Sitting of 19 April 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—Game Certificates for Killing of Hares; Poor Houses (Ireland); Indemnity.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Colonel Thompson, from Bungay (Suffolk), for Extensive Franchise.—By Mr. Mowatt, from Penrhyn, for Reform in the Representative System.—By Mr. Horsman, from Cumberland, respecting the Management of Church Property.—By Sir Edmund Filmer, from Maidstone, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Sir John Guest, from Merthyr Tydvil, and by Captain Harries, from Christchurch (Southampton), for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Ricardo, from Stoke-upon-Trent, and by Mr. Charles Villiers, from Bilston, against the Crown and Government Security Bill.—By Captain Pechell, from Brixton, Surrey, for Remedial Measures in Cases of Distress.—By Lord James Stuart, from the Town Council of Ayr, in favour of the Law of Entail (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord George Bentinck, from Merchants, Shipowners, and others of Glasgow, against a Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Mr. Grantley Berkeley, from the Board of Guardians of the Westbury-on Severn Union, for Alteration of the Law respecting Mcndicancy.—By Lord George Bentinck, from Liverpool, against the Public Health Bill.

ALIEN BILL.
MR. EWART, in reference to the Alien Bill, asked if the noble Lord could possibly state any particular circumstance which called for so extraordinary a measure?
LORD J. RUSSELL: My answer to the question is, that our bringing forward the Alien Bill is the result of information which we have received from various quarters. I think it is an Act opposed to the general policy of the country, and that no such Bill ought to exist in ordinary times; but there are certainly circumstances (which I do not know that I could state to the House) which lead the Cabinet to the conviction that they ought to introduce such a Bill at the present time. It is a temporary Bill.

RATEPAYING CLAUSES OF THE REFORM BILL.
SIR WILLIAM CLAY asked the noble Lord whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to introduce, during

509
the present Session, any Bill similar to one which was introduced last Session, having reference to the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Act? If it were their intention to introduce any such measure, whether they would introduce in the Bill any provision to facilitate the exercise of the elective franchise by 10 l. householders residing in tenements of which the rates and taxes were paid by the landlord?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I hope, in the course of the Session, to introduce a Bill on the subject. I had rather not enter into the provisions of that Bill at present. I say, with respect to other measures generally that I do not see any advantage in introducing them, unless there is a prospect of time to pass them.

DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES.
On the Motion that the House at its rising adjourn to Saturday,
MR. DISRAELI:* Sir, in rising pursuant to the notice I gave yesterday, I assure those hon. Gentlemen who are interested in the Orders of the Day, that I shall stand for but a short time between them and the progress of business. I share that objection, so generally entertained in this House, against unnecessarily calling its attention to the transactions of foreign States in which this country may be eventually mixed up. I am always willing to leave such transactions to the superintendence of the Minister under whose supervision they naturally fall. But there are cases, I think, in which it becomes this House not to permit transactions of that character to pass without some notice; and I cannot help being of opinion that what has recently occurred in a country in the prosperity a which England is much interested—I mean what has recently occurred in Denmark—does form an exception to that general rule to which I have adverted, and which I should wish to observe. I am well aware, that, if at all times it may be inconvenient for the House of Commons to interfere in diplomatic transactions, the present juncture of affairs would appear it the first glance to increase such an inconvenience. But that inconvenience depends upon the circumstances of the particular case; and, as regards the case to which I wish to call the attention of the House—and I shall do so very briefly—I feel persuaded that a right understanding of those circumstances by
* From Corrected Report.
510
the House will have a tendency to maintain the peace which England now enjoys, and to promote the promulgation of those principles throughout Europe which may tend to avert that too imminent danger of hostilities which it cannot be denied now exists.
It is unnecessary for me to remind the House of the general character of the country to which I am referring. The House bears, no doubt, in mind, that it is a State which, if the amount of population be regarded, does not rank among the first Powers of Europe. But the importance of a State does not merely depend upon the amount of its population, but upon the character of that population, and the geographical position of the country. Denmark is an ancient kingdom, inhabited by a brave and independent race of people, dwelling in a land which from its physical configuration must necessarily exercise a
considerable influence upon some of the principal nations of Europe, especially in case of war. The present Sovereign of Denmark acceded to his throne at the commencement of this year, under circumstances at the same time both remarkable and interesting. He succeeded to absolute power over his subjects, but nevertheless the first act of that monarch, when he inherited his ancient throne—when he succeeded to that position of absolute sway— was immediately, of his own proper impulse, mero motu, to announce to his subjects that he was determined to accord to them free institutions; and that on a large and liberal scale.
I wish the House for a moment to contrast the position of the King of Denmark at the commencement of this year with that of the other Sovereigns who have subsequently been extremely liberal in offers and lavish in promises to their subjects; and I beg them not to mix up the case of the King of Denmark with the case of other potentates who at the present moment appear in the gracious character of conceders of liberal institutions to subjects to whom they had been long denied. This great boon was granted by the King of Denmark to his people at the commencement of the present year, in a time of profound peace, at a moment when the most sanguine votaries of the European movement felt that there was but a poor chance of any material alteration in the institutions of Europe during the lives of many of those powerful Sovereigns and still more powerful Ministers, who were

