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

THE MONSTER PETITION.

This petition, like the great demonstration got up
for Monday last, turns out to be a veritable hoax.
The number of signatures attached to it amounted,
according to Mr. Feargus O'Connor's statement, to
between five and six millions, and he claimed atten-
tion to it mainly on that ground. We under-
stand from the very best authority that so
far from the petitioners numbering jive millions,
they fall short of two, whilst the credence
attaching to the veracity of the signatures, may be
judged from the fact that not only is the name of
Queen Victoria appended to it, but the Duke of
Wellington is attached nearly twenty times. Almost
every slang name known to Englishmen, such as
Snooks, Pugnose, and other nicknames, figure
in thousands, and the very coarsest words,
of the most vulgar and disgraceful meaning, are
found in most unholy abundance. It is the duty of
the officers of the House of Commons to report the
numbers fixed to every public petition, and in the
discharge of their duty the above facts have been
disclosed. 'We learn that to such an extent has
the fraudulent system of affixing false names been
carried in this instance, as to render it matter of
doubt whether inquiry will not be absolutely requi-
site to prevent the House of Commons being again
imposed upon by hoaxes so heartless and yet so dan-
gerous as fraudulent petitions presented under cover
of great public meetings.

STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
Hum., 10 A.M.—All remains tranquil.
Lumps, 9.59 A.M.—No signs of disturbance here.
YORE., 10.10 A.M.—All perfectly quiet.
LIVERPOOL, 10 A.M.—The town is perfectly quiet, and
business, which recent events had suspended, is resumed
with increased vigour. The great rise in funds gives
additional confidence.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
ROUSE OF COMMONS, April le.
CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.
Mr. REYNOLDS (in continuation from our After-
noon Edition of yesterday) said—He believed that
the opponents to this measure would be found
to be the representatives of by far the largest
constituencies of the country. He had not the least
objection that the man who wrote treason should be
transported, but he did not think that any Go-
vernment ought to be invested with the power
of depriving any British subject of his right
of speaking fully and openly his opinion upon
all subjects. The sixth clause of this Bill also
made a person liable to a punishment of two years' im-
prisonment for attending any meeting where such
speeches were made.
Sir G. GREY thought that it would be much better if
the discussion upon the words objected to were to take
place in Committee, instead of at the present time.
Mr. HUME said that he thought the Noble Lord
and his colleagues ought to inform the House whether
they were determined henceforth to throw behind
them all the principles contended for by the late
Mr. Fox. The Noble Lord had frequently made
it his boast that he was a disciple of that great man,
and expressed a hope that he would ever continue to be
so. The Hon. Member then proceeded to refer at some
length to the case of the prosecution of Mr. Muir and
others, and contended that similar results would follow
from the passing of this Bill. Most sincerely, there-
fore, did he advise the Government not to harry the
Bill through its stages 80 rapidly, and to allow the
people of the country an opportunity of expressing
their opinion upon the subject. At all events he trusted
that the Government would allow the Bill to stand over
till Monday next.
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose, and said, I should cer-
tainly have been better satisfied if the Hon. Member
who has just sat down, and the Hon. Member who had
spoken on the subject, had been content to go into Cons•
mittee for the purpose of hearing the reasons which
might be urged by her Majesty's Government in sup-
port of the clause which they have so loudly
condemned. The Hon. Member for Montrose asked me
upon what principle we proposed to act. I say now, and
shall ever say, that with respect to general principles of
politics, with respect to the great mass of the constitu-
tion, I believe Mr. Fox to have laid down the true
doctrines upon that subject.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir,
eve are now living under extraordinary circum-
stances—(Hear, hear)—in a time, Sir, when persons
think it their duty to call together councils and confe-
derations, in which they declare that war ought to be
made against the Sovereign—(Cheers)—that the forces
of the Sovereign should be seduced or bribed, and, if
seduction or bribery did not succeed, that they should
be opposed by force of arms—(Cheers)—a time, Sir,
when persons are advised to arm themselves, and told
that if they procure those arms they will gain a signal
victory, and that the soldiers and the police will not
he able to withstand them—a time when persons think it
advisable, even in this House, to show in what manner
they mean to proceed, and how they shall advise their
countrymen to devise the measures necessary for the
-uccess of rebellion.—(Loud cheers.) I believe that,
according to the spirit of this constitution, a great lati-
tude of discussion should be allowed--(Hear, hear)—
and that inflammatory language should be per-
mitted—that language which may excite indignation
against our monarchical institutions should be permitted
to proceed to a great length, because I know that with-
out allowances of this kind the liberty of discussion
cannot be maintained ; but, Sir, instead of being re-
