Lord Broughamsaid that, in consequence of what he had said the other night, he had deemed it to be his duty, and he now rose to perform that duty, premising that he had adopted this course without any communication with the Government, or even his noble Friend on the woolsack, to present a bill to their Lordships, by which he had succeeded, in 1833, in putting an effectual stop to the disturbance of the public peace. His reason for presenting this bill—which was in form the same as the former measure, with this exception, namely, that it was confined in its operation to seditious proceedings, whereas the former act related to all proceedings attending unlawful meetings—was this: he had seen with horror and indignation, which he should in vain attempt to describe, or to give vent to by words, an attempt of the most atrocious description on the loyalty of her Majesty's army. The sergeants of the British army, forsooth, were the worst used men of any army of Europe, and if the Repeal of the Union took place, they would for the first time have their rights. He would take on himself to say for the 474 sergeants of the British army, that they would regard with that scorn which it deserved this miserable attempt on their loyalty and discretion. If such things were to be done with impunity, and if impunity was to be secured to them when done by the result of a partial trial he could not tell how long that loyalty and discretion might endure. The constant appeal to the base passions of men, even of the best of men, was neither wholesome nor fit to be allowed; and he took the step on which he was now entering for the protection of the loyal, just as much as to terrify the guilty.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that as he should not be in the House to-morrow, when he presumed the noble and learned Lord would propose to read this bill a second time, he begged to take that opportunity of expressing his hearty satisfaction at this measure having been brought forward. He knew no one better entitled or better fitted to undertake such a measure them his noble and learned Friend, for it was through his instrumentality that on a former occasion, a most efficacious and useful measure of the same description had been introduced. He (the Earl of Wicklow) had then said, that his only objection to the measure was, that it was not of a permanent character; the object of that measure was to assimilate the law to the law of Scotland. He believed that it was a measure of humanity, most beneficial and useful in its nature, looking as well to the interest of the country as to the necessity for preserving to the people the blessings and the benefits of the British constitution. It was a bill to prevent the necessity for coercion, and calculated to secure to the people the advantages of the British constitution as afforded by trial by jury.
Lord Campbellshould by no means oppose the first reading of this bill, but unless he changed the opinion which he now entertained, he should give it his entire opposition at all future stages. And he should do so because he considered that it was a measure of coercion, and that such a measure should come from the Executive Government fill the time being, of which his noble and learned Friend was not yet a member. He should most strenuously support that law, whereby offences could only be tried where they were committed. It was only under extraordinary circumstances that the power of appointing a particular county for the trial of an offender 475 should be given to the Executive Government. That power was liable to great abuse, and his noble and learned Friend, he thought, would not be prepared to contend that the Executive Government of Ireland might try any persons who had committed an offence in Dublin or Kilkenny, at Fermanagh, where lately a sheriff had been removed from his office by the Lord-lieutenant for insulting the religion of the great majority of the people of Ireland. His noble and learned Friend knew well, and would bear in mind, that by the comman law of England, wherever the necessity for changing the venue arose, the power of doing so was vested in the established tribunals of the country. When Mr. Hunt committed an offence in Lancaster, he was tried at York, because the Court of King's Bench had thought that he could not be fairly tried at Lancaster. [Lord Brougham: This bill gives the powers to the judges, not to the Executive Government.] The judges have the power; my noble and learned Friend has forgotten his common law. The judges have the power to enter a suggestion on the record at any time that a fair trial cannot be had in the county where the offence has been committed, and then, by their common law authority, they can direct the trial to be had in any county. Therefore, if the bill goes no further than to give this power to judges, it is wholly unnecessary.
Lord BroughamI did not mean to go into a discussion of the provisions of the bill, and if my noble and learned Friend had only waited until he had read the bill, he would have seen his own observations answered, because the bill gives the power not to the Executive Government, but to the Court of Queen's Bench on motion and affidavit, or to any judges in vacation, on affidavits, to change the venue not to any county, but to the county next adjoining that in which the offence is committed, or to the county of Dublin. My noble and learned Friend says that I have forgotten my common law, but he has forgotten his statute law. This is his own bill of 1833, when he was Solicitor-general, and in this bill I have taken a leaf out of his bill-book and here it is, without any change except making it less coercive, because it is confined to the mischief of the case; whereas, his bill went to all riotous, or seditious meetings whatever. This bill also supplies an omission of my noble Friend's; it gives to judges the same power of removing the trial on informations as well as 476 on indictments, because it is quite clear that they should have been included, and I beg leave to observe, that I purposely brought on this motion myself as a peer of Parliament without committing any Member of the Government to it, being of full opinion that such a step must be taken, and being urged to it by what is known to have taken place within the last two days.
Lord Campbellbegged to explain. He was perfectly well aware of the bill to which his noble and learned Friend had referred; and if Ireland was in the state in which it had been at the time of that measure being passed, such a remedy as this might have been fit to be applied; but a question arose whether the experience arising from the adoption of a measure of coercion had not led to a conclusion that it was better not to interfere. He had omitted to say, as he now begged to say, that he had heard with as great horror as his noble Friend the attempt to interfere with the loyalty of the army.
The Marquess of Londonderryregretted the absence of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) from his place, for he was of opinion that the House was entitled to an expression of his views on this subject. The individual to whose speeches reference was made, had reached a position so contemptible, that really no one minded what he said. But he looked upon his address to the serjeants of the army as a most detestable proceeding. The difficulty was this, that if this was a measure which ought to be introduced, it was a reproach on the Government that the noble and learned Lord should introduce it. So far as any apprehensions respecting the sergeants of the army were concerned, however, he thought that they were entirely absurd.
Lord Broughamentirely agreed in this view with the noble Marquess, but how did they know that the next address might not be to the privates of the army with an assurance that they had not sufficient pay.
§ The bill read a first time.