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

subject. It was his impression that that inquiry need
not be a very protracted one, and his object in moving
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 hie 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
hicti he now moved.

The Earl of CARLISLE said he did not apprehend
that any opposition 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-
bcche, 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, Govennaent would be happy to receive
them.

PARTY PROCESSIONS.
Mr. MONSELL inquired if it was the intention of the
Government to introduce any Bill with respect to party
processions.

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 ~Frien-d, especially as he
was so well qualified to preside over that inquiry.
The motion was then agreed to.

- Lord J. RUSSELL said the subject was under the
consideration of his Noble Friend the Lord-Lieutenant
of Ireland (as we understood).
POLITICAL PRISONERS.
Mr. HINDLEY said he had received a communication
from Manchester stating that the political prisoners
lately committed were required to wear marks, which,
considering their offence, he thought was most un-
called for and unnecessary. He hoped the Right Hon.
Baronet would make a communication to the visiting
magistrates to put an end to such a proceeding.
Sir G. GREY said he knew nothing of the facts of the
case, but he supposed the persons referred to were pri-
soners who had been transported for life for conspiring
against the Queen and the Constitution. If so, they
were treated according to the regulations of the
gaol in which they were confined; but he should feel it
his duty to recommend the visiting magistrates to relax
the regulation with respect to wearing marks in the
case of the particular prisoners referred to.
Mr. ROEBUCK asked if there would be any objec-
tion to lay a copy of the regulation on the table in order
that they might see whether the present Government
or their predecessors had given their countenance to the
regulations referred to? Were they submitted for the
approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
meat?

Lord MONTE AGLE, in presenting the report of the
Select Committee on the auditing railway accounts,
said that ho hoped in the course of a short time to lay a
Bill on the subject before their Lordships. The Noble
Lord also presented a petition from the board of
guardians of the Hayfield union, complaining that in the
township of New Mills alone there were fifteen toll-
. _

.. .. _._
The Earl of CARLISLE brought in the Public
Health (Ireland) Bill.
The Sheep-stealing (Ireland) Bill was read a second

Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 18.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE POLICE, MARKETS, &c.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to.
DUBLIN, ASH BOURNE, SLANE, Etc., ROAD BILL.
On the proposition that this Bill should be read the
third time,

Mr. REYNOLDS opposed it on the ground that it
was highly detrimental to the interests of the citizens
of Dublin, and that it would not obviate the tolls
which they now were obliged to pay. He therefore
moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six
months.

Sir G. GREY replied that all the orders were sub-
mitted for the approval of the Secretary of State. Marks
were used where prisoners were in association more for
their mutual advantage than for the purpose of punish-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) No recent regulations had been
made on the subject.

After a few words from Lord 11A.rdar VANE and Lord
GALWAY, both of whom stated that Mr. Run°lda had
opposed the Bill as much as possible, and used all these
arguments before the Committee, the House divided,
when there appeared—
For the third reading... ..•
Against it ...
Majority for the Bill ...
_ THIRD READINGS.
_

CANADA.
Mr. B. COCHRANE, gave notice that on Thursday
he should move for a copy of the order in Cjuncil offer-
ing a reward of 5001. for the apprehension of Lafontaine.
FRENCH AND AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENTS.
In reply to Mr. HUAIE,
Lord J. RUS,ELL said, that his Nuble Friend the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had comma-