proached with having interfered intemperately and
nastily, I believe that the general opinion of this country
is rather that we have waited too long.—(Cheers.) But,
Sir, having come to the opinion that it is necessary to
take measures of precaution—that these measures of pre-
caution may defeat the designs 'of traitors—(Cheers)—
that these measures of precaution may prevent a part of
the United Kingdom from being deluged with blond by
those who have advised the commission of acts the most
atrocious—(Loud cheers)—and who have sat down
actually in their closets to show how, by various
internal engines, by pouring cold vitriol, boiling
oil, and other means, they may procure the
deaths of their fellow subjects—l say that under
these circumstances I should be ashamed of myself
if, when I see the danger approaching, I am so fettered
by Mr. Fox, so afraid of having Mr. Fox's words quoted
against me, that I will desert my duty, and will not
take those measures of precaution which I believe to be
necessary. That, Sir, is my answer to the Hon. Gentle-
man who asks me upon what principles we pro-
pose to proceed.—(Cheers.) I think that the
Hon. Gentleman has shown that he will not come
to the discussion of the Bill, and I think that he has not
fiiily understood the meaning of one portion of the Bal—
-1 mean that which relates to Ireland. The Hon. Mem-
ber has taken the trouble to read to the House at some
length the indictment framed against Mr. Muir.
That indictment charged Mr. Muir and his asso
ciates with having used words calculated to excite
disaffection, and to alienate the people from the
constitution of this realm, and which were also of an in-
flammatory character. I should have thought, Sir, that
to transport a person for an offence of that kind, an
offence which must no doubt be very mischievous, hut did
not go beyond the offence of sedition, would be very
oppressive and unjust at the present time. For my part I
have always been of the opinion that the conviction of Mr.
Muir and his associates under that indictment was very
unjust. —(Hear) There is, however, a very great (-Welelee between using language of that kind and language
tending to excite to the levying of war against the coun-
try or producing insurrection therein ; and it is the latter
which must be the intent under the Bill which we now
operation in the
propose, that
these
be the design of the words so spoken,
of the atrocity
nr otherwise e words arc harmless, and cannot be in
Hon.Meraber know that
ofleastcondemning
degree. The Hon. Member talks
be brought
spoken words Does not the
words may
ind in which the use of
there are even now cases in which
as an overt act to forward on a trial for high treason,
prove
these words may be condemned
..e treason? It is stated by one
of the authorities that eerxsooint . , who
encourage,
oradvice
p r o
persuasion, or command sahnayl?
cure others to make an attemptaot against the King's per-
plain overt
son is guilty of a
Beenaonthdedresinertevnes.
made with
spoken wtibtheir
respect to spoken words, the fear have
being Res-
death." Yet all the objections which'
troefason
understood or misreported, or_ s
lions—all these objections, I "Y, will apply
of treason as it now stands. Perhaps the - to
the law
man objects to that law of treason, butdo lion. Gentle-
blame us because we introduce the same measure not
let him
blame
a milder punishment. There is nomeasure with
upon the statute-book by which, if any peewsn atli Act
this country, and publishes, any writing with nthrier-lt, in
intent
guilty to cause or levy any war, he may be found of
high treason, and capitally punished. That is the l
of this country by statute, and I would ask they'
Honourable Member whether it is fit that one person,
who sits down to write a newspaper, which he after-
wards publishes, and in which he commits this offence,
should be punished capitalle, and that others, his con-
federates and his allies, should advisedly and with pre-
paration make, day after day, speeches seeing that the
reporters of the newspapers are before him,w horn he knows
will report every word he
says, that these words should be
equal to if not of greater malignity than those which
are published by his other allies, and while the one
shall be found guilty of high treason and capitally exe-
cuted, that the other can only be:found guilty of sedition,
ge at large upon his bail, and probably be afterwards
tried only for misdemeanour? Does the Honourable
Member think that that is fair or equal justice?
Let the Hon. Member not say that we are preparing such
unconstitutional changes in the law when reducing the
Penalty of the one offence we raise the penalty with
respect to the other, considering them to be in paint of
offencesispositieu equally flagrant, and showing as great
country aa to
overthrow the Government and the
in tee „ne the e other. I readily admit that proof
you have '3, boolicsbn: ere difficult than in the other. If
consent of the authr:re you, and the proof that by the
been published, a • r the words therein contained have
were the words trY must at once admit that those
publish. With at the Write
r or author intended to
respect
there is not the same
1.., however, to words spoken,
I admit that the jury
must
of proof, and therefore
. woulil require fuller prootirequire, and I have no doubt
spoken, even if spoken's/4h with respect to words thus
to words printed or preparation, than with respect
which can be well eonsii(libliahed. These are matters
think that all that part of etred in Committee. While we
charict9r
of
the
offence
_he Bill which mitigates the
of high treason to felony, and