The Sun. — London, England, 1848-04-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 7. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. The Earl of ERNE presented petitions from the !an d surgeons of Dungarvan , complaining of the phy siciansgrievces under which medical men laboured in not get ting sufficient fees for their public duties. The Noble Earl aso presented a petition from the Protestant inhabitants of Lisniskea, in Ireland, against the national system of education in Ireland. The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from Athlone in favour of protection for Scriptural education; also petitions against denunciations from the altar; and petitions from societies of Odd Fellows praying to b e placed upon the same footing as friendly societies. Lord HATHERTON presented similar petitions. The Noble Lord trusted that the Government would pay some attention to these petitions, as the members of these lodges were most valuable members of the coin. munity. Lord CAMPBELL presented similar petitions. The Marquis of SLIGO presented a petition from the grand jury of the county of Mayo, praying for an altera tion in the poor-laws, and for the employment of able bodied paupers in the eultivation of land. The Bishop of WINCHESTER presented petitions from Ventnor in the Isle of Wight against the bull In sena Domini. PRINCIPAL CLERK. The LORD CHANCELLOR informed their Lord ships that her Majesty had been graciously pleased, by letters patent, to appoint John George Shaw Lefevre, Esq., to the office of Principal Clerk Assistant of the Parliament, in the room of Benjamin Currey, Esq., deceased. STAMP DUTIES ASSIMILATION. The Stamp Duties Assimilation Bill was read a third time and passed. PROPERTY-TAX BILL. This Bill went through Committee. BAIL FOR MANSLAUGHTER BILL. Lord DENMAN moved the second reading of the Bail for Manslaughter Bill, the object of which was to give the coroner power to take bail in certain cases of manslaughter. After some observations from the Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH, the Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. UNNECESSARY ACTIONS PREVENTION BILL. Lord DENMAN moved the second reading of the unnecessary Actions Prevention Bill. Lord CAMPBELL supported the second reading of the Bill. The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be committed. Mr. J. G. S. LEFEVRE took his seat at the table as the Principal Clerk Assistant of the Parliament. Their Lordships then adjourned. lIOUSE OF COMMONS, April 7. The SPEAKER took the Cnair to-day at Ten minutes before Four o'clock. The SOLICITOR- GENERAL (Mr. John Romilly) took the oaths and his seat on being re-elected for Devon port. The Hon. and Learned Member was introduced by Mr. Hayter, the Judge Advocate, and Mr. Tufnell. The reports on the following Bills were further con sidered and agreed to: — Clifton Bridge Bill. Leicestershire Lunatic Asylum Bill. Magdalen Hospital Act Amendment Bill. Several petitions were presented praying for the re• mission of the sentence on Frost, Wiliams, and Jones. Mr. R. DUNCAN presented a petition from Caith ness, praying for an alteration of the law with resp ec t to the importation of British spirits. The Honourable Member also presented a petition in favour of the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. BODMIN ELECTION. Mr. HAMILTON brought up the report of the Select Committee appointed to try the validity of the election for the borough of Bodmin, reporting) that Mr. Wyld and Mr. Lacy were duly elected burgesses to serve in the present Parliament for the borough of Bodmin. Mr. COWAN presented a petiti on aga i nst the Bill for establishing diplomatic relations with the Court of Zome. Mr. J. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, in favour of the Roman Catholic R lief Bill. NOTICE OF MOTION. Mr. COWAN gave notice that, on Wednesday next, he should move for leave to bring ins Bill to remove differences relating to churches and chapels in Scotland. EXPULSION OF ENGLISH WORKMEN FROM FRANCE. Sir DE LACY EVANS said, as he'understood the workmen who had been expelled from France were willing to emigrate to some of our colonies if an opportunity was afforded of their doing so by the Government, he wished to know whether the Government were disposed to afford them any aid for this purpose, by which they might be enabled to extri cate themselves from the difficulties in which they had then been placed; and further whether the Government was disposed to endeavour to obtain some reparation from the Government of France for the losses these work-people had sustained? Mr: HAWES replied that the moment represen tations were made to the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, that large numbers of English workmen were about to leave France, and that they had expressed a disposition to emigrate, the Government carefully considered the matter with a view to see if any measure could be adopted by which their wishes might be carried into effect. Unfortunately these workmen were not the class of persons who, according to the Act of Parliament, could be conveyed to any of the colonies out of the funds placed at the disposal of the Colonial-office for the purpose of promoting emigration, as they were chiefly applicable to the transmission of agricultural la bourers. Owing, however, to the benevolent manner in which subscriptions had been received to aid in the relief of these persons, he had no doubt that their desire could be accomplished; indeed he might state that with the aid of the money collected, and the aid the Government might be enabled to afford, they would be enabled to emigrate.—(Hear, hear ) Lord MAHON inquired under what authority the funds were solely devoted to the emigration of agricul tural labourers? Mr. HAWES replied that many years ago an Act was passed called the Land Clauses Act," which stated that the funds voted by Parliament should only be made applicable- to the conveyance of agricultural emigrants. Mr. GROGAN said, as great numbers of the work men had found their way to Dublin, and other parts of Ireland, he wished to express a hope that the aid men tioned might be extended to them. He wished to know what would be the cost of the conveyance of each? Mr. HAWES was unable to give a reply off hand; but, if the Hon. Gentleman would ask the question on Mon day, he should be in a condition to reply to it. Sir DE LACY EVANS said the Hon. Gentleman had not replied to his question with respect to the Go vernraent seeking reparation from the Government of France. Mr. HAWES replied that he would rather not answer the question. He would rather it should be asked of others. ORDNANCE MAPS. In reply to Mr Hume, Colonel ANSON stated that these maps in the course of two months would be redu ce d to 2s. a sheet, and 6d. p er quarter sheet. MANUFACTIJitE OF PIKES. Mr. J. O'CONNELL inquired if the attention of the Hon. Baronet had been ca ll e d to a statementin newspapers, that an agent of the Government had been discovered to have been concerned in the manufacture of pikes? Sir W. SOMERVILLE said the only statement he had seen was in the newspapers. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' BILL. MT. CARDWELL wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed to-night with the Joint-Stock Companies' Bill ? Mr. M. GIBSON said that if an occasion offered he should most certainly bring on the measure this evening. FINANCE ACCOUNTS. Mr. HUME wished to know why it was that the finance accounts had not bee' laid upon the table by the 28th of March, as required by Act of Parliament ? Mr. PARKER said that he hoped they would be ready in a few days. Some delay had unavoidably occurred in their preparation. COURSE OF PROCEEDING WITH THE NA TIONAL PETITION. Mr. H. DRUMMOND wished to know what course the Hon. Member for Nottingham intended to pursue with respect to the presentation of the petition which it wa s understood he was to bring for ward. lie did not believe that a single hu lama bei ng i n that H ouse wou ld r e fuse to acc ed e to the reception of thepetition, but what he wished to know was in what way the Hon. . . Member intended to burieeLtabearisei%eet before the consideration of the House. order that he might himself know what course to adopt to have the matter fully understood, in upon the subject. Mr. °'CCV NNOII. said that on Monday last he had given notice of hi, upon the subject n , ~Zticertlition to fou n d a s p ec ific motion ordehe intended t o move as an amendmen upo the Committee of Supply. u : of the day for going into there was no order for CoraZl fo und, however , that night, and unless the rzaent would allow G ov r of Supply for that him to bring on the question on state what course he should p ur Z d ay, he could not asked the indulgencegorfeatht eimllpozsi.n Haney had s e ldom attached by to the present case some millions of the people. He asked J 4 l " yilege that he might be allowed to be egreofjteheaasuabPjerci on Monday next, and he undertook tolsn.- that for hi m _ self, he should not occupy the time of th ey House at any great length. Lord J. RUSSELL —I should be very unwilling, Sir, that an y p e titi on so numerously signed, as the Hon' Gentleman says this will be, should not meet with every consideration from the House.—(!Lear, hear.) I do not think, however, that it will be advisable, both because other Bills are fixed for that day and for other reasons, that I should give up the business of Monday. Considering the importance attached to the petition which is to be presented signed by such numbers as the tember refers to, and that every one ou;ht receiN the consideration of the House, I shall be t ready to.epnsent to the Hon. Gentleman bringing fi x _ .----.- ward his mition on F r id a y next .