of this country generally published the grossest libels on the Chartists; it was well known that the press was paid for misrepre senting the truth. As bearing upon this point, he would take the liberty of reading a letter which be had re ceived ; it was as follows: " Blackheath, April 11. "Sir,—ln the Times of yesterday appeared a violent speech stated to have been delivered at a Chartist meet ing held at Blackheath on the 9th instant. No meeting was held here on that day, nor was there any assem blage of people which could give rise to the mistake.— I am, &c., " WILLIAM NAPIER, Major-General." After what had taken place about the petition yesterday, he might be accused of forging this letter, and there fore he would give Members an opportunity of look ing at it. (The lion. Member threw the letter on the table.) There were violent speeches reported as having been spoken at a meeting which never took place,—(Hear, hear.) Many attempts had been made to define what open and advised speaking was ; but the only definition it would receive after the passing of the Bill would be anything spoken against the Govern ment.—(tlear, hear.) The present Government had gut into power by unadvised and intemperate speaking, and now they wished to gag the people. Ministers were not so squeamish about speaking in 1832, when multitudes were assembled in every . part of the country, and ad dressed in the most exc:ting language, and when Not tingham and Bristol were in flames. Ministers would be better occupied in reducing the pension list than in forcing an unconstitutional measure on P ar li amen t. Why 'should the King of Hanover receive a pension of 27,000/ a year? That was an act of treason against the people of England. After a passing allusion to Mr. Cuffay, and " this Tom Fool and the other," the Hon. Member concluded by declaring his intention to move as an amendment that the enactment relative to open and advised speaking should remain in force only as long as the present Ministers continued in office, in order that they might bear the undivided responsibility of it. Mr. REYNOLDS said it bad often been stated that this Bill was a much more mitigated measure than the one passed in 1795 ; but the fact was the reverse. By the Act of 1795 "open and advised speaking" was called a misdemeanour, whereas in this Bill it was called a felony ; which most certainly constituted a severer offence. Was there anything in the present condition of Ireland to justify the enacting of this measure ? Was there anything bordering on disturbance in that country? He believed in his conscience there was not. He admitted there was i great deal of intemperate writ ing and speaking going on in Ireland, hut the great body of the people were not involved either in the one or the other. Was it necessary that such a Bill as this should be enacted because some madcaps were the mas ters of a few printing presses, arid were in possession of some types and lots of ink, and were endowed with a facility of writing ? The passing of such an Act as this would only be giving an importance to those persons which they otherwise would never attain. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that it had been repeatedly asserted that they were about to create a new offence by this Bill; and it had been as often ex• plained that such would not be its effect. The Bill did not make that an offence which was not an offence by the present statute and common law of the country. The only thing it was proposed to do by this Bill was to make an alteration with respect to the steps to be taken previous to the trial of the offence, and with respect to the punishment that should attach to it. The practical effect of the Bill would be to put an end to prosecutions for sedition altogether. It must be recollected that no prosecution could take place unless information were given, upon oath, within three days after the words spoken. It was not probable that any persons but those connected with the Government would institute such a prosecution; and, of course, the Government would not be prepared to have persons attending for the pur pose of taking down words e xpected to be of a seditious , ter dency unless notice were g iven t o them beforehand. The Bill would prevent any person who was put in prison for the offence of seditious speaking repeating the original offence while he was in prison. This would impose upon him a punish ment the most severe that could b e inflicted—silence, and be was q u it e sure th a t very few persons would be found de s i rous o f atta i n i ng a bad pre - eminence , if an enforced silen ce was t h e consequence. A g re at deal had b een sa id i n that House a b out the neglect of the Governme n t to b r i ng f orwar d remedial measures , but the fact was that so much of the t i me o f Parliament had been tak en up i n measurel ought to have been that Government had found the greatest difficulty in getting any remedial measures discussed at all.