The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDA Y EVENING, APRIL 15, 1848.

thisdy t o such e
v d
wasa n
that it was hardly possible
interested in endeavouring to applytc
a
evil —(Hear, hear.) One
g ausereomfe
ior' a
commence measures in that
House because they would clash with the privileges of
the other House. He could not suggest a remedy in
their Lordships' House, but he sincerely trusted that the
Souse of Commons would relax their privileges, and that
matter would be taken into consideration by the
the
c°rb mittee who were appointed on the subject of the pri-
vileges of the other House. Although he thought it de-
sirable that these restraints should be removed from their
Lordships' original measures, he did not wish to see mea-
sures generally originated in their Lordships' House, for he
considered their duty was rather to control the hasty
legislation of the other, the popular branch of the Legis-
lature; and he had observed that Bills originated in their
Lordships' House were not often very favourably- re-
ceived in the other House of Parliament. Now, to pre-
vent the drought in the beginning and the deluge at the
end of the session, it would be necessary to propose a
measure which should receive the sanction of Parliament.
He might mention, in passing, that there was no induce-
ment to the younger Members of their Lerdships'House
to attend, because their Lordships had so little business
to do; and they, therefore, were not so well skilled in mat-
ters of legislation as they otherwise would bo.—(Hear.)
The remedy which he propos, d was, to grant to that
House, and the other House of Parliament, by an Act
the power, if they shee!ds s chink fit, upon the receipt •
of any Bill passed by toe other Reuse of Parliament,
and previous to the reference of that Bill to a Committee,
to adjourn the consideration of the measure from a period
of the session at which it could not be deliberately taken
into consideratioa to an early day to be named in the
next session of Parliament, and that the House
should be at liberty to proceed with the Bill as if it had
been then sent from the other House of Parliament.—
(Hear, hear.) Such a measure, he thought, would se-
cure employment at the commencement of the session,
and at its close their Lordships would not have the
painful alternative cast upon them of passing measures
without due consideration, or rejecting them for want
of time to consider them, properly,—(Hear, hear.) And
with regard to such measures; so postponed, he thought
it would be desirable that their Lordships should hare
the power to refer them to some competent legal ad-
viser to ascertain the bearing that one clause might have
on another—(Hear, hear)—and who should present to
their Lordships, at the commencement of the session, a
legal report upon every Bill.—(Hear, hear.) By such
means he believed their legislation would be diminished
in amount and improved in quality.—(Hear, hear.) He
had endeavoured to suggest to his own mind the objec-
tions which might be urged against such a measure, and
it would be said, no doubt, that it was an innovation. He
was not alarmed, however, at the term " innovation;"
and no doubt, to a certain technical extent, it would be
an infraction of the prerogative of the Crown, as the
Orown had the power of stopping a measure by proro-
gation; but he could not believe that any Government
would advise the Crown to prorogue Parliament for the
purpose of defeating a measure which had already passed
the House of Commons. Such a case certainly might
arise; but the prerogative would not necessarily be
inter-
fered with, as the'ertrivn would still have thep?!se!, b

a short prorogation, of putting a stop to the after it
. had passed this House. He was only anxious
to give
their Lordships the power, on receiving animportant
Bill late in the session, of postponing its
eao
considerationu
re d t o
till early in the next session. He had end
ascertain whether the privileges of the House of
Com-
mons would stand in the way of the course proposed.
As he did not mean it to apply to Bills for levying taxes,
it could not be objected to on that ground. Thanking
their Lordships for their attention, he would lay on the
table the Bill he had prepared, and, if their Lordships
thought fit to give it a first reading, he would let it stand
over till after Easter, convinced that it would apply a
remedy to a great practical evil.—(Hear.)
The Marquis of LANSDOW NE was understood to
say that he could not accede to the first reading of the
Bill without thanking the Noble Lord for the attention
he had given to a subject, the evil of which had been
felt by so many Noble Lords session after session, and
which in many cases had completely impeded important
measures. The first reading of this Bill had his most
entire concurrence.—(Hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM also thanked the Noble Lord
(Stanley) for the introduction of this Bill. The subject
he thought had escaped the Noble Lord—how far an
Act of Parliament was required for the purpose. Sup-
pose a Bill came up from the other House in July; this
House had a right to drop it, and in the beginning of
the next session take up the very same Bill and pass it
through all its stages. The only difference from the
plan proposed was, that the Bill must again be sent to
the other House, which, however, had the power of
passing it immediately. It should be remembered that
the three readings and the Committee on a Bill were
not required by any Act of Parliament; each House
might pass a Bill at one sitting if they thought fit to
suspend their standing orders. There was nothing
either in Acts of Parliament or common law to prevent
this. Bills might be passed at once or in a lump, as
bad been done by the former National Assembly of
France, which once passed thirty or forty most im-
portant measures in a single night. But for the sake
of avoiding rash and blundering, legislation, some
further alteration in the mode of conducting the business
of the Houses, was absolutely necessary. He thought
the greatest possible improvement would be the estab-
lishment of a board of learned and practical men, to re-
vise the drafts of all Bills, watch their progress through
the Houses, note the alterations made, compare the Bills
with former Acts and with themselves to see that the
same words were not used in different senses, so that the
Acts might not contradict themselves and each other. At
present, the Learned Judges were called on to put a
construction on obscure passages, to reconcile contradic-
tions, and to elicit meaning out of absurdity—a task
which might well move compassion for these learned
personages, and sympathy for the unendurable labours
they underwent in listening to subtle and ingenious
eforts perversely applied to the words of the law.—
(Hear, hear.) Thus was the public time squandered by
the hour and the day, and there was a great chance of
erroneous decisions taking place. Such being the case,
a legislator could not apply himself to a more honour.
able and important task than that of improving the
construction of our Acts of Parliament. He was
compelled to observe that there was not now the same
veneration entertained for this House of Parliament—
he would not say for the other—which existed twenty
of thirty years ago. This was ascribable, in some de.
gree, to the total incapacity under which this House was
placed during the first two or three months of the ses•
Lion, to apply itself to any useful purpose of legislation.
The evil was assuredly grievous, inasmuch as this
Rouse could not be said to have any agency in law
snaking ; for, when the crowd of Bills came up at the
end of the session, the House had only the option of
either passing them as they stood or throwing them out
altogether.

Lord REDESDALE would not object to the first
reading of the Bill, but thought it involved so serious an
alteration of the law that it demanded very mature con-
sideration. A measure might be passed by one House
and suspended in the other for consideration next ses-
sion, when it was passed without opposition, and became
the law of the land—whatever might be the altered
opinion towards it in the House in which it had origi-
nated. This was sufficient to show that the subject was
one which demanded very grave consideration.
The Duke of RICHMOND saw no difficulty in car-
rying out the principle of the Bill, which he thought
very desirable. He believed the Noble Lord who had
the Bill. oken N 714 needlessly alarmed as to the effect of
The Bill was then read a first tune
The House adjourned
at Seven o'elo'ck.

