The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-11 00:00:00

end published there was some security against the in•
tention of the party being misunderstood, but what se
curity waft there in the accidental record of words spoken?
—(Eleat., hear.) In the case of Winterbottom they had
an instance of a man being punished for words he had
never uttered. Then what was the meaning of the
phrase, " Overawing Parliament?" Parliament was
alwaya being over-awed by public opinion, and it was t
that circumstance they owed many of the liberties the
people enjoyed. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
had given way to that species of overawing, and the
Noble Lord (J. Russell) had done so often. Nothing
could be more perilous than hasty legislation upon
subject like this.—(Hear, hear.) All despotic laws had
resulted from panic. If any duty was paramount at
this time it was that they should not widen the gulf
that existed between the different classes of the people.
If there was ever a moment when the House was bound
to inquire whether the national representation ought
pot to be enlarged, and whether something ought not to
be done to redress the grievances of the many, and to
Place Our institutions on that broad foundation on which
Alone they could rest in security, it was now.
P. WOOD objected to the words " by open and
advised speaking," but would vote' for the second read
log of the Bill, reserving to himself the right of op-
Posing those words in Committee. He considered that
there was a marked distinction between the offence of
("Pen and advised speaking and the overt act of printing
Land publishing the same words, and the law
ead invariably made that distinction, Mr. Justice
Blackstone, in referring to the crime of treason, said—
' 41
It was clearly agreed that words spoken amounted
only to a high misdemeanour; for as they might
spoken in heat, or be mistaken, or per-
ailed, or mis-remembered by the hearer; and as their
meaning might depend upon other words, or things,
or even upon the tone in which they were uttered ; as,
in fact, nothing could be more ambiguous than words
appken, they ought not to be made high treason."—
(ear, hear.) The Bill of 1756 was introduced at a
Period just as formidable as the present, and yet it did
not contain those words.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed he be-
lieved it would be found that Mr. Pitt intended to have
introduced them, and had drawn up a clause for the
Purpose, but withdrew it. That Bill, which was only
temporary, was made permanent in ISI7, during the
Period of the Manchester riots, and when a Minister
Presided at the head of affairs who was well known not
to have been favourable to popular demonstrations. He
r.egretted therefore, that the Government should have
the law had hitherto made between words spoken and
woke written and published, and now for the first time
anike the crime a felony. He would suggest that it
should be made only a high misdemeanour, not bailable.
Captain ARCHDALL, referring to what had fallen
from the Hon. Momber for Limerick, defended the
loyalty of the Orangemen of Ireland. They could not,
lie observed, forget the heavy blow and great discourage-
111ent given them by the Noble Lord opposite, nor that
theJ had been one day lauded and the next day perse-
cuted by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth.—(Cheers.) But they had, notwithstanding, re-
mained firm in their loyalty and attachment to her
ejesty and the throne. Between discontent and disaf
etion there was a wide difference.—(Hear, hear.) And
f the Government would only act with justice to the
Protestants of Ireland they might bid defiance to 10,000
Smith O'Brien's.
Mr. MUNTZ had voted for the intraduction of the Bill
in ignorance of its real character. Now that he had
ten it, he should vote against it. He concurred in the
tropriety of assimilating the law in Ireland to that of
aglands and would grant every reasonable power ne-
cessary for the protection of public order, because he was
convinced th'at without good order there could be no
real liberty.—(Cheers.) But he could not consent that
he or any other man should be subject to the charge of
felony for words alleged to have been spoken on the
evidence of one witness, who might be base enough to
swear falsely.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DRIIMMOND looked upon the simultaneous out-
break through Europe as deeper than a mere political
malady. He attributed it to discontent on the part of
tee masses with their social condition—discontent, he
might say, with the providence of God—(Cries of
" Ole,")—for as well might it be supposed that we could
regulate the height of men, as that we could alter the
constitution of society, and award to each a certain
Measure of wealth. The disturbances in Ireland and
this country were but phases of the malady which per-
vaded all Europe. The Hon. Gentleman, having quoted
several passages from speeches by members of the Con-
vention in this country and the Confederation in Ireland,
declared that nothing so overt had been committed in
the year '9B, and that the question was not against this
or that institution—it was not a question of a republic
or a monarchy, but whether the whole institution of
society should not be upset and perverted. The
Labouring classes of this country were deeply
mistaken if they supposed that they would be-
nefit their condition by reducing the profits of
the master manufacturers. On the contrary, their best
chance of prosperity was by increasing the capital of the
manufacturer. It was owing to the sentiments contained
In the extracts he had read to the House that he grounded
the opinion at which he had arrived—namely, that there
was a determination on both sides of the Channel to alter
the social condition of the country. But the man who
told the people that by a new constitution of society
they would be benefited only grossly deluded them, and
must be an abominable quack.—(A laugh.) The man
who told them, as they were lately told, that if lie had
the charter he would double and treble their wages, only
trifled with their distresses; and in pretending to bring
them a light from heaven, only brought them a glare
from the bottomless pit. He was prepared to go further
than those Hon. Gentlemen with whom he usually acted
in that House, in thinking that they had done nothing
they ought to have done to diminish the public expendi-
ture and lighten the burden of taxation on the people.
