The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING-, APRIL 20, 1848.

yard proceeded to Sheerness, and embarked on board
the Sphynx steam-sloop to navigate her to Portsmouth,
there to join the steam squadron there forming.
A detachment of Royal Marines, consithtthg of 71
men, left this division this morning for Vv'oolwieh.
ADMIRALTY, APRIL 19.
Samuel Cornish, Carpenter of the Illustrious, ad-
vanced to 2d class.
Edward Cooper, Clerk's-Atbistaut, to the Hastings.
James W. Husband, 2d class Assistant Engineer, to
the Fisgard.
John L. Pritchard, Master, to the Chief Officer of
the Cost Guard.
George Nixon, Master's-Assistant, to the Hastings.
Gilbert Elliot, Mate, to the Prince Regent.
Walter Spark, Mipshipman, to the Waterwitch.
Edward T. Nott, Midshipman, to the Hastings.
Edward IL Wilkinson, Naval Cadet, to the Hastings.
Rev. W. L. Onslow, Chaplain, to the Hastings.

LOSS OF THE BARBARA.,
We have been requested by Messrs. D. and C. Myer,
the agents for the British and North American Mail
steamers, to publish the following letter, which they have
received from the Rev. Dr. Scoresby, in reference to the
loss of the Barbara, a report of which appeared recently
in our publication. That report was, with respect to
the conduct of Captain Neil Shannon, quite erroneous,
as will be immediately perceived on perusal of Dr. S.'s
statement.

" Whitby, April 14, 1848.
Gentlemen,—l have read in the Times of yesterday
an account of the melancholy loss of an emigrant ship,
the Omega, and of the subsequent loss of the Barbara,
a brig, on board of which about 150 of the Omega's
emigrants had sought refuge. Mention is made of the
approach to the brig of a steam-packet, and of her bear-
ing away, without affording relief, in terms calculated to
convey a reflection, I think, on the humanity of the cap-
tain of the steamer.
" The steamer referred to was the Hibernia, on board
of which I happened to be a passenger. I have felt it
due too Captain Shannon to address you on this occa--
sion, lest any misapprehension should be entertained in
respect to his conduct; and you are fully at liberty to
make any use of this communication you may deem
fitting.
" Happening to keep a slight journal of occurrences,
I find the incident alluded to particularly. recorded. I
give you the precise words, merely premising that the
weather was stormy, and had been more particularly so
the preceding day.
" March 2.—The weather moderated a little last
night, and the wind veered to N.N.W. This morning
we had snow showers and squalls. At three P.M., we
saw land to the N.—the land near Cape Race—about
20 miles off. Soon after a brig hove in sight, lying-to,
to leeward (head to the S.W.), having a signal of dis-
tress flying in the rigging. We bore down, and at slow
speed passed close under her stern. The master hailed
to the effect, we have picked up 150 emigrants, and
are short of water. Captain Shannon replied—' the
land is elose by to the N.E., which you can easily fetch.'
oslsueentnat
under
running,esnr setting
iehnoceuPrrfs noeswrd.
(aibnrdi weg
w rbore o away, regretfully,
.E „ sh e
(i
f
foresail)
idwa:docawotteourhruele:lliieve her, with such a gale and
ejlotehrn,sinbyfimveohrnoiunrgs:
reach St. sb
only 70 miles distant. The brig was the Barbara, of
, Halifax.

" I remain, Gentlemen, yours faithfully,
" W. M. SCORESBY.
" The Directors of the B. and N. A.
Mail Steam-packets."
The Rev. Dr. W. Scoresby's opinion is of great
weight, he having been for a portion of his life com,
mander of a whaler out of this port.

- -
SPORTINCr INTELLIGENCE.
CARLISLE.
Acceptances for the Northumberland Plate.
Chanticleer, 5 yrs, Bst 91b—Winesour, aged, Sit—
Patriot, aged, 7st 111b—Giselle, 5 yrs, 7st 71b—Vanish,
5 yrs, 7st 71b—Sheraton, 5 yrs, 7st 71b—Quadruped, 5
yrs, 7st 31b—Bingham, 4 yrs, 'lst—Maid of Motherwell,
4 yrs, 7st—lliomed, 5 yrs, Est 121b—Executor, 4 yrs,
6st 91b—Vesta, 4 yrs, 6st 91b—Raisthorp, 4 yrs, 6st 81b
—Enchanter, 4 yrs, Est 61b—Lady Ilylda, 4 yrs, Gst 6lb
—Meaux, 4 yrs, Est 61b—Deloraine, 4 yrs, fist 41b—To®
Jolly, 4 yrs, sst 101b—Sir Martin, 4 yrs, sst 101 b
Coeltermouth, 3 yrs, sst 10113—Snuff-box. 3 yrs, sst 101 b
—l4.:_agks's Plume, 3 yrs, sst 101b--Astra3 3 yrs, sst 51b

—Maid of my Soul, 3 yrs, sst Mb—Swiss Boy, 3 yrs,
Sit 51b—Mr. Caudle, 3 yrs, sst.
ASCOT.
The Emperor's Plate.
Sir Tatton Sykes, 5 yrs—The Hero, 5 yrs—Pyrrhus
the First, 5 yrs —Saddle, 4 yrs—Conyngham, 4 yrs—
Fureclosure, 4 yrs—Ellerdale, 4 yrs—War Eagle, 4 yrs
—lnheritress, aged—Distaffina, 3 yrs—Do-it-again, 3
yrs—Flatcatcher, 3 yrs—Sunnyside, 3 yrs.
Sir J. Guard and Lord Palmerston did not name.
EPSOM.
The Grand Stand Plate.

For this donation of 200 sovs., added to a 10 sovs

Handicap, the Great Metropolitan Stakes Course, two
miles and a quarter, there are only 19 subscribers, in
consequence of which there will be no deduction fur the
second and third in the race.

