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

SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 15, 1848.

which would prove satisfactory to a great number of
their fripporters.
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 omission 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 wile, shall be convicted of that offence
.shall upon being convicted by the Court before which
siren j 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-
ment would meet with the almost unanimous support of
the House.
Mr. BAINES was happy to see that some modifica-
tions 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
Bill, 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 punt ottnent 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 t welvementh 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
r uaamnn
sd
tA, a
nc
Ict
oe
oshke
n gm underu
as
tt
thislook
e h bt eoif
to r
tehweah
se t cmb oreno su eganhnt
ted d f to()t
rh
we suchardc
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 after 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 not 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
eneonstitutionally if it. inflicted the severe punishment
,f transportation for life upon the almost harmless
iffence 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 bad 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 but 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, seizing 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 he
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 or 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 viewing
things in the distance, and the treasonable language of a
lied 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 be
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 treason ? 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,
which so often had convicted the deluded perpetrator,
that he was desirous of seeing these words retained in
their full force in the Bill. lie 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 Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary
in introducing this measure had been absolutely full of
alurement 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 shout! 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 profession of the Government, but the debate
bad 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 fine, 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
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
Gentlemen, he was
rlistnng tothmeorsetaatet a lossments t° o ffinp nd both
f cadozreenheLearnetdh
what the law actually was, and what it was proposed to
make it, than he had been before he had heard a word
they had utter, el (Hear, hear.) He begged to ask the
Ilolvvoheinrcutttiiravivecebtrls:omafn:dtdree.Lsroerlanolnedy Attorney-General whether he
meant to assert thatea a 1 words and modes of expression,
what ground was it
proposed by Mr. Pitt, by the present Act, would be
under the old law? If not, on
that, when such an enactment was
was opposed by the old Oppo-
sition, and withdrawn by Mr. Pitt? if they were not
indictable under twheoldlat
thisw, :nd did become felony by
re siennt
et r
ißeirlel ,
with the right gnt of free ew law o
ffelony
woolrdds law, were
then overt h
thesic authorities
wt hhe p
i c h
d as no
treason a
discus-
sion?
lufndrseuch the
which had been hitherto looked to with respectts of high
totally mistaken, and the Hon. and Learned Memberw were
Reading bad revealed a new discovery. The Right Hon.
Baronet who opened the debete, in referring to a speech
of the Hon. Member for Nottingham, showed that there
were distinctions which only persona learned in the law
could comprehend, and was it not terrible to think that
guilty men, who knee, the law, might escape a punish-
relent which ;the ignorant, but less guilty, might incur ?
They 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—the Parliament
held at the beginning of the reign of Queen Mary. In
repealing one of the arbitrary enactments of a preced-
ing, the stet. I Mary, seas. 1, ca p. 1, said, "Forasmuch

as the state of every King, rules, and governor of any
more assured by the love mid favour of the subject,
mrnonalts,,standeth and consisteth
realm, dominion, or co
toward their sovereign7rttl-eovernor, than in

the dread and fear Of laws made with rigorous pains
and extreme punishment fur not obeying of their
sovereign ruler and governor ; and laws also justly
made for 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 learsed 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
tlemen 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 permaneneone.
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
misrepresent 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 or
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 this 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 bad informed the House
that he 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 secret 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 he 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 be 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, &c.,
" WILLIAM NAPIER, Major-General."
After what had taken place about the petition yesterday,
he might be accused of forging this letter, and there-
fore he would give Members an opportunity of look-
ing at it. (The lion. Member threw the letter on the
table.) There were violent speeches reported as
having been spoken at a meeting which never took
place,—(Hear, hear.) Many attempts had been made
to define what open and advised speaking was ; but
the only definition it would receive after the passing of
the Bill would be anything spoken against the Govern-
ment.—(tlear, hear.) The present Government had gut
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 exc:ting 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
27,000/ a year? That was 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 bad often been stated that
this Bill was a much more mitigated measure than the
one passed in 1795 ; 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 i great deal of intemperate writ-
ing and speaking going on in Ireland, hut 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, arid 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
the punishment that should attach to it. The practical
effect of the Bill would be to put an end to prosecutions
for sedition altogether. It must be recollected that no
prosecution could take place unless information were
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 , ter dency unless notice were given to
them beforehand. The Bill would prevent any person
who was put in prison for 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-eminence, if an
enforced silence was the consequence. A great deal
had been said in that House about the neglect of the
Government to bring forward remedial measures, but
the fact was that so much of the time of Parliament had
been taken up in
measurel ought to have been
that Government had found the greatest difficulty in
getting any remedial measures discussed at all.—(Hear,
.
hear.) His
talking about 5110 wrongs in Ireland,
s own individual opinion was that the present
position to determine whetheprertmheanent, measurebut it
should
dp per-
haps been wisely thought that any mischief latent in the
the
might be discovered in two years time, and that, at
he.end of that period, Parliament would be in a better
made a permanent law or not.
After a few words from Mr. WYLD,
The
Cmlinittee divided; the numbers were—