--(Loud cheers from the Radical benches.) He
thought they ought long ago to have extended
the elective franchise.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear,"
from the same quarter.) He thought they ought also
to have shortened the duration of Parliament—(Hear,
hear)—and done many other things in reference to sub-
jects not now before them. He had only abstained from
alluding to those subjects before because he did not wish
to thrust himself into other men's labours, and because
he thought that the task would have been undertaken
by those who were much more competent for it, but
rather than suffer this charter to be passed off with a
mere motion, which might amount to nothing, he would
himself bring in Bills upon the questions involved.—
(Cheers.) Mr. Canning had said that the next war
which would desolate Europe would be a war of prin.
eiples and opinions, and he confessed that that was the
war of which he was afraid, and of which he saw the
gathering symptoms around him.
Mr. BRIGHT said that out of every seven grown
men only one was represented in that House, and that,
looking to the unfairness of the distribution of the elec-
toral power, it might be said not more than one-four-
teenth of the grown male population were directly re-
presented in Parliament, and his belief was that the
best security to property, capital, and labour, would
be found in diminishing the taxation and increasing
the political rights of the people. This Bill proved
one of two things—either that the Government
was getting worse, or that the people were getting
worse. After carrying on the Government so long
without this law, after all our boasted improvements,
were we now to introduce a new principle of legislation,
when even Lord Grenville, in 1795 or 96, had been
obliged to withdraw from the Bill of that day? That
clause was then most strongly objected to by a relative
of the Noble Lord now at the head of the Government,
the then Duke of Bedford; and it was in defence of that
Bill and that clause that a bishop had made his cele-
brated declaration, " that the people of this country
had nothing to do with the laws but obey them."—
(Beat) He did not object to the first part of this Bill;
but he thought the House was in mistake as to what
„would be its practical operation. It came before the
I-louse as a mitigation of penalty; but that penalty, for
the most part, could not be carried into effect; and
though he denied not the propriety of substituting,
for capital punishment one of a miner character, heh
believed its practical effect would be to punish
imen by transportation who could now only be
trie for sedition, and punished for a misdemeanour.
If he understood the clause right (and its ambiguity was
such he doubted if any one did;', it meant that any one
who exercised such " compassing, imaginations, inven-
tions, devices, or intentions, or any of them," should be
liable to be charged with felony, and to receive the
punishment awarded to that offence. He had yet to
learn that it was wrong for any Member of that House
to speak in favour of a different form of Government,
or that it was a crime for any one, in or out of the
House, calmly and deliberately to argue the question
whether a total change in the form of Government
might be advantageous.—(Oh, oh.) He advocated no
such change ; but in making a new law, and introducing
a new principle, to punish an offence which was most
difficult of proof, the House ought to be extremely clear
as to the effect of this law. He thought it unwise to
seek to extend such a law to England, because at this
Moment their was danger in Ireland. He would ask the
Attorney-General whether it was not possible to issue
a Special Commission for the trial of the parties charged
with sedition in Ireland. The complaint was that whilst
these parties were under this charge they were at liberty
to go to France, or make other seditious speeches, before
their trial came on; but if they were tried and convicted
under a Special Commission, they could be immediately
subjected to three years' imprisonment, and thus pre-
vented from spreading their seditious or treasonable
opinions. This would be a much better course than to
extend a new law and a new principle to the United
Kingdom because Ireland was in difficulties . The Go-
vernment was pursuing a course unfavourable to itself
and to the liberty of the people; and though that House
might not choose to deliberate long on the measure, the
time might come when they might regret that they had
not examined it with more attention.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said be objected to the whole
of the Bill. He rejoiced to find that English Members
were at last rallying against coercive measures, doubt-
less owing to their own country being touched by this
Bill. He did not thank them much, for most of them
had said that if the Bill was confined to Ireland they
would vote for it with the greatest pleasure.—(A laugh,
and No, no.) The Learned Solicitor-General had
assumed that judges and juries would strain the laws
considerably, and the Irish people had had ample ex-
perience of this. Parties were about to be put on their
trial there for sedition ; and it would have been time
enough when the existing law was found insufficient
to have come to the House after Faster, and asked
for a more stringent law. Most unwise was it to pro-
pose a measure of coercion at a time of excitement like
this._(cries of " Divide.")
Mr. S. CRAWFORD, who rose amidst loud cries of
" Divide," complained of the injustice of the House in
refusing a full discussion to so important a measure. He
had abstained from opposing the first reading from im-
perfect acquaintance with its provisions ; but the more
he bad considered it the more WAS he convinced that it