The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-18 00:00:00

DERBY.

Mr. EVANS moved that the Clerk of the Crown
be directed to issue a new writ for the election of two
burgesses for the borough of Derby, in the room of
the Hon. Edward Strutt and the Hon. Edward
Frederick Leveson Gower, whose election had been
determined to be void.
Mr. MACKINNON Jecunded the motion.
Mr. ELLICE opposed the motion. He said he
-was a member of the Yarmouth Election Committee,
before whom it was proved that great corrup.
tion had existed for years among the freemen ;
and the House, at the suggestion of the Committee,
passed with acclamation a Bill to disfranchise the
corrupt freemen of that borough. The House had,
therefore, affirmed the principle that a body who had
so acted did not deserve to be longer entrusted with
the elective franchise. He had taken the trouble to
look through the evidence adduced before the Derby
Committee, and he was quite prepared to say that the
corruption in the two cases was precisely parallel.
The evidence upon which the House claimed the
right of disfranchising the freemen of Yarmouth
was to be found in this instance, and the House would
be doing an act of injustice it it disfranchised them
and allowed the freemen of Derby to go free.
Sir J. HANMER said 'it was exceedingly diffi-
cult to oppose a motion for issuing a new writ for the
return of representatives for such a borough as Derby.
He supposed that in all England there were very few
towns which had greater or more essential claims to
be represented in that House than the borough of
Derby. It was an ancient borough, and possessed
all the rights that prescription could give to it.
It stood upon one of the great lines of communication,
and was a very industrious and populous town. It
stood in the immediate vicinity of a large manufac-
turing district, and altogether Derby had as good a
right to be represented in that House as anv
other town in the kingdom. But, independently
of these considerations, it was exceedingly diffi-
cult to oppose the issuing of a new writ
after what took place the other evening in reference
to Bewdley, and he certainly did not intend to oppose
the issuing of the writ on this occasion. Still, how-
ever, he could not suffer this motion to pass by with-
out calling the attention of the House to the present
state of the law in reference to these matters. If
the House persisted in issuing writs for these corrupt
places, and visiting all the sin upon the heads of the
gentlemen who should be _returned for them, and
none upon the heads of the electors, they never could
get rid of these abuses. This -borough had long
been represented by a gentleman who was
largely connected with it, and who was
highly respected •• by • Oil P44th _Pk Yet

although he had taken every means in his rower to
have the law of 1842 observed, what had teen the
result ? Why he was petitioned against and
the Committee appointee to try the merits of the
petition, discover that the grossest corrup-
tion prevailed amongst the freemen of the
borough. Now he did call upon honourable
gentlemen and the Noble Lord at the head of the
Govyrnment to turn their attention to this state of
things, and see if some remedy could not be provided
for the evils.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") No
doubt there were a good many Chartists, and he
had little doubt that these abuses would have
a strong tendency to augment that body. At
all events, seeing these corrupt freemen rolling
in the gutters in a beastly state of drunkenness,
must naturally create discontent amongst those poor
and industrious inhabitants of towns who were
not in the enjoyment of the franchise.—(Hear, hear.)
Ile did not rise now to oppose the issuing of the writ,
but to entreat the Government to turn their attention
to a subject which more than any other at the present
moment required the consideration of the Government.
He reserved to himself the right, after he had heard
the discussion that he had no doubt would take
place on the motion, of either voting for it or against it.
Mr. HUME opposed the issuing of the writ
at present. He had on a previous occasion sug-
gested that in all they, cases where bribery had been
proved to have taken place the writs should be sus-
pended till all the Election Committees had been
disposed of, and that then they should be referred
to a Committee appointed for the purpose of con-
sidering them.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that the
case of Derby was almost a parallel one with that of
Great Yarmouth, and he did not see why the same
course should not be pursued, as had been adopted
with respect to it. He should vote for the suspension
of the writ until cn inquiry l ad taken place.
The Earl of LINCOLN said that he should most
certainly vote with the Hon. Member for Montrose
in favour of the suspension of the writ. He thought
it a most unconstitutional proceeding to suspend the
issue of any writ unless the House had some definite
object in view.—(Hear, hear.) His reason for
voting for its suspension was, that he indulged the
hope and strong conviction that, as soon as the
case was brought under the notice of the Go-
vernment, the Noble Lord would take this
question in hand, and in some form or other
take care that justice shcu'd be done in the case,
as well as in those which the Noble Lord had already
taken up with so much spirit. He had read the evi-
dence given before the Committee in this case, and so
far as he could form an opinion on the subject, he
thought that, it would be most unjust for the House to
disfranchise the freemen of Great Yarmouth, and to take
no notice whatever of the long-continued mal-
practices of the borough of Derby. By some
means or other the proceedings of the House with
respect to the issue of new writs had the appearance
of partiality or inconsistency, but he did
not think that it was now too late for
the House to retrieve in some measure
its character, and hoped that scree means would be
devised to provide that when a special report was
presented to the House, on the corruption of any
iserough, measures would be adopted to provide
uniformity in its proceedings with respect to
such cases. Evident testimony had been borne to the
admirable manner in which the law relating to con-
troverted elections had operated in the inquiries before
the Committees. The decisions of those Committees
had been considered by some persons as some-
what too severe, but that was a fault cm the right
side, and if the House did not treat the reports
of such Committees with impartiality, great
evils would result.---(Hear, hear.) Mr. Strutt,
in his address to the electors of Derby, had stated
that he was entirely ignorant of the proceedings
which were pursued before the Committee, and he
did not think that it would at all tend to check
these corrupt practices if the House merely confined
its punishment to the unconscious Members, and
continued to reward those persons whose malprac-
tices had brought such result about.—(Cheers.) No
doubt the individuals who received the bribe were
now looking forward to a new harvest.—(Hear.)
