The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-08 00:00:00

GOVERNMENT PROCLAMATION.

Mr. BRIGHT said—l wish, Sir, to put a question te
the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home
Department with respect to the proclamation touching a
meeting to be held on Monday next, at Kennington-
common.—(Cries of "Oh, oh.") I wish to know
whether the notice is meant to refer to both the meeting
and the procession, or only to the procession; and
I ask it because some ♦ery intelligent persons
whom I have conversed with have differed in opinion
upon that subject, and the newspapers do not agree in
the interpretation they put upon it, and I am afraid
that some difficulty may arise upon the subject.
It is a very different thing to attend a public
meeting, for the purpose of petitioning this House,
and to meet in large numbers to pass through the
streets. Ther• may be some sort of a collision if this
subject is not clearly understood, which every Hon.
Member in the House would, I am sure, deeply deplore.

Sir G. GREY—The Government, Sir, have endea-
voured, in the notice which they have publicly issued,
to state what the common law and statute law of this
country was with respect to assemblages, for whatever
purpose, attended with circumstances calculated to strike
terror and alarm into the minds of her Majesty's loyal
and peaceabls subjects, and they also pointed out what
under particular circumstances, the state of the law was,,
as applicable to tumultuous assemblages, for the purpose
of accompanying petitions for presentation to either
Houses of Parliament, by excessive numbers of people
The Hon. Member now asks me if I understand him
rightly, if a meeting convened to assemble
on Kennington-common, separately and in-
dependent of the proposed procession, would be
legal or not. In answer to that I would state that the
legality or illegality of the meeting would depend en-
tirely upon the circumstances under which that as-
sembly may be brought together.—(Hear, hear.) Any
meeting held for a purpose, accompanied with circum
stances such as I have before alluded to, calcu-
lated to inspire terror and alarm—just terror
and alarm in the minds of her Majesty's loyal and
peaceable subjects—l apprehend to be against the com-
mon law of the country. If a meeting is held, convened
to be held, for the express purpose of forming, at the
time of such meeting, a procession for the
purpose of proceeding, contrary to the sta-
tute law, to either Houses of Parliament,
to accompany the presentation of a petition in excessive
numbers, then such meeting identified with, and forming
part of the procession, will come within the provisions of
the statute law of the country.--(Hear, hear.) The
question, therefore, of the legality or the illegality of any
meeting must depend upon the circumstances of the case.
I cannot, therefore, answer distinctly if any meeting
called for a particular purpose, whether such a meeting
would or would not come within the provisions of the
Act. The House will allow me to state what I believe it
is desirable for the House to know, via., the dictum
of Lord Mansfieid with respect to the law
as applicable to this subject. In his
summing up to the jury, he says, " a doubt has
been thrown out from the bar as to whether
it is lawful to attend the presentation of a pe-
tition to Parliament by more than ten persons."
I will now proceed to read to the House a report of the
trial of the bishops in 1688, and this report would put
Honourable Gentlemen in possession of what really was
the law of the Constitution upon this subject. Judge
Power, in this report, is represented to have stated that
the people had the right to assemble in multitudes for
the petitioning Parliament or the Sovereign, but it was
decidedly illegal for tumultuous assemblies to
accompanying these petitions for presentation.—(Hear,
hear.) I contend, therefore, that the course which her
Majesty's Government has taken in this matter is strictly
constitutional, They have no wish to prevent the people
from exercising their just right of meeting to petition,
but they are bound to interfere when it is proposed to
meet for the purpose of infringing the law.—(Hear.)
In answer to a question from Lord GROSVENOR,
Sir GEORGE GREY said the only notice he had
received of the meeting he collected from the published
announcement of the Chartist body themselves, and
signed by an individual who represented himself to be
the secretary. It was announced in that notice, that
the object of the parties who issued it was for the purpose
of assembling the people to the number, it was said, of
300,000, but with regard to that he expressed no opinion
—(Cheers)—in order to make a great demonstration
of physical force in favour of a particular question, and
to accompany a certain petition to the door of the Mouse.
Mr. O'CONNOR—WiII the Right Hon. Baronet allow
me to ask him whether he has received a deputation to-
day from the parties who issued the notice on the subject?
Sir G. GREY said three individuals, who represented
themselves to be members of the National Convention,
attended at the Home-office to-day, and saw the Under-
Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the
presence of the Attorney-General; but he, himself, was
not able to be present. He had, however, received
a letter from these three persons, which, with the
permission of the House, he would read.—(Hear, hear.)
The letter was dated—" Home-office, half-past two
o'clock P.M.—Sir: We, the undersigned delegates ap-
pointed by the Natianal Convention, beg to inform you
that the National Convention never had any design of
calling an armed assemblage together for the purpose of
forming an armed procession, and we can assure you
that the National Convention is most anxious for the
preservation of the public peace and the protection of pri-
vate property. We, therefore, avail ourselves
will take place
lvesofthisoppor-
tunity of informing you that the procession
on Monday next, and in the event of any disturbance
taking place, be assured it will not be caused by those
who join in the procession. We are, &c., G. W. M.
Reynolds, E. Clarke, and J. Wilkinson."—(Oh, oh.)
Sir R. H. INGLlS—lsvist
,h_nder Secretary, Hon.
toe ask Rightthe
Bart. whether, through hislieconde-
scended to receive three individuals as the repre-
sentatives of a National Convention sitting in London?—
(Cries of" Oh, oh!") Sir, the House may cry "Oh, oh!"
but I respectfully insist that I have a right to ask the
question. Does the Right Hon. Baronet not recognise
the existence of a National Convention sitting in
London by condescending to receive a letter from
three of its representatives?
Sir GEORGE GREY—The answer I have to give
the Hon. Baronet is, that the three gentlemen who at-
tended the Home office to-day were not reccgnised
as delegates of the National Convention.—(Cheers.)
It
was distinctly stated to them that they were not re-
ceived as delegates of the National Convention, but as
ethoanitincgharfarocrateronly a
meeting held at a certain house, and in
they were received.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WAKLEY wished to put a question to the Right
Honourable Baronet in connexion with this subject.
During the last month it had been publicly stated
that this meeting would take place, and that there
would probably be 300,000
re
Gentleman might cry " Oh, oh," present.—(Oh
he d
there were 300,000 People in this coil' nvtey,
and 300,000 who felt that
krenporwesehnotwedit inw as,thaift (Cheers.) $e
gewawleartnehtaetdnthotoet
they were
people did not receive information from the Government
on the subject before?—(Cheers.)
Sir G. GREY replied simply because he as Secretary
of State did not receive the information referred to by
the Hon. Member.—(Cheers.) It was true it was
.
stated some time ago that a great meeting would
take place in the metropolis about the 1 lth of
April, but the first official notice he received of it was
the issuing of the announcement to which he had
already alluded.—(Hear, hear.)
After much confusion, and loud cries of " Order,
order," " Chair, chair,"

The SPEAKER said, if the Hon. Gentleman rose to
put another question
subjecthe hwasew
IT quiteo u t inof
norrddeerr,._b(uuar
but
eifh.e
rose to
wdeAbaKter they
x)
Mr.
, that this House do
now adjourn—(Laughter)—in
—Then I move
order that there may be
the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
a question before
Hon. Gentleman saide Grnthoaytehemheandt poabsestetsesrekd.nowtilee could
euolna
state positively,
this subject than th
that he attended no meeting whatever
munication with those
in relation
who called themselves the
Convention relation to it. He derived his
w,
on the subject of the petition, and he had no direct corn-
National
Member of that House. He
on• the property of an -
information, and he could not
had no other source of
information on the subject from a newspaper
ff paper which was
,
help thinking that the people had been unjustly treated
in being allured—
Lord INGESTRE—I rise to order.
Mr. WAKLEY—In being allured into the supposition
that their meeting would not be interfered with, by
reason of the Government not giving any
he meeting on earlier
kan-
nouncement that they would suppress the
acecunt of its illegality, although such meeting had been
announced for some weeks. He regretted such conduct,
because it was likely to be attended with great public
calamity.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR seconded the motion. The per-
sons who were concerned in getting up this demonstra-
tion had no right to suppose that their meeting and pro-
cession would be interfered with, because in 1843, when
the Right Hon. Baronet was in office, a procession of a
similar nature, for similar objects, and announced in the
same language, had taken place. At the time of the
Reform Bill from 100,000 to 150,000
resentd i ta-
cession before the Home-office. . Inpersona filed in pro-
-1833 a petition, p
accompanied by 100,000 persons,
was
your of the Dorchester labourers; and a short time since
since
they saw the_ procession_ of sailors. The natural conclu-
sion to be drawn from these precedents was that the