HOUSE, op co- si
MOSS, April 14.
CROWN AND GOVERN
SECURITY BILL.
Edition
(Continued from our AfterLIENT a
gorfe
tyesterdayair,a
c)11
Mr. OSBORNE said, as the"
roefwthase House
amongst the Learned ,Ilembers
e wanted to know how
constituted the offence of treason, he
t when the doctors
as to what
the people were to ascertain how'
otne.—(Hear.) It
disagreed? The Act was aretrogresnsiaev
own to
when
really was too bad for the Governmenet
the House of Commons in the nineteenthereaceea:tuer;l,
progress;
every country in the world was making
to ask for powers to render " open and adPvisellro
ins" a felony.—(llear. hear.) Let the G-soPeavek'''
ment bear in mind that a similar Bill to the-
one now before the House caused a split in
the strong Government of 1792.--(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman had mad@ some allusion to a state-
sient he supposed he had made with respect to the Duke
of Wellington. If that Nohls Duke was a member of
the Cabinet, he should speak of it with respect. He
had called the Government " an old woman "—it was an
" old woman's " Cabinet in his opinion ; but it was for
the House to judge whether the old woman was the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the
President of the Board of Trade, or any other member
of the Government.—(Leughter.)
Sir DE L.:EVANS iuoperted the motion for goine
into Committee on the Bill; at the same time, he wished
to know from the legal authorities in the House whether
or not the law as it now stood was sufficient to enable
the Government to put down seditious speaking. He
o
beecteel to the int od, eion o f the new principle of
r lc
speaking into the legieatt: -. ~/- the country.
objection to l He had no
yernment it igranting extraerdinary powers to the G0p05,e,53,4
pos,e,53,4 ~h
It‘yre shown that they were net already
were ,hown, ,Llll4e‘ie,.mut powers. Unless such necessity
ftnendtneut la comaluya feel it his ditty to move an
only for a sewn 1 ty,tt"e, leaving the severe punishment
after the curemiesionnee'if
, com,uitted within a month •
Mr. - SRAit WAN 0' the, first.
opposition to'- the BiP'''Wh'ke‘r.Vet:,ayn,,elsido,n,t?,,hahteifmtohset
cordially approved of
it had been productive "ete 4,iTe,rat:leand thought
icins
revery
ood, inas-
much as several naitiea*
Bill had been obtained". c.f the
S propositio • e
taughtthu it would
aty of the
n, conaiderm er ec be a very
existed upon the subject of g h - e - difference
which
in the House should'he zere-trens°n. that
call the l
order to define clearly what try
stairs to Corrniattweyers
and until they had decided tUpon
bcthe ""tien the was,f
Sir W. CLAY thought that therßetirded. ur-
placed in the same category, and hltias it now stood
punishment upon crimes of a vary (.I'.
f.icted the !ine
and criminality.—(Flear, hear.) yThiereerent charamcter
difference between words spoken and was
a great
pre heat of debate and an article deliberatelyecied in
ppared by aebperson,
person, and afterwards printed
and circulated, for the purpose of exciting
the
people to provide themselves with arms, and entering
• nter!ng
sully into the details of the mode of using and procuringthem. Both reason and experience showed that
the
wiser course for a Government to adopt was to be
Lenient towards political offences. There was not
al in Europe where such lancet had a eaPt-
„ age asrecently been
Ind in this country would have been teleratelf
soment, And what was the result? all those other powersora
' ad fallen, while England alone remained calm and
arene amid the stormi He called 'upon his Noble
- . ..! ;LET 9Y113:111.3t V -siLli La*iii ta.9l; I

.0 11

414 1.

;bp4oC)utial..gas.-2;4

Friend to reconsider that portion of the Bill. It was,
however, most unfair to call the Bill a gagging Bill, or
coercion Bill, or a Bill of pains and penalties, or to
throw. anything like aspersions upon her Masjesty's
Government. The measure was one of a mitigatory
.character in all its pleases, except in that portion which
did not harmonize with the constitutional character and
institutions of the country.
Mr. MI:-.NTZ was of opinion that a large portion of
the people of this country considered this to be nothing
more nor less than a gagging Bill. After the differ-
ences of opinion which prevailed amone members of the
legal procession as to the effect of this measure, it was
hardly to be supposed that simple-minded laymen like
himself and other Hon. Members should be able to un-
derstand its effects. A great deal had been said about
Mr. Fox and his opinions. The people of this country
were of the opinion that the Foxites had forgotten all
the principles and opinions of Mr. Fox. Now what
had this Government done for the country? Their
first measure was an Irish coercion Bill, their second
the appointment of a one-sided Committee to inquire
into the distress of the country, and their third and last
was the present gagging Bill. He was most decidedly
in favour of assimilating the law of treason between the
two countries, but he warned the Government that
if they passed the Bill in its present shape,
they would not long continue to hold the
reins of Government. It this Bill had been in force
from the year 1832 and up to the present time, he should
have been, with the very best intentions, transported as
a common felon. He certainly never would give his
support to any clause which would give power to a Go-
vernment to transport any person for speaking his mind
openly and honestly, upon the evidence of persons who
could easily be bribed, and whose testimony might be
bought or purchased, if they would only pay them well
enough. There was great distress in the country, and
it was his most decided opinion that where there were
persons able and willing to work, and were not able to
obtain it, it was the fault of the Government of the
country, and if the present Government could not dis-
cover the cause of this distress, the sooner they retired
from the position they occupied the better it would be
for themselves and the country.
Mr. H. GRATTAN did not believe that if the. present
Bill were passed it would have the effect of giving any
greater security to the Crown and Government than was
now afforded by the existing laws. He was sure that
this measure would fail, but if it did not, he was cer-
tain it would have the effect of revolutionizing Ireland
against England. The Irish were not, he was happy to
say, traitors or rebels, but they were agitators for the
purpose of improving their coudition:—(Bear, hear.)
What was that condition? why, starvation and misery.
He believed the law, as it at present existed, was quite
strong enough to secure peace and good order, and he
could not see any necessity for so stringent a measure
as the present Bill. He thought that the Irish people
had great cause to complain of the way in which they
had been treated; everything that had been done by
the Government was done after an English fashion.
Englishmen had been preferred for every appointment
in Ireland, and Irishmen overlooked.—(Hear, hear.)
Such being the case it was useless to attempt to unite Eng-
lishmen and Irishmen as long as they were severed by the
law and the constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He recollected
well upon one occasion having an interview with the
Marquis of Wellesley, when Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
on which occasion he used these memorable words—
" The system in Ireland must be changed, or the time
will come when Ireland must be governed either by the
military or the mob."—(Hear.) He trusted the time
was far distant when such an event would take place.
Mr. MOWATT wished to know from the Attorney-
General whether it was the intention of the Government
to retain the 36th of George 111., so far as related to
that part of it relating to the compassing the life of the
Sovereign, which required the evidence of an overt act ;
and whether they intended also to retain that part of the
57th of George 111. which made it high treason to
imagine or compass the death of the Sovereign which did
not require the proof of an overt act ?
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said it was proposed
by the Act to mitigate the punishment of high treason,
and to preserve the enactment that had been referred to.
There was no intention by the Act to jeopardise the
liberty of the subject.
Mr. WAKLEY thought this Bill was a most atrocious
libel upon the people of England He could not see
how the Government could, after the people had acted
as they had done within the last few days, endeavour
to shorten their liberties by the Bill. He warned the
Government from trusting the support they got on the
measure from the other side of the House.—(Hear.)
They might say what they pleased, but if ever there was
a gagging Bill, this was one. Out of doors the middle
classes were astonished at the acts of what was called
a Liberal Government. The Government were adopt-
ing harsher measures than ever were adopted in the worst
of times. If these things were persisted in, it would be
the Government that was undermining the constitution
of the country, and not those who were asking for
reform. It was proposed by this Bill to punish the
people of England and Scotland for the sufferings
of Ireland.—(Hear.) If a Tory Government were to
adopt the course of the present Ministers it would not be
tolerated for a moment by the people, and it was only
tolerated now because the present Government had
come into power under false colours. He trusted that
Honourable Members would not allow the objection-
able words in this clause to be continued in it, for
although they might be in a minority on that point,
there was a course warranted by the forms of the
House which would enable them to compel Members to
allow the words to be expunged.—(Hear, hear.) He
hopes the Government, ere it was too late, would con-
sent to the erasure of the objectionable words in the
clause; if they did not, he would offer every opposition
in his power to the Bill, let that opposition be designated
however it might.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY appealed to the Government
whether, after the discussion that had taken place and
the opinions that had been expressed against them, they
would still persevere in retaining these words in the