There were four candidates, he understood, now in the
field, and he hoped that they would each of them fully
resolve to discourage a repetition of these practices.
He therefore most earnestly trusted that the Noble
Lord would take some further measure with respect
to the borough. He believed that the number of per-
sons bribed at the last election was not less than 400.
Mr. CHILDERS wished, as the chairman of the
Committee, to say a few words to the House. The
Committee reported that the evidence adduced before
it was not such as they could rely on, and Mr. Holmes,
whose evidence had been much commented on,
was a person upon whose testimony the Committee
entered with considerable suspicion, as it appeared he
was formerly agent to the Whig candidates, but at
the last election for the Tories. The Committee con-
sidered that the franchise should be taken from those
freemen who bad taken bribes. There were 500
freemen, 200 had been proved to have taken bribes ;
but 1,500 of the electors were entirely free from
any charge of the kind. The bribery was not direct,
but consisted in the payment of certain parties who had
votes for their services, and the practice having
grown upon them, had become almost proverbial.
The Committee thought it desirable to disfranchise
the freemen who had so acted, but they did not
consider that they could place implicit reliance
upon the evidence that was adduced before them.
He was not prepared (as we understood) under these
circumstances to oppose the issuing of the writ.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the House should
support its sessional orders. They should inflict
punishment where it was due, and thereby uphold
the respectability of the House. This was the first
session during which Committees of the House had
gained the credit of acting fairly with respect to re-
turns petitioned against. The general opinion enter-
tained,
out of doors was to the effect that they haddone
their duty. It was said that the recent Members for
Derby were ignorant of the practice that prevailed of
paying electors for whatever services they performed.
Why, the very fact of the existence of such an abuse
of the trust reposed in them showed that they were
no longer fit to be entrusted with it. If sufficient
information had not been obtained on the point
further inquiry ought to be made, arid if the electors
were as corrupt as they were stated to be, they ought
to be disfranchised. If the Government declined to do
so the House should take the matter up. In fact there
ought to be a public prosecutor appointed to deter-
mine whether cases of this nature should be prose-
cuted or not. That would be the most con-
stitutional mode of acting, and not at the
expense of the candidate, but of the public.
Whenever a prima facie case was made out to
show that further inquiry ought to be instituted
into these corrupt practices, it ought at once
to be gone into. Who was there that was not
acquainted with the venality of freemen of
boroughs ? In one borough that he was connected
with, he saw at the last election but one freeman
brought up to poll in a helpless state of intoxication,
and while these corrupt practices were allowed,
to prevail who could wonder at the discontent
manifested by the non-electors?—(Hear, hear.) He
should therefore vote for the non-issuing of the writ,
if Government were prepared to prosecute the case
further ; but if Government or some Honourable
Member were not, he did not think it would be right
upon his own judgment to vote for the suspension of
the writ.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said, with regard to the par-
ticular case, it seemed that the Committee came to
the resolution that only certain freemen had
been bribed, but there was sufficient evidence
adduced before them, which led to the impression
that an extensive system of bribery had prevailed
amongst the freemen of the borough, and they pro-
perly found that the two gentlemen who bad been re-
turned could not retain their seats.—(Hear.) Now,
with regard to this part of the decision of the Com-
mittee, he could not agree with the Noble Lord
opposite,
hawnresultsnanounjust
duu sdh bveaei
enotgwdtfohue amadi trnt suchadhekexeaedpc
tee r
sdslreeieuevptneooeert
of bribery
as
, tstosybremno:rfue s
because
cautious
these
eensseee
v vecrienyor emfomuhbtiivutgi
troheenleyss;
bwriibth whiceryahndComtrmeiattteg.s
in the present Parliament would inevitably make it
the interest of all parties in future to avoid these acts
of corruption, or they might lay themselves open to
being disfranchised. This feeling would naturally
nduce electors to take care that such a return
was made in their behalf as could not be set aside ;
and, therefore, the practice of visiting these acts
of bribery and corruption upon the Members
themselves was of great public importance.—(Hear.)