Chartists would not be prever ted, and it was taking them
by surprise to prevent them now at the eleventh hour.
It was not their intention to come to the door of the
House of Commons, but to pass over Westminster-bridge.
All the influence that he could exert would be employed
to preserve the peace. He solemnly declared his con-
viction that if the people had been told in time that
the meeting would be suppressed they would not assem-
ble, but now it was too late, and many of them could
not be prevented coming. He recollected the time when
those who were now in office declared that taxation
without representation was tyranny, and ought to be
resisted; and it was hard that the schoolmasters should
now coerce and flog their pupils for learning too well
the instruction which they themselves had given.—
(Hear, hear.) He would not shrink from the responsi-
bility thrown upon him. He was not the man to sneak
oat of his determination. It was his intention to attend
the meeting—to come down to Westminster with the
procession. It was not for the Noble Lord and the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member 'for Harwich (Sir
J. C. Hobhouse), from whom they had learned his lcs
son, to come down at the eleventh hour, when every
preparation was made for this meeting, and say that
they intended to suppress it. He believed in his soul
and conscience that those who were to take part in that
meeting had no more notion of disturbing the public
peace than he had—(Laughter)—and he had no notion
of disturbing it.—(Hear, hear.) He had been told by
the lion. Alderman below him that he would be the
first to be shot on Monday if ho came to the procession.
Flowerer that might be, he should hold it his duty to be
with the people, and to take the lion's share of the
danger.—(Elear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had
no right to presume that those who got up this demon-
stration—and he was not one of them—did so with a
view of committing an infraction of the peace.—(oh, oh.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Honourable Gentle-
man had truly said that precedent had a great deal to do
with the present question. But what had taken place in
1843, when he was Secretary for the Home Department,
differed in two points from the present case. In the first
place, the petition of 1843 did not emanate from a meet-
ing publicly convened in the neighbourhood of the me-
tropolis, and under the circumstances which the Right
Honourable Gentleman opposite said would attend the
meeting to be held on Monday next. The petition of
1843 was brought from a private house, and not from a
public meeting.
Mr. O'CONNOR—It was brought from Lincoln's Inn-
fields.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was speaking from recol-
lection; but besides, there was no notice previously given
that a procession would come to this House from the
place where the meeting was held. If that procession
was attended with circumstances like the present he cer-
tainly should have failed in his duty—being responsible
for the peace of the metropolis—if he had consented to
allow a meeting to be held such as that of which notice
was given for Monday, and which the Right Honourable
Gentleman declared to be illegal in its character. He
did not think such a meeting ought to be countenanced.
Mr. HORSMAN thought the House would act in an
unjust and ungenerous manner if they did not give
every assistance to those who were responsible for the
peace of the country on the present occasion. They
should form their opinion of the propriety of the meet-
ing from its character and not from the objects to be
discussed or the numbers who attended it. It could not
be doubted that great apprehensions were entertained
from this meeting, and for the sake of those who enter-
tained those apprehensions, and for the preservation of
the public peace, he was prepared to place implicit con-
fidence in the Government.—(Hear.)
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said he was glad that
he had given way to the Honourable Gentleman who
had just spoken, because he believed his sentiments were
those of every Member of that House.—(Hear, hear, and
No, no.) He was not the person who said that if the
Honourable Member for Nottingham appeared in the
procession certain consequences would follow.—(Laugh-
ter.) But he was surprised that the Hon. Gentleman
,hould say that he had no part in getting up the pro-
cession which was to take place on Monday next.
He begged to ask the Hon. Member for Nottingham,
whether he had not attended a meeting in a certain
coffee-house in Cripplegate, and whether he had not made
use of the following language there ?—(Eiear, hear, and
cries of " Read, read.") The Hon. Gentleman hero read
a report of a speech alleged to have been delivered by
the Hon. Member for Nottingham, in which he said that
there was no use in petitioning the House of Commons
any longer; that they must do what America had done,
shake off the yoke. It was better to die by the sword
than live in slavery. The people of Ireland would not
be satisfied with repeal, but would have a republic. He
implored of them to remember the 10th of April, and
spoke of it as a glorious day. His moral force would put
down physical force. They must do away with all titles
as they did in France, and put down royalty, as too ex-
pensive to the country. That was the report of the
lion. Gentleman's speech, which had been put into his
hands by a respectable solicitor, and it formed a great
contrast to the language which the Hon. Gentleman used
in that House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNOR declared solemnly that the report
which the House had just heard was not what he had
said. He never was a Republican. And he wrote
article after article against that form of government.
So help him God he never mentioned a word about doing
away with titles. He had before declared in that House
that he was not for a repeal of the union, but for separa-
ti,.n. He did not think he said a word about France. He
would produce witnesses to show that he had not used
the language imputed to him, and he could not have
lone so because the sentiments it contained were not his.
It' such opinions as those referred to by the Hon. Mem-
ber had been entertained by him, he should not have
hesitated to avow them in that place, but the fact was
there was not one scintilla of truth in the statement,
that he had made the speech which had been read to the
House.

Mr. 111..7ME said that it was of the utmost import-
ance for the House not to allow its attentio❑ to be di-
verted towards what took place at meetings held out of
loors, for they were all aware how liable such proceed-
trigs were to misrepresentation, and how often they had
been distorted to suit particular purposes when occasion
required. The Hon. Member for Westmoreland, before
he made such a statement as that which he had just
done, should have obtained a report of the speech attri-
buted to the Hon. Member for Nottingham from a short-
hand writer. He did not deny that speeches had been
delivered at public meetings calculated to create great
anxiety, and urging the people to commit acts of vio-
lence; but such reports as that of the Honourable
Alderman ought to be received with great caution.
They were all aware of the frequent resorts which had
been had to spies by the Government authorities, who
were as capable now as they had proved themselves for-
merly to be, of poisoning the minds of the people and of
leading them astray. He recollected having himself
arrested a spy who had gone to create disaffection in
the manufacturing districts, and who carried with him
for that purpose a number of seditious bills, with the
view of placarding them about those towns. The Hon.
Member for Lambeth went with him in order to seize
this man ; but Lord Sidmouth dismissed him, instead of
ordering him to be detained and called to account for
his conduct. He was only the third spy he had been
accessory to taking. —(A laugh.) He regretted to see
the House treatirg the subject with hilarity. That
showed they were ignorant of what was going on in the
country. There had been a time when the Ministers of
the Crown had not hesitated to employ spies, who first
seduced the people into acts of violence, and then be-
trayed their dupes to the gallows. The employment of
those spies, and the printing of the placards which they
carried about with them, were distinctly traced to the Go-
vernment. When they saw men out of work and starv-
ing in the streets, could it be otherwise than abhorrent to
know that the Government spies were poisoning their
winds and inciting them to commit acts of violence?—
(Oh.) Ile was speaking of what had formerly taken
place, not of the conduct of the present Ministers. If
he had not confidence in them he would not sit where
he did; he would move to the other side, for he should
not think it safe to be so near them if he thought they
did not despise such conduct. If so great a falsehood
had been put off upon the Hon. Alderman as that which
be had read for the speech of the Hon. Member for
Nottingham, there ought, for the satisfaction of the
►louse and the country, to be some examination in-
stituted into the circumstances. -At all events Members
ought to be more guarded in receiving and repeating
such statements. The Government ought in particular
to be very reserved in acting upon any information save
that which they procured upon affidavit.
Sir D. L. EVANS had never yet been found on the
side of those who would restrict the public meetings of
the people, but he was bound to say on the part of his
constituents, the inhabitants of Westminster, that there
were circumstances which rendered the contemplated
procession of Monday a peculiar case. For 18 years he
had countenanced many public processions and meetings,
but there were some peculiarities which deserved mention,
namely, that it was only a short time ago that two meet-
ings had been held, both of a most contemptible charac-
ter, and particularly so as compared with the proposed
meeting, but still it was his duty to state that, notwith-
standing that contempt, those meetings had created con-
siderable alarm.—(Hear, hear.) He could assure the
House that not only had there been great alarm created
at those comparatively small meetings, but also that
numbers of his constituents had suffered materially in
their business.—(Bear, hear.) Therefore, he conceived
it to be his duty to entreat the Government to have some
regard for his own immediate constituents, and if the
Hon. Member for Nottingham persisted in his present
determination, he begged to inform him that it was very
much to be wished he would direct his columns else-
where than into Westminster. For even if there were
no disturbance, there would be a great interruption to
business, occasioning farther loss to tradesmen, who
were not able to sustain their present adverse circum-
stances. lie concurred with the Hon. Member for
Cockermouth, that the circumstances of the times, both
domestic and foreign, were unprecedented, and that the
hour was come when every man—every honest man—
(Cheers)—every man not destitute of courage and sin-
cerity, and more especially every liberal man, was bound
to declare what side he was prepared to take. In that
spirit he was prepared to state that he gave his willing
assent to the measures adopted by the Government.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the Hon. Member for
Nottingham had just declared that he had never joined
a society for repeal, but had been a member of an
association for effecting a separation between Ireland
haldlefobremggeerdlytboeaesnk
ethnerollileodn.
asM eamrbeepreahloewr,
aaiatlnnowddn
aaeEsc-'
the society as such, and in that capacity
nte bymp
ltahtee
(111
joni.nMi
negmtbheer,
parnod-
;teghplaaHttenh'edle.lbiyoped that those of his unhappy country-
from his decla-
rationcession on Monday, would take warning .
particularly i cl'u'ill aor lhad
thosebeen wholed awayco
kins-
men in Ireland had done, namely, n
to do with the Hon. Member.—(Cheers.)
of that night, and determine toot atocthaasvothaeni;thing
Mr. F. O'CONNOR rose to correct a mistake com-
mitted by the Hon. Member opposite. He never did
enrol himself as a member of li Repeal Association. lie