The Swiaby Stakes did not fill.
GOODW OOD.

The Goodwood Ct;phasclosed with 33 subscriptions.

PEDESTRIAN ISM.

HOWARD AND 143 EW NAN FOR 151. a-nu-E.—The race
of 130 yards between these men, wherein Howard gave
his opponent five yards at starting, was run on Tues-
day, at Gannett corner, near Barnet. The assemblage,
considering the showLry weather, was huge. Specula-
tion ranged from 6t05t0 4 on Howard. Owing to the
siturated state of the ground, the eeclosure at Frault
Key's was not made use o', and the men ran in a drift)
lane which skit t; the ground. Soon after appearing at
the scratch they got off at a merry pace, Newnam run-
ning much better than in his late march with Wiltshire.
At 120 yards Howard was still behind; however, he
caught his man ten yards from home, and ran in a winner
by a bare yard only.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
ROUSE OF LORDS, Aprill9.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.
Lord BEAUNIONT presented petitions from several
societies of Odd Fellows, praying that their societies
might be placed upon the same footing as benefit and
friendly societies.
CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read-
ing of the Crown and Government Security Bill. The
Noble and Learned Lord said it frequently happened,
when Parliament was called upon to make provision for
nthe p preservation h
materials
tter a peace, aacned,
nhfaotr haet
iGovernment
on not before
thewas
ipublic, which it was necessary to communicate to the
Legislature, in order to lay the grounds for any applica-
tion being made for an alteration in the law. It un-
fortunately happened at the present moment that this
was not the case, and that the information before the
public sufficient to induce their Lordships to
cometowathseacmyopnlclusion that what was now going on
ought not to be permitted to continue, and that there
ought to be means placed in the hands of the Govern-
ment for the purpose of preventing those continual
attempts at disturbing the peace, which had taken place,
mot only in the metropolis, but in every other part of
the United Kingdom. When meetings were daily
held, not only in London and Dublin, but in most
of the manufacturing towns, where inflammatory speeches
were made, the professed object of which was to array
the people against the constituted authorities of these
realms, it was high time if the law was not adequate to
repress these evils, that Parliament should interfere to
provide means by which their recurrence might be
prevented. Beyond all doubt that which was now taking
place, being illegal, might be the subject of criminal!pro-
secution. It happened, however, that the state of the
law was not adequate to meet the evil as it was now
found to exist, but by one alteration in the law he ap-
prehended there would be no difficulty in putting an end
to scenes which were so disgraceful to the country, which
tended to disturb the public peace, and lead to criminal
proceedings against those who attended those meetings,
for whose welfare the orators seemed to, have very
little regard. It generally happened, and certainly it
did in this particular case, that where a necessity
arose in any degree for enlarging the efficiency of
the criminal law, the necessity arose from the acts
of those who professed themselves the friends of
liberty, and of that license which was permitted by oar
constitution within proper bounds—who professed to be
the friends of the people, and of that liberty which their
acts made it imperative upon Parliament in some degree
to restrain. Their Lordships had seen enough in the
state of the country to feel an anxious desire that that
state should not continue ; and if they concurred in
opinion with him that means should be taken to prevent
those scenes and repress those harangues which were
calculated to promote so much mischief, he might shortly
explain the present state of the law, and the remedies
proposed to be provided for its defects by the present
Bill. According to the old statute of treason, that of
Edward 111., there wore two great branches of treason,
which were the foundation of all the subsequent statutes.
Those great branches were, first, the imagining or con-
triving the death of the Sovereign, aial the other, levy-
ing war against the Sovereign. The first of these
offences, consisting in the act of the mind, in the in-
tention or the design entertained, could, of course, only
be established by some overt act to show that such a de-
sign was entertained. In the case of levying war, however,
the provisions of the statute were different. It was not
the intention of levying war, not having a design for the
purpose, but the act of levying war, which constituted
the treason. On various occasions, according to the
exigencies of the times, and the dangers to be guarded
against, particular acts had been passed. Some, now
gone by, provided different means of guarding against
the dangers of any particular treason. Among other
provisions of that sort there was the statute of the 36th
of George the Third, passed in the year 1796. It was
found that the law which previously existed was not
adequate to meet the then state of the country. Accord-
ingly, that Act was passed, which took_ up a variety ,of
acts that might well under the previous law be consi-
dered overt acts of treason, but which did not of them-
selves constitute treason. For instance, inciting
foreigners to come over to this country, inciting parties
to go armed for the purpose of intimidation, attempts
to intimidate either the Government or the Parliament—
various acts of that sort, which did not constitute
treason, but which might, under the former Acts, be
considered an act of treason against the person of the
Sovereign, were made substantive acts of treason; and
a party found guilty of intent to commit those acts, evi-
denced by an overt act, was subjected to the penalties of
high treason. This Act was passed to continue during
the reign of George 111. During the regency another
Act was passed, the 57th Geo. 111., the object of which
was to continue certain provisions of the former Act dur-
ing the life of the Prince Regent, and to make others
permanent. The first Act, the 36th George 111., being
passed before the union, and the second subsequently
to it, a question might arise whether the 57th George
111., did or did not extend the provisions of the Act
36th George 111. to Ireland. The provisions of the Act
36th George 111. made these offences actual treason.
