The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-18 00:00:00

racter of the Bill with which the House bad to deal that
night. That Bill proposed to substitute another
punishment for that of death, and if this peti-
tion were received they must 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. BRICiHT 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. A reward of 5001. was offered for the appre-
hension of Mr. Smith O'Brien. But what was really the
case? Why, this reward, instead of being paid by the Go-
vernment—they had the power to pay whatever they
chose, and let the lion. and Lear ned Member for Newark
make the most of it. Did they choose to pay this money?
Certainly not. The Attorney-General paid the 5001.
—(heer, hear.) Did this seem to be constitutional ?
Mr. HERRIES said that this was a question of con-
siderabie 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 crimp, would the House deem it
right to receive a petition to be heard at the bar of the
House by counsel. He conceived 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 ot which he was said to have committed
and of which he had been convicted, was a special deed.
—(fleer.) For what were they proposing to legislate
about, simply to altar by an expost.facto law the condition
of persons who were unable to help themselves.—(Hear,
hear and cheers.) The Bill might have been ono to ag-
gravate instead of to diminish the vigour of the law, and
would any one say that supposing such had been the
case the persons affected by it would not have hed a
right to petition against its enactment.—(hear and loud
cheers.) It seemed to him, therefore, that it was but
consistent with Ecciity 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 he
heard, and he should be one of the last to refuse or dis-
claimed 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 was decided that that could only be done 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 House.
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 whetherit 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 actually in the same position that they were in
when the writ of error was decided in the House ot
Lords.—(flear,l,ear.)
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 he 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 bad 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 au 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 band 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 he (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 tlietn. 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 thei
nLpgroetrhsdeenLpt
ri
uievnui tdl eeegnr
ea
snoetnf htmeande
cr nee
yof tot
for
been
ee
fully
prisoners,justified
who i n
weexrtee nadt
heaviest species of felony that could be committed. Ho
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 9. 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 that 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, thee he admitted it might become a very impor-
tant question which of those secondary punishments
ought to be selected by the Crown as the moat
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. JOIIN O'CONNELL seconded the motion.
He supported it upon constitutional grounds.—(Hear,
hear.) He begged to remind the House that thougb
the Government might mercifully abstain from
putting the ancient law in force with respect to the
seizing of the property of persons so convicted,
the,heaviestconsequences 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
family would fall to the ground. The argument might appear 1
a weak one ; but, nevertheless, it was a most important
one to the family of the unfortunate man. He cordially
supported the amendment.

no ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to object to the
amendment, and was

[LEFT SPEARING.]

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.

Lord PORTMAN laid on the table the report of the
Select Committee on this Bill. The Committee recom-
mended that the present Bill should not be proceeded
with, as it did not proceed upon the principle of giving
equal protection:to landlord, tenantond reversioner. The
Committee particularly objected to the arbitration clauses
of the Bill.

After a fow words from the Earl of STRADBROKE,
,he report was received.

PETITIONS.

Lord FEVERSHAM presented petitions from York,
Morthallerton, Thirsk, and other places, in the North
Riding of Yorkshire, complaining of the depressed con-
dition of agriculture.
The Bishop of NORWICH presented a petition pray.
ing for home colonization.
Earl FORTESCUE presented a petition from Water-
ford, praying for an efficient Health of Towns' Bill.
REAL PROPERTY COMMISSION.
Lord BROUGHAM asked when it was probable the
Real Property Commissioners would make their report ?
Lord BEAUMONT said that Commission had made
considerable progress, and that in a short time their la-
bours would be terminated, and that they would be
enabled to submit such a plan of general registration as
would meet the evils complained of, but he feared they
would not be able to make the report before the close of
the present session of Parliament.
Lord BROUGHAM asked if they intended to make
a report of all or several reports successively, and if
one report, whether it could not be made so early as to
be printed and be in the hands of the Judges at the
commencement of the long vacation?
Lord BEAUMONT admitted that it was desirable
the report should be presented as speedily as possible,
but the time of its presentation was uncertain.
LEASEHOLD TENURES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL in moving the third reading of this
Bill, said the tenure by leasehold renewable for ever
which existed in Ireland did not exist in: England,
and was even more objectionable than, .copyhold
tenure in England. He should move the omission of
the second clause which exempted the estates of a noble
family in Ireland from the operation of this Bill, as the
rights of that family were fully protected without that