The Express.
London, England, 1848-04-15 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 15, 1818.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY, Arm. 14.
The SreAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE ROSINESS.
SECOND READINO.—WaIwiII Improvement and Cemetery Act
Amendment (No. 27 Bill (by order).
Re.PuHTS CONSIDEKED.—Leeds Improvement Act Amendment;
Price's Patent Candle Compoy; Reds.
TIDED READINGS.—Doer Landing Pier; Morley Gas Light
Company ; bouthamptoo Gat Light and Coke Company; Bills.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
PETITIONS.—By Mr. O. Tummies t ree petitions from Bethnal
Green, Whltechapcl, sedG
I'inebu~aMr. Finebery.—lar. Ili v, from Ashton-
under-Lyne, against the Crown and Government Security ItilL—Mr.
CLAY, from i
nhabitantsn of King.lloll.upon-liull, tluit their
names were to the petition In favour of the People's Charter
without their consent or knowledge.
CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.
On the motion that the SPEAKER do leave the chair,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that there were clauses in
the bill which affected Ireland to such a degree that he felt
bound to oppose the motion. and to call on the house to pre-
vent the bill from proceeding any further. He had heard it
said that England was already in possession of those rights
which other nations were now struggling for through revo-
lution. That might be true with respect to England, but it
was not so as regarded Ireland. Thera was in that unfortu-
nate country nothing more than a mockery of constitutional
liberty. He complained that this bill would give a stimulus
to the spy system, which had been productive of so much
caliunlty in Ireland. The third clause of the bill would give
such power to the government as would enable them to
oppress to the utmost degree a people who were
hara
already too much oppressed. Let the house recollect that
this might be only the first of a series of measures of a simi-
lar character. They ought to know how far the government
intended to go in a backward policy. The petition which
had been presented by the hen. member for Nottingham had
a great deal of suspicion thrown upon it, but no person had
said that there might not be a million of genuine signature*
to it, and such a petition ought not: to be disregarded by
that house. With respect to Ireland, where be exerted
himself, as was his duty, to stop the insane attemp
t[ that
ts that
some individuals were making to excite the people
country, what could they (the Irish members) say when
they went back ? Could they tell the people that the ge-
vernment had done anything or intended to do anything
for their benefit? When they returned they would still en-
deavour to maintain the peace of the United Kingdom' 'I
but he confessed it would be with faint hope.
Mr. M. MILNES thought it would be better if the house II
went into committee on this bill. He thought something
was due to the government for the concession' which they i
had made. an
Mr. J. EVAN felt bound to make a few observations
the important question before the house. This subject wail
one which always excited the popular feelings. He com-
plained that by clause four, which was a new clause, a
special felony was made, which could be used to harass the
prisoner, It appeared now that the duration of the act was
to be limited to two years, and that caused it to be re-
garded with favour by some members in that house. lie did
not agree in that view, for although he felt confidence in the
noble lord at the head of the government, he would not en- ,
trust to any government, not for two Tears but for two
months, the powers which this bill would give them. (Hear,
hear.) Public meetings were a part of the constitution of
this country; they were peculiar to this country, and to that
peculiarity they owed their safety. (Hear,
mad
hear.) But if to I
express one's imaginings at a public meeting was e •
felony, secret societies would be the consequence. In
other countries such societies existed as the Car.
bonari, and the consequence was that either the govern-
ment was overturned, or the persons belonging to them
perished on the bayonets of the soldiers. Such results were
prevented in England, because they possessed the right of
public meetings, at which strong language might be ex-
pressed, but by means of which many excellent changes had
been produced without the effusion of blood. (Hear.) Had
this act been in existence, the opprobrious term of felon
might be applied to many individuals in that house, by
whose memo great objects had been effected. (Hear, hear.)
If to use stroag language was to be a felony, he was sur-
rounded by felons. (Hear, hear.) Re recollected the ex
the
Coo of a great lawyer who for 40 years presided in
the Court of Coancery, that the sun of England bad set and
her glory departed, because many individuals who had been
excluded from that house in consequence of intolerant laws,
had been enabled to take their seats within it. How was
that effected? By public meetings and agitation. (Hear,
hear.) He recollected that government hail been frequently
asked, " Wny do you allow tais agitation to proceed? wby
do you not put a s'op to this? It is trea-
son.', (Hear, hear.) Were no felonious speeches
made at the time of the reform b:11 ? (Hear, hear). Were
there no gallant officers in that ho no u who made felonious
es
speeches ? (Hear, hear.) Again, wore no felonious speech
made during the agitaion for the free importation of food ?