Many of them were of the gravest character ; others,
according to the circumstances, either constituted trea-
son or an offence of a much lighter nature. There
Lordships were well aware that great delay occasionally
occurred in prosecutions for high treason, that those
guilty of that offence had at least the certainty of consi•
derable time elapsing before they could be brought to
trial. It was proposed by this Bill first to alter the law
in so far as those offences were made treason, to make
them felony, by which a party would be tried in the ordi
nary way in which other parties charged with felony were
iried. In that respect it was a mitigation of the law,
because it would make them guilty only of the minor
offence. Another object of the Bill, which he thought
would be considered free from objection, was that it in-
cluded Ireland—that it would remove any doubt as to
whether Ireland was or was not included in the Act 57
George III.—(llear, hear.) It was therefore proposed,
first, to make the offences felony which were treason
under the former Act, and next to extend the law,
so altered, to Ireland. Extended as the law was
proposed to be to Ireland, he did not apprehend
their Lordships would feel this was the time when
such a provision was objectionable.--(Hear, hear.) The
alterations from the Act 36 George 111. consisted mainly
in the introduc:ion, in the third clause, of the words
" open and advised speaking," which would guard against
the real evil which Parliament we s'now asked to prevent.
—(Hear, hear.) It had been objected that the insertion
of these words was introducing a new principle into the
law. He was very much astonished at any such opinion,
particularly when, as he had been informed, it had been
expressed by gentlemen who, if they had taken the
trouble to refresh their recollections, must have known
it was not the fact. The error must have arisen from
the fact that under the Act of Edward 111. it was held
that you could not indict a party for treason for mere
words, for words simpliciter. If a man said, "I will
make my son heir to the Crown," in a certain sense,
and coming from a certain quarter, that might be trea-
son; but if it turned out that the expression was used
by the master of the Crown inn, then no such inten-
tion could be inferred. It must be left to the jury to
decide whether the words used were " open and advised
speaking;" and it could not be supposed that hasty and
loose expressions, used without any deliberate purpose
of treason, constituted treason. It was no part of our
law, however, that the crime of high treason might not
be indicted upon words in connexion with overt acts.
He was sorry to say again that very strong language
had been used in different parts of the empire, and he
was quite satisfied that it the law was not strong enough
to prevent it, some law must be made for that purpose.
With this view the present Bill was submitted to their
Lordships,atnd he believed it would be effectual, because
a party guilty of the offences he had referred to would
be subjected to transportation for seven years, during
which time he would have an opportunity of reflecting
upon the fully of the course he had adopted. At all events,
it would take away tho means of injuring the public,
which he had hitherto been guilty of, and in that
way an effectual stop would be put to the present pro-
ceedings.
Lord STANT ET did not intend to offer any opposi-
tion to the second reading of the Bill, or to throw any
impediment in its way. With regard to its object, he
had taken the liberty, a short time ago, of directing at
tention to the precise defect in the law, which left a wide
gap between the treason punishable with death, and the
inferior classes of sedition which could only be pro-
ceeded against as misdemeanours, and punished by fine
or imprisonment. He therefore entirely concurred in
the principles of the Bill which remedied that defect in
the law, and he thought the course taken of establish-
ing an intermediate offence between treason, partly
punishable by death, and partly as a misdemeanour,
was a substantial improvement.—(Hear, hear.) Both
in this country and in Ireland language had been held,
and other measures taken, to excite the people
by a class of persons who aspired to the dig-
nity of being treated as State criminals. They were not
the parties, however, to be dealt with as State criminals,
guilty of high treason upon the one hand, nor on the
other hand ought they to be dealt with as simple
misdemeanants. They were, therefore, very pro-
perly placed by this Bill in the degraded class of com-
mon felons, they were placed among the burglars and
shtiu highwayeobanj
)catneddAr
ttotool
tbht
hheeeer
same
same
aoammtme
eet
time,
disgraceful
sodc
roel
aoucoonefktf country,
rg,op
atuaeonnn
punishments.—(Hear,
ietmohngeernyaat
gravity
wdt_yoe(uooHl
of the
evitah here!:
case,
which this aatlttheeraitmioti was
portaneperoopfoated in h
the cirtcuemlaswta, hence should
have been better pleased if their Lordships had not been.
called upon to decide, after hardly twenty-four hours'
notice, upon a permanent alteration in the law founded
upon temporary considerations. If there were any.
question that the same law of treason was applicable to
England and to Ireland, there could be no doubt but
that the same law could be made applicable to all
parts of the United Kingdom. Neither could it be
doubted, it it were the case, that the law was more
stringent in England than in Ireland—but that Ire-
land was not that portion of the United Kingdom
which stood least in need of stringent and effective
measures under this head. It might be very wise,
though he thought that the present was hardly the
precise moment to introduce such clauses, to mitigate
the punishment for certain classes of high treason ;
yet he should confess that, looking to the circumstances
of these times, he should have been better pleased if
her Majesty's Government
thadhthee takentoffence
clause?n ce. the
of
fcoursetheiaas oßwni which
at their. discretion for the
whichdwpe erdor,cf
eowweradhsbii
nyl
merged
erged in the treason, and of
minor
indeedte
iitlnaloi
rnrei
retained,
an: snet hcdpeeTopvfoi
alteration of h
mpoarsee a cgaer
of
ffu
this
h ai s cßutsl
ls oant
indicting the party for felony. He confessedte that he
hoef
should rather see a general
should be taken
ttt rhheeaansport neh
se
eymn
tca
could
ol
dmt the
hopetsubject
aof
odr it
nhoaf
the
ha
ea
power
p.wler this Bill by-the Government of proceeding at for