—(H eir, h ear.) Mr. F: - .O'COINTNOR expressed his thanks to the Noble Lori for giving him so early a day. RIVER ST. JUAN. In answer to a question put by Mr. HUME, Lord - PALMERSTON said that the expedition of the British ships-of-war to the Newcuaraha States in Central America had been undertaken without any opecific orders from the - GOTeininent, The object of it ~'*=w. ~~~~ was to obtain the liberation of three British subjects who had been taken prisoners. MEXICO Mr. URQUHART asked whether her Majesty's Government had taken measures to secure the rights of British bondholders in Mexico, in the event of a cession of territory to the United States. Lord PALMERSTON said that the claims of foreign creditors would not be at all affected by the alienation of any part of the territory of Mexico, and that such a step could not at all affect the claims of the creditors upon the public revenue of the country. BELGIUM. Mr. URQUHART wished to know whether her Ma jesty's Government had entered into guarantee of the Crown of Belgium, or in any way have compromised themselves in engagements to maintain, in consequence of recent events on the Continent, the existing state of things? Lord PALMERSTON said that the Government had entered into no new treaties upon the subject of the relations of any of the Continental Powers. The House was in possession of the treaties of 1831 and 1839, and the subject of those treaties between France, Aus tria, Russia, Prussia, and Great Britain, with respect to Belgium, were known to those who were acquainted with those treaties.--(Laughter.) GOVERNMENT PROCLAMATION. Mr. BRIGHT said—l wish, Sir, to put a question te the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department with respect to the proclamation touching a meeting to be held on Monday next, at Kennington common.—(Cries of "Oh, oh.") I wish to know whether the notice is meant to refer to both the meeting and the procession, or only to the procession; and I ask it because some ♦ery intelligent persons whom I have conversed with have differed in opinion upon that subject, and the newspapers do not agree in the interpretation they put upon it, and I am afraid that some difficulty may arise upon the subject. It is a very different thing to attend a public meeting, for the purpose of petitioning this House, and to meet in large numbers to pass through the streets. Ther• may be some sort of a collision if this subject is not clearly understood, which every Hon. Member in the House would, I am sure, deeply deplore. Sir G. GREY—The Government, Sir, have endea voured, in the notice which they have publicly issued, to state what the common law and statute law of this country was with respect to assemblages, for whatever purpose, attended with circumstances calculated to strike terror and alarm into the minds of her Majesty's loyal and peaceabls subjects, and they also pointed out what under particular circumstances, the state of the law was,, as applicable to tumultuous assemblages, for the purpose of accompanying petitions for presentation to either Houses of Parliament, by excessive numbers of people The Hon. Member now asks me if I understand him rightly, if a meeting convened to assemble on Kennington-common, separately and in dependent of the proposed procession, would be legal or not. In answer to that I would state that the legality or illegality of the meeting would depend en tirely upon the circumstances under which that as sembly may be brought together.—(Hear, hear.) Any meeting held for a purpose, accompanied with circum stances such as I have before alluded to, calcu lated to inspire terror and alarm—just terror and alarm in the minds of her Majesty's loyal and peaceable subjects—l apprehend to be against the com mon law of the country. If a meeting is held, convened to be held, for the express purpose of forming, at the time of such meeting, a procession for the purpose of proceeding, contrary to the sta tute law, to either Houses of Parliament, to accompany the presentation of a petition in excessive numbers, then such meeting identified with, and forming part of the procession, will come within the provisions of the statute law of the country.--(Hear, hear.) The question, therefore, of the legality or the illegality of any meeting must depend upon the circumstances of the case. I cannot, therefore, answer distinctly if any meeting called for a particular purpose, whether such a meeting would or would not come within the provisions of the Act. The House will allow me to state what I believe it is desirable for the House to know, via., the dictum of Lord Mansfieid with respect to the law as applicable to this subject. In his summing up to the jury, he says, " a doubt has been thrown out from the bar as to whether it is lawful to attend the presentation of a pe tition to Parliament by more than ten persons." I will now proceed to read to the House a report of the trial of the bishops in 1688, and this report would put Honourable Gentlemen in possession of what really was the law of the Constitution upon this subject. Judge Power, in this report, is represented to have stated that the people had the right to assemble in multitudes for the petitioning Parliament or the Sovereign, but it was decidedly illegal for tumultuous assemblies to accompanying these petitions for presentation.—(Hear, hear.) I contend, therefore, that the course which her Majesty's Government has taken in this matter is strictly constitutional, They have no wish to prevent the people from exercising their just right of meeting to petition, but they are bound to interfere when it is proposed to meet for the purpose of infringing the law.—(Hear.) In answer to a question from Lord GROSVENOR, Sir GEORGE GREY said the only notice he had received of the meeting he collected from the published announcement of the Chartist body themselves, and signed by an individual who represented himself to be the secretary. It was announced in that notice, that the object of the parties who issued it was for the purpose of assembling the people to the number, it was said, of 300,000, but with regard to that he expressed no opinion —(Cheers)—in order to make a great demonstration of physical force in favour of a particular question, and to accompany a certain petition to the door of the Mouse. Mr. O'CONNOR—WiII the Right Hon. Baronet allow me to ask him whether he has received a deputation to day from the parties who issued the notice on the subject? Sir G. GREY said three individuals, who represented themselves to be members of the National Convention, attended at the Home-office to-day, and saw the Under- Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the presence of the Attorney-General; but he, himself, was not able to be present. He had, however, received a letter from these three persons, which, with the permission of the House, he would read.—(Hear, hear.) The letter was dated—" Home-office, half-past two o'clock P.M.—Sir: We, the undersigned delegates ap pointed by the Natianal Convention, beg to inform you that the National Convention never had any design of calling an armed assemblage together for the purpose of forming an armed procession, and we can assure you that the National Convention is most anxious for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of pri vate property. We, therefore, avail ourselves will take place lvesofthisoppor tunity of informing you that the procession on Monday next, and in the event of any disturbance taking place, be assured it will not be caused by those who join in the procession. We are, &c., G. W. M. Reynolds, E. Clarke, and J. Wilkinson."—(Oh, oh.) Sir R. H. INGLlS—lsvis t ,h_nder Secretary, Hon. toe ask Rightthe Bart. whether, through hislieconde scended to receive three individuals as the repre sentatives of a National Convention sitting in London?— (Cries of" Oh, oh!") Sir, the House may cry "Oh, oh!" but I respectfully insist that I have a right to ask the question. Does the Right Hon. Baronet not recognise the existence of a National Convention sitting in London by condescending to receive a letter from three of its representatives? Sir GEORGE GREY—The answer I have to give the Hon. Baronet is, that the three gentlemen who at tended the Home office to-day were not reccgnised as d e l egates of the National Convention.—(Cheers.) It was distinctly state d to t h em that they were not re ceived as delegates of the National Convention, but as e th o a ni t in c g har f a ro c ra ter on l y a meetin g held at a c e rt a in house, and in they were received.—(Cheers.) Mr. WAKLE Y wished to put a question to the Right Honourable B aronet in connexion with this subj ect. During th e l ast month it had been publicly stated that this meeting would take place, and that there would pr o b a bl y b e 300,000 re Gentleman mi g ht cry " Oh, oh, " present. —(Oh he d there were 300,000 People in this coil ' n v t e y, and 300,000 w h o felt that k re n p o r w ese h n o t w ed it in w as,thaift (Cheers.) $e g e w a w l e a r t n e h t a e t d n th o to e t they were people did not receive information from the Government on the subject before?—(Cheers.) Sir G. GREY replied simply because he as Secretary of State did not receive th e in f ormat i on referred to by the Hon. Member.—(Che e r s .) I t was true it was . stated some time ago that a great meeting would take place in the metropolis about the 1 lth of April, but the first official notice he received of it was the issuing of the announcement to which he had already alluded.