... 65

-57

_A-ti-
The following Bills were read a third time and passed, cated to the French Government, that if they wished to
several amendments being proposed and agreed to. explain their conduct they might have an opportunity of
East Lancashire Railway Acts Amendment and De- doing so by the production of any documents that might
-viation Bill. bear upon the question arising out of the recent proceed-
Irish South-Eastern Railway (Amendment of Acts) ings at Vienna. In reply he had received an intimation
Bill.
that the French Government had no of to lay the
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Extension of communication to which the Hon. Gentleman's question
Ashton Branch of Clifton Branch, &c.) Bill. hid reference before this Government. It would be for
BANKRUPTCY LAW. his Hon. Friend to say, whether it would be expedient
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from Sal- to lay the documents before the House.
Sir R. PEEL presented a pelition in favour of the Bill
ford in favour of the Bankruptcy' Law Consolidation Bill.
Mr. BECK 'ITT DENISON presented a petition from for legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister;
the baulters and merchants of Leeds for the same also a petition from 500 persons in favour of home nolo-
p urpose. bization, and a petition from certain schoolmasters in
tionsCal: D
RaiTnsILFtIhCisABTiIELS (BANKRUPTCY) BILL. favour of arbitration.
Mr. B. ENtsox and Mr. LYTTELTON presented pal.. THE SCOTTISH MARRIAGE AND REGISTRA-
TION BILLS.
POOR-LAW UNIONS. Mr. HUME said the NeblG Lord had postponed se-
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD presented several peti- verel Bills. Would he not do well to withdraw these
Lions from different parishes, praying for alterations in Bills, which were much objected to in Scotland?
the limits of the poor-law unions. Lord J. RUSSELL could not reply to the question
BANKRUPTCY BILL. during the absence of the Lord Advocate.
Sir J. WALMSLEY presented a petition from Liver- THE CASE OF SMITH O'BRIEN, DIEAGLIER,
pool, signed by the Mayor and a number of the bur- M'MANUS, AND DONOHUE.
gesses of Liverpool, praying tor the passing of the new Mr. NAPIER then rose to present a petition from
Bankruptcy Bill.
SMITHFIELD MARKET. Mr. Smith O'Brien and Messrs. Meagher, O'Donohue
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from and M‘Manus. The Hon. Gentleman was about to state
tG eeßighttlem
nhavinreeal ste
a large number of shopkeepers in Oxford-street, praying the nature of the petition, when he was interrupted by
t hee d
petitioners—
he
iton t o.
for the abolition of Smithfield Market.
Lordn Ja.
Hon.RUSSELL, Gnhilmeo a nnsaid
thee Speaker—the s
ofviish
IRISH POOR-LAW. h
Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that on Friday, on the
motion for going into a Committee of Supply, he should g
call the attention of the House to the evidence taken I whether these persons being attainted of high treason,
before the Select Committee on the Irish poor-law. the House will admit the petition of such persons.
ECCLESIASTICAL REFORM. After a pause,
The HON: MEMBER also gave notice that on an early The SPEAKER said the House had already received
day he should call the attention of the House to certain one petition from these persons, and he could no: call to
matters (as we understood) connected with ecclesiastical mind an instance in which a petition of a similar nature
reform. had been refused.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER was proceeding to read the petition,
when

PALACE COURT.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said a Bill for the abolition of the
Palace Court stood for the second reading to-day, and as
it was a matter of some importance, he wished to know
what course the Government intended to take with re-
spect to it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, very early in the
sessiun he had stated, in reply to a question, that the
subject of the Palace Court was under the consideration
of the Government, and that a Bill with respect to it
would be introduced as speedily as possible. He had
now to state that early next week he hoped to be in a
condition to move for leave to bring in a Bill
to amend the law for the recovery of small
debts, and that ho should introduce a clause rela-
tive to the abolition of the Palace Court. If the
Bill should be read a second time, he would move for
the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whe-
ther the officers holding appointments in that Court
were entitled to any, and what, compensation.
Sir F. THESIGER wished to know, after the state- I
ment of the Attorney-General, whether the Noble Lord
(Lord D. Stuart) intended to press the second reading
of his Bill relative to the Palace Court.
Lord D. STUART said he put a question some time
ago to the Government, which was answered very in-
directly, and he then gave notice of his intention to
bring in a Bill, and having done se, he now thought it
his duty to persevere with it.
TRANSPORTATION TO VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
In reply to Mr. EWART, •
Mr. HAWES stated that a dispatch had been received
from Sir William Denison which contained a request on
the part of the authorities, that no more transports
might be sent to Van Diemen's Land, not on the ground
of any misconduct on the part of the transports, but be-
cause the labour market was overstocked. The Ho-
nourable Member also stated that in the course of a few
days he should lay certain papers on the table of the
Housewhich would give every information on this subject.
TREATMENT OF ERNEST JONES.
In reply to Mr. F. O'CONNOR,
Sir G. GREY, who was indistinctly heard, was un-
derstood to say that complaints had been received from
Ernest Jones and other prisoners, and that, in
consequence of these complaints, he had instituted
inquiries, the result of which was that all the
prisoners, with the exception of Ernest Jones
and another prisoner, had expressed themselves satisfied
with their treatment. The regulations of the prison
had been placed in the hands of each 'prisoner. Under
them prisoners were allowed to communicate with
their friends once in three months, and Ernest Jones
had availed himself of that privilege. With
regard to petitioning Parliament, the prisoner had
exercised that privilege by sending a letter on the sub-
ject of a petition to Parliament.
CAPTAIN ROSS'S EXPEDITION.
Mr. C. ANSTEY wished to know from her Majesty's
Government whether en instruction had been given to
Sir John Ross, founded upon information received by
the Admiralty, to examine the harbour and coasts of
Jones's and Smith's Sound? Ho also wished to direct
the attention of the Government to the circumstance,
and to ask if they had afforded to the American Commo- I