511
then in the full enjoyment of the power they had so long wielded.
The position of Denmark—a country often and again dismembered at the Peace —was settled by the Treaty of Vienna in this manner:—It was to consist, in the first place, of those celebrated islands upon one of which, Zealand, Copenhagen is built, and of its ancient continental province of Jutland, together forming Denmark Proper, with a population exceeding perhaps a million and a quarter; and, in the second place, of adjoining possessions it had also long enjoyed—the Scandinavian Duchy of Schleswig, and the German Duchy of Holstein, by virtue of which last territory the King of Denmark had always been a German prince. The King of Denmark, then, with more than 1,250,000 subjects in Denmark Proper, and much less than 1,000,000 subjects in the two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, announced to his people that an equal number of representatives should be sent to his Diet from those two Duchies, with a population so inferior, with those sent by Denmark Proper. I mention this trait to show how cordial and genuine was the spirit in which the King of Denmark was prepared to act, and how equally he wished to incorporate in these new privileges every part of his dominions.
Under these circumstances, the deputies having assembled to construct this free Government, no portion of the kingdom objecting in any degree to the general proposition of the Sovereign, that proposition being so full and extensive, that it had anticipated all that his subjects desired—a thorough and complete representation of the people, the absolute enjoyment of a free press, and the recognition of all the provincial privileges and institutions of the inhabitants — Holstein, the German Duchy, declined to be incorporated with the other States, because they regarded the new constitution to be one which, in its tendency and effect, would absorb them in a Scandinavian population, and terminate the connexion which they always wished to cherish with their German brethren. What was the conduct of the King in this position? No sooner was that representation made to him by the deputies from Holstein, than he immediately acceded to their wishes, and agreed that the constitution he was about to grant should be limited to Denmark Proper and to the Scandinavian Duchy of Schleswig; and that Holstein should remain unincor
512
porated with them; but at the same time he offered to the latter duchy the same free privileges he was about to confer on the other parts of his dominions, anticipating that the time would, perhaps, come, when all Germany would enjoy them. I state this in order that the House may not think my purpose is to vindicate the course of any Sovereign who is behind the spirit of the age, and refuses the enjoyment of free institutions to his subjects; and also to show the House that I am not advocating the interests of a monarch who has been suddenly inspired by the recent course of events to appear in the character of a Royal professor of liberal opinions; but that on the contrary, the King of Denmark, in the prime of life, in the full possession of absolute power, acting upon his own convictions—convictions he had long cherished while Crown Prince—did seize the first occasion, upon his accession to his throne, and in a time of profound peace, spontaneously to come forward and grant free institutions to his subjects, and that on a scale so considerable, that throughout all the unfortunate discussions and misunderstandings which have since occurred, no party has risen into notice which has pointed out a freer constitution than that which the King himself devised, and voluntarily proffered to the acceptance of his people.
The troubles of the monarch began thus. A month elapsed—for it is not, of course, possible to arrange the affairs of a whole people in a day—but there being no suspicion on the side of the people, no backwardness on the part of the Sovereign, when the French revolution occurred; and the consequence of that event upon some of the dominions of the King of Denmark was remarkable. The German party, which of course predominated in Holstein —in which, in fact, there was no Danish population—were extremely anxious to exercise an equal influence in the neighbouring Duchy of Schleswig, in which from its contiguity to Holstein there had gradually grown up a certain amount of German population. The consequence was, that the ready-made machinery which exists throughout Europe, which at a signal from Paris, or which, as in this case, by a sympathetic rather than a preconcerted action, can always be put in motion, operated in Schleswig. A Provisional Government was formed in that capital, where no preparation had been made to receive it, because no discontent could possibly have been anticipated