The Committee appear to have found in this case that
an extensive system of bribery had prevailed amongst
the freemen of Derby. He understood the Honour-
able Chairman of the Committee to state that
the bribery affected a considerable number of the 500
freemen of the borough, but only a few of 1,500
ten pound householders, and he really did think,
looking at this state of things, that it was right that
a further inquiry should be instituted into the case.—
(Hear, hear.) He did not, however, agree with
his Hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth
that the duty of instuting a further inquiry ought to
devolve upon the Government. In 1819, when he was
an independent Member of the House, he in-
stituted an inquiry with considerable advantage
into one or two cases of corruption, in reference to
tghe
the franchise, and if the Noble Lord opposite, or some
in
e rN
slesac,oyouemd: l d
other Hon. Member would apply his attention to this
case he should feel
o himselffsa thismjnu
f 3et wri
the
the
Rouse
t d b
du
ue to
dee?kVl
e ei mending
f•a that
hear.) the iAsstuin
hereafter become a
questionorriouhsewwritslenshgoulad bteimsuespen time,
ded, soursptehneseinond
of these N
of the session would creep upon them and they might
break up without those places where corruption had
beert.:o.oyed to., exist having any repretentative Atilt

ee
I heard the statements of the
Sir R. PEEL iev- head of the Government
Noble Lord at the as they agreed entirewith great satisfaction,. on the subject.
with his own views tto be issued until
thought the writ ought no, dace. lie •rejcieeu
further inquiry had taken 1. , an opportunity
greatly that there was now lencies that the.
afforded of teaching large constit, ishment would
same measure of justice and pun adopted with
be dealt out to them as had been r.) Many
respect to small ones.---(Hear hee that prac-
persons had run away with the notion boroughs
did
des tnhoatt had
partakeb ee been carriedof the n
on
character
anyteearrs
oi r
ft • sri bite
orYv;
and he thought that the time had .yes
arrived when they should be told that such pra';',._
would not be allowed in future.—(Hear, bear) jetrni:
practice that had existed was that t
by Act of Parliament to be bribery:,
se
this ca
head-money, a practice that had been degelliareecild.
according to the report of the Committee on
~:sea in
that practice had-been most extensively praeLl Ave
t
anythe boroughopinion ofas Detroby.
to be pursued he would not vote
.I°' he
Bill to disfranchise the borough at once,. but to
the necou
woe
would vote for the appointment of a cornrik hoed
go to Derby to inquire into the subject. .13issioe
the Government, if they thought that conlP!lict at
was required in the case of Sudbury, they vv°,_,T.
to
Mr. W. EVANS said that lie was the la
wrsoeuldthanot,„ h:
scerteie
once adopt the same course with respect to Dsteinreoli
object to inquiry, but as he could not.° . of
that there was any intention to opnese
the writ, or to institute any inquny, he consideredssue
writ be 1 fr.
it to be his duty to move that the the otPe-
Unless he felt asssured from one party in
that some steps would be taken to promote An', it his•
into the subject, he should most certainly feel •
duty to divide the House upon his motion. ,t the,
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that he believed
Orel/
large majority of the electors of Derby were en, frost
the issurb
free from the charge of bribery. He did not thie.l‘,4oo.
the report •f the Committee that more than elg_"4ioo
persons were implicated in the charge. The quheeitteir
then which the House had to decide was wiector6
the House would punish all the innocent e,
of the borough for the sake of punishing tne._:tute-i
guilty parties. He thought, therefore, that the v_ the
course for the House to adopt would be to allow
writ to issue in the usual manner. h
Mr. STANTON said that, althettg
number of electors proved to be guilty Of very
bery and reported to the House was
small, still it must be borne in mind thatt two
of the witnesses stated that there were at leasviritll.
hundred persons who had received bribes.
pod
respect to the other portion of the electors he ben lit:),
that it was a constituency of which any rod,
nourable Member might be justly ttratf
for the Learned Counsel of Mr. that
had been instructed by that gentleman to state
boa
the whole expenses attending his recent eleet.i:.)l6ll eset
not amounted to 5001.—(Hear, hear.) He "1.,,h05a
think that there was any Hon. Member tea
return had been contested whose expenses hadtea one
to so small a sum as that.
Mr. COLVILE thought that it well Iv
most unjust to deprive a large borough 01 a
Derby of its right to be represented Ineieet
House in consequence of the bad conduct e tee
persons, for it was only nine persons who We?
ported by the Committee to have been Fdr` had
Mr. MACKINNON explained the course be
adopted with respect to the issuing of the Writ th
Dr. BOWRING read a statement to shoW
two hundred of the electors were bribed.
h oda 14,-
Mr. A. STAFFORD suggested that as the Jo
the Government and of the Hon. Member for •eenet thy
were quite full, perhaps, as the Right Hon. Bart "d
Member for Tamworth had no party to lead,_,,,,taffiar6_,
otherwise quite unoccupied in respect to public
he would have no objection to take charge or i'"rtiett•
sure for purifying the borough of Derby,
larly as he had uttered such magnanimous sentielen
the subject of purity of election. f thosll'
Sir G. GREY agreed that it was the duty lees
more p, 0,,
who opposed the issue of the writ to charge theln,;;oo.
with the task of conducting some inquiry with a v"
bringing in some measure for purifying the borotte
Derby. The Government certainly could net be est,
itself with such a task. A commission might ;140-I"'
pointed to go into an inquiry on the spot with thss
He hoped that some Hon. Member would fed it 7.inf
his duty to come forward with a specific proPe'teiest
that purpose. In the meantime he would vote at
-`D4
the immediate issue of the writ, although he vial.,?"--4,
prepared to suspend it for an indefinite period. oil":
Mr. F. O'CONNOR did not think a case for tu,
chising Derby bad been made out. Os.
