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

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 13, 1848.

land, on the ground that, had he persisted k that
motion forward, there woulkhave been Sp
a fair anemias. As to theball before th:6l=ll. is
his opinion destroy the liberty of the prem awl la
England and Ireland. The Name atoms Mfilwoardoilla
France, and the result was that the tyrant wM wall from
now with all his family a wanderer ever theist*, withers% •
home or a country. He was glad he had gi to the
ven way
ton this occasion, as the hon. member toe lad-
e bed thereby been enabled to make the admirable
speech which the house had heard from him. For his own
part, he did ant see how it was possible for the noble lord to
get the house to pass the bill after the luminous statement
that had been made of the sentiments of C. J. Fox. He
warned the government that if they should persist in pass-
ing the bill into a law, they would never get an Irish jery
to convict under it, as they would no more subject a politi-
cal offender to transportation than formerly they would con-
vict • man of forgery when the punishment was death. He
thought that the opposition offered to the bill by members
representing such constituencies as sent the hon. members for
Middlesex, the Tower Hamlets, and he might add himself—
having 250,000 constituents—ought to have more weigsent
ht
than the support given to the measure by mem
frost rotten boroughs of 100 or 200 constituents. The act of
writing and publishing treasonable expressions he would
never defend. That was deliberately done, and ought to
bear an appropriate penalty. But to punish a man with
trapportation who, in the excitement of speaking
as an est
to an audi-
tory, might let fall some unguarded language, w
which he abhorred even in idea, and he could net sufficiently
express his wonder that a measure containing such • pro-
posal should have proceeded from the noble lord.
=at was not the only innovation upon the condi=
liberties of Englishmen that the noble lord proposed tombs.
Under the Gth clause (7th) a spy might be hired by a wicked
and venal minister to go to a meeting and utter incendiary
and treasonable expressions, and that clause enacted that all
who were present at that meeting should be subject to two
yeses' imprisonmeet and bard labour.
abstained from ad-
Sir G. GIiEY said he had purposely
deeming the house in answer to the speeches that had been
delivered, as he thought it was most conformable to the
practice of the house to reserve his answers to the objections
brought against the various clauses until those clauses were
discussed in committee, when he should be prepared to
answer the statement just made by the hon. member for
Dublia, as to the operation of the 7th clause.
Mr. HUME said that he too ehould have mowered silence,
bad he not deemed it necessary that some should be
extorted front the government to the speaker whhad
just heard. Was the government prepared, let om
t him ark, to
act on the old principles formerly avowed by each individual
member of it, or were ministers going to act on tnoee
prineiples which were formerly adopted by Mr.
Pitt, ay, and to go beyond those principles, in
tyranny and despotism (Hear.) When the house foiled
a ministry composed of suck men as the noble lord and his
colleagues, prepared to fling their former protestations and
political avowals to the wind, and disavowing the doctrines
of Fox. then the house had a right he know what they were
prepared to do. He had beard the noble lord (.1. Russell)
avow himself to be a disciple of Charles Fox. If that were
to, let him ask the noble lord to give some definite answer to
the speech of his hon. friend the member for Middlesex.
Hampden declared that if the government presumed to med-
dle or interfere with the liberty of speech, or the right of de-
liberation poeseseed by Englishmen, they ought to be forcibly
resisted. Those also were the principles adopted and avowed
by Mr. Fox ; and so strongly did he avow and maintain
them, that he was struck off the list of privy councillors for
having at a public dinner given the toast, 'The people, the
source of all sovereign power." (Hear.) The house was en-
titled to know whether the noble lord was any longer • disci
pie of Fox, or whether, on the other hand, be was prepared
to follow is the footsteps of the atrocious governments of
former year,. He must beg to point out that the govern-
ment now possessed all the powers that the worst govern-
ments of former periods possessed in ordinary time. But if
the noble lord came down to parliament 111111 stated that he
had secret information which he was not prepared to disclose,
requiring that additional power should be vested in the
hands of government for a limited time, he should not object
to grant such power. Why, even the atrocious bills of for-
mer ministers, which had been so strenuously opposed by
the whip of hose times, were only passed for the period of
three years, when they expired. If the law of England was
now to be assimilated to the law of Scotland, of 1794-6,
which was now repealed, he must say that no man would be
safe; he would be liable to be dragged from his house, and
on the testimony of his own servants, eubjecred to
be transported for the rest of his life. The case of
Muir and his brother reionnen offered a case in
point, and although the learned SoheiterGeneral bad
somewhat innocently urged that juries would not be too
eager to condemn, he must caution the house as weil as his
hon. friend, not to place too much reliance on merciful
juries, for he should be sorry to trust himself to the tender
mercies eta Scotch jury, such as condemned Muir, Gerrard,
and Palmer. lie had himself headed a procession of 100,000
persona to present a peaceful petition, and none of the gen-
tlemen now on the Treasury benches bad dared to call his
proceedings illegal. He had also presided at a meeting of
40,000 persons,: where it was resolved to pay no more taxes.
