The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 10.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four -o'clock.
CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.
Sir G. GREY, who upon rising, was loudly cheered,
said—Sir, after the long absence of the Hon. Gentleman
from his place—(Cheers)—and now rising in his place
upon the moment that the second reading of the Bill is
now before the House, I certainly entertained some
hope, albeit a faint one, that he had risen to disavow
with indignation—(Cheers)—that indignation which all
loyal subjects of this realm must feel at the imputations
which have been cast upon his loyalty—(Cheers)—not
only in that House, but by every newspaper circulated
throughout this realm for some weeks past, and that he
would, with that fervid eloquence which characterises
his harangues elsewhere, if not in this House—
(Cheers and laughterl—disavow those sentiments and
profess that, by virtue, if of no better feelings, of that
oath of allegiance—(Tremendous cheering)-- which the
Hon. Member has repeatedly taken—(Renewed cheer-
ing)—to the Sovereign of these realms, that
he cast off the imputations which have been so
frequently cast upon his name.--(Loud cheers.) What,
then, was my astonishment, nay, what were my feel-
ings of pain and regret—feelings shared, I will
venture to say, by every Honourable Member in
this House—(Tremendous cheering)—when, with
the miserable pretence of still professing loyalty,
a faint shadow of loyalty to his Sovereign, not without
that boldness and daring—(Loud cheers)—which has
characterised his speeches elsewhere, repeating the sen-
timents which he has elsewhere uttered, and charging
my Noble Friend, in defending the constitution of the
country, with charges similar to those made against
himself, viz., that of treason.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
The Hon. Member said that in his absence be had been
called a traitor, perhaps the Hon. Member will allow
me to say, that I am not in the least degree responsible
for the absence of the Hon. Member.—(Cheers.) The
cause of that absence no doubt the Honourable
Member is the best able to explain.—(Laughter.)
I did not, however, call the Hon. Member a traitor; this,
however, I did—l read to the House a portion of the
report of the Irish Cenfederation, at which an asso-
ciate of the Hon. Member, Mr. Duffy said in his
speech that he had received a message from that
Honourable Member who was then in Paris,
and rejecting that discouraging repulse which the Hon.
Gentleman had received from M. Lamartine—(Loud
cheers)—and which I must say reflected the greatest
credit upon him—in which he refused to encourage those
designs, Ise they seditious, traitorous, or loyal, as the
Hon. Member pretends to assure the House—and stated
that he should in so doing be violating the law dilations
and giving a good cause of war to England.—(Cheers.)
Does the Hon. Gentleman deny the statement which
was made by Mr. Duffy at the Irish Confederation, and
which had the effect of setting aside altogether the
answer of M. Lamartine to the Irish deputation?—
(Hear, hear.) That statement was to the effect that
the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Brien) was informed by a
club in Paris that the French people felt deeply moved
at the grievances of the Irish, and were able, should
they require assistance, to send 50,000 of their bravest
citizens to aid them in obtaining their rights.--(Hear.)
Mr. O'BRIEN was understood to request the Right
Hon. Baronet to read the next paragraph.
Sir G. GREY.---The next passage of the reply to
which he referred stated that Mr. O'Brien offered his
sincere thanks on the part of Ireland for that offer.—
(Lousi cries of " Hear, hear," ard cheers.) Is the Hon.
Gentleman now satisfied?—(Laughter and cheers.)
The next passage was to the effect that Ireland
would conquer by the energy of her own chil-
dren. That meant that, although they could them-
selves institute a successful insurrection, still, if the
worst should happen of the struggle, France had pro-
mised, as Mr. Duffy had said, in contradiction of M.
Lamartine's reply, the assistance of 50,000 Frenchmen.
—(Cheers.) I hoped the Hon. Gentleman would have
disavowed the intention of seducing the soldiers and
police from their duty to the constitution with the view
of their joining the mob.—(Hear, hear.) I said I did
not call the Hon. Gentleman a traitor.—(Hear, hear.)
I read the statement of Mr. Duffy, and because it con-
tained the sentiment to which I have alluded, he said I
called him a traitor.—(Cheers.) The House drew the
inference from it, and I find that inference givea in the
unmistakable manner in which the words of the
Honourable Gentleman were received when he
said he had been called a traitor.—(Great cheering.)
