The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-26 00:00:00

to deprive the country of all the advantages which had been
derived from the punishment of the men in question? If the
decision of Government on the subject were overruled by a
vote of the House of Commons, he asked what must of necessity
be the effect ? Would it not go forth to the country that these
societies were so powerful—that they could get up so many
petitions in their favour, that they could apply such an influence
over the House of Commons, that if Government did not give
way they would be compelled to do so ? If, therefore, the ad-
dress proposed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury were agreed
to by the House, not only would the benefit of the punishment
already been inflicted be lost to the country, but a blow would
be given to the authority of the law, and a source of public
danger would be opened, which he shuddered to contemplate.
Still he was prepared to concur with his Noble Friend in say-
ing that there was much in this case which entitled it to con-
sideration.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON rose amidst loud cries of " Ques-

tion, question I" " Divide, divide !" Having presented a pe-
tition signed by 22,000 individuals, imploring the House to
use its influence with his Majesty's Government that mercy
might be extended to these unfortunate persons, he begged to
be permitted to say a few words. He could assure the House
and the Government that such an extension of mercy would

he received with gratitude and thankfulness by thousands, ay,
by millions of the people of this country.
Mr. M. PHILIPS had thought it his duty to examine
into the allegations advanced against the legality of the sen-
tence ; and he had satisfied himself that the sentence was (we
believe the Hon. Gentleman said) legal. He had formerly
ventured to ask the Noble Lord to temper justice with mercy
in his treatment of these unfortunate persons; and the only
object with which he had now risen was to repeat the request.
Mr. BL ACKBURNE, for one, would not vote for the
proposition to take the matter out of the hands of Government.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL trusted that the House