Mr. DISRAELI said ho should like- to have the
opinion of her Majesty's Attorney-General on the point.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL rose, and was met
with loud cries of " Order, order."
Mr. E. B. ROCHE submitted to the House whether
the Speaker having decided the question it ought not to
be considered by the House as final, particularly when
they considered the situation of these unfortunate men.
—Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER observed that he had only informed
the House what his impression was, and that he had no
recollection of an instance in which such a petition
had been refused to be received. There could be no
doubt that it was perfectly competent for the House to
decide for itself which course it would pursue.—(Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI observed that if he had thought that
the Speaker had given a final decision on the subject, he
should not have said one word with respect to it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he had ap-
plied to the Speaker on the subject of the petition,
and after hearing his opinion that he knew of no instance
in which such a petition had been refused, he had done the
best he could in the emergency to ascertan if such
a petition had been entertained by the House, and he
could find no precedent for doing so.
Mr. NAPIER said that he had only received the pe-
tition a few hours ago, and considering it of importance
that if it was thought by the petitioners that justice had
not been done to them, that their case should be fully
considered, and that they might be heard at the bar, he
bad mentioned the subject of the petition to the Attorney-
General, and after what that Learned Gentleman had said
he thought it his duty to present the petition.
Sir F. THESIGER thought it would be far better
that his Hon, and Learned Friend, the Member for Dublin
should postpone the presentation of the petition, as the
case was a peculiar one. With respect to Mr. Beath
O'Brien the House had come to the resolution that
as ho had been attainted of high treason, his seat was
vacant, and a new writ was moved for. Under these cir-
cumstances, the House being aware that Mr. S. O'Brien
had been attainted a traitor, thought it desirable that
they should not receive a petition from him until they
had been informed that there was nothing informal in
admitting him to petition the House. He thought
if his Honourable and Learned Friend would postpone
the presentation of the petition till to-morrow, it would
be the best course for him to pursue.
Mr. C. ANSTY trusted his Hon. and Learned
Friend would persevere in the presentation of the peti-
tion. He thought the case of the petitioners ought to be
fully considered.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said there was a specialty in
this case which would warrant the House in receiving
the petition, even if there were doubts as to its admission
under ordinary circumstances, because the House was
about to consider an Act that evening which stated in
its preamble that doubts had arisen as to the prerogative
of the Crown in the cases of convicted traitors. Under
the circumstances of the case, he (Sir R. Peel) thought
the petitioners were entitled to approach the House.
Mr. J. STUART said that the petition was cer-
tainly presented under extraordinary circumstances, and
it was impossible to consider the rights of the peti-
ioners, without at the same time considering the cha-
racter of the Bill with which the House had to deal that
night. That Bill proposed to substitute another
punishment for that of death, and if this peti-
tion were received they mast come to the extraor-
dinary conclusion that the prisoners desired to be
subjected to the extreme and not to the mitigated punish-
ment.—(Laughter.) He hoped his Hon. and Learned
Friend would give notice of his resolution, and defer pre-
senting his petition to the House till to-morrow.
Mr. BRIGHT thought that, under the circumstances,
the petitioners ought to be at liberty to approach the
House.
Mr. H. GRATTAN said that the House of Commons
ought to be indebted to Mr. Smith O'Brien, because he
had, by the absurd proceedings that had called upon him
the censure of the Government, made insurrection vulgar
and unfashionable. There seemed to be some mystery in
this affair, and that the Government had entirely misled
the public. He certainly expected that after the debate
of Friday night, as much lenity would be shown to Irish-
men as to individuals on the other side of the Atlantic.
—(Hear, hear.) An Hon. Gentleman had that night
given notice of motion for the production of the docu-
ment offering 5001. for the apprehension of Mr. Lafon-
taine; and yet he believed that that gentleman was now
Attorney-General for Canada.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HERRIES said that this was a question of con-
siderable difficulty. Whatever plan they might adopt
respecting this petition much difficulty must be in-
curred. He did not see that there was anything in the
position of a person convicted of high treason which
justified the presentation of a petition to this House.
Supposing the case of any other person who had been
convicted of a capital crime, would the House deem it
right to receive a petition to be heard at the bar of the
House by counsel. Heconceived that such a petition could
not possibly be entertained. There seemed to him to be
this further difficulty, that if the Petition from these
persons was to be received, a petition against the
sentence for any act might be presented, and thus the
whole law might be obviated. He thought, therefore,
that time should be taken to consider a matter which he
could not but consider to be one of great importance.
Mr. COCKBURN conceived that this petition
ought to be received. It seemed to him
that a person convicted of any special act
had a right to appeal against an unjust decision, pro-
vided the deed which he was said to have committed,
and of which he had been convicted, was a special deed.
—(Hear.) For what were they proposing to legislate
about, simply to alter by an ex posyncto law the condition
of persons who were unable to help themselves.—(Hear,
heart and cheers.) the Bill Wight iitge bee 4 00 to ag.

