The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-26 00:00:00

RUGBY SCHOOL.

In reply to an appeal from Sir S. Northeote,
Mr. BRAND said he was quite willing to postpone bring-
ing forward his motion, so as to allow the Public School
Commissioners an opportunity of more fully considering
the objections which had been taken to the statutes with
regard to the governing body of Rugby, provided he had
an assurance from the Government that he should have
an opportunity of renewing the motion in the event of no
satisfactory settlement being arrived at by the Public
School Commissioners.

Mr. FORSTER said a full opportunity would be given to
the right hon. gentleman to proceed if he should think it
necessary to do so.
PUNISHING CHILDREN.
Mr. GRAHAM asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, whether his attention had been called to the
case of Alexander Gillespie, a boy of ten years of age, who
had been committed as a vagrant to the Rottenrow Indus-
trial School, Glasgow, although innocent of any crime,
and being atthe time resident in the home of his parents ;
whether it had been brought to his notice that such com-
mittal took place summarily, and without his parents being
even aware that the child was in the hands of the police ;
and whether he would not, under the circumstances, exer-
cise the power conferred upon him by the Industrial
Schools Act, and order the restoration of the boy to his
parents, who, although in humble circumstances, are
respectable persons, and able and willing to maintain and
educate him ?
Mr. BRUCE said the hon. member had been altogether
misinformed. The boy was taken up on a charge of being
about to commit a robbery, and his parents were made
acquainted with the circumstances, and told to attend at
the police-court. They did not, and the boy pleaded
guilty, and was without being convicted sent, under the 15th
Soction of the Industrial Schools Act to a reforma-
tory. The magistrate had the power to alter the sen-
tences upon proper representation being made to him.
PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then went into committee on the bill.
The consideration of the measure was resumed on Clause
27, the subject before the chair being whether the word
" seditious " should be left out of the clause which gave
the power of suppressing newspapers publishing treason-
able or seditious matter.
Mr. MOORE objected altogether to the clause, and re-
ferring to what took place last night, he said he was quite
certain the opinion of the minority last night
represented the feelings of millions in Ireland,
whose feelings it would be dangerous to despise. All other
parts of the bill than those under discussion he looked
upon as pretences, and the enactment to protect lives he
thought merely a stalking horse. Before the Government
called upon the House to pass such a clause as that now
under discussion they ought to shew that the press was
in collusion with those who were acting in defiance of the
law. The National press only expressed the feelings of
the National party in Ireland, and he should most strenu-
ously object to have that party associated with murderers
and robbers.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND defended the
clause. The House last night had decided that the word
" treasonable " should remain, and now they were engaged
in considering whether the word seditious should remain
in the clause, he thought it absolutely necessary that it
should. In fact he looked upon it as of more importance
than the word "treasonable," and he would rather leave
that out than omit the word "seditious." It would give
the Government the power of dealing with a certain class
of offences ; but that power, he could assure the House,
would never be exercised unless the Government were
called upon to do so. The hon. and learned gentleman
then read extracts from a certain Irish newspaper to shew
exactly the sort of productions the clause would affect.
Mr. MuNTz said he objected to clauses, and, in fact, to
all bills like the present ; but it appeared to be necessary
for the protection of life and property, which was looked
upon by all as the first duty of Parliament. He did not
like bills that were said to be merely tempo-
rary, as actual experience had shewn that where
a bill had been passed merely for the year, it had been
renewed again and again until it became, in effect, a per-
manent measure. He did not think much of the provision
that the bill was only for the year ; he was afraid he
should see it renewed again and again, and that it would
become a model bill for England.
Mr. COGAN confessed that he would not take upon him-
self to give a definition of sedition, and so far as he could
he would endeavour to prevent the arrival of the day
when it would be left to an individual minister, no matter
how able he might be, to decide what sedition was. He
believed that if the clause were adopted without the word
" sedition," it would enable the Government to deal
promptly and effectually with writings of a treasonable
nature, or which incited to murder, or the committing of
felony. He regretted that the exceptional circumstances of
Ireland required such a clause, but he thought they ought
not to give the Government greater powers with reference
to the press.
Mr. McMAHoN said it was clear that if the bill passed
as it stood, the Government would really seize property
in Ireland for acts which were not offences against the
existing law, He thought the Government should define
what sedition was, inasmuch as the Solicitor-General had
said that they would have no difficulty in the matter.
Mr. W. JOHNSTON supported the amendment.
Lord ELcHo thought the powers sought by the Govern-
ment were not only excessive, but such as no Government
in any coercive bill had ever asked for before. The argu-
ment against the exercise of the power was that it was a
question involving the liberty of the Press, but he would

