Friday, April 7, 1848.

MINUTES.] NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Devonport, John Romilly, Esq.

PUBLIC BILLS.—1^° Crown and Government Security.

2^° Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Public Works Completion.

Reported.—Marine Mutiny; Mutiny.

PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Catholic Clergymen and Catholic Inhabitants of Aughanagh (Sligo), in favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. Broadley, from Rudby (York), complaining of the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland).—By Mr. John O'Connell, from Merthyr Tydvil, Glamorganshire, in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Lord Ernest Bruce, from Marlborough, and its Vicinity; and from Solicitors practising in Woodstock, for a Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Pusey, from the Royal Berks Hospital, Reading, for Exemption of Charitable Bequests from the Legacy Duties.—By Mr. Traill, from Justices of the Peace, of the County of Caithness, for Alteration of the Banking Law.—By Mr. Cripps, from several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Mr. Traill, from Distillers of the County of Caithness, respecting the Bonding of British Spirits.—By Mr. Cowan, from Arbroath (Forfar), and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, against the Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome Bill.—By Mr. Octavius Duncombo, from the York Diocesan Board of Education, for Alteration of the Law as regards Education.—By Mr. George Hamilton, from Loughrea (Meath), and from several other Places, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Mr. Scholefield, from Birmingham, for a Free Pardon for Frost, Williams, and Jones.—From the Parish of Kilfieragh (Clare), for Alteration of the Law of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland).—By Mr. Duncan, from Dundee, for Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Mr. Traill, from Caithness, for Ameliorating the Condition of Parochial Schools (Scotland).—By Mr. Devereux, from Galway, for Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).—By Sir E. Birch, from Liverpool, against, and by Sir R. Price, from the same Place, for Alteration of, the Public Health Bill.

MR. J. O'CONNELL said, that seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his place, he was anxious to put a question to him, of which he had given him notice. He would confine himself for the present to the simple point—whether the notice of the Government had been drawn to the strange facts that had gone forth within the last few days, that a man named Kirwan had been taken up in Dublin who had ordered six pikes to be made, having been desired to do so by Colonel Browne, one of the commissioners of police in that city; and that Colonel Browne had come forward at the police-office, and had declared that it was by his orders Kirwan had so acted? It appeared that Colonel Browne had acknowledged that it was exceedingly dirty work, and it also appeared that this person so employed had attended one of the meetings that had been denounced in that House, and had uttered cries there of the most seditious character, with a view of thereby inciting the people to sedition; and that on being asked what he wanted with the pikes, he replied that he wanted to use them in the coming times. It also appeared, that documents had been found in his possession referring to the plot which he was engaged in, getting up. From the dangers into which innocent citizens had been plunged by such characters on former occasions, great excitement now prevailed in Dublin on this subject; and he wished therefore to know from the right hon. Baronet whether the attention of the Government had been called to this matter; and he trusted, that as soon as the Government had time to consider the subject, the right hon. Baronet would allow him to ask what course the Government meant to pursue, and whether they intended to retain that officer in his present situation?

SIR W. SOMERVILLE almost wished that his hon. Friend had postponed his question until some future time, for he could state that no official account had reached him of the transaction alluded to, and that he knew nothing of it beyond the accounts which had appeared in the public papers. He should say, that these accounts appeared to him to be extremely contradictory; and, if his hon. Friend permitted him, he would rather not commit himself to any answer founded upon them. This he should say, that a more meritorious officer than Colonel Browne could not be found in any portion of Her Majesty's service, either civil or military. He knew nothing of the speech attributed to Colonel Browne at the police-office.

MR. HENRY DRUMMOND: Seeing the hon. Member for Nottingham in his place, I beg to ask him what is the course meant to be pursued with regard to the presentation of the petition on Monday next, of which he has given notice? I have seen in the public papers that it has been a question agitated at a meeting at which that hon. Gentleman was present, what should be done in case of this House refusing to receive the petition then presented. I have read the petition myself, and I believe there is not one human being in this House that would say "No!" to the reception of it. There is no doubt that the petition will be received as a matter of course, and—

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must confine his observations to such as will make the question intelligible; he must not enter into discussion upon it.

MR. HENRY DRUMMOND: I wish to ask in what way the hon. Member means to bring the different subject-matters in that petition under the consideration of the House? I am exceedingly anxious to have them fully discussed here; but there can be no discussions upon the presentation of a petition; and I am not aware how he intends to bring them on.

MR. F. O'CONNOR: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I beg to say that on Mon- day week last I gave notice that I would move a resolution founded upon the principles in this petition, as an Amendment upon the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply on Monday next. I now find there is no supply for that night; therefore, unless the noble Lord at the head of the Government will be kind enough to allow me to bring it forward the first question on Monday, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any answer as to the time when I shall be able to do so. The noble Lord is aware that the petition is one of great importance to some millions of the people; and I ask this from him as a privilege, upon the undertaking that I at least shall not detain the House long upon it. If the hon. Member had not put the question to me, I should myself have asked the noble Lord for permission to bring the measure forward—a measure upon which, as a matter of course, there is great excitement both in and out of this House. If the noble Lord does not grant the indulgence I ask for, then I must look for another open night; but on Monday I shall present the petition.

Loan J. RUSSELL: I should be very unwilling, Sir, that a petition so numerously signed as the hon. Gentleman has declared the petition he has to present will be, should not be received, and meet with every consideration from the House. I do not, however, think it would be right, because certain business is fixed for that day, and there are other matters to come on to which I will not allude, that the Government should give up Monday to the consideration of the petition. But, considering the importance of a petition presented by such numbers of the people, and that a petition so signed ought to have early consideration, I shall be ready, having at the same time regard to public convenience, to consent that the hon. Gentleman shall bring on his Motion on Friday next.

MR. F. O'CONNOR: I am most thankful to the noble Lord.

MR. URQUHART asked the noble Lord if Her Majesty's Government had entered into a guarantee of the Crown of Belgium, or in any way had compromised themselves in engagements to maintain, in consequence of recent events on the Continent, the existing state of things?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Her Majesty's Government have entered into no new engagements whatever with regard to Belgium, or any other portion of the Continent. The House is in possession of the Treaties of 1831 and 1839, which contain certain engagements and guarantees upon the part of the Five Powers—France, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Britain, with regard to Belgium.

MR. BRIGHT: I wish to put a question to the Government with regard to the notice that has been published, touching the meeting proposed to be held on Monday. I wish to know whether it is intended to refer to both the meeting and the procession, or only to the procession. I ask this question because very intelligent persons, to my certain knowledge, have differed in opinion, and even the newspapers do not agree in the interpretation they have put upon it. I am very much afraid that difficulty may arise if there is any misunderstanding on this point. If the people may meet quietly it is one thing: if they are permitted, or not permitted, to come through the streets in immense numbers, it is a very different thing. I think, then, there should be no misunderstanding; for if there be, there might probably be risk of collision and disturbance, which every Member of this House would be anxious to avoid.

SIR G. GREY: The Government endeavoured in the notice which was publicly issued yesterday to state what was the common law of this country, and what was the statute law with respect to assemblages, for whatever purpose convened, when those assemblages were attended by circumstances calculated to strike terror and alarm in the minds of Her Majesty's loyal and peaceable subjects; and the Government also pointed out in the notice what was the particular statute applicable to the case of tumultuous assemblages gathered upon pretence of preparing or presenting petitions to either House of Parliament, and accompanied with excessive numbers of people. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the meeting convened to assemble on Kennington Common is separate and independent from the proposed procession, which is illegal. That would entirely depend upon the circumstances under which the meeting was held. Any meeting that may be held, be the purpose of it whatsoever it may, which is accompanied with the circumstances to which I have

just alluded—circumstances calculated to inspire just terror and alarm into the minds of Her Majesty's loyal and peaceable subjects—would, I apprehend, be against the common law of England. If, on the otherhand, a meeting be held for the purpose of forming or organising a procession, and that procession is contrary to the statute law, being for the purpose of presenting a petition to either House of Parliament, accompanied by excessive numbers of people, then I apprehend that that meeting would be identified with and form part of the procession, and therefore come within the provisions of the law applicable to such a procession. These questions, however, with respect to the legality or illegality of meetings, must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case; and I cannot undertake to answer whether a certain meeting convened to be held in a particular place for a particular object, may or may not be illegal without consideration of the special circumstances attending it. While I am answering this question, I will take the opportunity of reading to the House what I think it is desirable should be generally known. It is the dictum of Lord Mansfield, one of the most eminent Judges that ever graced the bench, upon the law applicable to these cases. It was delivered on the trial of Lord George Gordon, in 1781. Lord Mansfield, in summing up, says—

"A doubt has faintly been thrown out from the bar whether it is lawful to attend a petition to the House of Commons with more than ten persons. Upon dear-bought experience of the consequences of tumultuous assemblies, under pretence of carrying and supporting petitions, an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of King Charles II., forbidding, under a penalty, more than ten persons to attend a petition to the King or either House of Parliament; but it is said, that law is repealed by the Bill of Rights. I speak the joint opinion of us all, that the Act of Charles II. is in full force; there is not the colour of a doubt. The Bill of Rights does not mean to meddle with it at all; it asserts the right of the subject to petition the King, and that there ought to be no commitment for such petitioning; which alluded to the case of the bishops in King James's reign, who petitioned the King, and were committed for it. But neither the Bill of Rights nor any other statute repeals this Act of Charles II.; and Mr. Justice Blackstone, in his Commentaries, treats of this Act as in full force, and, as I have told you, we are all of that opinion; and consequently the attending a petition to the House of Commons by more than ten persons is criminal and illegal."

I would also refer lion. Members desirous of reading the constitutional law in these cases to the twelfth volume of the State Trials, containing the trial of the seven

bishops in 1688, in which they will find the subject discussed between two Judges, Mr. Justice Allybone and Mr. Justice Powell, the first a high prerogative lawyer, but the second a man who was dismissed from his office, having given offence by too liberal opinions as to the right of the people to petition. Mr. Justice Powell, nevertheless, draws a marked distinction between petitioning merely, and petitioning accompanied with tumultuous assemblies—the one being the undoubted right of the people, but the other illegal. That opinion has, I believe, been held by every constitutional lawyer; and I hope it will not go forth to the world that the intention of Her Majesty's Government in these proceedings has been to interrupt in the slightest degree the just right of any portion of the people of this country to petition this House.

In answer to Lord R. GROSVENOR,

SIR G. GREY said: All I know of the meeting on Kennington Common is stated in the notice already published throughout England, namely, that the meeting is convened. I take the fact from the public announcement of such convention published by the Chartist Association, and signed by three gentlemen, one of them calling himself "secretary," and in which it is stated—and the fact is not disavowed by the hon. Gentleman himself, who, I understand, is a leader of the association—that he is to marshal the people there assembled, to the number, it is said in some quarters, of 300,000, though I express no opinion upon that, in order that a grand demonstration of physical force may accompany the petition to the door of this House. [Mr. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from the parties concerned in getting up this meeting?] I was engaged in public business at the time I received an intimation that three gentlemen, who stated themselves to be a deputation from the National Convention, were at the Home Office, and wished to make a communication to me. They saw the Under Secretary, in the presence of the Attorney General and Mr. Hall, the chief magistrate. I was not present; but they addressed a letter to me, which, if it will be any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, I will read. The hon. Gentleman was not one of those who attended at the Home Office, and I have no reason to know whether or not he participates in the sentiments of this letter. The right hon. Baronet read the letter, which was to the effect that the undersigned delegates appointed by the National Convention begged to inform the Home Secretary that they had never avowed, but, on the contrary, they repudiated, the idea of an armed assemblage, and assured him they entirely discountenanced any attempt to create disorder, or to break the public peace. They assured him that the procession for the purpose of presenting the petition to the House of Commons would take place, but that, should any disturbance occur, it would not be promoted or encouraged on their parts.

SIR R. H. INGLIS: Sir, I wish to ask the question of the right hon. Baronet whether he, as Secretary of State for the Home Department, has acknowledged a National Convention sitting in London? I ask this question very respectfully, both towards this House and my right hon. Friend. I wish to know if the Secretary of State for the Home Department has recognised the existence of a National Convention sitting in London, by condescending to receive a letter from persons representing that body?

SIR G. GREY: I can have no hesitation in saying that the three gentlemen who attended at the Home Office were not recognised as delegates of any National Convention. The Under Secretary distinctly stated to them that he could not receive them in the capacity of national representatives, but only as persons coming from a meeting held in a certain house, and in that character only.

MR. WAKLEY: The meeting on Kennington Common has been publicly advertised during the last month, and it was publicly stated that 500,000 persons would probably attend the procession. [ Laughter.] Gentlemen may laugh, but there are 500,000 persons and more in this country who do not consider themselves represented here. During the last month this meeting has been advertised, and it has been publicly stated that 500,000 people would probably be on Kennington Common, and come thence in procession to this House. Now, if these facts were known to the Government, and if it was known to them also that the meeting and procession were illegal, why were the people not informed of it before?

SIR G. GREY: Because I had not the information which the hon. Member, better informed than the Secretary of State, possessed. I certainly knew that which it was my duty to know, from information which it was my duty to obtain, namely, that at meetings held in certain parts of this metropolis speeches were made to small numbers of persons, in which such an intention was vaguely announced, and in which it was stated that in the course of the next week—about the 10th or 11th of April—there would be a great public demonstration to attend a petition that was to be presented to this House. But the first public advertisement of this intention was that now lying before me, which I received the day before yesterday; upon which the Cabinet directly deliberated, and upon that deliberation the notice was immediately published.

MR. WAKLEY: As the right hon. Gentleman has given something more than an answer to my question, and as the cheers which he has elicited

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Finsbury is going to put another question to the right hon. Gentleman, he is quite in order; but he cannot debate any subject, there being now properly no question before the House.

MR. WAKLEY: Then, Sir, I move that this House do now adjourn; and now, I think, we have a question before us. The right hon. Baronet, in the first part of his reply to my question, intimated that I had a better knowledge on this subject than he possessed. Now, I beg to state positively that I have attended no meeting whatever in relation to the petition which is to be presented on Monday to this House; that I have not attended the public assembly regarding it; and that I have had no direct communication from the persons calling themselves "The National Convention" with respect to that petition. I derived my information solely from a public newspaper, that public newspaper being the property of an hon. Member of this House. I derived my information from no other source whatever; and I do therefore think that the people have been somewhat unjustly treated in being allured into the supposition—["Oh, oh!"]—I say in being allured into the supposition that they could safely assemble in large numbers, and that they could legally present their petition to this House in large numbers, throughout so long a period as that which has elapsed since the announcement in the public journal to which I have alluded. The proprietor of that journal is an hon. and learned Member of this House; he is a member of the legal profession; and surely the people had a right to con- sider that he was well acquainted with the law on the subject. I do say, then, that I think the Government have acted, to say the least, with negligence, on such a question, in not having given the people an earlier intimation that they would be acting illegally in assembling on Kennington Common in large numbers, and in attending in a large procession on the presentation of a petition to the House of Commons. I regret exceedingly the turn which events have taken, because it is my belief that this prohibition is likely to be followed by a great public calamity.

MR. F. O'CONNOR, in seconding the Motion, said: As this subject has been mooted, I beg leave to state distinctly that I have not attended any public meeting in London in connexion with the getting up of this demonstration, though I have, I admit, been present as a delegate at that Convention which is now sitting. We have been told to look back to precedent in this matter; and let us, therefore, see if some indulgence was not allowed to the people when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was in office. In 1843 a large procession was marshalled and paraded through London; that procession was announced in precisely the same language as has been used in the document referred to by the right hon. Baronet; and as a Judge of the land, the present Chief Baron said, such language is not to be misconstrued by a judge or jury as approving or advocating physical rather than moral force, inasmuch as it is language which any party is at liberty to use. I last night pointed out that on a former occasion a procession of 150,000 men walked with a petition for reform to the Home Office; in 1833 I saw a procession consisting of 100,000 men bring up a petition in favour of the Dorchester labourers to this House. The right hon. Gentleman will not forget that a large procession of sailors passed close to the House not long since, and when, too, the House was sitting, on their way to Downing-street; and, as the people have never before been prevented from making demonstrations of this kind, I do say that it is now taking them rather by surprise to declare that they must not look to the common custom hitherto as a guarantee of their right to meet and walk in procession as they contemplated. It never was intended to bring the petition to the doors of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman has given me credit for posses- sing some influence with these parties; and certainly I had that much influence to prevent them bringing the petition in procession to the House, though the other petition to which I have referred, which was while the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was in office, was brought to the House and presented by the hon. Member for Finsbury in that way. The people are entitled now, when a Liberal Government is in office, to exercise the same privilege; but, at the same time, I solemnly declare that, if it had been known early to these persons (many of whom are not now to be prevented in their purpose) that it was the intention of the Government to interfere, they would never have decided upon the procession. These millions of men are only petitioning for the rights which were promised to them by the Gentlemen who are now sitting on the Treasury bench. These Gentlemen told them, among other things, that taxation without representation was tyranny; and it is hard indeed now, that the schoolmasters should contradict the instruction which they themselves gave to their pupils. I, for my part, will not shrink from any responsibility that may now be imposed upon me. I should be sorry, having been a party to a proposition, to attempt, like a coward, to shrink from the consequences. My intention is to attend this meeting. My intention is to come, in the procession, not to the House of Commons, but over Westminster-bridge, with that petition; and it is my determination to use all my power, as heretofore I have done, to prevent the slightest infraction of the peace. I will add, that if I thought there was any view of endangering the peace, I would not present that petition. I have never been a party to palm any delusion on this House. I have acted in this cause, and shall continue so to act; but I have not lived on the cause, and I have never pandered to any bad or foolish prejudices. I learned my lessons from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Hobhouse); and I would now appeal to them if they should be the men, at the eleventh hour, to oppose the project of these hundreds of thousands of people, who in my conscience I believe to have no more notion of disturbing the peace than I have. I repeat, they have no more notion of disturbing the peace than I have; and I declare that I have no notion of disturbing the peace. I have borne my share of per- secution, which I have endured very calmly, and I will never shrink from the responsibility I have incurred. I have received a letter informing me of the danger to my own person; and the worthy and hon. alderman (Alderman Thompson) has told me that I would certainly be shot if I appeared on Monday. I have no such apprehension; but, if I had, I consider that when a man has brought others into a position where there is danger, he is bound to take himself the lion's share of it. I will only say, in conclusion, that I agree with the hon. Member for Finsbury that the Government have been guilty of great negligence in this matter; for, though they may have had no official information, they must have been sufficiently aware of the intentions of the people; and I beg the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman to be satisfied that the parties who are getting up this demonstration are not getting it up with any view to endanger the peace of the country, or to violate the law of the land.

SIR J. GRAHAM: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, and said truly, that the House attaches great value to precedents; and I think that the precedent which is now in question is of great importance. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, that in the year 1843, when my right hon. Friend below me was at the head of the Government, and when I had the honour of filling the situation which my right hon. Friend now fills, the hon. Member for Finsbury, who at that time presented a petition most numerously signed on behalf of the Chartists, presented that petition in a manner identical with the plan proposed for the petition from the meeting at Kennington Common on Monday next, when, according to the proclamation referred to by my right hon. Friend, a procession is to take place which the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. F. O'Connor) observes is identical with that which took place in 1843. Now, I speak with confidence, certainly, but still only from recollection, there are two points of distinctive difference in what occurred in 1843, and what is intended to take place on Monday next. In the first place, that petition did not emanate from a meeting convened by notice, in the immediate neighbourhood of the metropolis, under circumstances such as those which my right hon. Friend has notified he has reason to believe will attend the meeting called for on Monday at Kennington. That petition, in 1843, was brought from a private house; it did not come from a public open meeting. [Mr. O'CONNOR: It came from Lincoln's-inn Fields. The procession was marshalled there.] I speak from recollection, and I do not think that that petition was adopted in Lincoln's-inn Fields. I think it had been previously prepared. Again, there is another great distinction. I do not think there was given out, at the time, any intention to come to this House in procession from any place where that meeting was to have been held. Certainly I do remember that a considerable number of persons did come with the petition, and, I believe, to the doors of the House. No previous notice, however, had been given of that circumstance; and, if my recollection do not deceive me, nothing like what is purposed on Monday next took place on that occasion. And assuredly I now consider I should have failed in my duty, being responsible then, as my right hon. Friend now is, for the peace of the metropolis, if I and the Government of which I was a Member had been consenting parties to such a meeting as that announced for Monday next on Kennington Common. Such a procession as that contemplated has been pronounced illegal, and I am glad that it will not be countenanced by the authorities.

MR. HORSMAN: I think the House would be acting an unjust and an ungenerous part towards Her Majesty's Government, to allow it to go forth, on the authority of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that they are now imposing upon the subject's privilege of meeting and petitioning restrictions greater than those imposed by previous Governments. It is not a question of meeting in great numbers only: we must remember all the circumstances; and it is impossible to forget the fact alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, that, whether well founded or not, the announcement of this intended procession has, in the minds of many people, created very considerable apprehension. If we look merely to the eager discussion now going on in this House, and to the questions put and the anxiety with which the answers have been listened to, we can understand the interest out of doors; and, whatever we may ourselves think, we are bound to have consideration for the fears of the right-minded and peaceful men of the country. The hon. Member for Nottingham has offered to guarantee the peace of the metropolis. As far as he is concerned, I will do him justice, and admit that all I have seen of him in this House has prepossessed me in his favour. At the same time it is not to be denied that neither he nor any other man can undertake to answer for the conduct of 50,000 men marching through the streets. I think he would endeavour to preserve the peace, and I deem these fears ill-founded, because I am satisfied that among the mass there is a conviction that they enjoy a greater degree of rational liberty than is accorded to any other people in Europe; but I do not consider that I am a free agent at such a moment. Her Majesty's Government are under great responsibility. We must sympathise with them; and it would be unmanly and ungenerous if we did not now unanimously support them. I discard my own feelings altogether. I am ready, for one, to place full reliance in them, and to incur with them the responsibility of any measures, however unpopular, which they suppose indispensable for the security of peace and order. I do not see, after what has happened, why the procession should be persevered in, and I sincerely hope that the idea will be given up.

MR. ALDERMAN THOMPSON: Every Member of this House will concur in the observations which have just been made. The hon. Member for Nottingham has stated that he has received a notification from some individual that if he attended the procession on Monday, fatal consequences would ensue. I beg to say that I am not the individual who furnished that information. I was surprised to hear from the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor), that he had taken no part in any meeting for getting up the procession on Monday next. I was surprised, also, at his declaration that he entertained no apprehension of any breach of the public peace on that occasion. I will put the question to sthe hon. Member—Did he attend a meeting last Monday night at Cartwright's Coffee-house, Cripplegate, in the city of London? [Mr. O'CONNOR: I went from this House to a tea-party in a room there, and there were only 40 people present.] I am quite aware that that meeting was not popularly attended; but it was not the less important on that account, and I wanted to ascertain from the hon. Member if the report was true that he was there? The meeting was unquestionably composed of those who are supposed to be the leading Chartists; and I will venture to say that the language made use of by the hon. Member for Nottingham on that occasion was anything but calculated to allay alarm and promote peace and good order. I have obtained a report of the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, taken as a deposition from a person of veracity present, by one of the most respectable professional men in London. The individuals who attended called themselves "The Irish Confederate and Democratic Society." Mr. O'Connor said that— "He had just come from the House of Commons, where he had left them discussing the Jew Relief Bill; that it was a base Parliament; that it was of no use petitioning and praying any longer; that they must do as the Americans did—shake off the yoke; that it was better to die on the scaffold than to perish from starvation; that the people of Ireland would not be satisfied with a repeal of the Union—they must have an independent republic; that moral force was sufficient to put down physical force; that he hoped the meeting would remember the 10th of April; that it would be a glorious day; that he was for fair play to the Catholic priesthood, inasmuch as they were much better able than the Protestants to assist them (the Democratic Society); that they ought at once to do away with all titles, as the French had done; and that they must put down Royalty, for it was too great an expense to the country." I felt it my duty (continued Alderman Thompson) to place the report of this address of the hon. Member for Nottingham in the hands of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department; and I considered it right, after the statement of the hon. Member himself here, to lay it before the House.

MR. F. O'CONNOR begged to be allowed to declare, of which he would give the hon. Gentleman the most ample proof, that he had never mentioned the topics to which he was reported to have adverted at the meeting in question. He had always confessed himself an anti-republican; he had published article after article against the republican form of government; and, as even the report read admitted, he had advocated moral force in preference to physical force. He was not for repeal of the Union, but for separation; and he begged to declare most solemnly that he had never said a word about the abolition of titles, or about the destruction of Royalty. He would prove this by the evidence of men who had been present.

MR. HUME said, they had known that at many meetings on former occasions speeches had been misrepresented; he should hope, therefore, that the hon. Alderman would produce a shorthand wri- ter's notes of what had taken place, and not accuse a Member of that House on loose information. He could not conceal from himself that the daily newspapers had reported speeches made in different parts of the country, which, if they were correctly reported, contained passages which no friend to peace could support or justify. But he did not give credit to such representations. This was a matter of the utmost importance to the hon. Member for Nottingham, and there ought to be a Select Committee of that House who would afford him an opportunity to call the persons referred to by the hon. Alderman before them. There might be spies abroad, as in former times, poisoning the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers. He had in former times himself seized a person of this kind in a room, and brought him to the office of Lord Sidmouth, but Lord Sidmouth dismissed him. That was the third spy he had been accessory to seizing. This was in former times; he did not believe Her Majesty's Ministers resorted to these means, or he would soon change sides in that House. He, therefore, protested against proceeding in this way; and he asked the Government if they were—as the hon. Alderman said—in possession of affidavits, that they would proceed immediately to appoint a Committee in order to prevent any further misunderstanding in this matter.

SIR DE L. EVANS was bound, on the part of the constituency he represented, to rise and state the peculiar circumstances in which they stood with regard to the meditated procession. He had associated with many processions, and had presented many popular petitions; but with regard to this, there was a peculiarity which he defied any Gentleman to say did not exist; it was this—there had been already two meetings recently of a similar kind: one at Trafalgar Square, apparently of a contemptible character contrasted with that of which notice had been given; and the other in the same locality where the proposed meeting was to assemble; and, notwithstanding their trifling character, it was his duty to inform the House, on the part of his constituents, that those meetings had occasioned very great alarm and terror. He had been in various parts of the city he represented, and he could assure the House that there was a feeling there of extreme alarm and terror; and not only that, but that parties had declared to him that they had suffered materially in their trade and business for ome days before and after those two occasions. This alarm and terror now existed to an extent which he had never known before; and he considered it to be his bounden duty to entreat Her Majesty's Government to protect, at least, his constituents against losses which they were at this moment very ill able to bear. As to the course pursued by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, all he should say was, that he did not understand it. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman); and he did think, looking at the present condition both of foreign and domestic affairs, that every man—every honest man, and especially every one belonging to the Liberal party—was bound to declare to which side his efforts and exertions should be given, and his should be given in support of Her Majesty's Ministers.

LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, I shall not allude to anything that may have fallen from the hon. Member for Nottingham out of this House, but I shall address myself solely to matters which he has referred to in the House. The hon. Member has said that it was not intended that the procession to which allusion had been made should come to the House of Commons. Now, there has been recently issued, in print, a notice, signed by two persons on the part of those who are connected with this meeting, distinctly stating that the procession was to pass through the metropolis, and accompany the petition to "the door of the House of Commons." That is a printed declaration of these parties; and yet the hon. Member for Nottingham says it was never intended. Why, what would have been the case if, as the hon. Member for Finsbury had suggested, we had issued our notice a fortnight ago? Would it not then have been said that no such intention existed—that we had nothing but vague and groundless notions of what was going to happen? But when this printed notice has been issued and placarded, can it be said that the notice of the Government was unnecessary, and that no such intention was ever entertained as that of carrying the petition to the door of the House of Commons? Sir, I cannot say, that in every case of this kind such interference on the part of the Government is necessary. These cases depend very much upon the nature of their circumstances. I admit that there are occasions in which it is unnecessary to enforce the strict letter of the law; there are others in which, at particular times and under parti- cular circumstances, great disquiet and alarm would be excited by such processions; and I put it to the House, whether this case falls within the former or the latter category? The hon. Member must know that such processions, which are calculated to spread alarm and terror amongst the peaceable and loyal subjects of Her Majesty, may have illegal objects. The hon. Member himself tells us that he has been reprobated. Reprobated for what? For his attachment to monarchy. The political society with which he consorts have reprobated him, he says, because he is a friend to monarchy. The hon. Member has said that other processions have been permitted. In this case the Government consulted the opinions of those who were competent to advise them as to the law; and, looking at the declaration to which I have referred, they thought it necessary to announce that the law forbade such a procession, and to warn all peaceable and loyal subjects against attending it. Has there not been sufficient notice given? There were three days, during which the hon. Member had ample time to reconsider the subject of the meeting. There might be cases in which, though parties may transgress the strict letter of the law, if their proceedings are cautious and prudent, they would not necessarily be prohibited; but where they are not only illegal, but of a nature to produce terror and alarm, it is the duty of the Government to interfere. I say, then, is it not the duty of the hon. Member for Nottingham, especially if, as he says, it was never intended to bring down the petition to the door of this House; to dissuade those with whom he is connected from a proceeding so pregnant with alarm, and to tell them, as he may with truth, that their petition will be respectfully received by the House of Commons, and that every fair opportunity will be given for the deliberate discussion of what is termed the People's Charter; to advise them to proceed cautiously and properly, and not by illegal means endeavour to terrify and overawe the deliberations of Parliament?

SIR R. PEEL: Sir, this is a discussion which I am not at all disposed to prolong, and I should not have risen if it had not been that my name has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, and that he considers the conduct pursued by the Government with which I was connected, in the year 1843, ought to be regarded as a precedent by Her Majesty's Government for governing the case now before us. Sir, I have not the slightest recollection that I was a party to any proceeding in the year 1843 which ought to fetter the discretion of Her Majesty's Government at this time. I am aware that there have been many occasions on which numbers of persons have been permitted to approach the House of Commons, and I rejoice that it is so. I think we ought to be as indulgent as possible, without straining the law, in such cases, when it can be done without danger. I know that Spitalfields weavers, in large numbers, have been allowed to approach this House; and in 1843 persons, in numbers prohibited by law, were allowed to approach it. But I think that those cases were entirely different from this. I think Her Majesty's Government act prudently in not too readily interfering in such cases; and I think, with the noble Lord, that where there is no formal intention to infringe the law, and to menace the House of Commons, it is wise to show as much forbearance as we can. But I have no hesitation in saying that, whatever may be the precedent of 1843, considering the events that are taking place in foreign countries, and considering the excited state of the public mind at home, where a procession of this kind has been publicly announced, the persons composing which may be accidentally excited to disturbances of which it is impossible to foresee the consequences, I think the Government were fully justified in issuing the notice; and I think considerations of humanity, as well as of law, imposed upon them the duty of taking precautions against consequences we must all shudder at contemplating; and if the Government had not taken these precautions, and such consequences had followed, those who condemn and denounce them now, would have denounced them with ten times more vehemence, and with much more justice.

Motion for the House to adjourn withdrawn.

SIR G. GREY said: I deeply regret that the spirit which has recently manifested itself in some parts of the United Kingdom—that the seditious and treasonable designs which have been openly avowed by too many persons, at least in one part of the United Kingdom, encouraging open hostility to the peace of society and the supremacy of the law, and exciting to the subversion of the existing institutions of the country—have rendered it necessary, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, tha

we should come to Parliament to ask for an alteration in the law applicable to these extraordinary circumstances. I may as well state at once that there is nothing further from our intentions than to propose to Parliament the adoption of any measure calculated to place the slightest restriction upon the free, full, and indisputable right which the people of this country possess and ought to enjoy of discussing public affairs and deliberating upon every political matter. Still less have I any the most remote thought of proposing anything that should interfere with the undoubted right of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen, to make their wishes known to Parliament, and to petition for the redress of grievances, real or supposed. Those rights have long been enjoyed, and I feel as fully as any man in the country can feel that the legitimate exercise of those rights constitutes the best security for the continued preservation of our institutions—that to those rights we are indebted, under Providence, for those constitutional liberties which we prize so highly, and upon which so much of the greatness and happiness of this country depends—rights which I should be equally forward to defend whether they were invaded by the Crown, or interfered with by demonstrations of violence on the part of those who profess to speak, but who do not truly represent, the sentiments of the people. I have always thought—and I see no reason to change my opinion—that it is owing to the free exercise of those rights that we are enabled to maintain our ground, and occupy that happy position which England at present holds—that England has not bent beneath the storm that has swept over the continent of Europe—has shaken the most powerful and despotic Thrones—and disturbed what were considered the most firmly established institutions in the world. But I think that, in pursuing the course by which we seek to defend that constitutional liberty which the great body of the people throughout the United Kingdom enjoy and appreciate, it will be felt that our efforts are directed to preserve its integrity and promote its continuance. Highly, however, as we may esteem those rights, I doubt not it will be universally felt that the exercise of them has its limits, and that recently those limits have been passed: no man forming the decision of a dispassionate judgment can doubt that those limits have to a very great extent been transgressed; that,

under a pretence of discussing grievances, language of the most seditious description has been held; and that the law is, in some respects, insufficient for the repression of proceedings thus dangerous and exciting. I am anxious not to detain the House by reading, in proof of this position, many extracts from newspapers the contents of which are already, I doubt not, well known to the greater portion of the Members of this House, and which are already only too notorious. During the last few weeks there have been held in Ireland several meetings of what is called the "Confederation." At those meetings, as almost every Gentleman in this House must be aware, language has been held avowing designs incompatible with established government—subversive of the whole frame of society—inconsistent with the maintenance of order, and of the institutions of the country—and utterly opposed to the constitutional liberty which we are bound to respect and maintain. I know that Government has been reproached for not having sooner taken notice of these proceedings. It has been said that we ought long since to have availed ourselves of the means which the law had placed within our reach, in order to punish and restrain them. At the same time I am sure the House will agree with me that some discretion must be allowed to those who are entrusted with the executive power of the Government. I can confidently assure the House that the whole of those proceedings were watched with the closest attention by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. His first care, however, was to ascertain what effect speeches and writings of the character to which I have referred had upon the minds of the people of Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant was at first led to hope that the publications in the newspaper called the United Irishman would be regarded by the great body of the people rather as the ravings of a disordered imagination than as emanating from a sound understanding, capable of having any effect upon the conduct of the people. But, finding sedition from day to day continuing to make rapid advances—seeing that its progress was such as to endanger the peace of society, and to shake the security of established institutions in that part of the United Kingdom" it became the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant that he ought to avail himself of the means which the existing state of the law placed within his reach for the purpose, if possible, of arresting the mischiefs which those proceedings

were calculated to produce and were producing throughout Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant then directed the only prosecution which he could direct against the parties who have thus acted; and those presecutions are now pending—with what result it cannot yet be known; but he did all that the law in its present state enabled him to do for the repression of these proceedings. But how was that met? It was not met by any the least intimation of a desire on the part of those persons to act for the future in conformity to the law of the land; on the contrary, it was met by open defiance, and a declaration that, having committed sedition, they would proceed to the commission of high treason. I am not prepared to say that they may not have been guilty of this crime. No one whose attention has been directed to the subject can deny that there is considerable difficulty in drawing a broad and palpable distinction in some cases between sedition and high treason. The line of demarcation is not always very distinct. But in the present case the prosecutions have been instituted for sedition, and under the pending prosecutions, the offenders can only be subjected to the lighter penalty. I believe that many of the persons concerned in this movement in Ireland are persons learned in the law, or, if themselves not learned, that they act under legal advice—that, fortified in their own opinions, or supported by the knowledge and judgment of others, they do not abstain from encouraging the multitude to acts of high treason, though they seem to think that in doing no more than uttering the words of encouragement and excitement they expose themselves to no higher penalties than those which constitute the legal consequences of sedition. But I should not be surprised to find that they are mistaken in their opinion of the law; and that if, in connexion with their exhortations—with the exciting addresses which they are accustomed to deliver—if, in connexion with these, overt acts be committed by other parties, instigated by them, those who thus lead the people to their ruin may find that the law of treason may apply to themselves. Those who have hitherto considered themselves safe as not exceeding the limits of sedition, may thus possibly find themselves amenable to the law of high treason. At the same time, I am not prepared to say that from anything which has yet been done, the parties to whom I have been referring could be prosecuted for any higher offence than that of

sedition. The question, therefore, for the House is, whether the present crisis calls for such an alteration in the law as that which I am about to propose. I should wish, if possible, not to weary the House with needless quotations; but there are passages in the United Irishman which clearly indicate an organised plan, not only of sedition, but, more properly speaking, of treason; in which the writer does not merely appeal to the fancies of an imaginative people, but enters into minute details for the purpose of pointing out measures calculated to insure success against the Government—gives instructions how barricades are to be formed— suggests various devices by which the Queen's troops might be defeated, and murdered—how missiles might be hurled upon them from windows and roofs of houses—and avows a design to drive the Lord Lieutenant from the government of Ireland, and, instead of the Queen's authority, to establish an independent republic in Ireland. On the 23rd of March, these are the terms in which Mr. Mitchell addressed at first his hearers and afterwards readers:—

"I am charged with 'writing seditious articles, having a tendency to inflame the minds of the people, and excite discontent.' I did write seditious articles, and I will write seditious articles. (Loud cheers.) I will incite the people to discontent and disaffection. (Renewed cheering.) I know no reason why they should be content—why they should be well affected—towards the Government of England. (Loud cheers.) On the day this Confederation was formed, I, as you remember, came forward, and declared myself a disaffected subject, and promised to devote myself continually to excite disaffection in others. ('Hear, hear,' and loud cheering.) I think I have kept that promise; and, come what may, I will continue to do so. (Loud cheers.)"

Mr. Mitchell then proceeds in these terms:—

"I am guilty of an attempt to sow disaffection in the minds of the people—I am guilty of an attempt to overthrow this Government, which keeps its footing on our soil by sheer brute force, and by nothing else. (Loud cries of 'Hear, hear.') And this I tell you, that until that Government be thoroughly upset, I shall not cease to write, to speak, to act sedition. One circumstance alone shall stop me in this career—my death. (Loud and enthusiastic cheers.) In their courts of law we shall take issue with them boldly and desperately. If we do not throw them there, we shall throw them on a broader field. (Vehement cheering.) It must be done. The news this morning announces that Vienna is in the hands of the people. (Renewed cheering.) Dublin must be in the hands of the people. (Enthusiastic and deafening cheers.) Stand by us, citizens, and it shall be done. (Cries of 'We will, we will.')

In the whole of the language thus held, the more violent the expressions the more

vehement the cheers of the audience. Then we have Mr. Reilly coming forward with a proposition for the formation of a National Guard. I do not mean to express an opinion as to the legal effect of the words which that speaker used. I am not prepared to say that they do not go beyond the limits of sedition, or to affirm that they may not constitute a much higher offence. I will read the passage to the House. It will hereafter be the duty of the law officers of the Crown to deal with it as the case may require:—

"Mr. Devin Reilly then came forward to propose a resolution for the organisation of a National Guard, and in doing so, was vehemently cheered. He said he was satisfied that the country would see in that evening's meeting a good beginning. (Cheers.) It was his high privilege to propose that they should take that evening the initiative step in the broad path of freedom (cheers); to propose the first of a series of steps for which his soul had long hungered, and for the want of which tens of thousands of his murdered countrymen had perished—the formation of an armed National Guard in Ireland. (Loud cheers.) This resolution called on the Council of the Confederation to inquire and report on the best and most effectual means of organising and arming such a body. (Loud cheering.) That was their answer to Lord Clarendon. (Cheers.) For every one of them he might imprison, hundreds would be ready to take their place. For every leader of importance imprisoned, they would arm ten thousand men. (Loud cheers.) For every hour he confined them, they would shorten his rule in Ireland by one hundred days. For every hair of their heads he touched, for every one he hanged—but he would not talk to them of hanging, for if there was sufficient manhood and devotion amongst them, long before things arrived at such a pass they would open the gaols with their pickaxes and crowbars. Long before that day every street of Dublin might be a barricade or a fortress, and every pavement carpeted with blood. (Great applause.) Long before that day they would show the tyrant out of Ireland by the light of the burning gaols. (Cheers.) Before that day every field in Ireland must be fought, every ditch defended, and every river obtain a notorious memory to live throughout future ages. Ay, and if they were driven into the remotest corners of their beloved island, they would make the graves of their murdered countrymen the last resting-ground for the defence of their precious liberties. (Cheers.) If they were to fail, let them nobly fail—if they conquered, they must do so by their own right hands. While they had arms in their hands they might defy the whole world—without them they were at the beck of every petty constable. (Hear.) Four months ago, when the Coercion Bill was introduced, he called on the people in that hall to arm. (Cheers.) Now, he called on them a second time to arm, arm, arm! (Loud cheers.) Had they armed four months ago, they would be four months nearer their liberty that day. Let them arm now; and when they had armed, they would be ready, and not sooner. (Loud cheers.) When they were willing to aid themselves, then God would assist them, and not before. (Cheers.) They had often been told about Ireland's opportunity, and that the time was not yet come. Now he would tell them that no time was opportune to a nation which was not prepared to go out at any moment and assert its rights. (Immense applause.) It was slaves only who waited for opportunities—a nation of brave men should be always prepared. (Cheers.) A great movement of the people was passing over the world. (Cheers.) Democracy had crossed the Alps and entered Austria. Last week he was in Paris, and there was smashed the strongest dynasty in the world. (Loud applause.) He would presently come to Ireland. (Cheers.) 300,000 Englishmen, Chartists, would assemble in London next week, and then they would have London in their hands. ('Hear, hear,' and loud cheers.)"

I wish the hon. Member for Nottingham had taken the trouble to show Mr. Reilly that in this he was mistaken. [Mr. O'CONNOR: I never read the speech.] Mr. Mitchell proceeds to say—

"He promised them, as a brother, that whether that time came sooner or later, the first budge in England would be answered in Ireland. (Loud cheers.) Let them wait for that day, and prepare for it, by arming themselves; and, till that day arrived, he had but one advice to give them, and that advice was, to 'put their trust in God and keep their powder dry."

I will not read any further extracts from the speeches or the writings of Mr. Mitchell. The House is doubtless sufficiently acquainted with the character of his speeches; but I find by a speech of Mr. Duffy, of the Nation newspaper, delivered on the 5th of April, 1848, that he and those with whom he acts depend for the success of their designs not only on their own right hands, but also upon foreign assistance: they have applied to a foreign country for aid, and with the strength so obtained they have threatened the Government, and announced their intention of establishing a republic on the ruins of the monarchy. This is the speech of Mr. Duffy:—

"He said he had news for them from Smith O'Brien. He thought they knew that he was no boaster. He believed that they could trust in what he said, and felt that he said only what he intended to do. He (Mr. O'Brien) received last week an address from a certain Irish club in Paris, and the answer to that address excited a storm of curiosity. The Morning chronicle received that day expressed great annoyance that it could not lay its hands upon it, and the Lord Lieutenant would give an eye for it; but they would be generous—they would give it to him for nothing. (Cheers.) Here it was. Mr. O'Brien said, in answer to the club to which he referred, 'I have seen enough of France to convince me that she is able and willing, if invited, to make an effort to send 50,000 of her most valued citizens to support the Irish nation in a struggle." (Great cheering.) The answer of Lamartine had been received, and, like all State documents, it meant nothing (a laugh); but he thought they could be indifferent to it, after the promises of one of their truest men ringing in their ears. (Cheers.) The Union was repealed. (Cheers.) He thought so that morning, but he had 50,000 additional reasons for believing that it was repealed. (Cheers.)

I have not read this as attaching the slightest credit to the 50,000 reasons in favour of repeal of which Mr. Duffy is pleased to speak. Whatever opinion the members of the Irish Confederates may put forward on the subject, it is impossible to read the answer of M. Lamartine, and entertain any doubt with respect to its signification. He did not for a moment hesitate: he was bold, explicit, and, as I have no doubt honest, in distinctly and decidedly refusing to send a man to England or Ireland. I am persuaded that the disaffected party have not the slightest chance of assistance from France after the declaration of M. Lamartine. I believe that Mr. Duffy is deceiving himself, or making himself a tool for deceiving others, if he believes that, if they should be induced to arm themselves for insurrection, they would be backed, in what would otherwise be a hopeless struggle, by 50,000 French bayonets for the establishment of a republic in Ireland; and for the purpose of driving away from that country, not only every Englishman, but every person of property and wealth—for such statements have been made—who would not join them, and of confiscating their property. At the discussion to which I have referred, at the National Confederation in Dublin, Mr. M'Ghee said—

"The Confederation should enlarge its borders, and every man should go forth that night a recruiting sergeant for the new National Guard. (Cheers.) They should have no more words about what they intended doing. Without an army they could not do anything. They should set about creating a union of all classes in right earnest; and the very first flash from their front ranks would drive from the soil for ever the tenants of the Castle. (Cheers.) Lord Clarendon had gone about begging from the churchwardens marks of confidence, and had told them, that in case of a rising they would not defend private property, but would merely protect the Castle and the public boards, and leave the citizens to form armed associations to defend their own. It was a base calumny against the people to say, that if necessity compelled them to draw the sword to smite in the cause of Ireland, they would play the burglar and the petty thief. They would not break into any private house. They would not outrage any private feeling, or violate any tie, but would smite the common enemy over the heads of those who were neutral, or hesitating in the cause of their common country. (Cries of 'Hear!' and cheers.) He regarded no man as an enemy except the foreigner and the intruder. If they were obliged to draw the sword as a last resource, every man would lie in the streets a corpse, with his hand beneath his lifeless head, or else Ireland should be a free nation. (Cheers.) They would have no authority but what was native—no soldiery but what they would raise themselves—no foreign flag should fly between them and heaven. Their green flag should float above their own towns, and go in the van with their men to battle. (Cheers.) They would fight—they must fight; they would be disgraced before the world if they did not determine their cause that year. (Loud cheers.) England should be quick about it if she desired to restore peace; and nothing but unconditional repeal would content them. (Loud cheers.)"

I am sure I need not further allude to what is the character of the advice given by men who possess some influence on the masses, or to what their designs are, which they do not attempt to conceal, but openly, unhesitatingly, and unblushingly avow. I will only make one observation with respect to the last extract I have read. Allusion is there made to the effect, that Lord Clarendon "had gone about begging from the churchwardens marks of confidence." I am bound to say, in justice to a large portion of the population in Ireland, that it has been quite unnecessary, while these proceedings were going on, for the Lord Lieutenant to go about begging for marks of confidence. I have received a letter from him, in which, after describing the state of the country, he says—

"I have the satisfaction to inform you that the flagitious designs publicly avowed by the popular leaders have elicited the expression of much right feeling, and that a loyal declaration, extensively circulated throughout the country, has, in the space of a few days, received upwards of 140,000 signatures from persons of all classes, which may fairly be taken to represent the rank, the property, and the intelligence of Ireland; and among them will be found the names of many of the Roman Catholic prelates, clergy, and laity."

My noble Friend behind me reminds me that that letter is dated the 27th of March, and that it only stated the number of signatures then attached to the declaration. That is, however, but half the number of signatures which the declaration now bears; for since that period the amount of signatures has increased to 280,000. I need not say, therefore, that in referring to those speeches and writings, which have occasioned feelings of excitement and alarm, I do not allude to them as expressing the opinions of the great body of the people in Ireland. There is in Ireland a large portion of the population as loyal and as devotedly attached to the Government and institutions of the country as any to be found in any portion of Her Majesty's dominions. It is on that our great reliance is placed; but, in defence of these loyal subjects, the Government, if it finds the law too weak to put down sedition, is bound to come to

Parliament to ask for such an alteration of the law as—not exceeding the necessary limits—may enable the Government to deal satisfactorily with cases of this kind, and to restrain language calculated, if unchecked, to occasion terror and dismay among the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of Ireland. I will proceed now to state, as accurately as I can, what the law is with respect to offences of this kind. The law in England and Ireland is not the same on this subject. At least, there exist doubts whether the law of treason in the two countries is identical or not. The general law respecting treason, as the House is well aware, is founded on the 25th of Edward III., cap. 2. That law was extended to Ireland in the reign of Henry VII., and undoubtedly applies now to the whole of the United Kingdom; therefore any act committed within the United Kingdom, and falling within the provisions of the Statute of Edward III., renders the parties guilty of it amenable to the penalties of high treason. By that Act any person compassing or imagining the death of the Sovereign, levying war against the Sovereign, or being adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere, is guilty of high treason, and subject to the penalties of high treason. But an important alteration of the law was made by the 36th of George III., which was to endure only for the life of the then King, and for one Session of Parliament after his demise. By that Act, passed in 1795, it was provided that—

"If any person or persons whatsoever, after the day of the passing of that Act, during the natural life of His Majesty, and until the end of the next Session of Parliament after the demise of the Crown, should within the realm or without compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maiming or wounding, imprisonment or restraint of the person of the King, his heirs or successors, or to deprive or depose him or them from the style, honour, or kingly name of the Imperial Crown of this realm, or of any other of the King's dominions or countries, or to levy war against the King, his heirs and successors, within this realm, in order by force or constraint to compel him or them to change their measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or to intimidate or overawe either House, or both Houses of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade this realm, or any other of the King's dominions or countries, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them should express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, or by any overt act or deed, legally convicted thereof, on the oaths of two credible witnesses, in due course of law, should be deemed and adjudged traitors, and suffer the pains of death, and also forfeiture, as in the case of high treason."

That was a most material extension, as the House will observe, of the law of treason as existing under the Statute of Edward III., and applicable to England and Ireland. By the Act of Edward III. it was required to constitute the crime of high treason, that a person should compass or imagine the death of the King, or should actually levy war against him, &c.; but the 36th of George III. extended the law of treason, making it applicable, not only to persons who should compass the death of the King, or his imprisonment, or should actually levy war against him, but to those who should compass and design to levy war against the Sovereign, or stir up any stranger or foreigner by force to invade this realm, or any other dominions of His Majesty; and should express, utter, or declare such purposes, by the publication of any writing or printing. I before observed that this Act was only a temporary Act; but in the 57th of George III. this first section of the Act was made perpetual. The Act of 57th George III. was passed subsequent to the Union, yet grave doubts have existed whether it extended the law "it made perpetual" to Ireland; and the preponderance of legal opinion inclined to the conclusion that this statute does not extend to Ireland, and that the Government would not be justified in indicting for treason parties committing any of the offences comprised in that statute if committed in Ireland. Now, I think the House will agree with me, that, whatever its opinion may be with respect to the law, or whatever alterations of the general law it might deem expedient, there exists no sufficient or satisfactory ground for any difference in respect to the law of high treason in one part of the United Kingdom and another. This law of treason applies at present to England and Scotland; but doubts, at least, exist as to its application to Ireland. In Ireland, therefore, the only law of treason clearly in force is the Statute of Edward III. I believe Ireland has derived no benefit from not having this Act applied to it; and that recourse has been had from time to time to more violent remedies than would have been necessary if the ordinary law, applicable to the suppression of treasonable designs in other parts of the kingdom, had been in force in Ireland. The consequence is, that when the Government of the country, having its attention directed to writings and language of the kind to which I have

adverted, and finding dangerous consequences likely to result from such writings and language, has recourse to the legal powers it possesses to avert the results likely to ensue, and to prevent, by the punishment of the guilty parties, perhaps scenes of bloodshed and ruin, it discovers itself to be comparatively powerless for this purpose. The only law applicable to anything short of high treason is the law of sedition; and I have already adverted to what is the consequence of such a state of the law. Sedition is a bailable offence, however nearly it may approach to the crime of treason, and however difficult it may be to recognise the distinction in many cases. It is, however, bailable; and when bail is given, the party offending is then released from the time of his original arrest until the time of trial, and is at liberty, if he chooses to risk the consequences, to repeat the sedition, and to employ the interval in prosecuting those designs for which he was to be made amenable to a legal tribunal, and in attempting to avert, by overturning the institutions of the country, the punishment to which he may have rendered himself liable. One mode of dealing with this case would be, that the doubts now existing respecting the application of the law to Ireland should be simply removed, and that the Statute of the 36th George III. should be rendered perpetual and extended to Ireland. The law, then, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom would be the same. I admit that it is desirable that the same law should be enforced throughout the whole of the United Kingdom; but when we look at the provisions of the law, we find it in its justly comprehensive character to be one, nevertheless, of great severity. It must be borne in mind, also, that for some time past our criminal code has undergone wise and humane alterations, mitigating the punishment which used to be applicable to many offences. A salutary change has taken place in public opinion with respect to the crimes to which capital punishment should be attached; and it is desirable that our legislation should proceed, as far as is consistent with the great object of criminal laws, in accordance with that spirit. We, therefore, do not propose simply to apply this Act to Ireland. The provisions of it, as I have stated, are severe, and, considering the modifications which have taken place in our criminal law since the passing of that Act, we do not wish to propose any enactment either for England or Ireland which should be at variance

with the spirit of our recent criminal legislation. We do not propose, however, to repeal any portion of the penalties of that Act, so far as relates to compassing the death of the Sovereign, or the personal restraint or imprisonment of the Sovereign; and we propose to extend all the

unrepealed part to Ireland. We do not think we ought in any degree to relax the stringency of the law which throws that protection round the person of the Sovereign; but with respect to the other offences—offences embraced in the perpetual Act, applicable to England, and amounting here to treason—we propose to repeal so much of the Act as relates to offences not immediately directed against the person of the Sovereign. Her heirs, and successors. We then propose to enact that the latter offences mentioned in that statute should be offences subject to the same penalty in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and that the commission of them should be felony, subjecting the parties guilty of them to transportation for the term of their natural lives, or for a term not less than seven years, at the discretion of the Court, as these offences admit of various qualifications under various circumstances. That is the substance of the Bill which I propose to ask leave to introduce. With respect to the offence of compassing the levying of war against the Sovereign, or moving or stirring any foreigner or stranger to invade the country by force, the Act stranger of George III. is sufficiently explicit; but I am afraid that this would not quite meet the evil we now have to contend with. The 57th of George III. requires that the imagining and compassing should be expressed in a printed publication, or writing, or by an overt act. I take it to be an overt act if persons go to a foreign country to ask for aid, and to invite an invasion; but if a person in Dublin, or in any part of this country, openly and publicly excite others by speech, and not by writing, to any of these acts, he might still be exempt from any penalty except that which attaches to sedition. In mitigating some of the severities of the law, we are bound to see that we do not allow any loophole by which gentlemen who are themselves learned in the law may escape the penalty attached to the higher offence, because they may have the prudence to abstain from publishing their speeches themselves, which nevertheless are daily reported and published in the newspapers. We must tape care not to give them the opportunity of saying

that they cannot be touched except on the charge of sedition, which would leave them for a time to follow up their designs and to carry them out, irrespective of the consequences to others who may be brought within the reach of a more stringent law. We, therefore, propose to bring within the provisions of the Bill I am about to introduce all persons who should compass and promote the prosecution of such designs as I have referred to by "open and advised speaking." These are terms well understood in the courts. Such is the substance of the Bill which I ask leave of the House to lay on the table. Having been in constant communication with my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I may state that he feels himself comparatively powerless in the exercise of the authority which the ordinary law gives him to stem the tide of sedition. Anxious as he is, with the constitutional principles which influence him—anxious as the Government are not to ask for larger powers than are necessary—anxious also for the peace, the interest, and security of the realm, and for the means of adequately discharging those duties which devolve on the Government, who are responsible for the security of the Crown and the Government, for the tranquillity of the State, and the maintenance of Her Majesty's dominions—the measure I now ask leave to bring in is what we consider essential to arm the Lord Lieutenant with sufficient powers. This measure will be applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom; and for open and advised speaking in favour of the designs which have been openly avowed, the parties will be liable to transportation for a term of not less than seven years. I do not refer to such a speech as was attributed to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor), but to speeches which would come within the term, which he will understand, of "open and advised." This, it is proposed, should be made the law for the whole of the United Kingdom; and, this offence would be rendered felony in Ireland, instead of its being, as it is at present, only sedition. There may be other regulations necessary to be hereafter proposed to the House; but they will partake more of the character of police regulations, to meet any disposition to follow the advice that has been given "to arm for the coming conflict." I will not, however, mix that subject up with the present. I propose this Bill as a permanent amendment of the law, and,

I believe, a valuable amendment of the law, as respects the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe that it will arm the Government with powers which will render it more respected, and prevent the scandal of persons inciting to crimes such as I have adverted to in one part of the kingdom, which they might be effectually prevented from doing in another. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

