§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEmoved the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Commons' Amendments to the above Bill.
§ The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHhoped that some explanation would be given of the nature of those Amendments.
LORD CAMPBELLthought their Lordships might, with the most perfect safety, agree to the Amendments of the House of Commons, the effect of which would be to mitigate the rigour of the Bill without defeating its object.
LORD STANLEYwas of opinion that the 4th and 5th Clauses of the Amended Bill materially weakened the effect of the Bill as passed by their Lordships. These clauses also were now at variance with each other.
§ EARL FITZWILLIAMhoped that it never would be necessary to put this Bill in force, for, if it were, it could not be otherwise than injurious to this country in its relations with foreign States, which relations it was our duty to maintain intact and inviolate.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, the chief object of this Bill was to guard this country against any revolutionary attempts being made on the part of foreigners to subvert the constitution and institutions of this country. The Government, at the time they introduced this Bill, were in possession of information that made it indispensable for them, in conformity with their duty, to ask Parliament to provide security against such attempts being made. He shared to the utmost degree in the confidence that had been expressed that no such suggestions, no such manœuvres, no such interference, would be attended with the effect that was sought to be produced by them; but, nevertheless, they tended to 1061 disturb the peace and tranquillity of the country, and, above all, to affect the interests of the middle classes. Even in the insignificant attempts that were made a short time ago to disturb the peace of this country, there were individuals who were aiming a destructive blow, if not against our constitution, at least against property to a large amount. He thought the people of England deserved to be defended against such actions as these, and that they ought not to be placed in jeopardy if the Government and Parliament could in any way step in to prevent it. This Bill, then, he considered to be a measure which the Government owed to the people, and particularly to those of the middle classes, who would feel greater security under its provisions. There was no reason to believe that any other country complained of this Bill; and, on the contrary, he believed that other countries exercised powers of a more extensive character than this Bill would confer; and yet his noble Friend supposed that those countries, daily ejecting persons as they did without the forms that were proposed here, would have a right to be aggrieved by our asserting such powers. He had no such apprehensions. He believed that no surprise whatever was felt in any other country with respect to this Bill, and that it met with the general sanction and approbation of all people here.
§ LORD REDESDALEobjected to the power that was intended to be conferred on two justices of the peace. It was, in fact, greater than that which was conferred by the Bill on the Secretary of State himself.
§ EARL GREYsaid, the 5th Clause of the Bill gave a security against persons being kept in prison for an indefinite period. If the Government did not avail themselves of the power of sending persons out of the country in a reasonable time, justices of the peace would have the power of releasing them from gaol.
§ The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that there might be such a prejudice against a man that it would be difficult to get two magistrates to release him. He ought to have an absolute right to his discharge if not sent out of the country in a month.
§ EARL GREYsaid, there were various obvious reasons why it was desirable that a discretionary power should be lodged in the hands of the justices; and every Act of Parliament assumed that that discretion would be fairly exercised.
§ Amendments agreed to.