—(Hear, hear.) After much confusion, and loud cries of " Order, order," " Chair, chair," The SPEAKER said, if the Hon. Gentleman rose to put another question subjecthe h was ew IT quite o u t in of n o r r d d e e r r,._b ( u uar but e ifh . e rose to w de A ba K te r they x) Mr. , that this Hou se d o now adjourn —( Laug hter ) —in —Then I move order that there m a y b e the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Ri g h t a question before Hon. Gentleman said e Grn th o a y t e he m h e a n d t poabsestetsesrekd.nowtilee could e u o l n a state positively , this subject than th that he attended no meeting whatever munication with those in relation who called themselves the Convention relation to it. He derived his w , on the subject of the p etition, and he had no direct corn- National Member of that House. He on• the prop er ty of an - info rm ation, and he could not had no ot h er source of information on the subjec t from a newspaper ff paper which was , help thi n ki ng t h at t h e people had been unjustly treated in bein g a ll ure d — Lord INGESTRE—I rise to order. Mr. WAKLEY—In being a llured into the suppos i t ion that thei r meeting would not be interfered with, by reason of the Government not giving any he meeting on earlier kan nouncement that th ey wou ld suppress t he acecunt of its illegality, although such meeting had been announced for some weeks. He regretted such conduct, because it was likely to be attended with great public calamity. Mr. F. O'CONNOR seconded the motion. The per sons who were concerned in getting up this demonstra tion had no right to suppose that their meeting and pro cession would be interfered with, because in 1843, when the Right Hon. Baronet was in office, a procession of a similar nature, for similar objects, and announced in the same language, had taken place. At the time of the Reform Bill f rom 10 0,000 to 150,000 resentd i ta cession before the Home-office. . Inpersona filed in pro -1833 a petition, p accompanied by 100,000 persons, was your of the Dorchest er l a b ourers; and a short time since since they saw the_ procession _ of sailors. The natural conclu sion to be drawn from these precedents was that the Chartists would not be prever ted, and it was taking them by surprise to prevent them now at the eleventh hour. It was not their intention to come to the door of the House of Commons, but to pass over Westminster-bridge. All the influence that he could exert would be employed to preserve the peace. He solemnly declared his con viction that if the people had been told in time that the meeting would be suppressed they would not assem ble, but now it was too late, and many of them could not be prevented coming. He recollected the time when those who were now in office declared that taxation without representation was tyranny, and ought to be resisted; and it was hard that the schoolmasters should now coerce and flog their pupils for learning too well the instruction which they themselves had given.— (Hear, hear.) He would not shrink from the responsi bility thrown upon him. He was not the man to sneak oat of his determination. It was his intention to attend the meeting—to come down to Westminster with the procession. It was not for the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member 'for Harwich (Sir J. C. Hobhouse), from whom they had learned his lcs son, to come down at the eleventh hour, when every preparation was made for this meeting, and say that they intended to suppress it. He believed in his soul and conscience that those who were to take part in that meeting had no more notion of disturbing the public peace than he had—(Laughter)—and he had no notion of disturbing it.—(Hear, hear.) He had been told by the lion. Alderman below him that he would be the first to be shot on Monday if ho came to the procession. Flowerer that might be, he should hold it his duty to be with the people, and to take the lion's share of the danger.—(Elear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had no right to presume that those who got up this demon stration—and he was not one of them—did so with a view of committing an infraction of the peace.—(oh, oh.) Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Honourable Gentle man had truly said that precedent had a great deal to do with the present question. But what had taken place in 1843, when he was Secretary for the Home Department, differed in two points from the present case. In the first place, the petition of 1843 did not emanate from a meet ing publicly convened in the neighbourhood of the me tropolis, and under the circumstances which the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite said would attend the meeting to be held on Monday next. The petition of 1843 was brought from a private house, and not from a public meeting. Mr. O'CONNOR—It was brought from Lincoln's Inn fields. Sir J. GRAHAM said he was speaking from recol lection; but besides, there was no notice previously given that a procession would come to this House from the place where the meeting was held. If that procession was attended with circumstances like the present he cer tainly should have failed in his duty—being responsible for the peace of the metropolis—if he had consented to allow a meeting to be held such as that of which notice was given for Monday, and which the Right Honourable Gentleman declared to be illegal in its character. He did not think such a meeting ought to be countenanced. Mr. HORSMAN thought the House would act in an unjust and ungenerous manner if they did not give every assistance to those who were responsible for the peace of the country on the present occasion. They should form their opinion of the propriety of the meet ing from its character and not from the objects to be discussed or the numbers who attended it. It could not be doubted that great apprehensions were entertained from this meeting, and for the sake of those who enter tained those apprehensions, and for the preservation of the public peace, he was prepared to place implicit con fidence in the Government.—(Hear.) Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said he was glad that he had given way to the Honourable Gentleman who had just spoken, because he believed his sentiments were those of every Member of that House.—(Hear, hear, and No, no.) He was not the person who said that if the Honourable Member for Nottingham appeared in the procession certain consequences would follow.—(Laugh ter.) But he was surprised that the Hon. Gentleman ,hould say that he had no part in getting up the pro cession which was to take place on Monday next. He begged to ask the Hon. Member for Nottingham, whether he had not attended a meeting in a certain coffee-house in Cripplegate, and whether he had not made use of the following language there ?—(Eiear, hear, and cries of " Read, read.") The Hon. Gentleman hero read a report of a speech alleged to have been delivered by the Hon. Member for Nottingham, in which he said that there was no use in petitioning the House of Commons any longer; that they must do what America had done, shake off the yoke. It was better to die by the sword than live in slavery. The people of Ireland would not be satisfied with repeal, but would have a republic. He implored of them to remember the 10th of April, and spoke of it as a glorious day. His moral force would put down physical force. They must do away with all titles as they did in France, and put down royalty, as too ex pensive to the country. That was the report of the lion. Gentleman's speech, which had been put into his hands by a respectable solicitor, and it formed a great contrast to the language which the Hon. Gentleman used in that House.—(Cheers.) Mr. O'CONNOR declared solemnly that the report which the House had just heard was not what he had said. He never was a Republican. And he wrote article after article against that form of government. So help him God he never mentioned a word about doing away with titles. He had before declared in that House that he was not for a repeal of the union, but for separa ti,.n. He did not think he said a word about France. He would produce witnesses to show that he had not used the language imputed to him, and he could not have lone so because the sentiments it contained were not his. It' such opinions as those referred to by the Hon. Mem ber had been entertained by him, he should not have hesitated to avow them in that place, but the fact was there was not one scintilla of truth in the statement, that he had made the speech which had been read to the House. Mr. 111..7ME said that it was of the utmost import ance for the House not to allow its attentio❑ to be di verted towards what took place at meetings held out of loors, for they were all aware how liable such proceed trigs were to misrepresentation, and how often they had been distorted to suit particular purposes when occasion required. The Hon. Member for Westmoreland, before he made such a statement as that which he had just done, should have obtained a report of the speech attri buted to the Hon. Member for Nottingham from a short hand writer. He did not deny that speeches had been delivered at public meetings calculated to create great anxiety, and urging the people to commit acts of vio lence; but such reports as that of the Honourable Alderman ought to be received with great caution. They were all aware of the frequent resorts which had been had to spies by the Government authorities, who were as capable now as they had proved themselves for merly to be, of poisoning the minds of the people and of leading them astray. He recollected having himself arrested a spy who had gone to create disaffection in the manufacturing districts, and who carried with him for that purpose a number of seditious bills, with the view of placarding them about those towns. The Hon. Member for Lambeth went with him in order to seize this man ; but Lord Sidmouth dismissed him, instead of ordering him to be detained and called to account for his conduct. He was only the third spy he had been accessory to taking. —(A laugh.) He regretted to see the House treatirg the subject with hilarity. That showed they were ignorant of what was going on in the country. There had been a time when the Ministers of the Crown had not hesitated to employ spies, who first seduced the people into acts of violence, and then be trayed their dupes to the gallows. The employment of those spies, and the printing of the placards which they carried about with them, were distinctly traced to the Go vernment. When they saw men out of work and starv ing in the streets, could it be otherwise than abhorrent to know that the Government spies were poisoning their winds and inciting them to commit acts of violence?— (Oh.) Ile was speaking of what had formerly taken place, not of the conduct of the present Ministers. If he had not confidence in them he would not sit where he did; he would move to the other side, for he should not think it safe to be so near them if he thought they did not despise such conduct. If so great a falsehood had been put off upon the Hon. Alderman as that which be had read for the speech of the Hon. Member for Nottingham, there ought, for the satisfaction of the ►louse and the country, to be some examination in stituted into the circumstances. -At all events Members ought to be more guarded in receiving and repeating such statements. The Government ought in particular to be very reserved in acting upon any information save that which they procured upon affidavit. Sir D. L. EVANS had never yet been found on the side of those who would restrict the public meetings of the people, but he was bound to say on the part of his constituents, the inhabitants of Westminster, that there were circumstances which rendered the contemplated procession of Monday a peculiar case. For 18 years he had countenanced many public processions and meetings, but there were some peculiarities which deserved mention, namely, that it was only a short time ago that two meet ings had been held, both of a most contemptible charac ter, and particularly so as compared with the proposed meeting, but still it was his duty to state that, notwith standing that contempt, those meetings had created con siderable alarm.