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committeee
Against it

Majority for going into Committee —254
The House then went into Committee.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether Government
had any objection to adjourn for an hour.—(No, no.)
Sir G. GREY said, the Hon. Member for Nottingham
having given up his motion, he proposed that the House
should sit on till they got through this Bill.—(Cheers.)
On the question that open and advised speaking"
stand part of the Bill,
Mr. MOWATT rose to oppose it. He said he had
no sympathy with the fools and madmen who spouted
sedition either in Dublin or at the so-called National
Convention, but he did not think that their insane
ravings were any justification for the passing of such a
clause as this.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted,' with the
Noble Lord who introduced this Bill, that they lived in
extraordinary times, but he could see nothing in them
to justify this retrograde policy.—(llear, hear.) In
1792, when the French Revolution had had the
effect of almost overturning the institutions of the
country, and when the life of the Sovereign was openly
threatened, Mr. Pitt introduced a similar clause, but
Parliament even then refused to pass it.—(Hoar, hear.)
Wny, then, should they at this advanced period or
enlightenment attempt to inflict upon the public such a
measure? The law as it at present stood was amply
sufficient to meet all cases, and he for one never would
cansent to the creation of this new offence.—.(Hear.)
He thought the Government was perfectly justified in
pressing this Bill in order to put a stop to the seditious
proceedings of certain persons in Ireland. He objected
to the clause before the House, because it merely had
roferi ace to the deposition of the title of the Queen, and
not to the regal state and dignity of the Crown. Why,
after this Act, if a man, at a public meeting or at his
own dinner-table, stated that he thought the time had
arrived when the-union with the sister country should
be put an end to, and that consequently the
Queen should no longer reign over it, be would
render himself liable to punishment for felony.
The Government might depend upon it that so soon as
the reaction of public opinion set in upon this question,
they would most grievously repent their indecent hurry
in pressing forward this measure. The two main censti
tuts of the British Constitution were freedom of speech
and the freedom of the pre s and this Bill would
violate those fundamental, principles. He wished to
show to the
grievouslytoppressed
i
House
by
Bill would have in e
x e
ttihneg
tdangerous
here es cot f
owhich r
ttihoin
of
the people
in s
favour of those who would be most
ohnexiouisarmq tsopweornaltdionno,
tanpdremssofsotrewaarrndestthle
hoped that the Government
e•
euaisseorfe.
The GRANBY
to be a wide distinction kept
e:12113 between the person who
rite sedition, and the
person who in the excitemerj public speaking might
mike use of expressions tendie
eloquence hail ever thehat was the
h itch he borne
ion%tontithe earee result.
%lett s twpa,sw er alsow
lie thought for the reasons he had statedhureah necessary that the words " open and advised that
it
was
should remain part of the clause. While he speaking"
he regretted that Ministers should not have contZteediththeatir
confidence in the loyalty. of the people, instead of
rele
ing it on their forbearance in bringing forward the
pre-
sent measure.—(Hear, hear.-}

Mr. CLAY agreed in the general provisions of the Bill
because he thought a measure like it was required for the
peace and safetyof the country; but he never could con-
sent to the retaining of the words in the third clause of
advised ~ open and speaking." He did nut think it wise
a on ffd e nscpees a
kt
ihnagt . w e
Her e totally
could
two
different, that of
to brad wish
writing
not
of law to fill up, and he
for a court
believe that it was wise or judicious in them to leave
a hole in the law
therefore thought these objectionable words in the
clause ought to be struck out. In his opinion,
however, it would be utterly impossible for
a court of law or i
premeditated, and every
spoken fig.d previoinly been p
a jury to decide whether words
friend of humanity was called
doubt and injustice.
which was calculated to lead to much
upon to oppose a clause
He hoped Government would not content themselves
they would
with the precautionary power proposed to be given to
them by this clause, but, for God's sake, that
turn their attention to those remedial measures which
necessity for retainienag"
were calculated to remove the discontent which prevailed
aniongst the working claws of this country.—(Hear)
Mr. WART g . any
he
should therefore yt•hdeldob
jneoettiotnhainbkle
andtwhenrreds,was
, out of t' the people, support the
amendment for their e Justice to
_i
gest that the eleuwould sug-
xpulmon.—(Hear.) 1 e .
of the words ~ tzshould be amended by the insertion
not be prosecuPted Tospeaking," and that a man should
uttered, unless he had r any sentiments he might have
spoke Re objected to the pu • n them more than once.
such an offence, and Wou'alltihruent of transportation for
flictedin lieu of that severe urather see imprisonment in-
Government to expunge ,E. nishment. He recommended
e objection bl d "
and advised." By d_,.._ a e wor s open
yin; iv they Pf old do an act s
A „

•

which would prove satisfactory to a great number of
their supporters.
Mr. AGLIONBY also objected to the words in the
clause, and as one who had supported every stage of the
Bill, he recommended the Government to expunge them.
He intended in Committee, however, to move, should
the emission of these words be agreed to, the insertion
after the words " be guilty of misdemeanour," of, " and
be liable to be committed to prison, and there
to be kept without bail and mainprise until
delivered in due course of law ; and any per-
son who shall be convicted of that offence
shall upon being convicted by the Court before which
such person shall be tried be liable to be im-
prisoned with or without hard labour for any time not
exceeding ( ) years." He thought that that amend.
went would meet with the almost unanimous support of
the House.'
Mr. BAINES was happy to see that some modifies-
tioes had been introduced into the Bill. It was
originally proposed as a permanent measure,
and no degrees of punishment were intro-
duced into it, so that the person who should be
convicted of open and advised speaking must, under the
Bil', be liable to the great punishment of transportation.
The period of the duration of the Bill had been
limited to a comparatively short period, and
the amount of punishment considerably mitigated.
He could not adopt even as a temporary measure the
clause in its present shape, because the temporary
measure of to-day might be the temporary measure
of a twelvemonth hence. He was not to be told that
there were precedents for the measure in the statute-
book or the State Trials; that would be no ground
with him for the adoption of such a measure as
this ; before he consented to such an Act he must
look to the time and the circumstances under
which it was brought forward; and, looking at
the time and the circumstances, he did not see any-
thing to justify such a clause as the one now under
discussion. He thought that all the statutes in existence
were evident proof of the injustice of such a clause.
There was the authority of Mr. Pitt, Lord Granvi,le, and
Lord Eldon, against placing open and advised speak.
ing upon the same footing as writing.—(Hear.)
Hon. Members one atter the other bad expressed their
inability to understand this clause, and he would venture
to say that the most practised lawyer in West-
minster-hall would nut understand it till he had
read it over most carefully three or four times.—
(Hear, hear.) West it not, therefore, highly desirable
that the clause by which it was proposed to
establish an offence that had never before existed
should be rendered as intelligible as possible?—
(Hear, hear.) Words of themselves had never till now
been taken as sufficient evidence of a compassing or
imagining the death of the Sovereign, and looking at
the severity of the punishment with which it was
proposed to visit this new offence, namely, trans-
portation for life, he thought some further time
ought to be allowed fur consideration before
the clause was agreed to. Let the Commit-
tee remember the stigma that attached to
the name of a convicted felon ; not only, how-
ever, was the name of a convicted felon stig-
matised, but his goods and chattels were for-
feited, and he was decidedly of opinion
that the House would be acting most unjustly and most
unconstitutionally if it inflicted the severe punishment
of transportation for life upon the almost harmless
offence of " open and advised speaking."—(Hear.)
Believing that they would violate a principle of the
constitution of England by adopting the clause
as it at present stood, he should support
the striking out of the clause the words " open and ad-
vised speaking."
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said he had arrived at a
conclusion painful to himself, inasmuch as it placed him
in the position of differing from friends whose opinion
he greatly respected, namely, that it was the imperative
duty of the Committee to retain the words in question.
—(Hear, hear.) He had not come to that conclusion
under the influence of any panic or dread caused by the
emergency of the times, but he supported the retention
of the words in the clause because he believed them to be
necessary and just. The experience he had had in the
outbreaks in Monmouth and Staffordshire had led him
to the opinion that a very different and unequal measure
of justice was meted out to agitators and to their dupes.
—(Hear, hear.) When he called those events to mind
he could not but remember that, while the punishment
of felons was inflicted upon the perpetrators of those
outrages, the men who had caused and incited the
whole of them escaped with the punishment of mis-
demeanants.—(Hear, hear.) From the experience he had
collected in those scenes of the effects of inflammatory
harangues, he could not bet arrive at the conclusion that
words in writing were not half so mischievous as words
that were spoken. He who wrote appealed to those
capable of reading; and not to men congregated in
masses, where a spirit of frantic enthusiasm might
spread from eye to eye and from heart to heart, but to
individuals alone; while he who spoke, seising the pre-
cise moment when treasonable excitement would be
most effective, who could paint scenes of sorrow and
privation, who understood how to play upon the nerves
of agony, and at the proper instant to instil into minds
worked up to vehement excitement the principles ho
wished to convey, wielded a far more formidable and
dangerous power against the public peace.—(Hear,
hear.) When he was told by friends whose opinions he
greatly esteemed that freedom of discussion was in
danger, when words spoken with the deliberate purpose
of deposing the Sovereign, or levying war against her,
were made evidence of felony, he asked those gentlemen
if they had forgotten that other safeguard of the consti-
tion which was attacked in the very same paragraph—
the liberty of the press? For it was enacted that who-
soever printed and published such words would be guilty
of the same offence. He thought that his Hon. Friend
the Member for Oldham, whose writings and speeches he
had always regarded with the highest admiration, had
been misled into confounding two things essentially dis •
tinct. There was no relation between the speculations
of the philosopher reasoning in the abstract or ♦iewing
things in the distance, and the treasonable language of a
bad and corrupt heart, any more than there was analogy
between the most wreched productions of slander or
obscenity and the noblest productions of genius, because
they each alike happened to be published to the world
through the same medium—the printing machine.—
(Hear, hear.) But it was said that words were not to
be taken as statutable evidence of an offence, because
they were liable to be misinterpreted or misreported ;
but, if that were so, how was it that so many persons
had been convicted of murder upon words alone ? Al-
though loose words were not overt acts of high treason,
would anybody deliberately contend, for example, if
one person had been heard instructing another how he
might use a gun to take the life of another—he might
say her Majesty, for an example—that, although no
such act might afterwards take place, the words were
not an overt act of treaso❑ ? Would that be evidence
of words which were merely those of violent discussion
or intemperate language, or of words which were
those of incitement and counsel ? What he feared was
the effect of the spoken words of agitators upon the
minds of the ignorant and the starving—men knowing
nothing, perhaps, of the Charter or any political subject,
but who might be stimulated to acts of violence and

outrage. Why, of the persons tried at Stafford there
were few who had any notion of a political principle,
and of the deluded thousands who followed Frost in the
dead of the night not one in twenty knew anything about
the six points of the Charter. They had dim notions
about the management of the poor in workhouses, or
about larger wages for labour, or of some of the dazzling
social errors which had been preached abroad, but they
were destitute of political knowledge, political principle,
or political hope. Where the greater guilt was, there
the shame and punishment should fall.—(Hear, hear.)
It was because he thought that equal justice would be
done by making this evidence tell against the inciter,
wi ich so often had convicted the deluded perpetrator,
that he was desirous of seeing these words retained in
th it full force in the Bill. Ile was not one of those who
were stricken by panic at the events which were taking
place around. If the great experiments now trying on
the continent should fail in re-establishing peace and
order, still he felt assured that the observation of them
would only tend to endear still further to the people of
this country the laws, the Church, and the Throne.
Mr. MOORE said he should opposed this measure,
not because it was to impose upon Ireland a provision
of English law, but because under that pretence it armed
the Executive with a new and terrible power over the
expression of opinion in this country. The programme
drawn by the Right lion. Baronet the Home Secretary
in introducing this measure had been absolutely full of
allurement and attraction. The Bill, he had said, was

. .
only to assimilate the law between England and Ireland,
and that, in .that kind feeling which the Legislature had
always evinced towards the Irish people, it was intended
in applying the law to them, that it should be shorn of
its severity, and that thus the English people also would
reap the benefit of this most merciful act. Such had
been the prote,sion of the Government, but the debate
had shown the reality of the case to be the very reverse.
So far from this Bill being a diminution of the stringency
of the existing law, it appeared that because the edge
of the weapon was too tine, delicate, and razor-like to
hew at some of those rough blocks of offence
affected by the Bill, it was to be ground down so
as to make it properly applicable to them. Thus a blow
Gentlemen,
listeniner
he was aimed at the liberties of the whole empire under
the pretence of striking at Irish crime. As to the ex-
planations that had been given, he could only say that,
after
mhake it, ew 'at tlexen, to the statements of a dozen Learned
ki rie was more at a loss to comprehend both
itah-wa
than
ehteu ahlalyci
nwas,tn beforean d what
he
e it
hadwas
I, e
ard
a proposed
wordt
they had
whiehhad
Honourable and .I7e Learned Attorney-General
.whether he
wereuttmeraedde (Hear, hear.) He begged to ask the
overt acts of treason underword
what ground was it that,when
totallyts ei
whichoe an treason nha
mistaken, d b e
meant to assert thata
proposed by Mr. Pitt, tnah nesduoc
old
hd modes
naews
enactment
t e expression,
p nr eo st s,
wi ooanns,
felony by the present Act, would be
tshitaionp,reasnadot veßitilhl,drwawasn, it
tas opposed by the old Oppo-
sition,
under the old I Mr. Pitt? If they were not
law, did become felony by
which interfered
wordswith were right of free discus-
, thenovert acts of high
Infndseurchthe old law,elwla. the authorities
en
ahnitdhetrnteoiliooonk. looked
dt oLa
theta a new law of felony
with respect were
The t:raber for
Reading had revealed a new discovery. Right Hon.
Baronet who opened the debate, in referring to,
of the Hon. Member for Nottingham, showed that there
were distinctions which only persons learned in the law
could comprehend, and was it not terrible to think that
guilty men, who knew the law, might escape a punish.
m which :the ignorant, but less guilty, might incur ?
Theyent were in the habit of considering themselves an en-
lightened, and liberal, and reformed Parliament. He
would read what an unenlightened and uninformed Par-
liament held at the at the close of one of the most arbi-
trary reigns in our history, had said—tho Parliament
held at the beginning of the reign of Queen Mary. In
repealing one
jug, tho stat. 1 Mary, sass. 1, cap. 1, said, "Foro.kuuch
of the arbitrary enactments of a preced-