felony, though the higher offence of treason might still
exist.—(Hear, hear.) He did not understand the dis-
tinction which was drawn by the Bill between compassing
or imagining the restriction or retraint of the sovereign,
and compassirg or imagining the destruction of the sove-
reign. He could understand why compassing the death,
or serious injury, or wounding of the sovereign should
be still left subject to the punishment of death, and
be indicted as high treason; but he could not under-
the deposition of the
compassingaminor offence, compared
stand
sovereign o n wshould
ground
he
made
with the other varieties of treason still retained. He
might be speaking in great ignorance of law, but be
should be glad to hear some explanation on this point
from some of the Noble and Learned Lords present.
Another point to which he wished to direct attention was
this. He had doubts whether the Crown might not be
subjected to difficulty in being obliged in all cases to
prosecute for felony instead of for misdemeanour. He
apprehended that as felony merged in the higher offence
of treason, so misdemeanour merged in felony, and he
apprehended that the Crown would often have some diffi-
culty, especially in Ireland, if they were obliged to pro-
ceed as for felony in all cases in which, under the present
law, they would proceed for misdemeanour. In cases of
felony the prisoner had a right of peremptory challenge
to a considerable extent, and he apprehended that in the
class of offences for which the Crown would be obliged
to proceed under this Bill in Ireland, cases might
arise where there would be a great difficulty of procur-
to have the case tried by a special
jury, ing convictions from this cause. By making the offence
felony, they took away the right on the part of the
Crown of
atatil:eP ay alsoidYeliag gave the prisoner the advantage—
and advantage it was in the present state of
rv,
and
gr e
Ireland—of peremptory challenge, and of bringing the
panel down to a lower class of jurors.—(Hear, hear.)
It was not his intention to urge the adoption of any
particular course with regard to these points on her
Majesty's Government, because on the Government must
of such a measure. On
dhethperifnaerittleer responsibility—one which
rest the responsibility
.of the details, as well as the re-
sponsibility
rreoegfarteettted—of having brought forward this
them,hedeepall deeply
also,
measure at a time when a disposition was universally
entertained, both in that House and in the other House
of Parliament, to assist in applying an effective cure for
the evils both of this country and of Ireland. He also
• regretted that they should be deprived of the power of
more practically and more deliberately considering any
permanent alteration in so important a subject.—(Hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM made some observations in a
conversational tone across the table on the wording of
some of the clauses. The Noble and Learned Lord was
understood to object that a distinction was drawn be-
tween deposing the Sovereign from her title and de-
posing her in substance from her dominions. In this
Bill the Government took a leaf out of the law of Scot-
land; but if, as he supposed would be the case, the Act
were to be extended to Scotland, he wished to warn
them of a serious alteration which it would involve.
By the Scottish law a person indicted for felony had a
right to a most important document—a list of the wit-
nesses intended to be called against him; and if this Bill
were to be extended to Scotland, it would take away for
the first time that important principle of the law of
Scotland. This Bill would deprive the prisoner of the
list of the jury panel, and also the list of the witnesses
and he for one should be inclined to pause before ex-
tending such a principle to Scotland for the first time.
Again, he thought that the statute, the 25th of Edward
111., would clash with the third clause of this Bill.
The impression on his mind was, that there were old
cases in which compassing to depose had been held to be
a compassing of the death of the Sovereigu. He also
objected to the words, compassing to levy war on the
Sovereign, not generally, but for a particular purpose.
He thought that compassing to levy war on the King for
any purpose was a substantive offence, and ought to be
held to be a very grave offence ; whereas by this Bill it
was no offence unless the war were levied to make the
King change his measures. As an instance of the kind
of war that might be levied in Ireland, he would beg to
direct their Lordships' attention to a letter which had
lately appeared from a reverend clergyman. As the
gentleman might not be pleased unless his name were
given he would mention it—the letter was signed "James
Bermingham, P.P." and contained this passage :
" When the day of your struggle shall come, when your
liberties as well as your lives shall be invaded, then
let it not be a turning out of two or three counties,
but let Ireland rise to the contest as one man; and let
every man, as ho is about taking his position to perform
this most glorious act of his life, make a vow to the fol-
lowing effect." This reverend clergyman and minister
of the Gospel of peace not having, be supposed, read the
Tea Commandments recently—(Laughter)—goes on to
give the words of the vow as follows :—" I vow, before
God and my country, to lessen, if I can, by one man, at
least, the enemies of my native land, and to die."—
(Leughter.) The passage then continued—" When be-
ing thus prepared, and having made the foregoing vow,
you are fairly committed to the combat, don't show
yourselves to the enemy on the hill-side or on the
plain; but take him from the dyke, t the fence, the
hedge-row, from the broken bridge, or the obstructed
railway. Be sure you do all the mischief in your
power—or all the good, I should say, for mischief
is good in this case—by all the means within your
reach, and think not for one moment of living—
to do or die,' or 'to du and die,' be this your motto."
He brought this passage forward as an instance of the
necessity which existed for such a measure as the pre-
sent; but he thought that, to be efficient, it should give
