The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

its penalty from death to transportation, and that that
portion of the Bill which extends the whole Act to Ire-
land should be maintained permanent, as we propose it,
we are ready to concede that those other parts of
the Bill with respect to open and advised speaking,
and, which is new, shall have only a temporary operation.
—(Loud cheers.) For my own part I believe that
the enactment will be a right one, but that of
which I am most deeply convinced is that such
an enactment is necessary, if we mean to keep away the
danger by which we are threatened. The Hon. Member
has referred to precautionary measures which are pro-
posed to be taken against aliens. In a few days I expect
that Bill will be before the House, when I shall have
an opportunity of stating its objects, and the reasons
which have induced her Majesty's Government
to bring it forward. Thus much, however, I will say,
that any measures which are introduced now are intro-
duced under the deep conviction that the peace of this
icnosutni
ttur
tyi
nins a woof r
tt
hh
ap v
country—its
re s preserving—(L
e h
yand)—i
ttah
na
nt n the
t .
tution—are not to be lightly given up, and the trust being
in our hands we will endeavour to preserve them intact.
Mr. HORSMAN said that there were many law
authorities on this question. He had heard with great
satisfaction the statement of the Noble Lord, that the
operation of the Bill would be, in its general bearing,
limited. The Noble Lord had quoted the authority
of Judge Blackstone. He (Mr. Horsman) would
also quote the authority of that eminent judge.
The Honourable Member then went on to quote
authorities. The Noble Lord had said that the words
themselves were not to hold a party guilty, the words
must be attended with an intention " to compass or
design." He was perfectly confident that neither
the Attorney- General nor the Solicitor-General
would contend that these were sanctioned by
precedent; he believed that they would concede that
they were opposed to all precedent and to all law autho-
rity. In one of the most interesting books published of
late years—he meant the "Lives of the Chancellors,"
by a Noble and Learned Lord, one of the present
Cabinet—in the life of Lord Eldon, the Noble and
Learned Author says that when that illustrious judge was
Attorney- General, speaking of the Treasonable Attempts
Bill,he opposed,it as extending the power of the Crown to
an unwarrantable extent, and the Noble Lord himself did
not hesitate to oppose the granting of those powers. There
seemed within these few days to be engendered a state of
alarm for which he saw no warranty. In the year 1796 7,
when there was greater cause for alarm than now, and
when Mr. Pitt wished to obtain similar powers to those
asked for by the Noble Lord, Mr. Erskine raised his
voisee against the concession of them. Mr. Fox, on the
same occasion, said that they had beard of popular in-
surrections and popular revolutions, but were these
owing to the freedom of popular opinion or the liberty
of discussion? No—they were opposed to these; and
he quoted the reign of Charles I. in proof, a period when
freedom of discussion was fettered by the severest laws.
He believed the effect of the recent violent speeches
made in Ireland and elsewhere had been to call clown
the indignation of the well-disposed upon their utterers.
People knew in this country that they could obtain
their rights, because they did not merely depend upon
Government majorities, but upon public opinion.
(Hear.) But if public opinion was to be disregarded
if speeches made in public were to render the utterers
liable to transportation—a great change in the con-
stitution of the country could not fail to be the result.
Ho regretted that the Government had thought proper
to introduce measures which even Pitt, in the zenith
of his power, dared not pass, and Lord Castle-
reagh, in the height of his unpopularity, had not
the courage to propose. It was indeed a matter for ex.
treme regret that the Government had deemed such a mea-
sure necessary for the unhappy country of Ireland.
There never was a time in the history of the country
where they had less cause for alarm, because the great
mass of the people were not desirous of any great or
sweeping change.
Mr. MARTIN rose to move as an amendment, that
" open and advised speaking' be left out of the
clause. He did so, because he believed the pre-
sent law stringent enough, and because he
wished to see it maintained. A written libel had
been always made a criminal proceeding, but spoken had
note but they would be under this Bill. The 36th
of George 111. made a written libel a criminal proceed-
ing, but spoken words only a misdemeanour, unless
repeated more and more. All the great writers—
Blackstone, Coke, Hale—were of opinion that this dis-
tinction should be made between written and spoken
words. And were they, in 1843, to enact a more
severe enactment ? A speech could only be delivered
to a limited number of persons, for the human
voice would not extend to many; but written words
might extend to vast numbers. Montesquieu said
words often admitted of more significations than one,
and if they were to be made punishable as treason, he said
there would be an end of not only liberty, but its shadow.
He put little reliance upon repeated statements; and he
did not think there was an Hon. Member in that House
who would undertake to repeat the words delivered by
another, nay more, the sentiments. (Hear.) But
suppose they had to deal with a panic-stricken
jury, sitting last Monday. (Hear, hear.) How
could they depend upon the liberty of the speech ?
How, then, were they to prosecute ? He gave the
Government full credit for having short- hand notes taken
of the speeches of persons who were rendering themselves
liable to prosecution; but he had no faith in short-hand
notes, and the most eminent judges on the bench were of
the same opinion as the Learned Judge. He appealed to
the Attorney-General if this were not so.—(Hear.)
