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

•
kad been presented, to resist it. Nothing could be more sub-
versive of the first principles of the administration of the law,
than that the House should bend to popular opinion in a
matter of that kind—that popular opinion being at the same
time founded upon wrong and erroneous grounds. The Hon.
Member for Finsbury did not wish to throw any impediment
in the way of the Crown; and he went so far as to admit
that it would have been left more free and open in the exercise
of its prerogative had that discu sion not taken place. Why,
that would be the natural result of the discussion, for it was
diffieult to exclude party considerations from discus-
sions of this nature ; and the debate would
rather prejudice than prove of advantage to these
unfortunate men. Some allusion had been made to
the insurrectionists of Canada. Now what had they to do in
this discussion with Canada? In that case there were no im-
pediments to the exercise of the free pardon of the Crown, and
it only showed that the Crown had not been indisposed to exer-
cise its prerogative when it could do so without subverting the
ends of justice. Now he could not invite te e Hen. Gentleman
to withdraw this motien, nor hold out any hopes of a compro-
mise. lie thought the Crown ought not to retire from a dis-
cussion of that kind with any sort of understanding, ex-
pressed or implied, as to the course it would hereafter take.
He thought it ought to be left unfettered in its discretion
When his Right Hon. Friend would not undertake to say that
under no circumstances and at no time the mercy of the Crown
should not be extended to those unfortunate men, he did not
intend to influence the lines Gentleman in the course he might
think proper to adopt. The debate upon this subject ought to
close in its being distinctly understood that the Crown was
under no obligation whatever to take any other course than
that which the ends of strict justice might dictate.
If the House persisted in carreing this question to a divi-
sion, he maintained that the relationship of the Crown to
the House would he inverted.—(Hear, bear.) It would be
most difficult for the Crown to exercise its prerogative if the
House of Commons sh add arrogate to itself the power by
the motion before the House. And what would be their con-
dition? In this case Frost was a man of property—a man
relation
of intell.toigenthe Crown,ce—( Hear, hhavingear)—abee m d
n intrusted wan who stoo in
ith aaspCeocia
mission for the preservation of the public peace ; and
tif the
ie
House were to act in compliance with the petifionst a
themselves
presented to it in such cases, they would beplhaemngrowa
they
in a very awkward position with regard to t C
would, in fact, be attempting to deprive the Sove-'
reign of the prerogative of mercy. And he could
hardly conceive a case in which
the House of Commons
might not be warranted in a similar interference, if they
agreed to the motion of the Honourable Member for Finsbury.
He had no wish to bring the facts relating to Frost before the
House, because the very bringing of those facts by the Minister
of the Government appeared to bring an impediment in the
exercising eef the prerogatives of mercy by the Crown, but in
this case it was hut right that the facts should be brought
under the consideration of the Honcurable Members; and what
were those facts? That a magistrate made an attack upon a
peaceable town with a number of armed men, which attack
was the signal for an innovation by the multitude. The pub-
lic bridge was to be thrown down, the mail was to be stopped,
and the stoppage of the mail was to be indicated by the burn-
ing of the town of Newport, which was in the possession of
rebels, against the authority of the Crown, and that
after six years' imprisonment, the House of Commons was to
come forward and petition the Crown to exercise is preroga-
tives. He should deprecate the establishment of a precedent
t . that. —( Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Finsbury thought fit, in his good sense, after what had
been said, not to press his motion to a division, he must not
suppose that the Government had now entered into any obliga-
tion whatever, passive or implied, with respect to the future
exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the Crown. He
agreed with his Right Hon. Friend, that that must be left to
the Crown ; and he thought that it would not be wise, either
in the discussion or in the division, to hold out any expectation
of mercy.—(Hear, hear. )
Mr. M. PHILIPS said he had not intended to say a word
in common with the subject, but as several numerously signed
petitions in favour of the present motion had been forwarded
to him from the town which he had the honour to represent,
he thought that after what had fallen from the lion. Member
for Finsbury (not then in his place), he should not be justified
if he did not make a few remarks. He denied, that in taking
the course he was bound to take in reference to the motion of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury—that was to say, that in voting
against his proposal, that he was treating with scorn the peti-
tions of the people. He had no such intention. His (Mr.
Philips's) belief was, that in his judgment ha was right in the
position which he was about to take with respect to this case.
He might be wrong, and so might they, and he denied that
in voting contrary to their petition, that he was treating them
with scorn, contempt, and derision. He denied every one of
those imputations in tote. He had merely risen in order to
juAify himself in those expressions, because he conceived that
they were made without any proper founds ion. With regard to
the justice of the sentences, he considered the security of the
public peace required that they should be carried into execu-
tion and not he altered. In conclusion. he would say, he
believed that there were several lion. Members in that House,
who, whilst they intended voting against the motion, had not
the slightest intention to treat the petitioners with scorn.—
(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. P. HOWARD hoped that the Hon Member for
Finsbury would not insist upon a devision.—( Hear, hear. )
He trusted that he would be satisfied with having brought the
case, with his usual ability, before the House, and he (Mr.
Howard) thought that the House would be of opinion that
that Hon. Member would not be advancing his case by forcing
the Howe to what would appear an adverse eivision.—( Hear,
hear.) He ( Mr. Howard) had been entrusted with a peti-
tion which had been numerously signed, and prayed for the
release of the individuals r amed by the Hon. Member. He
willingly bore tribute to the becoming and decorous man-
ner in which the working classes kad advocated their
ease ; they had entered into no combinations ; they had
in the most decorous manner demanded from the
mayor of Carlisle the use of the town-hall for the purpose of
holding a meeting to adopt a petition, praying her Majesty to
order the release of Frost, Williams, and Jones. Their peaceable
conduct in tee advocacy of their case was worthy of the greatest
praise. He thought, that from the very fact of their not hav-
ing a direct representation in that House, their petitions
should, in the words of his Noble Friend, be treated with at-
tentien and respect. But deeming that it was not proper
for that House to interfere between the Crown and the ex-
ercise of its prerogatives, except in very extraordinary casts,
he could not give his support to the motion of the Honourable
Member for Finsbury ( Mr. Wakley). He was anxious
to say so much to the House for the purpose of showing
that he did not treat the opinions and wishes of petitioners to
that House with disrespect, and fur the purpose of bearing at
the same time a tribute to the orderly conduct which now dis-
tinguished the working classes of this country. He wished
also to say that of all the petitions which he had seen bearing
upon this question, there was not one in which the petitioners did
not express their abhor ence of those crimes of which Frost,
Williams, and Jones had been convicted, and it was only
because they conceived that those persons had undergone con-
siderable punishment, that they supplicated for the mercy of
the Crown. lie quite agreed with his Noble Friend,
that it would be extraordinary for that House, at
the same time that they condemned modern conspirators,
to erect anything lik e a memorial to Oliver Crom-
well. who hail assisted in bringing his Sovereign to the block.
—( Hear, hear.) He had risen for the purpose of showing
that he entertained sincere respect for the opinions and feelings
of the working classes of this country ; but, as he had before
said, as this motion went so far as to interfere with the Crown's
prerogative, he should be obliged to vote against the Hon.
Member for Finsbury.—(Cries of " Hear, hear" and "
divide.") The Hon. Member proceeded. amid loud cries of
"Divide, divide," to state that he considered the Commons
of England, if they reused to grant the request of the peti-
tioners, would at least have treated them with respect.
Lord J. RUSSELL would say a few words with reference
to the speech of his lion. Friend who had sat down, and other
Members who had taken a similar line of argument, and
had found fault with his Honourable and Learned Friend the
Member for Bute, for stating circumstances which seemed, in
his opinion, and in the opinion of other Hon. Members of this
House, adverse to a favourable consideration of the subject by
that House. lie considered that it was quite impossible to dis-
cuss any motion of this kind without considering what was the
nature of the offence he was commoting. It was quite impcs-
Bible that Hon. Members should enter into a debate of thii
sort a-id not state upon the one hand those citcumstancea
which they thought. tended to extenuate the crime ; and upon
the other hand those circumstances which, in the opinioe of
other lion. Members, would make it inconsi-tent with the du-
ties of the prerogative of the Crown to show any extension of
mercy. Was that a desirable course ? It was impossible on
the one hand to avoid a discussion which must bring out the
unfavourable circumstances of the case ; and, upon the other
hand, was it desirable that Parliament should be considered as
adverse to the extension of mercy by the introduction in
the debate of circumstances tending to aggravate the
crime. The I-lon. and Learned Member for Bute had
stated circumstance=, as far as he remembered, most fatally.
He telt himself obliged to state (and this was one of the in-
conveniences of this sort of debate), that except for the dger-
enee of opinion of the Judges upon a technical point, the Home
Secretary of that time ( Lord Normanby) had seen no reason
why the punishment of death should not be inflicted on the
prisoners ; he thought it necessary, however, it being a great
qnestion of State, and not a mere ordinary case of criminal law,
tojconsult the opinions of his colleagues, and lay the ease before
the judges. lie (Lord John Russell) did not recollect, ex-
cept in one point, that there was any difference of opinion
among the Judges as to the justice of the punishment. lie
felt obliged to say this much, because his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Bute, had been censured for expressing
that opinion. his Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh
(Mr. Macaulay) had also been censured for making a similar
statement of htsopinion ; he must say that some extraordinary
misunderstanding seems to have been made with reference to
his lion. Friend, by his lion. and Noble Friends the Members
ter Slit ewsbur y and Newark ( Mr. Disraeli and Lord J. Manners),
What his lion. Friend said was, that there might be a case
where the punishment was excessive, and in that case Parlia-
ment might interfere, and he gave for example the Monmouth
rebellion. It was well known that in that case three or four
hundred persons were executed, and among the rest a lady ad-
vancedmen,n,, in years, not because she had been instrumental in fo-
menting the rebellion, hut because she had harboured and
given refuge to one of the parties. In cases of such extreme
cruelty and injustice h
Parliament were bound" (Lord John Russell) could conceive
would interfere in a case to interfere. When Hon. Gentlemen
of this description, he begged them to
recollect that the laws of this
country were executed with
mercy ; they were living
which tyranny was at least a stranger._( Hear,
eaconstitution to
hear.) The
only question, then, to consider was, whether questions of that
kind could be disposed of in a popular assembly, or wlo they
they would net be better left to the mature opinion of the
Secretary of State—the adviser of the Crown. ro :or his part,
he: wished to oppose no obstacle to theegta nsoideration he
thought it was the duty of the Secretary o
But all these circumstances might be snore impartiallyeto give
giveconsi-
deredit. in that manner than if discussed in a popular manner
in a debate in Parliament, where some Members would take
a more lenient, and others a more aggravated view of the
case. For those reasons, and those only, he would give his
vote against the proposition of the Hon. Member for

Finsbury.
Lord FRANCIS EGERTON perfectly concurred in the
opinion expressed by the Noble Lord, who had just sat down.
He also perfectly agreed with the opinion expressed by the
Right Hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, that
such subjects as the present were not fit matters for discussion.
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE c nisidered that he had been hardly
dealt with in the course of this debate. It had been said by
Han. Members, that the present motion would be an interfer-
ence with the prerogative of the Crown. Why was that
princip!e exhibited for the first time this evening ? Why was
&-Tysit-,*not exhioited when his Hon. and Learned Friend, the
ftsT:INTCI.I..\ I tuber for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) brought forward his
17, -,- -,--7--Inott three years ago, moving an humble address to the
iwe„.....-
...,,, _
v.,
.P--- . Uro nkpraying, it to extend a full and free pardon to all the
--._ ',..- -J _ ' -Cariattiaki rebels ? Not one word was then said about inter-
"— -- . ' - ferin,f, wkth the prerogative of the Crown. What is this pre-
! i . ._ . ,
- ---
._ rogattve,t-of the Crown? Is it to be kept as a bauble-
-. • • , -.a. plasitf ng—or a fire-work to be discharged or brought
r\= ---;,. .-- for w aril at the will of the Minister? Hon. Members heard
••.::.
~. ; nothing of this prerogative then.—( Hear, hear.) There
,-.1„ orates
trh,oethins.aid then about the improper conduct
o
Minister, either by word or action--to
exptroestshe.or
imply the determination of the advisers of the Crown
as
course they would pursue ,n advising the Crown. Why
was not this brought forward with reference fo the Canadian
rebels? It was expressty understood
course would be adopted, by the °A°l.l"pon that occasion what
Hon. and Learned Friend knew whatm result,day
s
la e said at the time that 0 l''''`lsdobfetthhaet
h was perfectly satisfied ;he