became a member of a society of which the late Mr.
D. O'Connell was a prominent member, and the only
engagement he entered into was that he would imme-
diately provide himself with a musket and a knapsack.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would abstain from all allu-
sion to the Honourable Member for Nottingham's
speeches and proceedings out of that House, and would
confine what he had to say to those observations which
the Hon. Member had uttered in his place there. He
now informed the House that it was not the intention of
the procession to come in a body to the doors of the
House. But the Government and the House would
find, on referring to the printed declaration, that such
an intention was therein announced, and that printed
document was signed by three of the Chartist leaders.
Nevertheless, the Hon. Member now asserted that such
a proceeding was not intended. What then would have
been the effect, if, as the Hon. Member for Finebury had
urged, the Government had taken steps to prevent the
procession some weeks ago? Would it not have been
immediately said that the Ministers had acted prema
surely, for they bad nothing to go upon, and the Hon.
Member's present declaration would be referred to es a
proof that there was no intention to approach the House
of Commons in vast numbers? With respect to the cha-
racter of the intended procession, he must firstobserve that
every case of that kind depended on itself alone. lie
was ready to admit that there were occasions when it
was not necessary to resort to the strict letter of the law
in regard to public meetings and processions. But there
were times when such proceedings produced a most dis
quieting effect, and the only question for the House and
the Government to consider was, whether the present
case should be referred to the former or the latter cate-
gory. Why, the Hon. Member himself must be aware
of the guilty hopes and designs which had been raised
and created by the occasion of the intended meeting.
The Honourable Member had told the House that he
had been reprobated at the meetings which he attended
elsewhere--reprobated for what ?—for improper con-
eber would permit him
con-
duct. For expressing his attachment to royalty and
institutions.—(Hear,pitesrhapsthcino
ourabie hear.)Mm After such avowals,
(Lord John Russell) to offer him some friendly ad-
vice.—(Hear.) He had told the House that he saw
no reason why the procession projected for Monday
should not be allowed to take place in the same manner
that former processions had been permitted to have
effect. The Government, however, looking at the cir-
cumstances of the times and the occasion, had consulted
the Crown lawyers, having also regard to the declara-
tions uttered and printed by the parties promoting the
procession and meeting. They then thought it their
duty to inform all persons that the meeting was illegal,
and to warn them against attending the procession. Had
there not, he asked, been a sufficient warning given?
Were not three days a sufficient period of time for the
persons promoting the meeting to reconsider and alter
their decision? Those persons might have thought that
the proposed meeting was not illegal—that there were
precedents for it, and that it would be permitted. They
now knew that the Government had declared it to be
illegal, and that it had excited a great deal of terror and
alarm in the minds of peaceable persons. Was it not the
duty of the Hon. Member for Nottingham, as he did not
share the sentiments of those persons who called for a
republic, to dissuade the promoters of the meeting from
holding it? Was it not his duty to show them im
example by publicly avowing his determination nut
to join it? Could he not state to them with truth
that their petition would be respectfully received, arid
that every opportunity would be afforded for a fair dis-
cussion of what was styled the People's Charter? Let it
be hoped that the Hon. Member would not carry out the
determination which he had expressed, but that he
would advise those who looked up to him as their guide
not to persevere in their projected attempt to overawe
the deliberations of the Parliament by an illegal assem-
blage and procession.—(Hear.)
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL merely rose to say that the
Hon. Member's statement respecting a musket and a
knapsack was wholly without foundation. The society
to which he referred was put down by an Act of Parlia-
ment passed in 1831. It was formed upon principles
distinctly opposed to the separation of Ireland from
England, and its views were peaceable, and not those
which a musket and knapsack would suggest. But
perhaps what he said was quite unnecessary, as the
House was probably already aware that the Hon. Mem-
ber's statements were often compounded more from his
imagination than from facts.
Sir R. PEEL said, that if he rose on the present oc-
casion to say a word, his doing so was caused by the
Hon. Member for Nottingham having mixed up his
name in the discussion, by stating that the conduct of
the Government, in 1843, offered a precedent which
ought to be the guide of the Government on the present
occasion. He recollected no act of the Government of
1843 which ought to fetter the discretion of her Ma-
jesty's Ministers. He knew it had been said that there
were occasions in former years when processions of the
people were allowed to approach the House of Commons;
but that was only by indulgence of the Executive
Government. The Spitalfields wearers had been per-
mitted to follow that course. But under the present
circumstances the numbers which it was expected
would constitute the projected procession were too great
to be permitted to take that proceeding. Ho thought
the Government had acted prudently in not having
interfered sooner. He thought it would have been
said, as the Noble Lord had intimated, that there was
no intention to violate the law. The present was the
time when the Government might properly express its
intentions ; and, with reference to the precedent said to
have been established in 1843, he must say that, consi-
dering the circumstances of the times, as well foreign as
domestic, and taking also into regard the state of the
public mind at present, if 100,000 people were permitted
to parade the streets, it was impossible to foresee the
consequences. and, in his opinion, the Government had
acted rightly in taking the course they had done. For
it must be remembered that considerations of humanity
alone ought to have prompted them to impose the
restrictions on the people which they had done, and if
they had not taken those precautions those who now
denounced them for having done so would be the very
first vehemently to impeach them ; and, in that case,
he admitted with much more reason than they now bad
done.--(Hear.)
The SPEAKER—Does the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury intend to persevere in ,his motion that this House
do now adjourn ?
Mr. WAKLEY said that he would, with permission,
withdraw it. He must, however, remind the Hon. Mem-
ber for Westminster (one of whose constituents he was)
that he had not forgotten, and he hoped the people would
not forget, the declaration made by that lion. Member
in 1831, that if the Reform Bill was thrown out, he was
ready to pot himself at the head of 100,000 men, and
march down to that House to compel them to pass it.
Sir D. L. EVANS was quite ready to enter, at a pro-
per time, into an explanation of the difference between
the two cases.
The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn.
TREASON AND SEDITION BILL.
Sir G. GREY deeply regretted that the spirit of sedi-
tion which was displayed amongst certain classes, and
the language tending to excite an insurrection for the
purpose of subverting the institutions of the empire, had
rendered it necessary for the Government to come forward
and ask the House to consent to an alteration of the
law, in order to enable them to meet the circumstances of
the times. Nothing was further from the intention of
Ministers than to ask Parliament to place any restriction
Englishman, Scotchman, and
on the deliberation out of doors which attended political
events. Still less was it their desire to restrict the
liberty
with
apostsoetshde expressions of their opinion on the state
House serdawbyup every
petitions and to approach the
shsmn
e
of public affairs. That right constituted the great basis
of the constitution, and to its exercise were due the
liberties of the people, and their power of resisting their
invasion by the Crown, and to that right also was mainly
happy position of England amidst the
of the thrones of Europe. There
wof the people of England a deep-seated
eau
xtntiirsviteberudstaaolbn,l,etvhe
etrhtphearrot
conviction that the peaceful enjoyment of liberty which was
observed amongst them was the result of the constitution.
But there were limits event° those rights; and when those
boundaries were transgressed, and when, under pretence
of discussing political questions,treason was spoken,was it
to be said that Government was to be deprived of the power
of meeting those occasions? He would not enter into
a detail of the proofs which he had to offer of the trea-
sonable language' which had been uttered at public
Hon. Baronet
meetings. The daily newspapers offered too many
examples of that language. The Right
opposite
had referred to the events which had taken
place in foreign countries ; and, although he was ready
to admit that those occurrences had not produced any
ill effect in the minds of the mass of well-informed people,
still they had had a very considerable influence over the
actions of a great number of persons, and ho was
induced in consequence to propose the measure which he
was about to submit to the House. During the last
three weeks the language that had been held at cer-
tain public meetings in Ireland was incompatible with
the security of the peaceful inhabitants of that king-
dom, and their enjoyment of those institutions under
which more freedom was guaranteed to them than was
possessed by any other nation in Europe • The Govern-
ment had been reproached for not baying taken steps
sooner to repress those treasonable speeches
which, he regretted to say, had been too willingly
listened to by those who heard them. The Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland had directed his attention to them.
At first he treated them as mere ravings, but finding
that they had produced dangerous effects, and that they
had stimulated disaffected persons to avow their designs,
and to endeavour to combine with foreigners to render
the present institutions of Ireland insecure, the Lord-
Lieutenant felt that it became his duty to take some steps
to check those proceedings—to put a stop to the sedi-
tious speeches and writings of those who promoted them,
and thus to obviate the evil effects which they produced.
For that purpose
prosecutions were instituted fur sedi-
tion against certain parties. Whathat was done in conse-
quence by those Rinks? Was the Government met by
an intimation on their part that they would in future
conform to the law ? No such thing. The Ministers
of the Crown were met by a declaration of an intention
to resort to open violence, and were told that, inas-
much as they were indicted for sedition, they were
now anxious to commit high treason.—(Hear, hear.)
When ho used the word high treason, he was afraid he
might be misunderstood, lie might be askediwhy the Go-
vernment had not prosecuted those persons for high
treason. But it must be observed that sedition and
high treason were difficult to distinguish, although it
might turn out that those who thought they
wore only
committing sedition had rendered themselves liable to
be punished for the graver offence—and to be subject
to the extreme penalty awarded to that crime. But it
must be recollee[ed that the persons who talked in this
manner were lawyers, or law-advised, and that whilst
exciting others to treason, they thought they were quite
safe themselves. But in this, he thought, they might
hereafter find themselves mistaken, for if by those ex-
citing speeches others hid been induced to commit acts
of treason, those who .so incited those crimes by their
speeches might be brobght within the pile of the law

of high treason. However, as yet no overt acts of trea-
son had been committed, and this consideration brought
him to the immediate statement which he had to make
on the subject of the measure which he had to propose
to Parliament. In the Nation newspaper would be
found detailed instructions for the construction of barri-
cades, and showing how the Queen's troops might best
be interrupted and even murdered by missiles from the
windows of houses, whilst performing their duty. This
species of street warfare had been studied by those who
described it, and the writers in the paper he had named
did not hesitate to declare that their object was to drive
the Queen's representative, the Lord-Lieutenant, out of
the kingdom, and to instal a Republican Government
there. On tho 23d of March he found the following
speech reported as having been delivered by Mr.
Mitchell, at one of the meetings to which he had re-
ferred:— .