Lord INGESTRE said that all the writs now oe
pended ought to issue, subject to an inquiry ihr;str
.guilty practices of the voters, and then a Bill havt.l344
ex post facto effect ought to be passed, for disfraneo'',
all those freemen and voters who had taken bribes-
Mr. EVANS expressed his willingness to with
a"
his motion.
Mr. COLVILE claimed the right of dividing' the
House.
The gallery was then cleared, and the House dividEdf
when there appeared— •
For the issue of the writ 43
Against it 199
Majority
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.
On the gallery being opened,
jet
Secretary for Foreign Affairs:—Whether any cooeac,.
Mr. WILSON put the following questions to the
s
cation has been received from the Danish Governrain‘
on the subject of the entry of the Prussian troop
Holstein, and with the object of soliciting the inter
°
nd
ference of this country by mediation or otherwise; 'ta;.,
whether any information has been received by the „0.,
vernment of the expected blockade of the Elbe, aho-c®
the Germanic Confederation continue their interfereni„
between the King of Denmark and his subjects in 11.30,1
stein; and whether any steps have been taken, !thr,
what, by his Government, to secure an amicable se:ibi;
ment of the existing disputes between Schleswig-go,
tein and the Government in Copenhagen. The lute
Member said that the merchants trading wit° --the
burgh were in a state of apprehension 1"t the
mouth of the Elbe should be blockaded by ea
Danish naval forces, and there were very good relit&
for their fears, considering that Altona, Which oi3te
adjoined the free city of Hamburgh, was a Danish ogle
Clement. He had another question to put to thete-,,t 'to
Lord, of which he had not given previous notice, w-ho
which perhaps the Noble Lord would be able to gine
an answer. By letters received that morning "tlijet
peered that the Prussian troops had crossed the its,
into the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein, which did not the
longi to the Germanic Confederation and also thstme
in
and Brunswick troops had crossed the rate'
in order to join the Prussian forces and to co-013,%w
with them in suppressing the disputes between the 'Ye
sian and the Danish people. Id the Noble Lord
-e'
ceived any confirmation of those letters ? of
Lord
PALMERSTON said that the Governine°- eh,
her Majesty had received several communications fro tin.
Danish and Prussian Governments upon the sub,jetehoae
question, and he was in communication with bet",
powers, to whom her Majesty's Government had or
mated a desire that their good offices should re "the
ployed in bringing the difference existing betwe e.
Prussians and the Danes to a satisfactory and arnleWe
ecio•
e '
conclusion. It had been intimated to both those-An-fa'
vernments that if the good offices of Great Britsia_.cl.o
be of service in this respect, her Majesty's Mi'mThet
would gladly employ them, He was- in- hopes tre-
this offer would be accepted. Nothing could be 03 a
e
deplorable than to see the peace of Europe endaeb.:Lett
by a question of such a nature as that at issue bet"h"ia •
the Prussians and the Danes, and he entertained a -°0
that this danger might.be averted. With respect to fits ole'.
intimation having been received that the Danish ‘;tt
vernment would resort to naval operations, it Tvai.,sl:loo
probable, if hostilities did continue, thati the -1-','""th;
being strong at sea, would endeavour to eripPle.,.o..
Prussian commerce, but if, as he hoped, peace was 'Elbe,
tallied, the interruption to the commere of the 7.ee.
referred to by the Hon. Member, would not take P' The
He had not received any official information of
Prussian troops having crossed 'the frontiers of two
duchy of Schleswig in a. hostile manner, but it Wilid
certainly not improbable that such an occurrence °nu- st
have taken place in conformity to the information SP
had been received.
Y Fi!.
Mr. DISRAELI said, that by a former treatt
land bad guaranteed to the crown of Denmark the fiee-
grity of the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein as a part e' the
Danish kingdom. He wished to know whether -$0
Court of Denmark had called upon the Neble Lord
fulfil this guarantee? , diet
Lord PALMERSTON was understood to rellll, "had
the guarantee stipulated under the treaty of 1711"--,"
been called for on the part of the Danish Governmee'' of
must, however, be recollected that the interfereatieith
questionthe view
that
fact ohnaqduaersits,e
arisen
but
between
eoerndtehre
the Germanic Confederation had not been offered. vial
and the inhabitants of Schleswig-Holstein, •
PROJECTED PAUPER PROCESSION' goo.