- - -
dore, now about to sail in quest of Sir J. Franklin, not
only the instructions issued to Sir J. Ross, but also those
communications which he (Mr. Anstey) believed had
been addressed to the Admiralty by naval officers and
others competent to communicate information and advice,
without regard to the question whether or not the
Admiralty had felt it their duty to act upon such in-
formation and advice, in order that the United States
Government might have all the information it was
possible for our Government to give them so as to aid
them in that enterprise.
Admiral DUNDAS was understood to say that all
the documents referred to in the Hon. Member's ques-
tion had been made public.
CANADA.
Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to ask two questions
of the Noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, viz., whether he (Mr. B. Cochrane) understood
the Noble Lord to say that there was a reward of
.5001.
offered for M. Lafontaine.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL--No.—(Laughter.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE would then ask whether the
Government had received the seventy-seven or seventy-
nine addresses which had been presented to Lord Elgin
by the people of Canada, on the Rebellion Losses' Bill,
and if they had any objection to lay them on the table
of the House ?

Mr. HAWES said he did not think the addresses to
which the Hon. Member referred had been received;
the only ones that had been received were those pre.
sented by Sir Allan M,Nab, who had come over to this
country (as we understood), and they were answered in
the ordinary way.

COUNTY COURTS.
Mr. MITCHELL begged to ask the Attorney-General
whether his Bill relating to the County Courts gave a
plaintiff a power of sueing a defendant either in the
court of the district where the plaintiff, or where the
debtor, resided.

The' ATTORNEY-GENERAL complained that the
Han. Member had not given him notice of his intention
to ask that question. He (the Attorney-General) de-
clined giving an answer to a particular case.
WESTERN PACKET STATION IN IRELAND.
Mr. W. _HERBERT begged to ask the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government whether any steps had been
taken towards a Commission for establishing a western
packet station on any part of the coast of Ireland?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the
Government had not taken any steps towards appointing
a commission, though they had received communications
on the subject.

13-OARD OE TRADE RETURNS.
Mr. LABOUCHERE rose to explain a delay which
had taken place in the publieittien a the returns of the

Board of Trade. His answer was that those returns
were not printed at the Board of Trade, but by the
printer of the House of Commons. The officers of the
Customs and the Board of Trade were anxious to avoid
error in making up the accounts in question, which might
account for the delay.
Mr. DISRAELI trusted the Right Hon. Gentleman
would not consider him guilty of any want of courtesy in
making the statement he did the other r tht to the House,
seeing that he was present when he made it. He was at
all times most unwilling to press too hardly upon public
officers for public returns; bdt,considering that the Bud-
get was originally appointed for the 15th inst.; consider-
ing, also, that he 'had given notice of a motion with re-
spect to the state of the nation, he thought, that it would
not be conceived that he acted unreasonably in pressing
for these returns.—(Hear, hear.) He should be very
much obliged if the Right Hon. Gentleman would state
when the new system pursued with respect to the pro-
duction of public documents came into force, and what
was its nature, as he was perfectly ignorant as to its
nature and purpose.
Mr. LAJJOUCHERE said the Honourable Gentleman
might have observed in the last returns the names of
several new articles and other information with respect
to the export of British manufactures and their declared
value.