" I am charged with writing seditious articles, having
a tendency to inflame the minds of the people, and excite
discontent. I did write seditious articles, snd I will
write seditious articles.—(Loud cheering.) is will incite
the people to discontent and disaffection.—(Renewed
cheering.) I know no reason why they should be con-
tent—why they should be well-affected—towards the
Government of England.—(Loud cheers.) On the day
this confederation was formed, I, as you remember,
came forward and declared myself a disaffected subject,
and promised to devote myself continually to excite dis-
affection in others.—(Hear, hear, and loud cheering.) I
think I have kept that promise; and, come what may, I
will continue to do so."—(Loud cheers.)
The person who spoke thus was one of those who had
been brought by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and the
law officers of the Crown there under the jurisdiction of
the law, and who, even if he were found guilty of utter-
ing such speeches as the above, would only be subjected,
as a punishment for his offence, to a moderate fine and
imprisonment. Another of the persons indicted, Mr.
C. G. Duffy, of the Nation, was the next speaker, to
whose words he would draw the attention of the House.
He found the following report contained in the papers
of that person's address :
"I am guilty of an attempt to sow disaffection in the
minds of the people—l am guilty of tin attempt to
overthrow this Government, which keeps its footing on
our soil by sheer brute force, and by nothing else.—
(Loud cries of Hear, hear.') And this I tell you,
that until that Government be thoroughly upset, I shall
not cease to write, to speak, to act sedition. One cir-
cumstance alone shall stop me in this career—my death.
—(Loud and enthusiastic cheers.) In their courts of
law we shall take issue with them boldly and despe-
rately. If we do not throw them there, we shall throw
them on a broader field.—(Vehement cheering.) It
must be done. The news this morning announces that
Vienna is in the hands of the people.—(Renewed cheer-
ing.) Dublin must be iu the hands of the people.—
(Enthusiastic and deafening cheers.) Stand by us, citi-
zens, and it shall be done.—(Cries of 'We will.')"
Such was the language uttered by these persons, and
those who were in the habit of reading these speeches
would be aware that the more violent and treasonable
the expressions, the more vehement was the applause
with which they were greeted. On the same day Mr.
Reilly came forward to propose the formation of a na-
tional guard. He (Sir G. Grey) must warn the House
against adopting the supposition that this proposal was
merely sedition, for it might turn out to be a far graver
crime. The speech attributed to Mr. Deviu Reilly was
as follows:

" Mr. Devin Reilly then came forward to propose a
resolution for the organization of a national guard, and
in doing co was vehemently cheered. He said he was
satisfied that the country would see in that evening's
meeting a good beginning.—(Cheers.) It was his high
privilege to propose that they should take that evening
the initiative step in the broad path of freedom—
(Cheers)—to prose the first of a series of steps for which
his soul had long hungered, and for the want of which
tens of thousands of his murdered countrymen had pe-
rished—the formation of an armed national guard in
Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) This resolution called on the
council of the confederation to inquire and report
on the best and most effectual means of organizing
and arming such a body.—(Loud cheering.) That was
their answer to Lord Clarendon.—(Cheers.) For every
one of them he might imprison, hundreds would be ready
to take their places. For every leader of importance
imprisoned, they would arm ten thousand men.—(Loud
cheers.) For every hour he confined them, they would
shorten his rule in Ireland by one hundred days. For
every hair of their heads he touched, for every one he
hanged; but be would not talk to them of hanging, for
if there was sufficient manhood and devotion amongst
them, long before things arrived at such a pass they
would open the gaols with their pickaxes and crowbars.
Long before that day every street of Dublin might be
a barricade or a fortress, and every pavement carpetted
with blood.—(Great applause.) Long before that day
they would show the tyrant out of Ireland by the light
of the burning gaols.—(Cheers.) Before that day every
field in Ireland must be fought, every ditch defended,
and every river obtain a notorious memory to live
throughout future ages. Aye, and if they were driven into
the remotest corners of their beloved island, they would
make the graves of their murdered countrymen the last
resting-ground for the defence of their precious liberties.
—(Cheers.) If they were to fall, let them nobly fall—
if they conquered, they must do so by their own right
hands. While they had arms in their hands they might
defy the whole world—without them they were at the
beck of every petty constable.—(Hear.) Four months
ago, when the Coercion Bill was introduced, he called
on the people in that hall to arm.—(Cheers.) Now he
called on them a second time to arm, arm, arm !—(Loud
cheers.) Had they armed four months ago they would
be tour months nearer their liberty that day. Let them
arm now; and when they had armed, they would be
ready, and not sooner.—(Cheers.) When they were
willing to aid themselves, God would assist them, and
not betore.—(Cheers,) They had often been told about
Ireland's opportunity, and that the time was not yet
come. Now, he would tell them that no time was oppor-
tune to a nation which was not prepared to go out at
any moment and assert its rights.—(lmmense ap-
plause.) It was slaves only who waited for oppor-
tunities—a nation of brave men should be always
prepared.—(Cheers,) A great movement of the people
was passing over the world. Democracy had crossed the
Alps and entered Austria. Last week he was in Paris,
and there smashed the strongest dynasty in the world.
—(Loud applause.) He would presently come to Ire-
land.—(Cheers.) 300,000 Englishmen, Chartists, would
assemble in London next week, and then they would
have London in their hands.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
He promised them, as a brother, that whether that time
came sooner or later, the first budge in England would
be answered in Ireland .—(Loud cheers.) Let them wait
for that day, and prepare for it, by arming themselves ;
and, till that day arrived, he had but one advice to give
them, and that advice was, to put their trust in God and
keep their powder dry.' "
From another of the speeches it would seem that a
treasonable appeal had been made to a foreign coun-
try to help these persons to overthrow the established
Government and to institute a republic in Ireland. The
speech to which he referred was printed in the papers as
follows:

" Mr. C. G. Duffy, of the Nation, then came forward
and was received with loud cheers. He said he had
news for them from Mr. Smith O'Brien. He thought
they knew that he was no boaster. He believed that
they could trust in what he said, and felt that he said
only what he intended to do. He (Mr. O'Brien) re-
ceived last week an address from a certain Irish club in
Paris, and the answer to that address excited a storm of
curiosity. The Morning Chronicle received that day
expressed great annoyance that it could not lay its
hands upon it, and the Lord-Lieutenant would give his
eye out for it: but they would be generous—they would
give it to him for nothing.—(Cheers.) Here it was.
-Mr. O'Brien said, in answer to the club to which he
referred, I have seen enough of Francs to convince me
that she is able and willing, if invited, to make an effort
to send 50,000 of her most valued citizens to support the
Irish nation in a struggle.'—(Great cheering.) The
answer of Lamartine had been received, and like all
state documents, it meant nothing; but he thought they
could be indifferent to it, after the promises of one of
their truest men ringing in their ears.—(Cheers.) The
union was repealed.—(Cheers.) He thought so that
morning, but he had 50,000 additional reasons for be-
lieving that it was repealed.—(Cheers.)"
He did not read this extract with the intention of having
it believed that he attached the slightest confidence to
the statement of the disposition on the part of France
to send 50,000 armed men to aid the separation of
Ireland from this country.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever
opinion he might entertain as to the conduct and
views of the Provisional Government of France, no
man could read the answer of M. De Lmartiue to the
Irish deputation without respecting the courage and
boldness which dictated that reply—a reply giving,
in the most explicit, and as he thoroughly believed, in
the most honest, terms, a distinct refusal on the part of
the Government to interfere in any way in the internal
affairs of England, or to send any men to this country,
or to Ireland, to aid the deputation in their treasonable
designs.—(Hear, hear.) M. De Lamartine, had as a
matter of course, especially under the circumstances in
which he was placed, received these gentlemen with civi-
lity; but as to assistance from France, the disturbers of
the public peace in Ireland might wait for it in vain,
whatever might have been said to some member of the
deputation by some member of a Parisian club, eagerly
caught up by the Irish emissary in his despair at the
wholly discouraging reception given to him by the autho-
rities.—(Hear, hear.) He would not impute to a Mem-
ber of the Imperial Parliament a design to deceive others,
but assuredly Mr. Smith O'Brien, in his eager enthu-
siasm, wholly deceived himself, when he talked of
the coming aid of 50,000 French baayonets to
the designing men of whom he was rendering himself the
tool, and to the excitable band of followers for whose
fate, should they not be in time prevented from
incurring punishment, he would be so deeply responsible.
—(hear.) A Mr. Magee, in seconding the motion,.
spoke in still more vehement terms of an appeal to arms it
the assertion of the cause they had in view. He was
sure, however, he need not read any more than he had
read, to show what was the character of the advice given
by these men to the excitable crowds they addressed, or
what were the designs which they did not merely not
attempt to disguise, but which they unblushingly and
fiercely avowed and exulted in.—(Hear, hear.) One
word he would add, however, respecting a sentence in
Mr. Magee's speech, which described Lord Clarendon as
going about and soliciting the protection of the wardens
of the Dublin trades, for he was bound to say, in justice
to the large proportion of the population of that part of
the country, that, during the progress of this agitation,
the Lord-Lieutenant, so far from having found it neces-
sary to make any appeal for a manifestation of confidence
in his government, had, so far back as the 27th March,
informed his colleagues at home that an address had been
presented to him expressive of the fullest confidence in
him and in the Government, and of the most loyal
attachment to the Crown, the laws, and to the in-
stitutions of the realm, signed by persons of all
ranks, prossions, and religious - persuasions, rainy,