For the amendment 79
Against it
Maierity - 109
Mr. EWART then suggested, that after the words,
" open an,i advised speaking," the following words should
he 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. HU rIE 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. EWART suggested that, as the gallery of the
National Convention probably contained some hundreds
of persons, they might be taken as forming part of the
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 non. 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, and 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. BOWRING 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 re-
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. lIINDLEY 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 insme
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 after 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 her Majesty than seemed.,to be desired by
some lion. Gentlemen. Ile 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—" 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 B►ll more re-
plete with danger the further it was proceeded with.
This proviso would he nothing but a trap for the un-
wary.—(llear and Oh !) Tho 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 EXCHEQUER 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 ha 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 proposed by the
Hon. Member for Pontefract was unnecessary.
Mr. MOORE considered it quite unjustifiable to allow
a mali 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
ot the proviso.
Mr. B. PALMER agreed with the Hon. Member for
1

Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that he should consider it
quite as a matter of course that if information were laid
before him as a magistrate that a person bad 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 appe 'ranee of the con.
stable with the warrant. He begged to ask the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General whether
it was intended—beeause, if so, it would place the magis-
trate in a very invidieus 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
opinion 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, then 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," &c. 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 country gentlemen were sometimes much
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 he was of opinion that the proviso, as
drawn up, was not liable to the strong objections that
had been urged against it.
Mr. NEAR PIN entirely agreed with the Hon. and
Learned Member for Abingdon, and he would submit to
the 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 after 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. smrrti 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. He 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. He 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.
(Laugh ter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged
to read the 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 words
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. M'NEILL wished to know whether the attention

of her Majesty's Ministers bad 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-
vision. But he had heard much importance attached to
this enactment on the ground that the parties offending
against it 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.—(llear.)
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 mot
thirdiontwi twice
down.—(A laugh.) Thisis the time before,
Iha raen
risen
t
to make the same motion.
Mr.Th PC.HHAOIWRMAARND
btheegngepdutto
e that the
would retract the observation
Montrose
Hon.,Member fortehxepqreueess tai onh
0.
p
which he had made to the Chairman.
Mr.
that, in the clause,
whMenr.a J.
ended,C ° NwN iL suggestedortshonldbe inserted to authorise
information to be given before stipendiary magistrates in
Ire laud.
Mr. 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
Sir G. GREY thouz,ht 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. Members would not accede to
that proposition he must ask the House to sit to-
morrow.—(" No," and cheers.)
Mr. WOOD 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 be taken against parties for overt acts, and
the Government might not be aware of. words spoken
till after. the expiration of the days ,preseribed by the

ti

thi

ter

proviso. In all such cases itseared to him that
prosecution would be at an end, iu consequence of the
words spoken not having been registered in due time. •
The Committee then divided, and the numbers were
For reporting progress 4B
Against it
Majority2s7
The CHAIRMAN then put the question that tne
clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY moved, as an amendment, that the
Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Sir F. 'FHESIGER observed that, as the proviso was
not in a proper shape at present to be submitted to the
e
Committee, he thought that the consideration of the
clause ought to be postponed until the proviso was before
the Committee.
Sir G. GREY could not assent to this euggestion:7:
(Loud cheers) He did not object to any
speeches whatever, provided the object was .not delay
But, from a gentleman possessing the Parliaments*
experience of the Hon. and Learned Member for Ahiur
don he did not expect a suggestion which could oull
contribute to delay the progress of the measure:—.
(Hear.) He hoped that after the discussion which the
number of
question had received the House would not break IR.
without affirming this clause, which was really the sub'
ttance of the Bill.
Sir F, THESIGER appealed to the course which be_
had taken in regard to the Bill hitherto as a proof ttiac
it was not his object to interpose any unnecessary ass
in the progress of the measure. His wish was to pas.
the Bill as quickly as possible, but he was desirous that
it should be put in such a shape as would make 1
effective.
After a few words frem Mr. HUME and Mr'
O'C ONNOR,
Sir G. GREY remarked that the discussion on the
Bill had already lasted three days, and he hoped. !It°
Committeelwould support him by pronouncing an piult^
Me'
upon this clause before they separated. Hon. .-
bers would have an opportunity of renewing the disc_sul
sion on the third reading, or on the report, if they thaw'
proper to do so.
Mr. J. STUART begged the Committee to bearlll
mind that they had, in effect, agreed to the clause in 61
form in which it now stood, and therefore he hoped het
they would permit it to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ observed that though the Right gla
Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department se
very very much irritated, that was a matter of little 4.7-d..
portance to anybody. Nobody had been able to Os
the clause as it stood in decent English, and be must*
that, after the treatment which the opponents a the P.
had experienced from the Government, every sort dim'
pediment to its proeres was justifiable.
The ATTORNEY-s
GENERAL was surprised that,.
the Hon. Member for Birmingham, who had been in the
House all the evening, had not attempted to correct t".;
ungrammatical character of the clause before. It
no too
After late to do so.
a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY, the Ce°2.
mittee divided, when the numbers were—
For Mr. Wakley's motion
Against it ... 270
Majority en
The House immediately again divided —on—the23cilues,r6r
that the clause as amended stand part of the Bab
numbers were—
Ayes

