The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY_ EVENING, APRIL 20, 1848.

aro •
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
110 USE OF LORDS, April 19.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.
Lord BEAUMONT presented petitions from several
societies of Odd Follows, praying that their societies
might be placed upon the same footing as benefit and
friendly societies.
CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read-
ing of the Crown and Government Security Bill. The
Noble and Learned Lord said it frequently happened,
when Parliament was called upon to make provision for
the preservation of the peace, that the Government was
in possession of materials and information not before the
public which it was necessary to communicate to the
Legislature, in order to lay the grounds for any applica-
tion being made for an alteration in the law. It un-
fortunately happened at the present moment that this
was not the case, and that the information before the '
public was amply sufficient to induce their Lordships to
come to the conclusion that what was now going on '
ought not to be permitted to continue, and that there '
ought to be means placed in the hands of the Govern-
ment for the purpose of preventing those continual
attempts at disturbing the peace, which had taken place,
not only in the metropolis, but in every other part of
the United Kingdom. When meetings were daily
held, not only in London and Dublin, but in most
of the manufacturing towns, where inflammatory speeches
were made, the professed object of which was to array
the people against the constituted authorities of these
realms, it was high time if the law was not adequate to
repress these evils, that Parliament should intertere to
provide means by which their recurrence might be
prevented. Beyond all doubt that which was now taking
place, being illegal, might be the subject of criminal,pro-
secution. It happened, however, that the state of the
law was not adequate to meet the evil as it was now
fou.nd to exist, but by one alteration in the law he ap-
prehended there would ho ro difficulty in putting an end
to scenes which were su eisgracetul to the country, which
tended to disturb the public peace, and lead to criminal
proceedings against those who attended those meetings,
for whose welfare the orators seemed to have very
little regard. It generally happened, and certainly it
did in this particular case, that where a necessity
arose in any degree for enlarging the_ efficiency of
the criminal law, the necessity arose from the acts
of those ,who professed themselves the friends of
liberty, and of that license which was_permitted by our
constitution within proper bounds—who professed to be
the friends of the people, and of that liberty which their
acts made it imperative upon Parliament in some degree
to restrain. Their Lordships had seen enough in the
state of the country to feel an anxious desire that that
state should not continue ; and if they concurred in
opinion with him that means should be taken to prevent
those scenes and repress those harangues which were
calculated to promote so much mischief, he might shortly
explain the present state of the law, and the remedies
proposed to be provided for its defects by the present
Bill. According to the old statute of treason, that of
Edward 111., there were two great branches of treason,
which were the foundation of all the subsequent statutes.
Those great branches were, first, theinsagioing. or con-
triving the death of the Sovereign, sal the other, levy-
ing war against the Sovereign. The first of these
offences, consisting in the act of the mind, in the ;n-
-tention or the design entertained, could, of course, only
be established by some overt act to show that such a de-
sign was entertained. In the case of levying war, however,
the provisions of the statute were different. It was not
the intention of levying war, not having a design for the
purpose, but the act of levying war, which constituted
the treason. On various occasions, according to the
exigencies of the times, and the dangers to be guarded
against, particular. acts had been passed. Some, now
gone by, provided different means of guarding against
the dangers of any particular treason. Among other
provisions of that sort there was the statute of the 36th
of George the Third, passed in the year 1796. It was
found that the law which previously existed was not
adequate to meet the then state of the country. Accord-
ingly, that Act was passed, which took, up a variety of
acts that might well under the-previous law be consi-
dered overt acts of treason, but which did not of them-
selves constitute treason. For instance, inciting
foreigners to come over to this country, inciting parties
to go armed for the purpose of intimidation, attempts
to intimidate either the Government or the Parliament—
various acts of that sort, which did not constitute
treason, but which might, under the former Acts, be
considered an act of treason against the person of the
Sovereign, were made substantive acts of treason; and
a party found guilty of intent to commit those acts, evi-
denced by an overt act, was subjected to the penalties of
high treason. This Act was passed to continue during
the reign of George HI. During the regency another
Act was passed, the 57th Geo. 111., the object of which
was to continue certain provisions of the former Act dur-
ing the life of the Prince Regent, and to make others
permanent. The first Act, the 36th George 111., being
passed before the union, and the second subsequently
to it, a question might arise whether the 57th George
111., did or did not extend the provisions of the Act
36th George 111. to Ireland. The provisions of the Act
36th George 111. made these offences actual treason.
many of them were of the gravest character ; others,
according to the circumstances, either constituted trea•
son or an offence of a much lighter nature. There
Lordships were well aware that great delay occasionally
occurred in prosecutions for high treason, that those
guilty of that offense had at least the certainty of consi-
derable time elapsing before they could be brought to
trial. It was proposed by this Bill first to alter the law
in so far as those offences were made treason, to make
them felony, by which a party would be tried in the ordi-
nary way in which other parties charged with felony were
tried. In that respect it was a mitigation of the law,
because it would make them guilty only of the minor
offence. Another object of the Bill, which he thought
would be considered free from objection, was that it in-
cluded Ireland—that it would remove any doubt as to
whether Ireland was or was not included in the Act 57
George lll.—(Hear, hear.) It was therefore proposed,
first, to make the offences felony which were treason
under the former Act, and next to extend the law,
so altered, to Ireland. Extended as the law was
proposed to be to Ireland, he did not apprehend'
their Lordships would feel this was the time when
such a provision was objectionable.—(Hear, hear.) The
alterations from the Act 36 George 111. consisted mainly
in the introduction, in the third clause, of the words
"open and advised speaking," which would guard against
the real evil which Parliament we s'flow asked to preient.
--(Hear, hear.) It had been objected that the insertion
of these words was introducing a new principle into the
law. He was very much astonished at any such opinion,
particularly when, as he had been informed, it had been
expressed by gentlemen who, if they had taken the
trouble to refresh their recollections, must have known
it was not the fact. The error must have arisen from
the fact that ander the Act of Edward 111. it was held
that you could not indict a party for treason for mere
words, for words sirnpliciter. If a man said, " I will
make my son heir to the Crown," in a certain sense,
and coming from a certain quarter, that might be trea-
son; but if it turned out that the expression was used
by the master of the Crown inn, then no such inten-
tion could be inferred. It muit be left to the- jury to
decide whether the words used were " open and advised
speaking;' and it could not be supposed that hasty and
loose expressions, used without any deliberate purpose
of treason, constituted treason. It was no part of cur
law, however, that the crime of high treason might not
be indicted upon words in connexion with overt acts.