a power to the Government of imprisonment—tempora-
rily, or for six months, if they wished—and also a power
of searching for papers of the person arrested. By means
of such a power alone could they hope to intimidate the
wrong-doer, and drive the conspiracy from the land.
They might drive them from the field of conspiracy,
of sedition, of levying war, of open and advised
spe eking; but what signified all that, if they could still
go into a certain House of Parliament, and there utter
such language as he had alluded to a few evenings ago?
And here ho would close his observations by giving a
salutary, but not superfluous warning, to the press of
this kingdom, and of the sister kingdom, that, though
the rules of Parliament protected those who used those
seditious words within the walls of the House of Com-
mons, it did not protect them out of doors; and he who
presumed to publish such seditious words became liable
to be indicted under the statute of Edward 111., as well
as under this Act. There was no doubt but that Parlia-
ment bad certain privileges by which Members could
protect themselves to any extent within doors; but let
no newspaper reporter, let no newspaper editor, enter-
tain that fond notion that whatever was said in Parlia-
ment he had a right to print—that it was not libellous,
that it was not treasonable, that it was not seditious.
There was no lawyer who could doubt the truth of what
he was now saying. Though a Member was protected
when he spoke treason in Parliament, there was no
question but that he who, out of Parliament, printed
een, was just as liable to punish-
mentlf invented the treason which he
and trusted that those who now
pwuhhalti
published.
(di]
f. beenoHe
hadsi)
eshppieomdks
printed the grossest slanders on the constitution, and
the most treasonable and seditious speeches—some of
them encouraging foreigners to invade this country,
while others incited those who were treasonably dis-
posed in these countries to look for assistance from
abroad—would recollect, that even though those who
uttered such sentiments might not be punishable by
law, they who promulgated those opinions were liable
for them.
Lord CAMPBELL said he admitted that this Bill did
not meet the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien making a trea-
sonable speech in the Commons' House of Parliament,
that he also admitted that it would not punish the editors,
proprietors, or reporters of the Times, or any other
news
fort( )
bring
to publishingrwa ar
forward
speech
measure so m
that would
d should
have
object in view.—(Hear, hear.) If any Member
sucf
h
ot ashamed sephaanal-Pmlcoeru'lse of Commons spoke treason within the walls
of the House of Commons, he should answer for his
sentiments within the House, but not elsewhere. One
of the most outrageous attempts made by King Charles
1., and which was probably one of the main causes of
bringing him to the block, was that of questioning Mem-
bers of the House of Commons in courts of law for
speeches made in the House of Commons, and he hoped
that such a law would never be enacted in this country
again. He should be the last man to bring for-
ward any meaeure for punishing those who gave good
and faithful reports of what took place in Parliament,
for he had himself proposed to their Lordships a clause
in a Bill which met with the approbation of their Lord-
ships' House, as well as of the other House of Parlia-
ment and of the Sovereign—and which he believed to
be a perfectly fair and just clause—that no person but
the printer and publisher of the newspaper; that boldly
gave an honest report of what occurred in either House
of Parliament should be liable to be indicted, and he
had the honour of being seconded on that occasion by
Lord Brougham and Vaux himself.—(Laughter.) As
to the persons who spoke these speeches, perhaps their
best punishment was in the contempt and indignation
which their treasonable conduct excited. He did not
believe that the cause of treason or sedition had gained
any advantage by the publication of thsesson
es;
but, on the contrary, he thought that their p e addrublicati
loyalty and order which bad been recently manifested.
hHaed
tar u se strongh
atte nt
hdieenßc
Bill
to
would
de
eforward
atlhat s
for
the pir ipt uor
_f
andpes eswhi
treasonable
Con-
vention in London, and made at the meetings of the
confederates in Dublin, and it might be at meetings in
ch it had
speechesi n view,
made nanelyinthe National , to restrain seditious
Conciliation-hall also.—(Hear.) These were properly
be prosecuted.—(Hear, hear.)
It had been said elsewhere that there
speeches that ought tober of
wascondemn one member.
Bill
within the scope of prosecution, and these were the
her Majesty's Government who must
Lordships; and the
foundatiOn Of that opinion was, that he (Lord Campbell)
—that member being the humble individual who had
now the honour to address their
had expressed a disapprobation of Lord Eldon's Bill of
1796. It was true that he had so expressed himself, and
he always would continue to think that that Bill had
been an improper encroachment on the liberty of the
subject. But the law of treason in England was happily
established in the 25th year• of the reign of Edward 111.
High treason was the greatest crime known to the law;
the penalties were the most severe ; the terms of
the sentence he would not shock their Lordships by
pronouncing; and, in addition, the forfeiture of lands
and goods and the corruption of blood were involved.
But there was one great defect in the law with
respect to offences against the State, and that was,
that there was no intermediate crime between high
treason and a misdemeanour. Now, what was a mis-
demeanour by the law? It was, in the first place, hail.
able de jure—it could only be punished by fine and im-
prisonment; and whilst a man was under prosecution for
it, he might set the law at defiance: he might repeat the
offence, and commit acts tending to the injury of the
State.—(Hear.) The consequence of that defect in the
law was, that on various occasions there had been tem-
porary laws brought in, making high treason acts of a
penal nature ; but those were only temporary, and
were repealed et the commencement of almost every

