The Sun. — London, England, 1848-04-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY_ EVENING, APRIL 20, 1848. aro • IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 110 USE OF LORDS, April 19. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. Lord BEAUMONT presented petitions from several soc i e ti e s of Odd Follows , pray in g that their societies might be placed upon the same footing as benefit and friendly societies. CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read ing of the Crown and Government Security Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord said it frequently happened, when Parliament was called upon to make provision for the preservation of the peace, that the Government was in possession of materials and information not before the public which it was necessary to commu n i ca t e to t h e Legislature, in order to lay the grounds for any applica tion being made for an alteration in the law. It un fortunately happened at the present moment that this was not the case, and that the information before the ' public was amply sufficient to induce their Lordships to come to the conclusion that what was now going on ' ought not to be permitted to continue, and that there ' ought to be means placed in the hands of the Govern ment for the purpose of preventing those continual attempts at disturbing the peace, which had taken place, not only in the metropolis, but in every other part of the United Kingdom. When meetings were daily held, not only in London and Dublin, but in most of the manufacturing towns, where inflammatory speeches were made, the professed object of which was to array the people against the constituted authorities of these realms, it was high time if the law was not adequate to repress these evils, that Parliament should intertere to provide means by which their recurrence might be prevented. Beyond all doubt that which was now taking place, being illegal, might be the subject of criminal,pro secution. It happened, however, that the state of the law was not adequate to meet the evil as it was now fou.nd to exist, but by one alteration in the law he ap prehended there would ho ro difficulty in putting an end to scenes which were su eisgracetul to the country, which tended to disturb the public peace, and lead to criminal proceedings against those who attended those meetings, for whose welfare the orators seemed to have very little regard. It generally happened, and certainly it did in this particular case, that where a necessity arose in any degree for enlarging the_ efficiency of the criminal law, the necessity arose from the acts of those ,who professed themselves the friends of liberty, and of that license which was_permitted by our constitution within proper bounds—who professed to be the friends of the people, and of that liberty which their acts made it imperative upon Parliament in some degree to restrain. Their Lordships had seen enough in the state of the country to feel an anxious desire that that state should not continue ; and if they concurred in opinion with him that means should be taken to prevent those scenes and repress those harangues which were calculated to promote so much mischief, he might shortly explain the present state of the law, and the remedies proposed to be provided for its defects by the present Bill. According to the old statute of treason, that of Edward 111., there were two great branches of treason, which were the foundation of all the subsequent statutes. Those great branches were, first, theinsagioing. or con triving the death of the Sovereign, sal the other, levy ing war against the Sovereign. The first of these offences, consisting in the act of the mind, in the ;n -tention or the design entertained, could, of course, only be established by some overt act to show that such a de sign was entertained. In the case of levying war, however, the provisions of the statute were different. It was not the intention of levying war, not having a design for the purpose, but the act of levying war, which constituted the treason. On various occasions, according to the exigencies of the times, and the dangers to be guarded against, particular. acts had been passed. Some, now gone by, provided different means of guarding against the dangers of any particular treason. Among other provisions of that sort there was the statute of the 36th of George the Third, passed in the year 1796. It was found that the law which previously existed was not adequate to meet the then state of the country. Accord ingly, that Act was passed, which took, up a variety of acts that might well under the - previous law be consi dered overt acts of treason, but which did not of them selves constitute treason. For instance, inciting foreigners to come over to this country, inciting parties to go armed for the purpose of intimidation, attempts to intimidate either the Government or the Parliament — various acts of that sort, which did not constitute treason, but which might, under the former Acts, be considered an act of treason against the person of the Sovereign, were made substantive acts of treason; and a party found guilty of intent to commit those acts, evi denced by an overt act, was subjected to the penalties of high treason. This Act was passed to continue during the reign of George HI. During the regency another Act was passed, the 57th Geo. 111., the object of which was to continue certain provisions of the former Act dur ing the life of the Prince Regent, and to make others permanent. The first Act, the 36th George 111., being passed before the union, and the second subsequently to it, a question might arise whether the 57th George 111., did or did not extend the provisions of the Act 36th George 111. to Ireland. The provisions of the Act 36th George 111. made these offences actual treason. many of them were of the gravest character ; others, according to the circumstances, either constituted trea• son or an offence of a much lighter nature. There Lordships were well aware that great delay occasionally occurred in prosecutions for high treason, that those guilty of that offense had at least the certainty of consi derable time elapsing before they could be brought to trial. It was proposed by this Bill first to alter the law in so far as those offences were made treason, to make them felony, by which a party would be tried in the ordi nary way in which other parties charged with felony were tried. In that respect it was a mitigation of the law, because it would make them guilty only of the minor offence. Another object of the Bill, which he thought would be considered free from objection, was that it in cluded Ireland—that it would remove any doubt as to whether Ireland was or was not included in the Act 57 George lll.—(Hear, hear.) It was therefore proposed, first, to make the offences felony which were treason under the former Act, and next to extend the law, so altered, to Ireland. Extended as the law was proposed to be to Ireland, he did not apprehend' their Lordships would feel this was the time when such a provision was objectionable.—(Hear, hear.) The alterations from the Act 36 George 111. consisted mainly in the introduction, in the third clause, of the words "open and advised speaking," which would guard against the real evil which Parliament we s'flow asked to preient. --(Hear, hear.) It had been objected that the insertion of these words was introducing a new principle into the law. He was very much astonished at any such opinion, particularly when, as he had been informed, it had been expressed by gentlemen who, if they had taken the trouble to refresh their recollections, must have known it was not the fact. The error must have arisen from the fact that ander the Act of Edward 111. it was held that you could not indict a party for treason for mere words, for words sirnpliciter. If a man said, " I will make my son heir to the Crown," in a certain sense, and coming from a certain quarter, that might be trea son; but if it turned out that the expression was used by the master of the Crown inn, then no such inten tion could be inferred. It muit be left to the - jury to decide whether the words used were " open and advised speaking;' and it could not be supposed that hasty and loose expressions, used without any deliberate purpose of treason, constituted treason. It was no part of cur law, however, that the crime of high treason might not be indicted upon words in connexion with overt acts. He was sorry t o say again that very strong language had been used in different parts of the empire, arid he was quite satisfied that it the law was not strong enough to prevent it, some law must be made for that pur p ose. With this view- the pres en t Bil l was submitted to their Lordships, and he believed it would be effectual, because a party guilty of the offene, s he had referred to wo uld be subjected. to transportation f or seven pars, during which time he would have an opportunity of reflectinc, u pon the folly of the course he had adopt e d. At all events ' it would take away the means of injurin g t h e public,' which he had hitherto been guilty of, and i n tha t way an effectual stop would be put p:), the present pro ceedings. Lard STANLEY did not intend to offer any opposi tion to the second reading of the Bill, or to throw . any impediment in its way. With regard to its object, h e had taken the liberty, a short time ago, of directing at tention to the precise defect in the law, which left awide e gap between the treason punisha ble with de at h , and t he interior classes of sedition which could only be pro ceeded against as rs and punished by flue or imprisonment.rnHisedemthevarrfoure entirely concurred in the principles of the Bill wh ich reme d ied tha . t defect in the law, end he thought the c ourse taken of establis t h l - ing an intermediate offence betweena treasondemea, par tly mis punishable by death, and partly as a was a substantial improvement.—(He r, hear.) Both in this country and in Ireland language had been held, and other measures taken, to excite the were n people by a class of persons who aspir ed to the digo-t nits of b e ing treated a s State criminals. They the 'partie s , however, to be dealt with as State criminals, g uilt Y.uf- high treason upon the one hand , n or on the oth er hand. oug h t t h ey to be dealt with as simple ini pe r ede ly mt9iptaeadblinke,tL _he were, .y in therefore, very pro mo i e f e r oee e z?eei till' the degraded class of com highway474re placed among the burglars and subjected te thesia the country, and they wou ld be ties, and to the • ma , mode of prosecution and convic hear.) At the same tieilrlaceful punishments.