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

and published, there was some security against the in-
tention of the party being misunderstood, but what se
curity was there in the accidental record of words spoken?
(Hear, hear.) In the case of Winterbottom they had
an instance of a man being punished for words he had
never uttered. Then what was the meaning of the
phrase, " Overawing Parliament?" Parliament was
always being over-awed by public opinion, and it was to
that circumstance they owed many of the liberties the
People enjoyed. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
had given way to that species of overawing, and the
Noble Lord (J. Russell) had done so often. Nothing
Could be more perilous than hasty legislation upon e
subject like this.—(Hear, hear.) All despotic laws had
resulted from panic. If any duty was paramount at
this time it was that they should not widen the gull
that existed between the different classes of the people.
If there was ever a moment when the House was bound
to inquire whether the national representation ought
not to be enlarged, and whether something ought not to
be done to redress the grievances of the many, and to
place our institutions on that broad foundation on which
alone they could rest in security, it was now.
Mr. P. WOOD objected to the words "by open and
advised speaking," but would vote for the second read-
ing of the Bill, reserving to himself the right of op-
Posing those words in Committee. He considered that
there was a marked distinction between the offence of
Open and advised :peaking and the overt act of printing
and publishing the same words, and the law
had invariably made that distinction, Mr. Justice
)31acks tone, in referring to the crime of treason, said—
" It was clearly agreed that words spoken amounted
nnly to a high misdemeanour; for as 'they might
be spoken in heat, or be mistaken, or per-
'forted, or mis-remembered by the hearer; and as their
meaning might depend upon ether words, or things,
or even upon the tone in which they were uttered ;
fact, nothing could be more ambiguous than words
faP°lten, they ought not to be made high treason."—,.
(Rear, hear.) The Bill of 1756 was introduced at a
Period just as formidable as the present, and yet it did
not contain those words.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed he be-
lieved it would be found that Mr. Pitt intended to have
introduced them, and had drawn up a clause for the
,Purpose, but withdrew it. That Bill, which was only
temporary, was made permanent in 1817, during the
period of the Manchester riots, and when a Minister
presided at the head of affairs who was well known not
t° have been favourable to popular demonstrations. He
regretted; therefore, that the Government should have
tliought it necessary to set aside that distinction which
the law had hitherto made between words spoken and
Words written and published, and now for the first time
make the crime a felony. He would suggest that it
Should be made only a high misdemeanour, not bailable.
fro captain ARCHDALL, referring to what had fallen
the
Hon. Momber for Limerick, defended the
loyalty, of. the Orangemen of Ireland. They could not,
he observed, forget the heavy blow and great discourage•
went given them• by the Noble Lord opposite, nor that
they had been one day lauded and the next day perse-
cuted by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
Worth.—(Cheers.) But they had, notwithstanding, re-
mained firm in their loyalty and attachment to her
?Nest}, and the throne. Between discontent and disaf
Tection if there was a wide difkrence.—(Hear, hear.) And
the Government would only act with justice to the
Protestants of Ireland they might bid defiance to 10,000
Smith O'Brien's. -
▪ Mr. MUNTZ had voted for the introduction of the Bill
in ignorance of its real character. Now that he had
seen it, he should vote against it. He concurred in the
P,ropriety of assimilating the law in Ireland to that of
.angland, and would grant every reasonable power ne-
cessary for the protection of public order, because he was
convinced that without good order there could be no
re l h
liberty.—(Cheers.) But he could not consent that e or
fel any other man should be subject to the charge of
felony for words alleged to have been spoken on the
evidence of one witness, who might be base enough to
swear falsely.—(Hear, hear.)
