The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

Friend relied so much upon, was not conclusive. The
judgment cited was that of Lord Abinger alone, and it
v,,s delivered net upon a geieeral, but upon a special
return made by the gaoler of lelverpoel in the writ.
The Hon. Member cited Blackstone en the subject, to
the effect that no power on earth could send a British
sal jeet Out of the country against his will hut Parlia-
ment, even though he might be a criminal; hut the
authority of such a man as Blackstone went, he was
sorry to say, hut a short way, and had but little weight
with the Whig Crown lawyers of the present day. lie
must then, say, whoever counselled the Ministers to
bring in this diseracejul Bill, Lad seed in a must un-
prineipli d, most indecent manner. The pardon of the
State prisoners, as far as Queen Victoria was concerned,
had gone forth; it had been communicated to the pri-
soners through the Lord Lieutenant, and it indicated
that her Majesty had no desire to follow out the fright-
ful sentence of death; and he must say, that if he were
in the position of those gentlemen he should not
consider such a step as that which Ministers were
now taking in their efforts to pass this Bill
as an act of inerey.—(Hear, hear.) And what did the
Bill propose to do with those honourable high-minded
men, men of character and station in society; men, one
of whom, Mr. Smith O'Brien, had been a Member of
this House? What did the Pill prcpose to do with
those gentlemen? to send them to Norfolk Island, there
to work fur the term of their lives as slaves, subject to
every degradation, and to every form of severity. But
if' the house knew its duty properly, if it wished well to
the laws, lights, and liberties of the subject, it would set
its countenance againsr,and defeat this unprincipled mea-
sure. The lion. Member then read a dispatch, dated
1846, to Lord Stanley, which gave a frightful picture of
the punishment and tortures inflicted on convicts in Port
Arthur, and also a document from a clergyman in Nor-
folk Island predicting that afflictions must befal the
nation which could sanction such tortures on human
beings as he was witness to in that island. But he (Mr.
Anstey) would go farther than a mere defence of
those honourable men. He would say, that this
was an attack on the Constitution, and that the
lives and liberties of Englishmen, Irishmen, and
Scotchmen, could no longer be considered as safe,
when such acts were perpetrated ; but it was an
attack of a true Whig character, for when was it that
Whig Ministers were not ready to attack the Constitu-
tion? He would avail himself of every form of the
House to oppose a measure so wicked and so unjust.
As far as the pardon of her Majesty went, in commut-
ing the sentence of death, it was legal; but as far as the
step directing transportation went, it was not legal, and
the authority of Sir Thomas Tomlin showed that it was
in the power of the condemned men to resist the change
of sentence, if so di,p.)sed, and insist on his original
sentence being carried out. There were instances
wherein the individuals in whose cases mercy had been
exercised, insisted on the sentence of death being carried
out; and then it was that an Act was passed to give
the Sovereign power to alter the sentence of death
effectually to transportation; but those cases were dis-
tinguished from " treason," in respect of which the law
had not been altered. Now, such was the authority of
Sir Thomas Tomlin; but where Sir Themes Tomlin
feared almost to tread, the Whig Attorney-General did
not hesitate to rush in. The zeal which he (Mr.
Anstey) felt for truth and principle (now apt to be in-
terfered with and marred in their every-day practice),
would, he hoped, warrant him in the opinion of the
House for having expressed himself warmly; and he
would, in conclusion, say that it was his intention, to
the. utmost of his power, to avail himself of every means
to defeat so intolerant and unjust a measure as that now
before the House.
Mr. P. WOOD said that in the observations which be
proposed making to the House, he should apply himself
to the strict point of the law. He apprehended that they
meant to argue the question as if there really was 4
doubt as to the legal power of the Queen. This having
been conceded, as also that_ ex post
°facto legislation was
objectionable, he saw no ground why the gentlemen who
had petitioned to be heard by Counsel at the bar of the
House, and oppose the Bill, should be allowed to do so.
Such a privilege could not be extended, and he confessed
he did not see wl at opposition there could be given to
the Bill. With regard to hearing Counsel, the only
ground for it would be, that some slip had been made
by the Crown which would put the convicts in the posi-
tion of pardoned men. But this was not the case, for
the petition of the prisoners had not been in any wit,'
altered. The fact was, the Lord-Lieutenant had issued
an order to transport the parties, under the provision of
a certain Irish Act. The prisoners were now under sen-
tence of death. The Queen could exercise her preroga-
tive of mercy on their behalf, but there being some doubt
upon the subject, the present law was framed.
He was opposed to ex post facto law on principle, but
this was merely an Act to remove an obstacle
in the exercise of the royal prerogative. The difficulty
of the point was simply this, that if the Bill before
the House were not passed, the question could not be
raised in a court of law. The Learned Judges had no
control over a case of this kind, and a court of law bad
no jurisdiction over the fate of the prisoners. lie
should oppose the amendment for hearing counsel, and
support the motion for the second reading.
Mr. KEOGH said the Bill under consideration was,
to say the least of it, a most extraordinary measure,
because the law officers of the Crown in Ireland must
have known of the difficulty to be surmounted. The •
measure was intended to take the law out of its usual
course, and surely for such a measure there ought to be