(Hear, hear.) He had handed the resolution to the Attorney-
General, who told him it was illegal. His answer was,
" Try me." (Hear, hear.) Was he then to support a bill
the object of which was to check free discussion, and to pre-
vent meetings of the people? (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member proceeded to read f urther extracts from the trials of
Muir and Palmer, contending that under the present bill simi-
lar proceedings mustinevitably be frequent. His advice to the
government was to delay it for a week in order that the
country might be made acquainted with its provisions, and
have time to pronounce an opinion on it. At least let them
have until Monday next, if it were only to avoid the disgrace
of preiipitation in a measure of so much importance.
Lord J. RUSSELL.—I should have been better
satisfied if gentlemen who fouled fault with the provi-
sions of this tell had consented to go into committee
and hear the reasons we have to give for the clauses
which they so loudly condemn. But, as my honourable
friend the member for Montrose asks me on what principle we
propose to act, 1 say now, that, with regard to general princi-
ples of policy—with regard to the great maxims of the consti-
tution—l believe Mr. Fox to have laid down the true doctrine.
But, sir, we are now living in extraordinary circumstances—
k
(Hear, hear)—in a time when persons think it right, thin
it their duty, to call together councils and confederations, in
which they declare that war ought to be made egaitut the
sovereign of these realms —(loud cheers)—and that the
armed forces of the sovereign ought to be seduced or bribed,
and that if seduction or bribery do not succeed, they should
be opposed by force of arms--(cheers.)—when persons are
advised to arm themselves, and are told that if they procure
arms they will gain a signal victory, and that the soldiers
and police will not be able to withstand them—(loud
eheers)—when persons think it advisable, even in this house,
to show in what manner they mean to proceed, and how
they shell advise their countrymen to prepare measures ne-
cessary for the success of rebellion. (Loud cries of " hear,
hear.") Now, I believe, that according to the spirit of
the constitution, greet latitude of discussion should be
allowed, that inflammatory language should be permitted,
nay, that even language which might excite alienation from
our monarchical constitution should not be absolutely for-
bidden. I could go great lengths on this point, because I
know that without the toleration of occasional abuses, free-
dom of discussion could not be maintained. But, instead of
being reproached with having acted intemperately or harshly,
I believe the general opinion of this country to be that we
have waited too long. (Hear, hear.) However, having
come to the conclusion that it is necessary to take measures
of precaution, that those measures of precaution should be
such as to enable us to defeat the designs of traitors--(loud
cheers)—that they should; be such as to prevent a part
of the United Kingdom from being deluged with blood
by those who have advised the commiseion of acts the
most atrocious— (loud cheers) and who have sat down
actually in their closets to show how, by various
infernal engines, by pouring cold vitriol, boiling oil,
and other means, they may procure the deaths of
their fellow-subjects—l say that under these circum-
stances, I should be 'Ashamed of myself if, when I eee the
danger approaching, T should be so overawed by the autho-
rity of Mr. Fox, so afraid of having his words quoted against
me, as to desert my duty and not to take those measures of
precaution which I believe to be neeessary. That is my
answer to the hon. gentleman who asks me upon what prin-
ciples we propose to proceed. (Cheers.) But I think that
the hon. gentleman has shown that he will not come to the
discussion of the bill fully understanding one portion. I
mean that which relates to words spoken. The hon. mem-
ber has taken the trouble to read to the house at some length
the indictment framed against Messrs. Muir and Palmer.