• .

as the state of every King, ruler, and governor of any
realm, dominion, or commonalty. standeth and consisteth
more assured by the love and favour of the subject,
toward their sovereign ruler and governor, than in
the dread and fear of laws made with rigorous pains
and extreme punishment for not obeying of their
sovereign ruler and governor ; and laws also justly
made fur the preservation of the commonweal, without
extreme punishment or great penalty, are more often for
the most part obeyed and kept than laws and statutes so
made, whereby not only the ignorant and rude, unlearned
people, but also learned and expert people, minding
honesty, are often and many times trapped and snared,
yea, many times for words only, without other fact or
deed done or perpetrated." He called upon those gen-
demon who were in the habit of speaking, and properly
so, of the wisdom of our ancestors, to take care that they
did not now pass a law which, in the time of Henry
VIII., was thought oppressive, which might trample down
the right of free discussion, and choke the voice of the
people.
Mr. OSWALD wished to express his sincere and
heartfelt regret that the Government had brought in
this Bill without first considering what was the smallest
amount of penalty that could repress the crime. He re-
gretted that they did not take the lowest amount of pe-
nalty, and he regretted still more that they did not re-
solve that the measure should be a permanent one.
Mr. M. MILNES said it must be remembered that it
was possible that we might not hereafter have a Minister
at the head of the Government so liberal as we now had,
and it would be very easy for any Minister to say, when
called upon to abandon his power, that it had been in-
troduced by a liberal predecessor, supported by a large
majority of the House of Commons, and he thought it
necessary to retain it. He had, therefore, made up his
mind that he was bound to oppose the introduction of
those words into the clause, assuring her Majesty's
Government that he did so without any feeling of dis-
respect towards them, or any sympathy with the views
of some Hon. Friends of his, who regarded the Bill, in
his opinion, with too much and unnecessary asperity.
Care should be taken, whenever the power of political
prosecution was extended, that it should be so extended
as not to be liable to be abused. In this country we had
gone on without such a law through times most
perilous to the peace of society, to the majesty of the
Crown, and to the dignity of that House; and a case
sufficiently exceptional had not been made out
to induce him to give these powers, when our
ancestors, for so many generations, had done without
them. The very case which the Hon. and Learned
Member for Reading ( Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) had dressed
up with so much poetical imagery, in order to prove the
dangerous and fatal effects which such acts produced in
the country, had been met and punished by the existing
law; it was, therefore, most illogical to deduce from
such a case an argument that the present Bill was ne-
cessary. He warned Ministers against pursuing a course
which, at this critical moment, might cause Europe to
conceive that we entertained the slightest doubt as to the
stability of the constitution.
Mr. COCHRANE expressed his approbation of the
recent conduct of Ministers, particularly with reference
to the precautions taken on Monday for the preservation
of the peace of the metropolis. The measure before the
Committee also met his approval; but he regretted that
Ministers had consented to limit the enactment respect-
ing open and advised speaking to two years; for his
part, he could not understand how that which was sedi-
tion in 1848 should not be equally so in 1850. He had
heard language uttered in
.that House within the last
fortnight which astonished him; and it appeared to him
surprising that the Member who made use of that lan-
guage should have been suffered to sit in the House
afterwards. The Honourable Member for Limerick had
uttered language in that House which he (Mr. Cochrane)
did not hesitate to say was downright sedition and trea-
son. The Honourable Member had said that he was
prepared to advise his friends to take up arms against
the monarchy.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL rose to order. The Honourable
Member for Limerick ought not to be attacked in his
absence. Besides, he had not advised any one to take up
arms against the Government.
The CHAIRMAN declared that the Hon. Member
(Mr. Cochrane) was not out of order.
Mr. COCHRANE said that he would be sorry to
misrepreient what had fallen from the Hon. Member for
Limerick. He certainly understood him to say that he
was prepared to recommend his fellow-citizens to take
up arms.—(No.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the Hon. Member was
out of order when he referred to what had passed in a
previous debate.
Mr. COCHRANE said that he would content himself
with expressing a hope that the speech of the lion.
Member for Limerick would be as soon forgotten out of
the House as it appeared "to be necessary to forget it, in
compliance with " Order, within those walls.
Mr. O'CONNOR implored the Committee not to make
what he conceived to be an innovation upon the consti-
tution. The powers which the Bill proposed to confer
upon the Government were dangerous to liberty. It
was not improbable that the Bill would be carried into
operation by the Hon. and Learned Member for Abing-
don (Sir F. Thesiger), who had informed the House
that be would not think it necessary to insert in an in-
dictment the precise words used by a man prosecuted
under this law, but merely the construction of those
words. To show how the language of a speaker might
be mistaken by a reporter, he referred to a report in
The Sun, in which he was made to say that in the event
of the Bill passing hundreds of secret clubs would be
formed, and he would be the first to join them; whereas
what he did say was, that he would have nothing to do
with sesret societies. The Hon. Member for York last
night referred to an article written by him (Mr.
O'Connor) in terms which were calculated to make the
House believe that be had advocated a republican form
of government in England. Now, the article was
written only with reference to the Government of
France, and in it he recommended that the president of
the French Republic should be appointed for life
instead of being elected every four years, like the Presi-
dent of America. The article did not contain a word
with reference to England. The press of this country
generally published the grossest libels on the Chartists;
it was well known that the press was paid for misrepre-
senting the truth. As bearing upon this point, he would
take the liberty of reading a letter which he had re-
ceived ; it was as follows:

