CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.

HC Deb 17 April 1848 vol 98 cc417-31

Order of the Day read for receiving the Report on the Crown and Government Security Bill.

MR. AGLIONBY, in proposing the clause of which he had given notice, begged he might not be understood as at all wishing to embarrass the Government, or to refuse any power which they might think necessary for the preservation of the public peace and safety of the country. His object was to take away the power of transportation; making the offence not bailable, and leaving parties convicted of having transgressed the law by "open and advised speaking" liable to imprisonment for two years, with or without hard labour. The hon. Member proposed a clause to that effect.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL could not accede to the proposition. This question had been discussed on several occasions. The great object of the Bill was not so much to take the offence out of the class of bailable misdemeanours, as to insure its immediate punishment. Under this clause the offender might traverse until the following term. His hon. Friend also proposed to mitigate the punishment of sedition by relieving the offender from any fine. It was not expedient to make the punishment of sedition less than at present.

The House divided on the question that the Clause be read a second time:—Ayes 50; Noes 117: Majority 67.

List of the AYES.
Armstrong, R. B.	Muntz, G. F.
Baines, M. T.	O'Connor, F.
Barnard, E. G.	Osborne, R.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Pearson, C.
Bright, J.	Pechell, Capt.
Brotherton, J.	Pilkington, J.
Clay, J.	Reynolds, J.
Clay, Sir W.	Robartes, T. J. A.
Crawford, W. S.	Salwey, Col.
Devereux, J. T.	Scholefield, W.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T	Scrope, G. P.
Duncan, G.	Smith, J. B.
Evans, Sir De L.	Stuart, Lord D.
Evans, J.	Sullivan, M.
Gardner, R.	Thompson, Col.
Greene, J.	Thompson, G.
Hall, Sir B.	Thornely, T.
Henry, A.	Villiers, hon. C.
Hodges, T. L.	Wakley, T.
Humphery, Ald.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Keating, R.	Westhead, J. P.
Kershaw, J.	Williams, J.
Lushington, C.	Wood, W. P.
Martin, S.
Milnes, R. M.	TELLERS.
Moffatt, G.	Aglionby, H. A.
Mowatt, F.	Hume, J.

List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N.	Birch, Sir T. B.
Adair, R. A. S.	Bourke, R. S.
Adderley, C. B.	Bremridge, R.
Anstey, T. C.	Buller, C.
Arundel and Surrey,	Bunbury, E. H.
Earl of	Busfeild, W.
Bateson, T.	Campbell, hon. W. F.
Benett, J.	Carter, J. B.
Bennet, P.	Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Charteris, hon. F.	Melgund, Visct.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Mitchell, T. A.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Morison, Gen.
Colvile, C. R.	Mundy, E. M.
Countenay, Lord	Napier, J.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Norreys, Lord
Denison, W. J.	O'Connell, M. J.
Disraeli, B.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Drumlanrig, Visct.	Ossulston, Lord
Drummond, H.	Oswald, A.
Dunne, F. P.	Owen, Sir J.
Elliott, hon. J. E.	Palmerston, Visct.
Farnham, E. B.	Parker, J.
Gaskell, J. M.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Gladstone, rt, hn. W. E.	Perfect, R.
Grace, O. D. J.	Pigot, Sir R.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Granger, T. C.	Pugh, D.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Rawdon, Col.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Richards, R.
Guest, Sir J.	Romilly, J.
Haggitt, F. R.	Russell, Lord J.
Hamilton, G. A.	Rutherford, A.
Harris, hon. Capt.	Sandars, G.
Hastie, A.	Seymer, H. K.
Hawes, B.	Seymour, Lord
Hayter, W. G.	Shelburne, Earl of
Headlam, T. E.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Heathcoat, J.	Stafford, A.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hanley, J. W.	Stanton, W. H.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
Hildyard, R. C.	Stuart, J.
Hogg, Sir J. W.	Sturt, H. G.
Hood, Sir A.	Tancred, H. W.
Hope, A.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Hotham, Lord	Thompson, Ald.
Hutt, W.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Jervis, Sir J.	Townshend, Capt.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Urquhart, D.
Jones, Capt.	Vivian, J. H.
Keppel, hon. G. T.	Walpole, S. H.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Ward, H. G.
Langston, J. H.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Lemon, Sir C.	Williamson, Sir H.
Lennard, T. B.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Lewis, G. C.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Lockhart, A. E.	Young, Sir J.
Macnaghten, Sir E.
Mahon, The O'Gorman	TELLERS.
Martin, C. W.	Tufnell, H.
Maule, rt. hon. F.	Craig, W. G.

SIR W. CLAY moved in Clause 3, line 16, to omit after the word "writing" the following words, "or by open and advised speaking," and to add the following Clause to the Bill in lieu of the words so omitted:— And be it Enacted, That if any person shall, at any time after the passing of this Act, have been held to bail for a misdemeanour in respect of seditious words or speaking, and shall be again charged with a second or subsequent offence of a like kind, it shall be lawful for the Justice or other Magistrate before whom he shall be so charged, to refuse to admit such person to bail on such second or subsequent charge. He would leave the law as at present; but, in order to prevent any person charged before a magistrate with seditious speaking being out on bail pursuing his seditious courses, he thought it would be sufficient to make the offence not bailable on the second charge. He had no sympathy with that class of offenders this Bill was intended to put down; but he was anxious that no false patriot or vulgar trader in sedition should be elevated into a martyr by the severity of his punishment.

SIR G. GREY said, the House had already decided the principle of this clause. They had rejected the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth, and this clause did not go so far. He could not consent to any relaxation of this provision of the Bill.

MR. BRIGHT thought the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets sufficient to meet the case. If such had been the law six weeks ago the persons charged in Dublin with sedition would have been admitted to bail; but if a second charge had been made against them they would have been committed to prison to await their trial when the ordinary courts assembled. Such a proceeding would, in his view, have gained every object the Government had in view. He would vote for every modification of the Bill which might be proposed, because it was evidently the object of the Government to make the law more stringent than was necessary.

The House divided, on the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause:—Ayes 39; Noes 83: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	O'Connor, F.
Baines, M. T.	Osborne, R.
Barnard, E. G.	Pearson, C.
Clay, J.	Peehell, Capt.
Crawford, W. S.	Pilkington, J.
Devereux, J. T.	Reynolds, J.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C.T.	Salwey, Col.
Duncan, G.	Scholefield, W.
Evans, Sir De L.	Smith, J. B.
Evans, J.	Stuart, Lord D.
Gardner, R.	Sullivan, M.
Greene, J.	Thompson, Col.
Hall, Sir B.	Thompson, G.
Hodges, T. L.	Wakley, T.
Hume, J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Keating, R.	Williams, J.
Kershaw, J.	Wood, W. P.
Lushington, C.	Wyld, J.
Martin, S.	TELLERS.
Mowatt, F.	Clay, Sir W.
Muntz, G. F.	Bright, J.

List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N.	Arundel and Surrey,
Adair, R. A. S.	Earl of
Adderley, C. B.	Benbow, J.

Benett, J.	Lennard, T. B.
Birch, Sir T. B.	Lewis, G. C.
Bourke, R. S.	Lockhart, A. E.
Bremridge, R.	Macnaghten, Sir E.
Bunbury, E. H.	Martin, C. W.
Busfeild, W.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Carter, J. B.	Mitchell, T. A.
Charteris, hon. F.	Morpeth, Visct.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Napier, J.
Clive, H. B.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Cockburn, A. J. E.	Owen, Sir J.
Courtenay, Lord	Palmerston, Visct.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Parker, J.
Denison, W. J.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Drumlanrig, Visct.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Dundas, G.	Pugh, D.
Dunne, F. P.	Richards, R.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Robinson, G. R.
Gaskell, J. M.	Romilly, J.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Russell, Lord J.
Granger, T. C.	Rutherfurd, A.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Sandars, G.
Guest, Sir J.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Haggitt, F. R.	Shelburne, Earl of
Hamilton, G. A.	Somerville,rt. hn. Sir W.
Harris, hon. Capt.	Stafford, A.
Hawes, B.	Stanton, W. H.
Hayter, W. G.	Stuart, J.
Headlam, T. E.	Talfourd, Serj.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Tancred, H. W.
Henley, J. W.	Turner, G. J.
Hildyard, R. C.	Walpole, S. H.
Hodges, T. T.	Ward, H. G.
Hood, Sir A.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Hope, A.	Williamson, Sir H.
Hotham, Lord	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Jervis, Sir J.	Young, Sir J.
Jones, Capt.
Keogh, W.	TELLERS.
Keppel, hon. G. T.	Tufnell, H.
Langston, J. H.	Craig, W. G.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL then moved that the following proviso be added to Clause 3:— Provided always, and be it Enacted, That no person shall be prosecuted for any felony by virtue of this Act in respect of such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions as aforesaid, in so far as the same are expressed, uttered, or declared by open and advised speaking, unless information of such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, and intentions, and of the words by which the same were expressed, uttered, or declared, shall be given upon oath to one or more Justice or Justices of the peace, or to any Sheriff or Steward, or Sheriff Substitute or Steward Substitute in Scotland, within six days after such words shall have been spoken, and unless a warrant for the apprehension of the person by whom such words shall have been spoken shall be issued within ten days next after such information shall have been given as aforesaid, and unless such warrant shall be issued within two years next after the passing of this Act; and that no person shall be convicted of any such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions as aforesaid, in so far as the same are expressed, uttered, or declared by open or advised speaking as aforesaid, except upon his own confession, or unless the words so spoken shall be proved by two credible witnesses.