(Cries of " Queetien, question," answered by loud cheers.)
Ile believed it was carried further than that, because some
of those felons had b, en amused of threatening the right hand
on.
baronet (Sir IL Peel) with assassination. ("
" hear, hear.") He was stating what was well known. A
distinguished member of that house had been charged with
inciting to the assassination of the right hon. baronet.
There was no doubt about the feet, and he mentioned it
merely for the purpose of showing how liable were persons
to be led to the use of strong language. (Hear, hear.)
Language was often used to which opprobrious names were
applied ; but in the end it produced beneficial results, and it

----------_ _
was mainly owing ter saltation that they had been save.
from that calamity and distress which was now
desolating the world. (Hear.) There could be no doubt
that an entirely new crime was made by this bill. (Hear,
base.) Words spoken never constituted high treason. That
was ways the law of England. To constitute high treason
there moat be some overt act, as stated by the Solicitor-
General. And this was clear from the passage of " Foster"
which had referred to. He was speaking of conspiracies and
persuasions, and of the reasoning of Hale and others; and
it was clear that he thought their reasoning—that spoken
words were not treason—ananswerable. (Hear.) I
Sir G. GREY hoped that the house would agree to the
suggestion of the hoe. member for Pomfret, and go into
committee, when the discussion that was now taking place
could be more appropriately carried on. The hon. gentle-
man who had just sat down had, hewn sure without intend-
ing it, misrepresented the nature of the bill before the house.
He (pile agreed with the hon. gentleman as to the advan-
tage to this country of free discussion by the people of public
measures and of public men, and would reiterate, what had
already been licquently explained, that ties proposed mos.
sure would throw no impediment in the way of such free
discussion, while kept within legitimate and constitutional
limits. (Hear, hear.)
Sir IL PEEL said that under the 36 Geo. 111., made
perpetual by 57 Geo. 111., if any person compassed or de-
signed, or intended the death, or maiming, or wounding, or
personal restraint of the sovereign, and should express that
design by publishing printed writing', such offence would
be deemed the offence of treason. The extension of this
law to Ireland was the only difference created by the pro-
posed measure as to this offence. There woo another descrip-
tion of silence, however, contemplaual here, that of a person,
compassing, or designing, or intending, to deprive the sove-
reign ot her title to any portion of her dominions, which
design, if expressed by published writings, or by open
and advised speaking, was to be deemed felony,
Suppose that hereafter a person should commit this offence
—should compass or design the death, wounding, maiming,
or personal restraint, of the sovereign, and express this de-
sign by open and advised speaking, what, in the eye of the
law, would this offence be, and what the penalty attached
to it ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was obliged to the right
hon. baronet for putting this question so directly to him, and
he had no hesitation in replying, after mature consideration
of the point, and earnest consultation with the highest an-
, thordies, that the offence described by the right hon. baro-
net wou.d be deemed and treated as treason. The mere ex-
pression one an &hatred opinion by an individual would not, of
course, constitute treason ; but where words were delibe-
rately addressed to au imemblegre of persons, by way of advice
lor excitement, tending to bring about the execution
of designs of a treesoliable nature, this would be
an act of treason. 1f hon. members would refer
to the report of the criminal law commissioners, which set
forth their view of the law as it stood, with reference to a
codification of that law, they would find this point clearly
stated, in the sense be had given.
Sir It. PEEL que stioneel whether there might not arise
some confusion in this respect, Gem the want of the same
words iu relation to the two causes of action constituting, as
the hon. and learned gentlemen explained, the offence of
high treason. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD said that, reserving the privi-
lege of addressing himself to the subject more directly on a
future occasion, he begged to refer the house to a cam which
he believed would admit of no dispute,—that of Col. Desparch
If ever there was a ca.te in which a conviction far high
treason was received without any sympathy for the criminal
on the part of the public, or in which there was no sort ca
doubt as to the propriety of the conviction, it was the case of
this unfortunate soldier ; and yet the case against him con-
sisted almost entirely of words spoken; words of excitement
and advice counselling others to treasonable. practices.