some justification on the ground of political expediency.
He asked whether the present state of Ireland demanded
an appeal to the House for extraordinary legislation.—
(Hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
who had just spoken saw no reason why the petitioners
should be heard at the bar; and the Attorney-General
said that there wes no shadow of doubt but that the
Crown had the power to transport these persons.
Now, if this were the case, why should they be called
HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 18.
upon to pass a measure which declared that considerable
TRANSPORTATION FOR TREASON (IRE- doubts did exist?—(Hear, hear.) The Bill was in effect
LAN
Third Edition of last night.) the prisoners than was now necessary. He confessed he
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should have could not view the difficulties cf the case in the same
been glad if some Hen. Member had stated to the House light which the Attorney-General did, because a return
a tangible ground upon which to place the case fur the might be made to the writ of habeas corpus, and the
prisoners. The object of the amendment, however, was court could then decide whether the prisoners could be
not so much to test the propriety of the measure, as to retained or not. He thought the case of Mr. O'Brien
usurp the prerogative of the Crown, and to examine it in was not one in which capital punishment could be in
a different way to that which was intended.—(Hear.) flitted, and therefore the petitioners stood in this
The Learned Gentleman opposite had not stated to the petition—that not being amenable to punishment by
House the statutes upon which the question had arisen,
or the authorities death, and being amenable to confinement for life, the
fore he should once by which it was governed; and there- Crown now desired by this Bill to inflict by transports-
at proceed to explain them, not only tion a greater punishment than it could otherwise inflict.
because it was his duty to do so, but also for the pur- lie saw no reason vi hy the prisoners might not be
pose of resolving doubts which had arisen in the minds respite(' during the pleasure of the Crown, and he showed
of many Hon. Members. The Acts under which it was that with the Irish State prisoners, in 1798, such A
proposed to commute the sentence were two in number, course had been adopted, under a particular Act of Par: having a different application in Ireland to that which liament, it was true. It this were now done, and if
they had in England. The first of these was the 6th of those persons were retained in custody for some times
o.-
George 1., c. 12, s. 1, of the Irish Statutes. By that
they might afterwards with safety be permitted to exp
statute power was given to the Crown, or to its repre- triate themselves. In conclusion, he expressed his in' sentative, the Lord-Lieutenant, to transport or pardon tension of supporting the amendment.
all persons under sentence of death, on condition of trans Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said that the Hon. and
Learned Members for Athlone and the University of
portation. The second Act was the 12th of George 1..
c. 8, s. 10, which was more applicable to this ease. Dublin had, by the ingeniousness and ability of their
It enacted, that whenever his Majesty should extend arguments, dispensed wilt any reasons that might be
mercy to any one convicted of felony, and who had re- offered fur hearing counsel at the bar of the House. If
ceived sentence of death, any order under the sign this was an extraordinary measure, it had arisen out of
manual, directing the persons to be transported should extraordinary circumstances. He agreed that this was
be as binding as if the pardon for felony had not been not a case in which the extreme penalty of the law ought
obtained. It had been contended, and many persons in to be carried out. Some cireumstancf s of extenuation
Ireland confidently contended that that Act could be of might be found in the conduct of the criminals, and
no application now; because, said tLey, the statute ap- granting, as he did, that a strong repugnance existed in
plied to persons convicted of felony, and felony did not the minds of the people against punishment by death, be
include treason. To set them right on this point he was rejoiced that the penalty was to be averted in thisit
would quote from the most elementary work, viz , particular case. But if he were asked to look upon
Blackstone, the 7th chapter of the 4th volume of which with reference to the ordinary administration
of justice,
was devoted to the subject of treason against the Crown's and to consider-whether the
penalty of death was a fitting
prerogative. The definition of felony there given was,
punishment fur high treason, then he would consider
that it was that which at common law occasioned the forfeiture of lands and goods, and to which ca himselt justified in saying that it was; that the Crown
pital had it in its power to respite the sentence of death, and
punishment was sometimes annexed. Felony was there. at length commute it into a pardon, he could not deny;
tore larger than treason, which it included as a parti- but to contemplate the infliction of imprisonment for life, cular case; all treasons being felonies, though all under the colour of a respite from time to time, would
felonies were not treason. The Crown in granting a be, in his mind, a most unconstitutional proceeding. It
pardon, did so, conditionally, and transportation here
was the boast of our count
r
was the condition precedent. If that condition wereimprisonment
was not permi y that long tted. The present measure was one
not performed, the pardon was void for want of its
fulfilment. In conceived in a spirit of mercy, and he was sure it
" Comyn's Digest," article e treason ," it was laid down that the King might extendwould be regarded as such when the passion and
his mercy on what te
he pleased, and n- the heroism of the hour had passed away. For himself
rms he was certain, and he gave his opinion as a lawyer,