MR. O'CONNOR complained that the Government had now extended the time within which informations might be sworn. Another objectionable part of the proviso was, that it did not make the issuing of the warrant simultaneous with the swearing of the information. An individual would not know that he was charged with uttering seditious language until sixteen days after the alleged offence, at which time those persons who might be called as witnesses to rebut the accusation would have but an imperfect recollection of what he had said. He could undertake to report a six hours' debate in that House, giving to each speaker almost the very words he used, provided he made the report on the day following the debate; but at the end of six days he should be able to give only a very imperfect account of what had taken place. The Government might depend upon it that by the 1st of May they would hear the national voice resounding against the Bill. When the noble Lord now at the head of the Government should sit on the Opposition side of the House, and a Tory Administration should be in office, what violation of the constitution could he in conscience oppose; for what violation of the constitution could there be greater than this Bill? The Government had boasted of the professions of loyalty they had received—of the vast number of special constables that had volunteered for enrolment; and in Ireland the Lord Lieutenant had said he was surrounded by all the loyalty of the kingdom—and, moreover, he was surrounded by troops. What, then, had the Government to fear? Yet, under these circumstances, and when the country was groaning under difficulties, the House was asked to pass a measure of this kind. But the Government would be overwhelmed that should dare to carry such a Bill into execution.

MR. AGLIONBY agreed with the hon. Member for Nottingham in one part of his objection to this clause, namely, the number of days given for the operation of the process. He thought so long a period as sixteen days was not in accordance with the understanding of the House as to the effect of the proviso; and he wished to know why the time had been extended from six days to sixteen. He was willing to give sufficient time to lay the information before the Home Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but, at the same time, thought no delay should take place, but that proceedings should be taken at the earliest moment after the report of the spoken words had been received.

MR. REYNOLDS objected to the extension of the time for laying the information, but still more strongly to allowing the magistrate to hold over the information for ten days. He could not understand why the magistrate should be vested by this Bill with power to do that which under the present law he was not permitted to do. He was now compelled to return his warrant instanter. Unless some satisfactory explanation of the reason for this enlarged time were given, he should oppose it.

Clause read a first time.

On the question that it be read a second time,

The word "only" at the suggestion of Mr. WALPOLE was inserted after the words "advisedly speaking."

The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that as the clause originally stood, there was to be no prosecution in respect of words spoken, unless the words were deposed to within three days, and a prosecution instituted within three months. The intent of the information before the magistrate was, that the words should be recorded upon which the prosecution was to be founded. But the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon had urged that an accused party might thus be kept in ignorance and suspense for three months, and, feeling that there might be some foundation for such a complaint, he (the Attorney General) had endeavoured to meet the objection by proposing this proviso, which contained much that operated in favour of the accused. It was plain that some time must be given for the communication with the proper authorities, and the six days proposed were not too much for communicating from the provincial parts of England or Ireland with the Government in London or Dublin; for charges of this kind should not be lightly preferred. With respect to the ten days for the magistrate to issue his warrant, he might observe, that by the common law the magistrate was not now bound to do so immediately. He might withhold his warrant for a given time. He apprehended that a magistrate was not bound to issue his warrant immediately, but might withhold it from time to time. But in this case the Bill took away the right of deferring the issue of the warrant, and enacted that it must be issued within a certain time—a circumstance which was in favour of the accused. He was, there- fore, surprised at the opposition to this part of the proviso.

MR. REYNOLDS said, the hon. and learned Attorney General might have given a satisfactory reason for the substitution of six days for three with regard to the information, but certainly not for the ten days during which the magistrate might hold the warrant in his hands without notice to the defendant. He believed the present law compelled the magistrate in all cases of felony to return the warrant forthwith; and he should therefore move that the word "forthwith" be substituted for the words "ten days."

MR. HUME was of opinion that the moment the charge was made the magistrate should issue his warrant.

MR. HENLEY thought that the words "ten days" were exceedingly in favour of the subject. If a complaint on oath were made out satisfactorily to a magistrate, it was his duty immediately to issue his warrant. But there were also doubtful cases in which the magistrate might doubt whether the offence amounted to felony; and the Bill provided that in a matter so uncertain that the magistrates could not make up his mind within ten days to issue his warrant, the parties should not be answerable for the works spoken. If the words spoken clearly made out the charge, the magistrate would immediately issue his warrant, but if, on the contrary, he had a doubt which he could not resolve within the ten days, cadit quœstio, and the party was free from all consequences of those words. The limitation to ten days was, in fact, a safeguard to the subject, and he should be sorry to see any alteration.

MR. BRIGHT thought that the delay of ten days would be found highly inexpedient. The warrant, the information being before the magistrates, should be issued at once, as in the case of any other felony. The object of the Government, it might be taken for granted, was not to tempt to the commission of the offence, but to punish the offender as speedily as possible; and though he thought it probable that this law would seldom, if ever, be enforced, he hoped that the Government would not consent to frame it upon a principle unjust and impolitic.

MR. REYNOLDS would so far modify the Amendment he had proposed as to substitute "two days" instead of "forthwith," as he had before suggested, for "ten days."

MR. WAKLEY would, in that case, move the introduction of the word "forthwith." The magistrate, he considered, ought to be required at once to furnish the accused party with the accusation against him, and to proceed to issue the warrant. He regretted that a Government calling itself Liberal should ever have brought forward such a Bill, and, ere long, he prophesied they would most heartily repent that they had taken a course so inconsistent with their former protestations.

MR. MOORE did not see why the usual practice when an information was laid before the magistrate should be departed from. The prolongation of time proposed would enable a Government to exercise gross treachery towards the party accused. The House was to consider not only how to do justice to the accused, but how to protect tho ignorant people who might be seduced into breaches of order; and that protection, it seemed to him, would be afforded by taking care that there was as little delay as possible in pointing out when a speaker had violated the law.

MR. COCKBURN wished it to be distinctly understood what was the object which the House now had in view. Her Majesty's Government were probably as desirous as hon. Gentlemen to secure protection to the subject. The question now was, should a magistrate to whom a case of this kind was referred, have a discretionary power greater than that which he possessed in the exercise of his ordinary functions? Was the magistrate to be compelled to delay until it was intimated to him whether or not Her Majesty's Government approved of the prosecution? Under the ordinary law a magistrate had no alternative; he would be bound to issue his warrant without any delay whatever. Would that House then vest such an authority in the magistrate as would permit him, as on ordinary occasions, to act irrespectively of the wishes of the Government? He (Mr. Cockburn) hoped not; it appeared to him that, as offences of this kind were confessedly against the Government, the Government alone ought to decide upon the expediency of prosecution. If it was the intention of the Government to invest the magistrate with such authority, this clause would seem to be unnecessary; but if they wished to reserve to themselves the power of preventing or of proceeding with a prosecution, as circumstances might direct, and so obviate the effects of private malice, this proviso was of the greatest importance; and, so far from being an in- fringement on the liberty of the subject, it would operate as a direct safeguard in the prevention of trivial individual prosecutions.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL reminded his hon. and learned Friend, that though under the present law an individual might prosecute for treason, such an instance very seldom occurred; and it was not supposed that if this Bill came into operation there would be found any necessity of taking precautions for the purpose of defeating private malice. It was desirable, however, that the magistrate should not be compelled to issue his warrant immediately, both on the ground of security to the Government, and protection to the individual.

MR. S. MARTIN objected to the proviso, because it would afford the opportunity of trying a man, not for one speech, in reference to which the information might be first laid, but for a series of speeches; and the Government not communicating at once with the accused, would be enabled by the delay of ten days to collect evidence treacherously.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL apprehended that a series of speeches was to be considered as one scheme—a scheme to overset the Government; and he could not, therefore, see that any injustice would accrue from taking advantage of the delay.

The House divided on the question that the word "forthwith" be inserted:—Ayes 142; Noes 30: Majority 112.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N.	Carter, J. B.
Adair, R. A. S.	Clements, hon. C. S.
Adderley, C. B.	Clifford, H. M.
Aglionby, H. A.	Clive, H. B.
Arkwright, G.	Cockburn, A. J. E.
Armstrong, R. B.	Cocks, T. S.
Arundel and Surrey,	Courtenay, Lord
Earl of	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Baines, M. T.	Craig, W. G.
Baldock, E. H.	Davies, D. A. S.
Barkly, H.	Denison, W. J.
Barnard, E. G.	Disraeli, B.
Bellew, R. M.	Drummond, H.
Benbow, J.	Duff, G. S.
Benett, J.	Duncan, G.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Dundas, Adm.
Blakemore, R.	Dundas, G.
Boldero, H. G.	Ebrington, Visct.
Bourke, R. S.	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Bowles, Adm.	FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.
Broadley, H.	Forster, M.
Brockman, E. D.	Gaskell, J. M.
Brotherton, J.	Glyn, G. C.
Buller, C.	Grace, O. D. J.
Bunbury, E. H.	Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Busfeild, W.	Granger, T. C.
Carew, W. H. P.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Guest, Sir J.	Mundy, E. M.
Haggitt, F. R.	Napier, J.
Hamilton, G. A.	Nugent, Sir P.
Hanmer, Sir J.	O'Brien, Sir L.
Harris, hon. Capt.	O'Connell, M. J.
Hawes, B.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Hay, Lord J.	Owen, Sir J.
Hayter, W. G.	Packe, C. W.
Headlam, T. E.	Parker, J.
Heathcoat, J.	Perfect, R.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Henley, J. W.	Prime, R.
Heywood, J.	Pugh, D.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.	Rich, H.
Hodges, T. L.	Robinson, G. R.
Hodges, T. T.	Romilly, J.
Hood, Sir A.	Russell, Lord J.
Hope, A.	Russell, F. C. H.
Hotham, Lord	Rutherfurd, A.
Humphery, Ald.	Sandars, G.
Jervis, Sir J.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Jones, Capt.	Shelburne, Earl of
Keogh, W.	Smith, J. A.
Keppel, hon. G. T.	Somerville,rt. hn. Sir W.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Spooner, R.
Langston, J. H.	Stafford, A.
Law, hon. C. E.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Lemon, Sir C.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Lennard, T. B.	Stanton, W. H.
Lewis, G. C.	Stuart, J.
Lindsay, hon. Col.	Talfourd, Serj.
Lockhart, A. E.	Tancred, H. W.
Lockhart, W.	Thornely, T.
Long, W.	Towneley, C.
M'Naghten, Sir E	Trelawny, J. S.
Macnamara, Maj	Turner, G. J.
Mahon, Visct.	Vivian, J. E.
Martin, C. W.	Ward, H. G.
Martin, S.	Westhead, J. P.
Matheson, A.	Willcox, B. M.
Matheson, Col.	Williamson, Sir H.
Maule, rt. hon. F.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Maunsell, T. P.	Young, Sir J.
Mitchell, T. A.	TELLERS.
Morgan, O.	Tufnell, H.
Morison, Gen.	Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.
Bowring, Dr.	O'Connor, F.
Bright, J.	Osborne, R.
Clay, J.	Pearson, C.
Devereux, J. T.	Pechell, Capt.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.	Pilkington, J.
Fox, W. J.	Reynolds, J.
Gardner, R.	Salwey, Col.
Greene, J.	Scholefield, W.
Henry, A.	Sullivan, M.
Hume, J.	Thompson, Col.
Keating, R.	Thompson, G.
Kershaw, J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Lushington, C.	Williams, J.
Magan, W. H.
Moore, G. H.	TELLERS.
Mowatt, F.	Crawford, W. S.
Muntz, G. F.	Wakley, T.

Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

On the following Clause being proposed— And be it Enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any Court before which any person shall be prosecuted or tried for any felony under this Act, to order payment to the prosecutor or the witnesses of any costs which shall be incurred in preferring or prosecuting any such indictment;"—

MR. BRIGHT moved the introduction of a proviso at the end of the clause, that no prosecution under this Act should take place except from the authority of the Attorney General in England and Ireland, and the Lord Advocate in Scotland. He hoped that the powers of this Act would never be put in force in any part of the country by any private individual without respect to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL could not concur in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Durham. Except in very urgent cases, it was not very likely that any private party, with the penalty of paying the costs before him, would institute a prosecution. He did not understand the hon. Member to propose that no information or warrant should issue without the authority of the Government; and it would be a very dangerous task to impose upon the Government, after a prosecution was commenced, that they should either take it up or decline to do so, as it might subject them to the charge of partiality.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, it might be very right that there should be a public prosecutor, and he thought there was a very good reason in favour of that course; but he did not think it desirable that whilst it was allowed to private individuals to prosecute generally, yet with respect to high treason and sedition there should be a public prosecutor. If such an alteration were made, it should be general. He believed, however, that the practice would be, excepting in some very few cases of emergency, that there would always be an application to the Government before a prosecution was commenced, and that private parties would not be found to volunteer. There were many arguments for having an institution similar to that which they had in Scotland, but he did not think they ought to introduce it for these particular cases.

MR. BROTHERTON said, during the French war articles had been written in a newspaper published at Manchester, to which the notice of the law officers of the Crown had been called, who considered that a prosecution could not be supported; but he knew that a meeting was held at Manchester to prosecute the party, notwithstanding that the Government had refused.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, whilst he had the honour to hold the office he now filled, he should consider it to be his duty in such a case to enter a nolle prosequi.

The House divided on the question that the proviso be inserted:—Ayes 49; Noes 170: Majority 121.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Moore, G. H.
Barkly, H.	Mowatt, F.
Blake, M. J.	Muntz, G. F.
Bowring, Dr.	Nugent, Sir P.
Clay, J.	O'Connor, F.
Cockburn, A. J. E.	Ossulston, Lord
Crawford, W. S.	Pechell, Capt.
Devereux, J. T.	Pilkington, J.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.	Reynolds, J.
Duff, G. S.	Salwey, Col.
Duncan, G.	Scholefield, W.
Evans, Sir D. L.	Scully, F.
Ewart, W.	Stanton, W. H.
Fox, W. J.	Sullivan, M.
Gardner, R.	Thompson, Col.
Greene, J.	Thompson, G.
Hardcastle, J. A.	Thornely, T.
Henry, A.	Trelawny, J. S.
Hindley, C.	Wakley, T.
Hume, J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Jackson, W.	Willcox, B. M.
Keating, R.	Williams, J.
Kershaw, J.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Lushington, C.	TELLERS.
Magan, W. H.	Bright, J.
Martin, S.	Brotherton, J.

List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N.	Christy, S.
Adair, R. A. S.	Clements, hon. C. S.
Adderley, C. B.	Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Arkwright, G.	Clifford, H. M.
Armstrong, R. B.	Clive, H. B.
Arundel and Surrey,	Cocks, T. S.
Earl of	Coles, H. B.
Bagshaw, J.	Colvile, C. R.
Baldock, E. H.	Compton, H. C.
Barnard, E. G.	Courtenay, Lord
Bellew, R. M.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Benbow, J.	Craig, W. G.
Benett, J.	Currie, H.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Currie, R.
Bernard, Visct.	Davies, D. A. S.
Birch, Sir T. B.	Dawson, hon. T. V.
Blackstone, W. S.	Denison, W. J.
Blakemore, R.	Disraeli, B.
Boldero, H. G.	Dod, J. W.
Bolling, W.	Drummond, H.
Bourke, R. S.	Dundas, Adm.
Bowles, Adm.	Dundas, Sir D.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Dundas, G.
Broadley, H.	Dunne, F. P.
Brockman, E. D.	Ebrington, Visct.
Buller, C.	FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W
Bunbury, E. H.	Foley, J. H. H.
Busfeild, W.	Fortescue, C.
Campbell, hon. W. F.	Gaskell, J. M.
Carew, W. H. P.	Glyn, G. C.
Carter, J. B.	Goddard, A. L.
Chichester, Lord J. L.	Gordon, Adm.

Grace, O. D. J.	Norreys, Lord
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	O'Brien, Sir L.
Granger, T. C.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Greene, T.	Ord, W.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Owen, Sir J.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Packe, C. W.
Guest, Sir J.	Parker, J.
Haggitt, F. R.	Patten, J. W.
Hamilton, G. A.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Perfect, R.
Harris, hon. Capt.	Peto, S. M.
Hawes, B.	Philips, Sir G. R.
Hay, Lord J.	Pigott, F.
Hayter, W. G.	Pinney, W.
Headlam, T. E.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Heathcoat, J.	Prime, R.
Henley, J. W.	Pugh, D.
Heywood, J.	Rich, H.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Robartes, T. J. A.
Hodges, T. L.	Romilly, J.
Hood, Sir A.	Rushout, Capt.
Hope, A.	Russell, Lord J.
Hotham, Lord	Russell, F. C. H.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Rutherfurd, A.
Jervis, Sir J.	Seymer, H. K.
Jones, Capt.	Seymour, Lord
Keogh, W.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Keppel, hon. G. T.	Shelburne, Earl of
Knox, Col.	Simeon, J.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Smith, J. A.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Smith, M. T.
Law, hon. C. E.	Somerset, Capt.
Lemon, Sir C.	Somerton, Visct.
Lennard, T. B.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Lewis, G. C.	Spooner, R.
Lindsay, hon. Col.	Stafford, A.
Littleton, hon. E. R.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Lockhart, A. E.	Stuart, J.
Long, W.	Talfourd, Serj.
M'Naghten, Sir E.	Tancred, H. W.
Macnamara, Maj.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
M'Neill, D.	Towneley, J.
Mahon, Visct.	Townley, R. G.
Martin, C. W.	Turner, G. J.
Matheson, A.	Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Matheson, Col.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Maule, rt. hon. F.	Ward, H. G.
Maunsell, T. P.	Williamson, Sir H.
Mitchell, T. A.	Wilson, J.
Morgan, O.	Wood, rt hon. Sir C.
Morpeth, Visct.	Wyvill, M.
Morris, D.	Young, Sir J.
Mulgrave, Earl of	TELLERS.
Mundy, E. M.	Tufnell, H.
Napier, J.	Hill, Lord M.

MR. HUME said, that he had intended to move that the House should strike out the obnoxious words in the third clause; but, thinking that he and his Friends had sufficiently manifested their opposition to the principle of the Bill for that night, he reserved his further opposition till the third reading. Nothing that had passed had tended in any way to lessen his dislike to the unconstitutional character of the measure; but he would not then put the House to the trouble of dividing again.

MR. DISRAELI was not at all surprised at the excitement of the hon. Mem- ber for Montrose, for he was at the present moment in a peculiar situation. He begged to assure the hon. Member, that, knowing he was at the head of an army, numerous he believed, but not too well disciplined, he (Mr. Disraeli) and his Friends were anxious to give the hon. Member the fullest opportunity of bringing forward every amendment and every Motion he could devise, so that, at least, he should have no reason to complain that from any interference on the part of those who sat on the Opposition benches he had not had a fair field for all his strategetical manœuvres. His hon. Friend had consequently had every opportunity of marshalling his forces, of drilling and marching and manœuvring them; and he thought the hon. Member should now be content to repose upon the remembrance of his first field day, which was fraught with no mean reminiscences. The hon. Gentleman, however, turned round and seemed to accuse the hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House with having given a support to the Government which was not founded on reason. He could tell the hon. Member that they were satisfied with the measures of the Government on the whole—offering, where it was necessary, a proper criticism, but not giving the House the trouble of dividing upon amendments which they had no chance of carrying. We (continued the hon. Member) reposed on the recollections of a great party—at present, I admit, under a cloud, but which in the course of its day has done something. The difference between the hon. Member and us is that he is now in his political youth. He is full of the vigour and inspiration of his new birth, and nothing will serve him but to make speeches and divide. We, on the contrary, are content with the calm, although not altogether satisfactory march of affairs, and we leave to him the more active career in which he has given promise of so much ability, and in which, with a little practice, he may ultimately, though after a considerable interval, find some success.

Report agreed to.

Bill to be read a third time.