a_ Mr. DRIFMMOND looked upon the simultaneous out-
weak through Europe as deeper than a mere political
itradY- • He attributed it to discontent on the part of
e masses with their social condition—discontent, he
!I:light say, with the providence of God—(Cries of
)—for as well might it be supposed that we could
regulate the height of men, as that we could alter the
constitution of society, and award to each a certain
17aessure of wealth. The disturbances in Ireland and
this country were but phases of the malady which per-
!tided all Europe. The Hon. Gentleman, having quoted
several passages from speeches by members of the Con-
vention in-this country and the Confederation in Ireland,
declared.. that nothing so overt had been committed in
the year '9B, and that the question was not against this
or that institution—it was not a question of a republic
or a monarchy, but whether the whole institution of
society should not be upset and perverted. The
labouring classes of this country were deeply
mistaken if they supposed that they would be-
nefit their condition by reducing the profits of
the master manufacturers. On the contrary, their best
chance of prosperity was by increasing the capital of the
manufacturer.in lt was owing to the sentiments contained
the extracts he had read to the House that he grounded
the opinion at which he had arrived—namely, that there
Was a determination on both sides of the Channel to alter
the social condition of the country. But the man who
told the people that by a new constitution of society
they would be benefited only grossly deluded them, and
Must be an abominable quack.—(A laugh.) The mai.
who told them, as they were lately told, that if he had
the charter he would double and treble their wages, only
trifled with their distresses; and in pretending to bring
them a light from heaven, only brought them a glare
from the bottomless pit. He was prepared togo further
than those Hon. Gentlemen with whom he usually acted
in that House, in thinking that they had done nothing
they ought to have done to diminish the public expendi-
ture and lighten the burden of taxation on the people.
'(Loud cheers from the Radical benches.) He
thought .they ought long ago to have extended
the elective franchise.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear,"
from the same quarter.) He thought they ought also
to have shortened the duration of Parliament—(Hear,
hear)—and done many other things in reference to sub-
jects not now before them. He had only abstained from
alluding to those subjects before because he did not wish
to thrust himself into other men's labours, and
with a
because
he thought that the task would have been undertaken
by those who were much more competent -for it; but
rather than suffer this charter to be passed off
mere motion, which might amount to nothing,
--
he would
himself bring in Bills upon the questions involved.
(Cheers.) Mr. Canning had said that the next war
which would desolate Europe would be a war of prin.
ciples and opinions, and he confessed that that was the
war of which he was afraid, and of which he saw the
gathering symptoms around him.
Mr. BRIGHT said that out of every seven grown
men only one was represented in that House, and that,
looking to the unfairness of the distribution of the elec-
toral power, it might be said not more than one-four-
teenth of the grown male population were directly re-
presented in Parliament, and his belief was that the
best security to property, capital, and labour, would
be found in diminishing the taxation and increasing
the political rights of the people. This Bill proved
one of two things—either that the Government
Was getting worse, or that the people were getting
Worse. After carrying on the Government so long
Without this law, after all our boasted improvements,
Were we now to introduce a new principle of legislation,
when eeten Lord Grenville, in 1795 or 96, had. been
Obliged to withdraw from the Bill of that day? - That
Clause weeethen most strongly objected to by a relative
of the Noble Lord now at the head of the Government,
the then Duke of Bedford; and it was in defence of that
Bill and that clause that a bishop had made his cele-
brated declaration, " that the people of this eountry
had nothing to do with the laws but obey them."—
(rear.) He did not object to the first part of this Bill;
but he thought the House was in mistake as to what
Would be its practical operation. It came before the
Souse as a mitigation of penalty; but that penalty, for
the, most lead, could not be carried into effect; and
tfaongh he denied not the propriety of substituting
or capital punishment, one of a miner character, he
believed its practical effect would be to punish
many men by transportation who could now only be
tried for -sedition, and punished for a misdemeanour.
If he understood the clause right (and its ambiguity was
such he doubted if any one did', it meant that any one
Who exercised • such " compassing, imaginations, inven-
tions, devices, or intentions, or any of them," should be
liable to be charged with felony, and to receive the
punishment awarded to that offence. He had yet to
learn that it was wrong for any Member of that House
to speak in favour of a different form of Government,
or that it was a crime for any one, in or out of the
'louse, calmly and deliberately to argue the question
whether a total change in the form of Government
'tight be advantageous.—(Oh, oh.) He advocated no
Such change ; but in making a new law, and introducing
a new principle, to punish an offence which was most
difficult of proof, the House ought to be extremely clear
as to the effect of this law. He thought it unwise to
seek to extend such a law to England, because at this
Moment their was danger in Ireland. lie would ask the
Attorney-General whether it was not possible to issue
a Special Commission for the trial of the parties charged
_with sedition in Ireland. The complaint was that whilst
these parties were under this charge they were at liberty
to go to France, or make other seditious speeches, before
their trial came on; but if they were tried and convicted
under a Special Commission, they could be immediately.
Subjected to three years' imprisonment, and thus pre-
vented from spreading their seditious or treasonable
opinions. This would be a much better course than to
extend a new law and a new principle to the United
Eingdom because Ireland was in difficulties . The Go-
vernment was pursuing a course unfavourable to itself
and to the liberty of the people; and though that House
Might not choose to deliberate long on the measure, the
time might come when they might regret that they had
not examined it with more attention.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he objected to the whole
of the Bill. He rejoiced to find that English Members
were at last rallying against coercive measures, doubt-
less owing to their own country being touched by this
13ill. lie did not thank them much, for most of' them
had said that if the Bill was confined to Ireland they
would vote for it with the greatest pleasure.—(A laugh,
and No, no.) The Learned Solicitor-General had
assumed that judges and juries would strain the laws
considerably, and the Irish people had had ample ex-
perience of this. Parties were about to be put on their
trial there for sedition ; and it would have been time
enough when the existing law was found insufficient
to have come to -the House after Easter, and asked
for a more stringent law. Most unwise was it to pro-
pose a measure of coercion at a time of excitement like
`Lis,—(Cries of " Divide.")
„lswy. S. CRAWFORD, who rose amidst loud cries of
rel. Tide," complained of the injustice of the House in
using full discussion to so important a measure. He
ebt3tained. from opposing the first reading from
_ acquaintance with its provisions ; but the more
° Aka considered it the more was he convinced that it

I was unfit to be entertained by the House. . No man who
spoke at a public meeting—none even who heard him—
would be safe against transportation for life with a Bill
so vaguely worded as this. What was meant by such
expressions as " compassings," " inventions," " imagin-
ings," " devices," &c. ?—(Hear, hear.) He denied that
even in Ireland was there any necessity for this Bill.
The persons who had there infringed the law were about
to be brought to trial. Let not the House, then, be be-
trayed into the error of legislating with the view to
meet imaginary evils. This Bill would be in effect a
repeal of the Habeas Corpus Act and of trial by jury.
The best protection to the Crown and Government would
be to redress the grievances of the people.—(Hear, hear.)
The horrible spy system had evidently been revived in
Ireland ; and he believed it had been resorted to in this
country also. He regretted that those who had hitherto
supported popular rights should have introduced such
an objectionable measure.
Mr. WAKLEY had hoped that the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government would modify the objectionable
parts of this Bill. This was only due to the calmness
with which a subject of such an exciting nature had been
discussed; but no such modification had been consented
to. The Solicitor-General had given his view as to the
construction of one clause; other Hon. and Learned
Gentlemen had done the same; and there was the utmost
diversity of opinion as to what would be the operation of
the clause. This was a state of things neither creditable
to the House nor safe for the country. It was said that
judges and juries would comprehend the measure; but if
it was not understood by those who had manufactured it
and introduced the words, how could it be so by others ?
If this loose legislation were allowed there would be no
security for the people who took part in political mat-
ters, and they would have great reason to complain of
the negligence of the Legislature. The Honourable and
Learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Wood) had put a
construction on the clause which was as opposite as
the poles to that of the Solicitor-General. Knowing
what might be the operation of the clause, they
ought not to allow it to proceed a stage further ; and
his impression was, that he ought to move the adjourn-
ment of the debate. Whence the necessity for this
breathless haste for the sudden introduction of a Bill
like this ? There had been what he might call open
insurrection in Dublin for the last two months, almost
with the connivance of the Government. Men stated
there that they bad resisted the law in a minor degree,
and were prepared to resist it in the fullest manner.
Pikes had been manufactured and publicly sold by
auction. Only in November last a Bill had been passed
empowering the Lord-Lieutenant to proclaim disturbed
districts, and issue a special commission for the trial of
offenders. That law, if carried into effect, would have
been amply sufficient to repress crime ; but there had
been a remarkable supineness in exercising its powers.
Of what use was that law if it could not be applied
to Dublin under these circumstances ? At all events,
the people of England, because offences were committed
elsewhere, ought not to be saddled with a measure
which was not less a gagging Act than any of the
Six Acts of 1819.—(Hear.) Least of all should such a
measure be passed by a Government calling itself liberal.
—(Hear, hear.) If the words were expunged to which
objection had been made he would cease further opposi-
tion; if the clause so ambiguously and peculiarly framed
were retained, it should have his most determined and
unflinching opposition at every stage. No case had been
made out for this measure. The present law had not
been proved inadequate for the preservation of the peace.
What had Government not anticipated? Their fears
had completely overwhelmed them; they had expected
a violent outbreak. Yet the monster petition had been
presented, and, so far as he could learn, not a single case
of common assault had occurred that day.—(Divide.)
Had not the law triumphed?—(Hear, hear.) Had not
the common sense, the sense of justice of the people who
presented the petition, also triumphed.—(No, no.) It
was an atrocious calumny on the people of this country
to intimate, by accent or tone of any kind, that it was
their object to commit outrage and violence. The Hon.
Member for Bridport might exclaim " Oh, oh;" but it
was a calumny on the people to accuse them of being
lovers of outrage and violence, or of being prepared to
commit them. They believed that they were deprived
by the Legislature of their just political rights, and he
believed so too.—(Hear, hear.) lie further believed that
they never would relax in their just and reasonable de-
mands until those rights were conceded—a concession
which would add to the security of property and of life,
and would place the throne on a basis which would ren-
der it absolutely immoveable.—(Hear, hear.) When he
heard of the condition to which the people of Ireland
were reduced, and when they got nothing from that
House but coercion Bills, he thought they were right
to be indignant at such treatment. When he opposed
the Coercion Bill, in November last, he could only gat
twenty-two Members to vote with him .—(Cheers.) They
were now in April, and where were the measures which
nad been promised?—(Hear, hear.) There was a Land-
lord and Tenant Bill; but no one could comprehend it,
and its only object seemed to be to give employment to
the lawyers. He believed that the agitators in Ireland
were actuated by the best motives.—(lronical cheers.)
Would they have the people to lie down quietly and die
of hunger? He did not think that English Members
would wish to allow that. He would suggest that the
second reading should be taken without a division, on
the condition that the Government would commit the Bill
pro forma, and make what modification they could in the
clause so much objected to.—koh, oh.) If the Govern-
ment persisted in adhering to that clause, he would give
every opposition to the Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he could not, on the
part of the Government, consent to accept the proposi-
tion which the Hon. Member for Finsbury was good
enough to make with a view to a future consideration of
the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) So far from agreeing to that
proposition he declared at once that he would consent to
alter no part of the Bill when the House went into Com-
mittee.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman attributed
a character of harshness and violence to the Bill which
was calculated to mislead those who attended to his
speech. The Noble Lord then explained the nature of
the Bill, which he said was merely to make certain
offences which were now punishable by death punishable
by transportation, and extending the law, which was
only in force in England and Scotland, to Ireland. He
was not then going to defend the particular clause which
had been objected to, because it would be opposed in
Committee, and the Solicitor-General had clearly and
ably stated the reasons why it was introduced.
The Honourable Gentleman asked why they should
select a time of excitement and fear for introducing
such a Bill. It was on account of that excitement
and fear, and the mischief which they had produced,
that they were justified in introducing this Bill. He
admitted to the Honourable Gentleman that excitement
and fear prevailed. No person could have read the
speeches in the newspapers delivered in this town within
the last week, and in Dublin within the last month,
without having cause for that fear and excitement. And
while he relied generally on the support of this country
to oppose such machinations, there was one great and
numerous class of people who would be affected more
than any others by such fear and excitement. He would
not appeal to the gentlemen of England, because their
high spirit would induce them to come forward in favour
of the institutions under which they lived, and which
had been the glory of their country.—(Hear, hear.)
With respect to the middle classes they were loyally
affected, and there was no fear that they would be mis-
led by arguments addressed to their passions.—(Hear,
hear.) It was the working classes who were more espe-
cially exposed to danger by this excitement.—(Hear,
hear.) They it was who would be the sufferers
by anything that would derange the peace and
order of this country, and prevent the application of
capital in those numerous undertakings from which
profits and wages were derived. (Hear, hear.)
If that were the case, was it not fit that they should en-
deavour as much as possible to put an end to this excite•
ment, and endeavour to punish those who urged them to
commit breaches of the peace, who urged them to levy
war against the institutions of the country, and put in
peril the welfare of those classes to which they addressed
their appeals.—(Hear, hear.) If he were right in that
supposition the Hon. Member for Finsbury, instead of
opposing the passing of this Bill, ought, as a friend of
the working classes, to support it.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Member for Manchester, also, who knew how
susceptible a thing capital was, and how its investment
was stopped by any violation of the peace of the commu-
nity; who knew very well that amongst the new-fangled
theories of the organization of labour, nothing was so
valuable to the labouring man as that there should be a
great number of employers, and that they should
have large capitals in which to found their enterprise,
and to call for the employment of labourers, ought to
support this measure.—(Hear, hear.) If that Hon.
Gentleman distrusted the objects that were put before
the working men, in which they were told that by some
future organization of labour they should be secured in
plenty, and should have every comfort and almost
riches—if he distrusted those theories, he would join
with him in putting an end to those disturbing forces
which were now agitating society.—(Hear, hear.) With
regard to Ireland, on which subject the Hon. Member
for Finsbury had reproached them, although they might
have introduced a Bill on the subject of the relations
between landlord and tenant, which they thought would
be beneficial to the country, but which might not have
given satisfaction, he begged to say that he did not
think these matters were the great or main business of
the Parliament or Government of this country.—(Hear,
hear.) There were exceptions—exceptions which were
sometimes justifiable, sometimes beneficial, sometimes
even necessary. But those who could best regulate the
relations between landlords and tenants of Ireland were
the landlords and tenants of Ireland, and those who
could best regulate the relations between the employers
and employed were the employers and employed. So
with regard to the other relations of society. They might
at times think fit to interfere—(Laughter)—but he al-
ways
contended that those cases were to be defended as
exceptions for a particular occasion. That which was the
main business of Government and the Legislature was
to say that the landlord and tenant, the employer and
employed, should be protected by the law as longas they
respected the life and property of others, and that the
law and the-arm of power would interfere against those
who disturbed them in those useful, peaceful, and bene-
ficial relations.—(Cheers.) Such was the business to
which Government and Parliament should direct its con-
stant attention—each as what society could not do for
itself, which private individuals could not arrange
amongst one another—such were the objects to which
Government should chiefly direct its efforts. It was for
that purpose that they proposed this Bill. It was to
offender maintain s
ha stateould fetpheaatc
he
eacnaduldsencurity,
the grand name of being a martyrofor
ofel longergihn escapetwreha
sicohn, theo underf
which Apr
ninde,
capitalip
if helpunishment—it
aonfy go wouldgovernment,
ye
enocn could
nle dnc ut
was
r doubt
ushh
bae
ttt poteohmnr
eaahyl terylsi
maintain
at
tbai
rentoec
dat
foruuh csisee
diat
tmhi
necessaryniosflmi
Billc
et en dt.
as to the value of internal peace, and the necessity
of preserving it, that which et..turrti,l to-day would
show its vast hen. ht. What would be the state
—not of the upper classes as they were called, but of the