reign—particularly at the commencement of Queen
Mary's reign, when all the the treasons which had been
created since the 25th of Edward 111, were repealed.
Another bad consequence of there being no interraediate
offence was that the law of Edward 111. was often

strained. That being the case, very great inconvenience
arose, and Lord Eldon, in 1796, introduced a law
making it high treason, and punishable in the
manner he had described, to compass or
imagine the death of the Sovereign, the levying of war,
or the inviting of foreign invasion. That appeared to him,
however, to be assimilating crimes of a very different
amount of gravity. It defeated its own object, and was
opposed, and as he thought, justly opposed, by one party
in Parliament. Amongst other things, it required all
the forms of the Act of Edward to be followed. A copy
of the indictment must be delivered to the accused, with
a list of witnesses, and of the jury, and all these must
be delivered simultaneously. Their Lordships would,
no doubt, remember that in the case of Frost an objec-
tion was taken, because the copy of the indictment had
been delivered three days before the list of witnesses,
and that that objection was held by a minority of the
judges to be fatal.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord op-
posite had expressed some apprehension that the treason
laws might be rendered less efficacious by the adoption
of this measure ; but the fact was, that there was an
express clause in the Bill, whereby the statute of the 25th
of Edward 111. remained intact. Whatever, therefore,
was treason from the time of Edward 111. down to 1796,
was treason now, and would remain treason.—(Hear.)
At the same time ,there was no new offence created
by this Bill. What was now treason was reduced
to felony, and he was sure it was infinitely better that
the offence should be treated as a felony than as a mis-
demeanour. He had heard it stated by a very high au-
thority that it would have been infinitely preferable to
have treated the whole of these offences as misdemeanours
instead of as felonies. If they made those offences mis•
demeanours, however, they would gain nothing by this
measure—they would still be bailable, and the object
which the Government had in view would be frustrated.
—(Hear, hear.) He contended that for such grave
offences there should be a grave punishment.—(Hear,
hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham)
had criticised the language of the 3d section. But that
section contained the ipsissirna verbs to be found in the
36th George 111., which in their turn were taken word
for word from the statute of Charles 11. The words
had: a certain definite and well-defined meaning with
which the Judges were acquainted, and really he should
think his Noble and Learned Friend could hardly be
serious when he stated that they merely applied to
deposing the Queen from the " style " of Queen
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland. The words meant, deposing her Majesty from
her royal authority as Sovereign of this realm. That
was the meaning they had ever conveyed, and that was
the interpretation to be placed upon them now.—(Hear,
hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend had spoken
about taking a leaf out of the law of Scotland. He
could only say that if this Bill were to introduce into
England the law which was supposed to exist in Scot-
land at the trial of Muir and Palmer, he should be the
last man to propose it.—(Hear, hear.) But he believed
that the trial of Muir and Palmer was not according to
the law of Scotland. They were not tried for any
specified offence, but generally for sedition, and that
sedition consisted in making very temperate speeches in
favour of Parliamentary reform.--(hear, hear.) They
did no more than make speeches such as his Noble and
Learned Friend had often made. He did not say that
his Noble and Learne.d Friend had made himself