That indictment charged Mr. Muir and his associates with
having used words calculated to excite disaffection and to
alienate the people from the constitution of this realm, and
which were also of an inflammatory character. I agree that
to transport a person for an &Nue° of that kind which
although no doubt vety mischievous does not go 'beyond
the offence of seditious language, would be very
oppressive and unjust at the present time. For my. own part,
I have always been of the opinion that the conviction of Mr.
Muir and his associates under that indictment was unjust.
(Hear.) There is, however, a very great difference between
using language of that kind and language tending to excite
to the levying of war against the sovereign or producing in-
surrection; and it is the latter which must be the intent
wider the bill which we now propose, that must be the de-
sign of the words so spoken, or otherwise these words are
harmless, end cannot be punishable in the least degree. The
hon. member talks of the atrocity of condemning spoken
words. Does not the hon. member know that there are even
now cases in which words may be brought forward on a
trial for condemn son, and in which the use of
ins"the words
may be das an overt act ?It is stated East's
Pleas of the Crown" that " any person who, by any
advice, persuasion, or command, shall excite, en-
courage or procure others to make an attempt against
the King's person, is guilty of • plain overt set
of treason, and of compassing the King's death."
And yet all the objections which have been made as to the
chance of words being misunderstood and misreported apply
to the law of treason as it now stands. Perhaps the hon.
member objects to the law of treason. That may be the
ease. But at all events let hint not condemn us for intro-
ducino a similar law with a minor punishment for the offence
of designing, composing, or levying war against the Queen.
The hon. member ought to be aware that there is now a law
upon the statute book, by which, if any person prints in this
country, or publishes any writing, with intent to promote
the keying of war against the sovereign he may be found
guilty of high treason, and be capitaay punished. That is
the law of this country by statute, and I ask him is it fit or
proper that one person who site down to write a news-
paper which he afterwards publishes, and in which
be commits this offence of treason, shall be
punished capitally, while another, his confederate and ally,
adeisedly sad with preparation make, dayaller day
speeches, with the reporters for the newspapers fore hint,
who he knows will report every word ke says—speeches
opal or ourpoidoi is soligainoy thowritton onielomai rot

that while one is found guilty of treason and capitally exe-
cuted, the other is brought up ea a and of using intentions
=Lib allowed to give bell, and ran only be tried for
or ? (Hear, hear.) Is that equal or fall Jodie. ?
(Hear, hurl Lea the hon. member propose in sesuaittee
*at the Intent to levy war in publication be redound to *gen-
tian " =bilk if bes me this
wunls7 and laud be disturbed Icy eta Let
him propose that Ohmage, bat let him not say that
we are proposing measseitutional Menges in the
law, when, while reducing the penalty fee one offence, we
raise it with regard to the other.. oonsidesing them to be
offences equal in amount, the one showing as great a di-po-
sitlon to &Mob the peace of the gooier, sad overthrow the
government as the other offenco of high treason. I readily
admit that proof in the one case is more difficult than in the
other. If you have a book or a newspaper before you, and
the roof that by the comsat ot the author the words
therein contained have been published, a jury must at once
admit that thus were the words which the author or writer
intended to publish ; but with regard to words spoken there
is not the ssms facility of proof. I therefore admit that
jury should require, and I have no doubt would re-
quire fuller proof with regard to words spoken than with
reference: to written words. But these are metiers which
can be well misidered in committee. I will say more,
that, considering that this part of the law is new, while we
think that all that pert of the bill which tends to mitigate
the penalty from h4h treason to felony, from death to tran-
sportation • end that part of the bill which extends the whole
act to Irelind,should be maintained permanent, we are will-
ing to ooncede that those other parts which refer to open
and advised speaking shall have only a teniporary operation—
(loud cheers), and be subject to be again brought under the
consideration of parliament. For my own part, I believe
that the enactment will be a right one, but that of which
I ant profoundly convinced is, Out such sauteeing is sr
ansery, if we mean to cope successfully withrttertZtes
which surround us. Allusion ha been made to w
on the subject of aliens. That measure will be in this house ia
a few days, when I shall have an opportunity of giving ex-
li
planstions concerning it. At present I will only say this,
that any measures we introduce now are introduced under a
deep conviction that the peace of this country is worth pre-
serving, and that the institutions of this country, rte mo-
narchy, and its constitution, are not to be lightly.given up,
and that, the trust being placed in our hands, it is our duty
to preserve them intact. (Loud cheers.)