Roman Catholic clergy and prelates among them, to the
number at that date of 140,000 ; and since that
date the number of signatures appended to the de-
claration had been increased to 280,000.—(Hear, hear.)
He did rot, of rnirse, deny that there were manifesta-
tions of much agitation and excitement—that speeches
were delivered to large assemblages of men which
greatly tended to aggravate and extend that feeling of
agitation and excitement—speeches most inflammatory
and tending to most dangerous consequences—but he
had no hesitation in expressing his conviction, that,
with regard to Ireland at large, there prevailed in that
country a spirit of loyalty, of devotion to the person of
the Sovereign, and of attachment to the Government and
to the institutions of the realm, as vivid and strong as
in any part of the empire.—(Hear.) It was for the de-
fence of this loyal and well•disposed population, and of
the loyal and well disposed population of the realm at
large, that the Government—finding the present law
too weak for the effectual suppression of sedition
and treason—now came to Parliament for such an exten-
sion of the law as would enable them to deal satisfacto-
rily with cases of this kind—with that political fever
which arose from time to time, and spread terror and
alarm among the peaceful and well-disposed. He
would now proceed to state as accurately as he could
what the law was with reference to offences of this kind.
He would premise that the law in force in England was
not the same as that extant in Ireland on this subject;
or, at all events, that very grave doubts prevailed on
the point—doubts which had not before been raised, no
occasion, fortunately, having before occurred to question
the identity of the law in the two countries. The
general law with respect to treason was that of 25
Edward 111., c. 2, which, as extended to Ireland by an
Act of Henry VII., then applied to the United King-
dom; RO that any deed committed by a subject of the
crown of these realms, coming within the provisions of
this statute, was liable to the penalties of treason. The
acts here contemplated were, the compassing the death
of the King, the levying war against the King, or aiding
his enemies to levy war against him, within the realm
or elsewhere. By the 36 Geo. 111., c. 7, the law of
treason was materially extended. By that Act, which
was intended to inure only during the life of that King,
and to the end of the session of Parliament next follow-
ing his demise—the Act was passed Dec. 18, 1795—it
was provided—
" That if any person or persons whatsoever after the
day of the passing of this Act, during the natural life
of our most gracious Sovereign Lord the King (whom
Almighty God preserve and bless with a long and pros-
perous reign) and until the end of the next session of
Parliament after a demise of the Crown, shall, within the
realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or
intend death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending
to death or destruction, maim or wounding, imprison•
ment or restraint of the person of the same our Sovereign
Lord the King, his heirs and successors, or to deprive
or to depose him or them from the style, honour, or
kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm, or of
any other of his Majesty's dominions or countries; or to
levy war against his Majesty, his heirs and successors,
within this realm, in order by force or constraint to
compel him or them to change his or their measures or
councils, or in order to put any force or constraint upon
or to intimidate, or overawe, both Houses, or either
House of Parliament ; or to move or stir any foreigner
or stranger with force to invade this realm, or any other
his Majesty's dominions, or countries under the obeisance
of his Majesty, his heirs, and successors; and such coin-
passings imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions,
or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by pub-
lishing any printing or writing, or by any overt act or
deed, being legally convicted thereof upon the oaths of
two lawful and credible witnesses upon trial, or other-
wise convicted or attainted by due course of law, then
every such person and persons, so as aforesaid offending,
shall be deemed, declared, and adjudged to be a traitor
and traitors, and shall suffer pains of death, and also lose
and forfeit as in cases of high treason."

Under this extension of the former Act any person
going to France, and soliciting aid from the French
people to alter the existing institutions of the country,
rendered himself liable to the penalties set forth. The
36th Geo. 111., c. 7, as he had said, was designed as only
a temporary statute, but by the 57 Geo. 111. c. 6, the
first section of the 36 Geo. 111., which he had just read
to the House, was made perpetual. The latter Act,
passed in 1819, was, of course, subsequent to the union,
and consequently doubts had been very seriously enter-
tained whether, as rendering permanent a special Act
passed before the union, it could be considered applicable
to Ireland. The most authoritative legal opinions were
decidedly against the applicability of this renewed Act
to Ireland ; and as a matter of course against the
existence of any authority on the part of the G7vern-
, went to subject offences committed in that country to
the provisions of the Act. The law, therefore, might be
fairly stated as being, in point of fact, different in the
, two countries. In point of principle, however, it
was luite clear that no such difference ought to exist.
—(Hear, hear.) The law upon this subject ought
most manifestly to be equally applicable to all parts
of the realm. In Ireland, however, the only law at
present applicable to treason was the 25th Edw. 111., to
which he had already referred. He believed he might
say that Ireland had derived no practical benefit from
the exemption he had stated. On the contrary, ho was
of opinion that the harsh measures to which Ireland had
been from time to time subjected might have been spared
her, had the more effectual provisions of the treason
statutes of George 111. been applicable to her as well
as to the rest of the realm.—(Hear, hear.) What
was the consequence of the fact at the present juncture?
Why this: that when the Government of Ireland, di-
recting its attention to the dangerous language spoken
by agitators, and to the dangerous effects of that lan-
guage upon the excitable persons addressed, turned to
the law of Ireland for a remedy, it found the powers
of that law inadequate to the repression of the evil.
The only law applicable there to the offence of which
the disturbers of order were guilty, was a sedition law,
under which the offenders charged were at liberty to
put in bail, a circumstance placing delay in the way of
their trial, and giving them the opportunity, if they
chose to incur the additional risk, of seeking, in the over-
throw of the instil utions under which they lived, to
relieve themselves from any trial at all—thus converting
their very crime into a mode of averting its consequences.
As to the mode of dealing with the case, it had been
suggested that the simple course would be to pass an Act
extending the Ist section of the Act 36 George 111., c. 7,
made a perpetual Act by 57 George 111., c. 6, to Ireland,
whereby the same law would be made to prevail in both
countries. He quite agreed that the same law should
be enforced throughout all portions of the kingdom.
But there was another point first to be considered. The
range of the Act was very properly most sweeping and
comprehensive; but its penalties, at the same time, were,
it must be admitted, of extreme severity, and, as such,
altogether opposed to that mitigation of our criminal
code which from time to time of late years had been
effected by the Legislature.—(Hear.) There had rightly
been a great change in public opinion on the
subject
of the offences which should meet with capital punish-
ment, and the Government was perfectly ready, in the
present matter, to meet, as nearly as possible, public
opinion. He did not propose, therefore, to extend the
Act as it stood to Ireland, nor to continue it as it stood
to England. He did not desire to perpetuate or to enact
any statutory provision at variance with the progress of
late years in criminal legislation.—(Hear, hear.) At
the same time he had no intention of repealing that part
of the statute which inflicted the penalty of death for the
offence of compassing or designing the death or impri-
sonment of the sovereign—(Hear, hear)—though, even
were they to repeal it, he believed the ordinary treason
law would visit such a crime with death. He proposed to
repeal all the other portions of the section inflicting the
punishment of death for the offences named therein, and
he then proposed to re-enact the provision in other
respects—for Ireland as well as for the rest of the king-
dom—substituting, however, for the offence of sedition
that of high treason, and for the pain of death, the
punishment of transportation for life, or, at the discre-
tion of the judge, for a term of years not less than
seven. This was the substance of the proposed measure
—(Hear, hear)—but there was another material point
to which he must advert. The provisions touching the
devising or imagining the deposition of the sovereign, or
the levying war against her, &e., would meet much of
the public offence which he was now denouncing to the
House, but it would not meet all the evil. It would have
been observed that, in expressing the mode of such
compassing or devising, the Act had only prohibited
the publishing a declaration in writing, or by overt
act. Now, it would be an overt act in a party to go
to a foreign country and invite foreign aid against his
own sovereign, or the institutions of his own country,
but a person on a platform in Dublin, or elsewhere,
however he might advocate the theory of such a
change, provided he did not put forth a declaration in
writing, might be exempt from the penalties set forth
under the Act. He felt it right that on reviewing this
Act, in mitigating its severity, and applying it to the
whole kingdom, no loophole should be left at which
these gentlemen—who, while instigating others to dis-
affection and its penalties, were extremely careful of
their own safety—should by simply omitting themselves
to print declarations which were regularly gathered from
their mouths, and printed in the newspapers, avoid the
chastisement in which they so unscrupulously sought to
involve the crowds who listened to them. He therefore
proposed to extend the penalties under the Act to all
such persons as should " by open unadvised speaking,
g,
compass, or imagine, or promote the said designs.'
(Hear, hear.) This was the substance of the Bill which
he now proposed to lay on the table of the House—a Bill
which had the entire sanction of his Noble Friend the
Lord-Lieutenant, and without the provisions of which
that Nobleman, than whom no man was more earnestly
devoted to the principles of constitutional liberty, had
expressed his entire inability to administer the affairs of
the country in a constitutional manner. With the aid
of this measure, however, his
.Noble Friend had expressed
himself as perfectly confident in the expectation of being
able to maintain peace and order, and to make those
quail before their country's laws who wholly set them
at nought. There were other measures which would be
necessary accompaniments to the present Bill, measures
to meet the appeal now made to the disaffected to arm;
but he would not mix up these measures with that before
the House, and which he now begged permission to in-
troduce.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL felt bound to oppose the intro-
duction of this Bill. He opposed it from no sympathy
with the criminal agitation which now disturbed his un-
happy country, and with the persons who so unscrupu-
lously promoted that agitation, but from the sincere
conviction that while the laws at present in existence
were perfectly adequate to the suppression of the evil
contemplated, the introduction of this measure would
create the very highest discontent among classes
hitherto well disposed and peaceable.
Mr. HUME quite approved of the mitigation of the
provisions of this Act, and of its extension, in its
amended form, to Ireland; but he should decidedly' pro-
test against the introduction of the clause,
which
he understood it, went to gag the free discussion of 'pa 5.
subjects,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained, that the provi-
sions to which the Honourable Gentleman objected, ap-
plied not to the free expression of public opinion, but
to speeches directed against the person or crown of the
Sovereiga.
Mr. HUME said he had no desire to impede the Go-
vernment in its efforts to suppress unlawful agitation ;
but he must protest against any gagging clause, such as
he understood that now proposed to be. Suppose he
were to happen to say at some public meeting that he
preferred a republic—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") Well, be
would defer any observations on the provision till it
came duly before them.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that, if he stood alone, he
would give his vote against this measure. He was sur-
prised to hear the Right Hon. Baroret propose such a
Bill as he had laid upon the table at the present junc-
ture. lie should take example by what had happened
abroad, and the concessions which had been made abroad.
—(Hear, hear.) One of the first of those concessions
was entire liberty of the press; and yet here was the
Right Hon. Baronet raking up a statue of Edward lIL
to effect restrictions of the press and of speech in this
country. Ho asked would the House of Commons agree
, to such an infraction of the constitution?—(Hear, hear.)
He warned the Government that the Bill would be in-
effectual as their coercion Bill had been. He had then
told them to try a special commission; they had tried it;
and had found it amply sufficient for the vindication of
the law. But he supposed that this was one of the re-
medial measures which the Government had promised.
—(Hear.) It was a contradiction of all the former acts and
professions of the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment. Instead of proposing new laws for sedition the Go-
vernment should attend to the claims and sufferings of the
people. It was Junius who had said that agitation was
the hue and cry which foretold the change that was
coming. If this Bill passed, open agitation would be
transformed into secret conspiracy, and twitters would
be in a worse position than ever. As to invosion from
a foreign country, he had no fear of that ;
and if it did
come he should be one of the first to oppose it ; but he
believed it to be a mere cry, got up to support ecteicive
laws. He asked the Liberal Members who had bean
sent to that House by the people whether they would
support one of the most tyrannical laws that had ever
disgraced the statute-book ? The principle upon which
the Government was acting was, in fact, one of coercion
both for England and Ireland ; and he trusted that the
Irish Members, at least, would not content themselves
with giving a silent vote in opposition to it. Let the
Irish people have equal laws, and then they would not
fear a few uncomfortable men, who were uncomfortable
from negligence, from idleness, and from want of in-
dustry.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord might have a
strong government if he rested on the people, instead of
raking up old and obsolete statutes for their coercion.
He had told the people often that they had greater
privileges, if properly exercised, than any people in
Europe; but those privileges were freedom of the press
and of speech, and if these were taken away the privi-
leges would vanish at once.—(Hear, hear.) At a time
when thrones wsre tottering, and sceptres crashing
around us, it it monstrous to hear the British Govern-
ment proposing a series of coercion laws. Great stress
had been laid on articles appearing in certain news-
papers, but had Hon. Members looked over the files of
the Morning Chronicle during the agitation for the
Reform Bill? They might there see how Colonel Ma-
cerone gave instructions in street firing, and the best
modes of resisting soldiers in cities. That was not
treason,becauseit helped the Noble Lord and bis Friends
into power; but still it had a wonderful resemblance to
the articles complained of at the present moment.
Although generally, and as a matter of courtesy, first
readings were conceded, he should on the present occa-
sion go out, if he went alone, in opposition to the Govern-
ment proposition.