Mr. C. PORTESCUE said the Government were most
anxious to govern Ireland in every way as
peacefully as they did England, and he contended that
in all they had done hitherto that desire was apparent.
He denied that there had been any delay in the Govern-
ment introducing the bill, but before the stringent powers
the bill gave were asked of Parliament they were anxious
that every means in their power for meeting the emer-
gency should be tried. (Hear, hear). That had been done,
and it now became necessary to ask the House
to strengthen the hands of the Government. He denied
that Government had been dilatory in prosecuting news-
papers for certain articles that had been published, but as
soon as it was thought the time for repressive measures
being taken had arrived, that moment the Government
had come to Parliament. The right hon. gentle
man then read extracts from a charge of Judge Deasy,
with the view of shewing what a newspaper might
do, and yet be within the law ; also what it might not do
to keep without the charge of sedition. As the discussion
on the clause had taken rather a wide range, he would
state two of the most important changes that the Govern.
ment proposed to make in the bill. In the clause following
the present. there were words of a prohibitory nature
" having a tendency, &c." to create sedition. The proposed
was to frame such an alteration as to enable them to omit
the words " having a tendency, &c." (Hear, hear.) The
other alteration was that in case the Government were
called upon to put the Act in operation against any news-
paper, it would be necessarry on the part of the Govern-
ment to give that paper one warning of the intentions of
the Government. (Hear.) He did not think that either of the
alterations proposed would at all weaken the powers of
the bill. It had been proposed by some hon. members
that three warnings should be given. That proposal he
could not accept, but he hoped that the House would be
willing to accept his proposal of the warning before the
Act was put in force. (Hear, hear.)
Sir Jam GRAY deprecated any interference with the
reedom of the press. He did not think that the printer
or publisher of a journal was entitled to any special
privilege save and except that the press represented public
opinion, the freedom of which it was essential to maintain.
He asked whether Government had instituted a single
Prosecution for sedition in Ireland and failed, thus justi-
fying them in asking for such extraordinary powers. He
nstanced three cases out of four in which the
Government obtained convictions against the offenders,
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Martin being transported
The question was not what Press laws they should adopt,
but whether it was right to give the executive of Ireland
such powers. The bill, in fact, proposed to give to three
or four gentlemen up at the Castle, who formed a sort of
Star Chamber, the absolute power of clutching the whole
Press of Ireland. He contended that it was the right of
the people to complain of bad laws through the Press, and
to use every necessary step to get rid of them.

Lord JOHN MANNERS observed that the late Government
had to encounter a far more serious state of affairs in Ire-
land than had the present Government, and yet they did
not feel it their duty to apply to Parliament for powers of
this exceptional character. On the contrary, they were
content to put into effect the law as they found it. If
the powers were necessary, it was the necessary conse-
quence of the bungling policy and language of her
Majesty's Government.
Mr. GLADSTONE complained that the noble lord who
had just sat down could not afford to lose the
smallest opportunity of importing party spirit
into the debates. He could not accept the
speech as an indication of the spirit which prevailed,
on the other side of the House, because he was bound to
say that a perfectly different spirit had been manifested
from that quarter. (Applause.) But as the noble lord
thought fit to refer to matters that happened before the
period of peace and content, which prevailed without ex-
traordinary powers being exercised, at an epoch to which
he referred, perhaps ho (Mr. Gladstone) might
be allowed to remind his
,lordship of that
which he seemed altogether to have forgotten. He never
had any share in the government of Ireland during the
existence of the late administration, aided only by the
ordinary forms of law, but that the extreme measure of
suspending the constitution was in force at the period
to which, with such singular good taste and propriety, the
noble lord had referred. (Applause.) There were two things
which he would answer to draw the attention of the House
The first was this. His hon. friend, the member for
Kilkenny, had fairly grappled the question, and he had
said " Don't ask for these extraordinary powers, because
I will shew you are able to obtain verdicts for treason-
felony. And if you have not obtained them, and if you
have not prosecuted under the existing law, that is your
fault, and not the fault of the law." And his hon. friend
in proof of his allegations, quoted certain verdicts,
which were obtained for treason-felony, in 1843.
That was perfectly true. Three verdicts were obtained :
one prosecution failed. Failure of political prosecutions
was, he thought, a very much more serious matter than
his hon. friend seemed to think. And to attempt to insti-
-1 tute a comparison between failure of prosecutions brought
by the Government, and failures of prosecutions in the
ordinary prosecution of justice, was an illustration
quite fallacious. The law officers of that period

considered that the articles which were then

published did afford grounds for a verdict, and he believed
anyone referring to them would find that they contem-
plated measures of armed rebellion. But that was just
the element that was wanted in the articles now pub-
lished. They were articles which threw the people into a
treasonable attitude of mind, and they recommended
treasonable doctrine ; they taught the people to expect
rebellion, to prepare for rebellion ; they taught them to
take part in it when it came. But that was precisely
the difference, and in the judgment of the present law
officer of the Crown, and the former law officess as well, it
made the essential difference between ,a law that wou4l.

