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

the peace en that country forty-eight hours—(Hear)--
and were the rt igion of the Irish people Presbyterial. )0
any other the; Roman Catholic, they would not en lest
their present position. Let them consider also the poi:-
tit:al 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,
700,0001. a year was exacted from the land. The Par
harnentary- franchise was daily diminishing; the m
tsa-
eipal franchise had diminished almost to a name; end
waste lands were unreclaimed. What, then, had the
British House of Commons done for Ireland? He wo ..111
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 cares 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
—w.)uld it effect those gentlemen who had been held to
bail, and were now waiting their trials?—(No.) He
was not sus e 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
Wes 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.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL observed that the wound
which this Bill would iirflict was like that which a sur-
geon made in cutting out an unsound pert 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-
ment 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
he had no doubt, and their affections were in favour
of monarchical institutions, and the order of things
as they existed, he was equally certaineAny 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-
nient 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
House from the most important to the least important
portion of the measure. The least important part was
that which assimilated the law of Ireland to that of Eng-
land. To that there could be no reasonable objection.
If the Lord-Lieutenant required further powers to
enable him to put down sedition and treason, which
had 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
liberties. There was no difficulty now in punish-
ing 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
impair the freedom of discussion in either or both
Houses of Parliament, and to overawe their delibera-
tions, might subject the speaker to transportation for
seven years or for life; let this be the law, and no man
would 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,
or were stimulated with the desire to extend them. It
was 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-
informed 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 beets seriously and deliberately introduced
by her Majesty's Government ; that they had been led
astray by looking to those insane speeches of Irish de
rnagogues, 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
any freely collected public meeting in this country,
they would find that truth end justice, and
propriety and moderation, prevailed over all the
opposite qualities. He, therefore, relied with confidence
in the decisions of such assemblies. Indeed he had
himself often heard them rebuke language tending to
violence, 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
against 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 (Mr. Fox) took to be the desire on the part of
the working-classes, who had far more intelligence and
Morality than he feared they got credit for—(Hear,
hear)—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, would, 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 Hon. Gentleman has so far
been in error, as to have passed his censure on the pro-
position of my Right Hun. 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 %ay 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 Parliament But that is a very different offence
from overawing the Houses of Parliament, which ad-
mits of abuse and misrepresentation. Direct incitement
to levy war, whether with the view of putting a per-
sonal restraint upon the sovereign, or of overawing
the
Houses of Parliament, is of itself a grave and
substantive offence. The Hon. Gentleman entirely
omitted the question of levying war, as if it was no
ppart o,f_thue_ measure. I hope he will, therefore, sus•
ent
of theuVildugnntlir, so far as not to condemn
sedan-tha art
gar in extendin he sees it. I admit that there
but we have towgeerceins
penalties of this kind to words spoken;
der that formerly the penalties of
high treason often awarded to a very few words
supposed to express ettreasenable intention. Now, and
especially of late, instead of secret conspiracies and
overthrown ncils in t
ithe
hdasark, Which a monarchy was to be
, becoym habit with those who
hope to compass the destructionsth of the monarchy anal
the deposition of the
ullys, to speak to large
anudso
of words exciting to the
masses of the people
levying of war and the
authority s for
the purpose
of overbearing the legitimate
mischievous
of the country,
artairef,vous arid and thereby to accomplish their
dan-
gerous ends. When the mode of w
over-
turning Governments is changed, I think it
of
necessary to take sonic other course than that
which becomes
has
hitherto been taken to prevent it ; and I say
i
far better to apply the punishment of felony to
thtosics
offences, than to make the Act in all respects similar
'
to that of 1796, and to apply to them the penalti,, of
high treason. It may, I know. still be argued (hat the
punishment is severe; but at the same time I think that
those eh() actually incur the penalties of treason, lied
who by being brought to levy war are subjected to the
penalty of death under the Act of Edward 111., may not
after all he in point of fact so euilty as those who have
instigated them to rebellion.--(Hear, hear.) I will not
continue my argument upon this subject until the House
has the opportunity of seeing the Bill. The Hon, Gen-

tleman who spoke last sal s that the only allusion I made
to the events of the continent wag 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-
empla!ion of those events is a mixed feeling, I cannot
but rejok.e at any portion of theta 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; fur 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 ceuntries; but when the
Hon. Gentleman speaks of ben, fits still to be derived by
the people of this country, and of honourable desires that
ere 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 contost, anti
bloodshed, and of the suspension of trsde 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 cJmnion 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 aff,irs, and upon the constant progress cf liberal
opinions towards perfection.—(Cheers).
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —259

Sir G. GREY said he should move the second reading
of the Bid 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 same
view. The stibject 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 own
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 i*
the meshes of law, and to sow discord between landloi d
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 for 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 lion. 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 the 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
Inland, and would strike a blow against the tenant
right in Ulster. He warned the Government how they
passed any Bill which would have that ctivet. It would
create a mass of discontent out of the House, and the
Government seemed not to be aware of it. _

Mr. GlaiiANtiiouglit that-attnant-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
!hey 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
fur the University of Dublin. Ile 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 enure the Hon. Gentle-
man who had 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 cotme 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.
Atter 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 be 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 Hun. Member for Li-
merick 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, end 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 padiamentum
inductunt of common sense landlords would be much more
to the purpose.
The Earl of LINCOLN opposed 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 rather a party colour to a debate which had
previously only e-xhibited a desire on the part of the
'use to unite cordially in promoting the interests of
Ireland.
Mr. AGLIONBY would not Oppose the second read-
ing of the Bill. At the same tuna he feared it would
prove only a mischievous interferenee with matters with

ehich that House had no concern.—(Hear, bear.) If it
reachEd the Committee, -there were only three or four
clauses to which he would give his assent. He was
str,.ngly inclined to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
Mr. GROGAN opposed the Bill as improperly it,ter-
fering with the relations of landlord and tenant. How-
e-Ter, if it obtained a second remling 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 rote in Com-
mittee. At the same time he looked 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
I louse. _

Sir W. SONIERVILLE vindicated the course of the
Government and his own in the conduct of the Bill. lie
deni► d ►hat it was calculated unduly to disturb the rela-
tior•s between landlord :►nd tenant.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be Referred to a Seleet Committee.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On Bic motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, it was ordered that the House at its rising
do adjourn till Monday.
WAYS AND MEANS.
A vote in Committee of Ways and Means for raising
a sum of 17,546,500/., towards the supplies, on Exche-
quer-bills, was then taken; and the House, having re-
sumed, adjourned at a Quarter past One o'clock.