amenable to the law, but certainly he had made more
animated speeches in favour of reform than those fur
which these men were transported to Botany Bay.—
(A laugh.) The only offences punishable by this Bill
were compassing the deposition of the Queen, levying
war against the Queen, and inviting the invasion of the
Queen's dominions by a foreign force; and the judge
would ask the jury distinctly whether the prisoner had
been proved to be guilty of one of those specific offences.
Now those offences might be created either by printing
and publishing, or by open and advised speaking; but
the open and advised speaking was not the crime—the
crime must be, as he had already said, either compassing
the death of the Queen, levying war against the Queen,
or inviting the invasion of the Queen's dominions by a
foreign force.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Justice Foster had
laid it down that to make use of language which
amounted to counselling the deposition of the Sovereign
was an overt act of high treason; and again it was held
that if words were merely an expression of opinion, they
might be seditious, but not treasonable; but if they
counselled an act to be done then they became treason.
Now those were words—nothing but words; there was no
act done, and yet that was treason. It did seem to him,
therefore, a fallacy to say that the expression in the Act,
" open and advised speaking," was any invasion of the
rights or liberties of the subject.—(Hear, hear.) The
Ist of Edward VI., c. 12, and various Acts from Eliza-
beth down to Charles 11., distinctly laid it down that if
any person averred by open teaching or by expressed
words that the king, his heirs or successors, ought not
to reign in England and Ireland, or if any person imagined
by open teaching or expressed words, to deprive the
king, his:heirs, or successors of their royal sign arid title,
that should be deemed high treason. He had only
further to add, with reference to this measure, that the
mode of trial was not at all altered by it, and that what-
ever advantage the prisoner previously possessed, he
would possess still. He hoped the Bill would meet with
the unanimous approbation of their Lordships, and that
the country would long continue to enjoy hat peace
which had now for so long a time remained undisturbed.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said —My Lords, I
am one of those who, whilst I advocate the necessity
for such a measure as the present, regret that Parlia-
ment has not been allowed more time for its considera-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) I conceive it is perfectly necessary
that some measure of this nature should be adopted, and
that due consideration should be given to it for the
purpose of making it quite efficient, in order to oppose
some check to those great, those gigantic meetings
which this country and the sister kingdom have been
disturbed by during the last few years.—(Hear, hear.)
My Lords, we have at last come to that stage at which
the law is defied, and is the contempt of every one of
those persons who break it.—(Hear, hear.) When the
Government had proceeded against three of those
persons for a misdemeanour under the law existing at
this moment, after those persons were brought before a
magistrate and bail was taken for their appearance on
their trial, one of them continued to commit by his
speeches and his writings an aggravation of his offence;
whilst the two others, when under bail, proceeded
on a still more off naive, I don't say treasonous,
mission to a foreign country to excite foreigners to in-
vade her Majesty's dominions. What is that but an
aggravation of the offence committed, and a positive
contempt of the law?—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, that
contempt of the law is growing in this country every
day, till at last that want of respect of the law, which
has been the characteristic of this country for ages, will
grow to such a height that there will be no authority in
this country, or means of carrying out the law, or en-
suring obedience to the law, except by force. My Lords,
that is the state of things, and I have observed in a most
marked manner the progress which has been made in
recent years in that very contempt of the laws of this
country. Some years ago it happened, I believe in the
year 1831, that there were extraordinary riots at the
same moment at Bristol in this country, and at Lyens in
France. It is certainly true that great outrages were
committed at Bristol—that the bishop's palace was burnt,
that the gaol was burnt, and that great injury was done.
The riots continued some days, though a military
force was employed to give assistance to the civil power.
But the officer who commanded that force was considered
not to have dune his duty; and certainly, in the presence
of the troops and the magistrates, the bishop's; palace
was destroyed by fire. The disturbances continued; but
the magistrates got the better of it altogether, and saved
the city of Bristol from entire conflagration by the assist-
ance of one single squadron of Light Dragoons, under
the command of Colonel Beckwith, who performed his
duty; and that was the whole force which put an end to
that disturbance in Bristol in 1831, and saved that city
from entire destruction. But what was the case at the
same period at Lyons? The population of the two
towns is, I believe, about the same. One is a port, the
other is inland. However, it took an army of 60,000
men, under the command of a marshal of France, in order
to get the better of that insurrection at Lyons, and to
save Lyons from destruction. One squadron of Dragoons
did that at Bristol, which required 60,000 men to perform
at Lyons. My Lords, I attribute the different suc-
cess of those two efforts to the respect which prevailed
at that time in England for the law—(Hear, hear)—to
the feeling which every man had that he was disobey-
ing the law by joining in that insurrection ; and respect
for the law it was which then saved Bristol. We are
certainly not now in that happy position.—(Hear, hear.)
It is true, that without the exercise of force we saw
large bodies of persons who had collected in the vicinity
of this town quietly disperse. But that was not out of
submission to the law. Was not the whole population
of the town, civil as well as military, under arms ?
Were there not several hundred thousand persons em-
ployed as constables? Were they not organized and
directed by persons capable of directing them? Were
there not thousands of troops under arms? and were
there not thousands of police in readiness to act if need
be? Can it be said then it was respect for the law
which prevented any outrage being committed by these
e.
r— nesuchhrepetitione
hear.)
thingr.
I fh
as respect for the
law under such circumstances. My Lords, I say that
o tthe a t very sa
me
expressions,
respect
fo r
persons ?—(Hear, hear.) But what passed on that
very night, on the following night, and on nearly every
night
ihe miagh
law
nwt since
ps to r? Wh
expressions, which it is the object of this Act of Par-
ee,vetnthH
Why, ,
is a
oa r
this want of respect for the law, which if it continues
must be fatal to the greatness of this country, if t
to
its very existence, is to be attributed to the transactions
no
which have taken place in Ireland within th
last
few
years. We have seen hundreds of those monster meet-
ings year after year, week after week, month after
month, ringing through that impunity.
We country with
We have heard of seditiousand
treasonable speeches
made at those meetings— e have heard of men being
put upon their trial for sedition in connexion with those
meetings, and we have heard of men who were acquitted
of the charge of sedition on some point arising on the
trial. Why, my Lords, all this tends, I say, to the same
point—to create a contempt for the law.—(Hear.) I
therefore, entreat your Lordships to pass this Bill. I
am particularly grateful to my Noble and Learned Friend
opposite (Lord Campbell) for the manner in which he
has explained it. I particularly approve of the Bill, and
I hope it may have a tendency to induce some respect
for the law.—(Hear hear.) But I beg you to observe
that you place the Lord-Lieutenant and the Government
of Ireland in an exceedingly awkward 'situation in rela•
tion-to the monster meetings if you only allow them to
act after having before them evidence on oath of some-
thing dangerous to the public peace having been done,
and do not allow the Lord Lieutenant to proceed upon
his own sense of the state of the public peace, and of his
power to preserve that peace by means of the civil force
placed at his disposal. Ido not want to pretent discus-

