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

t only reference to " open and advised speaking," with
i tendency to induce persons to levy war, to compel the
Sovereign or the Legislature to change or abandon
measures which they might think conducive to the wel-
fare and happiness of the country.
Mr. HUME asked whether "open and advise I !peak-
ing" was felony under the present law ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—It is treason.
Mr. HUME—Under what Act?
The -Open rand advised
speaking, accompanied by overt Lets,is treason uucer
the present law.
Sir R. INGLIS supported the Bill. He thought it
was high time that the treasonable proceedings which
had been going on for some time should be put a stop
to.—(Hoar, hear.) They would not have been so Itag
permitted in any other country, or underlthe most ReP,llh %
lican Government in the world.---(Hear, hear.) 11'
Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had said that he
would allow a man to say what he liked provided be,
kept his hands off. He asked his Hon. Friend would
he remain quiet while two men consulted how he wig"
easiest be knocked down ? His Hon. Friend had als°
said that this Bill would change the character of poll-.
tical agitation, that speeches would be made in holes and
corners with only the Government spies for audiences;
Be it so; then they would not do so much mischief a
when utterrd in public to myriads of misguided pereons
He held in his hand a number of such speeches which
loudly called for legislative interference; and here,
although not accustomed to allude to the public Pres'''
he must express his thanks to the conductors of th°
Herald, Times, and, indeed, all the journals which
he was in the habit of seeing, for their exertions in Po-
[noting the cause of peace and order. Man of those
speeches were attributed to the Hon. Member for
Limerick, who, in his (Sir R. Inglis's) view, defied pub i
opinion in this country and in the House.—(Hear, hear.)
When that Hon. Member had risen, be (Sir R.
was prepared for one, to ask whether the House would
not require from the Hon. Member some explanation of
his recent conduct in a neighbouring country before h•
was permitted to address it. It was true that the HO;
Member had towards the close of his speech offer"-
some sort of vindication. Such as it was it had been
listened to by the House with a feeling which the Hone
Member would be able to appreciate.—(Hear, hear').
The Hon. Member had said " I went to France to con;
gratulate the people on having regenerated the spirit of
independence, which I trust will react on my own coin;
try." Now, these words had a meaning or they het!
not. If they had a meaning, was it not that recent
events in France might lead to the establishment of re'
publican institutions in Ireland?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. O'BRIEN had only to repeat that at present
he only sought for Ireland a Government by the Queen,
Lords, and Commons of Ireland, but, whatever his owl
feelings might ho, he believed that if that were refused
a republic would be the result.
Sir R. INGLIS believed that he had not misinter-
preted the Hon. Member's expressions. He had only
to say, in conclusion, that he gave his hearty support to
the Bill as it stood, and he trusted that, for the sake of
catching a few stray votes, the Government would n°,l
consent to neutralise any of its provisions. They 13
been taunted for weeks with giving encouragement to
malcontents in both divisions of the empire, and their
defence had been, that in the existing state of the lavr
they had iso power of suppression. He trusted, then,
that having the Bill so nearly within their grasp they
would not part with it, but would administer it with s
reverend regard for proper and sound constitutional
liberty.
Mr. ANSTEY would support the Bill for the reasons
so ably stated by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Soli-,
citor-General. In answer to the Hon. Member for Mote-
trose, he begged to state, that under the existing law i
punishment might be found for the offences named n
the Bill. The measure of the Government was intended
to mitigate the severities of the existing law—there was
nothing in it that contradicted any principle of our con-
stitution. It was an improvement not only on the law al
established by ancient decisions, but it was an improve'
went on the statute of Edward 11., and brought us bank
nearer to those days when treason itself was not $
capital offence, by creating an intermediate offense
between sedition and high treason. He looked on th!
Bill as an offering to the tolerant spirit of the age, and
as an inducement to the people to support the Govern'
went in their present wise and moderate course for tho
suppression of crime, and he should therefore support it.
Mr. AGLIONBY considered that Ministers had con-
sulted the welfare of the public in introducing this Bili
—(lean) The objection to the third clause, which re'
ferred to words written and published or spoken openly
and advisedly, appeared to be made under an entire mss'
apprehension of the effect of that clause. The offence
was made penal only when the object was, by levying
war, to make an attempt against the life or liberty 0'
the Sovereign, or to overawe the Parliament, or tA3
incite foreigners to invade this country. With regal
to written words, there was sufficient protection to
the accused, for unless they were published as vs?
as written, no offence was committed ; and if pub'
lication took place, the parties ought to be Pull'
ished. Then as to spoken words. It was not in;
tended by this clause, nor would it have the effect of
preventing the free expression of opinion, unless such
expression was calculated to incite to the levying of la',
for the purposes stated, and was made publicly. It would
not punish a man (as had been contended) for speaking
his sentiments at his own dinner-table, however extrenr,
those sentiments might be, unless he addressed himself
to multitudes, and endeavoured to incite them to lei's
war against the Government, in which case he ought.t
be punished.—(Hear, hear.) A jury would always dl°;
tinguish between the open and fearless expression 01'
opinion and words intended as an incitement to levy. viLsr,7,
First, there was a safeguard in the word " advised,
which would prevent intentions being attributed which
might never have existed; and then there was the effect.
tual safeguard of a British jury, who would always dirt-
tinguish between expressions used in the heat of argu-
ment, and expressions used " advisedly," and with in'
tent. He was, however, of opinion that the punishment
of transportation for life was too severe for the offence:
and he proposed to move an amendment in Committee
to assimilate the Bill, in respect to punishment, more to
the 5 and G Vic., which had been passed for putting an
end to those mad attempts which had previously pre"
veiled of shooting at the Sovereign.—(Hear, hear.) Te
the principle of the measure, he, however, gave a hearty
support.