He was sorry to say again that very strong language
had been used in different parts of the empire, arid he
was quite satisfied that it the law was not strong enough
to prevent it, some law must be made for that purpose.
With this view- the present Bill was submittedto their
Lordships, and he believed it would be effectual, because
a party guilty of the offene, s he had referred to would
be subjected. to transportation for seven pars, during
which time he would have an opportunity of reflectinc,
upon the folly of the course he had adopted. At all events'
it would take away the means of injuring the public,'
which he had hitherto been guilty of, and in that
way an effectual stop would be put p:), the present
pro
ceedings.
Lard STANLEY did not intend to offer any opposi-
tion to the second reading of the Bill, or to throw. any
impediment in its way. With regard to its object, he
had taken the liberty, a short time ago, of directing at
tention to the precise defect in the law, which left
awidee
gap between the treason punishable with death, and the
interior classes of sedition which could only be pro-
ceeded against as
rs and punished by flue
or imprisonment.rnHisedemthevarrfoure entirely
concurred in
the principles of the Bill which remedied tha.t defect in
the law, end he thought the course taken of establisthl -
ing an intermediate offence betweena treasondemea, partly
mis
punishable by death, and partly as a
was a substantial improvement.—(He r, hear.) Both
in this country and in Ireland language had been held,
and other measures taken, to excite the
were n
people
by a class of persons who aspired to the digo-t
nits of being treated as State criminals. They
the 'parties, however, to be dealt with as State criminals,
guiltY.uf- high treason upon the one hand, nor on the
other hand. ought they to be dealt with as simple
inipe redely mt9iptaeadblinke,tL _he were,
.y
in therefore, very pro
moieferoee ez?eei till' the degraded class of com-
highway474re placed among the burglars and
subjected te thesia the country, and they would be
ties, and to the •ma, mode of prosecution and convic-
hear.) At the same tieilrlaceful punishments.—(Hear,
case, and at the importat%) looking to the gravity of the
which this alteration was pr of the circumstances under
proposed in the law, he should
have been better pleased if their°Pe
Lordships had not been
called upon to decide, after hardly
notice, upon a permanent alteration twenty-
fa owu7r foundehours'd
11 the
the r
el
upon temporary considerations.
question that the same law of tress ,n was applicable
cry could be no doubt
eprpliccaobulled
England and to Ireland,
that the same law could be mleeitha
parts of the United Kingdom. all
doubted, if it were the case, that the law was
stringent in England than in Ireland—but that Ire-
landre was not that portion of the United Kingdom
which stood least in need of stringent and effective
measures under this head. It might be very wise,
though he thought that the present was hardly the
precise moment to introduce such clauses, to mitigate
the punishment for certain classes of high treason' •
yet he-should confess that, looking to the circumstances.
of these times, he should have been better. pleased if
aofh
her Majesty's Government had taken,,: of t
rheeciur
indeed was provided for by the 7th clausethis e which
Bill,
retaining the power,. while the offence of treason was
at their, discretion for the
stilt retained, of proCeedirig
minor .offence, whiCh was mergt(l in the treason, and of
indicting the-4arty for felony. fie cp_tifessed that he
I Iteration of the law tir
should rather spp,,it gnnerl--
treason` made the subject of 'a discussrbn
than they could hope for in the passage of this Bill at
the present moment, and that a power should be taken
uwier this Bill by the Government of proceeding as for

felony, though the higher offence of treason might still
exist.—(Hear, hear.) He did not understand the dis
deletion which was drawn by the Bill between compassing
or imagining the restriction or retraint of the sovereign,
and compassing or imagining the destruction of t` e sove-
reign. He could understand why compassing th death,
or serious injury, or wounding of the sovereig should
be still left subject to the punishment of de th, and
be indicted as high treason; but he could no under-
stand on what ground compassing the depositi n of the
sovereign should be made a minor offence, compared
with the other varieties of treason still retained. He
might be speaking in great ignorance of law, but he
should be glad to hear some explanation on this point
from some of the Noble and Learned Lords present.
Another point to which he wished to direct attention was
this. He had doubts whether the Crown might not be
subjected to difficulty in being obliged in all cases to
prosecute for felony instead of for misdemeanour. He
apprehended that as felony merged in the higher offence
of treason, so misdemeanour merged in felony, and he
apprehended that the Crown would often have some diffi-
culty, especially in Ireland, if they were obliged to pro-
ceed as for felony in all cases in which, under the present
law, they would proceed for misdemeanour. In cases of
felony the prisoner had a right of peremptory challenge
to a considerable extent, and he apprehended that in the
class of offences for which the Crown would be obliged
to proceed under this Bill in Ireland, cases might
arise where there would be a great difficulty of procur-
ing convictions from this cause. By making the offence
felony, they took away the right on the part of the
Crown of applying to have the case tried by a special
jury, and they also gave the prisoner the advantage—
and a great advantage it was in the present state of
Ireland—of peremptory challenge, and of bringing the
panel down to a lower class of jurors.—(llear, hear.)
It was not his intention to urge the adoption of any
particular course with regard to these points on her
Majesty's Government, because on the Government must
rest the responsibility of the details, as well as the re-
sponsibility of the principle of such a measure. On
them, also, rested the farther responsibility—one which
he deeply regretted—of having brought forward this
measure at a time when a disposition was universally
entertained, both in that House and in the other House
of Parliament, to assist in applying an effective cure for
the evils both of this country and of Ireland. He also
regretted that they should be deprived of the power of
more practically and more deliberately considering any
permanent alteration in so important a subject.—(Hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM made some observations in a
conversational tone across the table on the wording of
some of the clauses. The Noble and' Learned Lord was
understood to object that a distinction was drawn be-
tween deposing the Sovereign from her title and de-
pesing, • her in substance from her dominions. In this
Bill the Government took a leaf out of the law of Scot-
land; but if, as he supposed would be the case, the Act
were to be extended to Scotland, he wished to warn
them of a serious alteration which it would involve.