—(Hear, hear.) He could assure the House that not only had there been great alarm created at those comparatively small meetings, but also that numbers of his constituents had suffered materially in their business.—(Bear, hear.) Therefore, he conceived it to be his duty to entreat the Government to have some regard for his own immediate constituents, and if the Hon. Member for Nottingham persisted in his present determination, he begged to inform him that it was very much to be wished he would direct his columns else where than into Westminster. For even if there were no disturbance, there would be a great interruption to business, occasioning farther loss to tradesmen, who were not able to sustain their present adverse circum stances. lie concurred with the Hon. Member for Cockermouth, that the circumstances of the times, both domestic and foreign, were unprecedented, and that the hour was come when every man —every honest man— (Cheers)—every man not destitute of courage and sin cerity, and more especially every liberal man, was bound to declare what side he was prepared to take. In that spirit he was prepared to state that he gave his willing assent to the measures adopted by the Government. Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the Hon. Member for Nottingham had just declared that he had never joined a society for repeal, but had been a member of an association for effecting a separation between Ireland ha l d le fo b r e m gg e e r d ly t b o e a e s n k ethnerollileodn. asM eamrbeepreahloewr, aai a tln n owd d n aae E sc - ' the society as such, and in that capacity nte by mp l t a h t e e (1 11 j on i . n M i n e g m t b h e e r, parnod ;teghplaaHttenh'edle.lbiyoped that those of his unhappy country from his decla rationcession on Monday, would take warning . particularly i c l' u 'il l aor lhad those been wholed awayco kins men in Ireland had done, namely, n to do with the Hon. Member.—(Cheers.) of that night, and determine to ot atocthaasvothaeni;thing Mr. F. O'CONNOR rose to correct a mistake com mitted by the Hon. Member opposite. He never did enrol himself as a member of li Repeal Association. lie became a member of a society of which the late Mr. D. O'Connell was a prominent member, and the only engagement he entered into was that he would imme diately provide himself with a musket and a knapsack. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would abstain from all allu sion to the Honourable Member for Nottingham's speeches and proceedings out of that House, and would confine what he had to say to those observations which the Hon. Member had uttered in his place there. He now informed the House that it was not the intention of the procession to come in a body to the doors of the House. But the Government and the House would find, on referring to the printed declaration, that such an intention was therein announced, and that printed document was signed by three of the Chartist leaders. Nevertheless, the Hon. Member now asserted that such a proceeding was not intended. What then would have been the effect, if, as the Hon. Member for Finebury had urged, the Government had taken steps to prevent the procession some weeks ago? Would it not have been immediately said that the Ministers had acted prema surely, for they bad nothing to go upon, and the Hon. Member's present declaration would be referred to es a proof that there was no intention to approach the House of Commons in vast numbers? With respect to the cha racter of the intended procession, he must firstobserve that every case of that kind depended on itself alone. lie was ready to admit that there were occasions when it was not necessary to resort to the strict letter of the law in regard to public meetings and processions. But there were times when such proceedings produced a most dis quieting effect, and the only question for the House and the Government to consider was, whether the present case should be referred to the former or the latter cate gory. Why, the Hon. Member himself must be aware of the guilty hopes and designs which had been raised and created by the occasion of the intended meeting. The Honourable Member had told the House that he had been reprobated at the meetings which he attended elsewhere--reprobated for what ?—for improper con eber wo u ld p erm it hi m con duct. For expressing his attachment to royalty and institutions.—(Hear, p it e s rhapsthcino ourabie hear.)Mm After such avowals, (Lord John Russell) to offer him some friendly ad vice. —(Hear.) He had told the House that he saw no reason why the procession projected for Monday should not be allowed to take place in the same manner that former processions had been permitted to have effect. The Government, however, looking at the cir cumstances of the times and the occasion, had consulted the Crown lawyers, having also regard to the declara tions uttered and printed by the parties promoting the procession and meeting. They then thought it their duty to inform all persons that the meeting was illegal, and to warn them against attending the procession. Had there not, he asked, been a sufficient warning given? Were not three days a sufficient period of time for the persons promoting the meeting to reconsider and alter their decision? Those persons might have thought that the proposed meeting was not illegal—that there were precedents for it, and that it would be permitted. They now knew that the Government had declared it to be illegal, and that it had excited a great deal of terror and alarm in the minds of peaceable persons. Was it not the duty of the Hon. Member for Nottingham, as he did not share the sentiments of those persons who called for a republic, to dissuade the promoters of the meeting from holding it? Was it not his duty to show them im example by publicly avowing his determination nut to join it? Could he not state to them with truth that their petition would be respectfully received, arid that every opportunity would be afforded for a fair dis cussion of what was styled the People's Charter? Let it be hoped that the Hon. Member would not carry out the determination which he had expressed, but that he would advise those who looked up to him as their guide not to persevere in their projected attempt to overawe the deliberations of the Parliament by an illegal assem blage and procession.—(Hear.) Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL merely rose to say that the Hon. Member's statement respecting a musket and a knapsack was wholly without foundation. The society to which he referred was put down by an Act of Parlia ment passed in 1831. It was formed upon principles distinctly opposed to the separation of Ireland from England, and its views were peaceable, and not those which a musket and knapsack would suggest. But perhaps what he said was quite unnecessary, as the House was probably already aware that the Hon. Mem ber's statements were often compounded more from his imagination than from facts. Sir R. PEEL said, that if he rose on the present oc casion to say a word, his doing so was caused by the Hon. Member for Nottingham having mixed up his name in the discussion, by stating that the conduct of the Government, in 1843, offered a precedent which ought to be the guide of the Government on the present occasion. He recollected no act of the Government of 1843 which ought to fetter the discretion of her Ma jesty's Ministers. He knew it had been said that there were occasions in former years when processions of the people were allowed to approach the House of Commons; but that was only by indulgence of the Executive Government. The Spitalfields wearers had been per mitted to follow that course. But under the present circumstances the numbers which it was expected would constitute the projected procession were too great to be permitted to take that proceeding. Ho thought the Government had acted prudently in not having interfered sooner. He thought it would have been said, as the Noble Lord had intimated, that there was no intention to violate the law. The present was the time when the Government might properly express its intentions ; and, with reference to the precedent said to have been established in 1843, he must say that, consi dering the circumstances of the times, as well foreign as domestic, and taking also into regard the state of the public mind at present, if 100,000 people were permitted to parade the streets, it was impossible to foresee the consequences. and, in his opinion, the Government had acted rightly in taking the course they had done. For it must be remembered that considerations of humanity alone ought to have prompted them to impose the restrictions on the people which they had done, and if they had not taken those precautions those who now denounced them for having done so would be the very first vehemently to impeach them ; and, in that case, he admitted with much more reason than they now bad done.--(Hear.) The SPEAKER—Does the Hon. Member for Fins bury intend to persevere in ,his motion that this House do now adjourn ? Mr. WAKLEY said that he would, with permission, withdraw it. He must, however, remind the Hon. Mem ber for Westminster (one of whose constituents he was) that he had not forgotten, and he hoped the people would not forget, the declaration made by that lion. Member in 1831, that if the Reform Bill was thrown out, he was ready to pot himself at the head of 100,000 men, and march down to that House to compel them to pass it. Sir D. L. EVANS was quite ready to enter, at a pro per time, into an explanation of the difference between the two cases. The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn. TREASON AND SEDITION BILL. Sir G. GREY deeply regretted that the spirit of sedi tion which was displayed amongst certain classes, and the language tending to excite an insurrection for the purpose of subverting the institutions of the empire, had rendered it necessary for the Government to come forward and ask the House to consent to an alteration of the law, in order to enable them to meet the circumstances of the times. Nothing was further from the intention of Ministers than to ask Parliament to place any restriction Engli s h man, S cotc h man, and on the deliberation out o f doors which attended political events. Still less was i t their desire to restrict the liberty with apostsoe t s h d e expressions of th e i r op i n i on on t h e state House serdawbyup every petitions and to approac h t h e shsmn e of public affairs. That right constituted the great basis of the constitution, and to its exercise were due the liberties of the people , an d their power of resisting their invasion by the Cro wn, and to that right also was mainly happy position of E ng l an d am id st t h e of the thron es o f E urope. Th ere w of the people of Engl an d a d eep - seate d e a u x t n t ii r sv i te b er u ds t a a ol b n, l , e tvhe e t r h tph e arrot conviction that the peaceful enjoyment of liberty which was observed amongst them was the result of the constitution. But there were limits event° those rights; and when those boundaries were transgressed, and when, under pretence of discussing political questions,treason was spoken,was it to be said that Government was to be deprived of the power of meeting those occasions? He would not enter into a detail of the proofs which he had to offer of the trea sonable language' which had been uttered at public Hon. Baronet meetings. The daily newspapers offered too many examples of that language. The Right opposite had referred to the events which had taken place in foreign countries ; and, although he was ready to admit that those occurrences had not produced any ill effect in the minds of the mass of well-informed people, still they had had a very considerable influence over the actions of a great number of persons, and ho was induced in consequence to p ro pose the measure which he was about to su b m i t t o the House. Duri n g the last three weeks th e l angua ge that had bee n held at cer tain public m eet i ngs i n Ir e land was incomp atible wit h the security o f t h e p eace ful inhabitants of that king dom, and t h e i r enjoyment of those ins titutions under which m ore f ree d om was guara nteed to them than was possessed by an y o th er n ation in Europe • The Govern ment had been reproached for not b ayin g taken ste p s sooner to repress those treasonable speeches which, he regretted to say, had been too willingly listened to by those who heard them. The Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland had directed his attention to them. At first he treated them as mere ravings, but finding that they had produced dangerous effects, and that they had stimulated disaffected p ers ons to avow their designs, and to end eavour to combine with foreigners to render the present institutions of Ireland insecure, the Lord- Lieutenant felt th a t i t b ecame his duty to take some steps to check th ose proceedings—to pu t a stop to the sedi tious speech es an d wr i t i ngs o f t h os e who promoted them, and thus to o b v i ate the evil effects w hich they produced. For that p urpose p rosecut i ons were instituted fur sedi tion again st certa i n parties. Whathat was done in conse quence by those Rinks? Was the Gove rnment met b y an intimatio n on their part that they w ould in future conform to th e l aw ? No such thing. The Ministers of the Crown were met by a declaration of an intention to resort to open violence, and were told that, inas much as they were indicted for sedition, they were now anxious to commit high treason.—(Hear, hear.) When ho used the word high treason, he was afraid he might be misunderstood, lie might be askediwhy the Go vernment had not prosecute d those persons for high treason. But it must b e o b serve d t hat sedition and high treason were difficult to distinguish , alt h ough it might tu rn out that those who thoug h t th e y wore only committing sedition had rendered themselves liable to be punished for the graver offence—and to be subject to the extr eme penalty awarded to t h at cr i me . But it must be recollee[ed that the persons who talked in this manner were lawyers, or law-advised, and that whilst exciting others to treason, they thought they were quite safe themselves. But in this, he thought, they might hereafter find themselves mistaken, for if by those ex citing speeches others hid been induced to commit acts of treason, those who .so incited those crimes by their speeches might be brobght within the pile of the law of high treason. However, as yet no overt acts of trea son had been committed, and this consideration brought him to the immediate statement which he had to make on the subject of the measure which he had to propose to Parliament. In the Nation newspaper would be found detailed instructions for the construction of barri cades, and showing how the Queen's troops might best be interrupted and even murdered by missiles from the windows of houses, whilst performing their duty. This species of street warfare had been studied by those who described it, and the writers in the paper he had named did not hesitate to declare that their object was to drive the Queen's representative, the Lord-Lieutenant, out of the kingdom, and to instal a Republican Government there. On tho 23d of March he found the following speech reported as having been delivered by Mr. Mitchell, at one of the meetings to which he had re ferred:— . " I am charged with writing seditious articles, having a tendency to inflame the minds of the pe o pl e , an d exc i te discontent. I did write seditious articles, snd I will write seditious articles.—(Loud cheering.) is will incite the people to discontent and disaffection.—(Renewed cheering.) I know no reason why they should be con tent—why they should be well-affected —towards the Government of England.—(Loud cheers.) On the day this confederation was formed, I, as you remember, came forward and declared myself a disaffected subject, and promised to devote myself continually to excite dis affection in others.—(Hear, hear, and loud cheering.) I think I have kept that promise; and, come what may, I will continue to do so."—(Loud cheers.) The person who spoke thus was one of those who had been brought by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and the law officers of the Crown there under the jurisdiction of the law, and who, even if he were found guilty of utter ing such speeches as the above, would only be subjected, as a punishment for his offence, to a moderate fine and imprisonment. Another of the persons indicted, Mr. C. G. Duffy, of the Nation, was the next speaker, to whose words he would draw the attention of the House. He found the following report contained in the papers of that person's address : "I am guilty of an attempt to sow disaffection in the minds of the people—l am guilty of tin attempt to overthrow this Government, which keeps its footing on our soil by sheer brute force, and by nothing else. — (Loud cries of Hear, hear.') And this I tell you, that until that Government be thoroughly upset, I shall not cease to write, to speak, to act sedition. One cir cumstance alone shall stop me in this career—my death. —(Loud and enthusiastic cheers.) In their courts of law we shall take issue with them boldly and despe rately. If we do not throw them there, we shall throw them on a broader field.—(Vehement cheering.) It must be done. The news this morning announces that Vienna is in the hands of the people.—(Renewed cheer ing.) Dublin must be iu the hands of the people.— (Enthusiastic and deafening cheers.) Stand by us, citi zens, and it shall be done.—(Cries of 'We will.')" Such was the language uttered by these persons, and those who were in the habit of reading these speeches would be aware that the more violent and treasonable the expressions, the more vehement was the applause with which they were greeted. On the same day Mr. Reilly came forward to propose the formation of a na tional guard. He (Sir G. Grey) must warn the House against adopting the supposition that this proposal was merely sedition, for it might turn out to be a far graver crime. The speech attributed to Mr. Deviu Reilly was as follows: " Mr. Devin Reilly then came forward to propose a resolution for the organization of a national guard, and in doing co was vehemently cheered. He said he was satisfied that the country would see in that evening's meeting a good beginning.—(Cheers.) It was his high privilege to propose that they should take that evening the initiative step in the broad path of freedom — (Cheers)—to prose the first of a series of steps for which his soul had long hungered, and for the want of which tens of thousands of his murdered countrymen had pe rished—the formation of an armed national guard in Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) This resolution called on the council of the confederation to inquire and report on the best and most effectual means of organizing and arming such a body.—(Loud cheering.) That was their answer to Lord Clarendon.—(Cheers.) For every one of them he might imprison, hundreds would be ready to take their places. For every leader of importance imprisoned, they would arm ten thousand men.—(Loud cheers.) For every hour he confined them, they would shorten his rule in Ireland by one hundred days. For every hair of their heads he touched, for every one he hanged; but be would not talk to them of hanging, for if there was sufficient manhood and devotion amongst them, long before things arrived at such a pass they would open the gaols with their pickaxes and crowbars. Long before that day every street of Dublin might be a barricade or a fortress, and every pavement carpetted with blood.—(Great applause.) Long before that day they would show the tyrant out of Ireland by the light of the burning gaols.—(Cheers.) Before that day every field in Ireland must be fought, every ditch defended, and every river obtain a notorious memory to live throughout future ages. Aye, and if they were driven into the remotest corners of their beloved island, they would make the graves of their murdered countrymen the last resting-ground for the defence of their precious liberties. —(Cheers.) If they were to fall, let them nobly fall— if they conquered, they must do so by their own right hands. While they had arms in their hands they might defy the whole world—without them they were at the beck of every petty constable.