" Blackheath, April 11.
"Sir,—ln the Times of yesterday appeared a violent
speech stated to have been delivered at a Chartist meet-
ing held at Blackheath on the 9th instant. No meeting
was held here on that day, nor was there any assem-
blage of people which could give rise to the mistake.—
I am, Sac.,
" WILLIAM NAPIER, Major-General."
After what had taken place about the petition yesterday,
he might be accused of forging this letter, and there-
fore be would give Members an opportunity of look-
e
d
ing Trear
:rt htsehi
hear.)
eoeapnlakwrelar.eroi
e),lnnt)nr)
~atnrh. AtoNdiii:uvrea,
Many
meetingdi
)sberld r,
present
ekte utthrew
eidsevtGovernmente speaking
psathaheti
speeches
Iscesi
,tiinthl gl
etrehend bt
pewptee
aeneavGsrhri
taorios ;:dmvi t
aobt
dohua
took
Govern-
ment.—(Hear, hhnail aeageebvnei
Beeot definei
i)—ti
lyi
(: been
udE place,—(Hear,
definition
passinge
d
g
n
of
into power by unadvised and intemperate speaking, and
now they wished to gag the people. Ministers were not
so squeamish about speaking in 1832, when multitudes
were assembled in every part of the country, and ad-
dressed in the most exciting language, and when Not-
tingham and Bristol were in flames. Ministers would
be better occupied in reducing the pension list than in
forcing an unconstitutional measure on Parliament.
Why should the King of Hanover receive a pension of
27,0001 a year? That aas an act of treason against the
people of England. After a passing allusion to Mr.
Cuffay, and " this Tom Fool and the other," the Hon.
Member concluded by declaring his intention to move as
an amendment that the enactment relative to open and
advised speaking should remain in force only as long as
the present Ministers continued in office, in order that
they might bear the undivided responsibility of it.
Mr. REYNOLDS said it had often been stated that
this Bill was a much more mitigated measure than the
one passed in 1793 ; but the fact was the reverse. By
the Act of 1795 " open and advised speaking" was called
a misdemeanour, whereas in' this Bill it was called a
felony ; which most certainly constituted a severer
offence. Was there anything in the present condition
of Ireland to justify the enacting of this measure ? Was
there anything bordering on disturbance in that
country? He believed in his conscience there was not.
He admitted there was Is great deal of intemperate writ-
ing and speaking going on in Ireland, but the great
body of the people were not involved either in the one
or the other. Was it necessary that such a Bill as this
should be enacted because some madcaps were the mas-
ters of a few printing presses, and were in possession of
some types and lots of ink, and were endowed with a
facility of writing ? The passing of such an Act as this
would only be giving an importance to those persons
which they otherwise would never attain.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that it had
been repeatedly asserted that they were about to create
a new offence by this Bill; and it had been as often ex•
plained that such would not be its effect. The Bill did
not make that an offence which was not an offence by
the present statute and common law of the country. The
only thing it was proposed to do by this Bill was to
make an alteration with respect to the steps to be taken
previous to the trial of the offence, and with respect to
eftohffreecspetudoniftiistohhnemaeint that should attach to it. The practical
prosecutionb tot mpuustt anb ens e
recollected
eptreods prosecutions
onnos
place unless information were
Billto
could g we t7teal rdk.
given, upon oath, within three days after the words
spoken. It was not probable that any persons but those
connected with the Government would institute such a
prosecution; and, of course, the Government would not
be prepared to have persons attending for the pur-
pose of taking down words expected to be of
a seditious tendency, unless notice were given to
them beforehand. The Bill would prevent any person
who was put in prison fur the offence of seditious
speaking repeating the original offence while he was
in prison. This would impose upon him a punish-
ment the most severe that could be inflicted—silence,
and be was quite sure that very few persons would be
found desirous of attaining a bad pre-enaiuence, if an
enforced silence was the consequence. A great deal
getting
had been said in that House about the neglect of the
hear.)
Government to bring forward remedial measures, but
the fact was that so much of the time of Parliament had
been taken up in talking about the wrongs in Ireland,
the end of that,
that Government had found the greatest difficulty in
aApsftbeerean
fv.sewlyortdhsoufrgohmt thatmr. any
position
.11:Alpac,.hief latent in the
anyhiB remedialo, individual mea measures
opiniond isc discussed
that at all.—(hear,
thel.—p(rlelseeatrt,
inlieasure ought to have been ermanent, but it had per-
Bill might be discovered in two years time, and that, at
The Committee should be
made a permanent law or not.
After no .
to
netepremriinnde,wPhartlhicarmetnhtewmoueladsubree in a better
ttee divided; the numbers were—

For the amendment 79
Against it
Majority
-- 109
Mr. EWART then suggested, that after the words,
" open and advised speaking," the following words should
be inserted:—" at public meetings consisting of not less
than 50 persons."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the pro-
posed insertion, observing that the words in the Bill
open and advised speaking" were well understood.
Mr. HU3IE had before stated that the law had been
interpreted in Scotland as permitting servants to give
evidence to words spoken in private houses. He there-
fore thought that the proposed insertion should be
assented to.
Mr, D'EYNCOURT supported the insertion of the
words.

• Mr. DISRAELI observed that the National Con-
vention consisted of only forty. nine persons, and if 't
were wished to exclude that body from the operation of
the Bill, that would be an argument in favour of the in-
sertion of the proposed words. -(Laughter, and cries of
" Hear.")
Mr. E WART suggested that, as the gallery of the
National Convention probably contained some hundreds
of persons, they might be taken as forming part of the
me eting.
Sir D. L. EVANS, though thinking it not proper to
name in the Bill any such limit as to the number of
persons assembled as proposed by the Hon. Member for
Dumfries, yet feared that sufficient security would not
be afforded by the Bill, as it was at present framed, in
respect to what might take place in private life or at
large private parties.
Lord J. RUSSELL had hoped that Hon. Members
had more generally understood the purpose of the pre-
' sent Bill. It was not a Bill against general speaking at
public meetings, but against certain offences, which had
hitherto for the most part been comprehended under the
term of " treason." The Hon. Gentleman proposed an
amendment, according to which, at a meeting consisting
of 49 persons, a person might propose that a foreign
enemy should be invited to invade this country, and the
whole plan might be laid down and published through
the kingdom, and yet, because 50 persons were not
present at the meeting, that offence would be exempted
from the provisions of this Bill.—(Hear.) He certainly
must vote against such a proposition.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY,
Mr. EWART postponed his amendment till another
stage of the Bill.
The clause was then read through, and the following
words, together with the following proviso, were then
proposed to be added to it, on the motion of Sir G.
Grey;—" or to be imprisoned for any term not exceed-
ing two years, with or without hard labour, as the court
shall direct. Provided always, and be it enacted, that
no person shall be prosecuted by virtue of this Act for
any words spoken, unless information of such words be
given upon oath to one or more justice or justices of the
peace within three days after such words spoken,
and the prosecution of such offence be within three
months after such information, end within two
years after the passing of this Act, and that no
person shall be convicted by virtue of this Act for
any such words spoken, but by the oaths of two credible
witnesses."
Mr. HUME suggested that the information referred
to in the proviso should be communicated to the persons
charged within a few days after it was given.
Sir R. INGLIS had no sympathy with the unfortu-
nate persons, as some seemed to regard them, who
might place themselves within the operation of this Bill,
and he should have supported the Bill with more satis-
faction if the Ministers had not allowed it to be deterio-
rated by successive alterations. He should support the
Government now against the suggested amendment of
the Hon. Member for Montrose.
Dr. BO\VRING expressed his dissent from the obser
vations of the Hon Baronet, and stated that the defence
of the minority who voted against a portion of the Bill
was to be found in the growing feeling of public indig-
nation against that part of it—(Cries of " Oh !"), and in
the reflection that they were fighting the battle for the
expression of public opinion.
Mr. HUME was afraid, from the observations of the
Hon. Baronet, that he concluded that a man must be
guilty of an offence the moment he was charged with
it. He (Mr. Hume) had been led to believe that no
man was guilty until atter he was tried and condemned.
Mr. DRUMMOND was sorry to find that there was
an universal sympathy for rogues; but he was too much
accustomed to the transactions of that House not to
know, that there never was a time when there were not
some persons ready.
" To explain our country's dear-bought rights away,
And plead for treason in the face of day."
—(" Hear, hear," and laughter.)
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said they had been told that this
Bill would ameliorate the law of treason. Now, if a
person was arrested for treason, he was entitled to a
copy of the indictment, and to a list of the witnesses to
be called against him; but a magistrate was not ro-
quired to furnish a copy of information against a person
accused of felony immediately on committal, but within
ten weeks after the commission of the offence. He
wished to know, under these circumstances, whether
it was considered that this Bill would relax the law of
treason?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that it was
provided by statute that all persons who were held to
bail or committed for felony should be entitled, on de-
mand, to copies of the depositions of the witnesses.
Mr. HINDLEY said that, under this Bill, informations
might be laid before two justices of the peace for words
uttered, while the individual charged with uttering
them might be in total ignorance of the proceeding
until eight or ten weeks afterwards. He thought that
a person who was charged with an offence under the
Bill should at once be informed that proceedings were
taken against him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that if a person
made a seditious speech, it was necessary, under this
Bill, that if any proceedings were taken against him,
information should be laid before the magistrates within
three days after the commission of the offence; but
there was no reason why information should be imme
diately given to the person against whom proceedings
were taken that he would be charged with such an
offence. In ordinary cases of felony, no information
was given to the person charged until he was appre-
hended.

Mr. S. MARTIN thought there was no reason why
charges of this nature should be kept bundled up for an
indefinite period, without any information being given
to the accused parties.
Sir G. GREY observed, that if information were given
to persons that proceedings were about to be taken
against them under this Bill, the result would probably
be that they would avoid the service of the warrant.
Mr. S. MARTIN suggested that the person accused
should be informed that proceedings would be taken
against him contemporaneously with the depositions
being made before the magistrates.
Mr. HUME considered that, as it was required that
depositions should be taken against a person charged
with uttering certain words within three days after the
utterance of such words, it was only fair to give the
accused person immediate notice of the charge made
against him, because atter the lapse of two or three
weeks he might find it difficult to meet a charge which
depended merely upon memory.—(dear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI thought that the arrangement pro-
posed by the Government afforded greater security to
the subjects of tier Majesty than seemed,to be desired by
some Hon. Gerillenaen. He protested against the doc-
trine advocated by some Hon. Gentlemen opposite, that
persons charged with offences under this Bill should be
immediately arrested.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY understood that this Bill
would leave it to the magistrates to determine whether
they would issue their warrant or not ; and he consi-
dered that the magistrates, who ought to hold the scales
of justice equally between the accuser and the accused,
would thus be placed in an invidious position.
Mr. S. MARTIN would move that after the words in
the proviso "within three days after such words spoken,"
there be added-4' and a summons or warrant thereon
forthwith issued." Was he to understand by the word
" prosecution" in this proviso, the trial, or the first step
towards it?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL answered that it had
been held in cases relating to the coinage that the
word meant the issuing of the warrant, which was the
commencement of the prosecution. It was so laid down
in East's " Pleas of the Crown."
Mr. S. MAR I'IN would like to see the point made
more clear by the insertion of his amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not consent.
The spoken words themselves would not be the offence;
it might not be necessary to prosecute where the speak-
ing occurred but once, and very necessary if it were re-
peated de die in diem, but this amendment would require
a warrant to be issued on the first speaking, or no pro-
secution to be founded upon it at all. If there must be
a warrant for each case, there would be but a single act
to prove an offence.

Mr. AGLIONBY regretted to find the Bill more re-
plete with danger the further it was proceeded with.
This proviso would be nothing but a trap for the un-
wary.—(llear and Oh !) Th accused would get no
warning that information had been lodged against him,
he would be allowed to go to other meetings and speak,
and then, each speech being in itself innocent, or not
enough to support an indictment, cumulative cases would
be brought against him to prove the " advised speaking."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER did not
see how it could be a " trap " that he would have the
evidence recorded. The words being but evidence of
the crime of "compassing or imagining" to depose the
Queen, &c. What the Hon. Member complained of
would take place, if at all, just as much without the pro-
viso, and the proviso gave the accused the advantage of
the prompt recording of the words.
Mr. HENLEY said, he could not understand the
difficulty the House had got into with respect to this
proviso; and he did not believe there would have been
any difficulty if it had not been for what had fallen from
the Attorney-General.—(Hear, hear.) According to
his (Mr. Henley's) view of the matter, if a person went
before a magistrate, and charged another on oath with
an offence amounting to felony, that magistrate, as a
matter of law and practice, would be bound to issue a
warrant for the apprehension of the alleged offender.
Certainly, unless he were told not to do so by an au-
thority which he could not resist, he (Mr. Henley)
should feel it to be his duty to issue his warrant in such
circumstances.—(Hear, hear.) If this was not the law,
it certainly ought to be made so; for he could not ima-
gine anything more tending ,to tyranny than to allow a
charge to hang over a man's head according as circum-
stances might dictate. But, if the law was as he ima-
gined it to be, then the amendment propo.,ed by the
Lion. Member for Pontefract was unnecessary.
Mr. MOORE considered it quite unjustifiable to allow
a man, against whom an information of this kind was
lodged, to go on in the same career of stirring up dis-
order without an attempt to check it by a prosecution.
He could hardly think it possible this was the meaning
of the proviso..Nr. R. PA,y,LE agreed with the Hon. Member for
11.3 0, V 44

Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that be should consider it
quite as a matter of course that if information were laid
before him as a magistrate that a person had uttered
certain words amounting to felony, he should consider
it to be his duty to issue a warrant for that person's ap-
prehension, and the first notice he should have of the
charge against him being brought under the cognizance
of the magistrate would be the appearance of the con-
stable with the warrant. He begged to ask the lion.
and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General whether
it was intended—because, it so, it would place the magis-
trate in a very invidious position--that, upon informa-
tion being laid before a magistrate, he should take the
depositions and exercise his own judgment whether they
were sufficient to insure a conviction or not, or whether
he was to send to the Secretary of State and get his
instructions as to further proceedings?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, that his
opinio❑ was that the magistrate would have no power to
issue a warrant upon the information as to the spoken
words, but upon the " compassing and imagining" of
which the words were to be received in evidence, for if
Hon. Members looked at the context of the proviso it
would be manifest that it was not the speaking of the
words which constituted the offence, but the " compass-
ing and imagining" which required to be perpetuated
before a magistrate by the evidence of the words.
Mr. DRUMMOND asked what the magistrate was to
do upon receiving this information, if he was not to issue
his warrant?
Sir G. GREY said that the word " information" had
a popular and a legal sense. If the information brought
before the magistrate amounted to information in the
legal sense of the term, and he was satisfied that the
words constituted felony, the❑ he would issue his war-
rant; but the magistrate might say that the words had
probably been used in the heat of public speaking, and
that he did not think the speaker intended " compas-
sing and imagining," and thereupon refuse to issue his
warrant.
Sir F. THESIGER was sorry he could not agree with
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney-
General), because it appeared to him that if they took
the clause and the proviso together in the construction,
it was quite impossible to put the interpretation upon it
proposed by his Honourable and Learned Friend. The
clause enacted that the compassing and imagining to do
certain acts was to be punished as felony, provided the
compassing and imagining was proved " by publishing
any printing or writing, or by open and advised speak-
ing." Then it was proposed to introduce into the
proviso that "no person shall be prosecuted by virtue of
this Act for any words spoken, unless information of
such words be given upon oath to one or more justices
of the peace," Stc. The clause defined the offence, and
the proviso described how it was to be established.
The object of the information which was to be laid be-
fore the magistrate was evidently to establish the charge
of felony. According to his Hon. and Learned Friend,
however, the object of the information was merely to
perpetuate the evidence, which might or might not be
used thereafter. Now, it was the first time he had ever
heard of a party being required to go before a magistrate
to lay an information upon oath—not of an offence, but
of the evidence of an offence—and he must say it seemed
to him to be trifling with legislation to say that a party
should be required to go before a magistrate within three
days to give information, not of an offence, but of
something which might be proof of an offence at some
future time, if brought into operation for that purpose.
—(Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Hon. Members
behind him (Mr. Henley and Mr. R. Palmer) that upon
information of an offence amounting to felony being laid
before a magistrate, it would be his duty to issue his
warrant immediately to have that party brought before
him to answer the charge, and he considered that the
views taken by those Hon. Members afforded another
proof that the couutry gentlemen were sometimes mach
better lawyers than the lawyers themselves.—(A laugh.)
If that was not the object of the proviso, he considered
it to be highly objectionable, and should give it every op-
position in his power.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was quite willing to
take the construction laid down by his Hon. and Learned
Friend, but still be was of opinion that the proviso, as
drawn up, was not liable to the strong objections that
bad been urged against it.
Mr. MAR FIN entirely agreed with the Hon. and
Learned Member for Abingdon, and he would submit to
he Committee that it was their duty to make the matter
clear and distinct. The course adopted would be, that
the Government would send two short-hand writers to
take down the speech of a person known to be a violent
man, and that they would lay the information before a
justice within three days. Now, if these short-hand
writers were to go day atter day to note down what that
man said, and then lay it before a justice, thus heaping
up informations against him, was it not clear that the
man would be completely at the mercy of these personss
In his opinion, however, the amendment he proposed
would obviate this objection.
Mr. V. SMITH wished to ask the Attorney-General
if, in order to carry on his own scheme to perpetuate
evidence against a person, he would object to the
words being inserted—" Unless information of such
words be given on the oath of two credible witnesses?"
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had every wish to
conciliate conflicting opinions. Lie would suggest that
the proviso should recite that no person should be pro-
secuted for any words spoken, " unless information of
the offence, and of the words by which such offence is
expressed, uttered, or declared, be given upon oath be-
fore one or more justices of the peace, within six days
after such words are spoken."
After a few words from Mr. WOOD,
Sir F. THESIGER thought the insertion of the
words proposed by the Attorney-General would make
the matter perfectly clear. Ho agreed in the propriety
of extending the period from three to six days.
Mr. HUME thought the proviso ought to be re-
printed. He moved that the chairman report progress.
After having been eleven hours and a half in that
House, they were all beginning to get a little stupid.
—(Laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged
to read tha proviso as now adjusted—" That no person
shall be prosecuted by virtue of this Act in respect of
any words spoken, unless information of the offence
and words by which such offence was expressed, uttered,
or declared, be given upon oath to one or more justice
or justices of the peace, within six days after such worth
spoken, and the prosecution 'of the offence be within
two years after the passing of this Act ; and that no
person shall be convicted by virtue of this Act for
any such words spoken, but by the oaths of two cre-
dible witnesses."
Mr. 11.1'NEILL wished to know whether the attention
of her Majesty's Ministers had been drawn to the ope-
ration of the measure in Scotland in respect to the matter
of bail. By the law of England he understood, from
what he had heard here, that a distinction existed be-
tween felonies and misdemeanours. That distinction
was unknown in the law of Scotland. The rule with
regard to bail in Scotland was that capital offences were
not bailable; offences not capital were bailable. With
respect to the offences which were reduced from treason
to felony, they were made bailable in Scotland under this
Bill because the capital punishment was removed. He
thought the provision of the Scotch law a humane pro-
vi-ion. But he had heard much importance attached to
this enactment on the ground that the parties offending
agains tit would not be entitled to bail. He was anxious
to know whether the distinction made between Scotland
and England in the point referred to was an
advised distinction ; for he should be sorry if
facilities were given in Scotland for the perpetration of
those offences which would make it the chosen
field for such proceedings.—(A laugh.) A material
alteration had been made in the law of forgery, by which
offences were made not capital which were formerly
capital. Under the general rule in Scotland, all parties
charged with forgery were then entitled to bail; and a
successful forger to a large amount had nothing to do
but to deposit the amount of bail and abscond.—(A
laugh.) A statute was passed to remedy that omission.
If no distinction were intended to be made between
England and Scotland, it was desirable that some provi-
sion should be introduced to guard against the conse
quences he had pointed out.
The LORD-ADVOCATE had not thought it neces-
sary to call the attention of the House to one or two
points with reference to the law of Scotland which were
involved in the Bill, because he saw how the matter was
to be explicated in accordance with that law, and he
should only have been throwing more elements into the
present discussion. He acquiesced in his Hon. and
Learned Friend's statement in regard to the law of
Scotland. If this offence were made not capitally
punishable it would be bailable; and when the Com-
mittee had determined what should be the substance of
the Bill, he should make it his duty to propose provi-
sions adapting the measure to Scotland.
Sir G. GREY suggested that when they were agreed
as to the substance of the proviso, time should be given
to put it into proper shape before bringing up the report.
—(" No, no.") He did not think that an unreasonable
request.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said, that the proviso involved a question
of the greatest importance, and after all the bungling
which had taken place it was desirable that the Com-
mittee should see it in its amended shape before adopt-
ing it. He therefore moved that the Chairman should
report progress. (The Chairman did not immediately
put the question, and the Hon. Member proceeded.)
Why do you not put the motion? Are you asleep, Sir?
—(Loud laughter, and cries of " Order.") I have
three times moved that you report progress.—(Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN—I beg to inform the Hon. Member
that it is not competent for me to get up until he sits
down.—(Laughter and cheers.)
Mr. HUME—I made the motion twice before, and sat
down.—(A laugh.) This is the third time I have risen
to make the same motion.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question.
Mr. P. HOWARD begged to express a hope that the
Hon.lMember for Montrose would retract the observation
which ho had made to the Chairman.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL suggested that, in the clause,
when amended, words should be inserted to authorise
information to be given before stipendiary magistrates in
Ire land.

OSWALD was of opinion that the proviso
should be printed before the Committee was called
upon to adopt it.
Mr. NAPIER was apprehensive that even as it was
purposed to mend the proviso, repeated informations
might be taken against an individual respecting pas-
sages of speeches, and that ultimately a cluster of
words would be brought to bear against him.—(flear.)
Sir G. GREY thought that under the circumstances
the proviso should be postponed, and that the Com-
mittee should now go through the remainder of the Bill.
("No, no.") If Hon. M..inbers would not accede to
that proposition he must ask the House to sit to-
morrow.—(" No," and cheers.)
Mr. WOOL) thought it fair to state a difficulty which
occurred to him as likely to arise under the proviso as it
was proposed to be amended. In some cases proceed-
ings might bo taken against parties for overt acts, and
the Government might not be aware of words spoken
till tti~er the ezpiratiou, of-the days-prescribed 437 the