The house then went into committee on the bill.
that the
Mr. RORSMAN expressed his high satisfaction
objectionable clauses of the bill were to be operative for
only limited period. It was not for the first time, or with-
oat authority, that the opponents ef the bill claimed that a
difference should be ms. between words written and words
Arlon. The hon. member here quoted Blackstone and
Ohm legal authorities to show that the difference he eon-
lor had always been observed. Ile would trouble
the hems with one moo and a very recent authority,
to which he begged the particular attention of
the noble lord. Lord Campbell, in is " Chancellors of Eng-
land," stated of Lord Hides that he (Lord
able Eldon) ad,
when Attorney-General, prepured the Treason Attempt
ill, giving legislative exposition to the statute of Edward
B
111., but adding to its penalties the; vague offencs of " imr
ginisg" high treuon. On this passage Lard Cam belle
comment was, that the whip leaders, although with a as
billowing, made a most noble stand against this onscsards
ment on public liberty. (Cheers.) Lord Campbell added
his fear that under the provisions of that act the speeches at
Mr. Cobden, so lauded by the right hon. member for Tam-
worth, might be open to indictment. (Laughter.) The
writer added that when prosecuting Frost he had relied
solely on the statute of Edward, and bad procured a coop
victiee. In 1796 Fox and Erskine had raised their voices
against bills like the present, which he (Mr.
frHee and open
pen
be-
lieved to be unnecessary. In his °Owes
discussion was the very best security for public safety.
The prevention of public discussion had never been the
means of putting down but had been always the precursor
of insurrection. What he feared was, that government did
not consider the impotence of puliamentary majorities, and
the omnipotence of public opinion. With regard to Ireland,
he was sorry to say that in the circumstances of that country
there was something like a necessity for some measure of this
kind. He saw much in the past history and present con-
dition of Ireland for which the imperial parliament had to
reproath itself. lie believed that many of the grievances of
Ireland proceeded from bad legislation. If it were not so,
that would form a good argument for • domestic legislation
for Ireland. With regard to Ireland, therefore, he was con
tent—seeing that the operation was to be but temporary—to
assent to the measure. NVith regard to the general applica-
tion of the law, it had been urged that the alarm which had
been occasioned by circumstances existing in this country
was a sufficient justification of the measure. He, however,
believed that, looking at the condition of the country gene-
rally, there had never been • period when there was less
reason for alarm—(hear, hear)—and it was gratifying to see
that, in all thechanges which had taken place or were
taking place on the continent, the demand on the part of the
people was, " Give us • constitution on the model of
cons tbatitu-
t of
England, which we look upon as the perfection of
tional liberty." (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MARTIN should certainly move so an amendment
that the words " open and advised speaking " should be
struck out of the clans', believing that they involved a great
constitutional principle. This was the first time in the
history of the country that spoken words were equivalent to
written words, or that the former bad been declared to be a
felony. Under the common law it was always understood
that spoken and written words rested upon totally different
principles. This was the view taken by Lord Core ,
ke L
Hisord
, Hale, Blackstone, and other high legal authorits.
experience as a lawyer led him to the conviction that there
was no dependence upon the reports of spoken words—and
though generally he had every reliance on urors he
had no confidence in a panic-stricken jury—(hjar, hear)
—and he would as soon leave it to a jury of
madmen to try • case of felony under this bill,
Hieing out of spoken words, as he would to such i
a jury as could have been obtained in London last
Monday. It might be said that government would take
precautions to have correct reports, by employing their own
short-hand writers, but he placed no reliance on short-hand
writers' notes, and judge atter judge had refused to admit
reports so furnished as evidence. As he understood brio reat
importance was attached topreventing such speeches
made as they bad lately beard of, and a' he was not dispose
to say that some check should not be placed on such speeches,
lie should, besides moving the omission of the words ,
"open and advised speaking," move that a proviso be
added, that if any person present at any assembly or meeting
of more than twenty persons should by public or advised
speaking advocate or advise either of the three dome ef
offences referred to in the third section it should be held to
be a misdemeanor. He would also provide that the trial
should take place within a month after the commission of the
offence. He was quite aware that under the common law
an indictment in such a me would lie, hut he saw no objec-
tion by a declaratory law to show that the intention of the
legislature was directed to the subject, and to prevent parties
pleading ignorance of the law. lie (Mr. Msrtin) had always
folliwed the noble lord (J. Russell) and his government,and
he called upon the noble lord to do for his friends what Mr.