—(Hear.) Four months ago, when the Coercion Bill was introduced, he called on the people in that hall to arm.—(Cheers.) Now he called on them a second time to arm, arm, arm !—(Loud cheers.) Had they armed four months ago they would be tour months nearer their liberty that day. Let them arm now; and when they had armed, they would be ready, and not sooner.—(Cheers.) When they were willing to aid themselves, God would assist them, and not betore.—(Cheers,) They had often been told about Ireland's opportunity, and that the time was not yet come. Now, he would tell them that no time was oppor tune to a nation which was not prepared to go out at any moment and assert its rights.—(lmmense ap plause.) It was slaves only who waited for oppor tunities—a nation of brave men should be always prepared.—(Cheers,) A great movement of the people was passing over the world. Democracy had crossed the Alps and entered Austria. Last week he was in Paris, and there smashed the strongest dynasty in the world. —(Loud applause.) He would presently come to Ire land.—(Cheers.) 300,000 Englishmen, Chartists, would assemble in London next week, and then they would have London in their hands.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He promised them, as a brother, that whether that time came sooner or later, the first budge in England would be answered in Ireland .—(Loud cheers.) Let them wait for that day, and prepare for it, by arming themselves ; and, till that day arrived, he had but one advice to give them, and that advice was, to put their trust in God and keep their powder dry.' " From another of the speeches it would seem that a treasonable appeal had been made to a foreign coun try to help these persons to overthrow the established Government and to institute a republic in Ireland. The speech to which he referred was printed in the papers as follows: " Mr. C. G. Duffy, of the Nation, then came forward and was received with loud cheers. He said he had news for them from Mr. Smith O'Brien. He thought they knew that he was no boaster. He believed that they could trust in what he said, and felt that he said only what he intended to do. He (Mr. O'Brien) re ceived last week an address from a certain Irish club in Paris, and the answer to that address excited a storm of curiosity. The Morning Chronicle received that day expressed great annoyance that it could not lay its hands upon it, and the Lord-Lieutenant would give his eye out for it: but they would be generous—they would g ive it to him for not hin g .— ( Cheers.) Here it was. - Mr. O'Brien said, in answer to the club to which he referred, I have seen enough of Francs to convince me that she is able and willing, if invited, to make an effort to send 50,000 of her most valued citizens to support the Irish nation in a struggle.'—(Great cheering.) The answer of Lamartine had been received, and like all state documents, it meant nothing; but he thought they could be indifferent to it, after the promises of one of their truest men ringing in their ears.—(Cheers.) The union was repealed.—(Cheers.) He thought so that morning, but he had 50,000 additional reasons for be lieving that it was repealed.—(Cheers.)" He did not read this extract with the intention of having it believed that he attached the slightest confidence to the statement of the disposition on the part of France to send 50,000 armed men to aid the separation of Ireland from this country.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever opinion he might entertain as to the conduct and views of the Provisional Government of France, no man could read the answer of M. De Lmartiue to the Irish deputation without respecting the courage and boldness which dictated that reply—a reply giving, in the most explicit, and as he thoroughly believed, in the most honest, terms, a distinct refusal on the part of the Government to interfere in any way in the internal affairs of England, or to send any men to this country, or to Ireland, to aid the deputation in their treasonable designs.—(Hear, hear.) M. De Lamartine, had as a matter of course, especially under the circumstances in which he was placed, received these gentlemen with civi lity; but as to assistance from France, the disturbers of the public peace in Ireland might wait for it in vain, whatever might have been said to some member of the deputation by some member of a Parisian club, eagerly caught up by the Irish emissary in his despair at the wholly discouraging reception given to him by the autho rities.—(Hear, hear.) He would not impute to a Mem ber of the Imperial Parliament a design to deceive others, but assuredly Mr. Smith O'Brien, in his eager enthu siasm, wholly deceived himself, when he talked of the coming aid of 50,000 French baayonets to the designing men of whom he was rendering himself the tool, and to the excitable band of followers for whose fate, should they not be in time prevented from incurring punishment, he would be so deeply responsibl e . —(hear.) A Mr. Magee, in sec on di ng the motion,. spoke in still more vehement term s o f an appeal to arms it the assertion of the cause they had in view. He was sure, however, he need not read any more than he had read, to show what was the character of the advice given by these men to the excitable crowds they addressed, or what were the designs which they did not merely not attempt to disguise, but which they unblushingly and fiercely avowed and exulted in. —(Hear, hear.) One word he would add, however, respecting a sentence in Mr. Magee's speech, which described Lord Clarendon as going about and soliciting the protection of the wardens of the Dublin trades, for he was bound to say, in justice to the large proportion of the population of that part of the country, that, during the progress of this agitation, the Lord-Lieutenant, so far from having found it neces sary to make any appeal for a manifestation of confidence in his government, had, so far back as the 27th March, informed his colleagues at home that an address had been presented to him expressive of the fullest confidence in him and in the Government, and of the most loyal attachment to the Crown, the laws, and to the in stitutions of the realm, signed by persons of all ranks, prossions, and religious - persuasions, rainy, Roman Catholic clergy and prelates among them, to the number at that date of 140,000 ; and since that date the number of signatures appended to the de claration had been increased to 280,000.—(Hear, hear.) He did rot, of rnirse, deny that there were manifesta tions of much agitation and excitement—that speeches were delivered to large assemblages of men which greatly tended to aggravate and extend that feeling of agitation and excitement—speeches most inflammatory and tending to most dangerous consequences—but he had no hesitation in expressing his conviction, that, with regard to Ireland at large, there prevailed in that country a spirit of loyalty, of devotion to the person of the Sovereign, and of attachment to the Government and to the institutions of the realm, as vivid and strong as in any part of the empire.—(Hear.) It was for the de fence of this loyal and well•disposed population, and of the loyal and well disposed population of the realm at large, that the Government—finding the present law too weak for the effectual suppression of sedition and treason—now came to Parliament for such an exten sion of the law as would enable them to deal satisfacto rily with cases of this kind—with that political fever which arose from time to time, and spread terror and alarm among the peaceful and well-disposed. He would now proceed to state as accurately as he could what the law was with reference to offences of this kind. He would premise that the law in force in England was not the same as that extant in Ireland on this subject; or, at all events, that very grave doubts prevailed on the point—doubts which had not before been raised, no occasion, fortunately, having before occurred to question the identity of the law in the two countries. The general law with respect to treason was that of 25 Edward 111., c. 2, which, as extended to Ireland by an Act of Henry VII., then applied to the United King dom; RO that any deed committed by a subject of the crown of these realms, coming within the provisions of this statute, was liable to the penalties of treason. The acts here contemplated were, the compassing the death of the King, the levying war against the King, or aiding his enemies to levy war against him, within the realm or elsewhere. By the 36 Geo. 111., c. 7, the law of treason was materially extended. By that Act, which was intended to inure only during the life of that King, and to the end of the session of Parliament next follow ing his demise —the Act was passed Dec. 18, 1795—it was provided— " That if any person or persons whatsoever after the day of the passing of this Act, during the natural life of our most gracious Sovereign Lord the King (whom Almighty God preserve and bless with a long and pros perous reign) and until the end of the next session of Parliament after a demise of the Crown, shall, within the realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim or wounding, imprison• ment or restraint of the person of the same our Sovereign Lord the King, his heirs and successors, or to deprive or to depose him or them from the style, honour, or kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm, or of any other of his Majesty's dominions or countries; or to levy war against his Majesty, his heirs and successors, within this realm, in order by force or constraint to compel him or them to change his or their measures or councils, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or to intimidate, or overawe, both Houses, or either House of Parliament ; or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade this realm, or any other his Majesty's dominions, or countries under the obeisance of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors; and such coin passings imaginations, inventions, d ev i ces , or i n t en ti o ns, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by pub lishing any printing or writing, or by any overt act or deed, being legally convicted thereof upon the oaths of two lawful and credible witnesses upon trial, or other wise convicted or attainted by due course of law, then every such person and persons, so as aforesaid offending, shall be deemed, declared, and adjudged to be a traitor and traitors, and shall suffer pains of death, and also lose and forfeit as in cases of high treason." Under this extension of the former Act any person going to France, and soliciting aid from the French people to alter the existing institutions of the country, rendered himself liable to the penalties set forth. The 36th Geo. 111., c. 7, as he had said, was designed as only a temporary statute, but by the 57 Geo. 111. c. 6, the first section of the 36 Geo. 111., which he had just read to the House, was made perpetual. The latter Act, passed in 1819, was, of course, subsequent to the union, and consequently doubts had been very seriously enter tained whether, as rendering permanent a special Act passed before the union, it could be considered applicable to Ireland. The most authoritative legal opinions were decidedly against the applicability of this renewed Act to Ireland ; and as a matter of course against the existence of any authority on the part of the G7vern , went to subject offences committed in that country to the provisions of the Act. The law, therefore, might be fairly stated as being, in point of fact, different in the , two countries. In point of principle, however, it was luite clear that no such difference ought to exist. —(Hear, hear.) The law upon this subject ought most manifestly to be equally applicable to all parts of the realm. In Ireland, however, the only law at present applicable to treason was the 25th Edw. 111., to which he had already referred. He believed he might say that Ireland had derived no practical benefit from the exemption he had stated. On the contrary, ho was of opinion that the harsh measures to which Ireland had been from time to time subjected might have been spared her, had the more effectual provisions of the treason statutes of George 111. been applicable to her as well as to the rest of the realm.—(Hear, hear.) What was the consequence of the fact at the present juncture? Why this: that when the Government of Ireland, di recting its attention to the dangerous language spoken by agitators, and to the dangerous effects of that lan guage upon the excitable persons addressed, turned to the law of Ireland for a remedy, it found the powers of that law inadequate to the repression of the evil. The only law applicable there to the offence of which the disturbers of order were guilty, was a sedition law, under which the offenders charged were at liberty to put in bail, a circumstance placing delay in the way of their trial, and giving them the opportunity, if they chose to incur the additional risk, of seeking, in the over throw of the instil utions under which they lived, to relieve themselves from any trial at all—thus converting their very crime into a mode of averting its consequences. As to the mode of dealing with the case, it had been suggested that the simple course would be to pass an Act extending the Ist section of the Act 36 George 111., c. 7, made a perpetual Act by 57 George 111., c. 6, to Ireland, whereby the same law would be made to prevail in both countries. He quite agreed that the same law should be enforced throughout all portions of the kingdom. But there was another point first to be considered. The range of the Act was very properly most sweeping and comprehensive; but its penalties, at the same time, were, it must be admitted, of extreme severity, and, as such, altogether opposed to that mitigation of our criminal code which from time to time of late years had been effected by the Legislature.—(Hear.) There had rightly been a great change in public opinio n on the subject of the offences which should meet with capital punish ment, and the Government was perfectly ready, in the p res ent matter, to meet, as near l y as possible, public opinion. He did not propose, therefore, to extend the Act as it stood to Ireland, nor to continue it as it stood to England. He did not desire to perpetuate or to enact any statutory provision at variance with the progress of late years in criminal legislation.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time he had no intention of repealing that part of the statute which inflicted the penalty of death for the offence of compassing or designing the death or impri sonment of the sovereign—(Hear, hear)—though, even were they to repeal it, he believed the ordinary treason law would visit such a crime with death. He proposed to repeal all the other portions of the section inflicting the punishment of death for the offences named therein, and he then proposed to re-enact the provision in other respects—for Ireland as well as for the rest of the king dom—substituting, however, for the offence of sedition that of high treason, and for the pain of death, the punishment of transportation for life, or, at the discre tion of the judge, for a term of years not less than seven. This was the substance of the proposed measure —(Hear, hear)—but there was another material point to which he must advert. The provisions touching the devising or imagining the deposition of the sovereign, or the levying war against her, &e., would meet much of the public offence which he was now denouncing to the House, but it would not meet all the evil. It would have been observed that, in expressing the mode of such compassing or devising, the Act had only prohibited the publishing a declaration in writing, or by overt act. Now, it would be an overt act in a party to go to a foreign country and invite foreign aid against his own sovereign, or the institutions of his own country, but a person on a platform in Dublin, or elsewhere, however he might advocate the theory of such a change, provided he did not put forth a declaration in writing, might be exempt from the penalties set forth under the Act. He felt it right that on reviewing this Act, in mitigating its severity, and applying it to the whole kingdom, no loophole should be left at which these gentlemen—who, while instigating others to dis affection and its penalties, were extremely careful of their own safety—should by simply omitting themselves to print declarations which were regularly gathered from their mouths, and printed in the newspapers, avoid the chastisement in which they so unscrupulously sought to involve the crowds who listened to them. He therefore proposed to extend the penalties under the Act to all such persons as should " by open unadvised speaking, g, compass, or ima g i ne , or promote t h e sa id designs.' (Hear, hear.) This was the substance of the Bill which he now proposed to lay on the table of the Ho use—a Bill which h a d t h e ent i re sanction of his Noble Friend the Lord-Lieutenant, and without the provisions of which that Nobleman, than whom no man was more earnestly devoted to the principles of constitutional liberty, had expressed his entire inability to administer the affairs of the country in a c onstitutional manner. With the aid of this measure, however, his . Noble Friend had expressed himself as perfectly confident in the expectation of being able to maintain peace and order, and to make those quail before their country's laws who wholly set them at nought. There were other measures which would be necessary accompaniments to the present Bill, measures to meet the appeal now made to the disaffected to arm; but he would not mix up these measures with that before the House, and which he now begged permissi on t o in troduce.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. J. O'CONNELL felt bound to oppose the intro duction of this Bill. He opposed it from no sympathy with the criminal agitation which now disturbed his un happy country, and with the persons who so unscrupu lously promoted that agitation, but from the sincere conviction that while the laws at present in existence were perfectly adequate to the suppression of the evil contemplated, the introduction of this measure would create the very highest discontent among cla sses hitherto well disposed and peaceable. Mr. HUME quite approved of the mitigation of the provisions of this Act, and of its extension, in its amended form, to Ireland ; b u t h e should decidedly ' pro test against the introductio n o f t h e clause, which he understood it, went to g ag t h e free discussion of ' p a 5 . subjects, Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained, that the provi sions to which the Honourable Gentleman objected, ap plied not to the free expression of public opinion, but to speeches directed against the person or crown of the Sovereiga. Mr. HUME said he had no desire to impede the Go vernment in its efforts to suppress unlawful agitation ; but he must protest against any gagging clause, such as he understood that now proposed to be. Suppose he were to happen to say at some public meeting that he preferred a republic—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") Well, be would defer any observations on the provision till it came duly before them. Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that, if he stood alone, he would give his vote against this measure. He was sur prised to hear the Right Hon. Baroret propose such a Bill as he had laid upon the table at the present junc ture. lie should take example by what had happened abroad, and the concessions which had been made abroad. —(Hear, hear.) One of the first of those concessions was entire liberty of the press; and yet here was the Right Hon. Baronet raking up a statue of Edward lIL to effect restrictions of the press and of speech in this country. Ho asked would the House of Commons agree , to such an infraction of the constitution?