R. M. FOX said that it would be quite possible
to restore the prosperity of Ireland if proper means
were taken for that purpose. Every one connected with
Ireland would join with him in abhorrence of the inflated
harangues, the treason or sedition (whichever it was
called) of Messrs. Mitchell and Meagher; but Govern-
ment might do much, and the landlords of Ireland might
do much, to render such harangues entirely innocuous.
In his opinion quiet might in one month be re-established
in Ireland if Government would come forward, giving
the people a poor-law equal to their distress, and giving
them the right to relief. They must also extend the
franchise and the number of representatives. If they
would do this, and consent to consider in that House the
much mooted question of the repeal of the union, tran-
quillity would soon be restored in Ireland.
Mr. GRATTAN said he rose to state his conviction of
the loyalty of the Irish people. He should never her,
doubted that loyalty, but for the extraordinary proposi-
tion of the Government, and the odious spy system which
it appeared had been established in Ireland. He feared
that Lord Clarendon had been misled into the formid-
able preparations he had made in filling every corner
of the city of Dublin with troops. He should have
believed that there was no cause for alarm, ex-
cept for old women and unmarried ladies, had he not
seen an advertisement, headed " Patrick Hyland,
pike-maker to the Castle"—(A. laugh)—and something
very similar in Limerick, where a man who had stood
behind the chair at a public meeting, and called out for
pikes, turned out to be a Government spy. Why, it
was reviving all the horrors of the Castlereagh system.
—(Hear, hear.) As to this Bill, it would fail as former
Bills had failed, and so would their entire system of
governing Ireland. They were governing that country
with an army—a system which, in the present state of
the world, they could not maintain. They must try
some new system, one which should send back the ab-
sentees. It was Demosthenes who had said that the
property of the absent and indifferent became the prey
of the present and enterprising. That was the case in
Ireland when the country was in the hands of the freise-
coated men. The people of Ireland were starving, but
they had no wish for separation or a republic. The
only republicans were the favoured people of the north,
while the Roman Catholics of the south had directly
opposite tendencies. As for the priests, they were
neither republican nor French, for they could not
but remember the treatment their order had received in
the first French revolution. The Honourable Member
concluded by recommending ameliorative, instead of
coercive, measures as remedies for the present condition
of Ireland.
Lord D. STUART said that the Bill before the
House was one for the better protection of the Crown
and Government. Now he thought that the best way to
secure the Crown and Government would be to attend
to the wants and wishes of the people.—(Hear, hear.)
There was no other way, and the observation applied
equally to Ireland, Scotland, and England.—(Hear.)
He was not one of those who was in favour of rash and
hasty changes, but he believed the people of England
would not long be content without an extension of the
franchise ; nor would they long be content to see small
boroughs represented by the same number of Members
as large, populous, and important cities ; if, indeed, they
would be content to see such boroughs represented at
all. What the people wanted was a new Reform Bill,
and that principally because they believed it would lead
to a more equal system of taxation. In Ireland too
there were many things the people had a right to de-
mand, though he was not prepared to say that some
measure such as that now proposed might not be neces-
sary, for it was impossible to permit treason to stalk
abroad throughout the land without some attempt being
made to suppress it. But when Government brought
forward measures of coercion, they were bound
he thought, to accompany them with measures
to ameliorate the condition of the people, and
supply their wants. This was the opinion he had
expressed in November last on the Arms Bill, which
he had voted in favour of in the confidence that Govern-
ment would lose no time in bringing forward ameliora-
tive measures. That confidence he was sorry however to
say,had been misplaced; for although April had arrived,
with the exception of a tenant-right Bill, which he un-
derstood was so complicated that it would be difficult, if
not impossible, to make it work, and one other Bill
which had been introduced in the other House, no re-
medial measures had been brought forward. That Ire-
land had many grievances which demanded redress
could not be denied. There was the Irish Church, the
representation, the franchise, the municipal institutions,
and many other grievances which they ought to set
about redressing when they proposed measures to put
down violence and sedition. If Irishmen were treated
with justice, their loyalty might at all times and under
all circumstances be depended on. He concurred with
the Hon. Member for Montrose in his condemnation of
the gagging clause. He should oppose the enactment
of any law which interfered with freedom of speech.—
(Hear, hear.) Liberty of speech was one of the most
valuable rights a free people could possess, and it could
not be too carefully or jealously guarded. lie could as-
sure the Government that the people of England would
regard the Bill in this respect with jealousy and sus-
picion. lii voting for the present motion, his object was
that the measure might be introduced and considered,
but he should reserve to himself the right to vote
against the second reading, should he afterwards disap-
prove of it.
Mr. REYNOLDS held that a Bill so unconstitutional
in its nature should be met on the threshold. He had
warned the Government in November that their Arms
Bill would fail, and there could be no greater proof of
the failure of that measure than that Ministers should
consider this Bill necessary. The object was to inflict
transportation as the punishment for offences which were
now punishable by fine and imprisonment. But there
was another and more important objection to the Bill,
which was, that it left to the Attorney-General to pro-
secute and inflict the punishment of transportation for
words which a man might have uttered in the moment of
passion and excitement, or even for words he might never
have uttered, but which might be proved against him by
some hired incendiary; and he was sorry to say Ireland
was fertile in the production of such characters—(A
laugh)—and he was equally sorry to add that all Gc-
vernrnents, whether Whig or Tory,had encouraged them.
fie might refer to the conduct of Col. Browne, the Police
Commissioner, in sending agents to employ men to
make pikes, the particulars of which had appeared in the
Freeman and other papers. He thought Government
depended too much upon persons of that description for
the information on which they acted. The Arms Bill
was passed in consequence of the numerous threatening
notices which had been sent, and which, in the majority
of cases, he believed had emanated from the police
agents. In the case of Colonel Browne, howcver, he for
one could never believe what they had been told, that
Government had sanctioned his proceedings.—(Hear.)
Let them consider for a moment what was the condition
of Ireland. In 18 months 1,000,000 of people had died
from want of the common necessaries of life, and day by
day many were still dying from the same cause. Surely
some allowance should be made for the language of a
people naturally excitable when suffering under
such a calamity .—(Hear, hear.) If in England
the people were in the same position, he doubted
not but that they would be talking treason cn all
sides. He could tell them that but for the influence of
the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland not all the mi-
litary power of the Government would be able to keep.