—(Hear, case, and at the importat%) looking to the gravity of the which this alteration was pr of the circumstances under proposed in the law, he should have been better pleased if their °Pe Lordships had not been called upon to decide, after hardly notice, upon a permanent alteration twenty fa owu7r foundeh ours'd 11 the the r e l upon temporary consideration s . question that the same law of tress ,n was applicable cry could be no doubt e p r plic c a o b u l l e d England and to Ireland, that the same law could be mleeitha parts of the United Kingdom. all doubted, if it were the case, that the law was stringent in England than in Ireland —but that Ire landre was not that portion of the United Kingdom which stood least in need of stringent and effective measures under this head. It might be very wise, t h oug h he thought that the present was hardly the precise moment to introduce such clauses, to mitigate the punishment for certain classes of high treason ' • yet he-should con fess that, looking to the circumstances. of these times, he should have been better. pleased if a of h her Majesty's Governm ent had taken,,: of t rheeciur indeed was provided for by the 7th clausethi s e w hich Bill, retaining the power,. while the offence of treason was at their, discretion for th e stilt retained, of proCeedirig minor .offence, whiCh was mergt(l in the treason, and of indicting the - 4arty for felony. fie cp_tifessed that he I Iteration of t h e law t ir should rather spp,,it gnnerl-- treason` made the subject of 'a discussrbn than they could hope for in the passage of this Bill at the present moment, and that a power should be taken uwier this Bill by the Government of proceeding as for felony, though the higher offence of treason might still exist.—(Hear, hear.) He did not understand the dis deletion which was drawn by the Bill between compassing or imagining the restriction or retraint of the sovereign, and compassing or imagining the destruction of t` e sove reign. He could understand why compassing th death, or serious injury, or wounding of the sovereig should be still left subject to the punishment of de th, and be indicted as high treason; but he could no under stand on what ground compassing the depositi n of the sovereign should be made a minor offence, compared with the other varieties of treason still retained. He might be speaking in great ignorance of law, but he should be glad to hear some explanation on this point from some of the Noble and Learned Lords present. Another point to which he wished to direct attention was this. He had doubts whether the Crown might not be subjected to difficulty in being obliged in all cases to prosecute for felony instead of for misdemeanour. He apprehended that as felony merged in the higher offence of treason, so misdemeanour merged in felony, and he apprehended that the Crown would often have some diffi culty, especially in Ireland, if they were obliged to pro ceed as for felony in all cases in which, under the present law, they would proceed for misdemeanour. In cases of felony the prisoner had a right of peremptory challenge to a considerable extent, and he apprehended that in the class of offences for which the Crown would be obliged to proceed under this Bill in Ireland, cases might arise where there would be a great difficulty of procur ing convictions from this cause. By making the offence felony, they took away the right on the part of the Crown of applying to have the case tried by a special jury, and they also gave the prisoner the advantage — and a great advantage it was in the present state of Ireland—of peremptory challenge, and of bringing the panel down to a lower class of jurors.—(llear, hear.) It was not his intention to urge the adoption of any particular course with regard to these points on her Majesty's Government, because on the Government must rest the responsibility of the details, as well as the re sponsibility of the principle of such a measure. On them, also, rested the farther responsibility—one which he deeply regretted—of having brought forward this measure at a time when a disposition was universally entertained, both in that House and in the other House of Parliament, to assist in applying an effective cure for the evils both of this country and of Ireland. He also regretted that they should be deprived of the power of more practically and more deliberately considering any permanent alteration in so important a subject.—(Hear.) Lord BROUGHAM made some observations in a conversational tone across the table on the wording of some of the clauses. The Noble and' Learned Lord was understood to object that a distinction was drawn be tween deposing the Sovereign from her title and de pesing, • her in substance from her dominions. In this Bill the Government took a leaf out of the law of Scot land; but if, as he supposed would be the case, the Act were to be extended to Scotland, he wished to warn them of a serious alteration which it would involve. By the Scottish law a person indicted for felony had a night to a most important document--a list of the wit nesses intended to be called against him; and if this Bill Were to be extended to Scotland, it would take away for the first time that important principle of the law of Scotland. This Bill would deprive the prisoner of the list of the jury panel, and also the list of the witnesses and he for one should be inclined to pause before ex tending such a principle to Scotland fur the first time. Again, he thought that the statute, the 25th of Edward 111., would clash with the third clause of this Bill. The impression on his mind was, that there were old cases in which compassing to depose had been held to be a compassing of the death of the Sovereign. He also objected to the words, compassing to levy war on the Sovereign, Rot generally, but for a particular purpose. He thought that compassing to levy war on the King for any purpose was a substantive offence, and ought to be held to be a very grave offence ; whereas by this Bill it was no offence unless the war were levied to make the King change his measures. As an instance of the kind of war that might be levied in Ireland, he would beg to direct their Lordships' attention to a letter which had lately appeared from a reverend clergyman. As the gentleman might not be pleased unless his name were Beven he would mention it — the letter was signed "James ermingham, P.P." and contained this passage : " When the day of your struggle shall come, when your liberties as well as your lives shall be invaded, then let it not be a turning out of two or three counties, but let Ireland rise to the contest as one man; and let every man, as he is about taking his position to perform this most glorious act of his life, make a vow to the fol lowing effect." This reverend clergyman and minister Of the Gospel of peace not having, he supposed, read the Tea Commandments recently—(Laughter)—goes on to give the words of the vow as follows :—" I vow, before God and my country, to lessen, if I can, by one man, at least, the enemies of my native land, and to die."— (Laughter.) The passage then continued—" When be ing thus prepared, and having made the foregoing vow, you are fairly committed to the combat, don't show yourselves to the enemy on the hill-side or on the plain; but take him from the dyke, ; . the fence, the hedge-row, from the broken bridge, or the obstructed railway. Be sure you do all the mischief in your power—or all the good, I should say, for mischief is good in this case—by all the means within your reach, and think not for one moment of living— ' to do or die,' or to du and die,' be this your motto." He brought this passage forward as an instance of the necessity which existed for such a measure as the pre sent; but he thought that, to be efficient, it should give a power to the Government of imprisonment—tempora rily, or for six months, if they wished—and also a power of searching for papers of the person arrested. By means of such a power alone could they hope to intimidate the wrong-dor, and drive the conspiracy from the land. They might drive them from the field of conspiracy, of sedition, of levying war, of open and advised speaking; but what signified all that, if they could still go into a certain House of Parliament, and there utter such language as he had alluded to a few evenings ago? And here he would close his observations by giving a salutary, but not superfluous warning, to the press of this kingdom, and of the sister kingdom, that, though the rules of Parliament protected those who used those seditious words within the walls of the House of Com mons, it did not protect them out of doors; and he who presumed to publish such seditious words became liable to be indicted under the statute of Edward 111., as well as under this Act. There was no doubt but that Parlia ment had certain privileges by which Members could protect themselves to any extent within doors; but let no newspaper reporter, let no newspaper editor, enter tain that fond notion that whatever was said in Parlia ment he had a right to print—that it was not libellous, that it was not treasonable, that it was not seditious. There was no lawyer who could doubt the truth of what he was now saying. Though a Member was protected when he spoke treason in Parliament, there was no question but that he who, out of Parliament, printed what had been so spoken, was just as liable to punish ment as if he had himself invented the treason which he published. He hoped and trusted that those who now printed the grossest slanders on the constitution, and the most treasonable and seditious speeches —some of them encouraging foreigners to invade this country, while others incited those who were treasonably dis posed in these countries to look for assistance from abroad—would recollect, that even though those who uttered such sentiments might not be punishable by law, they who promulgated those opinions were liable for them. Lord CAMPBELL said he admitted that this Bill did not meet the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien making a trea sonable speech in the Commons' House of Parliament, that he also admitted that it would not punish the editors, proprietors, or reporters of the Times, or any other newspaper, for publishing a speech so made. He should be ashamed to bring forward a measure that would have such an object in view. —(Hear, hear.) If any Member of the House of Commons spoke treason within the walls of the House of Commons, he should answer for his sentiments within the House, but not elsewhere. One of the most outrageous attempts made by King Charles 1., and which was probably one of the main causes of bringing him to the block, was that of questioning Mem bers of the House of Commons in courts of law for speeches made in the House of Commons, and he hoped that such a law would never be enacted in this country again. He should be the last man to bring for ward any measure for punishing those who gave good and' faithful reports of what took place in Parliament, for he 'had himself proposed to their Lordships a clause In a Bili which met with the approbation of their Lord ships' house, as well as of the other House of Parlia ment and of the Sovereign —and —and which he believed to be a perf ec tl y g the a, printer a n honest and report of of fair pn a t ia li d ah j e u clause—that no person but lTal h l t e• the newspaper that boldly occurred in either House of Parliament sh ou ld b e had .the honour of being secondedto be indicted, and he on that occ aion Absby Lord Brougham and V aux h imself.