—(Hear, hear.) He warned the Government that the Bill would be in effectual as their coercion Bill had been. He had then told them to try a special commission; they had tried it; and had found it amply sufficient for the vindication of the law. But he supposed that this was one of the re medial measures which the Government had promised. —(Hear.) It was a contradiction of all the former acts and professions of the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern ment. Instead of proposing new laws for sedition the Go vernment should attend to the claims and sufferings of the people. It was Junius who had said that agitation was the hue and cry which foretold the change that was coming. If this Bill passed, open agitation would be transformed into secret conspiracy, and twitters would be in a worse position than ever. As to invosion from a foreign country, he had no fear of that ; and if it did come he should be one of the first to oppose it ; but he believed it to be a mere cry, got up to support ecteicive laws. He asked the Liberal Members who had bean sent to that House by the people whether they would support one of the most tyrannical laws that had ever disgraced the statute-book ? The principle upon which the Government was acting was, in fact, one of coercion both for England and Ireland ; and he trusted that the Irish Members, at least, would not content themselves with giving a silent vote in opposition to it. Let the Irish people have equal laws, and then they would not fear a few uncomfortable men, who were uncomfortable from negligence, from idleness, and from want of in dustry.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord might have a strong government if he rested on the people, instead of raking up old and obsolete statutes for their coercion. He had told the people often that they had greater privileges, if properly exercised, than any people in Europe; but those privileges were freedom of the press and of speech, and if these were taken away the privi leges would vanish at once.—(Hear, hear.) At a time when thrones wsre tottering, and sceptres crashing around us, it it monstrous to hear the British Govern ment proposing a series of coercion laws. Great stress had been laid on articles appearing in certain news papers, but had Hon. Members looked over the files of the Morning Chronicle during the agitation for the Reform Bill? They might there see how Colonel Ma cerone gave instructions in street firing, and the best modes of resisting soldiers in cities. That was not treason,becauseit helped the Noble Lord and bis Friends into power; but still it had a wonderful resemblance to the articles complained of at the present moment. Although generally, and as a matter of courtesy, first readings were conceded, he should on the present occa sion go out, if he went alone, in opposition to the Govern ment proposition. R. M. FOX said that it would be quite possible to restore the prosperity of Ireland if proper means were taken for that purpose. Every one connected with Ireland would join with him in abhorrence of the inflated harangues, the treason or sedition (whichever it was called) of Messrs. Mitchell and Meagher; but Govern ment might do much, and the landlords of Ireland might do much, to render such harangues entirely innocuous. In his opinion quiet might in one month be re-established in Ireland if Government would come forward, giving the people a poor-law equal to their distress, and giving them the right to relief. They must also extend the franchise and the number of representatives. If they would do this, and consent to consider in that House the much mooted question of the repeal of the union, tran quillity would soon be restored in Ireland. Mr. GRATTAN said he rose to state his conviction of the loyalty of the Irish people. He should never her, doubted that loyalty, but for the extraordinary proposi tion of the Government, and the odious spy system which it appeared had been established in Ireland. He feared that Lord Clarendon had been misled into the formid able preparations he had made in filling every corner of the city of Dublin with troops. He should have believed that there was no cause for alarm, ex cept for old women and unmarried ladies, had he not seen an advertisement, headed " Patrick Hyland, pike-maker to the Castle"—(A. laugh)—and something very similar in Limerick, where a man who had stood behind the chair at a public meeting, and called out for pikes, turned out to be a Government spy. Why, it was reviving all the horrors of the Castlereagh system. —(Hear, hear.) As to this Bill, it would fail as former Bills had failed, and so would their entire system of governing Ireland. They were governing that country with an army—a system which, in the present state of the world, they could not maintain. They must try some new system, one which should send back the ab sentees. It was Demosthenes who had said that the property of the absent and indifferent became the prey of the present and enterprising. That was the case in Ireland when the country was in the hands of the freise coated men. The people of Ireland were starving, but they had no wish for separation or a republic. The only republicans were the favoured people of the north, while the Roman Catholics of the south had directly opposite tendencies. As for the priests, they were neither republican nor French, for they could not but remember the treatment their order had received in the first French revolution. The Honourable Member concluded by recommending ameliorative, instead of coercive, measures as remedies for the present condition of Ireland. Lord D. STUART said that the Bill before the House was one for the better protection of the Crown and Government. Now he thought that the best way to secure the Crown and Government would be to attend to the wants and wishes of the people.—(Hear, hear.) There was no other way, and the observation applied equally to Ireland, Scotland, and England.—(Hear.) He was not one of those who was in favour of rash and hasty changes, but he believed the people of England would not long be content without an extension of the franchise ; nor would they long be content to see small boroughs represented by the same number of Members as large, populous, and important cities ; if, indeed, they would be content to see such boroughs represented at all. What the people wanted was a new Reform Bill, and that principally because they believed it would lead to a more equal system of taxation. In Ireland too there were many things the people had a right to de mand, though he was not prepared to say that some measure such as that now proposed might not be neces sary, for it was impossible to permit treason to stalk abroad throughout the land without some attempt being made to suppress it. But when Government brought forward measures of coercion, they were bound he thought, to accompany them with measures to ameliorate the condition of the people, and supply their wants. This was the opinion he had expressed in November last on the Arms Bill, which he had voted in favour of in the confidence that Govern ment would lose no time in bringing forward ameliora tive measures. That confidence he was sorry however to say,had been misplaced; for although April had arrived, with the exception of a tenant-right Bill, which he un derstood was so complicated that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make it work, and one other Bill which had been introduced in the other House, no re medial measures had been brought forward. That Ire land had many grievances which demanded redress could not be denied. There was the Irish Church, the representation, the franchise, the municipal institutions, and many other grievances which they ought to set about redressing when they proposed measures to put down violence and sedition. If Irishmen were treated with justice, their loyalty might at all times and under all circumstances be depended on. He concurred with the Hon. Member for Montrose in his condemnation of the gagging clause. He should oppose the enactment of any law which interfered with freedom of speech.— (Hear, hear.) Liberty of speech was one of the most valuable rights a free people could possess, and it could not be too carefully or jealously guarded. lie could as sure the Government that the people of England would regard the Bill in this respect with jealousy and sus picion. lii voting for the present motion, his object was that the measure might be introduced and considered, but he should reserve to himself the right to vote against the second reading, should he afterwards disap prove of it. Mr. REYNOLDS held that a Bill so unconstitutional in its nature should be met on the threshold. He had warned the Government in November that their Arms Bill would fail, and there could be no greater proof of the failure of that measure than that Ministers should consider this Bill necessary. The object was to inflict transportation as the punishment for offences which were now punishable by fine and imprisonment. But there was another and more important objection to the Bill, which was, that it left to the Attorney-General to pro secute and inflict the punishment of transportation for words which a man might have uttered in the moment of passion and excitement, or even for words he might never have uttered, but which might be proved against him by some hired incendiary; and he was sorry to say Ireland was fertile in the production of such characters—(A laugh)—and he was equally sorry to add that all Gc vernrnents, whether Whig or Tory,had encouraged them. fie might refer to the conduct of Col. Browne, the Police Commissioner, in sending agents to employ men to make pikes, the p art i culars of which had appeared in the Freeman and other papers. He thought Government depended too much upon persons of that description for the information on which they acted. The Arms Bill was passed in consequence of the numerous threatening notices which had been sent, and which, in the majority of cases, he believed had emanated from the police agents. In the case of Colonel Browne, howcver, he for one could n ever b e li eve what they h a d been told, that Government had sanctioned his proceedings.—(Hear.) Let them consider for a moment what was the condition of Ireland. In 18 months 1,000,000 of people had died from want of the common necessaries of life, and day by day many were still dying from the same cause. Surely some allowance should be made for the language of a people naturally excitable when suffering under such a calamity .—(Hear, hear.) If in England the people were in the same position, he doubted not but that they would be talking treason cn all sides. He could tell them that but for the influence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland not all the mi litary power of the Government would be able to keep. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 8, lB4B.