tl

,he peace in that country forty-eight hours—(Hear)—
and were the religion of the Irish people Presbyterian, or
any other than Roman Catholic, they would not endure
their present position. Let them consider also the poli-
tical grievances under which Ireland laboured. To pro-
vide spiritual aid for at most three-quarters of a million
of Protestants, out of a population of 8,000,000,
700,00 N. a year was exacted from the land. The Par-
liamentary franchise was daily diminishing; the ntut.i-
cipal franchise had diminished almost to a name; and
waste lands were unreclaimed. What, then, had the
British House of Commons done for Ireland? He would
defer to a more fitting occasion any reference to the
right of Ireland to a domestic Legislature. But what
were they about to do by this measure? Besides
Substituting transportation for fine and imprisonment,
all cases would be tried before petty instead of
special juries, and the Crown would have unlimited
right of challenge, while the prisoner could chal-
lenge only twenty; and when they remembered the
manner in which juries had been packed in Ireland on
former occasions they might well shudder for the result.
--(Hear, hear.) But was this Bill to be retrospective
would it effect those gentlemen who had been held to
bail, and were now waiting their trials?—(No.) Ile
was not sure that it would not be retrospective if it was
Passed in its present shape. He hoped, however, Go-
vernment would pause before they determined to press
this Bill, that they would try the effect of mildness and
conciliation, and depend on the ordinary tribunals to
Punish those who violated the law, and if they followed
this course they might laugh to scorn those who were
plotting against them. There was no necessity for this
measure. Government had no right to anticipate any
interruption of the peace.—(Laughter.) The heart of
the people was sound. He was aware there had been
much talk—and where there was much talking there
was never much fighting. The men who were now
talking sedition in Ireland he believed were humbugs. If
they had been in earnest they would have adopted a dif-
ferent course. There was no part of the Queen's domi-
nions where the mass of the people were more loyal or
More attached to the Sovereign than in Ireland, and it
Was too much to wound a whole people and brand them
as traitors because a few individuals made violent
Speeches.
r. M. J. O'CONNELL observed that the wound
Which this Bill would inflict was like that which a sur-
geon made in cutting out an unsound part to effect a
cure. As an Irishman, having the interest of Ireland at
heart, he felt it his duty to support this Bill, the object
of which was after all but to make the law efficient, and
to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England. The
danger, as the law now stood, was that those who by
their violent speeches (and some of them might be
honest) were leading others on to acts of guilt which
might involve them in punishment, might escape punish-
Meta themselves. With regard to England, he thought
the Bill might not be without advantage, as it would
enable Government to punish men who were guilty of
treasonable acts, but whom Government might not yet
wish to elevate into martyrs by prosecuting them
for high treason. Of the loyalty of the Irish people
no had no doubt, and their affections were in favour
of monarchical institutions, and the order of things
as they existed, he was equally certain.:Any such change
as the men who had been alluded to were mad enough
tO contemplate would be certain destruction. He should
be ready to consider the clause as to spoken treason in
Committee though he did not think this was a time
When they ought to be too chary in administeringpunish-
Meat to men who, whether by writing or speaking,
encouraged others to acts which the law punished
severely. If the law had hitherto been lenient to such
Persons, it ought not to continue so. If the man who
set fire to the stack was to suffer punishment, surely the
man who set him on should not go scot-free.—(Hear.)
Mr. GROGAN supported the Bill, as one that was
calculated to restore confidence to all classes in Dublin,
but thought it would be necessary to consider the clause
as to spoken treason in Committee.
Mr. W. J. FOX observed that it was not surprising
that, in
the discussion of this Bill, it had been made so
exclusively an Irish question, though it was to be re-
gretted, inasmuch as it had drawn the attention of the
11°use from the most important to the least important
Portion of the measure. The least important part was
tlhat which assimilated the law of Ireland to that of Eng-
and- To that there could be no reasonable objection.
If the Lord-Lieutenant required further powers to
enableA him to put down sedition and treason, which
shown themselves in the most unmistakeable and
disgusting form, such powers could scarcely be given in
a less objectionable way than by assimilating the law of
Ireland to that of England. But the part of the Bill
which attracted his attention, and which gave it its pe-
culiar character, was the infringement of that
liberty of speech which had hitherto been the
boast of Englishmen, as the safeguard of their
lberties. There was no difficulty now in punish-
ii og those who incited others to the commission of crime
in Ireland as in England ; but once let it be the
law that spoken words, which, though not in-
tended for that purpose, might be construed to tend to
impairs the freedom of discussion in either or both
aselouses of Parliament, and to overawe their delibera-
n°lls, might subject the speaker to transportation for
_seven years or for life: let this be the law, and no man
wessld be safe to address a public meeting at a time of
political excitement.—(Hear.) And it was at such times
that men did address
their fellow-citizens, when their
feelings were roused by some invasion of their privileges,
zrr were stimulated with the desire to extend them. It
as then multitudes were brought together, and men's
feelings were roused into that ardent state that it was
Morally impossible so to weigh every word and syllable
as to be free from the misrepresentation of an ignorant
reporter, or a malignant spy.—(Hear.) The best re-
porters were liable to mistakes, and they could scarcely
expect any very great accuracy from the reports of halt-
Wormed reporters employed at such a time by the
Police. If such a law was passed he should recommend
every man to write his speech to prevent misconstruc-
tion- During the agitation on the Reform Bill he
had heard language from
gentlemen, now Members
of that House, and who obtained ;their seats by the
fervency and boldness with which they spoke, and some
of them Members of the Government, which, if uttered
now—this Bill being the law—would subject them to
transportation for seven years or for life. Were the
People, then, to be deprived, by such a law as this, of
their just privileges, to be left utterly defenceless, and
to be placed beyond the pale of the constitution? He
sincerely trusted that this encroachment on their liber-
ties had not been seriously and deliberately introduced
by her Majesty's Government ; that they had been led
astray by looking to those insane speeches of Irish de-
Tagogues, and that in attempting to remedy that evil
they
would not inflict a still greater mischief upon this
country.—(Hear, hear.) It was public meetings that
Made public opinion known and respected. In fact,
Public meetings and the freedom of speech were just as
Much as anything else part and parcel of the British
constitution, and one of the last portions that we ought
to consent to meddle with or destroy. If they took
wrlY freely collected public meeting in this country,
they would find that truth and justice, and
Propriety and moderation, prevailed over all the
(.3PPositen
qualities. He, therefore, relied with confidence
I the decisions of such assemblies. Indeed he had
himself often heard them rebuke language tending to
viol often
and he believed that in the continuance un-
touched of the power to hold public meetings, whatever
Might be the case with respect to Ireland, they would
be continuing and preserving something as a balance
Igainst the inequalities of our laws.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord on a former evening spoke of the
events of the continent having given rise in this country
to guilty desires and guilty efforts ; but the Noble Lord
Might have said that these events had excited honour-
able
desires and honourable efforts as well, amongst
which he (gr. Fox) took to be the desire on the part of
the working-classes, who had far more intelligence and
isiaorality than he feared they got credit for—(Hear,
ear)—of having for themselves a political status, and
of being free themselves while they heard the shouts
of newly acquired freedom from other countries.
The attainment of that desire, at which, before a long
period elapsed, they would and must arrive, and the
advantages to be thereby arrived at, wculd, he must
say, have formed the subject of a much better Bill
than that now submitted to the House, while it would
Prove a more powerful enactment leaving the law
written on the heart—for the security of her Majesty's
crown.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—The lion. Gentleman has so far
been in error, as to have passed his censure on the pro-
position of my Right Hon. Friend before seeing the Bill.
He has spoken of the danger of fixing a punishment to
words, and of the novelty of introducing so heavy a
punishment for words that may have a tendency to over-
awe the Houses of Parliament. But it is totally diffe-
rent to condemn men for words that may be violent, or
mischievous, or seditious, and words that have for their
object either to depose the sovereign, to excite to the
levying of war, or to induce persons to apply for aid from
foreign countries, in order to effect a change in the form
of government. The Act of 1796 condemns the using
words or public writing exciting to the levying of war,
for the purpose of inducing the sovereign to change his
measures, or for the purpose of overawing the Houses
of Parliarnent. But that is a very different offence
fmr?tnea overawing the Houses of Parliament, which ad-
to
levyof abuse and misrepresentation. Direct incitement
war, whether with the view of putting a per-
sonal
the restraint upon the sovereign, or of overawing
I ouses of Parliament, is of itself a grave and
substantive Offence
.The Hon. Gentleman entirely
part of the a:leas question of
levying war, as if it was no
pond his judgment,re. I hope he will, therefore, sus-
of the Bill until he
so far as not to condemn that part
sees
ger in extending it. I admit that there is dan-
this kind to words spoken;
but we have to penaltiesconsider toehfat formerly the penalties of
high treason were
d to a very few words
supposed to express a treas wmattri,h.
especially of late, instelvhoiflleecirnettenctoionns.piracies and
Now, and
councils in the dark, by
aamb(?narchy was to be
overthrown, it has become the
with those who
hope to compass the destruction of shit
tthe monarchy and
w armsor elc's speak to large
the deposition of the Sovereign,
aciting to the
masses of the people and use
levying of war and the use of
of overbearing the legitimate authority of purpose
and thereby to accomplish their mischievous country,
an
gerous ends. When the mode of warfare
dand dan-
turning Governments is changed, I think it
heel:lover-
necessary to take some other course than that which has
hitherto been taken to prevent it ; and I say it is
far better to apply the punishment of felony to those
offences, than to make the Act in all respects similar
to that of 1796, and to apply to them the penalties of
high treason. It may, I know, still be argued that the
punishment is severe; but at the same time I think that
those who actually incur the penalties of treason, and
who by being brought to levy war arc subjected to the
penalty of death under the Act of Edward 111., may not
after all be in point of fact so guilty as those who have
instigated them to rebellion.—(Near, hear.) I will not
its,tns tsaue my argument upon this subject until the House
the opportunity of seeing the Bill. . The Hon. Gen-