•
gravate instead of Co diminish the rigour of the law, and
would any one say that supposing such had been the
case the persons affected by it would not have had a
right to petition against its enactment.—( Hear, and loud
cheers.) It seemed to him, therefore, that it was but
consistent with equity and justice to receive the petition.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he conceived that by far
the better plan would be to come to a present decision.
The memorialists had put in a most unusual claim to be
heard, and he should be one of the last to refufe or dis-
claim the right to petition, and as it would seem that
this petition was presented against a particular Act, and
not generally as from' convicted traitors or felons, he
should waive his objections to the reception of the peti-
tion.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. NAPIER was proceeding to read the petition,
when it decided that that could only be dono by the
Clerk of the House, by whom it was accordingly read.
The petitioners protested against any ex post facto legis-
lation, and prayed to be heard by counsel at the bar of
the ouse.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to ask the Government, with
reference to the Bill which was coming before the House,
whether the sentence upon Mr. S. O'Brien and his com-
panions had passed the great seal, or whether it had
been authorised by the Royal sign manual?
Sir GEORGE GREY replied that no warrant had
actually passed the great seal, and that the prisoners
were much in the same position that they were in
when the writ of error was decided in the House of
Lords.—( Hear, hear.)
TRANSPORTATION FOR TREASON (IRE-
LAND) BILL.
Sir. GEORGE GREY then rose to move the second
reading of this Bill. The object of it was to remove all
possible doubt which could be entertained as to the right
of the Crown, or as to the right of the Lord-Lieutenant
of Ireland, as the representative of the Crown in that
country, to commute the sentence of capital punishment
in the cases of those persons who had been convicted of
high treason and sentenced to death in pursuance of that
conviction, and upon whom the Crown might be disposed
to extend its mercy, with the usual condition of trans-
portation. The circumstances of the case were without
precedent, and ho would only say that no instance had
come within his own knowledge, and he would venture
to say within that of any other gentleman, of persons
convicted of high treason, who had their sentence com-
muted, refusing the mercy of the Crown with the
usual condition of transportation.—(Hear, hear.) After
the sentence upon those four persons in Ireland
had been confirmed by the highest court
of judicature in this kingdom, it became
the duty of the Government to consider what way the
sentence should be carried out. He did not wish to
enter into the full merits of the case; he agreed
with an Hon. Gentleman that they had nothing to
do with the circumstances which preceded the actual
conviction.—(Hear, hear.) (The Right Hon. Baronet
then read the reply of the Lord-Lieutenant to a
deputation praying for a mitigation of the sentence,
to show the magnitude of the offence, and the
necessity of its being marked by severe punishment.)
He held in his hand a copy of a letter addressed, on the
sth of June, by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to the
Governor of Richmond Bridewell, that the full sentence
would not be carried out, but the prisoners in his charge
would be transported for life. On this communication
being made to the prisoners they protested against
the right of the Lord-Lieutenant to assume
the functions of the Crown, and be (Sir
George Grey) was prepared to show that
they were yet under the penalty of the sentence that
had been passed upon them, and it was only by the
favour of the Crown that a mitigated sentence was pro-
posed to be passed upon them. This Bill was submitted
with the view of removing all doubt as to the legality of the
proceedings that had taken place between these unhappy
men, not because they had any doubt upon the subject,
but in order that there should not be a shadow of reason
for supposing that the Lord-Lieutenant had not been
fully justified in extending the privilege of mercy to the
prisoners, who were at present under sentence for the
heaviest species of felony that could be committed. He
would not say a word more, but at once move the second
reading of the Bill.
Mr. NAPIER, said with regard to this particular
Bill he did not exactly agree with his Hon. Friend the
Member for Newark. As he represented the case to
the House, those men were under sentence of death,
and while the Government were desirous to commute
that sentence to a sentence of a lower grade, that they
were insisting on a legal right to receive the
sentence of death. He (Mr. Napier) admitted they
were under sentence of death, and that the Crown had
the power of carrying th .t sentence into execution;
but it was conceded now on the part of the Crown, that
whatever other punishment might be proper for this
offence, it was not a case, under all the circumstances,
in which the sentence of death ought to be carried into
execution.—(Hear, hear.) Then came the question,
supposing, in point of law, the Crown had the
power of transporting for life or for a term of
years, then he admitted it might become a very impor-
tant question which of those secondary punishments
ought to be selected by the Crown as the most
proper one under all the circumstances, of the case.
The Learned Law Officers shook their heads, but
perhaps there was not much in that.—(Laughter.)
He regretted that he had not an opportunity of 'looking
into the law upon the matter before the House. He
concluded by moving that the prisoners be heard by
counsel at the bar of the House.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL seconded the motion.
He supported it upon constitutional grounds—(Hear,
hear.) He begged to remind the House that though
tho Government might mercifully abstain from
putting the ancient law in force with respect to the