By the Scottish law a person indicted for felony had a
night to a most important document--a list of the wit-
nesses intended to be called against him; and if this Bill
Were to be extended to Scotland, it would take away for
the first time that important principle of the law of
Scotland. This Bill would deprive the prisoner of the
list of the jury panel, and also the list of the witnesses
and he for one should be inclined to pause before ex-
tending such a principle to Scotland fur the first time.
Again, he thought that the statute, the 25th of Edward
111., would clash with the third clause of this Bill.
The impression on his mind was, that there were old
cases in which compassing to depose had been held to be
a compassing of the death of the Sovereign. He also
objected to the words, compassing to levy war on the
Sovereign, Rot generally, but for a particular purpose.
He thought that compassing to levy war on the King for
any purpose was a substantive offence, and ought to be
held to be a very grave offence ; whereas by this Bill it
was no offence unless the war were levied to make the
King change his measures. As an instance of the kind
of war that might be levied in Ireland, he would beg to
direct their Lordships' attention to a letter which had
lately appeared from a reverend clergyman. As the
gentleman might not be pleased unless his name were
Beven he would mention it—the letter was signed "James
ermingham, P.P." and contained this passage :
" When the day of your struggle shall come, when your
liberties as well as your lives shall be invaded, then
let it not be a turning out of two or three counties,
but let Ireland rise to the contest as one man; and let
every man, as he is about taking his position to perform
this most glorious act of his life, make a vow to the fol-
lowing effect." This reverend clergyman and minister
Of the Gospel of peace not having, he supposed, read the
Tea Commandments recently—(Laughter)—goes on to
give the words of the vow as follows :—" I vow, before
God and my country, to lessen, if I can, by one man, at
least, the enemies of my native land, and to die."—
(Laughter.) The passage then continued—" When be-
ing thus prepared, and having made the foregoing vow,
you are fairly committed to the combat, don't show
yourselves to the enemy on the hill-side or on the
plain; but take him from the dyke, ;.the fence, the
hedge-row, from the broken bridge, or the obstructed
railway. Be sure you do all the mischief in your
power—or all the good, I should say, for mischief
is good in this case—by all the means within your
reach, and think not for one moment of living—
' to do or die,' or to du and die,' be this your motto."
He brought this passage forward as an instance of the
necessity which existed for such a measure as the pre-
sent; but he thought that, to be efficient, it should give
a power to the Government of imprisonment—tempora-
rily, or for six months, if they wished—and also a power
of searching for papers of the person arrested. By means
of such a power alone could they hope to intimidate the
wrong-dor, and drive the conspiracy from the land.
They might drive them from the field of conspiracy,
of sedition, of levying war, of open and advised
speaking; but what signified all that, if they could still
go into a certain House of Parliament, and there utter
such language as he had alluded to a few evenings ago?
And here he would close his observations by giving a
salutary, but not superfluous warning, to the press of
this kingdom, and of the sister kingdom, that, though
the rules of Parliament protected those who used those
seditious words within the walls of the House of Com-
mons, it did not protect them out of doors; and he who
presumed to publish such seditious words became liable
to be indicted under the statute of Edward 111., as well
as under this Act. There was no doubt but that Parlia-
ment had certain privileges by which Members could
protect themselves to any extent within doors; but let
no newspaper reporter, let no newspaper editor, enter-
tain that fond notion that whatever was said in Parlia-
ment he had a right to print—that it was not libellous,
that it was not treasonable, that it was not seditious.
There was no lawyer who could doubt the truth of what
he was now saying. Though a Member was protected
when he spoke treason in Parliament, there was no
question but that he who, out of Parliament, printed
what had been so spoken, was just as liable to punish-
ment as if he had himself invented the treason which he
published. He hoped and trusted that those who now
printed the grossest slanders on the constitution, and
the most treasonable and seditious speeches—some of
them encouraging foreigners to invade this country,
while others incited those who were treasonably dis-
posed in these countries to look for assistance from
abroad—would recollect, that even though those who
uttered such sentiments might not be punishable by
law, they who promulgated those opinions were liable
for them.
Lord CAMPBELL said he admitted that this Bill did
not meet the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien making a trea-
sonable speech in the Commons' House of Parliament,
that he also admitted that it would not punish the editors,
proprietors, or reporters of the Times, or any other
newspaper, for publishing a speech so made. He should
be ashamed to bring forward a measure that would have
such an object in view.—(Hear, hear.) If any Member
of the House of Commons spoke treason within the walls
of the House of Commons, he should answer for his
sentiments within the House, but not elsewhere. One
of the most outrageous attempts made by King Charles
1., and which was probably one of the main causes of
bringing him to the block, was that of questioning Mem-
bers of the House of Commons in courts of law for
speeches made in the House of Commons, and he hoped
that such a law would never be enacted in this country
again. He should be the last man to bring for-
ward any measure for punishing those who gave good
and' faithful reports of what took place in Parliament,
for he 'had himself proposed to their Lordships a clause
In a Bili which met with the approbation of their Lord-
ships' house, as well as of the other House of Parlia-
ment and of the Sovereign—and
—and which he believed to
be a perfectly
g thea,printera n
honest and
report of offairpnatialidahjeu clause—that no person but
lTalhlte•
the newspaper that boldly
occurred in either House
of Parliament should be
had .the honour of being secondedto be indicted, and he
on that occ aion
Absby
Lord Brougham and Vaux
himself.-..(Laughter.)g
to the persons who spoke these, speeches,
beat punishment was in the contempt and indignation
their
which their treasonable conduct excited. Hinedidgindatnioont
believe-that the cause of treason or sedition had, gained
any advantage by the publication of those addresses;
bur, on the contrary, he thought that their publication
;
had a strong tendency to urge forward that spirit, of
loyalty and order which had been recently manifested.