MR. J. O'CONNELL regretted to say he felt obliged to oppose the Bill. There were some of the observations of the right hon. Baronet in which he did not concur, and many in which he did. He concurred with the right hon. Baronet in the feeling of abhorrence which he expressed at the doctrines preached throughout Ireland, and in the attempts made to drive the people of that country into the most criminal acts of rebellion. It was not from any sympathy in the policy pursued by those paltry parties. He could not be accused of having much sympathy with them, if for no other reason than because some of those very men had attacked him personally with all possible acrimony, and some of them went even so far as to suggest, both in newspapers and in speeches, that he ought to be made away with, as one who stood between them and the accomplishment of their crimes. He had no political sympathy with these men, for he believed in his soul that such persons were the very worst enemies of the cause to which he was devoted. He believed in his soul that they were to the cause of repeal what the United Irishmen of 1798 were to the progress of liberty in Ireland, for it was notorious that the acts of the United Irishmen were the cause of the Union. The country was, by their infatuation, thrown into a state of confusion, and the fatal Act of Union was passed. The greatest danger which beset the repeal cause was its having been taken up by men who uttered the most criminal doctrines, and who gave the most criminal advice to the people. Yes, he thought such men the very worst enemies of the cause which he advocated. Therefore, he again repeated, his opposition to the Bill did not arise from any sympathy whatever—not the slightest—in the acts or language of these men, for he entertained towards their doctrines feelings of the utmost abhorrence—feelings as entire, as full, and as strong, as those entertained by the right hon. Baronet. If he thought that this Bill was absolutely neces- sary, in order to preserve the peace, he would at once assent to it; but he was under the impression that it was not immediately nor imperatively needed. It was his firm impression that the ordinary law was sufficient, and that this measure would only have the effect of increasing the irritation which already existed in that country. It will be said in Ireland, "See how ready the British Government always is to avail itself of every pretext for passing severe and penal measures, but see how slow they are to redress our grievances. In all matters of severity the Government is always willing to make the laws as strong, if not stronger, in Ireland than in England; but as far as constitutional privileges are concerned they do nothing." He would remind the House, more in sorrow than in anger, of the opportunities lost by the present Government for conciliating the people of Ireland. Let him remind them of the pledges given, not merely by the Government, but by both sides of the House, of their intention to remedy the social and political ills of Ireland, and how little had been done towards the fulfilment of those pledges. It was his unpleasant duty to oppose the late Coercion Bill for Ireland proposed by the Government; and upon that occasion he told them how dilatory they were in the performance of their promises towards Ireland, and that nearly two years had elapsed without one substantial measure of justice having been carried for that country, or even attempted. Upon the third reading of that Coercion Bill, he again addressed the House, and told them that, as there was no longer any doubt that it would be carried into law, he trusted that remedial measures would accompany it. But his remonstrances had been utterly useless—nothing was done—nothing was even attempted, unless an absurd Landlord and Tenant Bill, with machinery so cumbersome, and involving so much expense in the working, that it would be useless, or worse than useless, and which would produce discontent rather than satisfaction. Great promises had been made at the beginning of the Session respecting Ireland; but here they were, in the third of it, and he asked the House whether a single Bill had been passed, or was in progress, calculated to mitigate the sufferings, whether political or social, under which it was admitted that unfortunate country groaned? He could concur with the Government and the House that much of the irritation and discontent which at present existed in Ireland was caused by this breach of faith, and that the canker-worm which preyed upon the vitals of that country was the misgovernment and the bad legislation of this House. A great deal of the disturbance and discontent which now existed in Ireland was attributable to their want of faith; and if they had done justice, it was quite impossible that those men could have so wrought upon and influenced the minds of the Irish people. If they had acted fairly and in a candid spirit of fair dealing towards them, those preachers of sedition, instead of being applauded, would have been hooted and hissed through the streets of Dublin; but the unfortunate people were in a state of despair, and it was little to be wondered at that they were ready to listen to the most violent and seditious language. The strength of those spouters of sedition was their injustice—give the Irish people but justice, and they would most effectually disarm those speakers and writers. He believed the present laws were quite sufficient to preserve the peace, and to bring to justice those who endangered the peace of society in their doctrines. Let them bring in measures of amelioration and justice instead of coercion and "gagging" Acts, and they would leave those preachers without a single auditor. Again, he thought the moment at which the Bill was introduced most inopportune. Why was it not introduced be, fore? Why was it brought on the approach of term, when those gentlemen were to be tried? Why not await the result of that trial? Why not see whether the ordinary law would not meet the occasion? But it was said that new powers were given by the Bill—magistrates might not take bail for seditious offences. He was not quite satisfied but that magistrates might refuse bail for such offences at present. If there was anything new in the Bill it was increased severity; and he left it to the House to say how much of it would induce the people of Ireland to place faith in the wisdom and clemency of the Imperial Parliament when they found that the only measure which Government introduced to meet their admitted wretchedness and distress was one of coercion and extreme severity. He had no objection, but, on the contrary, as a loyal subject, would do all in his power to prevent the spreading of sedition, and would think he had neglected his duty if he did not act so; but then he thought the ordinary powers of the law, if efficiently worked out, were amply sufficient for that purpose. He would not utter one sentiment which might in the slightest degree prejudice or affect those gentlemen who were in the course of a few days to be put on their trial; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might have spoken with greater caution upon this subject. Again, he said he was prepared to do his duty, as every loyal subject should, in any emergency, or in case an attempt was made to carry those wicked designs into execution. He wished the peace of the country to be preserved—he wished the institutions of the country to be maintained—he wished that the laws of the country might not be violated—but at the same time he would continue to advocate the repeal of the Union, and in doing so he was not acting in any way contrary to the spirit of the constitution, or in defiance of any statute. He must once more express his decided conviction that this Bill would only inflame—irritate, and that it would render a large portion of the people sympathisers with those men who had now only some hundreds, or at most some thousands at their guidance. He wished the Government would postpone the Bill, and try what measures of conciliation and of a remedial nature would effect; and he said this as one who had done all in his power to counteract the evil tendencies of the seditious harrangues of those persons. He would oppose the Bill.

MR. HUME said, he always heard with alarm any attempt at coercion; and, last night, when he heard the notice given by the right hon. Baronet, he was alarmed at what might be its purport. He wished to know whether he rightly understood the proposition of Her Majesty's Government? In the first place he must observe that he thought the time was come when all these old Acts should be repealed, and that one simple Act should be framed to make the existing law of treason felony. At the present moment it was difficult to define what was really treason. It seemed that certain existing Acts did not extend to Ireland, and that Her Majesty's Government proposed to make the same law which was applicable to England and Scotland applicable to Ireland. Here he quite agreed with the Government. The second object, he presumed, was, that there should be a modification of those offences which were now punishable by death—making the penalty that of transportation; and that there- fore that which was now high treason would be dealt with as felony. That was an alteration which he approved of, for he never found that very severe laws worked well practically. But then came the third point. There was a clause proposed to the effect that in England, Ireland, and Scotland, alike, the fact of a person openly, avowedly, and advisedly speaking, was to be deemed a new offence. If speaking openly and advisedly was to be made felony, he did hold it to be a great stretch of power, and an innovation which might be attended with serious consequences. No man deprecated more than he did any man urging others to do or say that which he had not the courage to do himself. But if the whole population were to be placed under this new law, it might be termed a gagging law, if he understood what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet. The interference with the freedom of speech on political matters, was to impose a power which was neither wise nor just. He must express his regret at the noble Lord introducing so great a novelty. He protested against this clause. Let the House clearly understand the intentions of the Government. By opposing the introduction of the measure, he thought they should, perhaps, do injury to the Government, and they might, be supposed to be interfering and stopping the Government in refusing them those powers which he wished them to have. He would therefore, suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who, he presumed, intended to divide the House, that he should satisfy himself by protesting against what he called the gagging clause. They would, however, be able better to judge on the matter when they saw the clause in print. He was, therefore, anxious to have an explanation from the bench below him as to whether he clearly understood that it was felony to speak openly and advisedly at public meetings? If this were to be the case, he should enter his protest against this new enactment.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, perhaps the House would allow him to explain. His hon. Friend was right in saying that the Government proposed to extend the same law to Ireland which now prevailed in England and Scotland. They proposed also to mitigate the character of the crime and the punishment. They proposed to alter the one from treason to felony; and to change the punishment from the penalty of death to that of transportation. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in sup- posing that part of the words introduced were new, and not contained in the Act of 1796. It was not that the person by openly and advisedly speaking at a meeting was liable to the penalty named; but "any person intending to depose the Queen, or proposing to make war against the Queen, or seeking to intimidate or to overawe both Houses of Parliament, or seeking aid from any foreign Power to invade the United Kingdom with that intent, or should express either, or declare in writing, or openly or advisedly speak to that effect—such person so offending should be liable," &c.

MR. HUME understood that part of the new matter went to prevent parties going over to a foreign country, and soliciting its aid against this country. To that he could have no objection; but his objection on the point he had referred to remained.

MR. F. O'CONNOR, objected in the strongest manner to the introduction of the measure in the sixteenth year of the Reform Bill, and after the former promises of the Government that severe laws would be rather relaxed than increased in the United Kingdom; and it was his intention, if he stood alone in that House, to resist such a Bill. If they took example from what was passing abroad, to institute coercion, they ought also to take example from the concessions which had been made to

the people of foreign countries. One of the first shackles which a liberated people struck from their arms was that which was imposed upon the liberty of the press; and he could assure them that there was very little use in the freedom of the press, if it were not accompanied by liberty of speech. What were they about to do? To revive and extend the old statutes of treason, of the Henrys, of the Edwards, and the Georges. This Bill was an infringement upon the rights and liberties of the people of England. The hon. Member for Limerick said that he had been much abused for having opposed the proceedings of those persons in Ireland who had made the speeches alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wish to have those clauses extended to himself for his protection, so that no one should speak against him more than against the person of the Sovereign. Let them see what this Bill would do. In Ireland at the present time one witness was sufficient to prove the crime of treason; by the law of England two witnesses were required; so that while they extended the meshes of the law, and

included a greater range of offences within its grasp, they had not equally extended the security for the innocent man against the machinations of the perjurer and the informer. He would ask the Government what had been the principle contended for by the reformers of old? Why, it was that the power behind the Throne should not be superior to it. Let them remember this—let them act upon this principle; and they would not shame those whom they boasted as their predecessors; as long as they permitted liberty of speech to the people, they might have sedition preached, but it would be open sedition, against which they could guard. Should they, however, adopt a contrary course, it would be sown far and widely in secret societies and clubs—they could not guard against it, for the danger would not be known until it burst upon them, for every man would be afraid to express an open opinion, fearing he might tread upon the very verge of sedition. As to danger from invasion, he would say that he should be the very first to volunteer against a foreign army, because the umpire in such cases ever became the conqueror and the oppressor. In the language of the hon. Member for Harwich, in 1822, he would assure them—

"If you want to tranquillise Ireland, you must do her justice; but you cannot prevent her from rising, if you refuse, not even if you have a halter round the neck of every man, with an armed soldier at his back."

Would the present Bill tranquillise Ireland? He believed far otherwise. Was this Bill the means by which they wished to do justice and to pacify a starving and excited people—to give security to property and protection to life? The principles contained in the People's Charter were those principles which were advocated by Charles James Fox, the Duke of Richmond, and the other great reformers of that day. They contended for the very same principles which the people advanced now. The present Bill would leave it in the power of the Judge to discriminate upon the niceties of language, and to decide where sedition commenced, and where treason ended. They all knew that the difference—the line of demarcation— between sedition and treason was difficult to be laid down. This Bill would leave the decision in the hands of the Judge. Let them remember that he was the officer of the Crown. There was a saying used by the predecessors of the Gentlemen in office, which was very popular at one time, and which he would like

to see carried into effect. It was, "the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." It was repeated by the present Gentlemen when out of office. What had the Queen or the Government of this country to dread except the disaffection of the people? That disaffection could not be cured by coercion. The principle upon which Her Majesty's Ministers were relying was coercion—coercion for England, and coercion for Ireland. If they were to extend this law to Ireland, why not extend it upon the same basis as that it was founded upon in England? Why should they leave out the modification, and place Ireland in a worse position than England? He wished to know, were Irish Gentlemen prepared to give a silent vote upon this Bill? Let them give every man in Ireland the fullest right of speech; let them enact for the country good laws; and then such Bills as this would not be required. Then they might allow the few uncomfortable men to talk and talk away; the soundness of the majority would govern, and peace and order would reign triumphant. The people of the country expected more from the Government of the noble Lord than from any other Government which ever held office; yet now, in the sixteenth year of the reformed Parliament, they introduce a Coercion Bill; why, they would revolutionise the whole country. If they were awakened to a sense of danger, and if they were paralysed by what was going on abroad, concession and not coercion would add to their security. He (Mr. O'Connor) had always told the people that the very existence of the Government was primâ facie evidence of its goodness. He had also always told the people that they had more liberties and more privileges than any other people in Europe; those privileges were the right of free discussion and the liberty of speech; take them away and they would stop his mouth: he did not mean by intimidation, but he would not be able to tell the people that they were so any longer. As for him, he had been always made amenable to the law; 500 men had been made amenable to the law, which was a sufficient proof that the law was strong enough to vindicate itself. It was monstrous that this addition should be made to it; and he was right glad that the hon. Member for Montrose was the first English Member to rise, and, with his usual sagacity and love of justice, to enter his protest against it. What was the fact?

The Government made a relaxation in the law of treason, in order to make a very great alteration in the law of sedition. Under colour of a relaxation of the law, they made a very great infringement on the liberties of the people by interfering with the law of sedition. It was high time that these disgraceful laws should be swept from the Statute-book; let them do this, let them not coerce the people, let them listen to their complaints, and let them redress their grievances, and then they might defy sedition at home, or invasion from abroad. If he went into the lobby alone, he would divide the House upon the question; it was courtesy to concede a first reading of a Government Bill to the Government, but he looked on the first step in which there was a departure from principle as the wrong one; and, thus viewing it, he would not concede anything to courtesy. In every case where the law had been relaxed, the people had become more contented, more peaceable, and more happy; and if they doubted this, he would refer them to the case of the Jews in Hamburg in the year 1786. In conclusion, he would protest against this Bill as an infringement upon the rights and liberties of the people.

MR. R. M. FOX was convinced there never was a time when the people of the two countries might more certainly advance in prosperity than the present if they were only quiet and peaceable. He would do all in his power to establish peace, but he thought it could not be effected by any symptom, however small, of a coercive tendency. He was sure that every Irish Member would with him express their abhorrence of the treason which was uttered by Mr. Mitchell and others, principally because it would lead the Irish people into a collision with the military, the result of which would be the annihilation of order, and the starvation of thousands more than what occurred now. But he was sure that the Government and the landlords in Ireland could do much to avert all these calamities, and bring the country in a short time into prosperity, happiness, and peace. If they really wished to establish quiet in Ireland, he thought in one month it might be done. Let the Government undertake to establish a poor-law equal to meet the existing distress, and conferring upon the poor what at present they had not, a right to relief the same as in England; let them give a vastly extended franchise and a vastly extended right of representation, and let them declare that they would take into consideration the much-mooted question of the repeal of the legislative Union, and allow hon. Members to discharge the business of their own country; and if the Irish landlords would also do their part towards the general welfare, then the voice of Irish discontent would be silenced for ever.

MR. GRATTAN considered that the Irish people were loyal. Nor should he doubt of their loyalty and tranquillity, were it not for the extravagant preparations of war to which he had been a witness. Ministers had paid importance to speeches, and they had prepared barracks; but, in his opinion, they had paid greater importance to spies and informers than they should. The island was filled with soldiers; troops were quartered in Trinity College, in the Linen Hall, at the Bank, and in Leinster Lawn. The Lord Lieutenant was perfectly right in guarding against insurrection, because he must know what would be the consequence of an attempt at revolution. But he did believe that the Lord Lieutenant was not rightly informed as to the state of Ireland—he was surrounded by bad advisers, and Irishmen were far apart from his councils. The whole country was in a state of alarm, and that alarm prevailed especially among the old unmarried ladies. It appeared that spies and informers were the order of the day. A man of the name of Hyland had come forward, the avowed pikemaker to the Castle of Dublin. In Limerick one of the Castle agents ordered ten pikes, but could only get three. Now, he would ask them, were they come to such a pass that the country was to be governed through the medium of spies? When spies were employed under the Administration of Lord Castlereagh, the people of England to a man protested against the employment of such infernal miscreants. The Bill was for the purpose of giving securities to the Crown and to the Government; but there was no mention in it of security to the people. He would tell them that the people had no security. The present measure would fall greatly short of its mark; and he was certain that it would not succeed. The whole system of English settlement bad failed in Ireland. The Duke of Wellington, who said the only time he lost was the time he spent in Ireland, admitted that it was a failure, and he said that they should reconquer Ireland, not by the sword but by justice and concession. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth ad- mitted the failure; and they might not and ought not to expect to govern a country by a body of men who lived out of it. The greatest of Grecian orators said, that the property of the absent and the indifferent would soon become that of the active and the energetic. This would be the case in Ireland; the property of the country was in the possession of the frieze coat, and he would soon become as of right entitled. Were the absentee landlords at home, the country would be as quiet as any part of England. People took the rents, then ran away, and called upon the poor Irishmen to stand the brunt of the battle. Hon. Members had little idea of the deplorable state in which the country was. A parish priest in Galway wrote that he had seen a woman dead in a ditch by the way side, and that a little farther on he had administered the sacrament to another female, whom he found dying upon the path. In the gaol of Cork no less than 866 persons had died in a month, and yet the Government were contented with the most inefficient measures of relief. It was not that the people of Ireland wished to separate themselves from England—to throw off their allegiance to the Crown. The priests dreaded and opposed the principles of the French revolution, and the Government need fear no insurrection arising from purely political causes. What they had to dread was the consequences of the general and deep-seated discontent of the people. Let England take means to relieve their sufferings, and so they would put an end to their disaffection. Let measures be passed to compel the residence in Ireland of the Irish nobility and gentry, and let Her Majesty call together a Parliament in Dublin.

LORD DUDLEY STUART observed, that the Bill was called a Bill for the better security of the Crown and the Government. Now, he thought the best way of securing the one and the other was to attend to the just wants and wishes of the people. Indeed, there was no other way. They might bring in Coercion Bills, and thus get over a temporary difficulty; but the remedy would be temporary also, and by it no permanent security could be attained. This observation he applied to England as well as to Ireland and Scotland. He wished for equal laws for every part of the empire; and, so far as it went, to promote an equality of legislation. He approved of the Bill before the House. But how did it propose to effect that equal- ity? Why, by making the laws of England more indulgent, and those of Ireland more stringent. He believed that in this country the people would not long rest satisfied without an extension of the franchise, and a division of the country into electoral districts. The time was not far distant when we must have—not to mince the matter—a new Reform Bill, embodying a more just and equal system of representation than the present. In Ireland, too, there were many things which the people wanted, and which they had a right to demand; and although some law of this kind might be necessary—for it was clearly impossible to allow matters to go on in Ireland as they had been proceeding—still, when they introduced measures of this description to make the law more stringent, they ought at the same time to bring forward measures for the amelioration of the country, and for the relief of the wants of the people. But where were their remedial measures? With the exception of one other Bill, at present in another place, and the measure relating to landlord and tenant—which he had good authority for saying was of such a complicated nature that it would never be brought into satisfactory operation—with the exception of these two Bills, not a remedial measure had been introduced. Surely this was not a time when a Government could be content to remain inactive. They ought to strain every nerve, to turn every stone for the relief of the suffering country. He believed, that though the Irish might be an excitable, that they were an intelligent, a courageous, an affectionate, and a loyal people; and in illustration of the fact, he might recount to the House an anecdote which was little known, but which he assured them was perfectly true. At the commencement of the late French revolution, before it was known whether or not the people would be hurried into those excesses which they happily avoided, or what the danger to individuals or property might be, a deputation of Irishmen waited on Lord Normanby, and told him that if he entertained the slightest apprehension either for the safety of his person or that of the embassy, they had come to offer the services of 500 Irishmen, residents in Paris, who would form themselves into a body-guard, and shed every drop of their blood in defence of the best Lord Lieutenant which Ireland ever saw. With regard to the Bill before the House, he was bound to say that he looked with great jealousy upon any measure interfering with liberty of speech; and if he did give his vote for the first reading of the Bill—for he did not desire needlessly to embarrass the Government—still he hoped that it would be understood that he only recorded that vote in order that the Bill might be introduced and laid upon the table of the House—reserving to himself the full right of voting against it should he so determine at the second reading.

MR. REYNOLDS had heard the concluding portion of the speech of the noble Lord with great pain, because he was of opinion that a Bill the provisions of which had been so fully explained by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department—a Bill of so unconstitutional a nature— ought to be met on the thresh-hold with the firmest opposition. He reminded the House that three months only had elapsed since they had assented to another most unconstitutional Bill. He had foretold the result of that Bill. He had warned them that it was an unjust and uncalled-for measure, and that if it were passed it would not accomplish the object of its proposes. Well, but it had passed; and could anything be a stronger proof of its failure than the new measure introduced to-night? The object of that measure was to punish with transportation for life, or as a minimum with transportation for seven years, offences now punishable by fine and imprisonment. But there was another and a still more alarming ingredient in the Bill—for it placed in the hands of the Attorney General the power of inflicting the punishment of transportation for life, on account of words used in a moment of excitement, or perhaps words not spoken at all, but sworn to by some hireling incendiary; and he regretted to say that Ireland was too productive of such characters. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew the meaning of that cheer; but was it not true that Government after Government, whether Whig or Tory, had from time to time given encouragement to such characters? Why, only a day or two ago an agent of Government, Colonel Browne, the commissioner of Dublin police, despatched an emissary to a constituent of his to purchase pikes in order to found a charge against the vendor—the money for the weapons being actually paid, he presumed, out of the metropolitan police fund. He had heard it stated that Colonel Browne was a man of excellent reputation. He had the honour, if it were an honour, of knowing Colonel Browne;

and the recent transaction had certainly not raised that gentleman in his opinion. He did not know how a man could be called respectable who was guilty of such conduct; and he put it to the Attorney General whether there was any law justifying the employment of a miscreant to go about giving orders for the manufacture of pikes? He understood, however, that it was quite in the line of Colonel Browne to be employed in this way. A full brother of his was employed in pursuing the unfortunate Queen Caroline, when she was persecuted from place to place, and he also received the wages of his prostitution. With respect to the conduct of those who were invoking French aid, he could not find words sufficiently strong to express his disapproval. But some allowance ought to be made for the state of the country. Look to the wholesale ejectments which were taking place. Were such scenes to be as common in England, they would have treason talked in every parish. Indeed, were it not for the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, not all the military strength at the command of this powerful Government could keep the peace of Ireland for forty-eight hours. If the majority of his countrymen were Protestants, they would not submit to the oppression they were now obliged to undergo. Let them consider the grievances Ireland laboured under. First, there were the temporalities of the Protestant Church, amounting to 700,000 l. annually, without including—as he believed—the glebe lands, levied from a people of whom not above one-eighth belonged to the establishment which this vast sum was intended to support. Again, the political franchise was rapidly narrowing, and the municipal franchise had dwindled away almost to a name. In Dublin, with half a million of inhabitants and 21,000 rated houses, there were only 3,000 voters; but in Liverpool the proportion was far greater, because the municipal laws of the two countries were different, and the standard was made higher in Ireland than in England. The Bill before the House contemplated the infliction of a deep wound on his native country; but it should not be forgotten that she did not enjoy the same privileges, either as a franchise for Parliament nor for corporations, as England—that her waste lands remained uncultivated—and that she had received no benefits—at least he was at a loss to know what they were—from that House. They proposed to punish by transportation for life or for

seven years, offences which were now punishable by fine and imprisonment; and that those political offences which at present were tried by special juries should in future be handed over to petty juries, where the Crown had the unlimited right of challenge, while the right of the prisoner was restricted to twenty. When he recollected the system of packing juries which had prevailed in Ireland, he shuddered at the prospect of this change. Was this Bill intended so have a retrospective operation? [Sir GEORGE GREY: No.] He was glad to hear that statement, for he feared it was intended to apply it to offences which had been already committed. He implored the Government to pause before they passed this Bill, and to try whether some other remedy could not be provided to suit the present circumstances in Ireland. He implored them to try the effect of mildness on the people. If they relied on the ordinary tribunals of the law, the Government might rest assured that they would be in a position to laugh to scorn all those who were plotting against them, and throwing obstacles in the way of the administration of the law. What right had the Government to apprehend any violation of the public peace in Ireland? [ A laugh.] He told the hon. Gentlemen who laughed, that the heart of the people of Ireland was sound; and instead of being laughed at, he, should be cheered for his statement. Let the House take care, should this Bill be passed, if the people would remain so. With 30,000 troops and nearly 15,000 police, they had almost taken military possession of Ireland; but he called on them to show any one act which would justify that course. To be sure there had been a great deal of talk; but wherever he found much talk, he was certain to meet very little fighting. Then this talk had been all open. Men who concocted revolution very seldom warned the Government of their intentions; but here had been three men coolly saying, on such a day we intend to throw vitriol on the soldiers, on such a day we intend to make barricades, and on such a day we intend to march through Dublin Castle. Now he believed those fellows were humbugging, for he thought if they were in earnest they would adopt a very different course. He called on the House not to libel the people of Dublin by wholesale for the folly of a few, and not to brand them all as traitors because a few men among them made traitorous speeches. The people of Dublin were attached to the English con-

nexion, and it would be the fault of the House if they did not continue so. There was one ingredient which it was unnecessary for the Government to put into this Act, "compassing the death of the Sovereign." In no part of her dominions could the life of Her Majesty be more safe than in Ireland. She was enthroned in the hearts and in the affections of her Irish subjects; and no matter what complaint might be made against the Government of the day, there was ever an exception in the mind of every Irishman in favour of the Monarch under whom he had the happiness to live.

MR. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL observed, that if, as the hon. Member for Dublin asserted, this Bill sought to inflict a wound on Ireland, it was only such a wound as would be inflicted by a skilful surgeon on a patient, in order to remove from him an unsound part. As an Irish representative, and regarding Irish interests above all earthly consid rations, he felt it his duty to give this Bill his support. The great grievance of which the people of Ireland had a right to complain was, that speeches which no man in that House could stand up to justify—which no man with any character for prudence, he would not say for honesty, because he was afraid there was more honesty than he could wish about those of whom he spoke—were made against all law and order, which practically went unpunished—which so long as they were unpunished, might lead others astray and cause the loss of thousands of lives—it was too much to suppose that men could be allowed to commit in Ireland crimes which would be heavily punished in England. Two months ago he never could have believed that such language could have been uttered by, or have been listened to, by any Irishman, as that which had again and again been repeated very lately in Dublin. The sentiments which were expressed, and he feared applauded, were not mere vague declarations of hostility to England—not mere threats "to march through the Castle of Dublin," and to tear down the English flag, but—and he alluded particularly to one young gentleman—to the statement that the speaker hoped he might not die till he saw Ireland a free and independent Republic. His prayer was, that Providence might grant that gentleman a long and discontented life. He believed our present monarchical institutions were essentially connected with the prosperity of Ire- land, more especially with that of the lower orders, and as their sincere well-wisher he would vote for this Bill, which was, he believed, calculated to sustain the monarchy and the empire. He did not think they should be too chary in administering punishment to men who whether, by their writings or by words, incited others to crime. If the law had hitherto dealt lightly with them, there was no reason why it should continue to do so; and if a man who incited another to set fire to his neighbour's corn-stack, was justly liable to undergo the penalties of the law, he saw no reason why he who incited men to treason against the monarchy, and to spread disorder and confusion should be allowed to go scot free.

MR. GROGAN begged to express his dissent from the view of the Bill taken by his hon. Colleague (Mr. Reynolds), and to express his entire concurrence in that which had been taken by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. M. J. O'Connell). A feeling of uncertainty and alarm pervaded all classes of society in Dublin when these treasonable speeches were made; and Bank stock, than which there could be no better or more valuable security, had fallen six per cent within the last few days, while every class of the commercial community was paralysed. It was at this moment, however, that his hon. Colleague thought fit to come forward and oppose this measure, which was introduced by Her Majesty's Government to put an end to such a lamentable state of things.

MR. W. J. FOX said, it was not at all surprising that in the present discussion on this Bill, it had been made an exclusively Irish question. It was not surprising such had been the case, because the calamities and miseries of that unhappy country must necessarily be an absorbing topic, especially in the minds of those representatives who had been entrusted with the preservation of her rights, and the amelioration of her distresses. But the fact was much to be regretted, because it had drawn away the attention of the House from that portion of the Bill which was most important, to that which was least important. The subject which then occupied the greatest share in their discussions was, as he took it, the part of the Bill I which, in matters of treason, provided for the assimilation of the law of Ireland to that of England. To that he saw no reasonable objection whatever. If the peace of Ireland were to be restored, if the Go-

vernment were to put down sedition and treason, which he might say had been exhibited in a most revolting and disgusting form, it could not be done in a less exceptionable manner than in making the law of Ireland conform to that of England. It was plain that, if the law had not been stringent enough in Ireland, it had been too strict in England; and that if it had been too lax in the one country, it had been too severe in the other. It would appear that in this country, wherein the tendency to treason had never been so strong as in the other, you had, nevertheless, the stronger law against treason, and it could be no hardship to extend that law to the other. To that portion of the Bill, he, like the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), felt no objection. But that which, in his eyes, gave to the Bill its peculiar character, was the infringement it proposed upon that liberty of speech which had hitherto been the boast of Englishmen, and one of the great safeguards of our liberties. Once let it become the law of the land that spoken words—not words only tending to the destruction of the Sovereign, and to the promotion of rebellion, but words which may be construed as tending to impair the freedom of discussion in either or both Houses of Parliament, or may be interpreted as tending to overawe their deliberations—may subject the speaker to transportation for seven years, or for life; and it seemed to him that no man whatever would be safe in addressing a public meeting in times of political excitement. It was in such times, when men were roused by some invasion of their privileges, or were stimulated by a strong desire to extend them—when multitudes were gathered together, and when mind and feeling were glowing and ardent with popular aspirations—that it became morally impossible to weigh and measure every word and syllable, so as to stand secure against the misinterpretation of an ignorant reporter, or the perversion of a malignant spy. The excellency of the art of reporting was very great. There were, he knew, some men who, in the exercise of an almost magic power, could give a truthful reflex of the thoughts and expressions of the most impassioned speaker; but they were all liable to mistakes; and those who had had any opportunity of observing such matters, would agree with him in saying that the most truthful and accurate of reporters might make mistakes which seri-

ously affected the sense and meaning of particular passages, especially when taken out of connexion, and subjected to legal as well as literary criticism. He had never in his life found reporters who were at all times proof against mistakes; and least of all was greater accuracy to be expected from the reporters of the police, who might go to meetings with preconceived notions of the speaker's opinions, and perhaps with a disposition to pervert his arguments. No man was safe with such chances against him; and in those times when prosecutions were common for spoken words, law was trampled under foot, and evil days came upon the country. They all knew that most atrocious injustice had been perpetrated under the disguise of the forms of law—honestly it might be—but at all events perpetrated by accusations of this kind against men utterly incapable of speaking words in the meaning, spirit, and tendency ascribed to them, and for which they suffered fine and imprisonment. If this Bill became law, he recommended every person going to a public meeting to write his speech, and to put it into his pocket. But it was not merely misconstruction of words—it was the true and fair construction of them which might sometimes involve the best of men in the meshes of such a law as this. "Spoken language tending to overawe the deliberations of either House of Parliament." What indignant attack on a corrupt or profligate Minister—what honest opposition to an unconstitutional Legislature—could escape such a net as that? He had heard in the times of the Reform agitation, over and over again, language from Gentlemen now hon. Members of that House, and who had become hon. Members of it on account of the

fervency and boldness with which they expressed their opinions, which might well have been set down as tending to overawe the Houses of Parliament. Had this Bill then been law, these Gentlemen might have been liable to transportation. And he had heard language which might have been so construed, not merely from them, but from more than one right hon. Gentleman in that House, who were Members of Her Majesty's Government. He trusted that infringement on the acknowledged liberty of the country, that any attack on its best privileges, had not been seriously and deliberately made and introduced by the Government; but they had been led astray by looking to the insane and wicked

speeches of Irish demagogues; and that in determining to find a remedy for the mischief of Irish agitation, they had forgotten the more tremendous mischief they were about to bring on this country. It was by public meetings, and by public speaking, the people made their voices heard; it was by those means that public opinion was best elicited. The political writer spoke to people in their homes; his written thoughts fell quietly and without excitement on their minds; they might be read and considered calmly and tranquilly; but it was by public meetings—it was in the collision of mind with mind—it was at the gatherings of those whose advantage and happiness were the object and end of all legitimate and good government —whose well-being was the great triumph for which statesmen and rulers called into exercise the whole force of their intellectual powers and abilities—it was by public meetings alone that public opinion could make itself felt, and it was by such meetings that the people of this country had made their opinions known, felt, and respected. They were more than this. If there was anything in the whole round of our law and practice, more than another, part and parcel of the British constitution, it was the right of the people to assemble in public meeting; and that right was one of the very last portions of the constitution with which they should consent to part. It was in the exercise of that power they found redress for their wrongs—it was thus they claimed privileges denied, while at the same time they found means to show they were not undeserving of them. The feelings which thus found vent were in general worthy of human nature; and though there were miscellaneous assemblages, in public squares, where violent men, accustomed to associate with each other only, and to enter into no conflict of opinions, uttered violent language, these were the exceptional and not the ruling cases. Let them take any fair public meeting in this city, and they would find truth and justice, propriety and moderation, possessing the ascendancy over all the opposite qualities. He had that confidence in human nature which induced him to rely on the native integrity of those assemblies of the people, and often had he seen the working men at them rebuke the use of intemperate language, and become the monitors and reprobators of those in higher stations who should have been their teachers. The lower orders possessed qualities which

were, he feared, but little appreciated or understood. He trusted that (whatever measures might be necessary for preserving the peace in Ireland), this liberty which they had so often asserted, might yet be spared to them—this privilege which compensated them but in a degree for inequality of laws, of institutions, and of taxation. The people who suffered the most, still lived in hopes of better times and of more extended prosperity. The noble Lord at the head of the Government seemed to look abroad with feelings only of alarm. He regarded the events with which all Europe rang from side to side—the noble Lord regarded the events on the Continent only as stimulating guilty desires and guilty efforts. A philosophic statesman—a truehearted man—might have seen another feature in these great occurrences, and might have received them otherwise than as stimulating to guilty desires and guilty efforts, which, limited to a small compass, could easily be dealt with, and, by the strong arm of power be crushed in the dust. Public opinion would go in glad response with such an act as that. But the events which the noble Lord considered as stimulating to guilty desires and guilty efforts, stimulated as well to acts and efforts which were noble and honourable. Among those honourable desires and honourable efforts was the desire on the part of the working classes of this country—who had far more intelligence and far higher morality than he feared they had credit given them for—among the honourable desires which the events on the Continent had naturally and inevitably raised in the minds of the working classes of this country, was the desire of obtaining for themselves a political status—of being themselves free, while they heard the shouts of the world around them, rejoicing at their newly-gained freedom—of making a way for themselves by peaceful and constitutional means—which were the only means the great body of the working classes wished to employ—for the attainment of political advantages; and upon such desires, such pursuits, and such efforts, the noble Lord, he thought, might have looked a little more benignantly; he might, he conceived, have spared some gracious words for them while he administered a stern rebuke to others; and, in connexion with a law relating to offences and crimes, to pains and penalties, he might have intermixed a promise and a hope that those who entertained the hon-

ourable desires to which he had referred, might soon be enabled to share in the extension of the liberty which the world was now gaining. In the attainment and in the appreciation of those advantages—which the people must and would obtain before a long period elapsed—the noble Lord would have found a better Bill, a more perfect enactment, a living "law written in the heart," for the security of Her Majesty's Crown and Government.

LORD J. RUSSELL: The hon. Gentleman, who spoke so ably in the introduction of his address, has, I think, so far erred, that he has not waited to see the Bill, or to judge of the terms in which it is framed, before he passed a censure upon the proposition of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman spoke, and spoke very naturally, of the danger of affixing a heavy punishment to spoken words—words, it may be, spoken in heat and without premeditation. But when the hon. Gentleman goes on to say that we propose a too heavy punishment for words which may have been intended to overawe the Houses of Parliament, I think he has judged without seeing the Bill which we propose to bring in, and without knowing what its contents may be. It appears to me to be a totally different thing to condemn a man for speaking words which may of themselves be violent, or mischievous, or seditious, and to condemn a man for speaking words which have for their object either to depose the Sovereign of the realm, to excite to the levying of war, or to induce persons to apply for aid from foreign countries for the purpose of levying war. Now, this, as I understand, without reference to spoken words, but with reference to public writings, was the meaning of the Act of 1796. It enumerates various particulars, such as exciting persons to levy war for the purpose of imposing restraints upon the Sovereign, for the purpose of inducing the Sovereign to change his measures, and for the purpose of overawing and intimidating the Houses of Parliament. These are circumstances which are mentioned in that Act; but the action itself which is condemned is the using spoken words or publishing writings for the purpose of exciting persons to levy war. The levying war is a different thing from those offences which are vague and undefined. The offence of overawing the Houses of Parliament must be admitted to be of great danger and abuse; but the direct excitement to levy war against the Sovereign, whether that war be for the purpose of imposing personal restraint upon the Sovereign, or whether it be for the purpose of overawing Parliament, the excitement to levy war is of itself a grave and substantive offence; and yet the hon. Gentleman, in his description of the Bill, has either from ignorance or misapprehension entirely omitted the crime of the levying of war as forming any part of the measure. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will so far suspend his judgment, that he will not entirely upon a misapprehension condemn this part of the Bill; but that he will wait until he sees the Bill before he passes his final judgment upon it. I admit that there is danger in extending penalties of this kind to words spoken; but at the same time we have to consider that the penalty of high treason has frequently been awarded for words spoken—often a very few words—when they were supposed to express treasonable sentiments. At the present time—especially of late—instead of secret conspiracies and counsels in the dark to overthrow the monarchy, it has become a common means of compassing treason to address speeches to large masses of people, and to use words exciting to the levying of war and to the use of arms for the purpose of overbearing all legitimate authority in the country, and thereby of compassing mischievous and dangerous ends. When the mode of overturning the Government is changed, it is necessary to change the punishment. It is, I think, far better to apply the punishment of felony for this offence, than to make the Act in all respects like the Act of 1796, which applies the penalties of high treason to it. It may be argued that the punishment is still very severe; but I must say, I cannot help feeling that this excitement to levy war, which may actually result in levying war, and which was punished with death under the laws of Edward III., is really very lightly dealt with, considering the serious nature of the crime, and the condign punishment which might otherwise be inflicted. I will, however, not continue an argument on this subject until the House has had an opportunity of seeing this Bill. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke, has said that the only allusion I made to the events which have taken place on the Continent was—to repeat the words I used—to the existence of "guilty hopes and guilty desires." The hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to recollect that I used those words in speaking of attempts which I thought might be made to disturb the peace of this metropolis, and not whilst giving my general opinion in respect to events which have taken place on the continent of Europe. It would not have been becoming in me, as I thought, upon this occasion, to enter into any comment upon those events; but, as the hon. Gentleman has so far misunderstood me, I must say, that whilst my feeling from the contemplation of those events is, I confess, of a mixed character, I cannot but rejoice in any part of those events which gives to nations who have not hitherto had the benefit of a national representation, political liberty, and a free press—those inestimable benefits. I do not now wish to distinguish—I think I should be liable to much misrepresentation if I did—between the parts of those events which cannot but be viewed with joy by every Englishman, and such parts of those events as are likely to give rise to apprehension. I trust that the final issue of those events may be increased liberty to the Continent. I cannot well, I think, have been so long a Member of the House of Commons of this country—I cannot have been a subject of these realms, without being delighted to see those benefits which this country has so long enjoyed extended to other countries of Europe. But when the hon. Gentleman speaks of the benefits that are to be derived to this country, and the honourable designs which are entertained in consequence of those events, I must say that much of what has been done on the Continent, much of what has been struggled for and earned at the expense of bloodshed—at the expense of civil conflicts—at the expense of the suspension of trade and industry—much of what has been thus obtained at an enormous cost, and by enormous sacrifices, but not too dearly, has been long enjoyed by the favoured people of this country. When, therefore, I am told that the people of this country have much to encourage them in what has taken place upon the continent of Europe, I say our position is such that, more than one hundred and fifty years ago, not only those articles of constitutional right which others may prize were obtained, but the foundations were laid for other benefits and other advantages, which were to be gained in the gradual progress of human society—as the light of literature—as the information of public opinion—:as the advancing humanity of mankind taught men better how to prize and how to secure the advantages of equal rights and of common civilisation. I do say, therefore, Sir, that with respect to our progress in late years, and our progress in future years, I think that, having obtained by a free press, by public discussion—which I do not believe this Bill will impair—and by Parliamentary representation, the means of improving all those blessings, we have no need to enter on any bloody or doubtful struggle; but we may rely on the constant and peaceful progress of human affairs, and upon the advantages which I am glad to see gained of increased liberty, for a steady and continual advance towards perfection.

The House divided:—Ayes 283; Noes 24: Majority 259.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE said, in moving that the Bill be read a Second Time, it was not his intention to make any observations. If the House allowed it to be read a second time, it was his intention, in accordance with a very generally expressed wish on the part of the Irish Members, to propose that it be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. OSBORNE wished to say a few words on the Bill before it was read a second time. A Bill had already been brought in, which he must guard himself by saying that he only voted for on the understanding that he should have an unfettered discretion in discussing the clauses in the Committee; and he believed that many other Members had only voted for it with the same intention. No Bill connected with Ireland had ever been looked for with greater anxiety than that for the improvement of the relations between landlord and tenant. It had been well remarked, that the subject was surrounded with difficulties. A measure more calculated to involve Ireland in the meshes of the law—more calculated to create discontent amongst both landlords and tenants, had never been introduced by Her Majesty's Government. What was required in Ireland was a measure to facilitate a free sale in the article of land. The Government should bring in a Bill to allow entailed estates to be sold, and to give security to titles. What was wanted in Ireland was not so much political reform as social regeneration; and unless the Government were prepared to bring in a Bill to "loosen" the land, all their present measures would be labour in vain.

MR. SADLIER said, there were two or three classes of landlords in Ireland. There were those who held by inheritance—a small number probably, not more than 8,000; and amongst those the griping, grinding landlord was the exception and not the rule. Another body, and a much more numerous one, were those who derived their interest under leases for lives renewable for ever; and amongst those the tyrannical landlord was the exception and not the rule. Then there were the middlemen, who held a very precarious tenure; and they were the worst class. He feared that the majority of that class of landlords known in Ireland as middlemen were highly objectionable, and that their example was such as could not, with safety or propriety, be followed. With respect to the Bill now under consideration, he would observe, that he thought it was highly desirable that a special instruction should be given to the Select Committee to whom it was to be referred to consider whether it was not possible to entirely do away with the statutory enactments which at present regulated the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland, and to substitute in their place a speedy, simple, and economical system, whereby the right of the landlord to the possession of the land, and to the rent which the tenant had contracted to pay him, should be declared and secured.

MR. MONSELL: The Bill having failed in its present state to give satisfaction to any class in Ireland, it was right that the Irish people should be given to understand that the House, in now acceding to the proposal that it be read a second time, did not mean thereby to express their approval of the measure. He, for one, did not hesitate to say that his only reason for consenting to the second reading was, that it was intended to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, by whom, he hoped that it would be so completely altered that its parents should not be able to recognise it when it again made its appearance in that House.

The EARL of LINCOLN did not mean at that moment to enter into any discussion on the details of the Bill. If the Bill had been proposed for second reading on the customary understanding that its provisions should be subsequently considered in a Committee of the whole House, he should have offered some remarks on it, and pointed out in what respects he believed it to be impracticable, and in what respects inexpedient. However, the proposal which had now emanated front the Government, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee—a proposal which he believed to be nothing more nor less than a contrivance for decently interring the measure— superseded the necessity of indulging in any such line of observation. He did not pretend to any singular gift of prophecy, but he nevertheless would not hesitate to predict that, if the Bill, with all its various provisions, were referred, as proposed, to a Select Committee, it would never again return to the House of Commons. He felt bound to protest against the course taken by the Government with respect to this question. The Government were not acting fairly by that House or by Ireland in the course they were adopting. He did not know, whether they were acting in conformity with the suggestions of Irish Members; but be that as it might, it was, at all events, certain that they were not doing justice to the vast importance of the question at issue, by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. The proceeding, however, was in strict conformity with the policy theretofore adopted by the Government, who seemed determined to abdicate the functions of their office, and to deliver over all necessary measures of legislation to a body of some fifteen or sixteen Gentlemen. Already the Bank Charter Act, the Estimates, the Budget, and the management of one entire department of the Government, had been referred to Select Committees; and now, because another Government measure affecting a question which had been for years before the House had been disapproved of by all parties, the suggestion was, not to withdraw the obnoxious Bill, but to refer it to a Select Committee. Did the Government intend to adhere to the Bill, or did they not? If they had arrived at the conclusion that it was impracticable, impolitic, and not suited to its purpose, it was due to

the House—it was due to Ireland—it was due to the great importance of the question involved—that they should withdraw the measure altogether, and either totally abandon the idea of legislating on the subject, or endeavour to legislate in a new spirit, and according to a new form. If, on the other hand, Government was resolved to persevere with the Bill, being convinced that its provisions were salutary, and that it was in all respects suited to its purpose, instead of sending it to a Select Committee, they ought, according to customary form, to submit it to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House, before whom they ought to maintain its provisions seriatim. It would be in the recollection of the House, how often taunts were thrown out against the Government, of which he had had the honour of being a Member, that they vacillated and hesitated with respect to this question, because the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had been of opinion that it was right to appoint a Commission of five practical and able Irish Gentlemen to inquire into the matter, and to report to that House. They were told that there was no necessity for that Commission, for that the question was quite ripe for legislation. The Commission, however, was appointed. It reported, and as soon as was practicable after the presentation of its report, a measure was brought in by the Government of that day to improve the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland. That Bill, which was unfortunately laid upon the table of the other House at so late a period that it was not found practicable to proceed with it, was transferred to the new Government, who withdrew it. The whole of last Session had passed away without any legislation on so vital a question having been attempted. The present Government had now been two years in office. They had had ample opportunity of leisure to consider the subject, and to mature their legislation, and the time had now most assuredly arrived when they should either maintain the measure they had introduced, or notify their intention of altogether abandoning the idea of legislating on the matter.

SIR G. GREY: Nobody ought to be a better authority on the difficulty of legislating on such a subject as the present than the noble Lord. He had referred to the Commission which had been appointed by the Government, of which he was himself a Member, to inquire into the whole question of landlord and tenant in Ireland; but the noble Lord should forgive him for expressing a doubt whether, however honest might have been the intention of those who proposed that Commission, any beneficial result whatever had followed from it. All that it appeared to have done was to accumulate and lay before the House a mass of conflicting evidence, which tended rather to bewilder than enlighten those who directed their attention to the subject. The noble Lord had stated, that no sooner was the report of the Commission before Parliament, than with a remarkable promptitude, which he contrasted invidiously with the tardiness of the present Government, there was laid upon the table of the other House a Bill, with respect to which all be could say was, that being presented at a late period of the Session there was not time to consider its provisions. The Bill in question was not presented at so late a period as the noble Lord seemed to imagine; but the fact was, that it had to encounter so decisive an opposition from all sides of the House of Lords, that it became evident to the Government that their only prospect—he would not say of "decently interring the measure," but of disposing of it—was to do what he now condemned the present Government for doing, namely, to refer it to a Select Committee. To a Select Committee it was accordingly referred, and that Committee did most, effectively perform the duty of an undertaker with respect to it; for from that day to this it had never once made its appearance in that House. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: That was Lord Stanley's Bill.] It was Lord Stanley's Bill; but the noble Lord (Lord Lincoln) was the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests in the same Government with Lord Stanley; and when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) came to be in a Government, he would find that every Member of the Administration was held responsible for measures introduced under their sanction. He did not impute to the noble Lord an intentional mis-statement of the circumstances to which he had referred, but he thought the noble Lord must have forgotten the circumstances of the case. He knew that the noble Lord was animated by the most friendly feelings towards Ireland, and he was no doubt anxious to promote a really beneficial measure for that country; but, perhaps, he might be permitted to say that the Bill which the late Government brought in the year they left office contained all the clauses which were to be found in the present Bill with regard to arbitration and notices, and all the complicated machinery that constituted the main objections to the present measure. He admitted that there were objections to the Bill, and they were such as he should gladly see avoided. The Bill had undergone the best consideration that could be given to it; but he was perfectly prepared to admit that great difficulties lay in the way of a thorough adjustment of the question. The Government had not adopted the measure till after communications with persons in Ireland best acquainted with the subject, and their advice taken as to what would be most conducive to the object sought to be attained. It was proper, also, he should state that the Lord Lieutenant had expressed an earnest desire that the Bill should be considered by a Select Committee; and it was known to the House that in making the proposal that it be sent to a Committee, the Government were consulting the wishes of the Irish Members. He hoped there was no danger of its being "decently interred" by that Committee, but that it would receive such amendment as would make it acceptable to the House. If the Bill, however, was thought by the Irish Members to be one not suited to the circumstances of the country, the Government would not force it upon them; and but for the wish expressed by them he would have been ready to discuss the Bill on its second reading now, instead of sending it to a Select Committee upstairs.

COLONEL DUNNE said, if there was any fault in recommending that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, he shared in it. This was the recommendation of other Irish Members, and of a deputation sent from Ireland. If the Government, therefore, had taken a blameable course, the majority of the Irish Members partook of the blame. He knew it would be a difficult subject for a Committee.

CAPTAIN JONES said, the right hon. Baronet had admitted the objection he entertained to the Bill, namely, as to its machinery, which would involve parties in endless litigation.

SIR W. VERNER was so convinced that the would not come out of the Committee so deprived of its objectionable parts as to be satisfactory to the people of Ireland, that he should move that it be read a second time that day six months.

MR. KEOGH seconded this Amend- ment. When the Bill was introduced to the House, it was extraordinary that the right hon. Baronet did not express an opinion favourable to the principle of the measure; he plunged at once into the details, but did not say he considered it suited to the emergencies of Ireland. He (Mr. Keogh) thought the Bill, by its machinery, was calculated to inflict upon the country a great amount of evil, and it was because he considered that it would cause so much litigation that he opposed the Bill. He did not think it was dealing fairly to refer the Bill to a Committee. The Bill to which the noble Lord (the Earl of Lincoln) alluded was not referred to a Select Committee. That Bill was proceeded with as far as the noble Lord could; but the present Government did not consider it expedient to go on with that Bill, and promised to introduce another. The hon. Member for Rochdale then introduced his Bill; but the Government said they would bring in a Bill. Two years had passed, and now, at this period of the Session, having promised at the commencement that remedial measures for Ireland should be proposed, and that a Landlord and Tenant Bill should be one, the House was now told that this Bill was similar in principle to the Bill of the noble Lord, and that the Government could do nothing more than refer it to a Select Committee. [Sir G. GREY: That was at the request of the Members for Ireland.] He was sorry that the right hon. Baronet had been led to misapprehend what he had said. He wished it to be understood that, as an Irish Member, he knew of no such representations as had that night been made; he knew of no one entitled to represent himself as representing the Irish Members in that House; but, of course, every Irish representative was entitled to communicate his impression of the state of opinion in the part of the United Kingdom which sent him to that House. Now, he did not believe that the people of Ireland had the least wish for any Bill of this kind. As to sending it before a Select Committee, he saw no reason for taking any such course as that; and he did not doubt that its effect would be to defeat the measure wholly. He could not help remarking, that he had heard no proposition for reading the Bill a second time in the usual way, with a view to its being considered by a Committee of the whole House; and though he was but little acquainted with the forms or the practice of that House, it did strike his mind as extraordinary, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should lay a Bill upon the table of that House without making any remark whatever. As the House had heard nothing from that right hon. Baronet on the subject, it could not be expected that other Members of that House would be prepared to go into the details of the measure; but whenever the Bill came to be fairly and fully discussed, he should be prepared to show that it was vicious in principle, and so impracticable in its details, that he did not believe it could ever be practically carried out. There was scarcely any intelligent or dispassionate person from one end of the kingdom to the other who did not join in condemning the Bill. The House should remember that this Bill was opposed to the opinions of the men of the north—the most industrious and the most prosperous portion of Ireland; and he would add, too, the most loyal and the most attached to British connexion—men more ready to act than to talk. He again protested against the measure, saying that he should not discharge the duty that he owed to his constituents if he did not thus emphatically oppose the proposed Bill.

MR. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL said, that the speech which the House had just heard seemed to him a specimen of nisi Prius pleading. Considered as an attempt against the Bill, he regarded the speech of his hon. and learned Friend as a complete failure. It was impossible for any one who spoke after him not to call the attention of the House to the fact that his hon. Friend never once stated any principle on which the Bill had been objected to. He told the House of its unpopularity; but he did not tell them anything about the grounds of its unpopularity, or whether he did or did not concur in the views of his opponents. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to object to all legislation on the subject. As to his own view of the question, he did not want to see compensation granted for mere occupancy; but he thought it ought to be received by a tenant on account of substantial improvements. It was to be regretted that the Bill, which had been prepared some time ago on the subject, had been delayed by the illness of Lord Besborough, and eventually abandoned in consequence of the fatal and much lamented termination of that illness; and he hoped, whatever legislation there might be on the subject, that it would be brought to maturity as little as possible

under the influence of members of the legal profession. He hoped the House would not agree to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh, for he believed that nothing would have a greater tendency to disturb the peace of Ireland than the summary rejection of this measure.

The EARL of LINCOLN observed, that on the same ground on which he opposed the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee, he would feel bound to oppose the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir W. Verner). He opposed the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee, because he sincerely wished to see good legislation on this important subject; and on the same ground he would oppose the Motion for the postponing the second reading, because he considered that if they did not legislate on the question during this Session, the probability was that they would never legislate upon it at all. He maintained, notwithstanding the taunts of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey), that the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee would be a virtual abandonment of the measure. He (the Earl of Lincoln) had himself introduced a measure on this subject; and he candidly admitted the truth of the statement which had been made, that the machinery by which he had proposed to carry out that measure was in some respects objectionable. But he only objected to those provisions of the Bill now before the House which were entirely new; he did not complain of those provisions which had been taken from his own Bill, and, therefore, his opposition to this measure was perfectly consistent. His object was to protect the rights of property, and to simplify the machinery by which it was proposed to carry out the provisions of this Bill.

MR. AGLIONBY said, that though he doubted the expediency of such a measure as that before the House, he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, because he believed the Government had brought it forward in accordance with what they believed to be the wishes of the great majority of the Irish Members. He must say, however, that he thought the Bill in its present shape proposed very mischievous interference between landlords and tenants; and he considered it most desirable that it should be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. GROGAN was opposed to the Bill. He thought it unjust to Ireland to intro- duce there a system of interference with the contracts between landlord and tenant that was not applicable and found to work in this country. He was anxious to see the question involved in this Bill fairly and finally settled by well-considered legislation; he was quite against this eternal tampering with the relation between landlord and tenant; but he did not think the mode proposed was right. If the Bill must go to a Committee at all, he should prefer a Select Committee.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON said, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir W. Verner) would not press his Amendment to a division: the question before the House, on the second reading, was the principle of the Bill only, and the principle was to be found in the preamble. The preamble states, that "it is expedient to amend the law of landlord and tenant, and to provide compensation for tenants making permanent improvement." Now, although, in his opinion, there was much that was objectionable in the Bill, and though he would be unwilling, in any way, to pledge himself to its details, yet several Bills having been introduced on the subject, and all of them having been read a second time, he thought it would be neither fair, nor just, nor expedient, to reject this Bill on the second reading. No one knew better than he (Mr. Hamilton) did the difficulties connected with any attempt at legislation on this subject; and, perhaps, it was impossible to frame any measure which could be free from those difficulties. But he thought, on the whole, it would be better to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and after it came from that Committee, they would have the opportunity of considering its details in a Committee of the whole House. At all events, he felt sure that the time was come when they should either legislate on the subject, or else all attempts at legislation should be abandoned.

Amendment withdrawn.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.

House adjourned at a quarter-past One o'clock.