Sir J. Y. BULLER begged to ask the Right"
sny
Baronet opposite whether he couldgive the Roue° f
information on the subject of a g si°ll P
ejected proces 00
100,000 paupers, to be headed byPr Mr.bran'
C. oc ,
Easter Monday?
tpoanseisthtleGaonveiriiuwo.rerti, s
ca e
petitioni ve a
andletter from
address Alr . r
Sir G. GREY said that three weeks ago he baehroe
to Ca C.
pberooedcsyhe
nr Cochrane, nf
te ;paehttaiettrii
office, accompanied by
that it was his intention to the "I'll' 13'
come down to a the
24th of April,•
in order to place it in his 11;06: nol
address
thereupon, informed Mr. C. Cochrane that rated
to
ress of the nature referred to might be Pr"-i,a
ohim in the usual course .by himself* attended joa
few persons, but that no such document, scoot:00°1'0e
by a large number of persons, would be receiVed• ba
bad also informed Mr.,C. Cochrane that it would, 13C) efo
"convenient for hini•to receive any deputation or adi.u.',44
during the Easter week. lie (Sir G. Grey). had' ~eslet!
letters from variOus Poor-law unions,' 'stating - tuitt. the
ongangert!itticcirlYin3":
ters addressed by Mr. C. Cochrane to persons u.beo-
name of Jones; and others of the name of Stettbsdiai
been received at the workhouses, in the hope that 'Toe
would find same one of these names In tbe world?..nas 'to
Those letters stated that the petition of.the prior our
be presented' by the writer •on Easter Monday, 6,7, re.
panied by 150,000 paupere, and he hoped- those 11'
ceived them would Make every n
e-deavourta accorrefor.
the_ procession. Bince that, ha had-rise:J*o' 11. Cl4ll-49Y
tion Oat it was MieCoebriemee -
ntetttteu- txeres 0
eree, -
e- ,
siteh`pioceeding-as the deputation 'tear

SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
Lord INGESTRE asked the Right lion. Barone'
°PPosite if he could
give any returns of the number el
special constables who were sworn in on the 10th in-
stant to protect the public peace.
Sir G. GREY said that the number of special con-
stables sworn in for the City was 23,000, but there had
be
en no lists made out in other parts of the metropolis,
and although they amount, d to many thousands, he
could not state the exact number.
appl edl• PEEL said that many thousands who bad
t—vp"ed to be sworn in, could not, owing to want of
illat the numbers of special constables were, as the
they Honourable Baronet had stated, very great; but as
could only be very imperfectly estimated, it would
toot be advisable to have any returns made out, as they
Would tend to mislead and not to inform.
‘l°rd INGESTRE said his motive was to obtain soma
idea el the expense attending the preparations made for
"daY, the 10th instant, in order to show those persons
Who mad
e so great a clamour about the taxes, what the
• Peese of such escapades was.
W ELS El EDUCATION.
W Mr. ITM E asked Sir G. GREY whether any steps
ca ere beino,
taken to remedy the deplorable state of igno-
f_nea
‘0 vvhich h the reports of the Commissioners had proved
,f3.sist in some parts of Wales?
Pir G. GREY said that the reports had been placed
nri ar.the care of the Committee of Education of the
tak:Y C.°uncil; the Government was very anxious to
A, some steps in the matter.
to„,ir• WILLIAMS asked if the Commissioners who
Sievidence and reported on the state of education in
rs,understood the Welsh language ?
Inalii `r
1;" G. GREY said they hd en assisted during the
y by a competent Welsh sc be
holar.
Ur lin CHARITABLE FUNDS.
be ' --ME asked if any Bill on this subject was to
,??Epeeted during the present session ?
Sir G. GREY said that the Lord Chancellor was in
charge of a Bill, which he would introduce in the other
. "B.e of Parliament.
THE QUADRANT.
In answer to a question from Sir D. L. EVANS,
..tk.:tu:tyl4.!oßporn said that his Learned Friend the
tittuject. General was charged with a Bill on the above

THE EASTER HOLIDAYS.
WoLu
l
cd
rd J. RUSSELL—I promised the other day that I
state, as early as I possibly could, what would pro-
thebe the time when I could propose to adjourn for
117 ,iister holidays. Any arrangement I may make
vw0 holidays. be subject to the passing of the Crowe and Go-
ernine,„ ,
Go-
this Tv Security Bill ; but, supposing that Bill to pass
to ii'-'sonctir, I should propose on Wednesday, with a view
Wit Members returning to the country on Thursday,
thetlle Saturday Idoauysefelslheowufeldg, adjourn from the Wednesday to
and then, on the Saturday that
.allouse should further adjourn until Monday, the Ist
elpY.—(Hear, hear.)
"WN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.
Th® report of this Bill was brought up.
On. the motion that it be received,
42-r- AGLIONBY moved the insertion of the follow-
lag
clauSe:4--" And be it enacted, that if any person
4- paatsoever, after the passing of this Act, shall within
'United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine,
ex:nut' 'devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most
acious Lady the Queen, her heirs or successors,
r9nl the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial
of this United Kingdom. or of any other of her Ma-
tsty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her
e
hajiteesdty, her heirs or successors, within any part of th
Kingdom, in order, by force or constraint, to
e° Kingdom, her or them to change her or their measures or
eb,,u,neili, or In Order to put any force or constraint upon,
o
~.oither,norder to intimidate or overawe both Houses or
Rouse of Parliament, or to move or stir any fo-
reigner or stranger with force to invade the United
l'lngdom, or any other her Majesty's dominions or
countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, her heirs,
or tUceessors, and such compassings, imaginings, inven-
' "chs, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall ex-
,Press, utter, or declare, by open and advised speaking,
eiery person so offending shall be guilty of misdemes.
sour, and shall be liable to be apprehended and to be
• 'Committed to prison, and to be there kept without bail or
kainprise until discharged by due course of law, and
being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion
Of the Court before which such person shall be so coa-
eted, to be imprisoned, with or without hard laboir,
for
Any term not exceeding two years.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the clause.
,j_tbe House 'agreed with his Honourable and Learned
;friend in making the offence recited misdemeanor, it
;rould be traversable, and thus defeat the end the Go.
,serntnent had in view, namely, prompt prevention and
„I'lluishment. Another objection he had was, that while,
,sll.der the law as it stood iat present, the power of im.
4401aMent was given without limit, and of fining to any
:1011114 his Honourable Friend proposed to limit im-
htscmixlent to two years and to abolish the power of
qint altogether.
a • of Mr. HUME would support the clause as a mitigation
• 7,11; most coercive law.
je,7;r. P. O'CONNOR did not see any value in the ob-
raiaed. by the Attorney-General. If a party
otversed at the end of one assize, be would only doom
lrCself to eight months' additional imprisonment pre-
°l4 to its successor.
, eel,essrs. Musizz and S. CRAWFORD severally expressed
p,i,r intention of supporting the clause.
House then divided, when there appeared—

For the clause
Against
Majority —67
Sir W. CLAY brought up the following amendment
arid clause :—ln clause 3, line 16, to omit, after the
Word " writing," the following words, "or by open
toadvised i..peaking," and to add the following clause
the Bill, in lieu of the words so omitted :—And be it
,erlacted, that if any person shall, at any time after the
Lasaing of this Act, have been held to bail for a misde-
-leanour in respect of seditious words or speaking, and
thiTa nee
be again charged with a second or subsequent
eo of a like kind, it shall be lawful for the justice or
oth
" Magistrate, before whom he shall be so charged, to
rsefuse to admit such person to bail on such second or
,l'Abgequent charge. The Hon. Baronet said he con-
s_kiered that his amendment would answer every neces-
-441'3'
Purpose, while it would prevent every vulgar
tious in sedition from being invested with an adventi-
imPortance.
rne'"lr G. GREY' said that the Hon. Baronet's amend-
of 'lt, if inserted at all should have come in before that
the
Hon. Member for Cockermouth. He must oppose
~,.111e as he oosed the other.
'r• BRIGHT approved of the Hon. Baronet's amend-
foernt,
it and if a division took place should certainly vote
in . He thought that Government would do better
tru
thi
land s Ing tte ood feeling of the pole of Eg-
n by o insishtingg on all the coercive provisions of
ein„ AGLIONBY feared that the only effect of the
-"se
gititil would be to inflict a more serious punishment on
eertain class of offences than was intended by the ori-
Bill,
whensome further eonversation the House divided,
74e0 there appeared 7-.
Fdr the clause
. Against it
Majority 44
The amendment conseded by the Attorney-General
on a previous, evening, to the effect that informations
must be sworn within six days after the commission of
the offence, and the magistrate's warrant issue within
ten days frOm that period, was then brought up.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that no one could swear no-
curately to words six days after they were spoken. He
would undertake to report a six hours' debate, even if it
were on t the budget, giving the regular order of
the speakers almost literally, but he could not do it
_-,on the expiration of six days.—(A laugh.) lie corn
,P;lained Of a law which did not stop a man at once
when doing wrong, but literally laid a trap for
`Barhim, so that he might convict himself. The Right Hon.
oneetight depend upon it that if this Bill passed
e t mire
purchase. of the Government was not worth ten days'
Me. AGLIONB
the Hon. Y obseived, that what had fallen from
Member for
.Nottingham had nothing to do
with tho'blause underl
opinion, this proviso n,(7'o
cussion.—(Heer, hear.) In his
proposed by Ministers, passing
over that part of it wl, related to the issuing of the
warrant, went to mitigate the severity of the Bill; but to
the extension of time frooffmensci: to sixteen days between
the commission of the
warrant he decidedly objected.
o warrant ought andto the issuing of the
issue immediately after the led
ithe information
oftthe greater would
on oath, because the greater thogdneF
to contradict the
hi) the difficulty in obtaining evidenaeye
report on which the information was fo
mitted that time should he given to transmit the lie
ad-
to the authorities, and for them to (tech].
Wh.titrheport
Prosecution should issue or not, but a day or two vivoeruld
,be sufficient for that purpose.
Mr. REYNOLDS also objected to the extension of
time. At present the law required the magistrate to
issue his warrant in all cases of felony instanter, but if
in prosecutions arising under this Bill he vvere:pernaitted
to withhold it for ten days after the information he
'alight become a partisan. He should move to shorten
the period in which the information should be lodged to
three days after the commission of the offence, and that
the warrant should issue forthwith.
4r. WALPOLE suggested the insertion of the word
"only' after the words " open and advised speaking,"
50 a$ to confine the delay to cases of spoken words.
The ATTORNRY-GENERAL was willing to adopt
;.°lvilA'gestion as to the word " only;" but with regard
.67_the proviso generally, contended that it was more
~?v 1;1:able to the subject than the Bill as it originally
urn", No one could desire that charges of this descrip-
" thtv..!g",ll originate with
,private prosecutors, and if
were` originate vvith Ale Government it vvas ne-
Cessary that they should liave• time -to codiat the law'

Noes .

