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

became a member o- a soehty or e hick the lar Mr
1). O'Connell was e. prominent meinlier. end the
erigateinent Pe entered into was that he would iune.
ditto ly provide himself wet, a musket en:l x keepseee.
Lent JOHN RUSSELL, would ab,tain froze all ellu•
sion to the Ileneurabit sleeiher ter Nottinghare'e
speeches and Preeeethries cue it that House, and wiedil
confine what he hail say to those ebservatione which
the lion. Member hail uttered in his place there. He
now 'wormed the House test it wee' lea the intention
the procession to coma in a body to the doors or the
Henze. But the Gevertiment and the House would
find, on referring to the printed declaration, that such
an intention was therein announced, and that printed
document was signed by three of the Chartist leaders.
Nevertheless, the Hon. Member now asserted that ouch
a proceeding was not intended. What then would have
been the effect, if, as the Hon. Nfember for Finsbury bad
urged, the Government had taken steps to prevent the
procession some weeks ago? Would it not have been
immediately said that tie Ministers had acted prema
!urely, for they had nothing to go upon, and the Hon.
Member's present declaration would be referred to as a
proof that there was no :ntention to approach the House
' of Commons in vast numbers? With respect to the cha-
racter of the intended procession, he must firstobserve that
every case of that kind depended on itself alone. He
Was ready to admit that there were occasions when it
was not necessary to retort to the strict letter of the law
in regard to public ineteings and processions. But there
were times when such proceedings produced a most dis
quieting effect, and the only question for the House and
the Government to consider was, whether the present
case should be referred to the former ur the latter cats.
ery. Why, the Hon. Member himself must be aware
the guilty hopes anti designs which had been raised
aid created by the occasion of the intended meeting.
The Honourable Member had told the House that he
had been reprobated at the meetings which he attended
elsewhere--reprobated for what ?—for improper con-
duct. F. expresaing hie attachment to royalty and
its institutions.—(Hear, hear.) After such avowal,
perhaps the Honourable Member would permit him
(Lord John Russell) ;o offer him some friendly ad-
vice.—(Hear.) He had told the House that he saw
no reason why the procession projected for Monday
should not be allowed to take place in the same manner
that former processions had been permitted to have
effect. The Government, however, looking at the cir-
cumstances of the times and the occasion, had consulted
the Crown lawyers, having also regard to the declare
tions uttered and printed by the parties promoting the
procession and meeting. They then thought it their
duty to inform all persons that the meeting was illegal,
and to warn them against attending the procession. Had
there not, he asked, been a sufficient warning given?
Were not three days a suffieient period of time for the
persons promoting the fleeting to reconsider and alter
their decision? Those persons might hare thought that
the proposed meeting was not illegal--that there were
precedents for it, and that it would be permitted. Tl.e).
row IsOew that the Gewernment had declared it to be
and that it had. excited a gre,.t deal 111 t,.rroi and
ilaret in the meads of peaceable- persons. Was i not. the
(hits- of the Hue, elt inner for Nottingham, as did nu
shi,re the sentiment; of these person. who called for a
republic, to dissuade the promoters of the meeting from
holding it? Was it not his duty to show them an
example by publicly avowing his determination not
to join it? Could he not state to them with truth
that their petition would be respectfully received, anti
that every opportunity would be uff.,rded for a fair dis-
cussion of what was styled the People's Charter? Let it
be hoped that the Hon. Member would not carry out the
determination which he had expressed, but that he
would advise those who looked up to him as their guide
not to persevere in their projected attempt to overawe
the deliberations of the Parliament by au illegal assem-
blage and procession.—(lleac.)
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL merely rose to say that the
Hon. Member's statement respecting a musket and a
knapsack was wholly without foundation. The society
to which he referred was put down by an Act of Parlia-
ment passed in 1831. It was formed upon principles
distinftly opposed to the separation of Ireland from
England, and its views were peaceable, and not those
which a musket and knapsack would suggest. But
perhaps what he said was quite unnecessary, as the
House sites probably already aware that the Hon. Mem-
ber's statements were often compounded more from hii
imagination than from facts.