Noes
Majority
The clause was then ordered to stand p--art ofl9l2he
On the 4th clause, " That it shall be lawful, in .:0
indictment for any felony under this Act, obelr
against the offender any number of the matters, sellico
deeds by which such compassings, imaginations, ;
shall have been expressed, uttered, or declared,"
....Ad
Mr. O'CONNOR objected to this clause being P
until the proviso to the 3d clause was known. This
a new cATTORlause introduced into the Bill. the
The NEY-GENERAL was surprised at •
objection, as the clause was for the benefit of the
cused. • tO
Sir F. THESIGER had no substantive objentleri •ty
the clause, and he thought there should be an opportabl,
of introducing cumulative charges; but his objection vy.::
the same as that of the Hon. Member for Nottingglimw.
He objected to taking this clause whilst in a state (1"
certainty as to what the proviso to the 3d clause sbe..k
be. This 4th clause would be utterly inconsistent for-
the proviso as now understood.
After a few words from the Attorney-General,
Aglionby, and Mr. Roundel! Palmer, the Cotoo°l1te
divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it ..
Majority for the clause -IBS
The clause was then agreed to, as were the resn."--;nifi•
clauses of the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN left the chair amidst loud cheers, 1
pd
the House resumed. The report was ordered to be ...
ceived on Monday.
The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring 41:
Bill to amend the lawof Scotland relative to the care soy
custody of lunatics, and for the better regulation of 107.0 r
tic asylums, and for the establishment of asylums
pauper lunatics.
Mr. CARD WELL moved for a return of the net
income and expenditure of the United Kingdoin
the several years ending the sth day of April, 184""
1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, and 1848, respectively`
Ordered.
The House then, at a Quarter before Two o'clock° Ste
journed till Monday.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS•

LIVERPOOL, APRIL 14.

STOCK Excroaion.—The sales are—Birkenhead, Lance'
shire, and Cheshire Junction, 311. Shares, 6% dis.—Ditto
(late C. and B.), 1254—East Lancashire, New, 83s: 9d.--
Lancashire and Yorkshire (late West Riding Union), 33/4 C.
dis.—London and North-Western, 126 A—Ditto, New QUO.
ters, 1% p.—Ditto, Quarters (A and B), p.—Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 20/. Shares, 8 dis —Ditto, No. 1,
21,4 dia.—Ditto, No. 2, 14%—Ditto, Eighths, 5%
land, 9614—Ditto, Halves, 6 dis.—North Staffordshire, 3 cll4
„'
—South-Eastern and Dover, 221,4—Ditto, No. 4, Thirds,
s.
9d. dis. —York, Newcastle, and Berwick, Extensions (24.
and B.), No. 2, par—Ditto, G. N. E. Purchase, IA4
dis.—Dittor
Preference, par.
MANCHESTER, APRIL 14.
STOCK ExcBANGE.—The sales are—Birkenhead, Laos"
shire, and Cheshire Junction, 6% dis.—Lancashire and York-
shire, Fifths, Ija dis.—Ditto (West Riding Union), 354 Y
dis.—London and North-Western (Manchester and Birrowb-
ham), Quarters (C), 2 7-16 p.—Manchester, Sheffield, sol'
Lincolnshire, Quarters, No. 1, 21,12 Ditto, Preference,
1/11 dis.—Ditto (Grimsby Dock), 11 dis.—North Staffordshire,
3 dis.—South7Eastern_and Dover, No 4, 3 9-16 dis.

