HC Deb 18 April 1848 vol 98 cc453-79

On the Motion that the Security of the Crown and Government Bill be read a Third Time,

MR. HUME moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. He would not imitate the conduct of Fox, Sheridan, Whitbread, and others of the Liberal party, who, on the third reading of the former Alien Bill, rose and left the House. The Alien Bill to which he had referred was read a third time by 265 to 51; and, comparing these numbers with the majorities which had occurred on the present measure, it would be found that the Reformed Parliament were as inimical to free discussion as the unreformed, if, indeed, not more so. He regretted exceedingly that such a measure should have been introduced by a party professing to act upon Liberal principles. He was afraid that consequences might result from the Bill much more serious than any apprehended by the noble Lord who introduced it.

SIR DE L. EVANS was still of opinion that the Government had not exercised a sound discretion in introducing the provision about open and advised speaking. He could not concur, however, in the exaggerated reproach which had been cast upon Ministers with respect to the Bill as a whole. With the exception of the words to which he had referred, the provisions of the measure were ameliorations of the present law; and ho could neither see fairness, candour, nor justice in letting it go forth to the country that the law had been rendered more stringent than it was at present. Instead of abusing Ministers for the concessions they had made, the House ought to thank them for what they had done. It was a great thing that the endurance of that part of the Bill which related to open and advised speaking was limited to two years; and it was also of much importance that the punishment for minor offences was reduced from transportation to imprisonment.

MR. F. O'CONNOR contended, that the Bill was a violation of the constitution and of the Bill of Rights, and that it took away the right of bail and traverse. Adverting to the Chartist proceedings of the 10th inst., he admitted, that after the violent and inflammatory language that had been used, the Government would not have done their duty if they had not taken precautionary measures; but, at the same time, he contended that nothing had occurred to justify such a Bill as this. He had never recommended an appeal to physical force, but, on the contrary, had always discountenanced it; while those who had preached physical force had always been found wanting when the time of danger came. Neither had he ever sought for or derived aid from any foreign country. It should be observed, however, that almost all those foreign countries which until lately had been trammelled by despotism, were now receiving constitutions grounded on the principles which were contended for by the Chartists. He had always told the working classes that the constitution of this country was worth living for, and worth dying for, and that the right of freedom of speech always enabled the people to bring a moral force to bear upon the Government; but once gag the people, once put fetters upon the free expression of public opinion, and there would be an end to the boast of the British constitution. But that would be the effect of this Bill, for it would prevent men from speaking, lest they should violate its provisions. For himself he should leave off speaking extemporaneously — he would write his speeches, and read them, and then hand them over with his compliments to the Attorney General to make what use he pleased of them. He appealed to the noble Lord, whom, after all, he would rather see at the head of the Government than any one else in the House, not to sully his own fair fame, not to derogate from the reputation of his ancestors as lovers of freedom, by the authorship of a measure like this. The Reform Bill had been carried, but the people were now looking for its fruits, and he trusted the noble Lord would not disappoint them. The hon. and learned Member next declaimed against the principle of centralisation, contending that what the people wanted, and were determined to have, was local power. If he had given to this Bill what was called a factious opposition, it was because he regarded with terror the precedent that would be established for hon. Gentlemen now on the Op- position side of the House, if they should pass over to the Treasury benches. It was a gagging Bill, and it would operate as a gagging Bill hereafter upon the noble Lord himself when he should be in Opposition. If the present state of the weather continued for ten days or a fortnight longer, the corn in the ground would be destroyed; and if the harvest should prove bad, did the Government suppose that a measure like this would stop the mouths of starving people? He would join the hon. Member for Montrose in his Motion against this Bill; and, as it appeared that Her Majesty's Opposition had now been regularly and constitutionally formed, of which the hon. Member for Montrose was to be henceforth the leader—[A laugh]—he said it not tauntingly; but, whosoever might be the leader, it was to be hoped that the party would show more of resolution and courage than they had last night, when it had been his purpose to impede the progress of the Bill, and frustrate it, if possible, by any means the forms of the House would allow. It appeared to him that on that occasion the party, although ranged under their new banner, had shown themselves rather faint. If they really intended to succeed, they must commence their opposition bravely.

MR. HEADLAM thought the time had come when the Crown and constitution of the country would be best maintained by allowing the utmost freedom of thought upon every subject connected both with the form of government and with our social institutions. But then there was a perfectly clear and intelligible distinction between this and everything that tended to a breach of the peace or violent overbearing of the authorities of the country. He thought this freedom of discussion was analogous to that freedom of action which was allowed by our constitution, while the law interfered so soon as there was any attempt to violate the peace of the country. But during the debate a distinction had been taken, that there should be a restraint on the freedom of writing, but not on the freedom of speech; and it was to this he wished to direct the attention of the House. Suppose a person were to make an inflammatory speech, inciting his audience to take up pikes and muskets against the Government, he thought there could be no doubt that the moral guilt of the man was the same as that of the man who incited to the same things in writing, while there was more excitement in spoken words than in writing. He therefore thought the attempt to establish a distinction of this kind only led people away from the constitutional argument. With respect to the Bill before the House, the only offences which it did punish were those that violated the peace of the country, and therefore he thought they ought to obtain the sanction of the House. He would say, further, that if they laid down the law on this basis—freedom of discussion, but no toleration of violence, then he thought the charge of every judge, the speech of every counsel, the verdict of every jury, would impress deeper and deeper the constitutional principle, that while freedom of discussion was allowed, the law would interfere for the support of peace and order in society.

MR. SEYMER represented a constituency of 6,000, and he was happy to have it to state that they were unanimously in favour of this Bill. They entertained no seditious sentiments, and they could not see any objection to a measure which was calculated to secure the safety of the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the hon. Member for Finsbury, in particular, were very partial in reminding the House of opinions "out of doors;" and lie (Mr. Seymer) would therefore now tell them, that "out of doors" people coupled the votes in favour of the liberation of Frost with the opposition against this Bill; and they naturally came to the conclusion that those hon. Gentlemen must have some slight sympathy with sedition. He considered that at this moment seditious speaking would be much more dangerous than seditious writing. An anonymous recommendation in a newspaper to purchase pikes would not do much harm; but the report of a speech in which the orator insisted upon his audience arming themselves, the audience being represented to shout loudly "We will," was likely to influence the ignorant and weakminded much more effectually, and did, in point of fact, do much more mischief. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. P. Wood) had used it the other day as a very strong argument against the Bill, that it would in many cases entrap young men, students, for instance, of the universities, and punish them with undue severity; but if young men were so very foolish as to compass and imagine very improper things, they deserved to be exposed to all the penalties. The people of England were not ready to have their Government upset by young gentlemen of a Polytechnic School. He greatly regretted that Her Majesty's Ministers had not adhered strictly to their original views; he was exceedingly sorry to perceive the facility with which they had yielded to the small minority on their side of the House. Their want of firmness, he thought, had had the effect of giving a power and importance to the democratic party which would in no other circumstances have been obtained; and the result, he feared, would not be of a character on which the country would have to congratulate itself. He wished to guard himself against misconstruction. Usually, when an hon. Gentleman on that (the Opposition) side expressed his regret at the conduct of the Cabinet, it was always understood that he meant he was very glad of anything which brought the Treasury bench into disgrace; but he had on this occasion no such feeling. He was convinced that the present Government was the best which at this moment could be in power; he had the greatest respect for the noble Lord; he desired to see his measures successful; and on that account he might be excused for saying that he regretted most sincerely a proceeding which might lower the noble Lord in public estimation. With regard to the new democratic party, with its chairman, deputy-chairman, and honorary secretary, he would only say that the country Gentlemen would meet it at every step with the most determined opposition, and he was quite sure that they would not fail in the contest.

MR. P. WOOD could not let the Bill be read a third time without recording his final protest against that which he conceived to be a direct invasion of those principles of settled constitutional law which had now existed for 500 years, since the reign of Edward III., and to which the country was indebted for its happiness and its prosperity. The argument which he had used when in Committee, "that words, unaccompanied by an overt act, would not amount to treason," had been contested by the Attorney General; but in the case (Despard's case) referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, as affording proof against him, ho found that the indictment did not lay any single word spoken as an overt act, and that the dictum, which was a very different thing from the decision, of Lord Ellenborough, asserted merely, that inasmuch as a seditious meeting was an overt act, the words spoken at such a meeting might be taken as part of the act, and would so amount to treason. He, therefore, contended, that if a meeting were called in Ireland, not for any treasonable purpose, but for an election, and that at such meeting a speaker called upon the people to march with him for the overthrow of the Saxon Crown and Government, the words, though seditious, could not be construed as treason. The difficulty pointed out by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had not been met. The first part of this Bill would leave the greater crimes to the operation of the Act of 1796; it would deal with felonies only; and they thus left large, and peculiar, and not less dangerous classes of treason wholly untouched. He acknowledged that the fact of this Bill being made temporary would remove much of the objection which he had entertained to it; but still he considered the precedent a bad one, and which might be revived hereafter with most pernicious effect.

MR. ADDERLEY thought, that as the triumvirate of sedition in Ireland were gentlemen who used words only, and would leave to their deluded followers to commit the overt act, some change in the law was decidedly necessary in order to insure them adequate punishment. He did not support this Bill because he was at all desirous of preventing the free expression of opinions, but because he wished to put a stop to that sort of liberty which was exercised only for the purpose of overthrowing all law and all order; and when a truer and more rational freedom was restored, he would be perfectly willing to discuss, in a fair and constitutional manner, whatever grievances the people might demand to be redressed. There was no objection in that House to giving every consideration to the question of repeal; but they would refuse to debate at the point of the bayonet, above all at the point of a French bayonet; and it was his opinion that the only communication they could hold with the man who invited foreign intervention was with swords in their hands. There was as little objection to dealing fairly with the six points of the Charter; and he, for one, would not shrink from a full investigation of the case which was laid before them. The "monster petition," he admitted, had stated the case in a very fair manner, and his only regret was that it had been improperly and unconstitutionally brought forward. Liberty, in this country, could not be advanced by outbreaks, or by the clamours of disorderly mobs. He agreed to a great extent with the hon. Gentleman opposite in thinking that the condition of the people in this country was such that a good man could not look upon it without sorrow. They could not but perceive with pain that there existed extreme poverty in the neighbourhood of extreme wealth; and he thought that the richer classes ought now to make every sacrifice, even to their last shilling, that they might diminish the distresses around them. He believed that those sacrifices would be made, and that the feeling on the part of the rich was not of a kind which should occasion hatred among the poor; and, that being so, he deplored that it should be in the power of any demagogue to blind the people to their true friends, and to put them in a position which would render it a question with those friends whether the humbler classes were really qualified for the prudent exercise of the privileges they demanded. He agreed also with some hon. Gentlemen in considering that, just now, some system for the better organisation of labour —he would not say communism—was essential to the general welfare; but while he saw this necessity, he did not overlook the difficulties which attended the question, and he would not hastily, avoiding a medium, consent to any violent and organic change in society. The age of chivalry, it was said, had passed away, and he greatly feared that the age of treason had succeeded; but the demagogues would find that the gentry and the middle classes of England, though well inclined to peace and order, would not be slow to take up arms if the safety of the Queen and the integrity of the constitution were invaded. They would be the less slow should they find their own countrymen appealing to a foreign Power for assistance in their treasonable designs; and all he would say was, that if it should be his misfortune to be called out in aid of the civil power, and to find a "French sympathiser" in the crowd, he would not be wanting in the effort to extirpate such an individual.

MR. MITCHELL did not see why, in all cases, they should be bound by the wisdom of their ancestors. A new offence had arisen, seriously endangering the tranquillity of the country, and they were bound to enforce a new penalty, and to provide a proper punishment. The preservation of the public peace was a matter of the greatest importance to the trade and commerce of the country. In proof of this, he would instance the fact, that a general belief in the stability of the public tranquillity in England was highly advantageous to us in the rate of exchanges. With Russia, for instance, the preservation of our tranquillity last week had made a difference of 5 per cent. Let the hon. Member for Montrose see how that would affect his constituents, who were large consumers of the raw material of Russia. Had that rise of 5 per cent continued, the hon. Member's constituents would have had to pay 30,000l. a year more for their material. It was, therefore, a cruel thing that a few paltry agitators should prevent this country from recovering itself from its past difficulties; for if there were a general confidence felt by foreign nations in our tranquillity, we should speedily have such a prosperous and profitable trade, both for goods and manufactures, as would employ all our labour and all our capital to meet it. For these reasons he gave his cordial assent to the Bill of the noble Lord. When the hon. Member for Montrose brought forward his proposed measure for extending the franchise to all householders, he should be ready to support it; but he would not lend his countenance to a foolish agitaion, which would, if not put down, destroy the trade and commerce of the nation.