seizing of the property of a person so convicted,
the.heaviest consequences would fall upon his children,who
would be thegreatest sufferers, inasmuch as the moment he
was sent abroad certain policies on his life in favour of his
familywould fall to the ground. Theargument might appear
a weak one ; but, nevertheless, it was a most important
one to the family of the unfortunate man. He cordially
supported the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said be should have
been glad if some Hon. Member had stated to the House
a tangible ground upon which to place the case for the
prisoners. The object of the amendment, however, was
not so much to test the propriety of the measure, as to
usurp the prerogative of the Crown, and to examine it in
a different way to that which was intended.-e(Hear.)
The Learned Gentleman opposite had not stated to the
House the statutes upon which the question had arisen,
or the authorities by which it was governed; and there-
fore he should at once proceed to explain them, not only
because it was his duty to do so, but also for the pur-
pose of resolving doubts which had arisen in the minds
of many Hon. Members. The Acts under which it was
proposed to commute the sentence were two in number,
having a different application in Ireland to that which
they had in England. The first of these was the 6th of
George 1., c. 12, s. 1, of the Irish Statutes. By that
statute power was given to the Crown, or to its repre-
sentative, the Lord-Lieutenant, to transport or pardon
all persons under sentence of death, on condition of trans-
portation. The second Act was the 12th of George 1.,
c. 8, s. 10, which was more applicable to this case.
It enacted, that whenever his Majesty should extend
mercy to any one convicted of felony, and who had re-
ceived sentence of death, any order under the sign
manual, directing the persons to be transported should
be as binding as if the pardon for felony had not been
obtained. It had been contended, and many persons in
Ireland confidently contended that that Act could be of
no application now; because, said they, the statute ap-
plied to persons convicted of felony, and felony did not
include treason. To set them right on this point he
would quote from the most elementary work, viz ,
Blackstone, the 7th chapter of the 4th volume of which
was devoted to the subject of treason against the Crown's
prerogative. The definition of felony there given was,
that it was that which at common law occasioned the
forfeiture of lands and goods, and to which capital
punishment was sometimes annexed. Felony was there-
fore larger than treason, which it included• as a parti-
cular case; all treasons being felonies, though all
felonies were not treason. The Crown in granting a
pardon, did so, conditionally, and transportation here
was the condition precedent. If that condition were
not performed, the pardon was void for want of its
fulfilment. In" Comyn's Digest," article " treason,"
it was laid down that the King might extend
his mercy on what terms he pleased, and an-
nexed any condition, whether precedent or subsequent,
on the fulfilment of which the pardon depended. In
Bacon's abridgement, the law was stated to be that the
condition not being fulfilled, the pardon became void,
and the prisoner might be taken and executed on the
final judgment. If a party refused to accept the condi-
tion on which the pardon was granted, there could be no
doubt that the pardon was void. On another point of
the case he must be permitted to express his surprise
that any one should propose to be'heard at the bar, or to
present a petition at the bar of the House. The course
which the Government now proposed to take, was pre-
cisely that, singularly enough, which Mr. Smith O'Brien
himself desired. He said that it was incumbent upon the
Crown to pass a statutory justification for their commu-
tation
ooa effect
nntwietorei
Init
snt
that
contended
eff
idgtHhhob eybat
_ithave
sentence,Habeas
aivtsse bLCryoeaarisp exr
enudees
post
it cosh:3s
eutri ifeirfednaic
Friend
from
trssooeho
mpol
upou
glpotdsi
the
nelbt
aee
the
lihtnecessarypwr
rt
oat: o.sf.
Now,dexecceiexcitement
decent
in
onadditione
laatrnogdu,tehi ett
h.%
vfeaocut l
dt hhantv, eunnde ee rn t
ah e
moat
question in an open court
of law at Dublin, he was prepared to show that it
was quite incompetent to those parties to raise the ques-
tion at all upon Habeas Corpus. The point had been
solemnly decided ,by a judgment of the full Court of
Exchequer, delivered upon the case of the Canadian pri-
soners, in which that Court, upon the confession of the
prisoners of the offence for which they had been con-
victed, declared that it could not entertain any of the
points which had been raised on their behalf; that it
could not, in fact, set at liberty parties convicted of trea-
son on their own confession. His Hon. Friends opposite
owned that Mr. S. O'Brien's case was deserving of pun-
ishment; and that being so, his Hon. Friends, in sug-
gesting an imprisonment for life as his punishment, ought
to be told that they did not in England colourably im-
prison a man for life with a view of ultimately liberating
him. If the House thought it more discreet, as well as
more decent, to proceed by Act of Parliament, ho had
stated the doubts which had occurred upon the question,
and it would be for the House to decide it. This was
ex post facto legislation, which Mr. Smith O'Brien
wished for; and he hoped the House would perceive that
there were grounds for passing this Bill.—((fear.)
Mr. ANSTEY said he had risen with the intention of
seconding the amendment, but having been anticipated
by the Honourable Member opposite, he should now
endeavour to support it. The object of the amendment
had not been rightly represented to the House by the
Learned Gentleman who had just spoken. It was in-
tended to show that this House was not the proper
arena for discussing a question of this kind, which ought
to be referred to those judges who, by their oaths were
bound, and by their learning, were qualified to decide it.
Wile MP of theSavliu prismp, which I* learned

