The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-11 00:00:00

inexperienced persons, induced by the great example set them,
n.,.:..1, L, a ..,.,.1:. 'W,-60nro, ,0551 in the
riled ; and, doubtless, it vsas itdiaenced by such exempla that
led these men to play the part they did. Therefore, he
thought they should not decide on the conduct of these men
without reference to the circumstances. He would not think
it right to tell them they had waged war against the Queen's
troops, for such was most inexcusable conduct. Neither would
he tell them they had excited passions, and held out expec-
tations which ?fere illegitimate ; but which, had
they succeede I, would cease o be so.—(Hear, hear.)
Although their crime was great, and the judgment on them
let lent, still, when it was brought before the House before. he
had felt it his duty to record his vote in their favour. Had
any circumstances occurred since to change his oeinion ?
The finn. and Learned Member was certainly very happy in
all his flights of eloquence, but never more happy than when
he illustrated his arguments. He said, " Look at this case—
look at the morbid and effeminate sympathy it stirs up in the
public mind ; it was this sympathy that said that a murderess
roust be sent to the colonies of this country." It was this
sending to the colonies that influenced him in the course he
had ,ak-n. It had been said that there had beer, a great insur-
rection, and that the parties raising it were traitors ; but they
were not only not punished. but were rewarded for their crimes.
Ho did not wi'h the people of England to feel (although he
did not want to do otherwise than palliate the punishment of
the sufferers)—he did not want them to feel the difference
between colonial and native punishment. He was so far an
advocate of native industry that he did not wish the people to
feel any exception in this instance. - (Loud laughter. )
It was this sestem tat made Frost a slave, and
Papineau a Member of the House of Assembly. The
Hon. Member appealed to the House to turn to the reign
of James 11., which they would find replete with instances
parallel to the present case. That would be an interference
with circumstances on which they were not called upon to de-
ride. Here her Majesty's troops were fired upon ; he might
ask were not her Majesty's troops fired upon in Canada? He
should like to have from the Right Hon. Baronet the return of
the magistrates that had been wounded in Canada. When the
lion. Member appealed to the reign of James 11. a 3 the model
reign for treason and sedition, was not the blood of Sedgemore
as costly as the blood spilt in the town of Newport ?—and was
the House to be appealed to to show no mercy because there
was in the reign of James 11. a rebellion in which they suffered
greater evils than in the late disturbances ? He could not deny
that the observations of the Hon. Member were always inte-
resting to listen to, but they had no valid arguments against the
motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. One of the most
remarkable arguments of the lion. Gentleman wag, when he
told them that they were bound to support the Crown in the
exercise of the prerogatives at present in question, because it
was necessary, under all the circumstances, that they should not
question the conduct of her Majesty's advisers, but look at the
position of the Government. The Crown must not be questioned
because it receives advice from an individual who has tog us
that in the present case he takes a peculiar responsibility. He
(Mr. Disraeli) would ask if the Government possessed the
confidence of that House, although it was supported by 112
gentlemen—the regenerators of this country by their
change of opinion. The Crown in the exercise of its perogative
was advised by a Minister, and to support these perogatives
the House must also support the Minister who advised the
Crown. The House was bound to consider whether that
Minister possessed the confidence of Parliament, and whether
in a week hence he might not consider it necessary that the
exercise of prerogative should be of a far different nature from
the one then in question, and that it should be exercised in that
House, because another Minister might be ready to accept the
responsibility of office. The Right Honourable Baronet, the
Home Secretary, had commenced his speech in what he ( Mr.