Heald any condition, whether precedent or subseq
In uent, that although the preamble of the Bill expressed the ex-
on the fulfilment of which the pardon depended. istence of a doubt, there was in reality no doubt a$
Bacon's abridgement, the law was stated to be that the
all as to the Queen's power. He believed the Irish
condition not being fulfilled, the pardon became void, Act of Parliament allowed the Sovereign to transport
and the prisoner might be taken and executed on the
persons sentenced to death, if she so pleased. He
final judgment. If a party refused to accept the condi- looked upon the measure before the House as an act
tion on which the pardon was granted, there could be ne of clemency—wise, just, and considerate—a clemency
doubt that the pardon was void. On another point of which ought to meet with a response in the heart of the case he must be permitted to express his surprise every Irishman, and a clemency which be confidently
that any one should propose to be heard at the bar, or to hoped the House would neither avert nor delay.
present a petition at the bar of the House. The course
which the Government now proposed to take, was pre- Mr. E. B. ROCHE reminded the House that the Go-
cisely that, singularly enough, which Mr. Smith O'Brien vernment came down to the House the other night to
himself desired. He said that it was incumbent upon the propose a Bill to indemnify rebels in Canada. In the
Crown to pass a statutory justification for their comma- case of Canada life had been lost and property
hdaed-
stroyed, but in this case those terrible consequenceso __
tation of the sentence, even if it should be necessary to
effect that object by ex post facto legislation. It was not arisen. It was admitted that practically and morally
contended by his Learned Friend opposite that the pri- it would be impossible to make thehperisßoinehrts
ion.amenable
and
to the punishment of death. T
soners might have raised their case upon the return of
a writ of Habeas Corpus issued from the Irish courts.
of mercy to that House
were transferring the prerogative Now, in addition to the fact that, under the existing
lvtime that he himself was
Learned Gentleman the Attorney-Generalegsaid that they
from the Crown, at th
excitement in Ireland, it would have been a most in-
decent course to argue the question in an open court
inflict. The Right Hon. Gentleman,
of law at Dublin, he was prepared to show that it the Crownl couldproposing
re aggravatedesam kind of punishment than
that the Bill was not necessary,
e not stand upon the law, and try it?
was quite incompetent to those parties to raise the ques- and
dvethtaet the,
as it stood was sufficient. If such be
tion at all upon Habeas Corpus. The point had been
solemnly decided by a judgment of the full Court ofbelonged to the party with which the gen-
Exchequer, delivered upon the case of the Canadian pri- tlemen whose cases where under their consideration was
He
ee
neverhcaadse,
soners, in which that Court, upon the confession of the connected. These gentlemen had alvtays said that Eng-
prisoners of the offence for which they had been con- land had not dealt out equal justice to Ireland, and the
victed, declared that it could not entertain any of the Bill before the House went in effect to strengthen that
wi
did b
points which had been raised on their behalf; that it argument, for no one could believe that such a Bill would
could not, in fact, set at liberty parties convicted of tree- have been introduced with reference to an offence com-
son on their own confession. His Hon. Friends opposite mated in England. Capital punishment was out of the
and their education,
pun.-
owned that Mr. S. O'Brien's case was deserving of question; but, considering the position of the parties,
he thought the punishent trans-
ishment; and that being so, his Hon. Friends, inausuc,ght
gesting an imprisonment for life as his punishment, .
n. portation was more severe even than the punishmentp of
to be told that they did not in England colourably It death itself,
liberating
prison a man for life with a view of ultimately Mr. LAWLESS submitted, considering the immense
him. If the House thought it
more
Parliament, he had numher of signatures which had been appended to the
_disereet, as well i. 5
more decent, to proceed by Act of
the .
petition in favour of mercy to the State prisoners, that
and it would be for the House to decide it. This was
stated the doubts which had occurred upon. question,
a merciful consideration of their case would do more to
ex post facto legislation, which Mr. Smith O'Brien prevent future attempts at rebellion than any measure
wished for; and he hoped the House would perceive that of severity they could inflict. 'I he Hon. illembe then
there t en
there were grounds for passing this Bill —(Heats)
alluded to the case of Mr. 0, Dogi ierty, whose sentence
Mr. ANSTEY said he had risen with the intention of of transportation had beeneom eldicarried_ioa;n ot,
into effect, notwith-
etanding the strong re In the jeep, in his
seconding the amendment, but having been anticipated
by the Honourable Member opposite, he should now favour, and concluded by saying that such was his strong
endeavour to support it. The object of the anieedment sense of the injustice of the proposed
.t a hundred times
Learned Gentleman who had just 'spoken, It was Bill that, if neces-
had not been rightly represented to the House b the sary, he would divide the House upon i
before he should permit it to pass into law.---(Hear.)
in-
tended to show that this House was not the proper Mr. FAGAN said he altogether differedin the opinion
arena for discussing a question of this kind, which ought which had been expressed by the lion. Member for
to be referred to those judges who, by their oaths were that (Sergeant Taltourd), namely, at the present
bound, and by their learning, were qualified measure was an act of mercy. He would not refer to the
to decide it.
The case of the Canadian prisoners, which his Learned any inference as to how
rebellion in Canada, nor draw

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 18.
POOR-LAW UNIONS.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD presented several peti-
tions from different piribnes, praying for alterations in
the limits of the poor-law unions.

PASSENGERS BILL.
Earl GREY, in moving the second reading of this
Bill, said it would be remembered that in the course of
last session, to meet the exigencies of the case, an Act
was passed for the regulation of emigrant ships, wi,h
the limited duration of two years. When the measure
was passed it was understood that the limitation was to
give time for a more careful revision of the law upon
the subject, in order to introduce a more permanent
measure, based upon that mature consideration. Since
that time the Commissioners had been in communica-
tion with the most experienced persons, and had pre-
pared a Bill, which was, in fact, a consolid.etion and
re-enactment of the existing laws, with a few altera-
tions, which he believed would be found to be im-
portant improvements. In the first place, it made the
number of persons to be carried in proportion
to the tonnage more clear than it was ex-
pressed in the existing law. That two passengers
were allowed to every ton; but in future the number of
passengers allowed in each would be limited. There
was also a clause requiring that improved ♦entilation
should be introduced on board, which he considered a
measure of great importance.—([leer, hear.) A law of
a somewhat analagous kind had been lately passed in the
United States, but the Bill he now moved gave the com-
missioners a greater discretion. Another alteration of
importance had reference to the dietary provided for
passengers. At present it was one pound of flour daily.
It was quite well known that the quantity was not se-
ficient for the maintenance of the passengers, and it was,
in fact, meant only for cases of exigency ; hut it was
proposed in future to cause lilb of flour to be provided,
and also a small allowance of tea and sugar and molasses,
which, although it would add very slightly to the cost
of the dietary, would materially improve it, and preserve
the health of the passengers. These were the most im-
portant alterations which were proposed, and with this
brief statement of the Bill, he now begged to move the
second reading of the Bill.
After a few words from Earl WALDEGRAVE,
The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a
second time.