tleman who spoke last suss that the only allusion I made
to the events of the continent was that those events had
inspired guilty desires and guilty efforts on the part of
those who were seeking to disturb the peace of this me-
tropolis. It would not have been becoming in me on
that occasion to enter into any comments upon those
events. But as the Hon. Gentleman has so far misun-
derstood me, I must say that while my feeling and con-
templation of those events is a mixed feeling, I cannot
but rejoice at any portion of them which gives to
nations that have not hitherto enjoyed them the
benefits of the inestimable blessings of a national
representation, of political liberty, and of a free
press.—(Cheers.) I do not now wish to comment upon
these events; for I feel that I should be liable to much
misrepresentation if I did. There is certainly one part
of them which cannot but be viewed with joy by every
Englishman, although another part is calculated to give
rise to apprehension. I trust that the final issue of these
events may be increased liberty for the continent of
Europe. I cannot have been a Member of this House,
or a subject of this realm, without being delighted to see
that the benefits which this country has so long enjoyed
should be extended to other countries; but when the
Hon. Gentleman speaks of benefits still to be derived by
the people of this country, and of honourable desires that
are yet to be satisfied, I must say, that much of what
has been done on the continent—much of what has
been carried there at the expense of civil contest and
bloodshed, and of the suspension of trade and industry
—much of what has been purchased at those enormous
sacrifices, though not too dearly, has been long enjoyed
by the favoured people of this country.—(Cheers.)
When, therefore, I am told that the people of this coun-
try have much to encourage them in what has taken
place on the continent, I say that our position is such,
that more than 150 years ago we not only obtained a
constitution, but had the foundation laid for other be-
nefits and advantages which were to be gained in the
gradual progress of human society—in the light of lite-
rature, the formation of public opinion, and the advance
of humanity, which taught men better how to prize and
secure the blessings of equal rights and common civili-
zation.—(Cheers.) I do say, therefore, respecting our
progress of late years and in future years, having ob-
tained that foundation, and having by a free press and
public discussion, which I believe this Bill will not im-
pair, and by elementary representation, obtained the
means of improving all these advantages, that we have
no need to enter into any bloody or doubtful struggle, but
may rely upon a constant and peaceable advancement in
public affairs, and upon the constant progress of liberal
opinions towards perfection.—(Cheers).
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion .. 283
Against it
Majority —259
Sir G. GREY said he should move the second reading
of the Bill on Monday, and also the suspension of the
Standing Orders, that the Bill might go through Com-
mittee on the same day.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME hoped that, whatever were the opinions of
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who cheered so loudly, time
would be given to see what were the provisions of this
Bill. The House had decided that the people ought not
to petition for what they wanted.—(No, no.) This very
Bill would prevent their expressing their opinions—
(No, no.)—they would be subject to—(Loud cries of
" No, no," and " Order.")
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE, in moving the second reading
of this Bill, said that if the House consented to the
second reading, it was his intention, in obedience to the
generally expressed wish of the Irish Members, to refer
the Bill to a Select Committee.—(Hear.)
The Bill was then read a second time.
On the motion that the Bill be referred to a Select
Committee,

Mr. OSBORNE said he had only voted for the second
reading on the express understanding that he should be
unfettered in discussing the clauses in Committee; and
he believed many Hon. Members had acted with the sane
view. The subject was full of difficulties; but it was the
duty of the House to strive to conquer them, and he
believed this was perfectly possible. The cast-iron men
of the political economy school could not, on their ow❑
principle, oppose this measure.—(A laugh.) Three
measures having the same object were now before the
House, and he thought the Government Bill the worst
of the three—the most calculated to involve Ireland in
the meshes of law, and to sow discord between landlord
and tenant. He should not oppose the Bill going to a
Select Committee, provided the Committee would en-
deavour to incorporate the best parts of the three Bills.
His definition of tenant-right was the right of any occu-
pier to compensation tor the improvements he had
made, and he would support any measure having this
object, but no measure which went to recognise the mere
right of occupancy as occupancy. It was known that
the greatest difficulty existed in Ireland in estimating
the value of improvements, opinions differed widely as
to what were improvements; and he had heard of a case
where a man had claimed compensation for building a
mill, though there was actually not a stream or water to
turn it. —(Laughter.) Some Hon. Members feared that
this measure would perpetuate small holdings; he was
convinced that Ireland was a country where large farms
would never be common. The only measure which
could save that country was a measure sanctioning
the free sale of land.—(Hear, hear.) At present
there were but 8,000 proprietors in fee in
Ireland, and the amount of three millions was
paid as the interest on encumbered estates. How could
such a country become rich without a measure to facili-
tate tiro transfer of entailed lands It was not politi-
cal reform that was wanted in Ireland, but social rege-
neration, and till Government did away with the law of
entail they would only be rolling up the stone against
the hill.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD would not oppose the second
reading of this Bill, or the proposition of the Govern-
ment to refer it to a Select Committee, although he
believed it would not give satisfaction to the people of
Ireland, and would strike a blow against the tenant-
right in Ulster. He warned the Government how they
passed any Bill which would have that effect. It would
create a mass of discontent out of the House, and the
Government seemed not to be aware of it.
Mr. GRATTAN thought that a tenant-right Bill
ought to be introduced, and he believed it would not be
difficult to bring in a good Bill on this subject. He
denied the statement which had been made against him
by a Member of that House in another place—that he
was a hard landlord.
Mr. SADLEIR defended the landlords of Ireland from
the attacks which had been made upon them. He ad-
mitted there were some bad landlords in Ireland, but
they were the exceptions. The great object of any Bill
introduced into that House should be to give the tenants
leases, to which there was an indiposition amongst the
landlords, arising from political reasons. He was quite
opposed to the tenant- at-will system, which was so much
lauded by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member
for the University of Dublin. lie hoped it would be re-
ferred to the Committee to consider the whole statutory
law as affecting the relations between landlord and
tenants, with a view to its amendment.
Mr. MONSELL said that the Bill of the Right Hon.
Gentleman had not given satisfaction to any parties in
Ireland, and the only reason why he supported the second
reading, was that he hoped it would be so altered in
Committee that its parent would not be able to know it.
The Earl of LINCOLN could assure the Hon. Gentle-
man who bad just sat down that he was too sanguine it
he expected that this Bill would come back to that House
in the present session. He complained of the conduct of
the Government in referring-this measure to a Select
Committee of fifteen gentlemen, and abdicating all the
functions of a Government. If the Government did mean
to adhere to their Bill, they ought to refer it to a Com-
mittee of the whole House, as the worst course was that
of submitting the measure to a Select Committee. The
time was come at which the Government ought either to
legislate upon the subject, or else declare their inability
to amend the law as it at present stood.
Sir G. GREY very much doubted whether any good
had resulted from the commission appointed by the late
Government on the subject of tenant-right. The efforts
made by the Government towards legislating on the
matter had been met by the other House in a very
untoward manner. The difficulty of legislating on the
question of tenant-right was very great, and the
Government feeling this had resolved to do only that
which was just. With this view it was that they had
proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, com-
posed of gentleman from Ireland, it being in no respect
their desire to force a measure on the landlords of that
country which they were hostile to.
Colonel DUNNE bore his willing testimony to the
sincerity of the endeavours made by the Government to
meet the difficulties of the case, and to adapt the mea-
sure to the exigencies of the Irish landlords.
Captain JONES was of opinion that the principle of
the Bill was good, although the machinery of it was de-
fective.
Mr. R. M. FOX took the same view of the conduct
of the Government that was expressed by the Hon.
Member for Dungarvan.
After a few words from Sir D. NORREYS in support
of the Government proposal,
Sir W. VERNER was so convinced that the Bill
would never be rendered useful or practicable, that he
had no hesitation in moving as an amendment that it be
read a second time that day six months.
Mr. KEOGH seconded the amendment, because he
did not consider the Bill to be likely to have any good
effects. When it was asserted that the Irish Members
had recommended the Bill to bo referred to a Select
Committee, he begged to say that he knew of no such
recommendation, and, moreover, he did not recognise
such proceeding, nor indeed did he think it had been re-
sorted to ; and the cheers of the Hon. Member for Li-
meriuk confirmed this opinion.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that compensation to
the tenant for substantial improvements, which he un-
derstood to be the principle of this measure, would
confer a substantial benefit on Ireland, and he should
therefore give his decided support to the Bill. The
Honourable and Learned Member for Athlone had
given no reason whatever against the Bill founded on
its principle. The opposition of the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman seemed, in fact, to be simply that
opposition which lawyers were extremely likely to make
to it. It would be well for measures of this sort it there
were no lawyers at all in the House; a parliamentum
indoctum of common sense landlords would be much more
to the purpose.
The Earl of LINCOLN op posed the reference of the
measure to a Committee up stairs, as imposing such a.
delay on its progress as would amount to a rejection of
the Bill altogether.
Sir G. GREY regretted the tone in which the Noble
Lord the Member for Nottinghamshire had intimated
his opposition to the Committee. The Noble Lord
had given ratherapibiarty colour to a debate which had
previously
only exhibited
in
teda desire on the part of the
House to unite cordially
Ireland.promoting the interests of
Mr. AGLIONBY would not oppose the second read-
ing of the Bill. At the same time he feared it would
prove only a mischievous interference with matters with

which that House had no concern.—(Hear, hear.) If it
reached the Committee, there were only three or four
clauses to which he would give his assent. He was
strongly inclined to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
Mr. GROGAN opposed the Bill as improperly inter-
fering with the relations of landlord and tenant. How-
ever, if it obtained a second reading he should support
its reference to a Select Committee as a means of render-
ing it as little mischievous as possible.
Mr. HAMILTON hoped that his Hon. Friend the
Member for Dublin would not persevere in his opposi-
tion. The preamble of the Bill, which contained the
principle, was unobjectionable, and the clauses were
open to amendment. He thought that the best course
would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
Mr. CALLAGHAN supported the second reading.
Sir P. NUGENT was also in favour of permitting the
Bill to go to a Committee. He was anxious and willing
that the outgoing tenant should have full compensation
for all unexhausted improvements. For such portion of
the Bill as secured that right he should vote in Com-
mittee. At the same time he lookM upon the measure
as a very imperfect piece of legislation.
Mr. REYNOLDS considered that some good might
result from proceeding with the Bill. He hoped, how-
ever, that the reference to a Select Committee would not
prove a practical shelving of the question.
Sir W. VERNER said he would not press his amend-
ment contrary to the generally-expressed wish of the
House.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE vindicated the coarse of the
Government and his ow❑ in the conduct of the Bill. He
denied that it was calculated unduly to disturb the rela-
tions between landlord and tenant.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be referred to a Select Committee.