HULL, APRIL 14.
Notting"
STOCK EXCHANGE —The sales are—Ambergate, nitto,
ham, and Boston, 7s.—North British, Quarters,
Extension (scrip), 3s. 6d.-L.Ditto, Thirds, 235.
WCASTL E- UPON -T YNE, APRIL 13.
STOCK EXCHANGIL—The sales are—Huddersfield lie
Manchester Railway and Canal, Thirds, 214 dis.—Newristoo
and Carlisle, 105—Ditto, New Scrip, 105—Ditto,
Branch, 3 p.—North British, Thirds, 378. 6d. dis.
YORK, APRIL 13.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The following were the quotatiend!
to-day—(treat Northern, 31.—Ipswich and Bury 5..,1• ;E
„,0),
munds, 33/4—Lancashire and Yorkshire (West Riding un,—;
t4—North British, Thirds, 21s. 6d.—Ditto, Extension,,*,,":c.
York, Newcastle, and Berwick, No. 2 (late New BerWle"'"
9%—Ditto (G. N. E. Purchase), Its.
EDINBURGH, APRIL 13. h•
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Edinburgh and Noqh
ern, New, 30s.—Ditto (Newport), 61. 2s. 6d.— Great N°,l"--
ern, 3—North British, 20/. 7s. 64. —Ditto, Quarters,
Ditto, New Quarters, 4s.—Ditto, Thirds, 22s.—EdinbOrn
and Perth, Halves, 4s.

GLASGOW, APRIL 13.
STOCK EkenaNGE.—The sales are—Edinburgh and Pert-b'
12s. 6d.—Glasgow, Dumfries. and Carlisle, Si. 19s.—G1asgI
Kilmarnock, and Ayr, Halves, No. 1, 6%—Glasgow
Greenock, Preference, s—Great Northern, 62g. 6d.-141_311-
chaster and Southampton, ss. 6d.—North British, Win
21s. 6d. —Ditto,..N 3s.
ew Quarters (scrip), Od-
Central, 26/,

At Bicester, on Monday last, Mr. Claridge, draper'
cut his throat so as to cause almost instant death. .About
a fortnight since ho was attacked with an epileptic fiti
since which his mind had been affected. Of late he it"
been troubled at the conduct, of an only daughter. '")1
was a widower, and it is a melancholy fact, that on thet
day ten years his wife in the same chamber destroyed
herself in a similar way. For the last few weeks he bad
an impression on his mind that he should come to want,
and that his creditors would put him in prison.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's. Pills the
Uni-
versal and most Popular Remedy for all Diseases Inci-
dental to Females.—The invigorating and purifying
qualities of this medicine are so peculiar, that females
of all ages suffering from any of the diseases to which
they are more particularly subject may, with confidence
have recourse to it for relief, a few doses of which will
shortly alleviate their sufferings and ultimately restote
them to perfect health and strength. The remedy is safe
and infallible whether taken at the critical period of pass-
ing from childhood, or turning the meridian of life, and
its beneficial effects are acknowledged by numberless mo-
thers of families.--Sold by all druggist: and at Professor
Holloway's establishment, 244, Strand, London.

BIRTHS.
On the Bth inst., the wife of Mr. B. C. Theme, of a son'
On the Bth inst., at Leeds, Mrs. Thomas Carpenter, "
wife of
ea tai
k
n Thomaarpenter: R.N., of a daughter.
On the 10th inst., at Lee-park, Blackheath, Mrs. Robe"
Anderson, of a son.
On the 10th inst., the wife of James Cockell, Esq., of Be/4-
nard-
born. street, Russell-square, prematurely, of a daughter, still-
On the 10th inst.. at Incomb-place, Kent, the Lady Fowls
Fletcher, of a daughter.
On the 10th inst.' at Maines Hall, near Poulton-le-Fylde,
the lady of Captain Francis Harrison, of a son.
On the 11th inst., at Northampton-terrace, Islington, Mil'
William Cooper, of a daughter.
'1"
On :he 12th inst., at Clarges-street, Mrs. Robert Phlll
more, of a daughter.

On the Bth inst., at KenningtonMAßßlED
Church, Mr. Henry Mor-
rison to ~iss Thomas.
On the 11th inst., at Etton, George Fisher, Esq,, sth
Dragoon Guards, to Matilda, daughter of the Rev. Robert
Machell, of Etton Rectory, Yorkshire.

DIEB.
On the 9th inst., Miss Whitehead, last surviving daughter
of the late G. Whitehead, E,q. of Weston House, near 13atb•
O thz 9th inst., Jane, wife of the Rev. B. H. Bridges,
Rector of Danbury, aged 81.
On the 11th inst., at Upper Phillimore-place, Kensington,
Elizabeth, relict of the late R. Hopkins, Esq.
On the 11th inst., at Grosvenor-place, St. George's, Cant"
berwell, Captain William Mitchell, Paymaster, 2d Battalion
Royal Regiment, aged 71.
On the.l lth inst., at Nottingham- place, Stepney, Robert
Goad, aged 22.
On U 141.1211 inst., Charles Innis, Esq., of Euston-square....

London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tke Sun Mee, No. 113.
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the countY
Middlesex, Sattuday, April 15, 1848. —
...... (6L Id) Oa