—(Hear, . hear.) His talking about 5110 wrongs in Ireland, s own individual opinion was that the present position to determine whetheprertmheanent, measurebut it should d p per haps been wisely thought that any mischief latent in the the might be discovered in two years time, and that, at he . end of that period, Parliament would be in a better made a pe rmanent law or not. After a fe w words from Mr. WYLD, The Cmlinittee divided; the numbers were— For the amendment 79 Against it Maierity - 109 Mr. EWART then suggested, that after the words, " open an , i advised speaking," the following words should he inserted :—" at public meetin gs consisting of not less than 50 persons." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the pro posed insertion, observing that the words in the Bill open and advised speaking" were well understood. Mr. HU rIE had before stated that the law had been interpreted in Scotland as permitting servants to give evidence to words spoken in private houses. He there fore thought that the proposed insertion should be assented to. Mr, D'EYNCOURT supported the insertion of the words. Mr. DISRAELI observed that the National Con vention consisted of only forty. nine persons, and if !t were wished to exclude that body from the operation of the Bill, that would be an argument in favour of the in sertion of the proposed words.—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear.") Mr. EWART suggested that, as the gallery of the National Convention probably contained some hundreds of persons, they might be taken as forming part of the eting. Sir D. L. EVANS, though thinking it not proper to name in the Bill any such limit as to the number of persons assembled as proposed by the non. Member for Dumfries, yet feared that sufficient security would not be afforded by the Bill, as it was at present framed, in respect to what might take place in private life or at large private parties. Lord J. RUSSELL had hoped that Hon. Members had more generally understood the purpose of the pre sent Bill. It was not a Bill against general speaking at public meetings, but against certain offences, which had hitherto for the most part been comprehended under the term of " treason." The Hon. Gentleman proposed an amendment, according to which, at a meeting consisting of 49 persons, a person might propose that a foreign enemy should be invited to invade this country, and the whole plan might be laid down and published through the kingdom, and yet, because 50 persons were not present at the meeting, that offence would be exempted from the provisions of this Bill.—(Hear.) He certainly must vote against such a proposition. After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. EWART postponed his amendment till another ' stage of the Bill. The clause was then read through, and the following words, together with the following proviso, were then proposed to be added to it, on the motion of Sir G. Grey:—" or to be imprisoned for any term not exceed ing two years, with or without hard labour, as the court shall direct. Provided always, and be it enacted, that no person shall be prosecuted by virtue of this Act for any words spoken, unless information of such words be given upon oath to one or more justice or justices of the peace within three days after such words spoken, and the prosecution of such offence be within three months after such information, and within two years after the passing of this Act, and that no person shall be convicted by virtue of this Act for any such words spoken, but by the oaths of two credible witnesses." Mr. HUME suggested that the information referred to in the proviso should be communicated to the persons charged within a few days after it was given. Sir R. INGLIS had no sympathy with the unfortu nate persons, as some seemed to regard them, who might place themselves within the operation of this Bill, and he should have supported the Bill with more satis faction if the Ministers had not allowed it to be deterio rated by successive alterations. He should support the Government now against the suggested amendment of the Hon. Member for Montrose. Dr. BOWRING expressed his dissent from the obser vations of the Hon Baronet, and stated that the defence of the minority who voted against a portion of the Bill was to be found in the growing feeling of public indig nation against that part of it—(Cries of " Oh!"), and in the reflection that they were fighting the battle for the expression of public opinion. Mr. HUME was afraid, from the observations of the Hon. Baronet, that he concluded that a man must be guilty of an offence the moment he was charged with it. He (Mr. Hume) had been led to believe that no man was guilty until atter he was tried and condemned. Mr. DRUMMOND was sorry to find that there was an universal sympathy for rogues; but he was too much accustomed to the transactions of that House not to know, that there never was a time when there were not some persons ready. " To explain our country's dear-bought rights away, And plead for treason in the face of day." —(" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Mr. F. O'CONNOR said they had been told that this Bill would ameliorate the law of treason. Now, if a person was arrested for treason, he was entitled to a copy of the indictment, and to a list of the witnesses to be called against him; but a magistrate was not re quired to furnish a copy of information against a person accused of felony immediately on committal, but within ten weeks after the commission of the offence. He wished to know, under these circumstances, whether it was considered that this Bill would relax the law of treason? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that it was provided by statute that all persons who were held to bail or committed for felony should be entitled, on de mand, to copies of the depositions of the witnesses. Mr. lIINDLEY said that, under this Bill, informations might be laid before two justices of the peace for words uttered, while the individual charged with uttering them might be in total ignorance of the proceeding until eight or ten weeks afterwards. He thought that a person who was charged with an offence under the Bill should at once be informed that proceedings were taken against him. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that if a person made a seditious speech, it was necessary, under this Bill, that if any proceedings were taken against him, information should be laid before the magistrates within three days after the commission of the offence; but there was no reason why information should be insme diately given to the person against whom proceedings were taken that he would be charged with such an offence. In ordinary cases of felony, no information was given to the person charged until he was appre hended. Mr. S. MARTIN thought there was no reason why charges of this nature should be kept bundled up for an indefinite period, without any information being given to the accused parties. Sir G. GREY observed, that if information were given to persons that proceedings were about to be taken against them under this Bill, the result would probably be that they would avoid the service of the warrant. Mr. S. MARTIN suggested that the person accused should be informed that proceedings would be taken against him contemporaneously with the depositions being made before the magistrates. Mr. HUME considered that, as it was required that depositions should be taken against a person charged with uttering certain words within three days after the utterance of such words, it was only fair to give the accused person immediate notice of the charge made against him, because after the lapse of two or three weeks he might find it difficult to meet a charge which depended merely upon memory.—(dear, hear ) Mr. DISRAELI thought that the arrangement pro posed by the Government afforded greater security to the subjects of her Majesty than seemed.,to be desired by some lion. Gentlemen. Ile protested against the doc trine advocated by some Hon. Gentlemen opposite, that persons charged with offences under this Bill should be immediately arrested. Mr. Alderman SIDNEY understood that this Bill would leave it to the magistrates to determine whether they would issue their warrant or not ; and he consi dered that the magistrates, who ought to hold the scales of justice equally between the accuser and the accused, would thus be placed in an invidious position. Mr. S. mARTIN would move that after the words in the proviso "within three days after such words spoken," there be added—" and a summons or warrant thereon forthwith issued." Was he to understand by the word " prosecution" in this proviso, the trial, or the first step towards it? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL answered that it had been held in cases relating to the coinage that the word meant the issuing of the warrant, which was the commencement of the prosecution. It was so laid down in East's " Pleas of the Crown." Mr. S. MAR I'IN would like to see the point made more clear by the insertion of his amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not consent. The spoken words themselves would not be the offence; it might not be necessary to prosecute where the speak ing occurred but once, and very necessary if it were re peated de die in diem, but this amendment would require a warrant to be issued on the first speaking, or no pro secution to be founded upon it at all. If there must be a warrant for each case, there would be but a single act to prove an offence. Mr. AGLIONBY regretted to find the B►ll more re plete with danger the further it was proceeded with. This proviso would he nothing but a trap for the un wary.—(llear and Oh !) Tho accused would get no warning that information had been lodged against him, he would be allowed to go to other meetings and speak, and then, each speech being in itself innocent, or not enough to support an indictment, cumulative cases would be brought against him to prove the "advised speaking." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not see how it could be a " trap " that he would have the evidence recorded The words being but evidence of the crime of "compassing or imagining" to depose the Queen, &c. What the Hon. Member complained of would take place, if at all, just as much without the pro viso, and the proviso gave the accused the advantage of the prompt recording of the words. Mr. HENLEY said, he could not understand the difficulty the House had got into with respect to this proviso; and he did not believe there would have been any difficulty if it had not been for what had fallen from the Attorney-General.--(Hear, hear.) According to his (Mr. Henley's) view of the matter, if a person went before a magistrate, and charged another on oath with an offence amounting to felony, that magistrate, as a matter of law and practice, would be bound to issue a warrant for the apprehension of the alleged offender. Certainly, unless he were told not to do so by an au thority which he could not resist, he (Mr. Henley) should feel it to be his duty to issue his warrant in such circumstances.—(Hear, hear.) If this was not the law, it certainly ought to be made so; for ha could not ima gine anything more tending to tyranny than to allow a charge to hang over a man's head according as circum stances might dictate. But, if the law was as he ima gined it to be, then the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Pontefract was unnecessary. Mr. MOORE considered it quite unjustifiable to allow a mali against who m a n information of this kind was lodged , to go on in the same career of stirring up dis order without an attempt to check it by a prosecution. He could hardly think it possible this was the meaning ot the proviso. Mr. B. PALMER agreed with the Hon. Member for 1 Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that he should consider it quite as a matter of course that if information were laid before him as a magistrate that a person bad uttered certain words amounting to felony, he should consider it to be his duty to issue a warrant for that person's ap prehension, and the first notice he should have of the charge against him bein g brought under the cognizance of the magistrate would be the appe 'ranee of the con. stable with the warrant. He begged to ask the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General whether it was intended—beeause, if so, it would place the magis trate in a very invidieus position—that, upon informa tion being laid before a magistrate, he should take the depositions and exercise his own judgment whether they were sufficient to insure a conviction or not, or whether he was to send to the Secretary of State and get his instructions as to further proceedings? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, that his opinion was that the magistrate would have no power to issue a warrant upon the information as to the spoken words, but upon the " compassing and imagining" of which the words were to be received in evidence, for if Hon. Members looked at the context of the proviso it would be manifest that it was not the speaking of the words which constituted the offence, but the " compass ing and imagining" which required to be perpetuated before a magistrate by the evidence of the words. Mr. DRUMMOND asked what the magistrate was to do upon receiving this information, if he was not to issue his warrant? Sir G. GREY said that the word " information" had a popular and a legal sense. If the information brought before the magistrate amounted to information in the legal sense of the term, and he was satisfied that the words constituted felony, then he would issue his war rant; but the magistrate might say that the words had probably been used in the heat of public speaking, and that he did not think the speaker intended " compas sing and imagining," and thereupon refuse to issue his warrant. Sir F. THESIGER was sorry he could not agree with the Honourable and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney- General), because it appeared to him that if they took the clause and the proviso together in the construction, it was quite impossible to put the interpretation upon it proposed by his Honourable and Learned Friend. The clause enacted that the compassing and imagining to do certain acts was to be punished as felony, provided the compassing and imagining was proved " by publishing any printing or writing, or by open and advised speak ing." Then it was proposed to introduce into the proviso that "no person shall be prosecuted by virtue of this Act for any words Spoken, unless information of such words be given upon oath to one or more justices of the peace," &c. The clause defined the offence, and the proviso described how it was to be established. The object of the information which was to be laid be fore the magistrate was evidently to establish