The Honourable Gentleman said that the effect of this
measure would be to alienate the Orangemen from sup-
porting the Government, but I will say that a very large
portion of the population of Ireland, including ull
creeds and persuasions, is determined to support the
present constitution of the United Kingdom, and I am
moreover sure that they will indignantly deny the right
of the Honourable Gentleman to expound their
feelings to this House.—(Loud cheers.) He also
said that the body, of which he constituted a
part in Ireland, was supported to a man by the Chartists
of this ccuntry. Now, I disbelieve entirely that asser-
tion, for it has been lately stated in this House by a
leader of the Chartists that they are firmly attached to
the monarchy of this country.—(Hear, hear, and
cheers.) I believe the Hon. Gentleman will find him-
self miserably deceived if he thinks that he will
obtain any assistance from foreign countries.
—(Loud cheers.) Ireland, England, and Scotland
would rise in indignation against the dictation of the
Hon. Gentlemen, and against the exposition which he
pretends to give of the feelings of his own country.—
(Cheers.) Far be it from me to speak of the tone of
the Hon. Gentleman, and of the accusation which he has
made against the Government with respect to their in-
tentions to Ireland, for it is their great desire to
make it rich, happy, and prosperous, and to give
it those constitutional rights which every person in
the kingdom enjoys.—(Cheers.) We want the real
union of all men, and the reasons for this Bill will, to a
certain extent, be found in the dangerous and mischievous
language and threats which have been resorted to ; and
in the Bill rests not only the security of the Crown
and the Government, but the true interests of the
great body of the people.—(Great cheering.)
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said, as he had been alluded to,
he rose simply to state that he had used the sentiments
enunciated by the Hon. Member both within and without
that House. He said that the voice of the people was
greater than that of the Crown ; but, having taken the
oath of allegiance, ho was prepared to defend the
Crown, not only against its enemies, but against
the machinations of her Majesty's Ministers, if neces-
sary. The Right Honourable Baronet (Sir G. Grey)
had alluded to the allegiance of Orangemen, and to the
loyalty of the troops and police, and said they were
sufficient for the defence of the country, meaning
thereby to imply that the words used by him—
" ridiculous and foolish "—were levelled agains.
those who favoured the repeal of the Union
He would ask the descendant of Lord William Russell
if it became him to ferret out old Acts of Pula
liament, in order to fetter the sentiments of the people?
To show that his sentiments had been entertained by
others, he might cite the speeches of the Hon. Baronet
the Member for Harwich (Sir J. C. Hobhouse), and ask
if anything could go further than the sentiments that
Hon. Baronet had enunciated? But they were success-
ful—they led to the passing of the Reform Bill, though
that measure had proved destructive to tens of thousands
of the people of Ireland. They had been trying to do
something for forty-eight years, but they had
failed. They had tried too long. He had thought
on the speech of the Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox), that the Government
would have paused before they proceeded further with
the Bill. Every man who wrote advisedly would be
liable to transportation. Why, if this were an expostfacto
law, the Right Hon. Baronet himself might, perhaps,
be sent to the other side of the Atlantic. The
United States had sent over 1,000,000 of dollars to
aid the Irish in their struggles. Now, he had
refused to be one of a deputation to France, because he
thought with Shakespere, that "if England cannot
keep the dog from her own door, that she had better be
worried." If a foreign army came to invade this
country, he would risk his life in resisting it ; let them
rely upon the mind and will of the people of England
and Ireland. Why, but for the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) hundreds of the usands
would have died of famine in Ireland. Ho had at-
tended the demonstration to-day, and, thank God ! it
had passed off peaceably.—(Laughter.) honourable
Gentlemen laughed. He repeated that he rejoiced
it had passed off peaceably.—t Cries of " Hear, hear.")
If the Right Hon. Baronet wished to destroy the
expression of the free opinion of the people he would
induce them, as did a portion of the former Convention,
to go about the country establishing clubs. Many
of the former Convention were mere rabble, who only
joined it to get paid ; and when they went into the
country promoting the formation of clubs, he followed
them in the dead of winter at his own expense, attacked
them wherever they went, ard succeeded in driving
them out of Scotland. Ile hated secresy, and
had foyer written a private political letter in his
life.—(Hear, hear.) And now they intended to
pass a Bill to enable them to prosecute the Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Limerick (Mr. S. O'Brien), but
they migEtt depend, if they did so, that their triumph
would b. weakness they would weaken the law,
and bring the Government into contempt. Until
they had a really constitutional opposition in the
House„ they might depend upon it they would con-
tinue 1;o experience similar daring from the Government
benches. The Bill was an infraction upon the right of
the suleject. Many voted by courtesy for the introdue-
tioo of the Bill who did not intend to sup-
port it in its future stages.—(Hear.) Now, he was
made of " sterner stuff," and therefore he begged to
move that the Bill be read a second time this day six
months. _ _ -

THONIPSON seconded the motion. He
wished (..o express his delight that the proceedings of the
day h. 1,421 gone off with order and good feeling.—(hear.)
He wa s glad to find that they sat in peace and quietness.
Do not let the House imagine that this peace resulted
from fear on the part of the people. No, it was from
their ttonviction that great political changes could only
be effected in this country by the force of argument.
He hat I mingled amongst working men for the last 20
years, and while he had never shrunk from censuring
when h e thought they were in the wrong, he cordially
sympatl used with them when he believed they were in
the right.--(Hear, hoar.) lie came now to the Bill
before the House. In the first place, he objected to the
haste with. which this Bill had been introduced. A more
important Bill than this had not been introduced
int, that House during the last century, and
he would warn the House not to make that felony
which. universal humanity did not characterise as such.
ar, hear.) But let them pass the Bill, with its
" gags,ing clause," and he would answer for it they
would :not find their prisons large enough to hold nor
ships .sufficiently numerous to transport the felons
whom it would make.—(Cries of " Hear, hoar.") So
far as I,he other parte of the 13111 were concerned, he did

• not object to them; but in Heaven's name don't attempt
to make it felony for a man to speak his thoughts openly
and without disguise. Pass it, however, and what
would be the result? Why, they would make hundreds
of thousands of felons, who would, when they were
dragged through the streets, be greeted with the
(Ties that met the ears of Lord William Russell while
eeing conveyed to the scaffold, namely, " There gees
Liberty and Virtue side by side."—(Hear, hear.) But
let Government persevere with this Bill as it stood, he
would oppose it in every stage.
Sir B. HALL said, that after he had listened to the
discursive speech of the Hon. Member, he was surprised
-o find he was not going to rote for the second reading.
The Hon. Member had only objected to a few words in
he Bill, which might be discussed in Committee. For
his own part, he should have deemed the Government to
have neglected its duty had not Ministers come down
and put a stop to sedition and treason by proposing such
a measure. The speeches of the Hon. Member for Not-
tingham in that House were loyal, and not subversive
of the institutions of the country; but he regretted to
:ay that his writings were not of that character. In the
Northern Star of some days ago he found a letter signed
ny the Ilon. Member, two columns and a half long,
and containing an expression which he should be glad
to hear the Hon. Member explain. The Hon. Member,
talking of the Crown, said, " There is behind the Throne
a power greater than the Crown, and let them put the
Pope, the devil, or the Pretender on the throne, he
cared not." The Hon. Member cried " Hear." If he
(Sir B. Hall) bad taken an erroneous view of' his
words, he should be glad to be corrected. But the only
construction he could put upon them was, that the Hon.
Member was quite indifferent who was on the throne,
inasmueh as he said it was alike to him whether the
Monarch was the Pope or the devil.—(Hear and
laughter.) Representing as he did 350,000 of the inha•
bitants of the metropolis, it had been his lot to witness
the conduct of all classes during the late crisis, and he
must bear a willing testimony to the loyalty and desire
to promote order of all, from the Peer down to the
poorest labourer.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that he was not only ready
to avow having written the passages which the Hon.
Member had quoted, but also to say that he did not
consider them to be other than in perfect accordance
with the expressions used by him in that House.