He trusted that this Bill would be effectual for the pur.
poses which it had in view, namely, to restrain seditious
and treasonable speeches made in the National Con-
vention in London, and made at the-meetings of the
confederates in Dublin, and it might be at meetings in
Conciliation-hall also.— (Hear.) These were properly
within the scope of prosecution; and these were the
speeches that ought to be prosecuted.—(Hear, hear.)
said elsewhere
w
thathomust
there
cwaosndm
one member
this
B
herlt h a(len
Majesty's Government
ill
s eir Lordship and the —that member
emheemnboeurrbeteingadtdhreesth
bumble individual who had
:hat he (Lords; Campbell)
foundation of that opinion wa1796. It was true that he had so fxp
s
,
had expressed a disapprobation of LroersdseEdlhdiomns'selßealnodf
h tinue to
e always would conof the
been an improper encroachmentthinenk
the that Bill had
that
Edward 111.
liberty
subject. But the law of treason in England was happily
established in the 25th year of the reign of
the terms of
the penalties were the most severe ;
High treason was the greatest crime known to the law;
reßustpetchterte'o
the' sentence he would not shock their Lordships by
Pronouncing; and; in addition, the forfeiture of lands
woffa.sencehse
and__ goods and- the corruption of blood were involved.
and that was,
that there was no intermediate between high
agarienastt
the
etecstta
State
en the law with
crime
treason and a rasa
demeanour bywas a mis-
file
law?erneanour. Now, what
able dejure—it co It was, in the first place, bail-
prisonment; and whilsotnly be punished by fine and im-
it, he might set the law aatuiaewas under prosecution for
defiance:. he might repeat the
offence, and commit acts tending to the injury of the
• StatEr_7(Elear.) The conse
law was, that on- viriiitieoara.st
quonent:cetof
re that defect in the
tem-
porary laws brought in, making high treason been
penal nature ; but those were only acts
o a
y temporary, and
; were repealed at the commencement of almost every

reign—particularly at the commencement of Queen
Mary's reign, when all the the treasons which had been
created since the 25th of Edward 111. were repealed.
Another bad consequence of there being no intermediate
offence was that the law of Edward 111. was often
strained. That being the case, very great inconvenience
arose, and Lord Eldon, in 1796, introduced a law
making it high treason, and punishable in the
manner he had described, to compass or
him,wate
in g
to iimr a
thegi nien
vtihtien
gd eoartilio
roe fi
gtnh
ien
yaosvieorne. Sign,
Thatth the lappearedev
i.owever, to be assimilating crimes of a very different
mount of gravity. It defeated its own object, and was
opposed, and as he thought, justly opposed, by one party
in Parliament. Amongst other things, it required all
the forms of the Act of Edward to be followed. A copy
of the indictment must be delivered to the accused, with
a list of witnesses, and of the jury, and all these must
be delivered simultaneously. Their Lordships would,
no doubt, remember that in the case of Frost an objec-
tion was taken, because the copy of the indictment had
been delivered three days before the list of witnesses,
and that that objection was held by a minority of the
judges to be fatal.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord op-
posite had expressed some apprehension that the treason
laws might be rendered less efficacious by the adoption
of this measure ; but the fact was, that there was an
express clause in the Bill, whereby the statute of the 25th
of Edward 111. remained intact. Whatever, therefore,
was treason from the time of Edward 111. down to 1796,
was treason now, and would remain treason.—(Hear.)
At the same time there was nu new offence created
by this Bill. „. What was now treason was reduced
to felony, and he was sure it was infinitely better that
the offence should be treated as a felony than as a mis
demeanour. He had heard it stated by a very high au-
thority that it would have been infinitely preferable to
have treated the whole of these offences as misdemeanours
instead of as felonies. If they made those off. nces mis•
demeanours, however, they would gain nothing by this
measure—they would still be bailable, and the object
which the Government had in view would be frustrated.
—(Hear, hear.) He contended that for such grave
offences there should be a grave punishment.—(Hear,
hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham)
had criticised the language of the 3d section. But that
section contained the ipsissinta verba to be found in the
36th George 111., which in their turn were taken word
for word from the statute of Charles 11. The words
had a certain definite and well-defined meaning with
which the Judges were acquainted, and really he ould
think his Noble and Learned Friend could hardly be
serious when he stated that they merely applied to
deposing the Queen from the " style " of Queen
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland. The words meant, deposing her Majesty from
her royal authority as Sovereign of this realm. That
was the meaning they had ever conveyed, and that was
the interpretation to be placed upon them now.—(Hear,
hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend had spoken
about taking a leaf out of the law of Scotland. He
could only say that it this Bill were to introduce into
England the law which was supposed to exist in Scot-
land at the trial of Muir and Palmer, he should be the
last man to propose it.—(Hear, hear.) But be believed
that the trial of Muir and Palmer was not according to
the law of Scotland. They were not tried for any
specified offence, but generally for sedition, and that
sedition consisted in making very temperate speeches in
favour of Parliamentary reform.—(Hear, hear.) They
did no more than make speeches such as his Noble and
Learned Friend had often made. He did not say that
his Noble and Learned Friend had made himself
amenable to the law, but certainly he had made more
animated speeches in favour of reform than those for
which these men were transported to Botany Bay.—
(A laugh.) The only offences.punishable by this Bill
were compassing the deposition of the Queen, levying
war against the Queen, and inviting the invasion of the
Queen's dominions by a foreign force; and the judge
would ask the jury distinctly whether the prisoner had
been proved to be guilty of one of those specific offences.
Now those offences might be created either by printing
and publishing, or by open and advised speaking; but
the open and advised speaking was not the crime—the
crime must be, as he had already said, either compassing
the death of the Queen, levying war against the Queen,
or inviting the invasion of the Queen's dominions by a
foreign force.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Justice Foster had
laid it down that to make use of language which
amounted to counselling the deposition of the Sovereign
was an overt act of high treason; and again it was held
that if words were merely an expression of opinion, they
might be seditious, but not treasonable; but if they
dounselled an act to be done then they became treason.