the charge of felony. According to his Hon. and Learned Friend, however, the object of the information was merely to perpetuate the evidence, which might or might not be used thereafter. Now, it was the first time he had ever heard of a party being required to go before a magistrate to lay an information upon oath—not of an offence, but of the evidence of an offence—and he must say it seemed to him to be trifling with legislation to say that a party should be required to go before a magistrate within three days to give information, not of an offence, but of something which might be proof of an offence at some future time, if brought into operation for that purpose. —(Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Hon. Members behind him Mr. Henley and Mr. R. Palmer) that upon information of an offence amounting to felony being laid before a magistrate, it would be his duty to issue his warrant immediately to have that party brought before him to answer the charge, and he considered that the views taken by those Hon. Members afforded another proof that the country gentlemen were sometimes much better lawyers than the lawyers themselves.—(A laugh.) If that was not the object of the proviso, he considered it to be highly objectionable, and should give it every op ' position in his power. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was quite willing to take the construction laid down by his Hon. and Learned Friend, but still he was of opinion that the proviso, as drawn up, was not liable to the strong objections that had been urged against it. Mr. NEAR PIN entirely agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon, and he would submit to the Committee that it was their duty to make the matter clear and distinct. The course adopted would be, that the Government would send two short-hand writers to take down the speech of a person known to be a violent man, and that they would lay the information before a justice within three days. Now, if these short-hand writers were to go day after day to note down what that man said, and then lay it before a justice, thus heaping up informations against him, was it not clear that the man would be completely at the mercy of these personss In his opinion, however, the amendment he proposed would obviate this objection. Mr. V. smrrti wished to ask the Attorney-General if, in order to carry on his own scheme to perpetuate evidence against a person, he would object to the words being inserted—" Unless information of such words be given on the oath of two credible witnesses?" The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had every wish to conciliate conflicting opinions. He would suggest that the proviso should recite that no person should be pro secuted for any words spoken, " unless information of the offence, and of the words by which such offence is expressed, uttered, or declared, be given upon oath be fore one or more justices of the peace, within six days after such words are spoken." After a few words from Mr. WOOD, Sir F. THESIGER thought the insertion of the words proposed by the Attorney-General would make the matter perfectly clear. He agreed in the propriety of extending the period from three to six days. Mr. HUME thought the proviso ought to be re printed. He moved that the chairman report progress. After having been eleven hours and a half in that House, they were all beginning to get a little. stupid. (Laugh ter.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged to read the proviso as now adjusted—" That no person shall be prosecuted by virtue of this Act in respect of any words spoken, unless information of the offence and words by which such offence was expressed, uttered, or declared, be given upon oath to one or more justice or justices of the peace, within six days after such words spoken, and the prosecution 'of the offence be within two years after the passing of this Act ; and that no person shall be convicted by virtue of this Act for any such words spoken, but by the oaths of two cre dible witnesses." Mr. M'NEILL wished to know whether the attention of her Majesty's Ministers bad been drawn to the ope ration of the measure in Scotland in respect to the matter of bail. By the law of England he understood, from what he had heard here, that a distinction existed be tween felonies and misdemeanours. That distinction was unknown in the law. of Scotland. The rule with regard to bail in Scotland was that capital offences were not bailable; offences not capital were bailable. With respect to the offences which were reduced from treason to felony, they were made bailable in Scotland under this Bill because the capital punishment was removed. He thought the provision of the Scotch law a humane pro vision. But he had heard much importance attached to this enactment on the ground that the parties offending against it would not be entitled to bail. He was anxious to know whether the distinction made between Scotland and England in the point referred to was an advised distinction ; for he should be sorry if facilities were given in Scotland for the perpetration of those offences which would make it the chosen field for such proceedings.—(A. laugh.) A material alteration had been made in the law of forgery, by which offences were made not capital which were formerly capital.- Under the general rule in Scotland, all parties charged with forgery were then entitled to bail; and a successful forger to a large amount had nothing to do but to deposit the amount of bail and abscond.—(A laugh.) A statute was passed to remedy that omission. If no distinction were intended to be made between England and Scotland, it was desirable that some provi sion should be introduced , to guard against the conse quences he had pointed out. The LORD-ADVOCATE had not thought it neces sary to call the attention of the House to one or two points with reference to the law of Scotland which were involved in the Bill, because he saw how the matter was to ' be explicated in accordance with that law, and he should only have been throwing more elements into the present discussion. He acquiesced in his Hon. and Learned Friend's statement in regard to the law of Scotland. If this offence were made not capitally punishable it would be bailable; and when the Com mittee had determined what should be the substance of the Bill, he should make it his duty to propose provi sions adapting the measure to Scotland. Sir G. GREY suggested that when they were agreed as to the substance of the proviso, time should be given to put it into proper shape before bringing up the report. —(" No, no.") He did not think that an unreasonable request.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME said, that the proviso involved a question of the greatest importance, and after all the bungling which had taken place it was desirable that the Com mittee Should see it in its amended shape before adopt ing it. 'He therefore moved that the Chairman should report progress. (The Chairman did not immediately put the question, and the Hon. Member proceeded.) Why do you not put the motion? Are you asleep, Sir? —(Loud laughter, and cries of " Order.") I have three times moved that you report progress.—( ll ear.) The CHAIRMAN—I beg to inform the Hon. Member that it is not com p e t en t f or me t o get up until he sits down.—(Laughter and cheers.) Mr. HUME—I made the mot thirdiontwi twice down.—(A l aug h.) Thi s is the time before, Iha raen risen t to make the same motion. Mr.Th P C . H H A O I W RM A A R N D b th e e g n ge p d u t t o e that the would retract the observation Montrose Hon.,Member for t e h x e p q re u e e s s t a i on h 0 . p which he had made to the Chairman. Mr. that, in the claus e , whMenr.a J. ended, C ° NwN iL suggested or tshonldbe inserted to authori se information to be given before stipendiary magistrates in Ire laud. Mr. OSWALD was of opinion that the proviso should be printed before the Committee was called upon to adopt it. Mr. NAPIER was apprehensive that even as it was purposed to mend the proviso, repeated informations might be taken against an individual respecting pas sages of speeches, and that ultimately a cluster of words would be brought to bear against Sir G. GREY thouz,ht that under the circumstances the proviso should be postponed, and that the Com• mittee should now go through the remainder of the Bill. ---("No, no.") If Hon. Members would not accede to that proposition he must ask the House to sit to morrow.—(" No," and cheers.) Mr. WOOD thought it fair to state a difficulty which occurred to him as likely to arise under the proviso as it was proposed to be amended. In some cases proceed. ings might be taken against parties for overt acts, and the Government might not be aware of. words spoken till after. the expiration of the days ,preseribed by the ti thi ter proviso. In all such cases itseared to him t hat prosecution would be at an end, iu consequence of the words spoken not having been registered in due time. • The Committee then divided, and the nu mbers were For reporting progress 4B Against it Majority 2s7 The CHAIRMAN then put the question that tne clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Mr. WAKLEY moved, as an amendment, t h a t the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Sir F. 