Pitt and Lord Grenville in 1795 did for their opponents.
(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY GENERAL opposed the amendment.
His hon. and learned friend had objected first that there was
no authority for dealing with spoken words as felony, and
second that no dependence could be placed on parol state-
ments. If there was anything in the second objection, it
should go to prevent prosecution for sedition in all cases; and
he could not understand how, that being his bon.'and learned
friend's opinion, be could justify, with env regard to consis-
tency, the remedy he proposed for punishing such offences
in cases of emergency. But did h a hon. and learned f iernd
mean to say that, as the law now stood, language calculated
to incite to the levying of war against the crown would not
be indictable and punishable as treaeon ? (Hear, bear.) His
hon. and learned friend, however, admitted
fleet severe that cases might
arise in which it would be proper to in p-
ment for such language. But how would he do this? Not
by the ordinary tribunale, but by new courts established for
the purpose. (" No," from Mr. Martin.) Why the hon.
and learned gentleman proposed to enact that the trial should
in every woe take place within a month after the commis-
sion of the offence. The ordinary tribmals would not, per-
haps, be sitting within that period. How, then, would he
try such cases except by means of some other tribunal ?
Mr. MARTIN—By a special commission.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Then special commis- I
sions were to be appointed for the trial of misclemeanon.
(Hear, hear.) And this was the remedy propmed by an has.
and learned gentleman, who, from his own experience as a
lawyer, had no confidence in pool testimony. (Hon I
hear.) But, with regard to the existing law of treason, ee
was well known that until lately persons indicted for felony
were denied the aid of counsel in their defence ; and tresses'
being • felony, it was but just that some difference should be
made between the overt act of treason and mere sedition.
That, however, was not the state of the law new
when persons indicted for felony had counsel assigned them.
But it was not the case that spoken words had never been
treated by the law as felony. The statutes of Charles, of
Anne, and of George, declared that spoken words,
to the
under
certain circumstances, would render the partyliable
penalties of preemonire, those penalties being imprisonment
for life and the forfeitare of goods; and a very high authority
' on criminal law (Judge Foster) had laid it down that words
of advice or persuasion, uttered in contemplation of, or to
promote, some greater event or act of treason, were to be
themselves regarded as an overt act of treason, and punish-
able as a felony. (Hear, hear.) His hon. and learned friend
was wrong, therefore, in saying that the law had never hitherto
recognised spoken words as felony. It was only fair to say
that Lord Hale, and some other authorities, had expressed
opinions adverse to this dictum, but the law, as laid
down by Judge Foster, and in accordance with which
decisions had been given, was, that language spoken with
intent to compass the death of the sovereign amounted to
Wesson. He thought it a defect in the law as it
stood, that it recognised no intermediate offence between
treason and sedition—or between the capital felony and the
misdemeanor. There were some cases of aggvated sedi-
tion for which the punishment which attachedra to a misde-
meanor was by no means commensurate : so there might be
cases of treason of so light a character as not to deserve to be
treated as capital felonies. This defect in the law the pre-
sent bill would in some measure remove, and though he was
aware that some objections might be urged against the
change in this respect, still, coupled as it was with the secu-
rities provided by the bill, he trustedunless the house was
prepared to say that as to every class of sedition
the law should remain as it was—that they
would agree to the clause as it stood. In his opinion even
were it proposed to make the act permanent, thd safer
course would he to retain the words which his hon. and
learned friend had moved to omit.
Mr. MARTIN denied that he had said that in no case
could parol evidence be trusted.