MR. HORSMAN said, there could be no difference of opinion in that House as to the important necessity of maintaining peace and order. The question was, how could they most effectually secure the greatest amount of liberty, combined with the greatest amount of security? He confessed that when the Bill was first introduced, his objections to it were so serious, that he felt prepared to give it all the opposition in his power. So strongly did he value the privilege of free discussion in this country—so much had it to do, in his opinion, with the forming of the character, and the establishing of the national liberty —that he did not at first feel disposed to part with it, even from a consideration of such dangers as had been pointed out by those who had taken the lead in supporting the Bill. But when the noble Lord at the head of the Government made the concession limiting the Bill, he did not feel justified in continuing his opposition. He now accepted the Bill in its new shape, and under all the circumstances he was prepared to vote for it as a Government measure. He could not help reflecting, that a period of danger was a period of peculiar trial to the statesman, who on the one hand was a;sailed by the fears of the timid, and, on the other, might gain an easy popularity by going with the tide. Under such circumstances any coward might resort to force; but the only safety lay in steering by the lights of the constitution. They all knew that it was in dangerous times that the worst precedents had been established—it was at such times that Parliament was apt to be violent, because distrustful both of itself and of the Government. It was for that reason that he and his Friends around him had refused to the Government the possession of a power more permanent in its duration than the emergency by which it was demanded, and had been ready to brave the odium of the misconstruction to which they were subject. There was one reason, which had not been adverted to by his hon. Friends, why he agreed to the passing of this Bill. Had it been applicable to England alone, he certainly should not have assented to it; but it could not be forgotten that the circumstances of Ireland were entirely different from those of England. The feeling pervading the English population was a wholesome one—in Ireland the great majority of the people were in a state of disaffection. ["No, no!"] At all events, they were dissatisfied and discontented. Their words were sooner followed by acts than in this country, and the harangues of the speakers were the more dangerous, on account of the ready sympathy of their hearers. He must state it as his opinion, whether right or wrong, that the whole Roman Catholic population of Ireland might be said to be one great conspiracy; and he thought the national feeling of the country might be represented as a sort of overt treason. The Government had no right to feel surprised, however, at the state of things which now existed. At the very commencement of the Session, during the discussion on the Coercion Bill, they were told that they could not guarantee the peace of the world, and that the very first shot fired abroad might be the signal of disturbance in Ireland. In times of safety such remarks were not listened to; in times of danger it was scarcely safe to make them. He trusted that the Government would enter at once on those great legislative improvements which were necessary to the well-being of Ireland. It was his firm conviction that if two years more were suffered to expire without the introduction of any of those measures which all the leading Members of that House knew to be necessary for the improvement of Ireland—if the lapse of two more years were suffered to declare only the impotence of legislation—he firmly believed that the Irish Members of that House would not be the only Members who would vote for repeal. If he might use the memorable words employed on another occasion, he would say, "Ireland is occupied, but she is not governed; she must be conciliated rather than conquered." If, despising the lessons furnished by nations around them, the Government determined to exhibit in Ireland the worst feature of past Governments—Government by force rather than by opinion—if they relied upon the extension of this principle, and were determined to try only the desperate experiment of repressing the voice of public opinion—then he really and solemnly believed they would bring about a state of things in Ireland which might fitly be termed "the beginning of the end."

The SOLICITOR GENERAL begged to make an explanation. He had stated that there was a distinction drawn in the cases of "written words" and "spoken words," and this distinction was peculiar to the English law; but he had stated it was only so when the words alone constituted the offence, as in the distinction recognised between slander and libel; but in this case, where the offence showed a desire to incite persons to commit violence against any individual, or any set of individuals, the law and the constitution knew no distinction, because there the words spoken, and the words written, were only a different mode of ascertaining whether the person were guilty of the offence imputed, not in the words spoken, but in what was proved by the words spoken. It was impossible that his hon. and learned Friend could have understood the doctrine which was lad down by Foster. Now, if a person followed out a deliberate scheme to overturn the Government by force, and endeavoured to do so by spoken words, and by inducing persons to form a plan having that object in view by open and advised speaking, he contended that though there were nothing but the words spoken, that man was, according to authorities both an- cient and modern, guilty of a deliberate act of treason, if his words showed that the person used a deliberate scheme to overturn the Government. [Mr. HORSMAN: The words must be used at a meeting.] A person could not speak at a meeting without at least one other person; and if he met with him, and concocted with that party a scheme to overturn the Government of the country, that was treason. He really believed this Bill would be a great improvement in the law of the country.