Now those were words—nothing but words; there was no
act done, and yet that was treason. It did to him,
therefore, a fallacy to say that the expression in the Act,
" open and advised speaking," was any invasion of the
rights or liberties of the subject.—(Hear, bear.) The
Ist of Edward VI., c. 12, and various Acts from Eliza-
beth down to Charles IL, distinctly laid it down that if
any person averred by open teaching or by expressed
words that the king, his heirs or successors, ought not
to reign in England and Ireland, or if any person imagined
by open teaching or expressed words, to deprive the
king, his:heirs, or successors of their royal sign and title,
that should be deemed high treason. He had only
further to add, with reference to this measure, that the
mode of trial was not at all altered by it, and that what-
ever advantage the prisoner previously possessed, he
would possess still. He hoped the Bill would meet with
the unanimous approbation of their Lordships, and that
the country would long continue to enjoy hat peace
which had now for so long a time remained undisturbed.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said—My Lords, I
am one of those who, whilst I advocate the necessity
for such a measure as the present, regret that Parlia-
ment has not been allowed more time for its considera-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) I conceive it is perfectly necessary
that some measure of this nature should be adopted, and
that due consideration should be given to it for the
purpose of making it quite efficient, in order to oppose
some check to those great, those gigantic meetings
which this country and the sister kingdom have been
disturbed by during the last few years.—(Hear, hear.)
My Lords, we have at last come to that stage at which
the law is defied, and is the contempt of every one of
those persons who break it.—(Hear, hear.) When the
Government had proceeded against three of those
persons for a misdemeanour under the law existing at
this moment, after those persons were brought before a
magistrate and bail was taken for their appearance on
their trial, one of them continued to commit by his
speeches and his writings an aggravation of his offence;
whilst the two others, when under bail, proceeded
on a still more offmsive, I don't say treasonous,
mission to a foreign country to excite foreigners to in-
vade her Majesty's dominions. What is that but an
aggravation of the offence committed, and a positive
contempt of the law?—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, that
contempt of the law is growing in this country every
day, till at last that want of respect of the law, which
has been the charaeteristic of this country for ages, will
grow to such a height that there will be no authority in
this country, or means of carrying out the law, or en-
suring obedience to the law, except by force. My Lords,
that is the state of things, and I have observed in a most
marked manner the progress which has been made in
recent years in that very contempt of the laws of this
country. Some years ago it happened, I believe in the
year 1831, that there were extraordinary riots at the
same moment at Bristol in this country, and at Lyons in
France. It is certainly true that great outrages were
committed at Bristol—that the bishop's palace was burnt,
that the gaol was burnt, and that great injury was done.
The riots continued some days, though a military
'force was employed" to give assistance to the civil power.
'But the officer who commanded that force was considered
not to have done his duty; and certainly, in the presence
of the troops and the magistrates, the bishop's palace
was destroyed by fire. The disturbances continued; but
the magistrates got the better of it altogether, and saved
the city of Bristol from entire conflagration by the assist-
ance of one single squadron of Light Dragoons, under
the command ot Colonel Beckwith, who performed his
duty; and that was the whole force which put an end tv
that disturbance in Bristol in 1831, and saved that city
from entire destruction. But what was the case at the
same period at Lyons? The population of the two
towns is, I believe, about the same. One is a port, the
other is inland. However, it took an army of 60,000
men, under the command of a marshal of France, in order
to get the better of that insurrection at Lyons, and to
save Lyons from destruction. One squadron of Dragoons
did that at Bristol, which required 60,000 men to perform
at Lyons. My Lords, I attribute the different suc-
cess of those two efforts to the respect which prevailed
et that time in England for the law—(Hear, hear)—to
the feeling which every man had that he was disobey-
ing the law by joining in that insurrection ; and respect
for the law it was which then saved Bristol. We are
certainly not now in that happy position.—(Hear, hear.)
It is true, that without the exercise of force we saw
large bodies of persons who had collected in the vicinity
of this town quietly disperse. But that was not out of
submission to the law. Was not the whole population
of the town, civil as well as military, under arms ?
Were there not several hundred thousand persons em-
ployed as constables? Were they not organized and
directed by persons capable of directing them? Were
there not thousands of troops under arms? and were
there not thousands of police in readiness to act if need
be? Can it be said then it was respect for the law
which prevented any outrage being committed by these
persons?—(Hear, hear.) But what passed on that
very night, on the following night, and on nearly every
night since ? Why, a repetition of the very same
expressions, which it is the object of this Act of Par-
liament to prevent.—(tlcar, hear.) Is that respect fer
the law ? No, there is no such thing as respect for the
law under such circumstances. My Lords, I say that
this want of respect for the law, which if it continues
must be fatal to the greatness of this country, if not to
its very existence, is to be attributed to the transactions
which have taken place in Ireland within the last few
years. We have seen hundreds of those monster meet-
ings year after year, week after week, month after
month, ringing through that country with impunity.
We have heard ot seditious and treasonable speeches
made at those meetings—we have heard of men being
put upon their trial for sedition in connexion with those
meetings, and we have heard of men who were acquitted
of the charge of sedition on some point arising on the
trial. Why, my Lords, all this tends, I say, to the same
point—to create a contempt fur the law.—(Hear.) I
therefore, entreat your Lordships to pass this Bill. I
am particularly grateful to my Noble and Learned Friend
opposite (Lord Campbell) for the manner in which he
has explained it. I particularly approve of the Bill, and
I hope it may have a tendency to induce some respect
• Lieutenant and the Government
that you place the Lorq
for the law.—(fltar, hear.) But I beg you to observe
meetings if you only allow them to
tiun to the monster
on oath of some
of Ireland in an exceedingly awkward. situation in rela •
act after having before them evidence
peace having been done,
Lieutenant, to proceed upon
and do not allow the
.T.Ard,Lie,u d,
r puhlic peace, an of his
his own sense of the state o, t
thing dangerous to the public
power to preserve that peace,,_
placed at “lo AO k (IiSCUS-
t-Wank to prevpn
bx means of the civil force
his disposal.