Mr. HUME would not occupy the House with dis-
putes as to the speeches or writings of individuals. They
had had quite enough of such discussions. There were
parts of the Bill that he cordially approved of. All he
wished to ask was, whether the Noble Lord would abate
five words of it which he objected to? He looked upon
the change of the punishment of death, proposed by the
Bill in cases of felony by high treason, to be an improve-
ment. But the five words which he objected to would,
if retained, be likely to subject brave and honest men
to the punishment of felony. Those words were " by open
and advised speaking." If the Noble Lord would agree
to withdraw those words, there could be no objection
to the Bill. If otherwise, ho should oppose it. Whilst
they were improving legislation, by the diminution of
the number of punishable political crimes, the measure
before the House went directly to increase them. If
he, sitting at his table, were advisedly to utter opinions
at variance with the law he would be liable to transpor-
tation, tinder the present Bill. He recollected that Mr.
Muir had been transported, in 1796, on a similar charge,
which, by the Scotch law of sedition, was proved upon
him by his woman servant. The practice of that day
and the law under which the convictions of Muir and
the other Scotch Reformers were procured were de-
nounced by Lord Holland as infamous, and in fact that
particular offence styled leasing making was subse-
quently abolished and erased from the statute-book.
But the present Bill would revive that offence unless
the words he pointed out were omitted. It was always
unwise to pass a severe law on an emergency.
If the Noble Lord had received secret infor-
mation on which he could rely that danger was to be
apprehended, let him ask for a Bill for a few months,
but he would venture to say, that the Crown and
property would be more secure under the present law
than under any that the Noble Lord could devise.
Secret societies would be the result of the proposed
Bill, and so would espionage, as had formerly been
the case, whereby the annals of the kingdom were
stained. If the Bill passed as it at present stood, the
country would be subject to the same perils that had
menaced foreign countries, and from the same causes.
In France it was the suppression of truth and of public
opinion that had sprung the mine which blew the Go-
vernment there to atoms. Let the Ministers beware !
The present Bill was a step in the same direction that
was followed by the French Government. But at the
same time he must say that he instituted no comparison
between the middle classes of England and of France,
and he regretted to see a Bill introduced by which a
doubt was thrown over the honesty and loyalty of the
middle classes. The Government and the aristocracy
would be lost if the middle classes did not stand by
them, and he hoped to see the latter insist upon
bringing forward measures to ameliorate the con-
dition of the lower orders. Be did emphatically say
that the present was not the time to bring forward
such a Bill. The manifestation of that day ought to prove
sufficient to induce the Government to withdraw the
Bill. At the same time, he did not think there ought
to be a National Convention sitting. He was anxious
to give the labouring classes a right to vote, and at the
same time to raise the standard of their intellectual at-
tainments. He had often said that he would allow a
man to say what he liked, provided he kept his hands
off.—(Laughter.) He did not think that Government
would gain in public opinion by this attempt to
strengthen the law. They should trust the people of
England, and they would be loyal; but, restrain their
expression of opinion, gag them, and he must confess
that he for one dreaded the consequences that might
ensue. The main offence created by this Bill was the
attempt to overawe Parliament. Why, how had the
Reform Bill been obtained? Was it not by overawing
Parliament?—(Hear.) Without continually overawing,
plaguing, and teasing Parliament, nothing was ever ob-
tained for the people. If the Noble Lord and the Go-
vernment were afraid of the Convention, why not use the
law as it stood? By the 39th Geo. 111. it might be
put down at once, and why not use that law ?—(Hear,
hear.) The same law existed in England, Scotland,
and Ireland. He thought that Government had been
badly advised, and that the Police Commissioners had
acted most improperly in appealing to an Act so obsolete
and tyrannical as the 13 Charles IL If that Act was to
be revived, the people of England should know what
they had to expect. In Blackstone, volume 1.,
page 142, the Act was described as providing " That no
petition to the King, or either House of Parliament, for
any alteration in Church or State, shall be signed by
above twenty persons, unless the matter thereof be ap-
proved by three justices of the peace, or the major part
of the grand jury in the country ; and in London by the
Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council ; nor
shall any petition be presented by more than ten persons
at a time. Was it possible that Government could mean
to revive such a law as that ?—(Hear, hear.) They
might contend it was law, but he contended
by b
ded it waßsnoot,
being repealed with other :arbitrary laws
Rights.