Lord NUGENT, though concurring in the measure
generally, thought the third clause did not provide suta•
eient security against the errors of the reporter or th°
malice of the informer—and he proposed to move a pro'
vise, which should render it necessary, before any pro'
secution could take place in respect to treasonable or
seditious words spoken, that the report of the short'
hand writer or other person who took down the words,
should be submitted to the speaker, either immediatelf•
or within a week after they were spoken, for him to
admit, deny, or explain, such admission, denial, and
explanation signed by him, to be used as evidence no
the trial, and in the event of the party charged refusing
to admit, deny, or explain, the report to be taken
correct.
Mr. B. OSBORNE had voted for the introduction of
the Bill, but when the measure was put into his heed*
that morning, and he saw the words " or by open or ed-
vised speaking," he was so struck with the gravity and
weight of the novel principles which they proposed 50
introduce into our system of government that he deter-
mined on voting with what he feared would be the ad"
nority on the present occasion.—(llear. hear.) When they were voting for the better security of the Crown,
they should not forget the security of the people.
Pass such an Act as this, and they could not insure that
security of the people, which, to endanger, would be to
strike a blow at the safety of the Crown and the Go-
vernment.—(Hear.) There was another reason eh,
they should pause before they affirmed this Bill. Go•
vernment was too apt to take advantage in their legislae
tion of the excitement occasioned by passing events.
Laws passed under the influence of excitement wet*
usually passed in haste, and were seldom good laws. As
was proposed to be done in this case, they were hurried
through with less consideration than was usually give*
to a common turnpike trust Act. The Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell) seemed to have forgotten what Mr. Burke had
said, as to open and advised speaking. Mr. Burke said,
" that open and advised speaking was the safety-valve
of the constitution, by means of which the foul air was
let off." If, however, he (Mr. B. Osborne) wanted
a reason for voting against the measure, it was fur
nished by the speech of the Solicitor General, which
was a mere piece of special pleading as to the
meaning which a jury would probably attach to the
wards. Another lawyer, the Hon. and Learned Member
for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), had told them that the only
alteration the Bill would effect in the present law was
to mitigate its severity—inasmuch as open and advised
speaking was now treason. But the Hon. and Learned
Member forgot to add such open and advised speaking
must bo followed by an overt act of treason to comp:etc
the offence.— (Hear, hear.) England, however, did not
owe her liberties to lawyers, and if the House depended
on them now they would impair the securities of the
people, not better the security of the Crown. They had
heard much of the respect due to the Crown, and be
e was not deficient in
sttehonattthofreedeelirn
people he would
to the country, his
hoped
stwhu
hep
epCno rr Ott
hwi
et n,maintainedfo g
the
di
tups trye.
duty
gof thSionglosl;igbaa:
obligations and respect ceased. A near relative
of the Prime Minister, the present Duke of
Bedford, had, in 1818, when Marquis of Tavistocks
laid it down that
not iu restricting the liberties of the ele.'" In that sentiment he fully concurred, and he hoped the
House would not be induced, under the circumstances of
the country, to restrict those liberties by legislatirg in *
spirit adverse to the institutions of the country.—(Hear.)
He could not permit the speech of the Right Hon. Ba-. ronet (Sir G. Grey) to pass without some observation.
It might do well, for the purpose of
pros gaininga
nadt ermi
ephoersa rof
cheer, to say that Government entertained the most
sincere wishes for the peace, f
Ireland. But these were mere woprds. y'What had Mie
nisters done to carry those wishes into effect? They
had been two years in office,
n(b.oe,
v,t)a,
at
da,vraut
nynedti
noogh theeon
enr s
)on indolence eeonl
Hpreomheodtesethpep
oprteeadeet'he presenta:ldinwisitirayt, had
dt
htheewyoduoldnenet:
prosperity, and riches of Ireland ?
tellhi
c h
t,hife Treasury
they
thadti
dtßhneeoyntewtha;
k- -r
to
ecwouldaenoo fw
care, would. soon explode under them ; and he called
upon thetn, if they had not the power or the ability to
legislate for the good of the country, to give place to
those who had.--(" Hear," and a laugh.)
Dr. BOWRING said it could not be denied that this
Bill created a new political felony. It was true the 'w-
ashy of death attached to words inciting to the levying
of war against the Crown or to the invasion of
the country was proposed to he altered ; but tl.at
law was a dead letter.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill would
revive the offence and punish it. He wanted security,
not in the accidents of a good judge and an intelligent
jury, but in the positiveness of the law.—(Hear.) In
regard to overt acts of treason, and in what was written