cussion on any subject. I desire that the people should
have the means of public discussion on every subject on
which they desire to have discussion; but, my Lords, let
that discussion be when they meet in such numbers so
that the question can be discussed, and all who attend
the meeting can hear what is addressed to them ;
but do not let the meeting, under the pretence of
discussion, be of such a nature. as, in the opinion
of the magistrate, it is impossible for him to
endeavour to put them down by means of the
civil force at his disposal, arid render it obvious that
such a meeting can have no other object except to create
terror and overpower the Government. My Lords, I
rejoice that this Bill is likely to pass as a check on such
meetings in future—meetings of a character to create
terror; and I hope that your Lordships will pass this
Bill unanimously in as short a space of time as possible,
in order that Government may be able to take advantage
of it in the approaching time.
Lord DENMAN—I agree very much in almost all the
arguments of the Noble Duke. There are, however,
some points to which I should wish to allude. It appears
to me that the danger which must result if these meetings
are unchecked can hardly be overrated. It is impossible
fur the mind of the lowest of the people, oppressed by
want, to be worked upon without the greatest danger,
not only to the peace of the community and the interests
of individuals, but the actual safety of the State. I
differ from other Noble Lords that these present pro-
ceedings are at all dangerous to the State as conspiracies
against it; but the spirit of such proceedings, the tole-
ration of such language, the permission for people to
deliberate whether they will take the government into
their own hands or nut, and declare war not only
against the Government, and Parliament, and the laws,
but also against the middling classes, does appear to
me -to be an enormous and intolerable evil ; and I
feel that if any severity of law is necessary to put down
that evil, the new law ought to be received with the
utmost attention. But the law is not so impotent as it
is supposed to be ; and I have no doubt, as the Noble
Duke has stated, that these monstrous meetings are to-
tally incompatible with ell discussion, and may possibly
lead to a breach of the peace. From the exciting lan-
guage made use of, so as to turn the force to the destruc-
tion of any individuals, or of any class, these monstrous
meetings are in themselves misdemeanours, and might
be put down by the force requisite for that purpose.
That this growing contempt for the law in particular
classes is much encouraged by what has taken place in
Ireland is not likely to be contested by any one. On
h
begleave to Pay that these monstrous
never, as far as I know, proceeded against
tmeaettsinugbjsewet were
I e
by the Government of the time, and for some reason or
other it was thought more prudent to allow them to pro.
teed, and:afterwards to proceed against them in the shape
of indictment, of which I do not wish to speak in any kind
of detail ; but upon which the greatest possible variety
of opinions had been and was entertained ; but which
indictment might almost be called as monstrous in
its description of the offence as the meeting itself. The
Noble Duke has alluded to some of the parties charged
on that occasion. I am sure the Noble Duke had not
the least intention to impute to any of those who thought
it their duty, in conformity with the laws, to overturn
the proceedings of the Court below—the Noble Duke
does not mean to allude to them as having done anything
in the least degree inconsistent with their duty. On the
contrary, I am quite sure that if the Noble Duke, sit-
ting as a judge in this House, was, with a view to any
consequences whatever, to say that he believed that to
be the law which he did not believe to b e the law, and to
abstain from giving that judgment which he in his con-
science thought fit, he would forfeit all respect as a judge,
and the law itself would lose that veneration which, as
the Noble Duke has said, the country had habitually
felt for it. And when the Noble Duke says that
these meetings are a proof of the growing con—
tempt of the law, I admit that the conduct of those
parties who have made it necessary to pass this law shows
that the law has fallen into contempt with them; but we
are hardly doing justice to the public of England, if the
whole people of England, who took into their own hands
the vindication of their own rights and the protection of
the State, are to be accused of having shown ny con-
tempt of the law.— (Hear, hear.) I think, on a
the con-
trary, that when these Chartists had proceeded so far
towards the disturbance of the public peace as to
threaten the safety of all persons who were not of their
own political creed, that the exhibition of order which
then took place, peaceable men leaving their ordinary
occupations of life to expose themselves to probable
danger, and to certain inconvenience at a great sacrifice
—I think it was one of the finest spectacles ever exhi-
bited on the part of a people attached to the law, because
convinced by long experience of the benefits of the pro-
tection to be derived from it. I am sure I can never
speak without feelings of the utmost admiration, in which
all mankind concur, of the conduct of the Noble Duke;
but I feel that I should be wanting in some degree in
what was due to the real character of the English people
if I allowed the expression about " the growing con-
tempt of the law" to pass without comment.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—No one can admire
more than I do the general conduct of the people upon
the occasion to which I have referred; and I am sorry if
I have said anything which could have induced the Noble
and Learned Lord, or any person, to believe that I had
said they had not shown respect for the law. What I
stated was, that the results of that day were to be attri-
buted to the formidable array that was made to get the
better of those who hael arrayed themselves against the
law. I said there was no respect of the law on their
part, because I said that on that very night, and certainly
on the following night, they had over and over again
made speeches showing their contempt of the law. I
also beg to say that nothing was further from my
thoughts than to express one word against tho decision
of the House as to what passed upon the trial to which
I have referred. I confess that I have the greatest re-
spect for the decision of this House upon that subject.
I said that it was owing to circumstances attending these
trials—to points which occurred on the trials—that the
conviction of the persons who had been concerned in
the transaction to which I have referred was set aside.
I did not presume to pronounce any opinion upon the
subject. I merely mentioned the fact, as one of the
many circumstances which have tended to occasion a
contempt of the law on the subject of these meetings.
Lord DENMAN—I am extremely happy to hear
what the Noble Duke has stated. In point of fact, the
growing contempt of the law on the part of those who
are bidding defiance to it was put down by the growing
confidence and attachment in the law by the great mass
of
of people
the
thpeopleis subject,
of England. I take the liberty of adding
upon that I really believe that a vast num-
ber attending these meetings do so from
ignorance that they are offending against the law. They
have sume notion of tbe lawfulness of public meetings,
without considering: .;the circumstances.. attend
those meetings. The- leaders work upon the poor
without this Bill they may
starving population, great numbers of whom are really
ignorant of the offence they are committing. These
themselves peopleincurring
punished
crurni
insoghu,ed forgahntdtoltehnbaedtiniengvfeotah lves to meetings of suchrmed of the danger they are
a character. As to one part of this Bill, which has
been made the subject of discussion in the other House,
that subject is exhausted, and does not require any
ab
observations on my part. I am happy to think that this
gßriellathdaesableoefn jealousy, lyn
i discussed by
place,ie and I do not see persons, with a
another
any difficulty in carrying it into effect. It is very pro-
bable that it is not perfect, and the observation may be
made that it might have been carried further; but its
imperfections are, in my judgment, no r, anon for not
passing it. I will only observe, in reference to what
was said by a Noble Lord opposite, that persons accused
of felony are privileged to challenge, whereas they lose
the challenge when accused of misdemeanour, that I
should be sorry to bee persons deprived of this advan-
tage. On a late occasion, on a special commission in
Ireland—whether the jury were of a higher class or
more intelligent I know not—but no persons ever did
their duty so perfectly as those jurors did; and I am
happy to say that the dernoestration has been so com-
plete that I trust there is an end of coercion as to
Ireland.