'FHESIGER observed that, as the proviso was not in a proper shape at present to be submitted to the e Committee, he thought that the consideration of the clause ought to be postponed until the proviso was before the Committee. Sir G. GREY could not assent to this euggestion:7: (Loud cheers) He did not object to any speeches whatever, provided the object was .not delay But, from a gentleman possessing the Parliaments* experience of the Hon. and Learned Member for Ahiur don he did not expect a suggestion which could oull contribute to delay the progress of the measure:—. (Hear.) He hoped that after the discussion which the number of question had received the House would not break IR. without affirming this clause, which was r eall y the sub' ttance of the Bill. Sir F, THESIGER appealed to the cours e which be_ had taken in regard to the Bill hitherto as a proof ttiac it was not his object to interpose any unnecessary a ss in the progress of the measure. His wish was to pas. the Bill as quickly as possible, but he was desirous th a t it should be put in such a shape as wo uld make 1 effective. After a few words frem Mr. HUME a nd M r ' O'C ONNOR, Sir G. GREY remarked that the discussion on the Bill had already lasted three days, and he hoped . ! I t ° Committeelwould support him by pronouncing an piult^ Me' upon this clause before they separated. Hon. .- bers would have an opportunity of renewing the disc_sul sion on the third reading, or on the report, if they thaw ' proper to do so. Mr. J. STUART begged the Committee to bearl ll mind that they had, in effect, agreed to the clause in 6 1 form in which it now stood, and therefore he hoped he t they would permit it to stand part of the Bill. Mr. MUNTZ observed that though the Right gla Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department se very very much irritated, that was a matter of little 4.7- d .. portance to anybody. Nobody had been able to Os the clause as it stood in decent English, and be must * that, after the treatment which the opponents a the P . had experienced from the Government, every sort dim' pediment to its proeres was justifiable. The ATTORNEY- s GENERAL was surprised that,. the Hon. Member for Birmingham, who had been in t h e House all the evening, had not attempted to correct t ".; ungrammatical character of the clause before. It no too After late to do so. a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY, the Ce° 2. mittee divided, when the numbers were— For Mr. Wakley's motion Against it ... 270 Majority e n The House immediately again di v id e d — on — the 23 ci l ue s ,r 6 r that the clause as amended stand part of the Bab numbers were— Ayes Noes Majority The clause was then ord e r e d t o stand p -- art of l9l2 h e On the 4th clause, " That it shall be lawful, in .: 0 indictment for any felony under this Act, obel r against the offender any number of the matters, sel l i co deeds by which such compassings, imaginations , ; shall have been expressed, uttered, or declared," .... A d Mr. O'CONNOR objected to this clause being P until the proviso to the 3d clause was known. This a new cATTOR lause introduced into the Bill. the The NEY-GENERAL was surprised at • objection, as the clause was for the benefit of the cused. • tO Sir F. THESIGER had no substantive objentl eri • t y the clause, and he thought there should be an opport abl , of introducing cumulative charges; but his objection vy.:: the same as that of the Hon. M e mber for Notting g li m w. He objected to taking this cla u s e w hil s t i n a state (1 " certainty as to what the proviso to the 3d clause sb e .. k be. This 4th clause would b e u tt er ly i ncon sistent for the proviso as now understood. After a few words from the Attorney-Genera l, Aglionby, and Mr. Roundel! Palmer, the Coto o ° l1 te divided, when there appeared— For the clause Against it .. Majority for the clause -IBS The clause was then agreed to, as we re the resn." --;nifi• clauses of the Bill. The CHAIRMAN left the chair amidst loud cheers , 1 pd the House resumed. The report w as or dered to be ... ceived on Monday. The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring 41 : Bill to amend the lawof Scotland relative to the care so y custody of lunatics, and for the better regulation of 10 7. 0 r tic asylums, and for the establishment of asylums pauper lunatics. Mr. CARD WELL moved for a return of the net income and expenditure of the United Kingdoin the several years ending the sth day of April, 184"" 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, and 1848, respectively` Ordered. The House then, at a Quarter before Two o'clock ° Ste journed till Monday. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS• LIVERPOOL, APRIL 14. STOCK Excroaion.—The sales are—Birkenhead, Lance' shire, and Cheshire Junction, 311. Shares, 6% dis.—Ditto (late C. and B.), 1254—East Lancashire, New, 83s: 9d.-- Lancashire and Yorkshire (late West Riding Union), 3 3 / 4 C. dis.—London and North-Western, 126 A—Ditto, New QUO. ters, 1% p.—Ditto, Quarters (A and B), p.—Manchester , Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 20/. Shares, 8 dis —Ditto, No. 1, 2 1 ,4 dia.—Ditto, No. 2, 14%—Ditto, Eighths, 5% land, 96 1 4 —Ditto, Halves, 6 dis.—North Staffordshire, 3 cl l4 „' —South-Eastern and Dover, 22 1 ,4—Ditto, No. 4, Thirds, s. 9d. dis. —York, Newcastle, and Berwick, Extensions (24. and B.), No. 2, par—Ditto, G. N. E. Purchase, IA 4 dis.—Ditt o r Preference, par. MANCHESTER, APRIL 14. STOCK ExcBANGE.—The sales are—Birkenhead, Laos" shire, and Cheshire Junction, 6% di s .—L an cashire and York shire, Fifths, Ij a dis.