-..(Laughter.) g to the persons who spoke these , speeches, beat punishment was in the contempt and indignation th e ir which their treasonable condu c t excited. Hinedidgindatnioont believe - that the cause of treason or sedition had, gained any advantage by the publication of those addresses; bur, on the contrary, he thought that their publication ; had a strong tendency to urge forward that spirit, of loyalty and order which had been recently manifested. He trusted that this Bill would be effectual for the pur. poses which it had in view, namely, to restrain seditious and treasonable speeches made in the National Con vention in London, and made at the-meetings of the confederates in Dublin, and it might be at meetings in Conciliation -hall also.— (Hear.) These were properly within the scope of prosecution; and these were the speeches t h a t ought to be prosecuted. — (Hear, hear.) said elsewhere w thathomust there cwaosndm one member this B her lt h a(len Majesty's Government ill s eir Lordship and the —that member e m h e e m n b o e u r r be te ing ad t d h r e esth bumble individual who had :hat he (Lord s; Campbell) foundation of that opinion wa 1796. It was true that h e had so f xp s , had expressed a disapprobation of L r o e r s d se E d l h d i o m n s 's el ße a l n o d f h tinue to e always would conof the been an improper encroachmentthinenk the that Bill had that Edward 111. liberty subject. But the law of treaso n in En g land was happily established in the 25th year of the reign of the terms of the penalties were the most severe ; High treason was the greatest crime known to the law; re ßu s t pe t c h t er t e' o the' sentence he would not shock their Lordships by Pronouncin g; and; in addition, the forfeiture of lands w off a . s ence h s e and__ goods and- the corruption of blood were involved. and that was, that there was no intermediate between high agarienastt the etecstta State e n the law with crime treason and a rasa demeanour bywas a mis file law?erneanour. Now, what able dejure—it co It was, in the first place, bail prisonment; and whilsotnly be punished by fine and im it, he might set the law aatuiaewas under prosecution for defiance: . he might repeat the offence, and commit acts tending to the injury of the • StatE r _ 7 (Elear.) The conse law was, that on - viriiitieoar a . st qu on en t: ce t of re that defect in the tem porary laws brought in, m a ki ng high treason been penal nature ; but thos e were only acts o a y temporary, and ; were repealed at the commencement of almost every reign—particularly at the commencement of Queen Mary's reign, when all the the treasons which had been created since the 25th of Edward 111. were repealed. Another bad consequence of there being no intermediate offence was that the law of Edward 111. was often strained. That being the case, very great inconvenience arose, and Lord Eldon, in 1796, introduced a law making it high treason, and punishable in the manner he had described, to compass or him,wate in g to i im r a thegi n i e n v t i h ti e n g d e o a r t i li o r o e f i g t n h i e n ya o s v i e o r n e . Sign, Thatth the lappearedev i.owever, to be assimilating crimes of a very different mount of gravity. It defeated its own object, and was opposed, and as he thought, justly opposed, by one party in Parliament. Amongst other things, it required all the forms of the Act of Edward to be followed. A copy of the indictment must be delivered to the accused, with a list of witnesses, and of the jury, and all these must be delivered simultaneously. Their Lordships would, no doubt, remember that in the case of Frost an objec tion was taken, because the copy of the indictment had been delivered three days before the list of witnesses, and that that objection was held by a minority of the judges to be fatal.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord op posite had expressed some apprehension that the treason laws might be rendered less efficacious by the adoption of this measure ; but the fact was, that there was an express clause in the Bill, whereby the statute of the 25th of Edward 111. remained intact. Whatever, therefore, was treason from the time of Edward 111. down to 1796, was treason now, and would remain treason.—(Hear.) At the same time there was nu new offence created by this Bill. „. What was now treason was reduced to felony, and he was sure it was infinitely better that the offence should be treated as a felony than as a mis demeanour. He had heard it stated by a very high au thority that it would have been infinitely preferable to have treated the whole of these offences as misdemeanours instead of as felonies. If they made those off. nces mis• demeanours, however, they would gain nothing by this measure—they would still be bailable, and the object which the Government had in view would be frustrated. —(Hear, hear.) He contended that for such grave offences there should be a grave punishment.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had criticised the language of the 3d section. But that section contained the ipsissinta verba to be found in the 36th George 111., which in their turn were taken word for word from the statute of Charles 11. The words had a certain definite and well-defined meaning with which the Judges we re acq uaint e d, and really he ould think his Noble and Learned Friend could hardly be serious when he stated that they merely applied to deposing the Queen from the " style " of Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The words meant, deposing her Majesty from her royal authority as Sovereign of this realm. That was the meaning they had ever conveyed, and that was the interpretation to be placed upon them now.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend had spoken about taking a leaf out of the law of Scotland. He could only say that it this Bill were to introduce into England the law which was supposed to exist in Scot land at the trial of Muir and Palmer, he should be the last man to propose it.—(Hear, hear.) But be believed that the trial of Muir and Palmer was not according to the law of Scotland. They were not tried for any specified offence, but generally for sedition, and that sedition consisted in making very temperate speeches in favour of Parliamentary reform.—(Hear, hear.) They did no more than make speeches such as his Noble and Learned Friend had often made. He did not say that his Noble and Learned Friend had made himself amenable to the law, but certainly he had made more animated speeches in favour of reform than those for which these men were transported to Botany Bay.— (A laugh.) The only offences.punishable by this Bill were compassing the deposition of the Queen, levying war against the Queen, and inviting the invasion of the Queen's dominions by a foreign force; and the judge would ask the jury distinctly whether the prisoner had been proved to be guilty of one of those specific offences. Now those offences might be created either by printing and publishing, or by open and advised speaking; but the open and advised speaking was not the crime—the crime must be, as he had already said, either compassing the death of the Queen, levying war against the Queen, or inviting the invasion of the Queen's dominions by a foreign force.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Justice Foster had laid it down that to make use of language which amounted to counselling the deposition of the Sovereign was an overt act of high treason; and again it was held that if words were merely an expression of opinion, they might be seditious, but not treasonable; but if they dounselled an act to be done then they became treason. Now those were words—nothing but words; there was no act done, and yet that was treason. It did to him, therefore, a fallacy to say that the expression in the Act, " open and advised speaking," was any invasion of the rights or liberties of the subject.—(Hear, bear.) The Ist of Edward VI., c. 12, and various Acts from Eliza beth down to Charles IL, distinctly laid it down that if any person averred by open teaching or by expressed words that the king, his heirs or successors, ought not to reign in England and Ireland, or if any person imagined by open teaching or expressed words, to deprive the king, his:heirs, or successors of their royal sign and title, that should be deemed high treason. He had only further to add, with reference to this measure, that the mode of trial was not at all altered by it, and that what ever advantage the prisoner previously possessed, he would possess still. He hoped the Bill would meet with the unanimous approbation of their Lordships, and that the country would long continue to enjoy hat peace which had now for so long a time remained undisturbed. The Duke of WELLINGTON said—My Lords, I am one of those who, whilst I advocate the necessity for such a measure as the present, regret that Parlia ment has not been allowed more time for its considera tion.—(Hear, hear.) I conceive it is perfectly necessary that some measure of this nature should be adopted, and that due consideration should be given to it for the purpose of making it quite efficient, in order to oppose some check to those great, those gigantic meetings which this country and the sister kingdom have been disturbed by during the last few years.