Friend relied so much upon, was not conclusive. The
judgment cited was that of Lord Abinger alone, and it
was delivered not upon a general, but upon a special
return made by the gaoler of Liverpool in the writ.
The Hon. Member cited Blacl,.stone on the subject, to
the effect that no power on earth could send a British
subject out of the country against his will hut rarlie-
went, ev,n though he might be a criminal; but the
authority of such a man as Blackstone went, he was
sorry to say, but a short way, and had but little weight
with the Whig Crown lawyers of the present day. tie
must then, say, whoever counselled the Minisers to
bring in this disgraceful Bill, had acted in a most tat.
principled, most indecent manner. Tlya pardon of the
.-.tate prisoners, as far as Queen Victoria was concerned,
had gorr. 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 these gentlemen he should not
consider such a step as that which Ministers were
row taking in their efforts to pass this Bill
as an act of mercy.—(llear, hear.) And what did the
Bill propose to do with thosP honourable high-minded
mt n, 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 Bill prep )se to do with
the ss gentlemen? to send them to Norfolk Island, there
to work for 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, rights, and liberties of the subject, it would set
its countenance againeteand defeat this unprincipled mea-
sure. The Hon. 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 befell 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? Ile would avail himself of every form of the
House to oppose a measure so wicked end so unjust.
As far as the pardon of her Majesty went, in commut-
ing the sentence of death, it was lcgil; but as far as the
step directing transportation went, it was not legal, and
the authority of Sir Thomas Tomlin showed that it $O5
in the power of the condemned men to resist the chanfse,
of sentence, if so disposed, and insist on his original
sentence bsiug carried out. There were instances
wherein the individuals in whose cases mercy had bees
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 Thomas Tomlin
feared almost to tread, the Whig Attorney-General did
not hesitate to rush in. The zeal which he (Nir°
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 wee"
to defeat so intolerant and unjust a measure as that now
before the House.
Mr. P. WOOD said that in the observations which he
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, n.a
doubt as to the legal power of the Queen. This having
been conceded, as also thatseepost Sado legislation wits
objectionable, he saw eo 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 O.
Such a privilege could not be extended, and he contessea
lie did riot see what opposition there could he given t!
the Bill. With regard to hearing Counsel, the only
ground for it would be, that some slip had been ins4-`7
by the Crown which would put the convicts in the PT-
tion of pardoned men. But this was not the case, for
the petition of the prisoners had not been in any cvs)
altered. The fact was, the Lord-Lieutenant had issuedan order to transport the parties, under the provision o`,
a certain Irish Act. The prisoners were now under sell'
tense of death. The Queen could exercise her preroga
live of mercy on their behalf, but there being some doubt
upon the subject, the present law was framed'
bu
He was opposed to ex post facto law on principle,
this was merely an Act to remove an obstacle
in the exercise of the royal prerogative. The diffieeitY
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 had
no jurisdiction over the fate of the prisoners. -11'"
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 mud;
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
sheuld be heard at the bar; and the Attorney-General
said that there was 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
upon to pass a measure which declared that considerable
doubts did exist?—(Hear, hear.) The Bill was in effect
to allow the Crown to inflict a severer punishment upon
_
the prisoners than was now necessary. He confessed he
could not view the difficulties of the case in the same
light which the Attorney-General did, because a return
might be made to the writ of habeas corp be
us, and the
court could then decide whether the prisoners could
retained or not. He thought the ease of Mr. O'Brien
was not one in which capital punishment could hein-
flicted, and therefore the p„
etitioners stood in this
petition—that not being amenable to punishment
death, and being amenable to confinement for life, the"-r
Crown now desired by this Bill to inflict by transportae
tion a greater punishment than it could otherwise inflict.o
o
He saw no reason why the prisoners might not u,
respited during the pleasure of the Crown, and he showed
that with the Irish State prisoners, in 1798, such _
course had been adopted, under a particular Act of Fae
hutment, it was true. It this were now done, and if
those persons were retained in custody for some time,
they might afterwards with safety be permitted to expa-
triate themselves. In conclusion, he expressed his in'
tention of supporting the amendment.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said that the Hon. and
Learned Members for Athlone and the University of
Dublin had, by the ingeniousness and ability of their
arguments, dispensed with any reasons that might /34
off, red for hearing counsel at the bar of the House.
this was an extraordinary measure, it had arisen out et
extraordinary circumstances. He agreed that this was
not a care in which the extreme penalty of the law ought
to be carried out. Some circumstances of extenuation
might be found in the conduct of the criminals, and
granting,,
as he did, that a strong repugnance) existed is
the minds of the people against punishment by death, be
was rejoiced that the penalty was to be averted in this
particular case. But if he were asked to look upon it
,
with reference to the ordinary a
fitting
administration of justices
and to consider whether the penalty of death was . Jet.
punishment for high treason, then he would consider
himself justified in saying that it was; that the Crown
had it in its power to respite the sentence of dr ath, and
at length commute it into a pardon, he could not deny;
but to contemplate the infliction of imprisonment for life,woul/
under the colour of a respite from time to time,
be, in his mind, a most unconstitutional proceeding.
It
was the boast of our country that long imprisonment
was not permitted. The present measure was one
conceived in a spirit of mercy, and he was sure it,
would be regarded as such when the passion anu,,
the heroism of the hour had passed away. For himself
he was certain, and he gave his opinion as a lawyer,
that although the preamble of the Bill expressed the ex-
istence of a doubt, there was in reality no doubt at
all as to the Queen's power. He believed
the Irish
Act of Parliament allowed the Sovereign to transport
persons sentenced to death, if she so pleased. lie
looked upon the measure before the House as an act
of clemency—wise, just, and considerate—a clemency
which ought to meet with a response in the heart of
every Irishman, and a clemency which he confidently
hoped the House would neither avert nor delay.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE reminded the House that the Go-
vernment came down to the House the other night to
propose a Bill to indemnify rebels in Canada. In the
case of Canada life had been lost and property de-
stroyed, but in this case those terrible consequences bad
not arisen. It was admitted that practically and morally
it would be impossible to make the prisoners amenable
to the punishment of death.. The Right Bon. and
Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General said that they
were transferring the prerogative of mercy to that House
from the Crown, at the same time that he himself WAS

' proposing a more aggravated kind of punishment than
the Grown could inflict. The Right Hon. Gentleman,
nevertheless, said that the Bill was not necessary,
and that the law as it stood was sufficient. If such be
the case, why did he not stand upon the law and try it?
He had never belonged to the party with which the gen-
tlemen whose cases where under their consideration was
connected. These gentlemen had always said that Eng-
land had not dealt out equal justice to Ireland, and the
Bill before the House went in effect to strengthen that
argument, for no one could believe that such a Bill would
have been introduced withreference to an offence com-
mitted in England.
Capital punishment was out of the
question; but, considering the position of the parties,
and their education, he thought the punishment of trans-
portation was more severe even than the punishment of
death itself.--(Hear.)
Mr. LAWLESS submitted, considering the immense
number of signatures which had been appended to the
petition in favour of mercy to the State prisoners, that
a merciful consideration of their case would do more to
prevent future attempts at rebellion than any measure
of severity they could inflict. The Hon. Member then
alluded to the case of Mr. O'Dogherty, whose sentence
.
of traniportation had been carried into effect, net.wait
standing tho btrorg recommendation of jurythe
favour, and concluded by saying that such was
if neces-
sense of the injustice of the proposed Bill that times
sary, he we uld divide the Mils° upon it a
hundrednear.)
before hi? should permit it to pass into law.
the opinion
Mr. FAGAN said he altogether differed
for
vth:cit LL, xiire,std ti.e 11('Ilh."at the present
Reading (Sergeant Taltourd), namely'
not refer to the
measure was an act of mercy. He would ld!sttrong
rebellion in Canada, nor draw any inference as to bow