—Ditto (West Riding Union), 35 4 Y dis.—London and North-Western (Manchester and Birrowb ham), Quarters (C), 2 7-16 p.—Manchester, Sheffield, sol' Lincolnshire, Quarters, No. 1, 2 1 ,1 2 Ditto, Preference, 1 / 11 dis.—Ditto (Grimsby Dock), 11 dis.—North Staffordshire, 3 dis.—South 7 Eastern_and Dover, No 4, 3 9-16 dis. HULL, APRIL 14. Notting" STOCK EXCHANGE —The sales are—Ambergate, nitto, ham, and Boston, 7s.—North British, Quarters, Extension (scrip), 3s. 6d.-L.Ditto, Thirds, 235. WCASTL E- UPON -T YNE, APRIL 13. STOCK EXCHANGIL—The sales are—Huddersfield lie Manchester Railway and Canal, Thirds, 214 dis.—Newristoo and Carlisle, 105—Ditto, N ew S cr i p, 105—Ditto, Branch, 3 p.—North British, Thirds, 378. 6d. dis. YORK, APRIL 13. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The following were the quotatiend! to-day—(treat Northern, 31.—Ip sw i c h an d Bury 5.., 1 • ; E „, 0 ), munds, 33 / 4 —Lancashire and Yorkshir e (W es t Riding un, — ; t 4—North British, Thirds, 21 s . 6d.—Di tto, Extension,,*,,":c. York, Newcastle, and B erw i c k, N o. 2 (late New BerWle"'" 9%—Ditto (G. N. E. Purchase), It s . EDINBURGH, APRIL 13. h• STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Edinburgh and N o q h ern, New, 30s.—Ditto (Newport), 61. 2s. 6d.— Great N ° , l " -- ern, 3—North British, 20/. 7s. 64. —Ditto, Quarters, Ditto, New Quarters, 4s.—Ditto, Thirds, 22s.—EdinbO r n and Perth, Halves, 4s. GLASGOW, APRIL 13. STOCK EkenaNGE.—The sales are—Edinburgh and Per t - b ' 12s. 6d.—Glasgow, Dumfries. and Carlisle, Si. 19s.—G1asgI Kilmarnock, and Ayr, Halves, N o . 1, 6% —Glasgow Greenock, Preference, s—Great Northern, 62g. 6d.- 141 _ 311- chaster and Southampton, ss. 6d.—N or th B r itish, Win 21s. 6d. —Ditto,..N 3s. ew Quarters (scrip), Od- Central, 26/, At Bicester, on Monday last, Mr. Claridge, drape r ' cut his throat so as to cause almost instant death. .About a fortnight since ho was attacked with an epileptic fiti since which his mind had b een a ff ecte d. Of l a t e he it" been troubled at the conduct, of an only daughter. '" )1 was a widower, and it is a melancholy fact, that on thet day ten years his wife in the same chamber destroyed herself in a similar way. For the last few weeks he b ad an impression on his mind that he should come to want, and that his creditors would put him in prison. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's . Pills the Uni versal and most Popular Remedy for all Diseases Inci dental to Females.—The invigorating and purifying qualities of this medicine are so peculiar, that females of all ages suffering from any of the diseases to which they are more particularly subject may, with confidence have recourse to it for relief, a few doses of which will shortly alleviate their sufferings and ultimately restote them to perfect health and strength. The remedy is safe and infallible whether taken at the critical period of pass ing from childhood, or turning the meridian of life, and its beneficial effects are acknowledged by numberless mo thers of families.--Sold by all druggist: and at Professor Holloway's establishment, 244, Strand, London. BIRTHS. On the Bth inst., the wife of Mr. B. C. Theme, of a son' On the Bth inst., at Leeds, Mrs. Th omas C arpen t e r, " wife of e a t ai k n Tho maarpenter : R.N., o f a d aug ht e r. On the 10th inst., at Lee -park, Bla c kh ea th, M rs . Robe" Anderson, of a son. On the 10th inst., the wife of James Cockell, Esq., of Be/4- nard born. street, Russ e ll- square, prematurely, of a daughter, stil l- On the 10th inst.. at Incomb-place, Kent, the Lady Fowls Fletcher, of a daughter. On the 10th inst. ' at Maines H a ll, near P ou lt on -l e -Fylde, the lady of Captain Francis Harrison, of a son. On the 11th inst., at Northampton -terrace, Islington, Mil' William Cooper, of a daughter. '1" On :he 12th i nst., at Clarges-street, Mrs. Robert Phlll more, of a daughter. On the Bth i ns t., a t Kennington MAßßlED Church, Mr. Henry Mor rison to ~ iss Thomas. On the 11th inst., at Etton, George Fisher, Esq , , s t h Dragoon Guards, to Matilda, daughter of the Rev. Robert Machell, of Etton Rectory, Yorkshire. DIEB. On the 9th inst., Miss Whitehead, last surviving daughter of the late G. Whitehead, E,q. of Weston House, near 13atb• O thz 9th i ns t., J ane , wife of the Rev. B. H. Bridges, Rector of Danbury, aged 81. On the 11th inst., at Upper Phillimore-place, Kensington , Elizabeth, relict of the late R. Hopkins, Esq. On the 11th inst., at Grosvenor-place, St. George's, Cant" berwell, Captain William Mitchell, Paymaster, 2d Battalion Royal Regiment, aged 71. On the.l lth inst., at Nottingham- place, Stepney, Robert Goad, aged 22. On U 141.1211 inst., Charles Innis, Esq., of Euston-square.... London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, a t No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tke Sun Mee, No. 113. Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the countY Middlesex, Sattuday, April 15, 1848. — ...... (6L Id) Oa