ACCIDENTS IN COAL MINES.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE, in moving for the appoint-
ment of a Select Committee to inquire into the best
means of preventing dangerous accidents in mines, said
he would not detain their Lordships by any lengthened
observations in support of the motion. It was, indeed,
unnecessary. The position the matter stood in was
simply this. Since the year 1835 there had been no
public inquiry into the subject. In that year the other
House of Parliament appointed a Committee, which col-
lected some very valuable evidence. There had also
been several Commissioners appointed by the Govern-
ment, composed of men of the very highest standing, and
they had collected evidence of a useful character. Never-
theless, in the position of having had no public inquiry
since the time he had mentioned, and considering the
great advance which had been made in our knowledge of
certain branches of the subject, and the very frequent
occurrence of disastrous and lamentable accidents within
the last few years, he thought we were now in the
position to make a Parliamentary inquiry on the
subject. It was his impression that that inquiry need
not be a very protracted one, and his object in scoving
for it mainly was, that the Government should
recommend any practical proposals contained in the re-
port of the Committee for the adoption of the owners of
collieries. That was done elsewhere, and he saw no
reason why it should not also be done in this country.—
(Hear, hear.) He had great pleasure in learning that
since he gave notice of his motion, Government had
given instructions to a very eminent individual, Sir H.
Delabeche, to make inquiries, with a view of carrying
out practical improvements. But while he was gratified
with that proof of the interest which Government took
in the matter, he was of opinion that it did not render
unnecessary the Committee, for the appointment of
which he now moved.

The Earl of CARLISLE said he did not apprehend
that any oppositio❑ would be made to the motion of his
Hon. Friend. They all knew quite well that some re-
medial measure was wanted to prevent the recurrence of
those shocking accidents which were constantly taking
place. The Government had had the subject under con-
sideration, and had given instructions to Sir H. Dela-
beche, which he hoped would be attended with great
practical results. One of the first things to be sub-
mitted to the Committee would be the suggestion of
that gentleman, which he hoped would meet with their
approval. Should the Committee have any further sug-
gestions to offer, Government would be happy to receive
them.

Earl St. GERMANS said that, after what he had
stated on the subject the other night, it was unnecessary
for him to express the satisfaction he felt in assenting to
the proposition of his Noble Friend, especially as he
was so well qualified to preside over that inquiry.
The motion was then agreed to.
Lord MONTEAGLE, in presenting the report of the
Select Committee on the auditing railway accounts,
said that he hoped in the course of a short time to lay a
Bill on the subject before their Lordships. The Nale
Lord also presented a petition from the board of
guardians of the Hayfield union, complaining that iu the
township of New Mills alone there were fifteen toll-
bars.

The Earl of CARLISLE brought in the Public
Health (Ireland) Bill.

The Sheep•stealing (Ireland) Bill was read a second
time.

Their Lordships then adjourned.