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, we have at last come to that stage at which the law is defied, and is the contempt of every one of those persons who break it.—(Hear, hear.) When the Government had proceeded against three of those persons for a misdemeanour under the law existing at this moment, after those persons were brought before a magistrate and bail was taken for their appearance on their trial, one of them continued to commit by his speeches and his writings an aggravation of his offence; whilst the two others, when under bail, proceeded on a still more offmsive, I don't say treasonous, mission to a foreign country to excite foreigners to in vade her Majesty's dominions. What is that but an aggravation of the offence committed, and a positive contempt of the law?—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, that contempt of the law is growing in this country every day, till at last that want of respect of the law, which has been the charaeteristic of this country for ages, will grow to such a height that there will be no authority in this country, or means of carrying out the law, or en suring obedience to the law, except by force. My Lords, that is the state of things, and I have observed in a most marked manner the progress which has been made in recent years in that very contempt of the laws of this country. Some years ago it happened, I believe in the year 1831, that there were extraordinary riots at the same moment at Bristol in this country, and at Lyons in France. It is certainly true that great outrages were committed at Bristol—that the bishop's palace was burnt, that the gaol was burnt, and that great injury was done. The riots continued some days, though a military 'force was employed" to give assistance to the civil power. 'But the officer who commanded that force was considered not to have done his duty; and certainly, in the presence of the troops and the magistrates, the bishop's palace was destroyed by fire. The disturbances continued; but the magistrates got the bett e r o f i t a lt oget h er, an d save d the city of Bristol from entire conflagration by the assist ance of one single squadron of Light Dragoons, under the command ot Colonel Beckwith, who performed his duty; and that was the whole force which put an end tv that disturbance in Bristol in 1831, and saved that city from entire destruction. But what was the case at the same period at Lyons? The population of the two towns is, I believe, about the same. One is a port, the other is inland. However, it took an army of 60,000 men, under the command of a marshal of France, in order to get the better of that insurrection at Lyons, and to save Lyons from destruction. One squadron of Dragoons did that at Bristol, which required 60,000 men to perform at Lyons. My Lords, I attribute the different suc cess of those two efforts to the respect which prevailed et that time in England for the law—(Hear, hear)—to the feeling which every man had that he was disobey ing the law by joining in that insurrection ; and respect for the law it was which then saved Bristol. We are certainly not now in that happy position.—(Hear, hear.) It is true, that without the exercise of force we saw large bodies of persons who had collected in the vicinity of this town quietly disperse. But that was not out of submission to the law. Was not the whole population of the town, civil as well as military, under arms ? Were there not several hundred thousand persons em ployed as constables? Were they not organized and directed by persons capable of directing them? Were there not thousands of troops under arms? and were there not thousands of police in readiness to act if need be? Can it be said then it was respect for the law which prevented any outrage being committed by these persons?—(Hear, hear.) But what passed on that very night, on the following night, and on nearly every night since ? Why, a repetition of the very same expressions, which it is the object of this Act of Par liament to prevent.—(tlcar, hear.) Is that respect fer the law ? No, there is no such thing as respect for the law under such circumstances. My Lords, I say that this want of respect for the law, which if it continues must be fatal to the greatness of this country, if not to its very existence, is to be attributed to the transactions which have taken place in Ireland within the last few years. We have seen hundreds of those monster meet ings year after year, week after week, month after month, ringing through that country with impunity. We have heard ot seditious and treasonable speeches made at those meetings—we have heard of men being put upon their trial for sedition in connexion with those meetings, and we have heard of men who were acquitted of the charge of sedition on some point arising on the trial. Why, my Lords, all this tends, I say, to the same point—to create a contempt fur the law.—(Hear.) I therefore, entreat your Lordships to pass this Bill. I am particularly grateful to my Noble and Learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell) for the manner in which he has explained it. I particularly approve of the Bill, and I hope it may have a tendency to induce some respect • Lieutenant and the Government that you place the Lorq for the law.—(fltar, hear.) But I beg you to observe meetings if you only allow them to tiun to the monster on oath of some of Ireland in an exceedingly awkward . situation in rela • act after having before them evidence peace having been done, Lieutenant, to proceed upon and do not allow the .T.Ard,Lie,u d, r puhlic peace, an of his his own sense of the state o, t thing dangerous to the public power to preserve that peace,,_ placed at “lo AO k (IiSCUS t-Wank to prevpn bx means of the civil force his disposal. cussion on any subject. I desire that the people should have the means of public discussion on every subject on which they desire to have discussion; but, my Lords, let that discussion be when they meet in such numbers so that the question can be discussed, and all who attend the meeting can hear what is addressed to them ; but do not let the meeting, under the pretence of discussion, be of such a nature. as, in the opinion of the magistrate, it is impossible for him to endeavour to put them down by means of the civil force at his disposal, arid render it obvious that such a meeting can have no other object except to create terror and overpower the Government. My Lords, I rejoice that this Bill is likely to pass as a check on such meetings in future—meetings of a character to create terror; and I hope that your Lordships will pass this Bill unanimously in as short a space of time as possible, in order that Government may be able to take advantage of it in the approaching time. Lord DENMAN—I agree very much in almost all the arguments of the Noble Duke. There are, however, some points to which I should wish to allude. It appears to me that the danger which must result if these meetings are unchecked can hardly be overrated. It is impossible fur the mind of the lowest of the people, oppressed by want, to be worked upon without the greatest danger, not only to the peace of the community and the interests of individuals, but the actual safety of the State. I differ from other Noble Lords that these present pro ceedings are at all dangerous to the State as conspiracies against it; but the spirit of such proceedings, the tole ration of such language, the permission for people to deliberate whether they will take the government into their own hands or nut, and declare war not only against the G over nment, and Parli amen t, an d t h e l aws, but also against the middling classes, does appear to me - to be an enormous and intolerable evil ; and I feel that if any severity of law is necessary to put down that evil, the new law ought to be received with the utmost attention. But the law is not so impotent as it is supposed to be ; and I have no doubt, as the Noble Duke has stated, that these monstrous meetings are to tally incompatible with ell discussion, and may possibly lead to a breach of the peace. From the exciting lan guage made use of, so as to turn the force to the destruc tion of any individuals, or of any class, these monstrous meetings are in themselves misdemeanours, and might be put down by the force requisite for that purpose. That this growing contempt for the law in particular classes is much encouraged by what has taken place in Ireland is not likely to be contested b y an y one. On h begleave to Pay that these monstrous neve r, as far as I know, proceeded against tmeaettsinugbjsewet were I e by the Government of the time, and for some reason or other it was thought more prudent to allow them to pro. teed, and:afterwards to proceed against them in the shape of indictment, of which I do not wish to speak in any kind of detail ; but upon which the greatest possible variety of opinions had been and was entertained ; but which indictment might almost be called as monstrous in its description of the offence as the meeting itself. The Noble Duke has alluded to some of the parties charged on that occasion. I am sure the Noble Duke had not the least intention to impute to any of those who thought it their duty, in conformity with the laws, to overturn the proceedings of the Court below—the Noble Duke does not mean to allude to them as having done anything in the least degree inconsistent with their duty. On the contrary, I am quite sure that if the Noble Duke, sit ting as a judge in this House, was, with a view to any consequences whatever, to say that he believed that to be the law which he did not believe to b e the law, and to abstain from giving that judgment which he in his con science thought fit, he would forfeit all respect as a judge, and the law itself would lose that veneration which, as the Noble Duke has said, the country had habitually felt for it. And when the Noble Duke says that these meetings are a proof of the growing con— tempt of the law, I admit that the conduct of those parties who have made it necessary to pass this law shows that the law has fallen into contempt with them; but we are hardly doing justice to the public of England, if the whole people of England, who took into their own hands the vindication of their own rights and the protection of the State, are to be accused of having shown ny con tempt of the law.— (Hear, hear.) I think, on a the con trary, that when these Chartists had proceeded so far towards the disturbance of the public peace as to threaten the safety of all persons who were not of their own political creed, that the exhibition of order which then took place, peaceable men leaving their ordinary occupations of life to expose themselves to probable danger, and to certain inconvenience at a great sacrifice —I think it was one of the finest spectacles ever exhi bited on the part of a people attached to the law, because convinced by long experience of the benefits of the pro tection to be derived from it. I am sure I can never speak without feelings of the utmost admiration, in which all mankind concur, of the conduct of the Noble Duke; but I feel that I should be wanting in some degree in what was due to the real character of the English people if I allowed the expression about " the growing con tempt of the law" to pass without comment. The Duke of WELLINGTON—No one can admire more than I do the general conduct of the people upon the occasion to which I have referred; and I am sorry if I have said anything which could have induced the Noble and Learned Lord, or any person, to believe that I had said they had not shown respect for the law. What I stated was, that the results of that day were to be attri buted to the formidable array that was made to get the better of those who hael arrayed themselves against the law. I said there was no respect of the law on their part, because I said that on that very night, and certainly on the following night, they had over and over again made speeches showing their contempt of the law. I also beg to say that nothing was further from my thoughts than to express one word against tho decision of the House as to what passed upon the trial to which I have referred. I confess that I have the greatest re spect for the decision of this House upon that subject. I said that it was owing to circumstances attending these trials—to points which occurred on the trials—that the conviction of the persons who had been concerned in the transaction to which I have referred was set aside. I did not presume to pronounce any opinion upon the subject. I merely mentioned the fact, as one of the many circumstances which have tended to occasion a contempt of the law on the subject of these meetings. Lord DENMAN—I am extremely happy to hear what the Noble Duke has stated. In point of fact, the growing contempt of the l aw on the part of those who are bidding defiance to i t was put down by the growing confidence and a ttachment i n the law by the great mass of of people the thpeopleis subject, of England. I take the liberty o f adding upon that I really b e li eve t h at a vast num ber attending these meet i ngs d o so f rom ignorance that they are offending against the law. They have sume notion of tbe lawfulness of public meetings, without considering: .;the circumstances.. attend those meetings. The- leaders work upon the poor without this Bill they may starving populatio n, g reat numbers of whom are really ignorant of the offence they are comm i tt i ng. Th ese themselves peopleincurring punished crurni insoghu,ed forgahntdtoltehnbaedtiniengvfeotah lves to meetings of suchrmed of the danger they are a character. As to one part of this Bill, which has been made the subject of discussion in the other House, that subject is exhausted, and does not require any ab observations on my p art. I a m happy to think that this gßriellathdaesableoefn jealousy, lyn i discussed by place, ie and I do not see persons, with a another any difficulty in carrying it into effect. It is very pro bable that it is not perfect, and the observation may be made that it might have been carried further; but its imperfections are, in my judgment, no r, anon for not passing it. I will only observe, in reference to what was said by a Noble Lord opposite, that persons accused of felony are privileged to challenge, whereas they lose the challenge when accused of misdemeanour, that I should be sorry to bee persons deprived of this advan tage. On a late occasion, on a special commission in Ireland—whether the jury were of a higher class or more intelligent I know not—but no persons ever did their duty so perfectly as those jurors did; and I am happy to say that the dernoestration has been so com plete that I trust there is an end of coercion as to Ireland. Lord BROUGHAM, in reference to what had been said by the Noble Duke, observed that Lyons was a much larger place, and contained a much snore danger ous population than Bristol. There were 9.40,000 persons, of whom 30,000 or 40,000 were workmen in a most wretched state, and the quarrels with their masters on account of wages led to almost perpetual combina tions against the law. He was lately in the place, and spoke from most positive information; 30,000 persons were banded in opposition to the law, and it was deemed advisable, from motives of humanity, to draw in an over whelming military force, to make resistance utterly impossible; and the consequence was, there was hardly any shedding of blood. There was, indeed, nothing which was such false humanity as that of not putting down insurrections with a strong hand, so as to make resistance utterly impossible. The Duke of WELLINGTON —I contrasted.what had passed in Lyons with what had p assed in Brietol, as a remarkable instance of the effect of the restraint of the law. The Earl of ST. GERMANS said that the Noble Lord lately the Chancellor of Ireland,h with more expe rience of this country than of that, and the Learned - Chief Justice of England, had al read y the underrated objections stated by the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley.) Anybody acquainted with the a dministration of justice in Ireland must acknowledge that it wa s extremely diffi cult to get jurors not afraid of doing their duty. This had bean the case in the W hite Boy uflsnces. If a pe remptory right of challenge we re given to the parties arrainged, it would be illipos sible to restore order. He agreed did their that upon a late occa sion the jurors duty, and there was a convictio n. It was owingtg o pecu liar circumstances that the gent r y and magistrates all attended, and serv e d on the petty jury That was hardly to be looked at as a continuing state of things; and he apprehended th a t by taking the cas e of a number of persons, and pu tt i ng them ou t h ei r trial, you would exhaust the panel, and find it impossible to get jurors to do their duty. At the sarne time he would oppose no del a y in the existing circumstances of the country to the pissing of this fill. Whilst he ad mitted that those who "devised, compassed, or imagined" the death of the king justly deserved punishment, yet the mischievous conseq uences produced by their speak ing were s ma ll i n comparison with the mischief done by the p u bli cat i on of those speeches. He did not wish there should b e any res t ra int on the publication of speeches in Parliament; he thought it of paramount im portance th a t everyth i ng w hi c h was saidin either House of Parliament should be known to the country, for the probability of a treasonable or seditious speech was not great ; but the case was different where small bodies, of persons met together of the same opinion, and made speeches which, when reporte,l, were read by the meanest peasant. The ne wspapers exercised a sound discretion in the report of criminal pro ceedings. He could conceive no reason why the editors of newspapers should not be called 'upon to exercise the same discretion as to the.speeehes delivered at these meetings, and he thought it consistent with the duty of Government to require editors to omit the-pub lication of treasonable and seditious speeches. He con fessed it did appear to him to be monstrous, and he believed it was owing to the morbid appetite for variety, that the members of these societies met together and uttered these seditious speeches. He appealed to the good feeling of editors of newspapers to exercise the same discretion as to the publication of these proceedings that they exercised as to the proceedings in the criminal courts, which they often said were unfit for publication. If this appeal should not be successful, then he thought the Government might and ought to interpose, and in stitute legal proceedings against those who gave publicity to these mischievous proceedings. Lord CAMPBELL—I do not presume to speak from my own experience of the administration of justice in Ireland, but I assure the Noble Earl that the Bill, as it now stands, is perfectly approved of by the law authori ties in Ireland,, by the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland, and that they, knowing Ireland thoroughly, believe that it will be effectual. With regard to the publication of se ditious speeches, I am very far from saying that it is ad visable to take proceedings upon them. It will depend entirely upon quo animo they are published. If they are published to be held up to the execration of the public, the intention would render the act innocent ; but if they are published for the purpose of giving effect to those seditious and treasonable sentiments, the act is highly culpable. It is at all events an aggravated mis demeanour, and might be punished at common law ; but it may be punished under certain cir cumstances by virtue of this Bill, which your Lordships are now about to read the second time, or the printing of such a speech may be the overt act to make out the felony, and to show that the person who printed it compassed the deposition of the Queen, or compassed levying war against the Queen, or compassed the inva sion of the Crown by a foreign force; and that being the case, I suppose that a person, whether editor or pro prietor of a newspaper, who makes a speech, and who publishes that speech, and who will not maintain that that speech has the tendency to which I have referred ; no doubt, upon the evidence that he made and printed the speech, might be rendered amenable under this Bill, that he may be tried for felony, and may be transported beyond the seas for the term of his natural life. The Earl of ST. GERMANS—What I am speaking of is the practice of reporting these proceedings without any animus, good or bad—reporting the proceedings of the National Convention as regularly as the speeches we deliver in this House of Parliament. Most of the editors of newspapers are thus doing infinite mischief. The LORD CHANCELLOR—My only business is to stop your Lordship's speaking.—(A laugh.) I have very little to do with the publishing, and I therafcr• now put the question that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill was then read a second time. The LORD CHANCELLOR—As it is important that this Bill should pass to-morrow, I propose that the House should go into Committee, and have the third reading to• morrow. ELECTION RECOGNIZANCES BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this Bill, Lord MONTEAGLE proposed an amendment. Lotd CAMPBELL said that his objection to this Bill Was considerably mitigated by the amendment. He hoped the Bill would not be rejected elsewhere. He was afraid the amendment would now bring the Bill into the state into which it was rejected on a former occasion; but if the amendment was acceded to by the other House of Parliament, he thought the measure would be much less objectionable. The Bill was then read a third time, and their Lord ships adjourned till tomorrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 19. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) TENANT-RIGHT-EVICTIONS. Mr. P. SCROPE complained that nothing had been said about a measure which was more important than any the Noble Lord had mentioned. He alluded to the Bill for the protection of tenants. Hundreds of thou sands of persons had been evicted from their holdings, and were wandering about the country without food or clothing, and it was absolutely necessary that some measure should be immediately passed to protect poor tenants from the barbarous evictions that had occurred of late. Did the Government intend to introduce any measure on the subject? Sir G. GREY said a Bill had been prepared which it had been found necessary to send to Ireland, in order that it might be considered by the Lord-Lieutenant and the law officers in Ireland. It had only reached him (Sir G. Grey) this morning, and as it was necessary that he should devote his attention to the suggestions they had made he could only express a hope that he should be enabled to introduce it soon after Easter. Lord PALMERSTON then rose to address the House, and after fully admitting the right and justice of the Honourable Member to bring forward the subject, observed that there were certainly circumstances connected with the history of Denmark which made anything that affected the welfare of that state pecu liarly interesting to all persons of high feeling and ho nourable minds. No state, he admitted, had suffered more than Denmark had done, and it had been the lot of England to be drawn into acts of hostility to Denmark. With regard to the question itself which was involved in these trans actions, he trusted the House would excuse him if he abstained from following the Hon. Member by any arguments either on the one side or the other. A question of right had arisen by the German Confederation on the one hand and Denmark on the other, and that question was confined to Schls • wig. With regard to Holstein no question existed, as that province had long remained part of the German Confederation. With regard to Schleswig, the German Confederation con tended that by ancient acts, and agreements, and trans actions, Schleswig was inseparably united to Holstein, and that it must follow its for tunes. The Danish Government, on the other hand, contended that it had the right to require that Schleswig should follow the line of succession of Den mark, and it was upon that question chiefly that difference had arisen. Now, as her Majesty's Government had signified to the two parties—Denmark on the one hand and Prussia on the other—their willingness to undertake the task of endeavouring to settle this question amicably, it must be obvious to the House that it would be unfitting for him to express any opinion on which side the merit and right was. The Hon. Gentle• man opposite, in his opinion, had exercised a proper dis cretion in calling the attention of the House and the country to the engagements which this country had entered into with regard to Schleswig. He had with him the original treaty upon which the gua rantee was given, and he was bound to confess that the Hon. Member had quoted the words accurately, and that therefore it was not necessary for him to read them again. He was perfectly ready to concur with him, and with what appeared to be the general sense and opinion of the House, that it was the duty of England, and essentially to her honour, to see that en gagements that had been entered into were made good. The Hon. Gentleman, however, must permit him to say that the guarantee given by England was also given upon the same occasion by France. Not only, therefore, was this country bound with its engagement to Denmark with regard to Schleswig, but whatever engagement England had entered into had been taken up, and in exactly the same words, by the French Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had adverted to the course pursued in reference to the subject by a person for whom he (Lord Pal merston) had the honour to feel the greatest respect and attachment. The Prussian Minister, in publishing the pamphlet which the Hon. Member had alluded to in the course of his speech, had no doubt been actuated by the best of motives, and allhe could say was, thatalthough the Hon. Member might differ with the arguments and course of reasoning which he had found in the pamphlet, he had no right to censure the Chevalier Bunsen for having published. Let the House just consider that the Chevalier was sent here to watch over the rights of his Government, and he thought no man in that House would be diposad to blame the Chevallier for publishing what he considers to be the views of the Prussian Government in reference to a partic u l a r matter likely to give rise to discussion. (Hear, hear.) He would not now, as he said b e f ore , en t er into any arguments in reference to those views; but he could not refrain from saying that he thought the censure of the Hon. Member was not altogether well founded. — (Hear, hear.) He should say no more.—(Hear, hear.) He had stated his perfect concurrence with the Hon. Member, that the guarantees given by England ought to be respected, but at the same time, he must add what he had stated on a former occasion, that whatever might be the right of either side, the purpose of Prussia in entering Holstein, and in crossing the island to Schleswig, was not to include Schleswig in the power of Denmark, but to support a party in Schleswig who upheld the ancient constitution, and demanded that they should be incorporated and attached to Holstein, instead of being incorporated and attached to Denmark. He could only express his hope that matters would not be pursued to extremities, or the consequence to Europe might be most serious. He sincerely trusted that the dispute might be adjusted by an amicable negotiation between the parties, and he sincerely hoped that the statesmen of the two countries, viewing the dis turbed, troubled, and dangerous condition of things in every part of Europe, would not allow a question which could produce no practical result, and the settlement of which would be dependent upon a contingency, to lead to effects which every reasonable man must deplore.—(Cheers.) Mr. COLQUHOUN believed the House much in debted to the Hon. Member who had brought this subject before them, and he had no doubt this discussion would be productive of good results.—(Hear, hear.) But the House must allow him, while he approved of the maxims of the Noble Lord who had just sat down, to denounce his actions. The House could not forget that the treaty of Vienna, in reference to Cracow, had been disregarded by the Noble Lord; but he hoped in future the Noble Lord's actions would be consistent with his maxims. —(Hear, hear.) The motion for the adjournment of the House was then agreed to. DUBLIN STEAM-PACKETS. On the motion of Mr. FORSTER a copy of any pro posal addressed to the Treasury by the City of Dublin Steam-Packet Company, offering to run steam-packets between Holyhead arid Dublin, and the reply of the Treasury thereto, was ordered to be laid before the House. MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES. In reply to Mr. HEnnus, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that the civil contingencies and miscellaneous estimates were under the consideration of a Committee of the House now sitting on Miscellaneous Expenditure. The Right Hon. Baronet was understood to say that they would be laid on the table on an early day. CANADA CUSTOMS TARIFF. Mr. MACGREGOR inquired if the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) had any objection to lay the recent cus toms tariff of Canada upon the table? Mr. HAWES said he had not the least objection. It was provided by law that such matters should be laid on the table. DENMARK Mr. DISRAELI then rose to call the attention of the House to the affairs of Denmark. He fully felt the great inconvenience of alluding to such matters at the present moment, and was disposed to leave their super intendence to the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department; but there were cases, and Denmark was one of them, in which it became the duty of the House not to allow them to pass without observation. Denmark—in the prosperity of which this country was deeply interested—formed an excep tion to the general rule. It was unnecessary to remind the House of the general character of the country. The House knew that in population it did not rank amongst the first of the nations of the Continent, but it was one of those nations whose importance was to be measured by the character of its people and its geographical position. 'Denmark had been inherited by a brave people, and, from what he had stated, exercised a peculiar influence on the fate of the other nations of Europe. Let them bear in mind that the present Monarch had only ascended the throne this year, and when he did so he assented and accorded to the people a free constitution, and that upon a large and liberal scale. :He wished they would contrast his conduct with others who had been full of promises to their subjects 'which they never intended to fulfil.—(Hear, hear.) ;This great boon was made by the King of Denmark at 7the commencement of the present year, when there was °but little chance of the movement being made that had taken place in Europe. The King of Denmark, too, had shown his wish to incorporate all his dominions in the privileges he had granted of the thorough representation of his people and a free press. Holstein objected to this, and the King at once consented to the adoption of any course they might wish should be pursued. Amid all the 'unfortunate discussion that had taken place no one had ,chalked out a system of freer institutions than the King had offered to his subjects when Europe was at peace. •In the midst of all this the French revolution had taken place, and what had occurred in France was endeavoured to be imitated in Schleswig, and a Provisional Govern ment was attempted to be established there. At this time a quasi revolution had already taken place at Berlin, where the Monarch had already granted free in stitutions to Prussia. The King of Prussia, upon the events he had alluded to having taken place in Schles- I wig and Holstein, pursued a course which he must de signate as most unwarrantable; he had marched his sol soldiers to Schleswig and Holstein without appealing to the Diet. It was, therefore, an invasion without sanction, and without cause, and since the Provisional Government of Schleswig had made decrees fully confirming all that the King of Prussia had done ; all this he considered most unwar rantable towards a monarch who had acted as the King of Denmark had done. The people in his dominions supported the King of Denmark to a man. To the present moment not a single attempt had been made to vindicate the course that had been pursued by Prussia with respect to Denmark ; the only pre text for the invasion of Schleswig and Holstein was the preservation of German nationality, it being contended that where the German language was spoken the German flag ought to wave. Such a pretext was totally without foundation. Germany was the centre of Europe, and ought not to complain of her territory. It was to command the Baltic -and the mouth of the Elbe that this plea of nationality had been put forth. Ho would not argue the' case upon the interests of England, but it was the interests of England and Europe that peace should be maintained, and he contended that peace could not be maintained if the principles adopted by Prussia were allowed to be carried out. He might be asked how England could interfere in. this? Why, England was bound to Denmark by treaties, and she ought to take care that the stipulations she had entered into should be carried into effect. They had awful experience in this country of the neglect of the sHouse of 'Commons in making itself acquainted with the stipulations that had been entered into by this country with Foreign Powers its the present immense National Debt, which he would that tt he treaty time i m e w a n d e admitted i t t the ed in vasion f o venture to say would not have been half what it was, if treaties had been properly attended to. England had guaranteed the existence of the provinces which w e r e now sought to be taken from her by Prussi a t o Den mark, in the reign of George 1., by the treaty of G o th a o e f ver l7 a 2 e o d . eve T r h a e ga l i a n n t e gu e g no doubt, and it had been reco t gnised by E ng l an d ec e i a l o t y r a of the :duchies were threatened by Russia. It had been argued by the Prussian Minister in the work he had published on the subject, that the guarantee only against the incursions of th e Duke of Gotha, was ;the, and that it was a limited guarantee. In that work the guarantee had not been faithfully instead of its being li m it e d it quoted, fo r was astonished that a person of was general. H e the sound sense of the Prussian Minister should have drawn up such a document for the perusal of the, English Minister for Foreign Aiftirs. He had now stated the facts of what had taken place, and he would now advert to the results of the course that had been or was to be adopted by this country. There could be no doubt that England had given this guarantee,and England had guaranteed Saxony to Prussia, and but for that guarantee Saxony would ere this have thrown off the yoke of Prussia, and if such was the case, was she not entitled to tell Prussia that she had guaranteed Schleswig and Holstein to Den mark, and she could not countenance the outrageous conduct she bad pursued?—(llear, hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by stating that his only object in bringing forward this motion was, in order that the matter might be set right as far as England was concerned, and by expressing a hope that in the occur rences that had taken place God would defend the. rigid, and that peace and justice might be maintained in Europe ' by the power of England.—(Hear, hear.) IRISH POLICE. On the motion of Mr. CLEMENTS, the following returns were ordered:—Returns of the Police Reward Fund in Ireland, constituted by the Act 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 13, s. 49, for the year ending the 31st day of Do c mber, 1847 ; of the PoliCe Superannuation Fund, constituted under the Act 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 13, s. 46, for the year ending the 31st day of Decem ber, 1847 ; of the names of all persons not given in previous returns, receiving pensions or gratuities from either of the above funds, showing the date in each case of the commencement of service, the rank or employment of each individual, the cause and date of retirement, the age of each person at the date of retirement, and the amount received by each per annum, or otherwise, as received from either of the above funds, specifying on which fund the charge is made. And, showing the number of policemen in every county in Ireland who do not perform the duties of constables, but are employed either as clerks or officers' servants, have charge of horses or otherwise; distinguishing the number of men in each employment other than that of a constable , together with the expense, including all pay and allowances of those in each employment (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 571, of Session 1847). THE INDIAN WAR. Sir DE LACY EVANS aske d the President of the Board of Control what decision has been come to on the subject of an application u n d erstood to have been made for the authority of Government relative to the grant of a medal by the Court of E ast India Directors . to the_tir viving officers present in t he victories of Assay e, Las warree, Burtpore, Mahidpore, and Ava. Sir J. C. HOBLIOLISE said the matter had been re ferred to the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment, and it was now u nder the Right Hon. Baronet's consideration. KILLING HARES BILL. On the motion for going into Committee on the Game Certificates for Killing Hares Bill, Mr. ADDERLEY opposed the motion, on the ground that if the Bill were passed it would give rise to endless disputes between landlord and tenants. If, how ever, the House determined to go into Committee, he should move that it be an instruction to the Committee to extend the operation of the Bill to enable occupiers of land, having a right to kill game on that land, to do so, by themselves or persons authorised by them, with out being required to take out a game certificate. I t was in his opinion, however, much better to deal with the question in a large and comprehensive measure, such as that which the lion. Member for Manchest er had already introduced.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY said he should give the motion of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Staffordshire his most decided opposition.—(Hear.) The Earl of MARCH trusted the Hon. Member for Derbyshire would insist upon going into Committee on his Bill untrammelled with the instructions of the Hon. Member for Staffordshire. Mr. K. SEYMER supported the motion. The Bill was a step in the right direction, and the proposal of his Hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire would greatly improve it.—(Hear, hear.) Captain HARRIS was favourable to the Bill as it stood, but he was decidedly opposed to the principle of the Hon. Member for Staffordshire. Lord COLVILLE % said the principle of the Hon. Member for Staffordshire was utterly foreign to the principle of the Bill, and he should certainly resist it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he did not think that he should be justified in sacrificing that portion of the revenue which would be sacrificed if the provisions of this Bill were carried out. —(flcar, hear.) The duties upon game certificates amounted, in round numbers, to about 160,0001., and he did not know to what extent that sum might be affected by this Bill. Mr. BRIGHT said that it appeared to him that the object of this Bill was simply to afford power to any farmers to shoot hares upon their own land, provided they could obtain the consent of their landlords to do so. The provisions of the Bill would not in the least degree affect the real grievances which were disclosed by the labours of the Committee which sat upon that subject last year and the year be fore. The Bill simply proposed that the annual duty of about 41. per annum should be remitted to such persons as could obtain the consent of their land owners to shoot hares upon their own land; and it also proposed to place rabbits upon the same footing as hares; and it would not have the least effect upon the diminution of the crimes and outrages consequent upon the preservation of game. He thought that it was the duty of the House to treat ~ the question in a cider and more extensive manner; and if the Right Honourable Baronet the Secretary of State dis approved of the plan which he (Mr. Bright) had proposed he ought to bring d some compre hensive measure on the subject. He sh Auld recommend, therefore, that the present Bill should )e withdrawn, in order to give an opportunity for the overnment to in troduce a measure upon the subject. Sir J. TYRELL said that the Hon. Member for Man chester ought to be content with having obtained his Committee,to inquire into, the operation of the game laws, because he believed it was the intention of the Hon. Member to use the abolition of the game laws as a mere lever upon which he would hang the abolition of the corn- 11 laws. The latter object having been obtained, he tbougL that the Hon. Meml er might now rest contente d u p on the former question. He did not think that the count ysi r wa 3 prepared or would accept of any such comprehenve measure as that hinted at by the Hon. Alember for Alan of . chester, for the wholesale destruction of t he rights prOperty. Mr. BRIO lIT said that he had never to his know ledge expressed it as his reason for proposing the gam e -l a ws in order to obtain the abolition of the corn laws. The first thing which led him to take en active part against those laws was the fact of five persons being convicted for the murder of Lord Derby s gamekeeper. to abolish Mr. H. BERKELEY said that he differed very widely frem the extreme opinion expressed by the Hl• on. Mem ber for Manchester upon the subject of the ganae-/"d That lion. Member's sympathies were always enliaste on the side of the murderer; his cry was always ‘• another victim to the bloody game-laws." but no notice wilitf. ever was taken of the old and faithful servant mono was perhaps cruelly and brutally murdered by the mur", derer; but so soon as the assassin was led to the foot the gallows, immediately the Hon. Member set up 111 ' psuedo- sentimental whine.