Mr. MILNES showed by a reference to the book that the
opinion which the Attorney-General had quoted as Judge
Eater's was merely the comment of Attorney-Clonal

Pollock on Judge Foster's words. et Hear," end a limpet
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the enessfisMut. Them
of this country mould never, in this nineteenth antler', be
brought to beam that there was on dilemma Warm
written ea& woken wade.
Sir r. YABBSIGEK referred the boa. masabr far Poem;
fret to paget of "Foster's Crown Law," in mew' of
4 the Attorney-GeneraL It bad boss aged
theby hemelembers that this chins' prOpeeed *Mahe a
pese
indlidable, as a felon, for words spoken. Now. that
was nothing likethe effect of the clause. Any indictment
under it would sot be fur words spoken, but for
and imagining—(cries of "oh ")—the different o=Z2
fled in the bill, end, if properly framed, would go on testate
either that there was something published or spoken openly
and advisedly— (loud cries of " hear" from the oppo-
nents of the clause)—which would be the proof, the overt
set, of the compassing and imagining. If the hon. member
for Montrose would refer to the debates on the bill of 1796, be
would find Mr. Erskine stating that the words "com-
passing and imagining" were as wily understood end
as clearly intelligible as any words in law—their
meaning being • settled, formed, and deliberate de-
sign and intention which were to be manifested and
proved by
.some overt act. He could not sit down with-
out expressing his deepest regret at the intention of the go-
vernment to yield to the opposition to this the most Unto/t-
-ut part of a most important =misers, and consent to make
it temporary instead of permanent (Vehement cheers.)
Mr. HUME referred to " Johnson's Dictionary" to show
that imagining meant fancying, and—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL referred the hon. gentle-
man to the fourth volume of Blackstone, page 78, for the
legal construction of the terms compassing and ima
ergining.
-Mr. P. WOOD mid that the law at prevent ..s simply
this, that any words spoken of the seditious character
described in this bill would be • high misde-
meanor, and punishable with fine and imprisonment
to any extent. Nay, more, thoee words were spoken
with the peril of being followed by an overt act, in
which clue, even if there were but one overt act, an act of
treason had been committed, and the party using those
words was liable to be indicted as an athesset7 to that act.
The hon. gentleman referred to " Foster's Criminal Law"
to show that that learned judge concurred with Hale and
Coke in the opinion that words spoken were not in them-
selves an overt act of treason. It was with surprise, there-
, fore, that he had heard the Attorney-General cite Foster to
show that words alone could amount to high treason. Hav-
ing reiterated his objections to the words, • open and advi.
sadly spoken," the hon. gentleman enured the hos,use
that he felt no sympathy with those wretche
either in England or in Ireland, who uttered such
fiseoeions stuff as had been brought under their
notice. He bad recently voted against the motion for
allowing that dastard Frost to return, which did not look
like sympathy with such men. But while he joined in the
indignation against them, and in the repudiation of their
sentiments, he must say that he thought the present a most
unhappily chosen moment for introducing such a measure as
that new before the house. He should much prefer seeing
chartists put an end to by extending the franchise (cheers),
and giving them an opportunity of occupying their time in
sending members to parliament instead of to the c ,nvention.
If that were done he was sure the parliament would never
again have encesion to resort to such a blister u this bill.
Mr. M. O'CONN ELL objected to the bill even fora tem-
porary period, for he could not forget that all coercion acts,
although at first temrery, were either continued or revived.
Mr. GROGAN rose to address the house, but owing to
the constant cry fur • division, he was obliged to resume his
seat. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when Mr.
KOWLTT presented himself, and being received with still
more vociferous sh -uts of interruption, was compelled to give
way to Mr. Gutman, who merely defended the juror. of
Dublin from an imputation which he suppoeed bad been
cast upon them by the hon member for Kerry, whi :h, how-
ever, that hon. member denied, by explaining that there
were many honest end impartial jurors in Dublin, only that
the government officers had not the knack of finding them.
Mr. H. GRATTAN said a few words to the same effect,
upon which
Lord J. RUSSELL, perceiving that it was near 6 o'clock
moved that the chairman report progress, and nth leave to
sit again.