Mr. G. fDEN3rArr said he came to the house that day
with a desire to support the Government in passing the
most stringent law for the protection of life and property
in Ireland ; but the Honse was now called upon to pass a
bill enabling the Government to take and seize any news-
paper that might publish seditious matter. He
candidly confessed that he did not know what sedi-
tion meant, or still more difficult would it he
for him to say what it did not mean. (Hear, hear). He
knew of plenty of cases where prosecutions had taken
place, but then it Was so extremely difficult to define
what was not seditious that any person might if it was de-
sired, be accused of such an offence, although
all he had done might be committed innocently patrioti-
cally, and from pure love of country. He for one
could not consent to give any Government the power con-
ferred by the clause as it stood, and although it would be
with regret that he should vote against the Government
on the present occasion, yet he felt it is duty to do so.
He, however, hoped it would be unnecessary for him to
go into the Opposing lobby, but that the Government
would consent to give up the word. (Hear, hear.) Such
a concession would be looked upon elsewhere most favour-
ably, and, he felt, would produce an effect that would
greatly strengthen the hands of the Government in repress-
ing crime and outrage. (Cheers.)
Mr. CLAY said he should, without the slightest hesita-
tion, give to Government the power they asked for, feeling
quite safe that they would not abuse it.

The House then divided on the question that the words
" orseditious " stand part of the clause : 't
Ayes ..:,
Noes .. ' ' 56

Majority

On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND,
the words " having a tendency to encourage or propagate"
were omitted, to insert the words " encouraging or propa•'
gating."
Mr. DOWNING then moved a further amendment to the
clause, the object of which was to make it incumbent 04.
the Lord-Lieutenant to institute criminal proceedingi
against the proprietor before the provisions of the present
Act were put in force. The hon. gentleman referred to a.
copy of the Tomahawk, which contained two engravings,
one a landlord evicting a tenant, and the other the tenant
shooting the landlord from behind a hedge, and said he
should like to know whether such a publication would be
allowed in Dublin.

The SOLICITOII-GENERAL; for IRELAND opposed the
amendment, as he asserted it would alter the entire frame-
work of the bill. Ho therefore hoped the House would
not consent to the proposed amendment, which, he said.
was a piece of parliamentary patchwork.
Sir JOHN GRAY said the hon. and learned member had
not answered the question of the hon. member.

The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. M`MAnoic then moved an amendment to except
" engines, machines, and other plant" from the operation 4
of the bill.
Sir JOHN GRAY said there were large establishments is
Manchester, and other places where the printing:
of a certain newspaper was merely contracted for, and
nothing done with respect to editing or getting the content
of the paper together. He wanted to know whether OA
whole of this large proi.erty was to be seized for merely:
performing the mechanical portion of the production of a,
newspaper. Some provision ought to be introduced to'
prevent such a proceeding.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said all the machinery and plant
seized would be kepi in perfect repair and conditiq
pending any action with respect to ownership; ' It'
The amendment was negatived.
On the motion for the clause as amended standing park
of the bill,
Mr. MAGUIRE moved its rejection. tVst"f•
Mr. CHARLEY seconded the amendment, believing that,
if the clause became law, it would place in the hands of:
the Chief Secretary for Ireland the power of punishinfe
free discussion. rte
The House divided, when there appeared a majority ot
22G for the retaining of the clause. . •
The sitting of the House was then suspended until 144A'
o'clock.

At a quarter to seven the sitting was suspended.
On resuming at nine o'clock, the House again proceeded
to the consideration of the Peace Preservation (Ireland)
Bill, and the remaining clauses, after some discussion, and
with trivial amendments, were agreed to One item de-
serves notice. Mr. Maguire introduced a new clause pro-
viding that in the case of " seditious" newspapers in Ireland
the Lord-Lieutenant should give tc the proprietors three
warnings instead of one " warning," as provided by the
bill; and after a wordy discussion a division took place,
when the proposal of the hon. member for Ucrk was nega-
tived by 103 to 18 votes.
The schedules were brought up and agreed to, and the
bill was ordered to be reported to-morrow (this day.)
At this stage of the sitting (one o'clock),
Sir T. E. MAY (the second clerk at the table) informed the
House with regret that Mr. Speaker, from indisposition,
would be unable to resume his seat.

Accordingly Mr. Dodson, as Deputy-Speaker, took the
chair.

Mr. Secretary BurcE, seeing the late hour of the clock,
postponed his promised statement on bringing in a bill to
amend the law for licensing the sale of exciseable liquors
until the 12th of April. _ _

The remaining business was formally disposed of, and the
House adjourned.

LIVERPOOL COTTON .31ARKET.-(TIHS DAY.

Sales probably 10,000 bales. Nla.rket quiet.

THE LATEST EDITION of 4, THE SUN "
supplied, as sot n as published, Every Evening, by W.
AL EXA (late Brooks), Newspaper Agent, i\o. 4, Old
Cavendish street, Oxford-street: