The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

R 0 USE OF L 0 R.7)S, MAY 25.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the
Woolsack at twenty minutes past Ave.
Mr. Alderman WOOD and other Members of the
House of Commons brought up a Bill, entitled a Bill to
establish a General Cemetery.
Lord FOLEY and others brought up various private
Bills.

The Report of the Naval Civil Department Bill was
brought up, and Wednesday next appointed for the second
reading of it.
Lord COLVILLE intimated that he had some remarks
to offer upon this Bill, which he should make when the
Bill came to be read a third time.
CHARGE OF TREASON.
On the motion for the House going into a Committee
on the Reform Bill,
The M.irquis of LONDONDERRY said, that as the
Noble Secretary for the Home Department was not in his
place, he begged to call the atteetion of the Noble Earl at
the head of his Majesty's Government to a piece of trea-
son, for he could style it nothing else, which had taken
place in that part of the world where the Noble Earl
bad possessions—he meant the town of Newcastle. A
great meeting of Reformers lately took place in that town,
at which Dr. Headlam, the most intimate friend of the
Noble Earl, presided. A long discussion took place, but
there was one speech, delivered by a Mr. Larkins, which
had created so extraordinary a sensation in the north of
England, that he bad conceived it to be his duty to bring
it before their Lordships, with the view of asking the
Noble Earl whether it had fallen under his inspection, and
whether it was his intention to prosecute it? The
Noble Earl must know better than he did what must
be the result of the treasonable language, and of the poli-
tical Unions, which pervaded the kingdom, especially when
they saw the chief of those Unions, on his arrival in the
metropolis, feasted as if he had been one of the greatest
heroes of the age. Taking this circumstance into con-
sideration, and that the language which he (the Marquess
of Londonderry) was about to bring before their Lordships
bad been uttered in the presence of the most intimate
friend of the Noble Earl, he thought it his duty to ask
whether such language was countenanced by the Noble
Earl, and whether be would not take some means to stop its
utterance, and also to the progress of unions and meetings
at which language was uttered, the only object of which
could be to overthrow all the institutions of the country ?
The Noble Marquess then read the following extract from
the speech of Mr. Larkins, delivered at the Newcastle
Reform Meeting, on Tuesday the 15th of May, occasion-
ally stopping to comment upon it.
" It was a mistake, then, on our part, to suppose that
the King was interested in the welfare of his people. It
turns out that we were satirising him when we were
comparing him to Alfred, and classing him with patriot
Kings. The hostility of the King to Reform was also ap-
parrnt in the determined character of the opposition which
has been made to the Rofurm 8,11 in the House of Lords. It
is not in the character of courtiers and debauchees, such as
from a large portion of the House of Lords, to oppose a
stern and unrelenting opposition to the wishes of a King.
I," the King had been sincere in his wishes for Reform,
awl determined to use in favour of the Bill every power
which the Constitution placed in his hands, that opposi-
tion would have vanished before the Royal determination,
and shrunk with terror before the power of the Royal
prerogative.—(Cheers.) Reform would have been carried
without the necessity of the creation of a single Peer.—
By hie refusal to suffer Lord Grey, to act in con-
formity with the fervent wishes and aspirations of his
people, he has exhibited himself to the nation as
the great obstacle in the way of Reform, since even
by the mere threat of his determination to exercise
the Royal Prerogative he could have overpowered
the resistance of the House of Lords, and done justice to
a long oppressed nation, which is bent upon regaining its
rights and freedom in spite of the selfish opposition of the
Peera2e, and even in defiance of the reluctance and obdu-
racy of a King, of a nation which may, ere long, exchange
the tone of humble supplication for that of haughty de-
mand, and as a last resort, in a moment of indignation, con-
scious of its strength, wrest with violence from the usur-
pation of an instilling oligarchy those rights of which she
has been unjustly and tyrannically deprived, and this
determination on the part of the King to grant no
Reform, to place power in the bands of men whom
t'ie people detest and scorn, and to support a faction
in opposition to his people and the votes of the House
of Commons, I can scarce regard in any other light
than an act exceeding in rashness, in atrocity and in guilt,
the most unconstitutional proceedings of the First Charles,
or the ordinances of Charles the Tenth. To this rash
step he has been urged by the intreaties of a foreign female,
and the importunities of certain bastards that in-
fest the royal palace. It is said that there is
an irresistible power behind the Throne, greater
than the power of the Minister, and sufficient to hurl
from place the man who has obtained the confidence of the
people. Into the truth of these rumours, I trust, an in-
quiry will be made : for it is rumours of this kind that
must make a Court and its intrigues intolerable to a free
people. It is impossible to revolve in the mind all the
circumstances of the times, and not involuntarily recur
to the state of France before the eruption of that tre-
mendous revolution which overturned the Altar and the
Throne, scattered the priests and the nobles of France,
as wanderers and mendicants over the earth, convulsed
tile world, and made the throne of every European des-
pot tremble to its base. Like France, then, we are bur-
dened with a load of debt, which it would seem almost
impossible for any thing but a political convulsion to re-
move. We are oppressed with tars from which we want
to be relieved. We are doomed to the support of a church
odious from its exactions, and still more odious from the
opposition of its mitred heads to the freedom of the people.
--(Great cheering.) We possess an aristocracy unparal-
leled in insolence, haughtiness, arrogance, disdain of the
people, and in rapacity. We have a Minister strong in
popular support dismissed, like Neckar, by the in-
trigues of faction, from the councils of his •Sovereign,
and like Neckar to be brought back, I trust,
triumphant on the shoulders of the people. We have an
uxorious King, hostile to Reform, and incited to re-
sistance to the wishes of his people by the disastrous in-
fluence of a foreigner, who has been elevated to the dignity
and splendour of Queen Consort of England. But above all,
we have a people as resolute and determined as ever 'were
the French to be free. Such is the state of England. Should
not William the Fourth recollect the fate of Louis the
Sixteenth ? Should not a Queen, who makes herself a
busy, intermeddling politician, recollect the fate of Maria
Antoinette ? From this hustings I bid the Queen of
England recollect, that in consequence of the opposition of
that ill-fated woman to the wishes of the people of France,
a fairer head than ever graced the shoulders of Adelaide,
Queen of England, rolled upon the scaffold." Some of
their Lordships had thought proper to laugh when he
mentioned the words " courtiers midi debauchees ;" but
whether it was a proper matter for merriment to hear
their Lordships described as debauchees, lie would leave to
the Muse to determine. But he would ask their Lord-
ships whether they could hear such language as this with-
out the utmost horror and indignation ?—(Loud cries of
Hear, hear, on the Opposition side.) He again asked
whether this speech hail come under the notice of the No-
ble Earl at the head of the Administration, and whether
that Noble Earl had directed any proceedings to be insti-
tuted in consi quence ? The speech contained passages
still more horribly treasonable, and even blasphemous,
than the passages which he had read to their Lordships ;
but he had rather avoid going on to read them, that he
might not be the means of giving them greater publicity
than they had already gained. He could not regularly
move an Address of this Ilouse to the Crown, praying
that proceedings might be instituted against the person
who bad given utterance to this atrocious and treasonable
language; but he did feel that unless the Noble Earl did
not distsnctly disavow all approbation of such language—
(Hear, on the Ministerial side)—they might say hear,
but they ought to recollect that the Chairman of the
meeting was a friend of the Noble Earl, and that it might
perhaps be believed that the Chairman did not disapprove
of this language when be sat and heard it without rebuk-
og the speaker.—(Hear, hear, on the Opposition side,
and some calls on the Noble Marquess to go on with the
reading of the letter.) He had avoided reading other
most atrocious passages in the speech for the reason he had
stated, but some Noble Lords wished that he should go
on : he would do so.
Lord COLVILLE—If any more such passages were to
be read, he would move that strangers be ordered to with-
d:aw.

The Marquess of LONDONDERRY did not wish that
motion to be persevered in, and therefore he would refrain
from reading any more of this speech. But it was ini -
possible to reflect without indignation, that such language
had been need at a public meeting without rebuke or
censure, and if the Noble Earl did not disclaim all ap-
probation of such lan;uage, and did not deny that it had
any countenance from him, he certainly would lay before
their Lordships a distinct proposition on the subject.
Lord GODERICH rose, apparently much agitated,
and implored his Noble Friend not to condescend to answer
that question. ft was a question that ought not to be an-
swered by any Noble Lord in that House, and far less by
him who was at the head of his Majesty's Administration.
For what was the question ? What was the charge ?
lII° very qua alon-ilid imply a charge, and a charge of the

very worst description. The question was neither more
nor less than whether his Noble Friend at the head of hi•
Majesty's Government did not approve of doctrines and
inguage at the bare mention of which every drop of Eng
fish blood must be almost curdled with horror—doctrines
and language which were full of the most desperate ant,
villanous treason.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," on
both aides of the House.) If his Noble Friend could haye
been justly charged with approving one-tenth part of such
atrocious and treasonable language, he would have de-
served to lose his head on the scaffold.—(Hear, hear.)
e begged of his Noble Friend, for God's sake, not to
-answer such a question. He begged of him, for his
own sake, and for the sake of the rest of his Majesty's
Ministers—for they were all concerned in the matter—
not to answer such a question. Persons in their situation
were sometimes called upon to bear much, and they bad
borne much, hut flesh and blood could not stand this. He
would not submit in silence to such a monstrous accusation
as appeared to be implied in such a question:—(Hear.)
It was surely most unnecessary for his Noble Friend to
say, that this was a sort of language which he never could
have used himself, and never could approve when uttered
by others. It was a question which ought never to have
been asked, and which being asked, ought not to be an-
swered.—(Cheers on the Ministerial side.)
Lord WYNFORD was convinced that the Noble Earl
could not but regard such language with horror, and he
therefore admitted, that an answer to that part of the
question was entirely unnecessary. But then there was
another part of the question, in the propriety of which he
concurred, and which he thought well deserving of an an-
swer, and that was, whether the speech in question had
fallen under the Noble Earl's observation, and whether he
had ordered any proceedings to he instituted with respect to
it ? He agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord on the
Woolsack, that it was not a proper course for this House
to address the Throne, desiring that a prosecution should
be instituted, since there was a remote possibility that the
case might find its way into this House for judicial deci-
sion. But although he felt this, yet he did think that
their Lordships were indebted to the Noble Marquess for
calling their attention to the subject, and no one who
heard the passages that were read by the Noble
Marquess could doubt what the Government ought
to do. It had been said, that every libel—that
every little disloyal effusion thrown out during a period
of excitement, ought not to be subject of prosecution ; and
he admitted that every little effusion of disloyalty might
not be fit matter for legal proceeding; but here there was
❑ot merely a little effusion of disloyalty, but downright
treason.—(Hear, hear.) Where would all this stop if
people, who used such language at public meetings, were
to be allowed to pass with impunity? The Ministers, it
was well known, had issued a Proclamation for putting
down Political Unions, and by the law, as it existed at
this moment, they might be put down They were most
certainly illegal, and if there were no statute law against
them, they were contrary to the common law. And yet
it appeared that a representative of what was called the
Birmingham Political Union had been entertained and
feasted at the table of the Chief Magistrate of London—
(Hear, hear, on the Opposition side.) When they saw
such a scene as that, it was impossible not to call to mind
what had happened before the late bloody revolution in
France.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that it would not
he proper to submit a motion fur an address to the Crown,
but at the same time he must say that the time for the
forbearance of the Government was gone by. It was a
disgrace to the country to allow such speeches and publi-
cations to pass with impunity, and something ought im-
mediately to be done.
The Earl of RADNOR—The Noble and Learned Lord
had admitted that it would be irregular to make a motion
in this House for an address to the Crown, calling on the
King to institute prosecutions ; but it was quite as irre-
gular to be making these speeches without any motio❑ at
all.—(Cheers on the Ministerial side.) This practice of
making speeches on asking questions, and without any
question being before the House, was most inconvenient;
and the proceeding of the Noble Marquess was neither
right nor Constitutional, nor regular.—(Hear, hear.)
The Government was in the hands of the Ministers of the
Crown, who were responsible for their acts ; but the Noble
Lords on the other side appeared disposed to assume the
powers of the Government. What was it but assuming
the powers of Government to come down with these scraps
of paper, and asking Ministers whether they approved or
disapproved of this thing and the other?—(Hear, hear,
on the Ministerial side.) The Noble Marquess, and the
Noble and Learned Lord who spoke last, talked of treason
and traitors; but on what authority did they make those
charges? On the authority of a newspaper speech. How
did they know the speech was authentic, or whether such
a speech had ever been made by Mr. Larkins or any one
else? The Noble and Learned Lord had said that Mr.
Larkins was a traitor ; but on what authority did he hold
up Mr. Larkins, or any one else, as a traitor? How
came the Noble and Learned Lord, who bad been a Judge,
and with his judicial character still hanging about him, to
designate any one as a traitor before he was tried ?---(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear, hear," on the Ministerial side.)
He did not distinctly bear the words which had been read
by the Noble Marquess, but from what he did hear, be
admitted that the words were bad enough. But on what
authority did the Noble and Learned Lord call a particular
person a traitor before he was tried ?—[Lord WYNI ORD
—No, no; he did not call biro a traitor; he had ❑ever
mentioned the name of Larkins.] But the Noble Mar-
quess had named Mr. Larkins, and the Noble and Learned
Lord, although he had not mimed him, had called him a
traitor. What right or authority had they to call upo❑
the Noble Earl to say whether he approved of the lan-
guage which they found in these scraps of papers, or
whether he intended to direct any proceedings to be in-
stituted? Suppose the Noble Earl had had this speech
in an authentic shape, and suppose he did intend to
institute proceedings upon the subject, was. lie to
come down to this House to state every thing that he
knew, and every thing that he intended to do? Such
questions ought not to be put, because they were most ir-
regular ; and such speeches ought not to be made upon
them, 'iecause they were not only most irregular, but
most unconstitutional and most illegal.—(Cheers o❑ the
Ministerial side.) Then the Noble and Learned Lord
strongly recommended prosecutions to be instituted, and
conducted with zeal.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble and
Learned Lord said that be had no doubt they would be
conducted with ability ; but then his great object was to
have-them carried on with zeal; and be said that if they were
conducted with such zeal as to show that the Government
wished for convictions, he had no doubt that Juries would
convict. Was that the spirit by which a Noble and
Learned Lord, who bad been a Chief Justice, ought to be
actuated ?—( Hear.) Was that a mode of speaking fit for the
judicial bench ?—(Hear.) He would not further prolong
this most irregular conversation. The observations of
the Noble and Learned Lord were most unjust, because
they were most irregular ; they were most unconstitu-
tional, and therefore most unjust; they were most illegal,
and therefore most unjust; and in every view they were
most unjust from beginning to end. He (Lord Radnor)
had no acquaintance whatever with Mr. Larkins; but he
knew that it was most improper to designate Mr. Larkins,
or any one else, as a traitor, before he was tried and con-
victed. A speech appeared in a newspaper, and without
any proof whatever of its authenticity, the Noble and
Learned Lord at once called the person, to whom it was
attributed, a traitor. This was most unjust, and most
unbecoming the character of a Judge.—(Loud cheering.)
Lord WYNFORD—The Noble Earl seemed very much
inclined to attack him on every occasion; and on the pre-
sent his attack on him had been most unjustifiable.—
He had never mentioned Mr. Larkins; he had never heard
his name till this night; he had never accused him of
anything, nor did he ever call him traitor, or connect his
name with treason or any other crime. He called upon
the Noble Earl to do him the justice to hear him. He
did not say the speech was made by Mr. Larkins or any
one else, or that it was ever made ; but the speeth had
been ushered into the world by somebody, and what he
said was, that the speech was treasonable. If he had
been then a Judge (and he was most happy that he was
not)—(Hear, hear)—he would perhaps have to deal with
the Noble Earl in a different manner. He did not wish
to be a Judge, and certainly did not wish to accept the
situation of Judge from the Noble Earl at the head of the
Administration ; and he did not think that he deserved
the sneer with which that Noble Earl appeared to hear
him when he had so amply acquitted the Noble Earl of all
idea of approving the language contained in that paper.
That sneering manner was most indecorous in the Noble
Earl, who, from his situation, ought to set them all an
example.—(Hear, hear.) He had never used expressions
which were improperly personal to another, and he had a
right to expect that he himself should be treated with equal
forbearance. If he should not be treated with the same
forbearance that he used with respect to others, he should
know bow to conduct himself.

The Earl of RADNOR—He did not say that the
Noble and Learned Lord had named Mr. Larkins, but
the Noble Magness had named Mr. Larkins as the author
of the speech ; and the Noble and Learned Lord did say
that the author of the speech was a traitor.
Earl GREY—I cannot suffer such a conversation as
the present to pass wit ,out some observations, though no
one can be more unwilling than myself to prolong a con-
versation of this irregular character. I think that most
of your Lordships will agree with me, that a more irregu-
lar question was never before put ; and I think it will
be as generally couceied that I am under no obligation to

answer such an interrogatory. On what grounds a late
Judge feels himself justified in coming forward in thi.
House to designate that by a particular appellation which
he may be required hereafter to pronounce upon as a
Judge in the last resort, I shall not now stop to discuss ;
but I am unable to refrain from expressing the utmost
istonishment that any Noble Peer, after pronouncing a
speech to be treasonable, should then gravely inquire of me
if I concur in the sentiments of the speaker. I nee,:
scarcely remind your Lordships that it is contrary not
only to all the rules and practices of this House, but
to those of common decency and decorum. A Noble
Lord comes down to the House, and, with a newspaper
in his hand, says, here is a treasonable speech—do you
concur in the sentiments which the speaker has expressed ?.
I need scarcely suggest to your Lordships that such con-
duct is totally unjustifiable, contrary to order, and against
every sense or feeling of propriety. In the whole course
of my life I never heard of any such question having been
put to a Minister of the Crown, or to any private indivi-
dual. I beg to ask the Noble Lord what there is in the
course of my life which gives him the right to put such a
question to me ? What is there that can give any man
the right to inquire of austher if he approves of language,
which I should be afraid more particularly to characterize—
language which, as appli2d to the King and the Queen, there
will, I trust, be found no one here to justify? I again ask,
upon what dog s the Noble Lord found his right to put
such a question ? It would seem as if he rested it upon
the fact that a friend of mine presided at the meeting
where the speech is reported to have been delivered. I
am not going to disclaim the friendship of Dr. Ileadlam,
of whom I will venture to say, that there does not exist a
man of more honourable feelings, or one who I believe
would be more steadfast in what he conceived to be the
strict line of his duty. lam certainly honoured with the
;acquaintance of Dr. Headlam, but his intimate friendship
I cannot claim ; but, surely, if I even were his intimate
friend, that would give no right to demand of me if I con-
curred in the sentiments of a public speaker at a public
meeting, merely because Dr. Headlain presided at that
meeting. lam aware, that in the extraordinary scenes in
which we are now engaged, it behoves us to act with cau-
tion and circumspection ; but I scarcely think it is neces-
sary to puree myself from the charge sought to be cast upon
me by the imputation conveyed in the question which the
House has just now heard. Were I to treat such a matter
seriously, I should say, that this is a case in which the
whole tenour of my lifemight be set against the charge implied
by the Noble Earl at the table. If it be necessary for me
to say anything upon the subject at all, I should say that
I have no hesitation in declaring, that I heard with regret,
indignation, and digust, the unjust and indecent attacks
made against those illustrious personages, whom I am
hound by every sentiment of duty, loyalty, and aff ction,
to respect and love. I say, my Lords. I will not endea-
vour to repel the sort of insinuations that have been cast
abroad, and of course I will remain silent respecting the
intentions of Government, if we can be said to have
formed any in respect to this matter. If the Noble Earl
at the table thinks proper to bring forward any motion
upon this subject, I shall, at the proper time, be prepared
to discuss it with him ; but I beg, at the same time, to re-
mind him, that it has been admitted by the Noble and
Learned Lord that this House is not the public prosecutor:
and let me, at the same time, remind him, that it is not
because a publication is indecent and libellous that it is
therefore expedient to prosecute its author. There are a
variety of other considerations to be taken into account
before such a resolution can be adopted. The persons
who are intrusted with the Executive are undoubtedly
bound to enforce proper respect towards the Sovereign,
and to maintain the authority of the Government; and
if they neglect to use the powers intrusted to them for
that purpose, they are responsible for the result, and may
be called to account for their conduct ; but it surely will
not be contended that we are bound to prosecute every case
that appears to be of a libellous character. To decide
upon a public prosecution, is a matter of great difficulty
and delicacy, and with embarrassing considerations of va-
rious kinds. Noble Lords would bear in mind that this
was not the first occasion in which it became necessary
to consider the expediency of prosecuting for a libel ; and
I would beg a Noble Lord who has filled the office of Pub-
lic Prosecutor to remember, that he made it his boast that
he had not instituted any prosecution for libel. A libel
might be of the most atrocious character, and yet it might
be highly inexpediant to institute a prosecution against its
author. 1 must not close these few observations without
taking credit, in the name of his Majesty's Government,
for as much anxiety as any Government to put down sedi-
tious publications ; but, as I have already said, there are
many considerations dependent upon such a proceeding,
which, under no circumstances, are easily decided. I have
felt it necessary to say thus much, and I sincerely hope the
discussion may not be revived.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND was not desirous of pro-
longing the present conversation, but he wished to say
that he did not believe that there was a man in the
country, much lees any Noble Peer in that House, who for
a single instant entertained the idea that the Noble Earl
opposite could partake of the sentiments contained in the
speech, an extract from which the House had heard read.
The fact being so, he hoped that the conversation might
then end, and he hoped that they would proceed with the
business of the evening coolly and deliberately. He would
repeat, such an idea as that which the Noble Earl thought
it necessary to disclaim had never entered into the mind of
any one present; his character was too well known for
such an imputation to rest upon it.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY explained, and ex•
pressed his satisfaction at the disclaimer of the Noble Ear,
at the head of his Majesty's Government.