At the trial, Mr. Serjeant Best and Mr. Curing,his counsel,
urged the very point that he was chargeable only with
words; for thoueh the form of an atrocious oath was found
on the persons of some of the nefarious associates with whom
he had fallen into degrading companionship, that oath was
not found on his person. He was convicted entirely upon
the words which he had uttered, and the presiding judge,
Lord Ellenborouith, sitting with three other judges as a
special commission, to try the persons then charged with
treason, thus met the arguments 0 the counsel, who con-
tended that mere words were not punishable :
I think it fit to Mate a word or two upon sonic of the topic. which
have been touched upon on the past of toe defendant, an to the quality
of the crime imputed to the defendant, and an to the nature of the
proof by which the charge thereat iv supported. It
whasor been
urged that the crime consists only in words, and that ds ar
not of theme .Iris overt acts of high treason. If it be
said of loose words, referable. to no particular deaign,
words merely calumnious, or seditious words, expresaive ot an
argry or irritated lined, and of sentiments highly indecent and crimi-
nal in a subject towards his eoveleign, but words neither indicating
ow conducing to the execution of any dettnite purpose of a treason-
able kind on his own part, nor persuading or exciting othent to con.
cur in the execution thereof on theirs--1 readily admit that loose words
of thin dericriptimure not to be considered as constituting overt acts of
high treason, and that it would be too much to infer hum the random
and careless though highly blameable use of expressions of ibis kind
no mischievous and abomin able a purpose as the destruction re the
King. But if words of this kind are amyl at meetings held for the
purpose of forwarding designs of :i treasonable nature, and if they
are addressed to per/ions with an intent to excite and confirm them
in the prosecution of measures ranch have for their declared object
the samesinating or deposing of the King by force and arm., and
where words are the immediate vehicle by which treasons such m
there are communicated, and by which they are or are
sought to be carried into full completion and effect,
it never was since the promulgation of law in this land
by any one lawyer ever doubted that words of this
nature, uttered for such a purpose, at such meetings and consulta-
tions, and being theinwlvi, the very instruments and means of ex-
citing other persons to take part in measures which had fur their end
and object the personal destruction of the King, were in their very
nature and mecum the clearest and most atrolute overt arts of high
mania that eon be stated. This point never yet admitted of o doubt;
it never was questioned ; it never can be no.
Mr. MARTIN urged that Lord Ellenborough's judgment
did not apply 0 the expression of individual opinion upon
particular subjects, but to actual conspirators.
Mr. C. ANSTEY supported the bill.
Mr. O. H. CAVENDISH said be had been listening with
earnest attention to hear whether any two lawyers would
agree upon the subject; but as he found the whole of the
learned body disagreeing one with the other, he was obliged
to fall back upon his own common sense. The hon. member
for Middlesex, the other night, had talked in a very off-
hand way about old woman's counsels, and the Fox
Club,7and the Duke of Wellington's opinion, and a
vast number of other subjects. lie (Mr. Cavendish)
did nut know what old woman the hon. member had in his
eye, but as to the Fox Club he was somewhat more disposed
to give respect to its opinions than to those of the hon. mem-
ber, however the hon. member might consider himself all
accomplished in the sciences alike of war and of peace. Ile
should give his decided vote in favour of this bill, as a mea-
sure calculated to produce much good. Had it been enacted
some years back the hon. member for Cockermouth would
have had no occasion to risk his valuable life in the chivalrous
attempt to put down an excess of free spa. cli, which this law
would prevent the recurrence of. Ile was quite surprised
that the hon. member for Montrose—who seemed on this
subject, and about the Irish church, and some other subjects, ,'
to have taken a spurt quite unexpected in a gentleman of I,
his years—should be so vehement in vindication of the rights
of Messrs. Cuffay and Co., when these convention orator
repudiated him, as not the representative of the people of
Montrose, but as only the representative of certain dry, bard,
Scotch political economists there.
Mr. HUME observed that the difference which the hon. ,
gentleman described as existing among the lawyers on the ,
subject of this measure was only an additional reason for not
precipitating a decision upon it. As to the hon. gentleman's
falling back upon his own common sense, it would appear
from his speech that be had not much to fall hack upon.