Majority
Mr. BRIGHT asked if there would be any objection
to add a clause to the Bill, providing that the powers of
the Act should never be put in force, except at the in-
stance of the law officers of the Crown ? He should
move that words to that effect be added to the last clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was sorry
he could not concur in this amendment. The proviso
would have the effect of preventing private prosecutions;
but private persons could not be prevented from issuing
the warrant; and the consequence of that would be to
cast on the Government the responsibility of either car-
rying on or relinquishing private prosecutions.
Mr. FUME said, in the case of the Stage Coach Act,
the Government permitted the introduction of such a
clause as this, and if they consented to it in the case
of such a Bill as that, surely they could not refuse it in
such a case as the present.
Mr. MUNTZ said that where there was spite, as in
his own case, it was not the fear of costs that prevented
persons from prosecuting or persecuting.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the Government ought to
step in to prevent malicious and spiteful prosecutions.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that though there might be
good reasons for having a public prosecutor, he did not
think that it was desirable that in cases of high treason
they should have such an officer in opposition to the
ordinary custom. If they were to have a public prose-
cutor at all, he might be an officer
havingjurisdiction in
cases of every description.
Dr. BO WRING thought the utility of a public prose-
cutor would be greatest in cases of treason and
sedition.

Mr. WAKLEY said there was not a word of opposi-
tion to this proviso on the part of the zealous and
indefatigable supporters of the Government who sat
opposite.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped therefore they
would consent to introduce the clause, and not place all
these prosecutions in private hands.
Sir G. GREY said, practically the Government would
have these prosecutions in its own hands. The Hon.
Gentleman ought not to have made a contrary state-
ment.

Mr. BROTHERTON remembered a case where cer-
tain parties desired to prosecute a paper at Manchester.
They appealed to the Government, and the Government
refused to prosecute; but, nevertheless, the parties pro-
ceeded with the prosecution.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said if such a case oc-
curred whilst he was in office he should have no hesita-
tion in instantly entering a nolle prosequi.
Sir I). L. EVANS reminded the Right Hon. Gentle-
man that he was not always to be in office.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the proviso 49
Against it
Majority --121
Captain HARRIS then moved a clause, the object of
which was to empower the Government to disarm the
people of Ireland of pikes and similar hostile weapons.
The Hon. Member said if one-half of what was stated in
the public prints of that day was true the Government
were very culpable in allowing the House to adjourn for
Easter without taking measures to disarm the rebel po-
pulation in Ireland. The pike was not a defensive
weapon, and it ought to be declared an illegal one, which
was in fact the object of his clause.
Sir G. GREY said he must be excused adverting at
present to the state of Ireland, or to the information
published by that morning's papers, which was no doubt
in a great degree exaggerated. The object of the clause
was not consonant with the general scope and objects of
the Bill, and on that ground alone he hoped it would
be withdrawn.
Mr. I)ISRAELI thought his Hon. and Gallant Friend
(Captain Harris) was justified in bringing forward his
proposition; but after the expression of opinion which
had been made on the part of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, and the declaration that the subject engaged their
daily attention, he hoped his Hon. and Gallant Friend
would not press for a division, as it would be likely to
create a false impression upon the country.
Mr. HUME,. in an ironical tone, said he thought it
was a great pity that the Government did not listen
with favour to the only suggestion with respect to the
Bill which had been made by Hon. Members sitting on
the other (the Opposition) benches, especially as those
Hon. Members had supported the Government in all
the divisions which had occurred on the measure. He
thought the clause proposed would make an excellent
finale to the Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, notwithstanding the ironical
tone of the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), he
(Lord John Russell) did not hesitate to say in real ear-
nest that he was very thankful and exceedingly grateful
for the support he had received in this measure from
s.
taolfet
Hon. Members opposite.—(Hear, hear.) He knew no
the
state
beliefreason
hientigteLta(inueedatrh.)at the Government were pursu.,
Ing a course that was loudly called fur by the existing
would
u s thei d
he u
Captain HARRIS said, after what had been said, he
ipnetne nadnedd
ad to v
se
vde
smp
eo n
expunge th m said
odious wcolardis:ea:d to
bar.a
ki
,
from the third clause,
impression
Though nothing
s tu in d o
of the
had he a r
had lessened the im3
unconsti-
tutional character olt'
there
buthe he
would not trouble the
House with another division
Mr. I)ISRAELI was not s Prurissed atw ot
hu
el dironical
et
ohnies
opposition till the third reading
of the Hon. Member for Mounrt
E
ment, when he remembered the ecult:tar and novel posi-
the present mo-
then in which the Hon. Member
!,he last few days. The Hon, Member Nytts army; _ head I
ciplined mit. I
een placed within
's ntinieiouslint not very

ad he (Sir G. Grey) thought that that individual might j officers of the Crown as to whether the words spoken
roe safely left in the hands of the Police Commissioners. would justify a prosecution; fur this purpose, seeing
laugh.) that the short-hand writer's report would perhaps have
POST-OFFICE COMMUNICATION (DUBLIN). to be forwarded from a distant part of Ireland to Lou,
Mr. G. HAMILTON begged to ask the Chancellor of don, six clays was not too long. With regard to the
the Exchequer whether it was the intention of Govern- w there was nothing in the proviso to prevent the
Ineatt in consequence of the acceleration of railway con- magistrate issuing it immediately on the information
veyance between London and Dublin, to make any ar- being filed. By the common law the magistrate might
rangement for the transmission of letters for Dubin by withhold his warrant if he pleased.—(Hear, hear.) Yes,
any afternoon train, so as to afford persons in London he might go on examining witnesses until he should
Who receive letters from Dublin in the morning, the have satisfied himself that a case of felony was made
opportunity-
lg of answering them, and of the answers reach- out; but in prosecutions arising under this Bill he would
ing Dublin the_ following morning ; or of otherwise be compelled to issue his warrant within ten days, or the
acce
and Deratin Dublin?