cussion on any subject. I desiro that the people should
have the means of public discussion on every subject on
which they desire to have discussion; but, my Lords, let
that discussion be when they meet in such numbers so
that the question can be discussed, and all who attend
the meeting can hear what is addressed to them ;
but do not let the meeting, under the pretence of
discussion,, be of such a nature as, in the opinion
of the magistrate, it is impossible for him to
endeavour to put them down loy means of the
civil force at his disposal, and render it obvious that
such a meeting can have no other object except to create
terror and overpower the Government. My Lords, I
rejoice that this Bill is likely to pass as a check on such
meetings in future—meetings of a character to create
terror; and I hope that your Lordships will pass this
Bill unanimously in as short a space of time as possible,
in order that Government may be able to take advantage

of it iu the approaching time.
Lord DENMAN—I agree very much in almost all the
arguments of the Noble Duke. There are, however,
some points to which I should wish to allude. It appears
to me that the danger which must result if these meetings
are unchecked can hardly be overrated. It is impossible
for the mind of the lowest of the people, oppressed by
want, to be worked upon without the greatest danger,
not only to the peace of the community and the interests
of individuals, but the actual safety of the State. I

differ from other Noble Lords that these present pro-

ceedings are at all dangerous to the State as conspiracies
against it; but the spirit of such proceedings, the tole-
ration of such language, the permission for people to
deliberate whether they will take the government into
their own hands or not, and declare war not only
against the Government, and Parliament, and the laws,
but also against the middling classes, does appear to
use to be an enormous and intolerable evil ; and I
feel that if any severity of law is necessary to put down
that evil, the new law ought to bo received with the
utmost attention. But the law is not so impotent as it
is supposed to be ; and I have no doubt, as the Noble
Duke has stated, that these monstrous meetings are to-
tally incompatible with all discussion, and may possibly
lead to a breach of the peace. From the exciting lan-
guage made use of, so as to turn the force to the destruc-
tion of any individuals, or of any class, these monstrous
meetings are in themselves misdemeanours, and might
be put down by the force requisite for that purpose.
That this growing contempt for the law in particular
classes is much encouraged by what has taken place in
Ireland is not likely to be contested by any one. On
that subject I beg leave to say that these monstrous
meetings were never, as far as I know, proceeded against
by the Government of the time, and for some reason or
other it was thought more prudent to allow them to pro-
seed, and:afterwards to proceed against them in the shape
of indictment, of which I do not wish to speak in any kind
of detail ; but upon which the greatest possible variety
of opinions had been and was entertained ; but which
indictment might almost be called as monstrous in
its description of the offence as the meeting itself. The
Noble Duke has alluded to some of the parties charged
on that occasion. lam sure the Noble Duke had not
the least intention to impute to any of those who thought
it their duty, in conformity with the laws, to overturn
the proceedings of the Court below—the Noble Duke
does not mean to allude to them as having done anything
in the least degree inconsistent with their duty. On the
contrary, I am quite sure that if the Noble Duke, sit-
ting as a judge in this House, was, with a view to any
consequences whatever, to say that he believed that to
be the law which he did not believe to b e the law, and to
abstain from giving that judgment which he in his con-
science thought fit, he would forfeit all respect as a judge,
and the law itself would lose that veneration which, as
the Noble Duke has said, the country had habitually
felt for it. And when the Noble Duke says that
these meetings are a proof of the growing con-
tempt of the law, I admit that the conduct of those
parties who have made it necessary to pass this law shows
that the law has fallen into contempt with them; but we
are hardly doing justice to the public of England, if the
whole people of England, who took into their own hands
the vindication of their own rights and the protection of
the State, are to be accused of having shown any con-
tempt of the law.— (Hear, hear.) I think, on the con-
trary, that when these Chartists had proceeded so far
towards the disturbance of the public peace as to
threaten the safety of all persons who were not of their
own political creed, that the exhibition of order which
then took place, peaceable men leaving their ordinary
occupations of life to expose themselves to probable
danger, and to certain inconvenience at a great sacrifice
—I think it was one of the finest spectacles ever exhi-
bited on the part of a people attached to the law, because
convinced by long experience of the benefits of the pro-
tection to be derived from it. lam sure I can never
speak without feelings of the utmost admiration, in which
all mankind concur, of the conduct of the Noble Duke;
but I feel that I should be wanting in some degree in
what was due to the real character of the English people
if I allowed the expression about " the growing con-
tempt of the law" to pass without comment.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—No one can admire
more than I do the general conduct of the people upon
the occasion to which I have referred; and I am sorry if
I have said anything which could have induced the Noble
and Learned Lord, or any person, to believe that I had
said they had not shown respect for the law. What I
stated was, that the results of that day were to bo attri-
buted to the formidable array that was made to get the
better of those who had arrayed themselves against the
law. I said there was no respect of the law on their
part, because I said that on that very night, and certainly
on the following night, they had over and over again
made speeches showing their contempt of the law. I
also beg to say that nothing was further from my
thoughts than to express one word against the decision
of the House as to what passed upon the trial to which
I have referred. I confess that I have the greatest re-
spect for the decision of this House upon that subject.
I said that it was owing to circumstances attending these
trials—to points which occurred on the trials—that the
conviction of the persons who had been concerned in
the transaction to which I have referred was set aside.
I did not presume to pronounce any opinion upon the
subject. I merely mentioned the fact, as one of the
many circumstances which have tended to occasion a
contempt of the law on the subject of these meetings.
Lord DENMAN—I am extremely happy to hear
what the Noble Duke has stated. In point of fact, the
growing contempt of the law on the part of those who
are bidding defiance to it was put down by the growing
confidence and attachment in the law by the great mass
of the people of England. I take the liberty of adding
upon this subject, that I really believe that a vast num-
ber of the people attending these meetings do so from
ignorance that they are offending against the law. Tbey
have sumo notion of the lawfulness of public meetings,
without considering the circumstances which attend
those meetings. The leaders work upon the poor
starving population, great numbers of whom are really
ignorant of the offence they are committing. These
people ought to be informed of the danger they are
incurring, and that even without this Bill they may
he punished for lending themselves to meetings of such
a character. As to one part of this Bill, which has
been made the subject of discussion in the other House,
that subject is exhausted, and does not require any
observations on my part. lam happy to think that.cla a
Bill has been fully discussed by able persons, I
great deal of jealousy, in another place, and notwri see
any difficulty in carrying it into effect. It s very pro-
bable o
bable that it is not perfect, and the observation
may
made that it might have been carried furt e
imperfections are, in my judgment, no reason for n
passing it. I will only observe, in reference to what
was said by a Noble Lord opposite, that persons accused
of felony are privileged to challenge, whereas they lose
the challenge when accused of misdemeanour, that I
should be sorry to see persons deprived of this advan-
tage. On a late occasion, on a special commission in
Ireland—whether the jury were of a higher class or
more intelligent I know not—but no persons ever did
their duty so perfectly as those jurors did; and I am
happy to say that the demonstration has been so com-
plete that I trust there is an end of coercion as to
Ireland.
Lord BROUGHAM, in reference to what had been
said by the Noble Duke, observed that Lyons was a
much larger place, and contained a much more danger-
ous population than Bristol. There were 240,000
persons, of whom 30,000 or 40,000 were workmen in a
most wretched state, and the quarrels with their masters
on account of wages led to almost perpetual combina-
tions against the law. He was lately in the place, and
spoke from most positive information; 30,000 persons
were banded in opposition to the law, and it was deemed
advisable, from motives of humanity, to draw in an over-
whelming military force, to make resistance utterly
impossible; and the consequence was, there was hardly
any shedding of blood. There was, indeed, nothing
which was such false humanity as that' of not putting
down insurrections with a strong hand, so as to make
resistance utterly impossible.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—I contrasted what
had passed in Lyons with what had passed in Bristol,
as a remarkable instance of the effect of the restraint of
the law.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said that the Noble
Lord lately the Chancellor of Ireland, with more expe-
rience of this country than of that, and the Learned
Chief Justice of England, had already underrated the
objections stated by the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley.)
Anybody acquainted with the administration of justice
in Ireland must acknowledge that it was extremely diffi-
cult to get jurors not afraid of doing their duty. This
had been the case ins the White Boy offences. If a pe-
remptory right of challenge were given to the parties
arrainged, it would be impossible to restore order. He
agreed that upon a late occasion the jurors did their
duty, and there was a conviction. It was owing to pecu-
liar circumstances that the gentry and magistrates all
attended, and served on the petty jury. That was hardly
to be looked at as a continuing state of things; and he
apprehended that by taking the case of a number of
persons, and putting them on their trial, you would
exhaust the panel, and find it impossible to get jurors
to do their duty. At the same time he would
oppose no delay in the existing circumstances
of the country to the passing of this Bill. Whilst he ad •
witted that those who "devised, compassed, or imagined"
the death of the king justly deserved punishment, yet
the mischievous consequences produced by their speak-
ing were small in comparison with the mischief done
by the publication of those speeches. He did not wish
there should be any restraint on the publication of
speeches in Parliament; he thought it of paramount im-
portance that everything which was said in either House
of Parliament should be known to the country, for the
probability of a treasonable or seditious speech was not
great; but the case was different where small bodies of
persons met together of the same opinion, and made
speeches which, when reported, were read by the
meanest peasant. The newspapers exercised a
sound discretion in the report of criminal pro-
ceedings. He could conceive no reason why
the editors of newspapers should not be called upon to
exercise the same discretion as to the speeches delivered
at these meetings, and he thought it consistent with the
duty of Government to require editors to omit the pub-