Disraeli) considered to be his right position. Whatever
might be his (Mr. Disraeli's) opinion on the main question, he
could have no doubt that the Minister of the Crown was to
come forward and dilate on the enormity of crime, and also re-
mark that the prerogatives of the Crown should be delicately
exercised. Nothing could be more just and politic
than the position the Right Honourable " Baronet as-
sumed and then dwelt upon. He (Mr. Disraeli) knew
that a grave feeling prevailed amongst those around him with-
out conversing with them. It was difficult to answer the ques-
tion put by the Right Hon. Baronet. It was a matter of
surerise that her Majesty's Government had a fixed set of
opinions. The Right Hon. Baronet placed himself in a clear
position, both in point of constitutional feeling, and he hoped
he might say. in loyal sentiment of feeling, and yet at the last
he says —" Press me." (looking at the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury as if he ( Mr. Duncombe) had discovered that he was of
a squeersble naturt ), "to bring forward this question
on another occasion —in another session perhaps
in another Parliament, and I will treat you in a
liberal manner ; at present, I wish that the exercise of
mercy should be delicately and discreetly used. Press the
Crown and Ministry then. But although crime is enormous,
the exercise of merry may be necessary, and this House will
he the last to interfere with ir. Bring forward the motion,
then ; end although we cannot be in a maiority now, we shall
know what to say to them " He (Mr. Disraeli) had voted fur
these men years ago. and, whatever might be the opinion now,
he would not desert them. They had committed a
great crime and had received a lenient punishment. The
Government had only two courses—these men should
be pardoned, or they should be punished as an example
to society; If they were pardoned, it would be an encourage-
ment. to others to feel tied though they might be criminal the
dsvine faculty of mercy was still exercised in this country.
Sir J Graham had said " Bring forward the motion again and
Ido not say that we will resist your appeal." What would be
the result of that ? It would be that, if these men were par-
doned by the remission of their punishment, one of the
dearest qualities of the Crown, a quality attributed only to
Majesty, would be exercised at a late period ; but would the
people feel gratitude to the Crown? No, they would
only comment on the timidity of Government. For
the:a reasons he would support the Honourable Member.
if he persisted in coming to a division. He however proposed
that he should be satisfied with bringing the question forward
to pubic attention and sympathy. The Crown might be in-
duced to view with mercy the conduct of these misguided men.
If, however, the Hon. Member pressed to a division, he (Mr.
Disraeli) should vote with him.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was sorry that he had been
misunderstood. The House would remember, that he had
deprecated any interference with the execution of the sentence,
and said, that the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown
ought, in his opinion, to be dispensed with ; but at the same
time, ho would not be responsible for any, advice to her Ma-
jesty, nor would ho presume to attempt to place any limit to
the prerogative of mercy.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that the Hon. Member had told

them, that some years ago he had voted on this question in
favour of these men, He ( Mr. S. Wortley) was not surprised
at the course now taken by the Hen. Member, in giving the
same vote. He doubted, however, whether the House would
be swayed by the reasons which seemed to influence the Hon.
Member's mind. He could not think the House would feel, it
was just to the parties whose case was under consideration, to
introduce into this discussion the party feelings of common
debate and remarks of a personal tendency. He could not
help thinking that it was unhappy when any Hon.
Member, on light grounds, thought it necessary to bring for-
ward a motion to interfere with the prerogatives of many. The
Hon. Member would find that the motion had been considered
with the greatest respect by those who were opposed to it, but
it would very little advance his case if there was a feeling on the
part of the people—( Hear, hear)—for the remission of
this sentence. He could not conceive a more unfortunate in-

terruption to the course of that feeling than the course
now pressed, because by removing the atrocity of the crimes
these persons had committed, it interfered with the prerogative
of mercy, and rendered it still more difficult to be exercised
in this case. With regard to the representations made by the
lion. Member as to the state of public feeling on this subject,
he (Mr. S. Wortley) begged leave to differ from him. He
believed that at this moment, if the Crown were to exercise
the prerogative of mercy towards these persous, it could hardly
take a step more calculated to sheek public opinion. He would fur-
ther say, that to remit the sentence of these persons would be an
act of gross injustice to many other minor criminals whose crimes
had been committed under circumstances far more deserving of
mercy, but who had not received it. What was the nature of
the crime that had been committed ? The Hon. Member
spoke of it as a tumult, but it was prepared for a week before.
Would th -y take the case of Frost, whose position had enabled
him to exercise a great influence over the people ? The House
had heard from the Hon. Member for Coventry whatwas the
state of that part of Wales where Frost resided? The Hon.