A Learned Judge had endeavoured to pat an end to
legalised short-hand writing, because he had been so
repeatedly misrepresented in his charges to juries
flow, then, if this were the opinion of the
Judges, could they depend upon such testimony ? He
would suggest that the offence of speaking "open and
designedly" should be rendered a misdemeanour, and
that it should not be rendered a bailable offence, on the
understanding that the person should be tried in a month.
—(hear, hear.) He would follow the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government to the " last gasp with truth
and loyalty," but he entreated him to follow the example
of Pitt in 1795.—(i1ear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said if parole evidence
could not be relied upon at all, why let the punishment
be light indeed.—(Hear.) But he should have
gone further, and in his zeal for the liberty of
the people, proposed the abolition of all punish-
ment for sedition.— (Hear, hear.) If the sugges-
tion of his Learned Friend was adopted with re-
spect to the trial of such offenders special commissions
would have to be appointed, as the courts did not sit
once a month.—(hear, hear.) The punishments for
felony and misdemeanour were nearly the same—
imprisonment and forfeiture of goods. Mr.
Justice Foster laid it down that the speaking
of words against the Crown was an overt act, and might
be punished accordingly.—(Hear.) He thought the
words should be retained, though they might not be
made permanently applicable—indeed such was not the
intention of the Government.
Mr. MARTIN explained that he did nut say that
parole evidence could not be trusted.
Mr. M. MILNES read the words of Mr. Justice Foster,
and said the words read by the Attorney-General were
those of Mr. Attorney-General Follett, which, however,
he did not make out to the satisfaction of the House.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the amendment.
Sir F. THESIGER wished, in the first instance, to
correct his Honourable, but not Learned Friend, the
Member for Pontefract ( Mr. M. Mines). The words
stated by his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General.
were the words of Mr. Justice Foster, and not
those of the Attorney-General Sir W. Follett.
Having said that he wished to correct the statement of
his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Pontefract
(Mr. Martin). The indictment under this clause would
be not for words spoken, but for compassing and imagin-
ing the different objects specified in the clause.—(Hear.)
He regretted that the Government had given way
as they had done, and consented to make those provi-
sions temporary, which he thought ought to have been
made perpetual.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the Go-
vernment, by the course they had pursued bad destroyed
all the vigour of the Bill merely for the sake of appeasing
the opposition to this measure.--(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. HUME, and the ArreaNer-
GENERAL in explanation of the word "compassing,"
Mr. P. WOOD supported the view taken by
the Attorney-General of the word used by Mr.
Justice Foster. Ho should, however, be sorry
to see the statute-book of this country stained with
the making of speaking a felony equal with writing.
—(hear, hear,) He thought they ought to be careful
how far they altered the law, for by doing so they
might create a sympathy in a wrong direction.
For these reasons he should vote for the expunging of
the words.—(Hear.) Ile was greatly rejoiced that her
Majesty's Government had conceded that the provisions
of the Act in the respect alluded to by the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government should be only temporary.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL had no faith in the statements
of the Noble Lord or the Government, that the povisions
of the Act with respect to speaking would be only tem-
porary. A fair trial could not be had in Dublin.
Mr. GROGAN rose to address the House amid loud
cries of" Divide, divide," and withdrew, amid which the
TT
H4wg,
gave
eir.rrrw.e.Miscc
rat
jeliyeiro:voeawogbdnaeGd with
nAr
Mr.dat addressed
odweGurnnder
oswrsgcoeriasdtinehe
.so,
the House,
of
‘u utteringaddressivid
et word.:hde vHidivide,"
eu
ase
nd
wasAN
thought sunc The l
doe: y
ie
g tGentlemanhat
it
nwast
observations
e
impossiblerh to have a fair trial in Dublin.—(Hear,
ear.t)rialslfshothueld
After some Member who had just spoken
case, he had better move the
clause in the Bill, providing that
insertion
hteh
take place in London.—(hear, hear.)
• Lord JOHN from Mr. H. GRATTAN,
should report RUSSELL moved that the Chairman
Mr. REYNOLDSprogress,amid loud cries of " Divide."
believed that • • •
impartial as long juries in Dublin were
as they werethe
not empannelled for poli-
tical purposes, but that
impartiality ceased. moment they were so their
The House then resumed, and
progress. the CHAIRMAN reported
Sir G. GREY said that ho
ro
should sit at twelve o'clock to mpposed that the House
.
the Committee on the Bill. orrow to proceed with
Mr. HUME objected to the adoption of
Mr. MUNTZ also objected to the House
a course.
twelve o'clock. Members had other dutiesse
Bitting
at
than attending the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Addedtopertorm
this, he did not think this was a proper t• to
time to discuss
such a question as this.
Mr. PEARSON suggested that the amendment should
be printed, and further time given to consider it.
Mr. BRIGHT thought that a longer period ought
to be given to the consideration of the measure. The
discussion that had already taken place had changed
the opinion of many Members with respect to the Bill,
and even those of Ministers themselves.
On the question being put that the House resolve
itself itself into Committee on the Bill at twelve o'clock
to-morrow, - • -
]Mx, MOWATT moved, N su amendment, that Os