Mr. HOUSMAN said the hon. gentleman had of
him as though he had been the challenging party spoke
ase
to which the hon. gentleman had thought proper to refer,
whereas, in point of fact, he had never sent a challenge. At
a dinner at Canterbury Mr. Bradshaw made a very violent
attack upon the Queen. He Mr. Horsman), having referred
to this attack in terms of reprobation at. &public meeting, re-
ceived from Mr. Bradshaw a challenge,which at first he was
disposed to decline, and with this intention consulted his
friends on the subject. He found, however, that it required
more courage to refuse than to accept a challenge, and be
thereupon did that for which he had felt sorry and ashamed
ever since. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that on any future
occasion of the like kindle should be enabled to show more
moral courage and more Christian principle. (Cheers.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE had certainly referred to the manifest
assistance at the councils of her Majesty's ministers of some
decided old lady, but he did not feel bound to say whether
the old woman of his thoughts were the First Lord of the
Treasury or the Home Secretary, or who she was. The
ipse dizit of any witting who happened tohave government
connexions did not at all alter the case. What he had said
with respect to the precautions taken on Monday was,
that the arrangements made by the government were so ad-
mirable that it could only be wished their conciliatory
measures were equally so. The noble lord professed to be
a disciple of Mr. Fox. The hands were the hands of Esau,
but the voice was the voice of Jacob. The hon. member
concluded by making some remarks on the speech of the
hou. member for North Derbyshire (Mr. G. H. Cavendish)
whom he dram ibed as being one of those gentlemen who 101 l in
a window at Brooks's, live upon their own estates, and upon
other people's ideas. The next time that the bon. member
addressed any observations to him, be (Mr. B. Osborne)
wished he would do so on the spur of the moment, and not
come down to that house welding the midnight oil in such a
imiserable effort as he had made.
Sir D. L. EVANS admitted that the bill before the house
was a mitigation of the existing law as far as written treason
lor sedition was concerned. But the new principle sought to
be established by it was to render advised and open speaking
liable to the same penalties as written treason. He had
heard the arguments of the legal members, and particularly
the speech of the hon. member for Pontefract, with great
pleasure. The question* to be considered was, whether the
existing law was sufficiently stringent in cases of seditious
speaking. His opinion was that it was quite severe enough.
But it would be advisable to hear what the opinions
of the law authorities in that house were. For himself he
I ventured to say, bold as it might be deemed, that he had
bad more experience of the efficacy of secondary punishments
1 than the law officers of the crown bad, and certainly he saw
no reason to doubt that the punishments now inflicted on
seditious speaking were sufficiently strong. He should cer-
teinly oppose the bill, if the law officers of the crown did
not make it perfectly clear that the existing law was net
sufficiently stringent to repress such offences by the punish-
ments now inflicted on those who committed them. lie
hail an amendment to propose, which however he could
wish to see proposed by a more influential member than he
was. If, however, neither the hon, member for Finsbury I
nor the Tower Hamlets would propose it, he should do so. I
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that the amendment proposed I
to be made in the 3rd clause by the right hon. baronet had
totally altered the whole character of the bill; and yet if
the bill had not been detained in its progress that alteration
would not have been made, although now admitted to be
essential and just. When, therefore, he was told of factious

imposition to ministen by delaying the bitlj he most refer
the government to their own conduct in altering the mea-
sure sio essentLilly es they had dose, as affording a complete
novae for the opposition he mid other hon.heeenbers had
offered. Notwithstanding the alterations made in the bill
he still objected to it, and that on the ground that trans.
portation for the offences charged under it, would be at the
pleasure of the judge to inflict. He was far from approving
of the speeches made in Ireland. He regretted that y
been spoken, but could not admit that they constituted any
reasonable ground for musing the bill before the house. In
his opinion all the legal members of the house ought to be
sent up stain to consider in committee by themselves until
they cam: to some unanimous decision as to the definition of
the crime of treason. (A laugh.) He would have the bill
delayed until the lawyers could clearly define to every man
what the crime of treason, which he was liable to be tried
' for, actually was. It was too had to give the crows a power
of transporting men fur crimes which its lawyers could not
accurately define.
Sir W. CLAY said that the present discussion was • total
waste of time, as it would kayo to be repeated when the
clauses objected to were considered in committee. However,
he should state his reasons for supporting the amendment ot
the hen. member for Cockernsouth. He did so because the
bill placed under the same category two crimes of a very dif-
ferent character. The existing law drew a wide distinction be-
tween tee non written and treason spoken. The law was nothing
more than the embodied expression of the common sense of
the whole community, and that had hitherto told the
people that there was • vast degree of difference between
the crimes of writing and speaking sedition. Any man ad-
dressing a multitude was very liable, under the excitement
of public speaking, to say many thing' which he would
regret having uttered half an hour after he got home.
Would any one tell him such words were as criminal as if
they had been deliberately written in a man's closet? Com-
mon sense pointed out the enormous difference between the
two cans. Besides, it would be difficult, if riot impossible,
in many ones to get satisfactory evidence of the exact words
spoken, as a reporter might easily mistake the context, and
so distort words into a meaning which they did not inherently

poem
Mr. MUNTZ said that although the house might not do
so, the people at large would call the third clause of the bill
a gagging clause. It was too much to expect plain men in
that assembly to understand what the government wished
to subject to punishment of treason, when the crown lawyers
themselves had not been able to define that crime, or to state
whet it consisted in to the house. The noble lord had stated
that he was a disciple of Mr. Fox. The only resemblance
which the people had hitherto found between the acts of the
noble lord and those of Mr. Fox was in his abortive attempt
to double the income tax. The question the people asked
themselves was, What have the whip—the liberal whigs
done for us ?" Why what the noble lord had done for the
people might be summed up in three sentences. First, he
ead appointed a one-sided committee to report on the late
financial chattels ; secondly, he bad proposed to double their
income tax • and thirdly, he had brought in a gagging bill.
Mr.ORATAN regretted that the right hon. member for
Tamworth had not asked Mr. Hatchell, the Attorney-Gene-
ral fur Ireland, whether he had read the speeches and arti-
cles reported and written for the Nation and United /risk.
nian newspapers. That gentleman would have told him he had
read them; and if he (Mr. Hatchet') had been asked whether
there existed any law by which the writers and utterer' of
those articles and speeches could be punished, for basing so
spoken and written, he would also have answered, " Yes, there
is a law, by which punishment can be inflicted on persons con-
victed of having SO acted." There was plenty of law to enable
the government to meet such offences • and, for his part, he
believed ministers had been entrapped into proposing the
bill before the house by persons at present in the back-
ground, who would hereafter use it for their own purposes.
Ile asked whether a law inflicting two years' imprisonment
on the offences, named in the bill was not sufficiently strong
for all constitutional purposes? With respect to his (Mr.
Grattan's) country, for which the bill wss allege d to be im-
peratively necessary, he had that day received several letters
from Ireland, all of which concurred in representing the
country to be in a most tranquil state, and asserting that the
great body of the people were too busy ploughiog their land
to bestow any attention on iclitics or revolution. Ile con-
sidered this bill to be only another proof of the utter and
total incompetency of the government to administer properly
the affairs of Ireland.
Mr. MOWATT wished to know whether, in addition to
making it felony to compass any injury to the Sovereign,
when accompanied by the overt act of " advised speaking,"
it was intended to preserve the provisions of the 36th 6: 37th
Cleo. 111., thus making the two offences at the same time
treason and felony ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the operation of
the bill would be to continue to apply the term of treason
to designs against the person of the sovereign, soil to ex-
tend the Lisa to Ireland. The next crime described in the
bill was compassing or imagining to depose the sovereign
from the crown of these realms, or any part of her domi-
nions, to be proved by public writing orspeakine. Another
offence was any attempt to overawe the House of Commons,
or to intimidate the crown; and the last was compassing or
imagining adherence to the Queen's enemies. Ile contended
that there was withing unconstitutional in the bill, and that
with the addition of three or four words it was copied from
an act already in force.
Mr. WAKLEY said that government was asking either
for increased power or for nothing. (Hear, hear.) They
were seeking to control the
etaexpession of public opinion in
this country, and they called mitigation of the existing
law. lie averted that after the conduct of the people on a
recent occasion it was a gross libel upon them to ask parlia-
ment for such a law. (Hear, hear.) It looked as if the
people of England sought to depose the Queen, and its true
character was evidenced by_ the reception it met with from
hon. members opposite. We had, in fact, now • tory go-
vernment and a tory opposition, and therefore be trusted
that gentlemen would soon change places, and
thus indicate to the people the true character of
their politics. (Hear, hear.) The bill belore the
house was a gagging bill more atrocious than the Six
Acta, and had been introduced for the purpose of suppressing
that free expression of public opinion to which the people of
this country had always been accustomed. (Hear, hear.)
Out of doors the public were absolutely astounded at the
manner in which a government calling itself liberal was
dealing with the institutions of the country. (Hear.) Why,
even in 1796 Mr. Pitt consented to expunge the provisions
of his bill against words ; but now a whig government re-
stored them, and sought to make open and avowed speaking
a criminal offence. (Hear, hear.) They were actually
punishing the people of England and Scotland for
offences alleged against the people of Ireland. The
tories were all delighted with her Majesty's present
advisers, and well they might, for if a tory minister were in
power he would not have dared to propose such • measure
as the present, which the whigs were proceeding with, sail-
ing under false colours. He did not mean to threaten, hut
he would remind the noble lord at the head of the govern-
ment, that there were certain powers which a minority pos-
sessed, and which he believed were entrusted to them for
emergencies like the present, and be promised, if ever so
slenderly supported, to use them against the further progress
of this bill. the hon. member for North Derbyshire had
attacked him (Mr. Wakley), and other liberal members,
with very questionable taste.
Mr. DUNDAS rose to order,—He did not think it fair in
the hon. member for Finsbury to hold an inquest oaths hon.
member for North Derbyshire in his absence. (A. laugh.)
Mr. WAKLEY was not responsible for the absence of the
hon. member. When hon. members made attacks on other
hon. members, it was but fair that they should wait for the
reply. He thought that the hon. member for North Derby-
shire, as • member of the aristocracy—one of the elite es
they called themselves—did not advance the cause of his
order by making a low, vulgar and personal attack on mem-
bers of that house with whom he might for the moment
differ in opinion. By such conduct he did more to injure
the aristocracy in the opinion of the public than their
bitterest enemies could effect. The honourable
member had alluded to Finsbury, but the great
probability was that he did not know where Finsbury
was. (A laugh.) Perhaps the hon. member would be sur-
prised to hear that it extended from Oxford-street to Fins-
bury-square. The hon. member bad been meet unjust and
inicandid in his attacks on some of the liberal members.
(', All.") Oh, not all. The hon. member had left out
Idarylebone because there they had a lord. (" Hear," and
a laugh.) He (Mr. Wakley) confidently asked the hoase
whether such attacks upon hon. members representing large
bodies of the people, were calculated to improve the position
of the idle—that was to say aristocratic—classes of the com-
munity ? (Hear, bear.)
Mr:AGLIONBY said he should cheerfully go out is vote
against the clause respecting open and avowed speaking, but
he did think that government might reconcile all differences
by. inserting as the punishment for that offence imprisonment
with or without hard labour, instead of transportation an at
present. He thanked ministers for having adopted one
change he had suggested, viz., that which substituted impri-
sonment for transportation for the lesser offence, and he
hoped they would be induced to consider the one he had
now offered. (Hear.)
The house divided—For the motion 287
Against it
The house then went into committee. Mr. Bernal in the

chair.
Mr. HUME asked whether there would be any objection
to adjourn for an hour, it being now past four o'clock.
Sir G. GREY proposed to ask the house to sit on until
the bill Ghoul,: have gone through committee. (Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN : It is proposed to omit the words " by
open and avowed speaking.' The question I have to put is
that the words proposed to be lett out stand part of the
question.
Mr. IsIOWATT, looking at the times in which we lived,
and what was going on in other countries, looked upon
this as the moat momentous question that had occupied the
attention of the house, at least daring time. He was op-
posed, heart and soul, to the bill, especially to the worth in
question. He bad no sympathy with the madmen stud tools
who had been spouting sedition, and perhaps treason, in
Dublin and in the so-called convention in London ; and ke
would lead his aid to any reasonable measures for putting
a stop to such conduct. But this bill, which created a new
felony, to be established by a new species of evidence, went
far beyond the necessities of the case. It was a backward
step in legislation. Except in one point, the law as it existed
was sufficient to dcalwitti all suchoffences as the bill referred
to. The noble lord complained that those sedition-mongers
who were out on bail awaiting their trial were guilty of an ,
aggravation of the offence by employing I inguage even
more violent than that with which they had been charged,
and threfore,the noble lord contended, that the punishment
attaching to the offence under tte present law was
not sufficient. That was a most illogical condo.
!non. In the first place, the parties had not been
tried—if they should be found guilty, and the punish-
ment which might be inflicted,yiz., three years' imprisoa-
inent with hard labour and a fine unlimited in amount, was
round insufficient to repress such offences, then would be the
V.ine to ask parliament for further powers, which would of
course be granted, All that was now necessary was a dee.la-