would not, upon this occasion, interfere with the exercise of

the functions of the executive.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that the truth of the statement
made by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, that the labouring
population had very few direct representatives in that House,
unlike the landed and manufacturing interests, whose repre-
sentatives almost divided the House between them, should have
induced at least an appearance of impartiality, even although
the debate had been adjourned to the second day, in discus-
sing the prayer of half a million of the people in favour of the
labourers in question. To-morrow night an appeal would be
made to them on behalf of a number of gentlemen who had
violated some of the most sacred safeguards of the Consti-
tution. The greater part of these gentlemen were lawyers,
and could not plead ignorance of the statutes against which
unfortunate labourers had offended. To-morrow, however, a
touching appeal would be made to their feelings of sympathy
on account of the respectability of those gentlemen, and the
hardship to their families of having been in Newgate for
nearly a fortnight. Yet, when a number of poor labourers,
who had consulted how they might raise their starving wages
of 6s. per week, were in question, after having suffered exile
and degrading punishment for nearly two years, the House
could only be got to consider this case, when the opinion of
the nation was expressed in a general shout of discontent. By
an authentic report of the trial, which he held in his hand,
it appeared—both from the statement of Counsel for the
prosecution, and on the authority of the indictment—that
the whole proceeding turned upon the Act of the 37th of
George lll.—(Hear, hear.) It was a gratifying circum-
stance that, generally speaking, the humbler classes ac-
quiesced in the sentence of the law in the most exemplary
manner, when they felt it to be justified ; but in no former
case had such a number of petitions been presented upon any
subject. To justify the charge the oath ought not only to
have been illegal, but it should have been administered for
illegal purposes. Now were the purposes of the labourers
illegal ? For his own part, he theueht the resolutions distin-
guished by great good feeling and moral sense. The gentle-
men of Essex had met together for the purpose of protecting
the agricultural interests, and attending to their own peculiar
profits. What criminality was there, then, in the labourers
meeting to protect their only property—their labour ? That
was their object: and what were the means by which they
smight to promote it? He found it laid down in one of tte
I rules, that there should be no drinking, no 0 ths, no crimi-
nal conduct, no conversation upon political matters at any of
their meetings. Let the Solicitor or Attorney-General show
that these were unlawful objects. It is true that the admi-
nistration of a secret oath is in itself illegal ; but the offence
is not one subjecting the party to transportation. Neverthe-
less, under a statute passed in 1797, to prevent. soldiers and
sailors being seduced from their allegiance, these men were
punished. The Hon. and Learned Member proceeded to
urge other reasons for thinking the conviction improper, and
expressed a hope that the admirable letter read by the Hon.
Member for Finsbury would be laid before his Majesty. He
was sorry that the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home
Department. in hearing that letter read, had not at once begged
for time to inquire into the subject, and thus for the present
have closed the debate.
Mr. ROLFE said it was agreed on all hands that it was
impossible to enter into discussions of law on these complicated
questions in the House ; hut if the Hon. Gentleman opposite
would like to hear in two selit.enees the grounds on which the
Judges proceeded, he might do so. The Ilon. and Learned
Gentleman then quoted the 37th and 39th of Geo. 111., as
containing the grounds of the Judges' opinions.
Mr. TULK came to the House desirous to implore the
mercy of the Crown for these unfortunate men, not to dispute
the justice of the sentence under which they suffered.
Mr. O'CONNELL feared that there was no chance of ob-
taining a majority for the motion, so that the result would seem
as if the House had pronounced, by a side-wind, that enough
had been done in the matter. Having formerly declared his
opinion that he considered the conviction legal, he felt bound
to say that he now doubted its legality. When he expressed
himself satisfied with the sentence, a Ministry was in power
whom he did not feel bound in any way to support ; so now
that he doubted the legality of the sentence, his change of
opinion might be entitled to some weight, from the circum-
stance of a set of Ministers being in office whom he felt bound
to support as far as he possibly could.—(lronical cheers from
the Opposition benches.) What could the Hon. Gentleman
expect to attain by pressing his motion to a division ? It was
true that the Hon. Gentleman had made an impression that
evening that he (Mr. O'Connell) had never seen exceeded in
that House—true that he had produced documents which did
the highest honour to the head and heart of the writer, but
what advantage could he expect to gain by forcing the House
to a division, and thereby to place, probably, a large majority
of its Members in apparent opposition to the labouring classes
throughout the country ? Under these circumstances he
trusted the Hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of with-
drawing his motion, though if he should persist in pressing it
to a division, he (Mr. O'Connell), in consistency with previ-
ously expressed opinions, should feel bound to vote with him.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that the matter ought to be
left in the hands of the executive government—in the hands of
the responsible advisers of the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) He did
not deny the right of the House—he admitted the duty of the
House—if there were a suspicion that justice had been per-
verted for corrupt purposes, to interfere as the protector of the
purity of justice, and to see that justice was done. But he saw
no allegation—he saw no suspicion that the King's Govern-
ment had been actuated by any improper motives in the consi-
deration of this case, and he, for one, was content, upon the
ground stated by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite,
namely, that the responsible advisers of the Crown were the
only proper or constitutional parties to whom the matter could
be referred, to leave the case entirely in their hands.—( Hear,
hear.) It was upon that principle that he should give his vote ;
but at the same time he did not hesitate to say, that if Govern-
ment should find themselves in a majority, he did not think
that that circumstance ought to influence them in the conside-
ration of the case, if any new facts should be submitted to them.
......(Hear, hear.) He did not vote on the principle of defend-
ing unnecessary severity—he did not vote in reference to the
merits of the case—as he had before stated, he was content to
leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE rose amidst loud cries of " Ques.
tion." He happened to be at Dorchester at the time these
men were tried, and the conduct of Government cases usually
falling to him, he thought it his duty immediately to look into
the state of the law upon the subject. Having so examined
the letter of the law, he entertained not the shadow of a
doubt that these persons, supposing the evidence to prove
the fact, had been guilty of a breach of the statute of George
the Third. After having entered at some length into the
proceedings at the trial, the whole of which, together with
the sentence, he maintained accorded strictly with the letter
of the law, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman declared that
he had risen not for the purpose of offering any opposition to the
extension of mercy to the individuals who were undergoing the
sentence of the Court, but simply to vindicate the justice and
legality of the proceedings adopted against them.
Mr. WAKLE Y replied—He was sorry he could not com-
ply with the request of his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Dublin; but he felt he should not discharge his
duty to the humbler classes of the communnity if he did not
press his motion to a division.
The House then divided, when the numbers appeared to be—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion —226
_ _

On our return to the gallery we found
Lord JOHN RUSSELL addressing some observations to
the House, the purport of which we understood to be that on
account of the lateness of the hour he would not proceed with
the Municipal Corporation Bill that night.
SCOTCH GAME LAWS.
Mr. FOX MAULE moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
the relief of the tenants and occupiers of land in Scotland
from the damages done to their crops by hares, pheasants, and
rabbits.
The House divided after a desultory conversation, when
there appeared—
For the motion 5O
Against it
Majority —26
The Bill is consequently lost.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
repeal certain clauses in the Act .55 Geo. 111., c. 57., impos-
ing duties on tonnage and goods in the' trade with countries
within the limits of the exclusive privileges of the South Sea
Company.
Mr. C. P. THOMSON hoped the Honourable Gentleman
would not persist in his motion, as it was his intention to bring
forward some general measure relative to the South Sea
Company. This had only been delayed in consequence of
the complicated nature of the subject.
After a few words from Lord Sandon,
Mr. G. F. YOUNG withdrew his motion, on the under•
standing that a measure was to be introduced on the subjec
next session.

CLERK OF THE CROWN.
On the motion of Mr. BARING, a Select Committee was
appointed to consider so much of the Acts 3 and 4 Will. IV.,