t 0
Lord That w
blaas thnsfieelod.pien of
Theio Act Mr.
furtherDieeeng
op-
posedpreosvidedtbhya
at any
ailntyfr ionfg et
omoein t
and
tstbprovisions t
bwsa, simprisonmentsite
recently
aad
had, pre-
sented
o f
foreeeah poefit'eiteieoen., siVgnheyel he
ey
h4eado hplemrssoenlfs,
insist s to fo
nt heA e.
clloeurtsreo, ousbterdtbgahtt
Ghimovseerinfmweinthtinwothoeld onpoertatili
g so absurd and despotic a piece of legislation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that his Hon.
Friend the Member for Montrose must have misunder-
stood the intention of the Bill. He was sorry that there
should be on the part of his Hon. Friend, and the Hon.
Member for the Tower Hamlets any departure from the
general feeling of the House, which was to secure the
safety of the country without any injury to the consti•
tution. The Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets
complained that ten new felonies would be created by
the Bill, and his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose
deprecated it as an invasion of the right of petition.
But the Bill did not interfere with the legitimate right of
petition or of discussion, nor would it touch the case of
persons who might in moments of eloquence be induced
to use words which their sober reason would regret. The
Bill, with the exception of four words, was identical with
the 57th George 111. The first part was not touched.
The additional clause was, " Who shall intend to levy
war against her Majesty fur the purpose of compelling
her, by force, to change her measures or coun-
cils, or for the purpose of military force or
constraint on, or intimidating, or overawing, her Go-
vernment." The mode by which such intention
was to be expressed, was, " By writing, or open and ad-
vised speaking." Therefore, no speaking would come
within the meaning of the Act, unless it should, in the
opinion of a jury, be uttered for the purpose of levying
war, or of compelling that House, by force, to take
measures which it would not otherwise adopt.—(Hear,
hear.) It was to be observed that, under the present
law such offence would be treason, but he admitted that
the offence was rather difficult of proof. The difficulty
of obtaining an accurate report of words spoken would
operate in the present Bill, but that, he believed, would
be a species of protection to the persons accused,—(Oh,
oh.) Besides, the offence must be proved to the satis-
faction of a common jury, and be did not think that
such a jury would be got to convict unless the proof
were of a most satisfactory character. He admitted t hat
" open and advised" were rather vague expressions.—
(Hear, hear.) If a man, addressing a public meeting,
said, " You ought to go down in a body to the House
of Commons with your petition," he did• not think a
jury would convict; but if he said, " You will never ob-
tain redress unless you organize a force and a
con-
spiracy," and if' he repeated such advice after due
warning, then in his (the Solicitor-General's) oyini
would
that would be open and advised speaking,
that
and
insure a conviction from a jury.
Ile m
exceptthe
irnd s
casesobjected
whereto
twbeem
offencel d n e v
w never insureasso a
bf
ai convictionos t
ast
o
leave
but
endt tboubitnokn
ttbh aetmgirneadt
a st o its
advantage
would character.
Hecould
far o mfa
ntorieeads ott
dignityi to
felony.result from
Therew changing
a was
a m
didsrunocohtaoaefftetecancceheestdo felony. To seek
aboutdis whichsoottrieoenweasa weakness of human nature, and with
every respect for the sincerity of the Hon. Member for
Limerick, he did believe that personal notoriety was one
of his principal motives for the course he was at present
pursuing.—(Loud cheers.) No more striking proof of
this could be found than in the fact that when
he and his associates were held to bail in a sum of
200/. to answer a charge of sedition, they were
quite offended, and exclaimed, " We meant it to
be treason."—(A laugh.) It would not be a less
serious offence as sedition, it would merely be one of a
more vulgar description.—(Hear.) One word with
respect to the 13th Charles 11. The Hon. Member for
Montrose had asked whether the prohibiting the presen-
tation of a petition signed by 20 persons would be con-
tinued ; but he might as well ask whether the amount
of prerogative then enjoyed by the Sovereign was to be
preserved ? Lie had only tp repeat that the Bill had