SIR R. PEEL said: Sir, I have hitherto given a cordial support to Her Majesty's Government during the progress of this Bill, and if I have marked that support by a silent vote, it has not been from a wish to disclaim any portion of the responsibility which attaches to those who support this measure, but because, believing it to be of importance that the Bill should, at as early a period as is consistent with its due consideration, receive the sanction of the Legislature, I was unwilling to protract the discussion by any superfluous speaking. But I am not willing to allow the Bill to leave this House without stating, in a more distinct and marked manner, my approval of its provisions. Sir, I shall make no reference to what may have passed at former periods. I believe the Government is justified in proposing this measure; and, believing them to be justified, I refer to public considerations, alone in tendering them my cordial support. The Bill contemplates two objects: first, there is the reduction of several offences which have hitherto been characterised as treason, to the minor offence of felony; and the Bill also proposes, that for two years only, the compassing of certain things, namely, the intimidation of Parliament or of Her Majesty, by levying war—the compassing of those things, by open and advised speaking, shall subject to the penalties of felony. Sir, of the first part of this Bill I cordially approve. I think it right that men who have not the dignity of traitors should not be allowed to cover themselves with the illusion that they are traitors. I wish to see them reduced to the position of felons. I can make great allowance for those who, inspired by an ardent love of liberty, are ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes under circumstances of great necessity, and when liberty is really in danger. I can feel great admiration for those who, in such a situation, are ready to set an ex ample to others, and to engage with them in a common cause. But I have no sympathy, no respect, no admiration, for those who would involve the ignorant in the capital punishment of treason, and content themselves with escaping from all risk and all responsibility. I cannot conceive a more detestable character than that of him who, for the purpose of gratifying his personal vanity, or in the hope of having his name combined with splended names that are included in the category of traitors, urges on his miserable and degraded followers by his speeches or writings, but is not willing to share with them a common fate. I shall rejoice to see such men reduced, as they ought to be, to the condition of felons. Let those frogs which are croaking sedition remain in their marsh, and let them not puff themselves into the dignity of those nobler animals which bellow treason. I approve, therefore, of all that portion of the Bill which enables the Government to prosecute as felons those who are actuated by such motives, who entertain such designs, and who are felons. That some such there are, cannot, I apprehend, be questioned. I think it is impossible to look at the speeches which have been delivered in Dublin: I will not quote one of them—I will not give them the circulation or the importance which they would have by being quoted in this House, but they must be familiar to all who hear me—I say it is impossible to read those speeches without finding direct instructions as to the manufacture of pikes, and the manner in which they may be used. Such language has been used, both in that country and in some cases even in this; and its tendency, when addressed to an excited populace, cannot be doubted. But suppose the people to whom that language is used, followed the injunctions to arm, can we doubt that the consequences would be the loss of life, the suspension of industry, and the paralysis of commerce? And all for what? In many cases, I believe, for the mere purpose of gratifying the vanity of those who call themselves patriots. At the same time, Sir, I willingly admit that it is dangerous for us to be influenced in our legislation either by a panic when we are weak, or by natural feelings of indignation when we are strong. I have never been an advocate for departures from the constitution without the gravest necessity; and if I could really believe that this Bill deserved the character which has been attributed to it by an hon. and learned Gen- tleman, whose conduct in this House, as well as the ability with which he has always spoken, entitles him to great respect —I mean the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. W. P. Wood)—if I could really believe that for the first time during 500 years we al e about to attach certain penalties and certain consequences to the offence of open and advised speaking, though I might even in that case be disposed to support the Bill—for my vote will be given from a deep sense of its necessity — still I might regret that the necessity impelled me to give my vote in favour of the measure. But I confess that it was with great surprise that I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman state, that it is perfectly new to the constitution of this country, as established for 500 years, to subject persons to very severe penalties for the offence of open and advised speaking. I know it has been usual to make a distinction between open and advised speaking and writing; and in this case you are not about to make the offence of writing or speaking for certain purposes subject to the penalties of treason: you are about to reduce it to the rank of felony. The question is, is there anything unconstitutional, unprecedented, or unjust, in substituting the offence constituted by this Bill, so far as it consists of open and advised speaking, for the previous offence, and subjecting him who commits it to the penalty of seven years' transportation as the smallest amount of punishment? I must say, that penalties equally severe have been applied to that offence, under the constitution and law of England, within the last 500 years. Offences connected with open and advised speaking have not, indeed, been made treason, but they have been subjected to penalties more severe than any which it is proposed to inflict under this Bill. What does the hon. and learned Gentleman say of the punishment to which this offence subjected persons under the 31st of Charles II.? To assert maliciously and advisedly—and in this case, also, I apprehend the speaking will be malicious— it will be speaking for a felonious purpose—to assert maliciously and advisedly, by speaking or writing, that either House of Parliament has a legislative authority without the King, was, by the 31st of Charles II., declared a prœmunire. By the Statute 6 Anne, c. 7, to assert maliciously and directly, by preaching, teaching, or advised speaking, that my person, other than according to the Acts of Settlement and Union, hath any right to the Throne of these kingdoms, or that the King and Parliament cannot make laws to limit the descent of the Crow—such preaching, teaching or advised speaking, is a prœmunire, as writing, printing, or publishing the same doctrines amounted, we may remember, to treason. There is, indeed, a distinction drawn between the case in which the overt act was writing, and the case in which it was speaking; but the penalties in the latter were those of prœmunire —penalties very formidable in their nature, and not easily defined. On this point, however, I will read to the House the words of Mr. Justice Blackstone:— Having thus inquired into the several species of prœmunire, its punishment may be gathered from the foregoing statutes, which are thus shortly summed up by Sir Edward Coke: That from the conviction the defendant shall be out of the King's protection, and his lands and tenements, goods and chattels, forfeited to the King, and that his body shall remain in prison 'at the King's pleasure,' or as other authorities have it, during life,' both which amount to the same thing, as the King by his prerogative may at any time limit the whole or any part of the punishment, except in the case of transgressing the statute of Habeas Corpus.'

Therefore for the offence of advised speaking, there were penalties which the law understood to imply the forfeiture of good and imprisonment for life. I cannot conceive any penalties more severe than those which were thus provided, namely, transportation for not less than seven years, or imprisonment thus defined. I cannot say that I think the penalties are more severe than those proposed; but I say here is abundant proof that at two different periods the offence of malicious and advised speaking, although contradistinguished from the offence of writing, and not made treason, yet were subjected to penalties at least as severe as those of the present Bill, under which the compassing of certain things by open and advised speaking is constituted felony. Now, the question is, whether, under the circumstances of the case, with the avowals which have been made, and with the influence of example in other countries, it is unreasonable and unjust that, for a limited period, he who, by malicious and advised speaking, shall try to induce the people of this kingdom to effect certain objects by levying war, shall be subject to the penalties of felony? I confess I think it is not. I say the language used, I say the congregation of immense masses liable to sudden excitement, can serve no other purpose which I can divine than that of intimidation. I draw a distinction between the mere assemblage—for that does not come within the provisions of this Bill—and that offence to which this Bill really refers; but I look upon the assemblage itself as a symptom of the excitement of the times; and although I may not be able to punish it by law—for it may not be advisable always to resort to law for the purpose of preventing such evils—yet I do think that the congregating of enormous masses under the pretext of presenting petitions, is a practice for which those who are the leaders of such an organisation are subject, if not to legal, yet to the highest moral responsibility. I cannot conceive for what purpose—certainly not for the purpose of encouraging the deliberate consideration of that for which they wish—I cannot conceive for what purpose those enormous assemblages, magnified by report far beyond their real amount, have been brought together, except that of intimidation. Sir, the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham (Mr. F. O'Connor), of whom I am always willing to speak with perfect good humour, has disclaimed all intention of intimidation, and has repudiated, 1 hope sincerely, the least design of creating confusion and disorder. But while I give the hon. and learned Gentleman full credit for sincerity, let me tell him that those who bring together 100,000 persons run a very great risk of creating disorders. Even the hon. and learned Gentleman's professions of loyalty do not altogether satisfy me. He says, "I am no party to this alleged intention. I deprecate the conduct of those who advise arming. I am only for peaceable and loyal means. As for establishing a republic, that I utterly disclaim. I have been for years an attached and faithful servant of the Crown; and as for "democratic institutions"— [Mr. O'CONNOR: Republican institutions.] I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon—"as for republican institutions, I disavow any desire for them." While the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, disclaimed such views, it is evident that his ardent attachment to monarchy had not risen to a very high point in the thermometer of loyalty; for I think the hon. Gentleman avowed that his loyalty is of such a description, that provided he can get democratic institutions, it is a matter of indifference to him whether Beelzebub were the sovereign of this country. This, Sir, I do most cordially wish, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman has got the sovereign of his choice, he will enjoy the confidence of the Crown. Does the. hon. and learned Gentleman think that he can maintain his influence over these excited thousands and tens of thousands, whom he brings together, by professions of loyalty to his Sovereign? He is obliged to avow, not voluntarily, but, quoting his own words, that his loyalty consists in indifference "as to whether the Pope, the Pretender, or the Devil sit on the Throne?" Sir, believing time to be of great importance, I do not wish to enter into any lengthened discussion on this subject. In what I have read, and in what I have witnessed, within the last ten days, I think I see proof that there is good reason for an appeal to the Legislature to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government with respect to one particular class of offences, the evidence of the existence of which meets our eyes at every moment. It is said, indeed, "Oh, it is not necessary to appeal to the Legislature fir fresh powers; remember the magnificent demonstration which was made by the people of London." Yes, but tell those who made that magnificent demonstration that you are prepared to take your share of responsibility of maintaining the public peace. Tell those whose time is valuable, who made the severest sacrifices by the interruption of their industry, and by giving their personal exertions—tell them that you the Government, and you the Legislature, value the institutions of the country, and that you are determined to uphold them in all their leading principles and upon their ancient foundations; and then, far from being dissatisfied with what has occurred—those whose conduct you have admired will be encouraged to make a similar demonstration of spirit, and similar active exertions on a future occasion. The constitution of this country is strong enough to bear these temporary departures from the ordinary laws. You found it necessary to resort to such deviations at former periods; and when the extraordinary powers had ceased to exist, the constitution was restored in all its native freedom and strength. So will it be on this occasion. After the lapse of two years it will be in your power to consider whether you will continue the authority which this law gives, or permit it to expire; and if you take the latter course, I have not the slightest doubt that the constitution of this country will have been perfectly unblemished and unimpaired by the tempo- rary exercise of this authority. In those times to which I have referred, the times of King Charles the Second and of Queen Anne, the danger to be provided for was successfully combated; and if you now act on the principle that treason and sedition may resort to new devices for the purpose of defying authority and subverting the constitution, and that you will not meet those new devices by new enactments suited to the times, then will you give treason and sedition an advantage of which the loyal people of this country may justly complain Sir, I make no reference to the political events which are passing in another country. My firm belief is, that the security of every existing Government depends upon a rigid abstinence from any interference with what is going on in Paris. We all entertain our own opinions on that subject—I have mine; but I believe it to be essential to the peace of the world, and to the stability of Governments, that that experiment which is now being made in France shall have a fair trial, and not be embarrassed or disturbed by extrinsic intervention. But at the same time, when I look at the social principles which are professed, I must say, that I hope the working classes of this country will not be deluded by the doctrines which are held on subjects which intimately concern their labour and employment. If the doctrines there maintained be true—if there be, indeed, an antagonism between capital and labour—if it be true that all men, without reference to their different capabilities, their different degrees of strength, and their different capacities, ought to have the same iron formula applied to them—if, I say, these things be true, then all the experience and all the science of the last 150 years have existed in vain. Let us, in that case, burn the works of Turgot, of Say, and of Adam Smith, and let us establish in triumph the doctrines of the Mississippi scheme, and of that of Mr. Law, who is supposed to have involved France in misery and confusion. Let us calmly await the results of this experiment; let us see whether it be possible that excited Governments can become great manufacturers; let us see whether it be indeed true that you can force the employment of labour, compel a division of profits amongst employers and servants, and reduce all men, without reference to their habits, their strength, or their intelligence, to the receipt of the same amount of wages. For God's sake, give those social principles the same fair trial which you are about to accord to the political principles. But I do earnestly hope—I have that confidence in the good sense of the working classes in this country, which induces me to believe —that no false delusions as to a compulsory sharing of profits, no enmity directed against capital, no destruction of competition, no overbearing of individual energy by Government undertakings at the public expense, will in this country be considered for the benefit of the working classes, or as likely, if they prevailed, to be attended with any other result than the fatal one of involving them in misery and ruin. Sir, I will not say more upon the political question; but it would be a shameful suppression of the truth if we did not arrogate to ourselves so much liberty of speech as to predict fatal consequences as the result of those social experiments which are in progress in another country. Sir, I have been diverted for a short time from the immediate question before the House. I believe there are good political grounds for this temporary increase of the authority of the Government. I will not attempt to force upon the Executive Government any powers which they do not require. All that I have now to deal with is the question whether, for two years, he who incites people to intimidate the Legislature, not by words, but by words exciting to levy war, shall be subject to the penalties which are attached to felony. I think that the circumstances of the times justify the demand; I believe that by the passing of this Bill, the people of this country will be encouraged to the continuance of those exertions upon which, and not upon the police, and not upon the Army, the tranquillity and safety of the country depend.

