after objecting to various alterations which had been made in the Bill, requested that the third reading should be postponed for a week; and on his being refused, moved that it should be read a third time that day six months. The inhabitants of Dublin and Drogheda, and all along the line of the road, had petitioned against the Bill, and it would be too bad for English Members to enforce this bill upon them.

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

as Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, said that he feared a delay of only a week would be injurious. The hon. Member for Dublin had strenuously exerted himself against the Bill in Committee; but the Committee had unanimously thought it a measure which ought to pass. He was satisfied that justice had been done the citizens of Dublin.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 8: Majority 57.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3°, and passed.

said, a Bill for the abolition of the Palace Court stood for the second reading to-day, and as it was a matter of some importance, he wished to know what course the Government intended to take with respect to it.

said, very early in the Session he had stated, in reply to a question, that the subject of the Palace Court was under the consideration of the Government, and that a Bill with respect to it would be introduced as speedily as possible. He had now to state that early next week he hoped to be in a condition to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law for the recovery of small debts, and that he should introduce a clause relative to the abolition of the Palace Court. If the Bill should be road a second time, he would move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether the officers holding appointments in that court were entitled to any, and what, compensation.

wished to know, after the statement of the Attorney General, whether the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) intended to press the second reading of his Bill relative to the Palace Court?

said, he put a question some time ago to the Government, which was answered very indirectly, and he then gave notice of his intention to bring in a Bill, and having done so, he now thought it his duty to persevere with it.

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, 1. Whether it was a fact that Mr. Ernest Jones had applied to the visiting justices for liberty to petition the House of Commons; and, 2. Whether he had applied for permission to write to the Judge to ascertain whether his treatment in prison was in accordance with the sentence passed on him?

said, that on making inquiries he found that Ernest Jones had applied to him several times, complaining of the treatment to which he had been subjected in prison. The first communication he had received was in February last. In consequence of this complaint, he (Sir G. Grey) had directed an inspection to be made of the prison, the result of which was, that, upon examination, it was found that the treatment of the prisoner was approved of, so far as the officers of the prison were concerned. After that, Ernest Jones had complained of the regulations of the prison; but the prisoner had not been placed by the Judge among the first class of misdemeanants, and hence the inconveniences complained of, which, however, were incidental to the particular class in which the prisoner was included. An objection had been made to the prisoner sending a letter inclosing a petition to Parliament, on the ground that such an application was limited by the prison regulations to once in three months.

wished to know if a prisoner, after having sent one communication within the specified period, should be subjected to unjustifiable treatment, he was debarred from petitioning Parliament, or writing to the Judge?

said, that a person under such circumstances had always power to send a statement to the Secretary of State at any time.

Subject dropped.

said, that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had a night or two ago asked him the cause of the delay in the printing of certain returns of the Board of Trade. On inquiry, he found he had been wrong in attributing the delay to the printers of the House of Commons. It appeared that these returns were different from former ones; that they contained many items which were not to be found in former ones, and that it was necessary to proceed upon a new system of compilation. The consequence was, that the officers of the Customs and of the Board of Trade, in their anxiety to prevent error in these returns, had themselves caused the delay. He trusted that delay would not take place in future.

trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not consider him guilty of any want of courtesy in making the statement he did the other night to the House, seeing that he was present when he made it. He was at all times most unwilling to press too hardly upon public officers for public returns; but considering that the budget was originally appointed for the 15th instant, considering also that he had given notice of a Motion with respect to the general state of the nation, he thought that it would not be conceived that he acted unreasonably in pressing for this return. He should be very much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would State when the new system pursued with respect to the preparation of public documents came into operation.

said, that probably the hon. Gentleman had observed, in the last monthly returns, several additional articles introduced into the accounts. In the exports of British produce and manufactures, the quantity was given as well as the declared value.

Subject dropped.

said, he had received a communication from Lancashire, stating that the political prisoners lately committed were required to wear masks, which, considering their offence, he thought was most uncalled for and unnecessary. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary would make a communication to the visiting magistrates to put an end to such a proceeding.

said, he knew nothing of the facts of the case, but he supposed the persons referred to were prisoners who had been sentenced to transportation for life for conspiring against the constitution and public peace. If so, they were treated according to the regulations of the gaol in which they were confined.

asked if there would be any objection to lay a copy of the regulations on the table, in order that they might see whether the present Government or their predecessors had given their countenance to the regulations referred to? Were they submitted for the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department?

replied, that all the orders were submitted for the approval of the Secretary of State. Masks were worn when prisoners were in association, to prevent their mutual recognition. No recent regulations had been framed with respect to these precautions.

Subject dropped.

in reply to Mr. Hume, said that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated a few nights ago, that he thought it better that the French Government should be allowed to explain its own conduct with respect to recent proceedings in Rome. His noble Friend had applied to the French Government to know whether they would object to the communications they had made to the Court of Vienna being presented to the House of Commons; and an answer had been received stating that they had no objection to such communications being produced. It would be for his noble Friend to consider how far it would be expedient to produce those communications; but he certainly had not thought he should be authorised in producing them without the consent of the French Government.

Subject at an end.

rose to present a petition from Messrs. Smith O'Brien, Meagher, M'Manus, and O'Donohoe, praying to be heard by counsel, agents and witnesses against the Bill. The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to read the contents of the petition, when

rose, and said, I wish to submit to you, Sir—the hon. and learned Gentleman having read the names of these petitioners, persons who have been attainted of high treason—whether this House can receive that petition?

replied, that one petition had already been presented, but he could not at the moment call to mind whether any petition of this kind had been refused by Parliament or not.

was again proceeding to read the petition, when

recommended that the Attorney General should be consulted on the point.

rose to order. He would submit to the Speaker and the House, whether, the Speaker having decided the matter, his decision ought not to be final with the House, more particularly when they recollected the position of these unfortunate gentlemen?

said, he could not give an opinion founded on his recollection of any similar case; and it was for the House to decide any question of this kind, whether they would receive the petition or not.

had not thought the Speaker had settled the question, or he would not for a moment have risen. He thought, under the circumstances, notice of the intention to present the petition ought to be given.

said, that his hon. and learned Friend (the Member for the University of Dublin) hav- ing mentioned to him a short time ago that he was about to present the petition, he had felt it his duty to state to the noble Lord at the head of the Government the doubts which he felt on the subject, because it was quite plain that a convicted traitor was not allowed to be heard in a I court of law; and he thought it at least worthy of consideration whether such a person could be heard in that House on petition. It was true, a few days since a petition was presented from Smith O'Brien, but he understood there had been no notice of it, and nobody was aware of the difficulty attached to the point. He had asked the opinion of other lawyers, and amongst others that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon; and although it might be a question of importance to the petitioners to be heard, they wore of opinion that it would be laying down a serious precedent if the House should decide that the petition was to be received. He had done the best he could to search in the library for precedents, but could not discover that the matter had ever before arisen; and as the House would be now laying down a very serious precedent, he thought the House would see no objection to his calling the noble Lord's attention to the subject.

said, that, as it had been stated that the petition presented by the hon. Member for Limerick a few nights ago had been presented without any previous communication, it was due to his hon. Friend to state that he did inform him (Sir G. Grey) of his intention to present the petition, and he did not know of the objection to the reception of the petition; and if there was any blame in presenting the petition without first calling the attention of the House to it, that blame ought properly to fall upon him as well as on the hon. Gentleman.

said, that in consequence of the great precipitancy with which this Bill had been pressed through its different stages in the other House, he had only that day received a letter stating that the petition would be presented. He observed that the second reading of the Bill was down on the Paper for that day. The petition had only just reached his hands in time, but he had communicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, what course he should take. It was clear that in a court of law, if a verdict were obtained, the parties might be heard on appeal; but he apprehended that it was contrary to the spirit of the constitution that these petitioners should not he heard. They prayed to he heard by counsel at the bar. If the House thought it was necessary that he should give notice, perhaps he might be allowed to mention the substance of the petition, and then postpone the further consideration of it till a future day.

thought it would be better that the hon. and learned Gentleman should postpone the presentation of the petition. The House had already come to a resolution, the result of which was that William Smith O'Brien was stated to have been attainted of high treason, and they had thereupon proceeded to declare his seat vacant, and they moved a new writ for the place which William Smith O'Brien had formerly represented. Under these circumstances the House was perfectly aware that William Smith O'Brien was an attainted traitor, and under these circumstances he thought it was desirable not to receive the petition from him until they ascertained whether there would be anything informal in admitting him as a petitioner to the House. He would therefore suggest that it would be better to give the House an opportunity to consider the question, and by to-morrow, perhaps, they might come to a decision.

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would persist in taking the sense of the House on the reading of the petition, because if there was no precedent against receiving a petition from any supplicant, however humble or defenceless, he did not think this the time of day when they ought to establish one. He (Mr. Anstey) would accept the analogy of the hon. and learned Attorney General between the superior courts of law and petitioning the Hight Court of Parliament. It was well known that although Smith O 'Brien had been attainted on an Attainder Act, he might at any time come into a court of law and impeach the justice of the proceedings taken against him. That was decided as long ago as the time of Queen Mary. Or if he were removed, in defiance of the Habeas Corpus Act, to Jersey, and imprisoned there, he would be entitled to sue out a habeas corpus to be brought before the courts of law here. Again, a convicted traitor might call in question the proceedings under which he had been convicted, and prosecute his appeal from court to court until he reached the highest court; and if there was any reason in the world why his petition should not be heard in that House, the same reason would not allow him to prosecute his writ of error in the House of Lords. If there was anything objectionable in the petition, let them make no mention of it, if necessary, in the records of the House; but in the meantime let them hear the petition.

said, it appeared to him that the speciality of this case warranted the House in receiving this petition, in the circumstances in which the House was placed, because they were about to be parties to a legislative proceeding, and that legislative proceeding stated—"Whereas doubts have arisen as to the power of the Crown to mitigate the punishment of offenders under judgment of death for treason in Ireland;" and the Crown was to be empowered to extend mercy, and to order the transportation of such offender for the term of the natural life of such offender. It seemed that that sentence could not with propriety be carried into effect without the intervention of the House of Commons. An Act of Parliament was necessary. Under those circumstances was there anything to disentitle these parties from approaching the House? It did appear to him that, as they were about to adopt legislative proceedings, the case was a peculiar one, and that the parties had a right to approach the House to protest against the Bill.

said, with reference to the petition which had been presented to the House, it was impossible to consider it without at the same time considering the nature of the Act to which it had reference. The nature of this Act was, to substitute the punishment of transportation for life for that of death. That petition, as he took it, prayed that the late law should stand as it was, and that the petitioners prayed that they might be hanged. He thought the petition should not be disposed of by being suddenly forced upon the House. He did not see how they could come to a determination as to receiving the petition until they had looked for precedents. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give notice, and present the petition to-morrow.

presumed that in all past times, and now, men in the unfortunate position of these individuals would have the liberty of approaching the Crown for the purpose of asking for a mitigation or remission of sentence. That House was not in the position of the Crown; but, inas- much as there was a Bill before the House, and as there was no precedent, they could not be doing wrong, in a case of this kind, where they were not pursuing an unmerciful and a harsh course, in receiving this petition. The proper course was to throw open the right to petition as widely as possible, for no danger could arise from it. He hoped the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth would be taken.

hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not withdraw this petition. It had been stated that there was no precedent for this case. If there was a precedent, it was against the Government, because the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had admitted that a petition had been presented a few days previously from those gentlemen with his knowledge. But the whole thing was without a precedent; everything connected with the whole matter was unprecedented, and therefore he saw no advantage by delaying the petition till to-morrow, especially as they did not know how many stages might be got through that night. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman were asked to withdraw the petition, would the Government withdraw the Bill till tomorrow? Because, otherwise the hon. and learned Gentleman would stultify himself in withholding this petition against the Bill in question, and allowing the Bill to proceed one or two stages that night. He had the authority of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth on their side, that having the principle of mercy and justice in view, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would persist in presenting the petition.

was surprised, after the debate of Friday, that so much lenity should be extended on the other side of the Atlantic, and so little for Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Newark was wrong in supposing that the petitioners, by objecting to transportation, could only be considered as requesting to be executed; and if the Government had the power of commuting the punishment, why did they not deal with Irish rebels the same as they had done with the Canadian rebels, who had been so much talked of the other day in debate? 500 l . was offered as a reward for the apprehension of one of the Canadian traitors, who, however, was soon afterwards made Attorney General; and he (Mr. Grattan) thought, indeed, that a vote of thanks should be passed to Mr. Smith O'Brien, because, by his nonsensical exhibition and burlesque insurrection, he had made that species of high treason vulgar, and prevented all the sensible people from joining him.

was afraid the House might be led into the general question. A very important question arose whether, by accepting or rejecting this petition, they should establish a precedent. It appeared to him that there must be considerable difficulty in receiving in that House anything being or constituting an act of a person who was civilly dead. Now, he would suppose for a moment that this petition contained a request that the House should hear counsel to be appointed by the petitioners. Did the House recognise the right or power to appoint counsel? He thought the case was one which was replete with difficulty. If a party was civilly dead, he was incapable of other acts, and could the House recognise him as a fit person to appoint counsel to be heard at the bar, and to represent him? There was this further difficulty, that the petition was not against an Act specially directed against the petitioners, but a general Act of a general character; and if these parties might petition against this Act, they might petition against any other Act. He thought that time should be given to allow the House to come to a decision on a question of such a grave character.

quite agreed in the proposition that persons attainted of high treason were civilly dead, but as they chose to legislate by passing an ex post facto law for the purpose of affecting the position of these petitioners, it was quite preposterous that they should not be heard. It was true, they proposed to legislate for the purpose of mercy, of which no person more heartily approved than he; but it might have been an Act for a diametrically opposite purpose—it might have been an Act to aggravate, instead of to mitigate, the rigour of the law. Would any person argue that in such a case the party should not be heard? The parties here appeared to him to be entitled to a hearing on every principle of justice. That an attainted person could not petition that House, appeared to him to be an entirely unfounded doctrine; but at all events, as the object of this Bill was to affect the position, he might say the right, of the petitioners, it would not be consistent with the principles of justice to refuse to hear them.

thought the memo- realists had put in a very unusual claim to be heard; but it had been stated that this being a case in which they were about to legislate, they ought to regard the petition as a case of exception, and allow it to be received. That he understood to be the full length of the argument, and not that every attainted felon or traitor should have the right of approaching the House; and therefore he should waive his objections to the reception of this petition.

The petition was read by the clerk at the table.

in moving the Second Reading of the Transportation for Treason (Ireland) Bill, said, the object of this Bill was to remove all possible doubts which had been entertained as to the right of the Crown—or the Lord Lieutenant, as the representative of the Crown in Ireland—to commute the capital sentence and to carry that commuted sentence into execution in the case of persons convicted in Ireland of high treason and sentenced to death, to whom the Crown might be advised to extend its mercy on the usual condition of transportation. It was needless for him to inform the House that the practice of commuting the capital sentence in certain cases for transportation, either for life or for a term of years, was one of frequent occurrence; and he could only say that no instance had come within his own knowledge, and he believed it was not possible for any one to cite an instance, of a person found guilty of a capital offence and sentenced to death intimating his intention to refuse the mercy of the Crown. That case had now occurred. The four prisoners were last year arrested on a charge of high treason, were legally tried, convicted, and sentenced to death; and having appealed to the highest supreme court of judicature in the United Kingdom, that conviction and sentence were affirmed. After the disposal of the writ of error, it became the duty of the Government to consider in what way the sentence of the law should be carried out. He did not wish to enter into the merits of the case; he thought they had nothing to do with the circumstances that preceded the actual conviction; but considering the nature and magnitude of the offence, it did appear to the Lord Lieutenant, in concurrence with the Government, in the execution of the duty with which his Excellency was intrusted as the representative of the Crown, to be one which required to be marked by severe punishment, while, at the same time, he was anxious, acting in concurrence with the whole of the Government, not to carry out the extreme sentence with undue severity. In answer to a memorial which was presented to the Lord Lieutenant, praying for a mitigation of the punishment, he said—

"My Lord Mayor and Gentlemen—From the moment when the sentence of the law was pronounced upon the prisoners on whoso behalf you have addressed me, I have felt bound to give the most anxious consideration to the unhappy condition in which they were placed, so far as I could pay regard to that condition consistently with the obligations imposed on me in the exercise of those powers and prerogatives of the Crown with which I am entrusted. I have felt deeply concerned for the unfortunate situation of men whose lives are forfeited to the offended laws of their country; but an imperative duty compels me to look to the nature and character of the crime of which they have been convicted; to the circumstances preceding and attending it; and, above all, to the consequences which might have resulted from its temporary success. I cannot disregard matters unfortunately too notorious—the disturbance of the public peace, the dislocation of society for many weeks throughout an extensive district, the armed opposition to the constituted authorities of the realm, the serious loss of life among the poor misguided followers of the prisoners, the utter havoc which seemed for a brief time impending over many parts of the country from their wild and desperate proceedings, their avowed rebellion and treason against Her Majesty and Her rights to the Crown and sovereignty of Ireland. I fully appreciate the motives of humanity which have prompted this appeal; but, in reply to it, I have at present only to assure you that the Government, in the performance of its duty, can have no other desire than that justice should be administered without any severity beyond that which the interests of society demand."

Holding those sentiments, and in communication with the Government, the Lord Lieutenant determined to exercise the power which, as the representative of the Grown, it was right he should possess, by not carrying the capital sentence into effect, but by directing it should be commuted in the usual form for the sentence of transportation. Having arrived at that decision, he felt it his duty, out of consideration to the feelings of the prisoners, and those who were connected with them, to make a communication to them of what his determination was; and he (Sir G. Grey) now held in his hand a letter, dated the 5th of June, addressed by Mr. Redington to the governor of Richmond gaol, directing him to make that communication to the prisoners. Immediately upon that communication being made to the prisoners, one of them, Mr. Smith O'Brien—and the others had since followed the example—protested against the power of the Lord Lieutenant, representing the Crown, to commute the sentence, or to carry that commuted sentence into effect in the case of treason, as distinguished from that of other felonies, with regard to which nothing was more common than for a capital sentence to be commuted, and the commuted sentence to be legally carried out. That was followed up by a formal protest by counsel on behalf of the prisoners, asking also that they might have an opportunity of bringing the question before a court of law. Under these circumstances, the Lord Lieutenant abstained from doing any act by which the sentence could be carried into effect without communication with the Government. He apprehended that to have brought this question into a court of law would have been no easy task, because, whether they were right or wrong as to the reception of this petition, the return to a writ of habeas corpus that the party was a traitor would have been a complete return, and would have precluded the court from going into the case. He wished the House to understand what seemed to be the doubt on this question. He believed there was no doubt as to the present legal position of the prisoners—that they were under legal sentence, and that it was only by the favour and mercy of the Crown they could escape the extreme penalty of the law. He would shortly state the grounds upon which the doubt rested, and which this Bill was intended to remove. The statutes as to transportation and the commutation to transportation being different in England and Ireland, from being dated before the Union, inasmuch as the Irish statutes spoke only of offenders for felony, and did not openly refer to offenders for high treason, it was said that such offenders were intended to be excluded from the favour of the Crown; but the highest legal authorities in this country had expressed an opinion which he and the Government had also entertained, though this was contested in Ireland, that although it was not expressly mentioned in terms in the Irish statutes in question, yet treason was the highest kind of felony, although they were not convertible terms, and was so laid down by Blackstone and Coke. The doubt had been raised in Ireland by what might be termed philolegality, and it was to remove it, and to do away with any difference that might exist between treason and felony in any case in which the Lord Lieutenant might think it right to commute the capital sen- tence to transportation, consistently with sound reason, and with what he (Sir G. Grey) believed to be the law now, and to carry such commuted sentence into effect, that this measure was introduced. The Bill was, as the hon. and learned Member for Southampton had remarked, in the cause of mercy—to enable Her Majesty to temper justice with mercy. He did not wish to say one word with regard to the former conduct of the prisoners. The Bill had already received the assent of the other House, with the sanction of men whose position in that House and in the country entitled their opinions to great weight and authority, and he hoped it would meet with as ready and prompt an assent on the part of this House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

did not rise with the intention of offering any animadversion on the course that had been taken in this case, nor did he mean to say he rose to give an opinion on the question of law involved in this Bill; for the matter had come so suddenly and by surprise on him, that he had not an opportunity of looking to the Acts of Parliament. A Bill, which it was thought necessary to introduce to alter the position of men circumstanced as the prisoners are, should be considered by the Government as one of consequence, and should have received more deliberation than it appeared as yet to have received. With regard to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in respect to the sanction of the House of Lords, and his remark with reference to what was called philolegality, the House of Lords ought not to complain, for they had encouraged persons, under sentence of death, to avail themselves of any point of law which any lawyer could devise as a mode of escape. With regard to this particular Bill, he did not think the case, represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark, was exact in point of law. He admitted the prisoners were under sentence of death, and that the Crown had the power to carry that sentence into effect. It was conceded, however, on the part of the Crown, that whatever other punishment might be fit for the offence, it was not a case in which the sentence of death ought to be carried into execution; and surely, whether the sentence of death is to be carried into execution or not, it cannot be governed by the description of substituted punishment they would put in its place. Suppose the Crown had the power of transporting for life, or for a series of years, it might then become an important question which of the two secondary punishments ought to be selected by the Crown as the one to be apportioned in reference to the circumstances. Now, how stood the matter without reference to any Act of Parliament? The Crown could carry out the sentence of death, or reprieve the party. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL dissented.] The hon. and learned law officer, the Attorney General, shook his head; perhaps there was not much in that; but the Crown, by altering the sentence, could imprison the party for life; but the case now made on the part of the Crown is this, that inasmuch as the prisoners have rejected transportation for life, it is necessary to come to Parliament to get a Bill to carry out that sentence. The Crown had the power of imprisonment for life, having the power to reprieve the party; and with regard to the Act that raised the question referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he found this passage in Lord Coke: "In ancient times every treason was comprehended under the name of felony, but not e contra , and therefore a pardon for all felonies was allowed in a case of high treason, but the law has for a long time otherwise holden." Now, see how that would apply to the present case. Last year they passed an Act of Parliament called the Treason Felony Act, to reduce many of the offences formerly treason down from the class of treason. That Act of Parliament distinguished throughout between treason and felony, and the Crown might have prosecuted those persons for felony, and convicted them of felony, and they would be liable to transportation for life under the terms of that other Act of Parliament. Why then, having got that Act of Parliament, did they prosecute them under the old statute of treason? The design was now to treat them as though they had been convicted under the Act of last Session. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary proceeded on the assumption that there was no legal doubt at all. If so, why not act upon the law? If the objections all had their origin in an excess of philolegality, why did not the Government carry out the clear letter of the law? The rule of the law in all cases of doubt was, that the prisoner should have the benefit of the doubt. In considering this question, it should be recollected that to many men death would be preferable to being sent away from their families, friends, and connexions. He felt peculiar delicacy in arguing this case, having known one of the parties (Mr. Smith O'Brien) for some time, and it was a melancholy consideration that some of the very measures, since carried into law, had been once recommended by him. What he (Mr. Napier) should propose was, that according to the prayer of the petition, the petitioners should be heard against this Bill. If they were right in their view of the law of the case, it would seriously affect them, for instead of being sent to a penal colony, they would be imprisoned at home, where they could have some kind of intercourse with those who are dear to them. It would make a material difference in their position, and he thought the House should afford them an opportunity of having the reasons on which their petition was founded submitted for their consideration. He was sure they would decide upon the question with the good feeling and high sense of impartiality of men who are lovers of the British constitution. He would leave the case with the utmost confidence to the good sense and equity of the House, and move as an Amendment that the petitioners be heard by counsel against this measure.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'William Smith O'Brien, Thomas Francis Meagher, Terence Bellew M'Manus, and Patrick O'Donohoe, be heard at the Bar of this House, by Counsel, agents, and witnesses, upon their Petition against the said Bill.'"

in seconding the Amendment, said, he objected to this Bill on constitutional principles, because it was ex post facto legislation. Let him remind the House of what was done in the former case of the State prosecutions in Ireland in 1844. Upon that occasion the persons convicted, of whom he had the honour to be one, appealed to the House of Lords against the sentence. Notwithstanding that appeal, they were in prison pending the whole appeal. It was at once allowed that there was injustice in the case, and a Bill was brought into the House of Lords to remedy that injustice, by which persons who had any rational grounds to show that they had been illegally tried and convicted should not be imprisoned until the doubt was settled. That Bill had become law. It was asked during the passing of it whether it would have an ex post facto application to the individuals upon whose case it had arisen; and it was distinctly denied that it would have that application. Would it not, then, be strange that legislation similarly arising out of a doubt, should be ex post facto made applicable to the parties out of whose ease it had arisen? His second objection to the Bill was—he spoke only from common report, but it was publicly stated, and he believed it—that Mr. Smith O'Brien would not be so much a sufferer as his children. The Government had most wisely and humanely abstained from enforcing the attendant penalties on an attainted felon; but the effect of passing this Bill would be by a side wind to deprive Mr. Smith O'Brien's family of an important provision. Mr. Smith O'Brien had effected very large insurances on his life, and had paid large sums of money upon them without receiving any benefit from them, and the moment he went out of this kingdom they would be lost to his family. He admitted that there might not be much weight in that argument, but it was a matter of deep interest to Mr. Smith O'Brien's family.

said, he should have been glad if some hon. Member who had opposed this Bill had stated some tangible and rational ground for doing so. As he understood the position of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, and of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, they objected to the propriety of this Bill, as it made that House usurp the prerogative of the Crown. His hon. and learned Friend had not stated the grounds upon which this question arose; but, as it would be his (the Attorney General's) duty to oppose the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, he would state what he believed to be the points of doubt, as far as he could apprehend them. The Acts under which it was proposed to commute these sentences, were different from those of England. They were the 6th George I., chap. 12, sec. 1, an Irish statute, which gave to the Lord Lieutenant a general power of granting pardon to all persons under sentence of death, and the 12th George 1., which was more applicable to this case, and one of the sections of which was as follows:—

"And forasmuch as the transportation of felons hath been greatly delayed, and opportunities of transporting them frequently lost, by the time necessarily taken up in passing and pleading the pardons granted to such felons: be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that whenever His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the. Lord Lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of this kingdom for the time being, shall be pleased to extend mercy to any person who hath been or shall be convicted of felony, or who hath received or shall receive sentence of death for any felony, any order under the sign-manual of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or under the hand of the Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of this kingdom for the time being, directing the person so convicted or sentenced to be transported, shall be as effectual in the law as if a pardon for such felony, with condition of transportation, had been passed under the great seal, and pleaded and allowed; and that such order shall be a sufficient warrant in the law, to all sheriffs, gaolers, and others, for the delivery of the person in such order named to the sheriff or gaoler of the place whence such felon is to be transported, or to the person or persons contracting for the transportation of such felon as aforesaid, so as such order be also countersigned by the judges, or one of them, before whom such felon was tried; which said order, after such delivery of such felon, shall be lodged in the hands of the clerk of the Crown, or clerk of the peace where such conviction was had, together with a receipt from the person to whom such felon was delivered to be transported, to be kept among the records of the court."

Now, it was contended in Ireland, that inasmuch as that statute applied only to sentence of death for felony, treason was not within the moaning of the Act. [Mr. ANSTEY: Hear, hear!] He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman participated in that doubt. He might state that ever since he had been acquainted with the profession, he had thought that treason was felony, and he should have thought that if this Act, which was in favorem vitœ , were pleaded in any particular case, the court would put that construction upon it. In Blachstone it was distinctly laid down that treason was felony. That writer said—

"Felony, in the general acceptation of our English law, comprises every species of crime which occasioned at common law the forfeiture of lands and goods. This most frequently happens in those crimes for which a capital punishment either is or was liable to be inflicted; for those felonies which are called clergyable, or to which the benefit of clergy extends, were anciently punished with death in all lay or unlearned offenders; though now, by the statute law, that punishment is for the first offence universally remitted. 'Treason itself,' says Sir Edward Coke, 'was anciently comprised under the name of felony;' and, in confirmation of this, we may observe that the Statute of Treasons, 25 Edward III., c. 2, speaking of some dubious crimes, directs a reference to Parliament, that it may be there adjudged 'whether they be treason or other felony.' All treasons, therefore, strictly speaking, are felonies, though all felonies are not treason. And to this also we may add, that not only all offences now capital, are in some degree or other felony, but that this is likewise the case with some other offences which are not punished with death—as suicide, where the party is already dead; homicide by chance-medley, or in self-defence; and petit larceny or pilfering; all which are, strictly speaking, felonies, as they subject the committers of them to forfeitures. So that, upon the whole, the only adequate definition of felony seems to be that which is before laid down, viz., an offence which occasions a total forfeiture of either lands, or goods, or both, at the common law, and to which capital or other punishment may be superadded, according to the degree of guilt."

Under that general definition treason was included; but treasons being larger than felonies, there was no doubt that the judges would, in a matter of life and death, give the more lenient interpretation of the law to which he had alluded. The statute said nothing of the conditional pardon to a party convicted under the 12th George I.; and in the present case there had been no bargain or condition, but only an intimation from an Under Secretary, that the capital punishment would not be carried out. In the 2nd of Hawkins , p. 557, it was stated—

"It seems agreed that the King may extend his mercy on what terms he pleases, and, consequently, may annex to his pardon any condition that he thinks fit, whether precedent or subsequent, on the performance whereof the validity of the pardon will depend."

And in Bacon's Abridgment , vol. iii., there was this passage:—

"Also it hath been held that in every pardon for a capital offence, where the party was obliged to give security, there is a condition in law annexed to such pardon, so that if he forfeit such recognisance, his pardon becomes void, and he may be taken and executed on the first judgment."

It was clear from these authorities that if these parties refused to accept the conditions of pardon, the sentence might at this moment be carried into effect. It would be well for persons to look at what might be the result of their opposition to this Bill, before they threw obstacles in the way of the measure. Mr. Smith O'Brien, in his petition, dated June 11th, said—

"Your petitioner now submits that, if it be desirable to enable Her Majesty to commute his sentence of death to transportation for life, it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to procure a statutory enactment to that effect (even by ex post facto legislation) rather than to violate the law by causing him to be transported by lawless force."

He confessed he was surprised that after Mr. S. O'Brien had asked the House of Commons to bring in the very Bill now before them, some of his counsel should draw up a petition against the measure. When these parties were about to be sent for transportation, it appeared that a notice was given by Sir C. O'Loghlen that it was his intention to apply for a writ of habeas corpus . It would have been very indecent and improper to have endeavoured to bring the return to such a writ before a court of law; but if such a writ had been moved for, the question could not have been argued. The prisoners' counsel could not have raised the point. The gaoler or other party having the custody of these prisoners would have returned that they were attainted traitors, and there would have been an end of the whole case. This question was fully argued before the Court of Exchequer a few years ago in the case of the Canadian rebels. He believed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal was engaged in that case? [Mr. C. ANSTEY replied that he was not.] The judgment of the court in that case was—

"This is the substance of the return, against which many ingenious objections have been urged, the principal of which seem to be that the Legislature of Upper Canada had no authority to make any such law; that, if it had, it could be binding only within the precincts of that province; that it could communicate no authority to any person out of that province, and therefore could give none to the gaoler of Liverpool; that, even if it could have that effect, the pardon granted under that law being conditional, it was not competent to the prisoner to accept a pardon, whereby he submitted himself to imprisonment or transportation; or that, if it were competent to him to accept a pardon with such a condition, he has still a right to retract his consent, and to be set free from the obligation imposed upon him by the condition. All these topics have been elaborately argued on both sides, and have received due attention from the Court; but in the view which we take of the case, we do not think it necessary to pronounce any opinion upon them. If the condition upon which alone the pardon was granted be void, the pardon must also be void. If the condition were lawful, but the prisoner did not assent to it, nor submit to be transported, he cannot have the benefit of the pardon; or if, having assented to it, his assent be revocable, we must consider him to have retracted it by this application to be set at liberty, in which case he is equally unable to avail himself of the pardon. Looking, then, at the return, the position of the prisoner appears to be this:—that he has been indicted for high treason, committed in Canada against Her Majesty; that he has confessed himself guilty of that treason; that he is liable to be tried for it in England; that he cannot plead the pardon which he has renounced; and that he is now in the custody of the gaoler of Liverpool, under such circumstances as would justify any subject of the Crown of England in taking and detaining him in custody until he be dealt with according to law. Any subject who held him in custody with a knowledge of the circumstances, would be guilty of a crime in aiding and assisting his escape, if he be permitted to go at large without lawful authority. How, then, can we order the gaoler of Liverpool, or any other person who has him in custody, with know-ledge of these circumstances, to let him go at large? If the prisoner cannot be lawfully transported under the present circumstances, it is to be presumed that the Government, upon being so certified, will take proper measures for prosecuting him for the crime of treason in England. For these reasons we are of opinion that the prisoner must be remanded. The prisoners were remanded accordingly."

The party who was conveying Mr. S. O'Brien from Dublin to Cork would return that he was an attainted traitor, and this would show that in point of law he ought to be hanged. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin did not deny that he was liable to punishment; but he said, "You can imprison him for life, and you cannot transport him." Now, it was not the practice in this country colourably to imprison a man for life, under pretence of reprieving him; and the only course open to the Government was, either to carry the capital punishment into effect, or else to come to this House to settle the doubt by a Bill. He could not be kept in prison because he was reprieved; that would be an evasion of the law, and an attempt to do indirectly what they would be told they could not do directly. He denied that this could be called an ex post facto law. If the party were pardoned, or anything were done so as to entitle him to be set at liberty, that plea might be set up; but how could it be said that this was an ex post facto law, when Mr. S. O'Brien could even now be executed, and when the Bill was introduced merely to solve a doubt? He should be glad if this measure could be passed without gratifying these parties and their friends by a long public discussion of their case; and he hoped he had satisfied the House that sufficient ground existed for passing the Bill.

said, that he believed the learned counsel who had advised Mr. Smith O'Brien and the other petitioners, would have very little difficulty, if allowed to do so, to answer the arguments of the hon. and learned Attorney General. The object sought by the petitioners was to have this question properly discussed; and that House was not, in his opinion, the arena where such questions could be fairly and fully argued. The object of the Amendment was, to prevent this question being taken out of the decision of the Judges, who by their oaths were bound, and by their learning alone qualified, to decide it. He felt the greatest satisfaction in support- ing that Amendment, and, in case it should not be successful, it was his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The hon. and learned Attorney General had referred to the case of the Canadian prisoners, but it had no application whatever to the present case. It was perfectly true that if Mr. Smith O'Brien had, as in the case of the Canadian prisoners, petitioned the Crown for mercy, and accepted a pardon upon conditions, that in case of the condition not being performed, the pardon itself would have been worthless; but they were told by the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the first intimation of the pardon to Mr. Smith O'Brien was met by an indignant rebuke, both he and the other prisoners feeling that such a pardon was no act of grace, but, on the contrary, a cruel aggravation of their punishment. Was it at all wonderful that they should have acted so, and preferred death to this mitigated punishment, as it was called? On his honour and his conscience he declared that if he were in the position of the petitioners, he should consider the punishment of death as mercy compared with a commutation of sentence that would consign him to that gehenna of the South Seas—Norfolk Island. Civil death would accompany the petitioners until they received pardon, whether the punishment were mitigated or not. As convicts upon the shores of the South Pacific, they would be as much dead and as completely deprived of all legal rights as if the full sentence of the law had been carried into effect. Most deeply did he regret that in consequence of the honourable firmness with which Mr. Smith O'Brien had always opposed himself to the mischievous effects of Whig legislation, the Government should now resolve upon carrying the punishment beyond even the civil death of their political opponent. If the defence of the petitioners were a worthless one, why should they not have the opportunity of having its worthlessness decided by a proper and competent tribunal? Were they to be told, as the hon. and learned Attorney General had told them, that it was an indecent thing to have a matter of such high concern brought before a court of law? Such a declaration might have been expected from the Attorney General of Queen Elizabeth: but he was surprised to hear it from the lips of an Attorney General of Queen Victoria. The hon. and learned Attorney General stated further, that if this Bill were not passed, the pardon of the convicts could not take effect. He stated that no pardon had been issued; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared to he under the same impression. That the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not under that impression was clear; for, acting under the instructions he had received from some one—and decency prevented him from supposing that he had acted upon any instructions but those of the Sovereign, who alone was authorised to give them—he had intimated to the prisoners that he was authorised to pardon them. He had, therefore, received a delegation of power from the Crown to pardon; and so far, therefore, as the Queen was concerned, the pardon had actually gone forth. That it had been detained in transitu , did not at all affect the question. In the face of this fact, that it would be easy for the law officers of the Crown, or Her Majesty's Government, to enforce capital punishment, even if this Bill were rejected, was, he thought, a proposition which the House would hesitate before it sanctioned. Even if the pardon had not passed, the Government would never have dared to carry the sentence into effect; and the only consequence of rejecting the Bill would be to lead to a mitigation of the punishment, less offensive in the view of the prisoners and of the public, than that of transportation for life. The mercy that had been tendered to them was cruelty, rendered the more galling because accompanied by circumstances of indignity. All that the human mind could imagine of horrible and loathsome was to be found in those penal colonies to which the convicts from England were sent; and the true question at issue was, whether Mr. Smith O 'Brien would die like a man of honour on the scaffold, or be exposed to treatment the most inhuman and disgusting, in the society of the basest and most brutal of the human race. The hon. and learned Member then proceeded to quote several extracts from a despatch addressed to Lord Stanley by the Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen's Land, dated Feb. 6, 1846; and from the evidence of a clergyman who had visited Port Arthur in the year 1846, with a view of showing the depraved habits and condition of the convicts who were confined in the penal establishments at those places. The hon. and learned Member stated that he referred to those extracts for the purpose of justifying Mr. Smith O'Brien against the taunt which had been raised against him, that he had blindly wished that the penalty of death should be enforced against him, or that in making this selection both he and his companions knew well that the alternative of death would never be carried into effect upon them. He would ask hon. Members whether, if they were themselves in the situation of the petitioners, they would not also prefer to die like honourable men on the scaffold, rather than be reduced to the level of those degraded wretches whose loathsome crimes polluted the penal colonies of this country? He felt it a duty incumbent upon him, and one from which he could not shrink, to throw every constitutional impediment in the way of the progress of this Bill, to bring Her Majesty's Ministers to a sharp and rigorous account for their conduct, and prevent them from shutting themselves up in the mystery which all small men loved to affect. The last hour of English liberty had knelled, if it were to be decided that a great question like this was not to be decided before the Judges of the land, but by a packed majority of that House. It was to this pass that he believed the Whigs, ever true to their principles, were rapidly bringing this country. It had been said, that if Mr. Smith O'Brien had accepted the pardon, and the conditions of it were not fulfilled, that then the pardon would have been void. He would admit that if legal conditions were attached to the pardon, and were not fulfilled, that then—as in the case of recognisances, of which the hon. and learned Attorney General had spoken—the pardon would be void. But here was the case of a pardon which was sought to be imposed upon a person convicted of treason, coupled with conditions of an illegal character, and the illegality of which could not be purged or taken away, unless Mr. Smith O'Brien retracted that refusal, in which he meant to persist. The question then arose, as to what was the effect of that pardon. He had a right to assume that the pardon had been actually granted with illegal conditions. If, then, the party refused to accept the terms upon which the pardon was granted, in order to make it a legal pardon, the whole would be invalid, and the parties must be set at liberty. According to Blackstone, no power on earth could compel a man to consent to be sent out of the country against his will. If the document under which Mr. Smith O'Brien was to be transported contained a pardon, it was good so far as the pardon was con- cerned; but in all that related to transportation against the consent of the party, it was illegal and invalid. There was no doubt whatever but that that would be the effect of the present pardon. His hon. and learned Friend thought that the right to inflict capital punishment implied a right to inflict secondary punishment also. But that was not the case. It had been stated that this was the first case of a convict having been so ill advised as to refuse the offer of life on degrading conditions. Cope-land's case, in the time of Henry VIII., showed that a gentleman of sufficient spirit and honour might be found to do so. But there were also similar cases of more recent occurrence. In Jacob's Law Dictionary , edited by Sir T. E. Tomlins, this passage appeared under the head of "Transportation:"—

"To persons capitally convicted, the King frequently offers pardon on the condition of being transported. Many have rejected this gracious offer, and there were one or two instances of persons so desperate as to persist in their refusal, and who in consequence suffered the execution of their sentence. This difficulty seems intended to be obviated by the Statute 24 George III."

Sir T. E. Tomlins, therefore, was evidently of opinion that this difficulty was not obviated in cases of treason. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General called treason felony; he might as well have called it trespass. Was there any doubt that the Crown had the power to remit a portion of the sentence, and inflict a milder punishment than transportation for life or for a term of years? The Queen might be disposed to do as her royal grand-sire did with Arthur O'Connor and Hamilton Rowan, who were banished; but that could not be done if this Declaratory Act passed, as it would limit the Crown's prerogative of mercy. This Act was lex privata —a penal Act passed against individuals, and he hoped that the Irish Members would all combine to resist so atrocious a measure.

said, the question before the House was, whether they would read the Bill a second time, or hear counsel at the bar. Now, they must assume that doubts existed—the Bill assumed that; they, therefore, did not want counsel to prove by argument that there were doubts, that position having been already assumed. If they made a further concession, and admitted that ex post facto laws were objectionable, still that could form no possible ground for allowing counsel to be heard at their bar, nor, on the part of that House, any ground for opposing the Bill. If any legal point had been raised, then there might he something like good grounds for requiring that counsel be heard; but in the absence of all such reasons, he could not support the Amendment. The doubts admitted by the Bill itself comprehended all the doubts in the case, and there was therefore nothing upon which counsel was to be heard, or on which the House could require their aid. It had, however, been objected to the present measure, that it would, if passed, be an ex post facto law; but that was a question of public policy which they were competent to decide without legal assistance—whether it were a matter of hardship or of policy, it was at all events not a question of law. The only conceivable legal ground on which the question could be placed was this, that some slip had been made in Ireland by the Crown, the effect of which would be to give Mr. Smith O'Brien, and those associated with him, the benefit of a pardon. But his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin was far too shrewd to raise such a point. The state of the facts appeared to be, that the Lord Lieutenant issued an order for the transportation of Mr. Smith O'Brien and the others. Now, they sought to escape this punishment of transportation by alleging that their case came within the operation of an Act which rendered it unnecessary for their pardon (if any should be granted them) to pass under the great seal. If Mr. Smith O'Brien and the others contended that they could not be transported under that order of the Lord Lieutenant, it would be impossible for them at the same time to maintain that they were pardoned under the Act upon which his order was founded. The condition must go with the pardon; they could not be separated. If the conditions could not stand in law, the pardon must fall to the ground. The Lord Lieutenant was apparently acting under the statute—he was acting under a statutable pardon, which need not pass the great seal. The Crown was anxious to exercise its prerogative of mercy—a doubt arose, and the House was called on to remove that doubt by passing the present Bill. He admitted that an ex post facto law might be drawn into an evil precedent; but the present was not a case of that kind. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal complained as if the Bill then before them was to take away life; but it ought not to be so described. It was a case of mercy. The Crown wished to be gracious and merciful, and this was a Bill to promote that purpose, because there were doubts whether pardon could, in the previous state of the law, be granted in that particular way. Supposing the present Bill to pass, the prerogative of the Crown would still remain whole, and this was manifestly the most convenient way of dealing with the question, for the Judges had no power in the case. In considering the present measure, the House was not called on to say whether those par-ties were rightly or wrongly convicted—the question was, whether or not they would enable the Queen to exercise mercy in the particular manner now proposed. He should certainly support the original Motion.

observed, that this was, to say the least of it, a most extraordinary measure, because the law officers of the Crown in Ireland must have known of the difficulty to be surmounted. The measure was intended to take the law out of its usual course, and surely for such a measure there ought to be some justification on the ground of political expediency. He asked whether the present state of Ireland demanded an appeal to the House for extraordinary legislation? The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, said he saw no reason why the petitioners should be heard at the bar; and the hon. and learned Attorney General said that there was no shadow of doubt but that the Crown had the power to transport these persons. Now, if this were the case, why should they be called upon to pass a measure which declared that considerable doubts did exist? The Bill was, in effect, to allow the Crown to inflict a severer punishment upon the prisoners than was now necessary. He confessed he could not view the difficulties of the case in the same light which the Attorney General did, because a return might be made to the writ of habeas corpus , and the Court then decide whether the prisoner could be retained or not. If the petitioners had no locus standi before a court of law, that fact was an argument why they should be heard at the bar of the House. He thought this was not a case in which capital punishment could be inflicted, and, therefore, the petitioners stood in this position—that not being amenable to punishment by death, and being amenable to confinement for life, the Crown now desired by this Bill to inflict, by transportation, a greater punish- ment than it could otherwise inflict. He saw no reason why the prisoners might not be respited during the pleasure of the Crown. In the year 1798, Neilson, Bond, and the other prisoners engaged in the rebellion in Ireland, were respited during the pleasure of the Crown, and they were afterwards sent to Fort George, in Scotland, and, after some time, the Crown allowed them to expatriate themselves. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, but that was under a particular Act of Parliament.] Well, even if it was, why might not the prisoners be respited during the pleasure of the Sovereign? He believed if this were done, and if those persons were retained in custody for some time, they might afterwards with safety be permitted to expatriate themselves. He appealed to the House to say whether the state of Ireland was such as to lead the Government to apprehend any danger from the custody of those persons in Ireland. No country on the face of the globe had ever suffered so much as Ireland had lately done, but the people had remained true to the law, and true to their attachment to the Crown and constitution. It should be borne in mind that there were many extenuating circumstances to be urged in behalf of Mr. Smith O'Brien and his followers. Leniency ought to be extended to them, because they had not been convicted of any previous offence against the laws. They were not governed by any sordid motives. They had not endeavoured to overturn the social condition of the country, and from the first moment they had declared themselves anxious to respect the rights of property. It was true they had been convicted of high treason, but he was convinced that their only desire was to obtain a repeal of the legislative Union. They did not seek the subversal of the constitution, and, least of all, did they ever contemplate any attempt on the life of the Sovereign.

thought it unnecessary that the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin should be acceded to, because he considered it impossible that ingenuity could suggest any points on behalf of these prisoners which had not been argued by those hon. Members who had truly been their counsel in their places in that House. It had been said that this was an extraordinary measure; and, upon that observation, he would retort that it arose out of most extraordi- nary circumstances. If a stranger had entered the House during a portion of this debate, he would have supposed that some gross cruelty—some injury and wrong—was about to be inflicted upon an innocent party, for he could not have thought that the only object they had in view was to remove an obstacle to the fitting exercise of a most gracious act of Royal clemency. There had been, on the part of the prisoners, an attempt to take advantage of the early intimation which had been given them of that clemency. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford was mistaken in supposing that an order for the transportation of the prisoners had actually been issued by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. No such order had been issued; but to remove all anxiety from the minds of the prisoners and their friends, a letter was written by Mr. Redington, Under Secretary for Ireland, to the governor of the Bridewell where the prisoners were confined, stating that it was not the intention of the Crown that the extreme sentence of the law should be carried into effect, but that it would be commuted to transportation for life. That was not, then, a simple declaration of pardon, but it was coupled with a qualification without which the pardon would be regarded by the great majority of the people of this country as anything but a true act of grace; and the Government were now asking for the means of effecting this most gracious purpose. It was utterly impossible that this question could be brought—as some hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose—before the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin; because the object of a writ of habeas corpus was to ascertain whether the party was in lawful custody, and what special return could be made—even if there were a willingness to indulge the extraordinary disposition of these prisoners—which would shut out the fact that they were attainted of high treason, and that if mercy were extended to them it must be upon certain conditions. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had said that the case of these prisoners was one in which the extreme punishment of the law ought not to be carried into effect. He (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd) begged, on behalf of a large body of people in this country, to differ entirely from that proposition, if they were to regard nothing but the atrocity of the offence. He would grant, however, that taking into consideration the peculiar character and conduct—including many personal excellences—and the high descent and connexions of the principal traitor in this case—considering the desirableness of showing mercy and clemency to those whom he deluded—whom he instigated, and whom he betrayed; and considering also the strong repugnance felt by a large body of thinking people in this country to the infliction of the punishment of death, many persons had rejoiced—and he (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd), too, rejoiced that the punishment of death was averted in this particular case. But if he were asked to look upon this case with reference to the ordinary administration of justice, he did not think it one which called for merciful consideration, and he deemed it an act of the greatest clemency to extend such mercy as he thought had been too unthankfully received and too ungraciously requited. The hon. and learned Member for Athlone had suggested that these persons should be imprisoned for life, with a sentence of death perpetually hanging over them, and respited from time to time. He (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd) did not deny that the Crown might from time to time respite sentence of death, and might eventually pardon with or without conditions; but, to contemplate the infliction of imprisonment for life under colour of perpetual respites from time to time, was one of the most unconstitutional suggestions that could be made. One of the provisions of Magna Charta was that excessive imprisoment should not be inflicted; but if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted, this privilege would be a nullity. The hon. and learned Member for Youghall seemed to suppose that these parties would be transported to Norfolk Island, or that the punishment would be carried out under circumstances of peculiar humiliation. He thought, however, that the apprehensions of the hon. and learned Gentleman were wholly unwarranted, and that there was no reason to suppose that the prisoners would be treated with any undue severity. Although this Bill recited that doubts had arisen with reference to the law, he had no doubt whatever that the Irish Act empowered the Queen to annex the condition of transportation to her pardon, or—if She thought fit—to transport a person liable to the punishment of death; and he entertained no doubt that if the order of the Lord Lieutenant had been executed, it would have been a perfectly legal proceeding. He thought this Bill had been wisely and fitly introduced, not to deprive the accused of any right, for they had none, but to prevent the smallest question arising as to the existence of any legal obstacle. He regarded it as an act of clemency most wise—most just—and most considerate—a clemency which he thought ought to find a response in the heart of every Irishman—a clemency which he hoped the House would not defeat by refusing their assent to this Bill, and which he trusted they would not delay by the unnnecessary course of hearing counsel at the bar.

observed, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken had given his support not many nights since to a Bill for affording indemnity to rebels in Canada. The Canadian rebellion was wide spread, and he (Mr. Roche) might almost say, successful. Property was destroyed; blood was shed; and the dominion of this country over the colony was perilled. In Ireland they had a rebellion which was futile; no property was destroyed, nor was an attempt made to shake off the dominion of this country; yet the hon. and learned Member for Reading was prepared by his vote to-night to aggravate the punishment of the persons engaged in that rebellion. It was said that the desire of Mr. Smith O'Brien, and the other parties convicted, was to be made martyrs; but it was by bringing in such a Bill as the present, and attaching notoriety to them, that the Government made them greater martyrs than they were before. If the Bill were necessary, it made a new law to punish a past offence; and if it were not necessary, it only served to give to those persons an importance which, it was said, they were anxious for. Would any one believe, if the case had arisen in England, that such a proceeding would be permitted? To adopt it, then, in the present instance, would only be furnishing an argument to those who maintained that the legislation for England was different from the legislation for Ireland. If the vain and foolish acts of these foolish men had been committed in England, the convicted parties would not be hanged in this country after the lapse of twelve months, and at a period when quietness prevailed; and, indeed, the official letter which had been written was an admission that these parties ought not to be hanged in Ireland. But the Government now proposed to change the law by which Mr. Smith O'Brien and the other persons in question might be confined during their lives, in order to substitute for it transportation—a punishment which, considering the men and the manner in which they had been educated, he conceived would be more aggravated and horrible to them than the punishment of death.

contended that this was a glorious opportunity for the exercise of the Queen's prerogative to the fullest extent; but the present advisers of the Crown, by a shortsighted policy, prevented her exercising that prerogative which he believed She herself desired. Such clemency would render future rebellion in Ireland impossible. After referring to the case of Mr. O'Doherty, which he contended was one of peculiar hardship, inasmuch as he had been tried three times and acquitted twice, and when convicted was strongly recommended to mercy by the jury, the hon. Gentleman went on to say that in his opinion this Bill was being hurried through Parliament in the same manner that all Bills against Ireland were urged by the present Government. They would not dare to adopt such a course with respect to England. He would, therefore, pledge himself to oppose every stage of this Bill; and if he stood alone, he would divide the House a hundred times rather than let the measure pass.

was anxious to treat the question as a constitutional one, because he thought that in that point of view he should obtain more of the attention of hon. Members in that House. He denied that the present Bill was an act of mercy. The letter of the Lord Lieutenant to those gentlemen stated that the original sentence passed upon them would not be carried out. Under those circumstances, he submitted, it was utterly impossible that the extreme penalty of the law could be now exacted. This Bill, then, which was introduced for the purpose of enabling the Government to transport these persons for life, could not, for one moment, be looked upon as carrying out the recommendation of mercy. Considering the present condition of Ireland, the determination of the people, even whilst suffering the most dreadful privations, to avoid any outrage upon property—considering how little the rights of property had been invaded during the late insurrection, he thought the Government would have exhibited both good policy and wisdom in not only declining to carry out the extreme penalty of the law, but in avoiding an application to Parliament for power to enable them to carry out a punishment that was nearly as severe as death—namely, the transportation of those gentlemen for life to a penal colony. He could not avoid remarking the difference of their conduct towards Canada. He was unwilling to believe that that difference was influenced by the fact of Canada being nearer to the United States, and further from the mother country, than Ireland was. The chief person against whom this Bill was aimed had been for twenty years a Member of this House, during which time he had been most assiduous in his attendance, from the belief that his country would yet receive ample justice from the British Legislature. It was not until the eleventh hour that he was induced to turn his attention to the agitation that was then going on in Ireland, under the conviction that that justice which he demanded, and which he saw his country required, could not be obtained here, but must only be sought for through a domestic legislature. He (Mr. Fagan) had the pleasure of his acquaintance, as well as that of the acquaintance of one of his fellow-prisoners, and he did not for one moment believe that they had ever contemplated separation or rebellion against Her Majesty's authority. Never, until the introduction of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, was anything like violence contemplated. He knew, on the contrary, the deep anxiety felt by those gentlemen to prevent the growth of disaffection towards this country. It was to the introduction of the unfortunate measure for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act that the unfortunate event which gave rise to this measure was to be attributed. Although this Bill was called by some hon. Members here as an act of mercy, he looked upon it only in the light of another act of coercion against his misgoverned and afflicted country.

said, that the hon. and learned Attorney General had admitted, by the authority of Comyn's Digest , that the Crown at common law had full power to enforce the conditions of a pardon. To that law he (Mr. Godson) fully subscribed. If, then, the Crown had that power at common law, the punishment the Crown would then enforce would of necessity be a common-law punishment. Now, a common-law punishment was fine and imprisonment; therefore the common-law punishment which could have been substituted for death would have been fine and imprisonment. He took that to be good law, upon the admission of the Attorney General himself. If that be the case, then this Bill was wholly unnecessary; and if the Crown had substituted imprisonment for death in this case, bethought that they would never have had this discussion. It was not until, mistaking their proper course, they substituted transportation for death, that his hon. and learned Friend thought it necessary to look into the law for authority to sustain the course that had been taken. This inquiry should rather have been made before they consented to substitute transportation for death. The present Bill might then be withdrawn, and imprisonment inflicted. It had been asserted that the word "felon" in the 12th Geo. I., of necessity included the traitor. If that be agreed, then he said that the Bill, instead of being a Bill of mercy, was the very contrary; for it was proposed by it to increase the punishment that could otherwise be inflicted, from imprisonment—the common-law punishment—to transportation. It was said, it was obvious that those who penned the Act of 12th Geo. I. intended to include traitors in the word "felon." It should, however, be recollected, that there is no rule of law so clear as this—that in all criminal proceedings the words must be taken in their ordinary sense, and no inferences were allowed to extend the meaning of a penal statute. If, therefore, the 12th George I., as hitherto read, applied to felons only, they could not now for the first time read the word "felon" in the enlarged sense of traitor. In all their elementary books of law, crime was divided into three classes—namely, treason, felony, and misdemeanor. Now, he would ask whether they supposed that a lawyer, when reading a book upon felony, necessarily carried in his mind the question of treason? No; nothing, perhaps, would be further from his thoughts at such a moment. They could not enlarge the ordinary sense of the word "felon" so as to make it include traitor. At common law the Crown could not inflict the punishment of transportation; at common law such a punishment was unknown. It was not until about the time of Charles II. that they had any mention made of transportation. It was his impression that if the attention of the law officers in Ireland had been drawn to these facts, and if they had been aware that the Queen could at common law enforce imprisonment, the letter intimating that the punishment of transportation would be carried into effect would never have been written, and they would never have heard of this Bill.

said, his feelings would not allow him to remain entirely silent. He wished the House to consider what the practical effect of passing this Bill would be upon the gentlemen who were to be affected by it. It had been admitted by almost who had spoken on the subject, that it was idle to imagine that the sentence of death could be carried into effect. ["No, no!"] Legally, of course, the sentence could be carried out, but what he meant was, that practically it could not. There was no doubt the Government had the power of imprisonment for life, but the effect of this Bill would be to allow them to change the punishment of imprisonment for life into transportation. Therefore, the real and practical effect of the measure was to enable the Government to inflict a heavier penalty than was now in their power, unless the Bill were to pass. Consequently, in that point of view, he regarded the measure as ex post facto legislation. He exhorted the Government to remember the memorials and petitions that had been presented by the very parties in Ireland who had been most subjected to the evil and unfortunate effects of the misguided movement of last year, and yet who had come forward to pray for a mitigation of the sentence. Appeals such as these ought to have some effect upon the minds of the Government and that House.

said, he had paid great attention to all the arguments on both sides of the question, and particular attention to the law arguments. It struck him as singular that all the lawyers who advocated this Bill had declared that there was no necessity for it. The literal translation of the whole matter appeared to be this: Her Majesty had the power of directing the sentence of death to be carried out. Her Majesty, feeling mercifully disposed, and her advisers coinciding in Her Majesty's opinion, had determined that the sentence should not be carried out; and for that they, in his judgment, deserved great credit, although he did not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Beading that this was an act of mercy for which every Irishman ought to feel thankful. He (Mr. Reynolds) was an Irishman, and gloried in the name, and he, for one, was not thankful for this act of mercy, and he thought it a misnomer and a misapplication of the term to call it an act of mercy. What were the facts? These men, misguided and misled, as he admitted them to have been, were sentenced to death. Public opinion in England and in Ireland, had declared that they ought not to be hanged. A hundred and fifty thousand persons in Ireland, consisting of the nobility and gentry, and the clergy of all persuasions, called upon the Government for mercy towards these men; and believed that even a smaller punishment than transportation for life ought to be inflicted upon these men. He coincided with that opinion, although there was not a man in or out of that House who had condemned their policy and proceedings oftener than he had done. He belonged to a different school of politicians in Ireland—the moral-force politicians. He believed that the demand for political amelioration should be made at the bar of that House. They (the prisoners) thought differently, believing that by force of arms they could emancipate their country. It was said, they tried the experiment. He denied that they tried the experiment. They followed their own passions; they acted without reflection; they went into the provinces—and what occurred? It was dignified with the name of rebellion. A name could not have been given which it less deserved. A rebellion! They were three months among the people; no man suffered in his property to the extent of a shilling, and one life was lost in a row with the police. But if the people of Ireland had really responded to the call, not the 40,000 troops, nor four times forty thousand, would have been sufficient to put them down. But the people of Ireland laughed at the rebellion. There was no rebellion at all; and it was just a puddle in a storm. He would ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland was he aware that the paper which had been alluded to, bearing date the 5th June instant, was read to the prisoners on the day it bore date; that upon the 9th June, the Saturday following, a posse of police and military visited the front of the gaol in which the prisoners were confined, and almost surrounded it; that the governor of the gaol waited on Mr. Smith O'Brien and his fellow-prisoners in their cells, and stated that they were to prepare themselves for departure, for they were to be conveyed to the place of their destination; that the prisoners packed up their luggage, got themselves in travelling order, and descended to the porch of the prison, where they waited three hours, hoping every moment to he put in the vans which were to carry them away; that another order arrived, and they were directed to go back into their cells, and that the police and military were sent about their business? What he wanted to know was, whether any warrant had been sent from the Castle on the 9th of June, this document bearing date on the 6th of June? What was now proposed to be done? It was proposed to pass an Act to enable the authorities to transport Mr. Smith O'Brien and his fellow-prisoners for life to one of the most remote colonies under the British Crown; and that was called mercy. Well, it might be mercy under different circumstances; but he must remind the House of other circumstances, for he pitied the wives and children of these men. In this respect how was Mr. O'Brien situated? He had a wife and seven children, the eldest of whom was only nine years old. These were to be torn from him, and he was to be sent to a remote colony. Perhaps it might be said that this crime of high treason was so great that it admitted of no minor punishment; but let them search the annals of convictions and sentences, and they would find offences of greater enormity not visited so heavily; and he really thought that the expressed feelings and wishes of 150,000 people of all religious persuasions in Ireland ought to have some weight with the Government. Some excuse should be made for a man of hot temperament beholding his fellow-countrymen sinking day after day into the grave in misery and starvation, the sad result of centuries of misgovernment, until he became excited into that state in which, thank God, he (Mr. Reynolds) never had been—a state of despair—in which he said that no good could ever be obtained from Englishmen for his country, and then committed himself, his family, his prospects, in a shattered and wretched vessel, in which all were wrecked. Let the House recollect this—the eyes of the suffering and unfortunate people of Ireland were upon their legislation, and it would probably be said that they were too severe upon these unfortunate men—that a Bill to transport them had been passed with, he would not say indecent haste, but certainly with railway rapidity, through one branch of the Legislature—and that the right hon. Gentleman introduced it in the House of Commons at half-past one o'clock on Saturday morning. [Sir G. GREY: The Bill was introduced as soon as it was brought down by messengers from the Lords.] There were only twenty-seven Members present, and the right hon. Gentleman moved the first reading at that hour on Saturday morning. He (Mr. Reynolds) happened to be leaving the House at the time, when the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington said to him, "Are you aware of what has been done—of what the Secretary of State has done? He has carried the first reading of that flagrant Felony Bill." He (Mr. Reynolds) returned and asked the Speaker if that were the case; and the reply was in the affirmative. The explanation of the right hon. Baronet was, that it was the natural course that a Bill coming from the House of Lords should be read a first time. He (Mr. Reynolds) respected the Lords as much as they were entitled to, but certainly not so much as to read for the first time, out of courtesy to them, a Bill against which he should have divided the House. And he had then an excellent opportunity of opposing the Bill, for he should have moved that the House be counted, and thus have delayed the measure at least one stage. He appealed to the Government and the House on behalf of these unfortunate men, on the ground of their long suffering, of the suffering of their wives and families, and on the ground of the peaceable and loyal state of the country; and he assured Her Majesty's Government that if they were to order the liberation of these men on the condition that they would voluntarily expatriate themselves, the act would be received as a compliment by the people, and would do more to pacify Ireland than a resort to any such coercive measures as the present.

Sir, I cannot reconcile it to my sense of duty to give a silent vote upon this question. If I consulted only my feelings, I should abstain from saying anything upon the present occasion; for during many years while Mr. Smith O'Brien sat in this House, I was on terms of easy and almost friendly communication with him, several of his nearest relations being my most intimate friends; and under any circumstances, considering Mr. Smith O'Brien's present condition, I should think it inexcusable on my part to say anything which could tend to the ag- gravation of his punishment. But after the speech which we have just heard, I am sorry to say that I cannot venture to say anything in extenuation of his crime. Something has been said with reference to his wife and his relations—those dear relations his children; I must say that I think it would have been well if Mr. Smith O'Brien had remembered that wife and those children before he embarked in the hopeless project which has been brought home to him by the verdict of his countrymen as the grave crime of treason. Something also was said with reference to the eyes of Ireland being fixed upon us. I feel that they are; and when it has been the painful duty of the Ministers of the Grown to advise condign punishment in the case of persons in a humbler station of life, I think, if the eyes of Ireland are fixed upon us, we shall be held inexcusable if we fail, as far as in us lies, to aid the administration of justice with respect to a person occupying the station of Mr. Smith O'Brien. The question we are now called upon to discuss is one mainly, as it appears to me, of law. I have had the honour for many years of being more particularly the adviser of Her Majesty with respect to the exercise of that prerogative—the noblest, the brightest, the most precious, which adorns the Crown of England—the prerogative of mercy; and there is this remarkable feature in it, as I have always thought, that, like "the quality of mercy" itself, it was a prerogative that could not be strained. Every other prerogative might be used adversely to the subject; this can only be used for the benefit of the subject—as in this case it appears to me to have been used. I admit it must be exercised according to law; but everything in the shape of aggravation of punishment on the part of the Crown is impossible; every mitigation of punishment I always thought was within the prerogative. If I had a doubt upon it, the hon. and learned Attorney General, with that clearness and precision which always distinguish everything he says upon a matter of law, has removed it. The question has been narrowed by the hon. and learned Attorney General into the construction of an Act passed in the reign of George I. applicable to Ireland, which says, that the prerogative may be exercised in the case of felony by the Crown. The statute of Edward extends to Ireland, that statute which creates treason; and what are the terms used in that statute as quoted by the hon. and learned Attorney General? The terms are "treason or other felony." The statute of Gearge I. gives in distinct terms to the Crown the power of commuting the punishment in the case of felony to transportation. I must say, it appears to me that that simple statement disposes of the question, and I cannot see the point that has rendered necessary the introduction of this Bill. With a view, however, to greater caution, and to avoid the possibility of doubt, perhaps Her Majesty's Government is exercising a wise discretion in introducing this measure. But, having been introduced, and being now called upon to give an opinion upon it as a matter of law, I shall be ready to declare that to be law about which I have no doubt whatever, and give my support decidedly in favour of the Bill. I think that Her Majesty's Government has, under all the circumstances, wisely advised Her Majesty to commute the capital sentence; but I must at the same time say, I am decidedly of opinion, if it is to be remitted, that at all events the sentence ought to be commuted to the severest secondary punishment, so justly due for the crime which has been committed.

said, that he agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down; but he understood the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin upon the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, to be that counsel be heard at the bar in opposition to the Bill. Sir, I agree with this Bill. I shall vote for the second reading of this Bill. But I am also prepared to hear anything that can be advanced against the passing of this Bill, and I should not like to give a vote upon the Bill itself, and at the same time decide the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that there cannot be a doubt about the Bill itself, introduced from extreme caution, being unnecessary on the part of the Government. They said, truly, that the law had given them the power of commuting the extreme sentence of the law to that of transportation. There can be no doubt of that power existing by the law as applicable to persons convicted of felony. The 12th George III., cap, 8., sec. 12, says, all persons convicted of felony may be transported. Now, I appeal to every lawyer in this House and out of it, and I want to know if any will have the audacity to say that treason is not felony? It is true, mere felony may not be treason, but it does not require a magician to discern that difference. Every treason is a felony, and the chapter of the law passed in the reign of George III. says that every person convicted of felony may he transported. These persons are convicted of treason. Then comes the question—is that treason a felony? I have in ray hand the text-hook of the law—Blackstone, and he says—

"Treason itself, says Sir Edward Coke, was anciently comprised under the name of felony, and in confirmation of this we may observe, that the statute of treasons, 25 Edward III., c. 2, speaking of some dubious crimes, directs a reference to Parliament; that it may be there adjudged, 'whether they be treason, or other felony.' All treasons, therefore, strictly speaking, are felonies: though all felonies are not treason."

The only thing I wonder at is, that there should have been a law adviser of the Crown who would have disputed the proposition that treason is felony. Looking at the question in a law sense, there can be no doubt upon it. But there is a statement that the law is retrospective, and that it is finding a judgment and making a punishment after a crime is committed. ["Hear, hear!"] That cheer is just what I expected. I know that there are persons so destitute of all law as to make that an argument in the present case. All treason, I say, is governed in Ireland, as in England, by the law I have quoted. Treason is felony, and I call upon any lawyer to tell me it is not. But look at the question without reference to a lawyer's views. These persons are convicted of treason: they are subject to the utmost penalty of the law: they may be hanged to-morrow. The kindly feeling of the country acts upon the Ministry. Gentlemen sitting on that bench tell them, that although this be the law, although these men be brought directly under the effect of the law, although there be nothing to prevent their being hanged to-morrow, yet such is the kind feeling of the people of this country that they wish that punishment to be commuted to transportation. But I have heard that transportation is a more painful punishment than death. I have heard it said, I believe, in this House. This is the way in which men trifle with such grave subjects. If any Gentleman subjected to this punishment preferred to be hanged—[ Interruption .] I am not speaking in the slightest degree in the way of joke, but am treating the subject in a very serious way. These men either meant something or nothing, and probably their belief was, that the kindly feeling of the people of this country was so strong on this matter, that if even by a quibble they could be brought out of their peculiar position, they would escape from the uttermost punishment of the law. But I will tell the noble Lord at the head of the Government what I would do were I in his position. I would hang them to-morrow rather than allow them to escape by such a means. I object to the punishment of death; but while the law stands as it is, I am not to be twisted from my purpose, nor the Government of this country to be placed in jeopardy by any such proceeding as this. I heard what the hon. Member for Meath said to-night, and I shall not forget what he said. Do not let him suppose that it is for the wisdom of it. He says that there was a ridiculous attempt at insurrection, that if they had not made this false move, it would have been found that there were some persons who would have made a real move, and that he would have been among such persons.

rose to order. The hon. and learned Member had made him represent himself as a traitor, and say that he would have succeeded Mr. Smith O'Brien in his attempt. He said no such thing. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the truth.

I do not think it unlikely that what the hon. Gentleman said passed from his memory very soon after he uttered it; and I do not suppose that what the hon. Gentleman did say would rest on anybody's mind. But there was something so extraordinary and ludicrous in the statements he made, that by accident they are left on my memory. He did say it. I reassert it, and if by accident it has remained on the mind of any one on this bench, I ask him if the hon. Gentleman did not say it. And let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I make propositions; I do not make unmeaning asseverations, I make propositions; and, Sir, if you will permit me, under your kindness, and without interruption from the hon. Gentleman opposite, I will proceed to make this proposition, not interjectionally—not in a mad way, but in a straightforward and consecutive manner. What I say. Sir, is this, that the hon. Gentleman opposite stated that this rebel- lion was a ridiculous rebellion; but that if they bad made a serious, rational rebellion, he would have been glad to sanction and to aid it. Yes, rational was the word—if it had been rational, then he would have aided it. [Mr. GRATTAN: NO, no!] I beg pardon, I have it fixed in my memory, and I say the hon. Gentleman did say all I say now.

rose to order. He wished to know whether the House would permit one hon. Member to say of another that he used language which he positively denies. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was prepared to take the place of a man who had been convicted of treason, or that he would have followed his steps. That was what the hon. and learned Gentleman said of him. Let him explain himself. He would insist on an explanation.

If any hon. Gentleman mis-state anything that another hon. Gentleman has said, the latter is perfectly at liberty to rise and state what he did say.

I stated that Mr. Smith O'Brien vulgarised sedition, and that his course had been such that he believed no one would follow his example; and as the hon. Member for Nottingham was then in his place, and made some remark, I went on to say that not even the Chartists would follow his example.

I think that short explanation nearly answers all my purpose. The hon. Gentleman says that what has occurred in Ireland has vulgarised sedition, so that the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Nottingham would not follow the example. We are, however, engaged upon a question about a Bill brought in for the purpose of giving the Queen a power which has been disputed in certain quarters—to give Her Majesty the power of granting mercy the power of commuting the sentence of death. I ask, first, whether this Bill is requisite? I say it is not requisite. I ask, then, supposing it to be requisite, what is the answer to it? The answer to it I understand to be, that it is a retroactive law, that it is a law which affects a person now a prisoner, who would not be affected thus were this Bill not passed. Had I been in the position of one of Her Majesty's Ministers, and feeling as I do upon this matter, if the Bill were not passed, and with the law, such as it is, in existence, whatever my feelings be on this question, generally speaking, I say if the law would permit it, the punish- ment should have been death. I say, with the existing law, such as it is, I would not have allowed the man who did this act to escape from the severest punishment which the law inflicts. I am not, Sir, a person to be turned aside from my purpose, whatever my feelings may otherwise be on the general proposition about the punishment of death; but I say of the transactions of this person, that they were those of one, if not deprived of reason, all his transactions were so thoroughly mischievous, so utterly careless of the miseries inflicted upon his poor followers, that I would be amongst the first to assert that he should be visited with the most severe punishment which the law could inflict; and it is nothing but the generosity of the English people acting upon this occasion, it is their enlightened feeling—it is their tenderness, and their benevolence, that prevents them on this occasion from carrying out the extreme measure of the law. Are we, then, to he deterred in the British House of Commons from looking upon such transactions in their own proper character? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, I believe, goes upon different motives. As I believe him opposed in politics to the gentleman who is under sentence of death, I ask whether there was the slightest pretence for this rebellion? I do not merely ask whether there was the slightest pretence, I ask whether there was the slightest chance of success? Yet this person—this Smith O'Brien, takes his followers into trouble, he is not killed himself there, but he takes them into trouble, into battle, into the most fearful difficulties into which men could be carried, with the terrible opposition against them of such a Government, and in such a country; and I ask, whether the man who has taken them into these difficulties is now in such a position that he ought to escape? I have said already, that were I in the position now occupied by the Government, and if I could have known the opposition which this Bill has received, not only would I have sanctioned his punishment, but I would have sanctioned the extreme sentence. But when the pity of the people of England, acting upon the Ministry, prevents such a law from taking its course, is it here to be met with arguments in the most pettifogging spirit? What is the meaning of this? I ask what is the meaning? It is an insult to the common sense of the people of England. They ask the Ministry to be gentle, mild, and merciful; and a pettifogging feeling introduces opposition to the mild and merciful proposition. There is no end in this. Do they mean this gentleman to be hanged? ["No, no!" from the Opposition benches. ] Then, do they tell me, since they will persevere in such opposition, that he cannot be hanged? Is there any man here, if he be a lawyer, who knows the law, who will say that, if Her Majesty should so choose, she may not sign the warrant, and have him executed immediately? I see a Gentleman opposite who says the Queen could not do this? [An Hon. MEMBER: Yes!] Now, here are all about us lawyers. [A VOICE: What, all the Assembly?] [Mr. REYNOLDS: Oh, no, no! Heaven help us! No, no!] Here is a Gentleman from Ireland who does not understand English, and he asks if I mean all this Assembly. No. I see on the one side the highest law officer of the Crown, and on the other side and all round us I see lawyers. I ask now of these, if the spirit were abroad that we have known even in our younger days, whether or not a Minister of the Crown gave his advice to Her Majesty, She would not have sent the warrant to Ireland, and the extreme punishment of the law have been inflicted within forty-eight hours after? But such, fortunately, is not the spirit of the time; and so contrary are the feelings of the people of this country, that they do not wish to see such crimes, or in fact any crimes, visited with that dreadful punishment. Nothing less than that which we have seen within the last few months—nothing less than such horrible deeds of murder—are sufficient, in the opinion of the people, to justify the taking away of life; and the Ministers of this country have done what in them lies to do away with this dreadful punishment. They have met the generosity of the people; they have done what they desired; they have transported the man. But this I will say, that Ministers, feeling strongly upon this, the effect of public opinion, desire to make that public opinion favourable to themselves. I do not say it is an improper feeling—for it is a feeling which I should wish to cherish and to forward. But I say, they, feeling that, and seeing a doubt in some men's minds—I do not care whose minds, but I say they are no lawyers—but such a doubt existing in some men's minds. Ministers say, "We see you entertain a doubt; there is no occasion for it; but as it is there, we will bring in a Bill to prevent all doubt; and so we shall prevent the legal consequences to the convict: we won't hang him, but we will transport him." I ask you, then, how is it possible to oppose a Bill like this? I ask hon. Gentlemen, if they are opposed, that they will not oppose the second reading. An hon. Gentleman opposite asks that the convict should be heard by counsel at the bar of the House. I am quite willing to accede to that proposition. But I have fully made up my mind, according to my present knowledge, although I do not say that some lights may not be brought to bear upon the question so as to alter my opinion, I, therefore, venture to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should allow the Bill to pass the second reading, and then give notice of a Motion that counsel should be heard at the bar of the House against the further progress of the measure. I, for my part, will accede to that proposition. But I will not be mistaken about the Bill itself. It deserves the approbation, not of this House alone, but of the world at large; it sets an example which I hope will be followed in all time coming, so that society shall be induced to do away with the punishment of death altogether. I say that, but I will not be driven from my purpose in any way by the notion of anybody; and I say that the law ought to be carried out as it was when the offence was committed. I say that this commutation of the law is a merciful commutation, and is not retroactive for any vicious, cruel purpose; but being simply merciful, I ask this House to sanction the merciful desires of the Ministers, enforced by the generous and merciful people of this country.

in explanation, said, that neither had he, nor any one else, denied that treason included felony; but his argument was, that, as the hon. and learned Attorney General had admitted that at common law the ground of an enforced commutation of punishment was the power which the Crown possessed to inflict imprisonment, there was a law already existing, without statute, by which Mr. Smith O'Brien might be punished, namely, by imprisonment. And as it was obvious that when the 12th of George I. was passed, it was not intended to include treason, otherwise traitors would have been mentioned; he therefore maintained that the common ordinary sense of the word "felony" was the meaning of the word used in the statute, and not treason.

explained that what he meant to convey by his interruption of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that, after the pardon had been in fact passed by the Crown for the capital offence of these unfortunate men, he hoped the House would not be led to come to a severe decision against them, and at all events would not refuse to allow them to be heard by counsel at the bar of that House by the persuasion and argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had himself stood at that bar as the hired advocate of rebels.

This only shows the spirit in which these matters are argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Why, Sir, I spoke in favour of counsel being heard at the bar. That was my argument. I say to that hon. Gentleman, when he says to me that I was the hired advocate of rebels, that he states that which is simply a falsehood. [ Cries of "Orderd !"]

The expression which has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman certainly is not Parliamentary, and ought to be retracted.

Sir, the expression not being Parliamentary, for that reason I retract it.

confessed he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have expressed himself in such terms as he had done. If he would alter his manner, he would show more respect for himself and for the House. ["Question, question!"] The question is, whether we shall hear counsel at the bar or not.

No; the question is not whether we shall hear counsel at the bar or not, but the question is whether the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield shall or shall not withdraw the language which he has addressed to an hon. Member in this House, and which no hon. Member has a right to address to another.

I understood the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to have withdrawn the expression.

Yes, Sir, yes. I will say at once, feeling as I always do the greatest respect towards this House, that anything which should be said by me that transcends its forms and its orders I am most willing to retract; but I hope the House will allow me the right to defend myself against a most unjust imputation. I most willingly retract any form of expression which I may have made use of contrary to the rules of the House, retaining still a direct denial of the assertion of the hon. Gentleman, which assertion was made without proof, which has been denied by myself many's the time and oft, and which I say, in the spirit of an honourable opposition in political life, ought not to have been reasserted. I hope the House will excuse me for having for a moment gone beyond those limits which they have very properly decided that no hon. Member ought to transcend, and which I acknowledge I have for an instant done. I retract the expression, and make many apologies to the House, and more especially to you. Sir; but to the hon. Gentleman opposite I have no apology to make.

very much doubted the courage of the hon. and learned Member, although he made such a display of it in that House. But if the hon. and learned Member would persist in throwing himself in the way of the Irish Members, he must not be surprised if they sometimes trod on him. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been more kind to the hon. Member for Longford than to me, but let that pass. The hon. and learned Member talked of magnanimity and humanity; but if Government wished to practise humanity, why not imprison these individuals? But that was not their object; their object was punishment and penalty. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had said that it would be better to hang the prisoners than that they should be let off on the plea of pettifogging lawyers. But had that been the practice in other countries during recent events? In France thousands had been killed in the streets, but not one insurgent had been executed except the assassins of General Brea. Even in Ireland, Lords Clare and Castlereagh had acted more mercifully, having merely sent those convicted of political offences out of Europe. But these unfortunate men were to be sent to a place which had been represented by its own governor as a perfect hell. Every day they had instances of the change of public opinion with regard to the punishment due to political crimes. In one country they found a man who was branded as a traitor one day, promoted on another to the high and responsible office of Attorney General; and in another they saw a man, who after suffering years of imprisonment for having endeavoured to raise a rebellion, placed at the head of the nation; surely, then, in a case which scarcely deserved the name of insurrection, they were not to act with undue severity. To punish these men with rigour would not be the way to bring tranquillity and peace to the country. He called on Ministers to bring in some plan to save Ireland from the absolute ruin with which she was threatened, instead of encouraging by their neglect, mock insurrections; and suggested that the best course Her Majesty could take with regard to these political prisoners would be to pardon them after a short imprisonment. He should support the Amendment.

regretted exceedingly the tone which the debate had assumed. The question ought to have been considered upon large constitutional principles; but those principles appeared to have been entirely forgotten, especially by English lawyers. Without attaching blame to any particular party, he confessed it would have been more honourable on the part of the British House of Commons to have considered the position of those unfortunate gentlemen whose case was before them; and, if it were not possible for the House to listen to their case, they ought at least to dispose of it in an honest and upright manner. He had hoped that such a case would have been made out as would have induced the Ministers to recommend Her Majesty to allow some fair mitigation of their punishment; for he regretted to say that he considered the conduct of those gentlemen perhaps deserved some degree of punishment. He was quite sure that if the case had been an English one, it would not have been argued as this had been; but unfortunately all Irish questions in that House and among the English nation were at the present moment at a discount. The complaints of Irishmen were listened to with inattention, and were disposed of without due consideration. He appealed to the justice of an English House of Commons to give those gentlemen a fair and impartial hearing.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 31: Majority 147.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."

complained that the discussion on so important a subject had been somewhat scanty. A deal of indecent and undue precipitation had been displayed by those who desired to promote the success of the Bill. They wished to extinguish discussion. The only opportunity the opponents of the Bill had of urging their well-founded objections was when the vast majority of the House were at their dinners; but those who had then absented themselves were now present to vote. It was too late at that period of the evening to enter on the discussion of the principle of the Bill after the House had refused to receive any further information whatsoever. He should, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate. The Bill, in his opinion, was a great and serious innovation; it was a Bill of pains and penalties under the form of a Declaratory Act. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield seemed to have formed his opinions without having heard the arguments. Certainly he was not present during the discussion upon the presentation of the petition; nor would his speech have been delivered at all if he had listened to the speeches of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and that of the hon. and learned Member for Athlone. The hon. and learned Gentleman had thrown out this challenge—was there a lawyer in the House who had the audacity to maintain that this Bill was not necessary? In answer to that challenge, he begged to say that he had the audacity to maintain that treason was not, now-a-days, included in the phrase felony. Doubts existed as to the present state of the law, both among the Judges and the bar; and this Bill proposed to settle those doubts, not only for the future, but for the past. But in doing so they were legislating in the dark; and he considered that a jury giving a verdict without evidence would be a trivial offence compared with that of permitting their judgment to be guided by the Minister in favour of this measure without inquiry—a measure which really was a Bill of pains and penalties, under the pretence of being a Declaratory Act. Whatever might be the merits of Mr. Smith O'Brien's case, he had at least probable grounds to rely upon for the non-execution of his sentence. It was doubtful how far he might be at liberty to avail himself of plausible points of form. If the Bill was thrown out, and Ministers ventured to place Mr. Smith O'Brien on board a convict ship, they would subject themselves to what would most certainly follow—the necessity of anwering a writ of habeas corpus at the bar of the Queen's Bench. And if Mr. Smith O'Brien had no case for a habeas corpus , surely it would be an act of injustice for Parliament to interfere, and deprive him of such advantages as were afforded either by the merits of the case or the blunders of the Crown lawyers. If blunders had been made, let Mr. Smith O'Brien have the advantage of them. Let the same justice be extended to him as would be to the meanest criminal. No criminal was ever deprived of the advantage of a quibble in favour of life and liberty; but here was something more important than a quibble, and it was so dignus vindice as to justify the interposition of the omnipotence of Parliament. Whenever measures for abridging the liberty of the subject were considered advisable, the Whigs were always ready to bring them forward; but he was aware that to the Whig law and liberty were terms of no value. In the old statues the words misdemeanor, trespass, and felony, were held to include treason. ["No, no!"] If the hon. Member who cried "no," would refer to the year books, he would find that "trespass" in French, and "transgressio" in Latin, were held to include treason, though in modern times, no judge had been found to decide that trespass included misdemeanor, or that misdemeanor included felony. In the same way piracy was not held to be felony, be- cause, though it included felony, it was held to be a higher offence, and was, therefore, punishable differently. But the Bill before the House violated the prerogative of the Crown, at the same time that it violated the liberty of the subject; because, being a Declaratory Act, it would be difficult if not impossible for the Queen hereafter, at any time, to pardon a person sentenced to death, except for the purpose of transporting him for life, or for a term of years. If this Bill did not pass. Ministers would be obliged, unless they were fettered by the pardon that had been given, to do what the convicted persons prayed them to do, that is, instead of transporting them, which was to degrade them for ever, to put them to death. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might think dishonour preferable to death; but Mr. Smith O'Brien was a gentleman of education and high feeling, and like many, he trusted, in that House, thought death preferable to dishonour. He (Mr. Anstey) had never denied the rebellion of last year, and had never thrown any difficulties in the way of the measures which Ministers thought expedient or necessary to put it down. He had never approved, either in that House or elsewhere, of the language that had been used by those parties, or of the acts which followed it; but he regarded this question as one of a very different character. It was whether a criminal, after conviction, was or was not to enjoy the small modicum of liberty and protection which the law still left him, or whether the Parliament was to come in and save the incapable law officers of Ireland from the consequences of the new blunders which they had committed, and which had already excited the scorn and ridicule of the world. He objected to being called upon to supply their defects, as he thought they ought to be accountable for their own errors. This measure ought to have been discussed in another place, where the Judges of the land would have had the power of expressing their opinion upon it. If there were sufficient spirit left among the Irish Members to support him, the Bill should not pass without being subjected to important alterations, and to test the spirit of those Members he would move that the debate be now adjourned.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that he had studiously avoided speaking on the question lest some injudicious expression should fall from him which might injure the cause of the petitioners, and he now rose merely for the purpose of expressing a hope that the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin would not allow the case to be taken out of his hands.

said, that the House having given what appeared to be a deliberate and an attentive consideration to the case involved in the petition presented by him at an early period of the evening, he was not disposed to carry opposition further. In his opinion the present measure was either unwise or unnecessary; but yielding to the expressed opinion of the House, he would not attempt to obstruct its progress.

begged the hon. and learned Member for Youghal to withdraw his Amendment, and leave the case in the hands of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin.

also wished the Amendment to be withdrawn, in order that the House might come to a division on the principle of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 195: Majority 186.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

expressed his determination, notwithstanding the decision to which the House had come, of dividing against the second reading of the Bill.

said, he was afraid, not being a lawyer, to say one word against the Bill, because he had the fear of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield before his eyes. He had heard that hon. and learned Gentleman called before now the "Sheffield blade" in that House, and he thought he had that evening also shown some of the sides of a blade. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Will any lawyer have the audacity to tell me so and so?" The hon. and learned Gentleman said, "I speak in propositions, and not in interjections." He (Mr. Reynolds) was surprised the hon. and learned Member did not say that he spoke in proverbs. It occurred to him that the hon. and learned Member stood exceedingly well with himself. In Ireland they had a saying, when a man was guilty of egotism to a great extent, that whilst he was alive his trumpeter was not dead. The hon. and learned Member's trumpeter would live while he was Member for Sheffield. The hon. and learned Member reminded him of a countryman of his, who, going to a fair and finding no one ready to fight, threw hack his coat and said, "Who'll tread on the skirt of that?" The hon. and learned Member had given a wholesale challenge—" Let me see any man who will dare to quote the law with me. I hold in my hands the Act of George I.," or George II., he (Mr. Reynolds) did not know which, but that hon. and learned Gentleman gave chapter and verse: he said, "Here is the text; here is the black letter; and here I am, the Member for Sheffield; and when I open my mouth, let no man speak—let no lawyer measure his legal knowledge with me—I am the law and the prophets." But when the hon. and learned Member for Kidderminster quoted the law and the prophets, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield did not make any answer. An hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the mercy of the people of England pressed the Minister to mitigate this sentence. He would admit that the people of England, as a body, were benevolent and merciful. He thought so, and his intercourse with them had confirmed him in that opinion; but he denied that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was merciful. He heard the hon. and learned Member, with feelings not of sorrow alone, but of horror, rake up all matters connected with the unfortunate gentleman now under sentence of death: the hon. and learned Member said everything he could to aggravate the crime, but nothing to throw a shade over that gentleman's misfortune. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that when a Gentleman thought fit to use an offensive phrase against another, that House was not the place to select. There was nothing more secure than to be personally offensive in that House. Hon. Gentlemen had no notion how secure they were in such circumstances. What mercy did the hon. and learned Member show? He voted against permitting the unfortunate prisoners being heard at the bar of the House. Was that mercy? If it were, he (Mr. Reynolds) did not understand the meaning of the expression. The hon. and learned Member thought the sentence not severe enough, and said, "What do they want—to be hanged? Sooner than submit to anything like success on their part, in this view I would hang them." He supposed the hon. and learned Member called that mercy. He recollected reading in the newspapers that the hon. and learned Member took him (Mr. Reynolds) to task on a former occasion for some observations he had made, and, if the newspaper was correct, the hon. and learned Member amused the House by imitating what he called "his Irish brogue;" but he had heard from hon. Members who were present that it was a dead failure. And he had heard more—that, upon that occasion, the noble Lord at the head of the Government said he was glad to see the hon. and learned Member again in the House; and that he reminded him of a frozen French horn which, becoming thawed, emitted sweet sounds—that meant the voice of the hon. and learned Member. He allowed that the noble Lord was a great and successful statesman; but he appeared to him (Mr. Reynolds) to be a bad judge of music; for if the noble Lord referred to the hon. and learned Gentleman's voice as music, it occurred to him to be just as appropriate to call the sound of a railway whistle music, for there appeared to him to be no music in the hon. and learned Gentleman's voice. ["Question!"] Let them recollect the question. It was whether, at the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had entertained them with a long speech of special pleading, they would pass an ex post facto law to enable them to transport Mr. Smith O'Brien and his coassociates. He was totally opposed to the passing of this measure, but the alternative was not hanging. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] That might be satisfactory to the hon. and learned Member; but there was another alternative, and it was this—Her Majesty might, if She pleased—and he believed that if She were so advised, nothing would be more agreeable to Her—still mitigate the sentence. He sincerely hoped Her Majesty might never take much of the hon. and learned Gentleman's advice, and, more than that, that the hon. and learned Gentleman might never enjoy the honour of Her Royal ear whenever mercy was to be extended to an Irishman. He believed that though they might not succeed in defeating the Bill, the appeal to mercy would have its weight, and that no further punishment would be inflicted on those who had been severely punished already by an imprionment of twelve months and the destruction of all their prospects. Surely a British House of Commons could not raise its voice for the purpose of further oppression. No man living more condemned their offence than himself. He had done so on the hustings and in the House; and giving them credit for the best possible intentions—[ Laughter ]—yes, the men thought they were right just as much as the promoters of the Bill—but conceding to them earnestness in pursuing their views, he knew they had done more harm and injury to the popular cause in Ireland than any body of agitators for the last half-century. He would not venture to say there were any enemies to Ireland in that House; but if there were, he could tell them they ought to go on their knees to Smith O'Brien and Company; for any one who wished to cripple the liberty of the subject or coerce the people of that country, had been infinitely assisted by those gentlemen. He hoped the House would not pass the Bill; and before he sat down, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State if a document or warrant had not been actually sent to the gaol from the Castle on Saturday, the 9th of June, and whether the governor had not told the prisoners to get ready, and kept them waiting three hours?

said, he never heard of any such document, and that he had the authority of the Lord Lieutenant for stating that no such document commuting the sentence had ever been transmitted from the Castle.

could readily understand such would have been the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Dublin. As to the question before the House, he wished it should go forth to the country and to the world what it really was. Last year a number of Englishmen were tried for sedition, and having been convicted, were at that moment undergoing the sentence of transportation. They were not educated men; they had not led the people away under the sanction of that influence which education necessarily possessed in this and every country. But they were suffering the penalty of the law; and if the persons accused and found guilty of high treason were permitted to escape, every one of those poor unfortunate Englishmen had a right to appeal to the House and ask for a remission of their sentence. He insisted on that—yes, and he gave notice that if the sen- tence of the law should not be carried into execution on those men, he was resolved to ask for a mitigation of the punishment of the persons who had been transported for sedition. Not even the hon. Member for Dublin would pretend to say that those persons in Ireland had not been guilty of levying war against the Queen—the highest offence known to the law. They had been found guilty by a jury of their countrymen, and their sentence had been confirmed unanimously on an appeal to the highest court in the kingdom. There was, then, no injustice in the decision as far as the law was concerned. Let them see, then, if there were any moral circumstances connected with their crime which might tend to lessen their inculpation and punishment. He could imagine there were cases in which rebellion might have some justification, but in the present instance there was nothing to take their high treason out of the category of ridicule in which it had been placed by the hon. Member for Meath. Here were men so infatuated, so blind to anything but their own opinions, that they looked to neither right nor left, but seduced some ignorant men to rise in rebellion against the constituted authorities—a ridiculous outbreak, in which every sane man must know that cruel and terrible ruin must fall on the unfortunate creatures who fought, suffered, and died in it. Had not misery, distress, and death, been the consequence? And was it any excuse to say, every rational man knew the outbreak must fail, and that educated men, accustomed to sit in that House and discuss the matters relating to this great empire, should escape when his (Mr. Roebuck's) poor countrymen, Cuffey and others—[ Laughter ]—oh, yes, they laughed at Cuffey. He was a poor man. There was no sympathy for him. Oh, dear, no! He was not "a gentleman," therefore they had no Irish patriotism veiling itself in unintelligible ejaculations about him. If they wished his countrymen to be satisfied with the administration of the law, it must be fairly administered to Mr. Smith O'Brien, even though he was Mr. Smith O'Brien, as well as to the poorest in the land. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin was so confused, that he could not recollect what had occurred for ten minutes together. He had accused him (Mr. Roebuck) of alluding to Mr. Smith O'Brien's family. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had done so; but he (Mr. Roebuck) had never mentioned their name, He felt for them the deepest sympathy, and if any act of his could relieve them from suffering, it should be eagerly and anxiously performed. But when he said so, he could not forget the state of the law. Now, in the first place, he asserted in the face of every lawyer in the House that "treason" was included under the general term "felony," and therefore was included in the general Act of Parliament relating to felonies. He would like to see the lawyer who would deny that. [Mr. C. ANSTEY: I do.] Well, if the hon. and learned Member asserted that felony was not the common law term, he had done with it. [Mr. C. Anstey here walked across the floor of the House with an open book, which he presented to the hon. Member.] Well, what did he read there? Why, that in ancient times treason was comprised under the name of felony, but not the contrary. Therefore the pardon for felony had sometimes been alleged to apply to high treason; but the law was, that, were the power of pardon for felony to be dispensed with, then no indictment could lie for high treason. Now, he could not understand the work which the hon. and learned Member had put into his hand to be any answer to his arguments. What did it say? Why that all treasons were felonies, but not the contrary—that was, all felonies were not treason. All men were animals, but all animals were not men. He contended that the Crown had already the power to commute the punishment from death to transportation; but supposing, for the sake of argument, it had not, he was prepared to confer such a power by the present Bill. He would assert that there was not that strong moral feeling that would prevent the punishment of death from being inflicted, if the responsible counsellors of the Crown had not advised Her Majesty to commute the capital punishment. What had caused all this newborn sympathy with men who were allowed to be traitors? He could not understand it. Now, as the hon. Member for Dublin had referred to some observations which he had made on a former occasion, he begged to assure that hon. Gentleman he had only in a good-humoured manner referred to his speech relative to having a pull at the Exchequer.

I never used the words.

There were two hundred men in the House who would say that these words were uttered.

No!

Order!

I insist upon it they were; but it is disorderly to refer to a past debate, and I won't. In the course of the evening, too, the hon. Member for Mayo has contradicted my statements.

They are false.

The hon. Member for Mayo says "It is false."

No, I said it was not true.

The hon. Gentleman is not in that state in which I can notice what falls from him. He would leave the House to answer the argument of the hon. Member for Meath, and then to decide between them. ["Question!"] Question! but you did not call question when the hon. Member for Dublin attacked me just now. If this species of attacks are continued, because I, in my capacity as a Member of this House, choose to notice the way in which the Government of this country think proper to deal with Ireland, I am the more determined not to be turned from my course by any such violence or specimen of unfairness; but, supported as I am out of doors as well as in this House, I will endeavour by every means in my power to put a stop to that wasteful expenditure of the funds of my own country for the improvident use of the people of Ireland—of the money wrung from the hard hands of my countrymen to satisfy the rapacity of Irish idleness. ["Question!"] Ay, that is the question.

Give him rope enough!

An hon. Member near me exclaims, "Give him rope enough!" I ask you. Sir, and I ask the House, if any phrase of mine has justified such an expression? I have marked the Gentleman, although I don't know who he is, or what place he represents. But I say that is an offensive expression, and that it is improperly used to hon. Members of this House.

You don't know the proverb.

The hon. Gentleman is adding to the offence. He says I don't know the proverb. But as I know that insolence is no answer, I know that ignorance is no argument—and that vulgar abuse is not to put me down in this House.

I rise to order. I think that the language used by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield is such that I am sure even he himself, in his calmer moments, will confess, that no hon. Gentleman representing an Irish constituency can sit still and listen to.

The hon. Member should not interrupt the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. I think that the hon. and learned Member was not out of order. I could not hear the precise words addressed to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield by the hon. Member who interrupted him, and therefore I could not tell to what extent that hon. Member was out of order. But I must state that I do not think it adds to the dignity of our proceedings, that hon. Members should be subject to these constant interruptions.

Sir, having sat close to the hon. Gentleman who interrupted the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, I feel bound to say those interruptions were so contrary to the rules of Parliament that guide hon. Gentlemen, that I do not wonder at the violence with which the hon. and learned Member resented them.

repeated, that he had not heard the words addressed to the hon. and learned Member, or he would certainly have interfered sooner; but he hoped hon. Members would see the propriety of respecting the dignity of the House by abstaining from the use of offensive expressions.

said, that he too had been sitting near the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and could bear his testimony to what had been going on; and he must say that if hon. Members had interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman, it had not been without provocation, which had met with no censure, either from the House or from the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester.

said, it was because he had heard so many interruptions offered to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that he said it would be much better to give him rope enough and let him alone. His object, in fact, was to stop those who were interrupting the hon. and learned Member.

said, that the hon. Member first said, "Give him rope enough," and afterwards, "You don't know the proverb." The proverb was, "Give him rope enough and let him hang himself." Could anybody wonder that he should feel, as the Speaker had said he did, that the dignity of the House would not be advanced by such a species of opposition? He was sure he discussed the question of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin in a spirit which need not have raised the ire of any human being against him; and yet, notwithstanding that, the hon. Member for Meath had spoken of him, as he was always in the habit of doing, in a most offensive way. But he (Mr. Roebuck) did not care for that; for, so long as he felt he was discussing a great question fairly and honestly, he would not be drawn aside from it by the impatience of Irish Members.

put it to the House whether it was desirable that this discussion should be continued. No man could find fault with the course pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, who had had a petition intrusted to his hands on the subject of the Bill before the House; nor could any one find fault with the course pursued by those who immediately followed him, and who, fairly enough, found fault with the Bill, because in their opinion it was improper; neither could it be said that anything that had been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had given occasion to any heated discussion. As in the course of the debate, however, hon. Members had rather lost sight of the merits of the question before them, and as, if the discussion were continued, there would probably be replies and counter-replies, which, as the Speaker had truly said, must tend to diminish the dignity of the House, he hoped that hon. Gentlemen, however indignant they might feel, would abstain from giving expression to their feelings, and that the House would now be allowed to come to a division on the Bill.

did not wish to detain the House with any angry remarks of his. He only desired to say that he had used too strong an expression perhaps; but he feared that so long as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield pursued the practice which he had adopted of attacking the representatives of the country to which he (Mr. D. Browne) had the honour to belong, and of aspersing the character of Irishmen, such incidental remarks would occasionally be made. He must say, too, that before the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield obtained a seat in that House this Session, such angry discussions did not take place. He thought it advisable that the hon. and learned Member should maintain that equanimity within the House which he seemed disposed to maintain without the House. He did not see why it should be necessary when any matter respecting Ireland was introduced into that House, that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield should asperse the character of Irishmen, and adopt a language towards them which must be repudiated by every Irishman who had the feelings of a man. With respect to the measure before the House, he could not give it his support. He had refrained from attaching his name to the petition which was forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in favour of mitigating the sentence of Mr. Smith O'Brien and the others; but nevertheless he must distinguish between doing so and voting for the present measure.

with reference to the phrase "a pull at the Exchequer," which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had attributed to him, acknowledged that he had used it in the debate on the Rate-in-Aid Bill, when speaking of the Shannon job, but not on the occasion to which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had referred.

put it to the Speaker, as a fair and calm judge of their proceedings, whether the hon. Member for Sheffield had not deliberately insulted three Irish Members? He had charged the hon. Member for Longford with falsehood—he had said the hon. Member for Mayo was intoxicated—and he had stated—

said, that the hon. Member must see at once that it was impossible for him to permit him to repeat words which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had already retracted.

explained, that when the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield made use of that language to the hon. Member for Mayo, he (Mr. Lawless) said to the latter, "give him rope enough." The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had been called a Sheffield blade; but, if he were so, he must be one of those which was sometimes seen in the shop windows, which no one could touch without cutting his fingers, and which was of no use to the proprietor. He was sure the people of Sheffield would soon be tired of the hon. and learned Member.

Question put.—The House divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 19: Majority 156.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

observed, that this Bill seemed to be framed in an odd way. It contained very few clauses, but the schedule was enormous—as big as a dictionary. There was one provision in the Bill which gave the commissioners perfect legislative power to make rules for their own courts; and any person who did not obey those rules, might be imprisoned for life.

said, it was true the Bill was drawn in a rather novel form, and that was the reason he proposed that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman then moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, consisting of the following Members:—The Attorney General, Mr. Walpole, the Judge Advocate, Mr. Masterman, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. William Peel, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Miles, Mr. John Williams, Mr. Mullings, Mr. Brown, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Edmund Deni Bon, Mr. Forster, and Mr. Heathcoat.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.