the transmission of letter:, between London whole proceding would fall to the ground. This was
certainly in favour of the subject.—(Hear).
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who Mr. REYNOLDS thought the lion. and Learned
very imperfectly
vers
the heard in tie gallery, stated that Gentleman had given a satisfactory reason for the
,sub-
question put by the Hon. Member had been under stitution of the six days for the three, but not why the
the consideration of the Post-office authorities, but the magistrate should have the information lying ten days at
`erms of the railway company for conveying an extra his office without giving notice to the defendant. He
mail train were so exorbitant as to be quite out of their would propose to substitute "two" days for " ten."
Dwer to accept. He hoped that when the Chester and Mr. HUME also considered that as soon as the ni.agis-
l°lYhead line was finished, some terms might he come trate was satisfied that the offence had been committed,
to with that company, if not with the North-Western the warrant should issue.
kdoinpany. Mr. HENLEY was of a different opinion, and con-
tended that the proviso, as it stood, was in favour of the
subject. The magistrate ought to have the opportunity
of considering whether the matter charged amounted to
a felony or not, and if within ten days he was not satis-
fied that it did, it would be at an end; if, on the other
hand, he should be of opinion that the offence had been
committed, he might issue his warrant immediately.
Mr. BRIGHT complained that the proviso as drawn
was contrary to the understanding the House had come
to on Friday last. He thought it was but just to the
party offending, that as it now was determined to make
his words the grounds of a prosecution, he should have
notice, and not be left in ignorance to repeat the offence.
Mr. WAKLEY understood the object of all parties
the other night was to secure to the accused party the
earliest information of what he was accused of. This
would not be done if a delay of sixteen days were per-
mitted between the commission of the offence and the
issuing of the warrant. He should move to substitute
the word " forthwith" for the ten days.
Mr. AMORE was also of opinion that the warrant
should issue forthwith on the filing of the information.
He could conceive that the delay might subject the ac-
cused to treachery. It was also essential for the
interests of those who might be deluded by seditious
speeches into treasonable acts, that the earliest intima-
tion of the intention of Government to prosecute should
be given.
Mr. MUNTZ objected to men being kept ignorant of
the charge made against them, and thought the warrant
should issue immediately. This was the more important
as the Attorney-General had, on a former occasion, said
that his object was to keep men in ignorance of any
charge being made against them, in order that crime
upon crime might accumulate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had made no such
statement. What he had said was, that though the
words uttered on one occasion might not be evidence of
a felonious intention, yet those, words coupled with
other words used on other occasions might be sufficient
to justify a prosecution.
Mr. DRUMMOND and an Hol-t. MEMBER whose name
we did not ascertain opposed the amendment.
Mr. COCKBURN observed that, under the law as it
stood when a case of felony was made out before a
magistrate he had no option but to commit. The offences
contemplated by this Bill were political offences against
the Government; and it was proper that the power of
instituting prosecution for such offences should rest
with the Government, and not be left to private indi-
viduals. As he understood this proviso, the magistrate
was not to commit unless Government first decided on
prosecuting.—(Hear, hear.) In that case this clause
was a salutary protection, and, so far from infringing
the liberty of the subject, it was a safeguard and a
protection.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his Hon. and
Learned Friend was correct as to the intention of the
clause. It was most desirable that the magistrate should
have the power, by not being compelled to issue his
warrant immediately, of considering whether a case
was made out against the accused, and if this was not
done within ten days the matter would drop.
Mr. MARTIN thought some means should be taken
for informing parties against whom proceedings were
contemplated that they were watched, and their speeches
taken down.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thoughi it necessary
that a power should be given to the magistrate to inter-
fere in cases of emergency, though no prosecution would
issue until the Government had been consulted. It
should be remembered that the words did not constitute
the offence, but were merely evidence of it. The offence
was the design to overthrow the Government, and
though the words of one speech might not prove such
design, coupled with the words of subsequent speeches,
they might. In this respect the magistrate should have
some discretion whether the guilt charged had been
incurred or not. To inform the suspected party that
his proceedings were watched would afford no protection
to the innocent, while it would enable the guilty to
escape.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said one objection had been
raised, which appeared to him not to 'have been answered,
namely, that warrants might be issued sixteen days after
the words were spoken. Surely the number of days
ought to be reduced.
The House divided, when there appeared—
Ayes 142
30