MR. BRIGHT reminded the House that much good had been effected in the Bill by the full discussion and canvassing it had received, for, instead of being made perpetual, it was only passed for two years, which was a great matter, considering that it affected all parties in this country so seriously in periods of political excitement. This decided improvement would not have been effected if it were not for the determined opposition of forty or fifty Members sitting on this side of the House. He had heard with much pleasure the remarks of the right hon. Baronet upon the social questions which agitated a neighbouring country, and even to some extent this country. He thought nothing could be more fatal than the prevalence of such opinions; but let the House beware that they had not themselves originated the germ of those opinions, which, if diffused and entertained, would become pestilential and dangerous to the peace of this country. They were all agreed that meetings and processions such as those recently contemplated were injurious, and likely to cause serious disturbances of the public peace; but let them not be blind to the causes which produced those assemblages. The experience of the right hon. Baronet ought to have taught him how unavoidable such demonstrations were whilst the causes of discontent existed. Twenty years ago the right hon. Baronet consented to Catholic Emancipation when the Duke of Wellington declared that the alternative was civil war in Ireland. That measure had been demanded for years, but Parliament turned a deaf ear to the supplications of the people; and it was only when that demand assumed the shape of terror that it was yielded to. In the same manner the demand for reform had been made by a large majority of the people of this country. For many years that question had been agitated in this country; but the demands of the people were for a long time unheeded, and the noble Lord now at the head of the Government repeatedly brought the question before the House without success. The noble Lord triumphed when violence was threatened, and he trusted that he would live to effect still further reforms in the representation of the country and the constitution of that House. The same might be said of Canada, in which the wishes of the people were not gratified until after an insurrection, when they were all complied with. The repeal of the corn laws was another instance. For thirty years there was a party in the country asking the House to abolish those laws—the corn laws; but it was only when they tried a powerful and well-directed organisation—it was only when the political influence of a class which had always been most powerful in this House, was about to be wrested from them, and when famine was almost upon their thresholds—that Parliament consented to the wish of the people—to do that which he felt sure every Member in that House would now say was a great and a beneficial piece of legislation. [''No, no!"] Well, he would not stop to argue that question now, but thought that but for the convulsions which had occurred in foreign countries its effects upon the improvements of trade would have been mani- fest to all. Whilst they passed measures for the suppression of violence, they ought to be very careful that they introduced such measures of amelioration as would remove all just causes of complaint. He lived in a part of the country the most densely peopled, and where the working classes preponderated; but he knew well that those communist principles to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded found no countenance there. He had seen greater suffering there during the last eighteen months than had ever Mere existed there, and yet there had not been a single breach of the peace. The demonstration in favour of peace and order in Manchester was not to be surpassed; even by that of London. But he could assure the House that, whilst there was this determination and disposition to preserve order among the working classes, they would not take up either arms or truncheons against the free utterance of public opinion. If the manufacturers of Lancashire could come in a body to the bar of that House, he knew they would bear high testimony to the good conduct of that class of people amongst whom they lived. He thought that the time had now come for extending the pale of the constitution of which they boasted so much. The 800,000 electors of the country formed a kind of garrison, but it was surrounded by 5,000,000 persons, who required to be admitted within its bounds, and who, if admitted, would tend considerably to strengthen and support that constitution which was so highly prized not only in this but in other countries. He admitted the excellence of the constitution; but it was only a mere theory to the great body of people in this country, for the benefits it admitted of were not enjoyed by them; and that constitution would be strengthened to an extraordinary degree by admitting a large number of people to participate in its privileges and partake of its advantages.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said: Sir, after the protracted discussion which this measure has undergone, and having regard to the part which I have taken in various stages of it, I do not think it will be necessary for me to do more than advert to a few of the observations which have been made in the course of this day's debate. It appears to me, in the first place, extravagant to suppose that without alterations in the law from time to time we can secure those elements of peace and order which it is the bounden duty of the Legis- lature and of the Executive as far as possible to maintain. The law of Edward III., though an excellent law of treason for those times, of course did not provide for those cases of publication, or of speeches at public meetings, which we now contemplate, any more than the Legislature of that day thought of providing for the case of gas companies or of railway enterprise. These are things which have grown up with the spread of civilisation; and just as civilisation makes progress, and as new modes of overturning the Government of the country are resorted to, to the same extent, and in the same proportion, must the Legislature be prepared to meet the various evils which arise. Sir, I will not now enter into the question which has been debated with respect to words; but with regard to the alteration to which we have consented in making the Bill temporary, after we had proposed that it should be permanent, I am prepared to declare that I think it of infinite value that any measure which passes the House at the present time should combine the advantages of being effectual for its purpose, and of obtaining the concurrence of moderate men, perhaps over-afraid of any infringement of liberty, yet unwilling to deny to the Government those powers which are necessary. My belief is that we have proposed what will be a permanent improvement in the law; and I trust that when Parliament shall hereafter consider the matter, they will be disposed to adopt the Bill as a part of our permanent legislation; but when I found so many Members on this side of the House, who have almost uniformly supported the Government, declaring that while they were ready to give every power necessary for a temporary purpose, they doubted whether such powers as these should form part of our permanent legislation, I did not think that any majority which we might obtain—and I believe we should have had nearly as great a majority if we had persisted in proposing that the Bill should be permanent—would be a compensation for violently opposing the opinion of those Gentlemen, when all that was required for present purposes could be obtained with their concurrence. I am not afraid, therefore, of being accused of a want of courage or of consistency in consenting to that alteration. I only say now, that I did not consent to it from a conviction that the Bill would not effect a wise permanent alteration in the law. I adopted the alteration on the same prin- ciple that many other alterations have been adopted, that of conceding to an expression of opinion; but, conceiving the Bill to be necessary for the emergency of the times, and that being admitted, it is a separate consideration whether it shall form part of our permanent legislation. Sir, I must confess that one reason for proposing this alteration at the present time was not merely that it is desirable to reduce many of these treasons to felony, or to make other changes in the law. It did appear to us that the Government was not armed with sufficient power to meet a peculiar kind of machination against the Throne and the Government of this realm. In making any alteration of this kind in the law, you have to steer between two great dangers. If you leave treason and sedition to take their course unchecked, not only do you expose the constitution and the Government of the country to the greatest peril, but you incur the risk that for weeks and months together the minds of the working classes will be disturbed, that the peaceable occupations of trade and industry will be interrupted—and that discontent will grow up from the very absence of that peace and order which are necessary to the progress of such occupations. If, on the other hand, in adopting such alterations as we propose, you exceed that which is necessary for the occasion; if you at all interrupt the course of frse discussion, whether in public meetings or by the press, you incur another and perhaps a greater danger, though in an opposite direction: you increase the discontent which you wish to meet—you send that discontent into other channels, and you at length find that so far from having secured peace and order, you have greatly endangered them. Sir, in the measure which we have brought forward, we have endeavoured—and in any future measures that will also be our aim —to avoid both these dangers. I believe that this Bill will tend much to the security of the peace of the kingdom; I believe that that instance which the hon, Gentleman the Member for Nottingham has given to-day of one who, after being very brave in his language with respect to insurrections, and pikes, and daggers, and guns, found that he had a bad rheumatism and could not venture to leave his home, will not be a solitary one; such instances will not be uncommon, if it be only shown that punishment must follow the excitement and pastime of provoking others to treason, There is not, I think, the slight- est danger to freedom of public discussion in any part of this kingdom. I really believe that there is hardly any hon. Member of this House who apprehends that freedom of discussion will be at all interfered with if this Bill should pass into a law. I do not believe that any man, either in this country or in Ireland, who wishes by peaceable means to promote what he believes would be improvements in the state of the law, or to secure or redress grievances under which he suffers, will be in the smallest degree debarred from stating his complaints; and that, too, in very warm and strong language. I think he may trust safely to the Legislature, to the Government, to the Judges, and to the juries of this country, that he will not incur any danger by a peaceable and honest expression of his opinions. But, Sir, I cannot shut my eyes to the language which has been used—language which I will not quote any more than the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but of which specimens, in a mitigated shape, may be seen in the newspapers of this morning. The language used in Dublin is evidently intended to incite the people to use arms, for it is actually declared that if a separate Parliament in Ireland be not granted by a Legislative Act, it should be obtained by the pikes and guns of those who are urged to arm for that purpose. It is impossible not to feel that in the distressed condition of a great portion of the people of Ireland, such exciting language may have a dreadful effect —that outrage and insurrection may in some parts of the country be the consequences. No doubt if insurrection occurs, it will be put down; for the Government has means of suppression at its disposal in the loyalty and affection of the great body of the people, and in the use of an army whose loyalty has been belied most foully in various ways, by reports made at public meetings, and even by rumours mentioned in this House, utterly void of foundation. I repeat that the Government has the means of putting down any outrage or insurrection; but as we feel that in this country the course of peaceful industry would be disturbed by any such event, and that the working classes would be the first sufferers, so likewise do we feel that the people of Ireland would immediately be great sufferers if peace and tranquillity were not maintained in that country. Sir, I have been told this day, as I have indeed, frequently, on former occasions, that it is not merely to measures of coercion that we should have recourse, but that we ought likewise to resort to remedial measures. I think that that reproach, so far at least as it has respect to the last Session of Parliament, was somewhat unseasonable, because, in fact, during the last year the sufferings of Ireland were so intense, and required such an immediate remedy, that the greater part of the last Session was taken up with the discussion of the measures immediately required, on account of the prevailing famine. I really beg the House—at least that portion of the House which makes this reproach—to consider for a moment how justly we should have been blamed if, when the Irish people were daily falling victims to the appalling famine of 1847, we had come down to the House, and said, " We have here a Bill to extend the franchises of the people of Ireland—the ability of voting for Members of Parliament. We have another Bill for the purpose of making their corporations similar to those of England; they want an extension of political privileges, and we will postpone all consideration of the famine until these Bills shall have been passed." Sir, I am not averse to entertaining those subjects, and immediately after Easter we shall proceed to the questions which relate to the political rights of the Irish people. There are, however, measures to which I have alluded on former occasions which must come under the consideration of the House. I must now advert for a moment to the grievances which are stated as grounds for asking the people of Ireland to resort to arms. We were asked the other day to consent to a e repeal of the Union. Now, Sir, in looking over the acts and discussions of the Parliament of Ireland—that Parliament the revival of which has been spoken of as that which is to give happiness to Ireland—I find that some of the most distinguished men in that country, having at their head Mr. Grattan —a name never to be mentioned without honour—repeatedly stated in the Irish Parliament that the whole government of the country was carried or by corruption; that almost, if not quite, a majority of the Members of Parliament received pensions during pleasure, and salaries from the Crown; that peerages were sold; that the whole Government, in short, was a mass of slavishness and of false suffrages used in its support. I find that Mr. Grattan likewise declared—what, indeed, is a well-known fact—that the suffrages of Irishmen generally were so restricted that Members were returned by constituencies consisting of ten persons in one borough, and of twelve in another, and that a reform in Parliament was absolutely necessary. I find also that he mentioned, and enforced with great eloquence—he had, indeed, amazing vigour in stating details —that the mode of levying tithes, which were collected, he said, by a "subornation of vultures," was a dreadful grievance to every farmer and every peasant in the country; and he further urged, that a great proportion of the people of Ireland, namely, those who professed the Roman Catholic religion, were debarred from exercising the privileges which the Protestant subjects of the King enjoyed. Now, Sir, let us consider for a moment what these grievances were, as stated by the most able and eloquent of the patriots of Ireland, and what the Parliament of the United Kingdom has done to remove them. With regard to peerages and pensions, no such abuse as Mr. Grattan then stated now exists. No one will say that in this particular there is anything similar to that which he then stated, whether justly or not, as a grievance existing in Ireland. With respect to tithes, the tithe question has been settled — settled in such a manner that it is no longer a grievance either to the peasant or to the farmer. With respect to the reform of Parliament, that question likewise has been carried in the United Parliament. With respect to Catholic relief—the admission of all Roman Catholics to the privileges of the constitution—that question also has been carried in the United Parliament. Why, then, we have at least this presumption, that those grievances which were stated as the greatest grievances in the Parliament of Ireland have been redressed, and redressed by the votes of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. But, Sir, if that be the case—if those grievances have been redressed by the United Parliament — if, as I believe to be the case, the Parliament of the United Kingdom is able to legislate for Ireland more advantageously than the subjects of Ireland, with less chance of a hostile collision with this country —with less chance of discord among various classes than the Parliament of Ireland could do — then, I say, apart from all imperial interests, we are bound to withstand all those Motions, in whatever form they may appear, which have the repeal of the Union for their object. For my own part, I shall be ready, when we are not able to bring forward Motions, to pay attention to Motions which may tend, in the opinion of others, to the advantage of that part of the United Kingdom. To any proposition which shall be supported by the great body of the Irish Members, to improve the laws of their country, as, for example, with respect to the relative position of landlord and tenant; or to remove any social or political grievance under which the Irish people may be supposed to labour—to any such proposition I shall be disposed to listen whenever they choose to discuss it in Parliament, and to deal with it by argument; but if, on the contrary, by inciting the people to use arms, they oblige us to take measures of force by force, if necessary, I will, as long as I have any breath or life in me, oppose the repeal of the legislative Union.

The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question:— Ayes 295; Noes 40: Majority 255.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N. Bunbury, E. H.
Acland, Sir T. D. Busfeild, W.
Adair, R. A. S. Buxton, Sir E. N.
Adderley, C. B. Campbell, hon. W. F.
Alcock, T. Cardwell, E.
Anson, hon. Col. Carew, W. H. P.
Anson, Visct. Carter, J. B.
Anstey, T. C. Castlereagh, Visct.
Arkwright, G. Cavendish, hon. C. C.
Armstrong, R. B. Cayley, E. S.
Arundel and Surrey, Chaplin, W. J.
Earl of Chichester, Lord J. L.
Bagot, hon. W. Childers, J. W.
Bagshaw, J. Cholmeley, Sir M.
Baldock, E. H. Christy, S.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T. Clements, hon. C. S.
Barnard, E. G. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bateson, T. Clifford, H. M.
Beckett, W. Clive, H. B.
Bellew, R. M. Cocks, T. S.
Benbow, J. Codrington, Sir W.
Benett, J. Coke, hon. E. K.
Bentinck, Lord H. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Coles, H. B.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Colvile, C. R.
Bernard, Visct. Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Birch, Sir T. B. Courtenay, Lord
Blackstone, W. S. Cowan, C.
Blakemore, R. Craig, W. G.
Bolling, W. Cripps, W.
Bourke, R. S. Curteis, H. M.
Bowles, Adm. Davies, D. A. S.
Boyle, hon. Col. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Bramston, T. W. Dod, J. W.
Bremridge, R. Dodd, G.
Broadley, H. Douro, Marq. of
Brockman, E. D. Drumlanrig, Visct.
Brotherton, J. Drummond, H.
Brown, W. Duncombe, hon. A.
Bruce, Lord E. Duncombe, hon. O.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Dundas, Adm.
Bunbury, W. M. Dundas, Sir D.
Dundas, G. Jervis, Sir J.
Dunne, F. P. Johnstone, Sir J.
Du Pre, C. G. Jones, Sir W.
East, Sir J. B. Jones, Capt.
Edwards, H. Keppell, hon. G. T.
Egerton, Sir P. Ker, R.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. King, hon. P. J. L.
Ellice, E. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Lacy, H. C.
Farnham, E. B. Langston, J. H.
Fellowes, E. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Filmer, Sir E. Law, hon. C. E.
FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J.W. Lennard, T. B.
Foley, J. H. H. Lewis, G. C.
Forester, hon. G. C. W. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Forster, M. Littleton, hon, E. R.
Fortescue, C. Loch, J.
Fuller, A. E. Loche, J.
Galway, Visct. Lockhart, A. E.
Gaskell, J. M. Long, W.
Glyn, G. C. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Goddard, A. L. Macnaghten, Sir E.
Godson, R. Macnamara, Maj.
Gooch, E. S. M'Neill, D.
Gordon, Adm. March, Earl of
Gore, W. R. O. Martin, C. W.
Grace, O. D. J. Masterman, J.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Matheson, J.
Granger, T. C. Matheson, Col.
Greene, T. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Grenfell, C. P. Maunsell, T. P.
Grenfell, C. W. Maxwell, hon. J. P
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Melgund, Visct.
Grey, R. W. Mitchell, T. A.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Monsell, W.
Haggitt, F. R. Morgan, O.
Halford, Sir H. Morpeth, Visct.
Hall, Col. Morison, Gen.
Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G. Morris, D.
Hamilton, G. A. Mulgrave, Earl of
Harris, hon. Capt. Mundy, E. M.
Hastie, A. Mure, Col.
Hawes, B. Noel, hon. G. J.
Hay, Lord J. Norreys, Lord
Hayes, Sir E. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Hayter, W. G. Nugent, Sir P.
Headlam, T. E. O'Brien, Sir L.
Heald, J. O'Connell, M. J.
Heathcoat, J. Ogle, S. C. H.
Heathcote, Sir W. Ord, W.
Henley, J. W. Ossulston, Lord
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Oswald, A.
Heywood, J. Owen, Sir J.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Packe, C. W.
Hill, Lord E. Palmer, R.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Palmerston, Visct.
Hobhouse, T. B. Parler, J.
Hodges, T. L. Patten, J. W.
Hodges, T. T. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hogg, Sir J. W. Pennant, hon. Col.
Hollond, R. Perfect, R.
Hood, Sir A. Peto, S. M.
Hope, H. T. Phillips, Sir G. R.
Hope, A. Pigott, F.
Hornby, J. Pinney, W.
Horsman, E. Plowden, W. II. C.
Hotham, Lord Powell, Col.
Houldsworth, T. Prime, R.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Pugh, D.
Humphery, Aldm. Rawdon, Col.
Hutt, W. Reid, Col.
Ingestre, Visct. Rendlesham, Lord
Inglis, Sir R. H. Repton, G. W. J.
Ricardo, O. Stuart, Lord J.
Rich, H. Sturt, H. G.
Robinson, G. R. Talbot, C. R. M.
Romilly, J. Talfourd, Serj.
Rufford, F. Tanered, H. W.
Russell, Lord J. Tenison, E. K.
Russell, hon. E. S. Thicknesse, R. A.
Russell, F. C. H. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Rutherfurd, A. Tollemache, J.
Sandars, G. Towneley, C.
Scott, hon. F. Towneley, J.
Seaham, Visct. Townley, R. G.
Seymer, H. K. Townshend, Capt.
Seymour, Sir H. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Seymour, Lord Turner, E.
Shafto, R. D. Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Sheil, rt, hon. R. L. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Shelburne, Earl of Vane, Lord H.
Sheridan, R. B. Verner, sir W.
Shirley, E. J. Wall, C. B.
Sibthorp, Col. Walpole, S. H.
Simeon, J. Ward, H. G.
Smith, J. A. Watkins, Col.
Smith, M. T. Wellesley, Lord C.
Smyth, J. G. Westhead, J. P.
Somerset, Capt. Williamson, Sir H.
Somerton, Visct. Willoughby, Sir H.
Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W. Wilson, J.
Sotheron, T. H. S. Wilson, M.
Spearman, H. J. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Spooner, R. Wyvill, M.
Stafford, A.
Stanley, hon. E. J. TELLERS>
Stansfield, W. R. C. Tufnell, H.
Stanton, W. H. Hill, Lord M.
List of the NOES.
Adair, H. E. Mowatt, F.
Blake, M. J. Muntz, G. F.
Bowring, Dr. O' Conner, F.
Clay, J. Pechell, Capt.
Cobden, R. Pilkington, J.
Crawford, W. S. Reynolds, J.
Devereux, J. T. Salwey, Col.
Duncan, G. Scholefield, W.
Evans, J. Scrope, G. P.
Fox, R. M. Scully, F.
Fox, W. J. Smith, J. B.
Gardner, R. Sullivan, M.
Greene, J. Thompson, Col.
Henry, A. Thompson, G.
Hindley, C. Trelawny, J. S.
Jackson, W. Walmsley, Sir J.
Keating, R. Williams, J.
Kershaw, J. Wood, W. P.
Lushington, C.
Magan, W. H. TELLERS
Martin, S. Hume, J.
Molesworth, Sir W. Bright, J.

Bill passed.