Sir H. PEEL said, that if he rose on the present oc-
casion to say a word, his doing so was caused by the
lion. Member for Nottingham having mixed up his
name in the discussion, by stating that the conduct of
the Government, in 1843, offered a precedent which
ought to be the guide of the Government on the present
occasion. He recollected no act of the Government of
1843 which ought to fetter the discretion of her Ma-
jesty's Ministers. He knew it had been said that there
were occasions in former years when processions of the
people were allowed to approach the House of Commons;
but that was only by indulgence of the Executive
Government. The Spitalfields weavers had been per-
mitted to follow that course. But under the present
circumstances the numbers which it was expected
would constitute the projected procession were too great
to be permitted to take that proceeding. He thought
the Government had acted prudently in not having
interfered sooner. He thought it would have been
said, as the Noble Lord had intimated, that there was
no intention to violate the law. The present was the
time when the Government might properly express its
intentions ; and, with reference to the precedent said to
have been established in 1843, he must say that, consi-
dering the circumstances of the times, as well foreign as
demestic, arid taking also into regard the state of the
public mind at present, if 100,000 people were permitted
to parade the streets, it was impossible to foresee the
consequences, and, in his opinion, the Government had
acted rightly in taking the course they had done. For
it must be remembered that considerations of humanity
alone ought to have prompted theta to impose the
restrictions on the people which they had done, and if
they had not taken those precautions those who now
denounced their' for having done so would be the very
first vehemently to impeach them ; and, in that case,
he admitted with much more reason than they now had
done.—(llear.)
Tho SPEAKER—Does the lion. Member for Fins-
bury intend to pers:rvere in ,his motion that this House
do now adjourn ?
Mr. W AKLEY slid that he would, with permission,
with lraw it He must, however, remind the Hon. Metn•
her for Westminster (one of whose censrii news he we)
that he had not tbrgotten, and he hop, d the people µould
not tf,Met, the declaration made by that lion. Memb r
in 1831, that if the Reform Bill was thrown our, he was
ready to pot himself at the head of 100,000 men, and
march down to that House to compel them to pass it.
Sir D. L. EVANS was quite ready to enter, at a pro-
per time, into an explanation of the difference between
the two cases.

The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn.
TREASON AND SEDITION BILL
Sir G. ti ...37 deeply regretted that. toe spirit of sedi-
tion which wee displayed amongst certain classes, and
the language tending to excite an insurrection for the
purpose Of subverting the institutions of the empire, had
rendered it necessary for the Government to come forward
and ask the House to consent to an alteration of the
atshelmuntboetvnefertotinhetciiiercuinmtesntatniocens (toff
tlabwe,tiinmeosr.derstootbeninaablwe
Ministers than to ask Parliament to place any restriction
on the deliberation out of doors which attended political
events. Still less was it their desire to restrict the
liberty possessed by every Englishman, Scotcnman, and
Irishman to draw up petitions and to approach the
ti
ndr right htoht
eicti osr constitutedpower
soart hr
were
se
igrsert
nadgtu
eb
theiratsbi
the
truslionTp,lhe, aa
a
House with the expressions of their opinion on the state
tthheepCeorown, and to that right also was mainly
o off publictbec 02:f:et
it
liiberties of obfy
attributable the happy position of England amidst the
universal s.verthrow of the thrones of Europe. There
existed on the part of the people of England a deep-seated
conviction rhatthepeaceful enjoymentoi liberty which was
observed amongst them was the result of the constitution.
But there were limits even to those rights; and when those
boundaries were transgressed, and when, under pretence
of discussing political questions,treason was spoken,was it
to be said that Government was to be deprived of the power
of meeting those occasions? He would not enter into
a detail of the proofs which be had to offer of the trea-
sonable language which had been uttered at public
meetings. The daily newspapers offered too many
examples of that language. The Right lion. Baronet
opposite had referred to the events which had taken
place in foreign countries ; and, although he was ready
to admit that those occurrences had not produced any
ill effect in tne minds of the mass of well-informed people,
still they had had a very considerable influence over the
actions of a great number of persons, and he was
induced in consequence to propose the measure which he
was about to submit to the House. During the last
three weeks the language that had been held at cer-
tain public meetings in Ireland was incompatible with
he security of the peaceful inhabitants of that king-
"al, and their enjoyment of those institutions under
which more freedom was guaranteed to them than was
possessed by any other nation in Europe. The Govern-
ment had been reproached fur not having taken steps
sooner to repress those treasonable speeches
which, he regretted to say, had been too willingly
listened to by those who heard them. The Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland had directed his attention to them.
At first he treated them as mere ravings, but finding
that they had produced dangerous effects, and that they
had stimulated disaffectad persons to avow their designs,
and to endeavour to combine asith foreigners to render
the present institutions of Irelassd insecure, the Lord-
Lieutenant felt that it became his duty to take some steps
to check those proceedings—to put A stop to the Beni-
tioui speeches and writings of those who promoted them,
and thus to obviate the evil effects which they produced.
Fer that purpose proA,cutions were inetituten for sedi-
tion against certain parties. What seas done in conse-
quence by those parties? %Vas the tioversonent met by
Anintitnation on their part that they would in future
conform to the law ? No such thing. Tile Ministers
of the Crown were met by a declaration of an intention
to resort to open violence, and were told that, inas-
much as they were indicted for sedition, they were
now anxious to commit high treason.--(Hear, hear.)
When he used the word high treason, :he was atraid he
might be misunderstood. Ile might be a-tikediwhy the G,
vernment had not prosecuted those p mesons for high
treason. But it mu t be observed th.st sedition and
high treason were difficult to distinguish, although it
might turn out that those who thought they were only
committing sedition had rendered themselves liable to
be punished for the graver offence—uod to be subject
to the extreme penalty awarded to IS sat crime. But it
must be recollected that the persons who talked in this
manner were lawyers, or law-advise, 11, and that whilst
exciting others to treason, they thoug't they were quite
safe themselves. But in this, he thought, they might
hereafter find themselves mistaken. for if by those ex
citing speeches others bad been induced to commit acts
of treason, those who so incited tl tow crimes by their
speeches might be brought withia dm pale of the law