Lord BROUGHAM, in reference to what had been
said by the Noble Duke, observed that Lyons was a
much larger place, and contained a much snore danger-
ous population than Bristol. There were 9.40,000
persons, of whom 30,000 or 40,000 were workmen in a
most wretched state, and the quarrels with their masters
on account of wages led to almost perpetual combina-
tions against the law. He was lately in the place, and
spoke from most positive information; 30,000 persons
were banded in opposition to the law, and it was deemed
advisable, from motives of humanity, to draw in an over-
whelming military force, to make resistance utterly
impossible; and the consequence was, there was hardly
any shedding of blood. There was, indeed, nothing
which was such false humanity as that of not putting
down insurrections with a strong hand, so as to make
resistance utterly impossible.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—I contrasted.what
had passed in Lyons with what had passed in Brietol,
as a remarkable instance of the effect of the restraint of
the law.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said that the Noble
Lord lately the Chancellor of Ireland,h with more expe-
rience of this country than of that, and the Learned
-
Chief Justice of England, had already the
underrated
objections stated by the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley.)
Anybody acquainted with the administration of justice
in Ireland must acknowledge that it was extremely diffi-
cult to get jurors not afraid of doing their duty. This
had bean the case in the White Boy uflsnces. If a pe-
remptory right of challenge were given to the parties
arrainged, it would be illipossible to restore
order. He
agreed did their
that upon a late occasion the jurors
duty, and there was a conviction. It was owingtg o pecu-
liar circumstances that the gentry and magistrates all
attended, and served on the petty jury That was hardly
to be looked at as a continuing state of things; and he
apprehended that by taking the case of a number of
persons, and putting them ou their trial, you would
exhaust the panel, and find it impossible to get jurors
to do their duty. At the sarne time he would
oppose no delay in the existing circumstances
of the country to the pissing of this fill. Whilst he ad
mitted that those who "devised, compassed, or imagined"
the death of the king justly deserved punishment, yet
the mischievous consequences produced by their speak-
ing were small in comparison with the mischief done
by the publication of those speeches. He did not wish
there should be any restraint on the publication of
speeches in Parliament; he thought it of paramount im-
portance that everything which was saidin either House
of Parliament should be known to the country, for the
probability of a treasonable or seditious speech was not
great; but the case was different where small bodies, of
persons met together of the same opinion, and made
speeches which, when reporte,l, were read by the
meanest peasant. The newspapers exercised a
sound discretion in the report of criminal pro-
ceedings. He could conceive no reason why
the editors of newspapers should not be called 'upon to
exercise the same discretion as to the.speeehes delivered
at these meetings, and he thought it consistent with the
duty of Government to require editors to omit the-pub-

lication of treasonable and seditious speeches. He con-
fessed it did appear to him to be monstrous, and he
believed it was owing to the morbid appetite for variety,
that the members of these societies met together and
uttered these seditious speeches. He appealed to the good
feeling of editors of newspapers to exercise the same
discretion as to the publication of these proceedings
that they exercised as to the proceedings in the criminal
courts, which they often said were unfit for publication.
If this appeal should not be successful, then he thought
the Government might and ought to interpose, and in-
stitute legal proceedings against those who gave publicity
to these mischievous proceedings.
Lord CAMPBELL—I do not presume to speak from
my own experience of the administration of justice in
Ireland, but I assure the Noble Earl that the Bill, as it
now stands, is perfectly approved of by the law authori-
ties in Ireland,, by the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland, and
that they, knowing Ireland thoroughly, believe that it
will be effectual. With regard to the publication of se-
ditious speeches, I am very far from saying that it is ad-
visable to take proceedings upon them. It will depend
entirely upon quo animo they are published. If they
are published to be held up to the execration of the
public, the intention would render the act innocent ; but
if they are published for the purpose of giving effect to
those seditious and treasonable sentiments, the act is
highly culpable. It is at all events an aggravated mis-
demeanour, and might be punished at common
law ; but it may be punished under certain cir-
cumstances by virtue of this Bill, which your Lordships
are now about to read the second time, or the printing
of such a speech may be the overt act to make out
the felony, and to show that the person who printed it
compassed the deposition of the Queen, or compassed
levying war against the Queen, or compassed the inva-
sion of the Crown by a foreign force; and that being the
case, I suppose that a person, whether editor or pro-
prietor of a newspaper, who makes a speech, and who
publishes that speech, and who will not maintain that
that speech has the tendency to which I have referred ;
no doubt, upon the evidence that he made and printed
the speech, might be rendered amenable under this Bill,
that he may be tried for felony, and may be transported
beyond the seas for the term of his natural life.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS—What I am speaking
of is the practice of reporting these proceedings without
any animus, good or bad—reporting the proceedings of
the National Convention as regularly as the speeches we
deliver in this House of Parliament. Most of the editors
of newspapers are thus doing infinite mischief.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—My only business is
to stop your Lordship's speaking.—(A laugh.) I have
very little to do with the publishing, and I therafcr• now
put the question that this Bill be read a second time.
The Bill was then read a second time.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—As it is important
that this Bill should pass to-morrow, I propose that the
House should go into Committee, and have the third
reading to• morrow.
ELECTION RECOGNIZANCES BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,

Lord MONTEAGLE proposed an amendment.