Mr. REYNOLDS also made an attack upon the cha-
racter of Dublin juries, and the mode in which the panels
were struck.
Sir G. GREY said he should ask the house to meet to-
morrow (this tidy), at 12 o'clock.
Mr. Hone, Mr. MVNTZ, and Mr. PeARSON positively ob-
jected to such indecent haste.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL called attention to the difference
between granting and sacrificing the privileges of the people.
During the progress of the Reform Bill the government
never asked for day sittings.
After a few words from Col. SITITHOHP and Mr. BRIOHT,
Mr. MO WATT moved the adjournment of the debate to
Monday next, and
Mr. FAGAN was addressing the house, as seconder of the
motion, when the hour of 6 arrived, and the Speaker de-
clared the house adjourned.

result would be that every person present would be
liable to two years' imprisonment And bard labour.
Mr. Humes advice to the government was, to stay
farther proosedings for $ week, in order that the
country...might be made acquainted with the provisioas
of the bin, sAd thus avoid the disgrace of precipitation
Lretention to a measure of such vital importance.
Lord J. iittssatt expressed his belief that .ox
had laid down the tree doctrine for the period ;
but they were now living in extraordinary times—la
times when persons thought it right, thought it
their daty,tooall together councils and confederations,
in which they declared that war ought to be maibr
against the sovereign of these realms, and that the
armed foroes of the sovereign ought to be seduced ce
bribed, and that if seduction or bribery did not sue-
coed they should be opposed by force of arms—when I
persons were advised to arm themselves, and were I
told that if they procured arms they would gain &sig-
nal victory, and that the soldiers and police would
not be able to withstand them—when persons
thought it advisable, even in that house, to
show in what manner they meant to proceed, and
how they should advise their ceuntrymen to prepare
measures necessary for the success of rebellion.
Under these circumstances he should be ashamed of
himself if, when he saw the danger approaching, bs
should be so overawed by the authority of Mr. FOX.
so afraid of having his words quoted against him, ROI
to desert his duty and not to take those measures of
precaution which he believed to be necessary. After
some further ;observations the noble lord said that
with reference to the words to which such serious ob. I
jections had been taken—viz., "by open and advised I
speaking," the government were willing that the clause I
should only. have a temporary operation. The Louse
then went into committee. Mr. HottssuiN expressed
his satisfaction that the objectionable clauses of the
bill were to be in operation for a limited period
only. Mr. MARTIN moved that the words
in question should be struck out altogether.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL followed against the amend-
ment; and after some observations from Sir F. TDB-
/310ER, who expressed his deep regret at the determi-
nation of the government that this most important
feature of the bill should have only a temporary
endurance, and from Mr. P. WooD, who considered
that Chartism might be exploded by extending the'
franchise, which would supersede the necessity of
reporting to such a blister as the present measure
applied, and various desultory and time-engrossing
observations from other bon. members, Sir O. GREY
said he should ask the house to meet at 12 o'clock
this day, for the purpose of resuming the committee.
This proposition was warmly opposed, and Mr.
MoWATT moved the adjournment of the debate until
Monday, Mr. FAGAN being in the act of seconding
the motion when the hour of six arrived, and the
chair was vacated. When the debate is to be re-
sumed will be fixed this evening.

THE most obvious objection to the third clause of
the bill for the better security of the crown and
government of the United Kingdom, is the difficulty,
not to say impossibility, a plain man finds in under-
standing it. The involved and ungrammatical struc-
ture of the colossal sentence which composes it, defies
interpretation ; and the words descriptive of the
offences are vague in the extreme, admitting of almost
any latitude of interpretation. We believe it is
meant to declare that any persons who have conceived
the design of compelling the sovereign or the legis-
lature to change their measures or councils, by
deposing or levying war against the sovereign,
or by inviting foreign aid, and who shall pub-
lish this design by printing or writing, or
by "open and advised speaking," or by overt
acts, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and
liable, at the discretion of the crown, to be trans-
ported beyond seas for life, or any term not less than
seven years. Of the exact meaning of the word
" advi•ed " we have as yet seen no explanation offered.
Passing from the vagueness and confusion which
Pervade the language of this enactment—a grave ob-
jection to a law, the object of which is to entail
such severe penalties—let us see what change it will
effect in the existing law, the consequences of that
change, and the reasons for or against it.
As the law at present stands, the publication of
such designs as are enumerated in the bill,
by printing, has a more imposing name attached
to it, and draws down a heavier punishment
on the offender than is therein proposed. It is
treason and infers capital punishment. Publication
by speaking is only called a misdemeanor, has a
lighter punishment annexed to it, and is more diffi-
cult to be enforced. The bill now before the House of
Commons proposes to place both kinds of publication
on an equal footing, to give them the same name
(felony), and subject them to the same punishment.
Why has the distinction which at present exists been
made ? Two reasons suggest themselves. First, the
act of publication by printing is evidently deliberate
and premeditated. The act of publication by speech
not so evidently. What a man writes out distinctly,
commits to the press, and issues to the world, has pre-
sented itself to his mind in a distinct and tangible
form ; time has intervened to cool down a
sudden impulse, and allow of the words being sup-
pressed. What a man utters in the course of a speech
may be the chance suggestion of the moment, its full
import and consequences may not be present to the
speaker's consciousness ; the expressions may be
stronger—may imply more than he means. In the
first case the full consciousness and deliberate will,
which are essential ingredients of criminal intent, are
present beyond a doubt; in the other their preemie° is
lees certain. The law, it seems to us, with proper
diffidence and humanity, has refrained from classify-
ing under one rubric acts which may be so materially
different in their character.
The second reason has reference to our English mode
of criminal procedure. To be punished for either offence
the offender must first be convicted by a jury. As a
safeguard against the biases which beset men in
authority, we regard the intervention of twelve men
taken at hazard from the class of citizens as in-
valuable. But every human institution has its draw-
backs as well as its advantages. Men taken at hazard
from the mass of citizens cannot be expected to be
nice in their discrimination of the values of evidence,
1r skilful in disentangling the workings of their own
minds and distinguishing between those conclusions
which judgment, and those which prepossession or
passion, dictate. There is comparatively little danger
in leaving such a tribunal to decide on the culpability
or innocence of a printed book or essay traced by clear
evidence to its author; but there is great danger in leav-
ing such a tribunal to decide on the difficult and delicate
question, whether the exact meaning of a speaker
has been seized by those who heard him. The uncon-
scious biases of each juryman will hero infallibly
come into play ; the alarmist will be swayed one
way, the political sympathiser another ; the decision
of the jury will depend to a considerable extent on
the leanings of the parties composing it. The public,
aware of this, will form an exaggerated estimate of
the extent to which these leanings have influenced
1 the verdict. The verdict and the consequent sentence
will not give satisfaction to the public mind. The
accused, if condemned, will be an honoured martyr
in the eyes of many ; if acquitted, an escaped felon—
a living witness of the inefficacy of the law—to many.
It is a weighty ground for opposing the enactment of
any law, that it shall thus be uncertain in its opera-
tion.
These two reasons, we entertain little doubt, are
really the reasons which have hitherto caused the
law to remain as it at present is. They seem to us
sufficient reasons for allowing it still to remain as it
is—at least in so far as a distinction between printed
and spoken publication of designs to intimidate or
subvert the government, are concerned. To the sub-
stituting the term felony for treason, and imposing
slighter punishment, in the case of printed exhor-
tations to forcible subversion or coercion of govern-
ment, we of course have no objection. To bringing
spoken exhortations ander the same category, we
object. No man can have had occasion to ad-
dress a public meeting without being aware how liable
he is to " say more than he would infer." The most
practised speakers are not safe from this tendency ;
the less practised are of course in greater danger. No
man can have listened to a public speaker and con-
versed with others about what he said without being
aware of how difficult it is to catch with certainty the
meaning of words which fall on the ear, and have
their impression immediately effaced by those which
succeed.
We have argued this question on abstract principle
—aswe would a mathematical problem—for only thus
can a correct decision be come to. We cannot, how-
ever, overlook the fact—and it is one main ground of
objection to the clause—that it is in form an abstrae,
legal doctrine, but in reality a special measure of pre
caution with reference to events now in progress. And it'