—(Cheers. Mr. S. CRAWFORD thought that the present Bille was a delusion, and would not go to th e root of thn evil; and any Bill which did not give to every the right to kill for h3s own food any animal which fe u upon his property, would prove utterly valueless. 0 Colonel SIBTIIORP said he had been told that oil of the most intimatr friends of the Honourable Menlber for Manchester was one of the first shots in the countrit • and that a great qua.otity of the game shot by that g e r li ; tleman found its way to the Honourable Member It) t Manchester's table. He thought if such were so, that the Hon. Member ought to be the last person t h at fit t perso. fault with the protection of game, seeing '; afforded to himself a eheap and wholesome for other food.—(Great laughter.) lie should 0210 certainly oppose this Bill in every stage of it, upon thet ground of the preservation of property, not uP° ll h ground that he was fond of game, for he would much rather have a plump barn-door fowl than all the gs l33 in the country.—(Laughter.) be Sir H. VERNEY was understood to say tbat should give his support to the Bill. substitute After a few words from Mr. ADDERLEY, t A be The HoN. MEMBER withdrew his motion , an House went into Commitee on th 81. After some discussion, t in which the il Chancellor of r. th e Exchequer, Sir W. Jolliffe, the Earl of M arch, Colvile, and several other Hon. Members, took parts tilde, first clause was agreed to, with several verbal anon ments. Upon clause 2 being proposed, Mr. G. BERKELEY moved to leave out from t bt words " by coursing" to the end of the clause, for a l : purpose of adding the words " with fire-arms or g ni of any description " The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQU ER St g; gested that the Hon. Member should withdraw arnendmmt, and embody it in a fresh clause, an d 22 mix up two entirely different things in one clause. Mr. G. BERKELEY then withdrew his am end® At this staee of the proceedings, no se' Mr. BERNAL informed the House that, in e " je quence of some error in the title of the Bill, makingli, applicable to owners, it was not competent to inset t amendments avin reference to occupiers. heir, After some discus sion the House resumed, the e mr, man reported progress, and, on the motion of COLVILE, it was ordered that it be an instruetivir to the Committee to insert the words " owners and °et piers of land." The House then went into Committee, and theist, 0 amendments were agreed to, and clauses 1 to amended were ordered to stand part of the Bill. Upon clause 4 being proposed, d of Mr. G. BERKELEY proposed to add to the en • the clause the words, "or for any person not bayiedge, game certificate to use any fire-arms or gun s of sere.' . seription for the purpose of killing any game or nig h e After some discussion the Committee divided, /I there appeared— 49 For the amendment Against it Majority in favour of it acs. The clause, as amended, was then agreed to, ordered to stand part of the Bill. tro l ` Clause 5 was agreed to; clauses 6 and . 7 w ere • out; clauses 8 and 9 were agreed to. a nd to The remaining clauses were then agreed t o, Chairman instructed to report progress. repo rted. The House having resumed, the Chairman re&h:01) accordingly, and the report was ordered to be brag on the tat of May. CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL- w ain Mr. ANSTEY trusted that the Government debate appoint an early day for renewing the adjourned on the Catholic Relie Bill.. Sir G. GREY said that he could not hold, ou t re l it hope for appointing an early day for t h e consid ert , of the measure. f 1 01 Mr. ANSTEY then gave notice for the 314 0 for the resumption of the adjourned debate. PETTY BAG OFFICE BILL. order ea This Bill went through Committee, and was to be brought up. POOR HOUSES (IRELAND) BILL. wr ee This Bill also went through Committee, and ordered to be reported on the Ist of May. PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. A tilt The Committee upon this Bill was postp onet- Friday, the sth of May. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. tit The third reading of this Bill was postponed na Thursday, the 4th of May. COLLECTOR OF LESS (IRELAND) BILL. The second reading of this Bill was postponed t° Wednesday, the 3d of May. INSOLVENT DEBTORS (INDIA) BILL. This Bill went through Committee , the various clauseo• with amendments, agreed to, and the report was ordered to be brought up on Monday, the Ist of May. DISTILLING FROM SUGAR BILL. , The further consideration of the rep ort upon tine, Bill was postponed until Monday, Ist of May. The other orders of the day were then dis p 030 d Of' and the House adjourned at Six o'clock u ntil Saturdli next. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, ArRH. 19. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market has an improvedallordo steady appearance, and prices are better. There was in ale business doing, and the market closed stead il y . The %lit are—Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction, dio• Shares, 7 1 /' s c. dis.—East Lancashire, 251. Shares, 7 ht„ efh o —Great Northern, 10 dis.—Lancashire and Yorkshire, tiro, (late West Riding Union). dis.—Lancaster and Pree AOL 124 dis.—London and North-Western, 126—Ditto, Shares (L. and M.). 8 p.—Ditto, Quarters, 335. 9d. Liidland Stock, 96—Ditto, New Halves, 64 die —So u Eastern and Dover, 22—Ditto, No. 2, Berwick,, No. 4, Thirds, 3" 1 / 4 dis.—York, Newcastle, and Berwick, tension, No. 1, sA p.—Dutch Rhenish, 6 3 / 4 dia. MANCHESTER, APRIL 19. STOCK EXCHANGX.—The sales are—Birkenhead, Lan es shire, and Cheshire Junction, 7% dis.—Bolton, Blackball; &c. No. 1, 12 dis.—Ditto, Preferentials (B), 1% Lancashire, New, 7 3 / 4 c. dis.—Lancashire and Yorksh"2 Fifths, 17/ s dis.—Ditto, 32/. Shares, 8% dis.—Ditto Riding Union), 4 1 4 dis.—Leeds and Thirsk, 23% d is " ; ;,., Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire (Sheffield and LT, colnshire), B ,z dis.—North Staffordshire, 3lz i Eastern and Dover, No 4,3% di s .—Whit e hiven and x"" nets, 10% dis. H BIRINGAM Arum 19. Art STOCK EXCHANGE. M —The sales , are—Midlands, N• ° ° 1 bst Staffordshire, 68s. 6d. di s .—Sh rews b ury an d Birming (B), 635. 9d. die. BRISTOL, APRIL 19. 5 , tile r STOCK EXCHANGE.—Th e R a il wa y Blarket vr4— more active, and prices w ere somew h a t firmer, but verbrest extra sales have been effected. The sales were - ;: sa ter, Western, 2% dis.—Ditto, F i fth s , 14 dis.—Bristol and !- . , , es , opt New, 9:!;1 1 - Birmingham and Gl o ucester, 115—south v 22 dis.—Taff Vale, New, 1 / 8 dis. —.we° Ro O bo a rt t s h o e n, l6 D th .e i . n ia st .2 ., o llt L so e n ß e, l n ß e T a a r s nlackheatb , the wife of Pr! On the 17th inst., at Oxford-street, Mrs. Edward i itebell of a son, still-born. ire t p the 17th inEsstq., of a n ~the if at Crewkerne, so Somersets hire, of John Wick' W °l. ' On the 7th i ns t., at Littleton House , L ower cester, the wife of the Rev. Walter Eaton, of a son. of Ohnortnh, near m in a s id t., sto t n h e e , owfia son. of Ric h ar d Thomas , E 3 °l . ' On the Bth inst., at Conin ton House, the lady of W• ./ M . Chafy, Esq., of a aughter Coning co O m n be th v e ic B a t r h ag in e s , t iia - n tl t i s e N o ; f i fae son' the Rev. H. H. Woods, d On the 9th inst., at Sussex-place, of Onlsaac th : 19otslei s fn E st sq., o o f a son. i On the 9th ins " t. a , t the n Fulton, of a son. Regent's-jaark, the WI Rockferry, Cheshire, of a daughter. L WW II" woiwf-esqoufariei,eßnrryomwpatomno:rs.E.s4H,.., ltd: On the 10th inst., at Lansdowne-terrace, South a Mrs. Alfred H. Engelbach, of a son. oil!, On the 11th inst., Mrs. Benjam in Bovill, of Ea! -, Wandsworth, of a son. _..... I I Aid RRI Ep. h i fti(4 l . On the 17th of January, at Port Elizabeth, Sout , ter . o the Rev. George Smith, to Sophia Esther, granddaugu the late William Eland, Esq., of Southwa rk, London. Georg e On the 11th ult., at St. Botolph's , Aldgate, of the Thomas, son of the late Lieutenant-Colonel RomillP r , j o hl Royal Engineers, to Margaret Philip, only daug Mirrielees, Esq DIED. • thir a On the 27th ult., at Stuttgard, Caroline Delitta, f daughter of Charles C. Barton, Esq., aged 7. „Adolf ° On the Ist inst., in Minster-yard,.Lincoln, Jon,.?„' - "• _, Colonel Harnage, late of the 62d Regiment, aged ' 1 ;,.,„ gii.l7 , On the 14th inst , at Loughton Rectory', B eg , Jane, youngest daughter of the Rev. John Atha es. ~ ~._ On the 14th inst., William ‘Vbitel k A claim), r'l 4. - )C Q An der: • t t, Es 4•I On the 15th inst., in London, George ' Henryof Binfield-park. sclo are ' On the 15th inst., in Wyndham-street, Missßryanston- M. E. F F. Andoe, aged 73. c hiple.? On the 15th inst Leamington,El' beth ---• ~ atElizabeth Erskine, • • youngest daughter of the late Lord Cardros: a b e th, On the 16th inst., aL Upper Cla ton, Harriot }-1;" relict of the late John Wood, Esq. Clap On the 16th inst., at Homer:on, Ea el. Elho man, Esq., age I 57. „ i tsshi On the 16th inst., at Betley-court, Staffordshire, An—t. Fletcher, eldest daughter of the late Sir T. Fletcher, 13,41:00 John Christopher On the 17th inst., at Sloane-terrace, Chelsea, Mr. r'" West. aged 80. Ge orge' On the 17th inst., at St. Cross , near Winchester, eighth son of William Simonds, Esq. ' aged 17. o f Ail' On the 17th inst., Maria , wife of James Webster, • street, Quadrant, aged 47. e s Ste ad ' On the 17th inst., at Ovingdean , S ussex, Jain- f Esq., aged 80. on 6f On the 17thinst., at Hampstead, Francis, the i n fant s W. B. Cooper, Esq. ..f IJSG , London : Printed and Published by MURDO_TO,„„ /12, No. .112, 'Strand, - Printer, at Tlie Sun 'Office; I ' 4l ' tit of Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, Middlesex, Thursday, April 20, le4B. in tho GOO