Lotd CAMPBELL said that his objection to this Bill
Was considerably mitigated by the amendment. He
hoped the Bill would not be rejected elsewhere. He was
afraid the amendment would now bring the Bill into the
state into which it was rejected on a former occasion; but
if the amendment was acceded to by the other House of
Parliament, he thought the measure would be much less
objectionable.
The Bill was then read a third time, and their Lord-
ships adjourned till tomorrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 19.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

TENANT-RIGHT-EVICTIONS.

Mr. P. SCROPE complained that nothing had been
said about a measure which was more important than
any the Noble Lord had mentioned. He alluded to the
Bill for the protection of tenants. Hundreds of thou-
sands of persons had been evicted from their holdings,
and were wandering about the country without food or
clothing, and it was absolutely necessary that some
measure should be immediately passed to protect poor
tenants from the barbarous evictions that had occurred
of late. Did the Government intend to introduce any
measure on the subject?
Sir G. GREY said a Bill had been prepared which it
had been found necessary to send to Ireland, in order
that it might be considered by the Lord-Lieutenant and
the law officers in Ireland. It had only reached him
(Sir G. Grey) this morning, and as it was necessary that
he should devote his attention to the suggestions they
had made he could only express a hope that he should
be enabled to introduce it soon after Easter.

Lord PALMERSTON then rose to address the House,
and after fully admitting the right and justice of the
Honourable Member to bring forward the subject,
observed that there were certainly circumstances
connected with the history of Denmark which made
anything that affected the welfare of that state pecu-
liarly interesting to all persons of high feeling and ho-
nourable minds. No state, he admitted, had
suffered more than Denmark had done, and it
had been the lot of England to be drawn
into acts of hostility to Denmark. With regard
to the question itself which was involved in these trans-
actions, he trusted the House would excuse him
if he abstained from following the Hon. Member
by any arguments either on the one side or
the other. A question of right had arisen by the
German Confederation on the one hand and Denmark on
the other, and that question was confined to Schls •
wig. With regard to Holstein no question
existed, as that province had long remained
part of the German Confederation. With regard
to Schleswig, the German Confederation con-
tended that by ancient acts, and agreements, and trans-
actions, Schleswig was inseparably united to
Holstein, and that it must follow its for-
tunes. The Danish Government, on the other hand,
contended that it had the right to require that
Schleswig should follow the line of succession of Den-
mark, and it was upon that question chiefly that difference
had arisen. Now, as her Majesty's Government had
signified to the two parties—Denmark on the one
hand and Prussia on the other—their willingness
to undertake the task of endeavouring to settle
this question amicably, it must be obvious to the House
that it would be unfitting for him to express any opinion
on which side the merit and right was. The Hon. Gentle•
man opposite, in his opinion, had exercised a proper dis-
cretion in calling the attention of the House and the
country to the engagements which this country had
entered into with regard to Schleswig. He had with
him the original treaty upon which the gua-
rantee was given, and he was bound to confess
that the Hon. Member had quoted the words accurately,
and that therefore it was not necessary for him to read
them again. He was perfectly ready to concur with
him, and with what appeared to be the general
sense and opinion of the House, that it was the duty of
England, and essentially to her honour, to see that en-
gagements that had been entered into were made good.
The Hon. Gentleman, however, must permit him to
say that the guarantee given by England was also
given upon the same occasion by France. Not only,
therefore, was this country bound with its engagement
to Denmark with regard to Schleswig, but whatever
engagement England had entered into had been taken
up, and in exactly the same words, by the French
Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman
had adverted to the course pursued in reference
to the subject by a person for whom he (Lord Pal-
merston) had the honour to feel the greatest respect and
attachment. The Prussian Minister, in publishing the
pamphlet which the Hon. Member had alluded to in the
course of his speech, had no doubt been actuated by
the best of motives, and allhe could say was, thatalthough
the Hon. Member might differ with the arguments and
course of reasoning which he had found in the pamphlet,
he had no right to censure the Chevalier Bunsen for
having published. Let the House just consider that the
Chevalier was sent here to watch over the rights of his
Government, and he thought no man in that House
would be diposad to blame the Chevallier for publishing
what he considers to be the views of the Prussian
Government in reference to a particular matter likely
to give rise to discussion. (Hear, hear.) He
would not now, as he said before, enter into any
arguments in reference to those views; but he could not
refrain from saying that he thought the censure of the
Hon. Member was not altogether well founded.—
(Hear, hear.) He should say no more.—(Hear, hear.)
He had stated his perfect concurrence with the Hon.

Member, that the guarantees given by England ought to
be respected, but at the same time, he must add
what he had stated on a former occasion, that
whatever might be the right of either side, the purpose
of Prussia in entering Holstein, and in crossing the
island to Schleswig, was not to include Schleswig in the
power of Denmark, but to support a party in Schleswig
who upheld the ancient constitution, and demanded that
they should be incorporated and attached to Holstein,
instead of being incorporated and attached to Denmark.
He could only express his hope that matters would not
be pursued to extremities, or the consequence to Europe
might be most serious. He sincerely trusted that the
dispute might be adjusted by an amicable negotiation
between the parties, and he sincerely hoped that the
statesmen of the two countries, viewing the dis-
turbed, troubled, and dangerous condition of
things in every part of Europe, would not allow
a question which could produce no practical result, and
the settlement of which would be dependent upon a
contingency, to lead to effects which every reasonable
man must deplore.—(Cheers.)
Mr. COLQUHOUN believed the House much in-
debted to the Hon. Member who had brought this
subject before them, and he had no doubt this discussion
would be productive of good results.—(Hear, hear.)
But the House must allow him, while he approved of the
maxims of the Noble Lord who had just sat down, to
denounce his actions. The House could not forget that
the treaty of Vienna, in reference to Cracow, had been
disregarded by the Noble Lord; but he hoped in future
the Noble Lord's actions would be consistent with his
maxims.—(Hear, hear.)
The motion for the adjournment of the House was
then agreed to.
DUBLIN STEAM-PACKETS.

On the motion of Mr. FORSTER a copy of any pro
posal addressed to the Treasury by the City of Dublin
Steam-Packet Company, offering to run steam-packets
between Holyhead arid Dublin, and the reply of the
Treasury thereto, was ordered to be laid before the
House.