Afember had spoken of the act as the exercise of a
particular right.—( Hear, hear.) Were they convinced that
these personswere under the belief that they exercised a particular
right—that they were under the impression that their right
was interfered with by law? Thistlewood had some such
motive, and he struck at once at the highest apparent cause of
the evil ; but the persons in hiss' case were aware of the pur-
pose for which they were led. It was proved that Frost led
his men to invest the town, and attack the military regardless
of the misery he inflicted on the townspeople. What was the
charge given to the jury by the Lord Chief JustMe ? He
asked the jury, did they believe that the prisoner had
sn innocent intention, or a guilty intention? did he
intend to resist the Queen's troops, and sacrifice the lives of
his fellow subjects? What was the answer of the jury ? Ile
recollected the sugeestion of his Learned Friend, and the ob-
servation of the Lord Chief Justice in passing sentence. The
Secretary for the Home Department had referred to that trial,
and he (Mr. S. Wortley) would also revert to it. The point
left to the jury for their consideration was whether
the intention was innocent, and whether they believed
that only a harmless demonstration was intended,
or that the intention was guilty from the first.
The Lord Chief Justice declared that the verdict met with his
entire concurrence ; that his learned brethren, along with him-
: self, were all of the same opinion.—( Hear, hear.) It was
clearly proved that Mr. Frost came into Newport at the head
of many thousands with dangerous weapons, in order to take
possession of the town, preliminary to a general insurrection
throughout the country. (The Hon. Member here read an
extract from the evidence of one of the principal witnesses
examined on the trial, to the effect that the object was to ex•
tend the insurrection all over England.) He ( Mr. Wortley)
believed that the disturbances in the north of England were
intimately connected with this movement of Mr. Frost. He
doubted if the' outbreak in YOthshire, especially that in
Sheffield, would have takers place, had it not been for the
proceedings at Newport. So strong was the opinion, of not
only the Noble Lord then at the head of the Home Depart-
ment, as well as Lord Melbourne, of the extreme attrocity of
the acts of the leaders in this insurrection, that they were most
unwilling to remit the sentence of death, which was the usual
course in extreme crimes, when the Judges were divided in
opinion, as they were in the present case, on the point raised
on behalf of the prisoners after the trial at Monmouth. It was
only when strongly pressed that they yielded. This was the
case in which the House was called upon to solicit the Crown for
the exercise of clemency and mercy.—( Hear, hear.) This
case, its his opinion, was not one calling for any especial in-
terference, which was only to be exercised in extreme cases.
It was not justifiable in the present instance, for the objection
raised on behalf of the prisoners, and on which the Judges were
divided, now brought forward as an argument for the exercise of
mercy, was purely of a technical chartscter. It arose out of the
too great indulgence of the Crown. Mr Maude, on being strongly
pressed for a copy of the indictment, in order to enable the
defence of the prisoners to be got up, having supplied it four
days sooner then he was-required by law. They took advantage
of the hurried manner in which the indictment had been got
up, and raised the technical objection to which he had referred.
Yet, on this point, the prisoners had counsel of the filet legal
ability, and the case was areued before the 6:teen Jteigcs,
where every consideration and attention was paid to it; yet the
majority of the Judges decided against the objection. If so,
on what grounds could they now remit the sentence ? These par-
ties had been guilty of au offence o!' the gravest nature, the punish-
ment for which was the loss of life, and but for the technical error
he had referred to would have been visited with the extreme
penalty of the law. If, on any future occasion, any cause
should be made out fur the exercise of mercy, God forbid that
the House should stand in the way; but he must say that on
the present occasion, and in the case under consideration, there
were no grounds for any special interference now.—(Hear. )
rsirr, AGLIONBY exprens d his sorrow at the speech which
had just beep sHivered by the Hon. and Learned Nlember.
He (Ur. Aglionby) bail wished that the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, after the speech fsolu • the 4laht Hon. Baronet
( Sir .1. Graham), had left the question to the 'hands of the
Government, as that speech indicated that the course refight
ye, opened for the exercie of mercy ; but after hearing
the last speCen, are Leso,iopley) centeesed the Honourable
Member for Fins'bory di&nceit cnur-e. to pursue.
He considered the Honourable fileinbei for 'Stir'wOury
have misunderstood the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet. We
(Mr. Aglionby) did not understand the Right Hon. Gentle-