513
by the Sovereign to exist. However, a Provisional Government was formed there, and they published an announcement that they would not be incorporated with the kingdom of Denmark, but that they chose to become a German State, in common with the Duchy of Holstein.
In this state of affairs, a remarkable event occurred. There had been a quasi revolution at Berlin. There, too, was a monarch who had granted liberal institutions to his subjects, though not exactly under the same circumstances as those under which the King of Denmark had acted. Animated, however, by the gratitude of his subjects for his concessions, and not content with merely effecting the happiness of the people of Prussia, the King of that country, hearing of what had occurred in Schleswig, received a deputation from the Provisional Government set up there—promised that the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein should, under his patronage and protection, be acknowledged as German States, and then ordered some of his troops, who had not perhaps been so successful in Berlin as he had intended, to recover their laurels in an invasion of the States of a friendly Power.
Sir, there is probably no event in modern history more unjustifiable than the conduct of Prussia under these circumstances. Since these occurrences, it has been pretended that Holstein being a German State, and Schleswig, though not a German State, having chosen to be united to Holstein, and the King of Denmark, as Duke of Holstein, being a German Prince and a member of the German Diet, the King of Prussia, as a member of the same body, had not only a right, but felt it also a duty, to march his troops into the territory of another member of that Diet, in consequence of the disturbances there existing. But, in the first place, the King of Prussia ordered his troops to march, and his troops entered Holstein, and occupied Holstein, without the German Diet having given any order whatsoever. In the second place, if any application had been made to the Diet for interference, it ought to have been made, not by the member of the Diet, who was King of Prussia, but by him who was King of Denmark. And, in the third place, even if the Diet had authorised Prussia to occupy Holstein, it would have been impossible for the King of Prussia to show that he had any right whatever to invade Schleswig and occupy a considerable portion of that duchy.
But even if there had been no disturbances at Berlin, and even if the forms of the Diet had been complied with, it is difficult to find, in point of policy, an excuse for this step. Was it to pacify the Duchies? The King of Denmark was perfectly able to pacify those Duchies. Was it because the King of Denmark, in his character of Duke of these portions of his dominions, and a German Prince, was acting tyranically towards his subjects in the Duchies, and that they consequently required the protective interposition of the German Diet? In that case it was an affair for negotiation; they ought to have alleged their grievances, and preferred their complaints—they ought to have asked the King for his defence, given him the opportunity of making that defence, and, if guilty, of making reparation. But throughout the whole of this transaction no offence is stated; the Diet was not applied to at all; the invasion took place without the authority of the Diet; it was an invasion without authority and without cause.
Since then, indeed—since Holstein has been occupied by the forces of Prussia— since a considerable fortress in Schleswig, delivered up by treachery, has been retained—since Schleswig itself has been invaded—a curious body, a body itself in a state of reconstruction and revolution, calling itself the Germanic Diet, and assembling at Frankfort, passed an ex post facto resolution, authorising the King of Prussia to do that which he had already done, and also to do that which is even more unjustifiable, and which until that authority was given him be himself seemed to hesitate about accomplishing.
The moment that this Provisional Government was formed in Schleswig, the moment that rebellion in the most unblushing and flagrant manner had been announced, the King of Denmark appealed to his people.
And here it may be shown how wise and politic is that monarch who grants, not from restraint, but from conviction, free institutions to his subjects. There was no country in which party feeling had run higher than in Denmark. There was the aristocratic party and the democratic party, who had not agreed for centuries; there was the German party and the national party, between whom violent passions had been excited. But in consequence of the conduct of the King, all party feeling had ceased in Denmark, Nothing was known

515
but the Danish nation, and pride in a monarch who had trusted to the loyalty of his subjects, and to the spirit of freedom. Never was appeal from a monarch so answered—never king so supported by his people. From the first nobleman to the humblest shopkeeper in his dominions, one and all rallied around him. And, Sir, in this case we must not rank the power of the King of Denmark according to the extent of his realm, or to the sum of its population. You may think that, after all, there is only a million and a half of people devoted to him; but I wish to know what Sovereign in Europe, except our own gracious Queen, has a million and a half of devoted subjects? The King of Denmark, supported by the unanimous population of his kingdom, eminent as they are, both morally and physically, for great virtues, is a more powerful Sovereign, perhaps, than some of those who violate the rights of nations, and who seek some compensation for their blundering tyranny by making a diversion for their troops, which had been foiled in a service little honourable at home, by a foreign invasion scarcely more distinguished. The King of Denmark, at the head of his forces, and supported by that naval power which could not have been put afloat had he not raised in his people that spirit of patriotism which on rare occasions only can be counted upon, marched into Schleswig, defeated the rebels, and in three days would have pacified the whole population, had it not been for the occupation of Holstein by Prussia, and the invasion of Schleswig by the same Power. Up to this moment not a single rational cause has been alleged for the erratic conduct of the Court of Berlin—no case of justification has been put forward; and the only means by which a vindication has been sought to be established has been in a weak adaptation of some of the dreamy effusions of German professors, which for years have been agitating their country, and which in this disordered and distempered age are, it seems, to be reduced into practice in the dominions of a neighbouring ally.
But all things have always a pretext as well as a cause; and the pretext in this case, for all the reasons that have been adduced resolve themselves into this—the pretext for this extraordinary proceeding, is German nationality. It is actually laid down as a principle by men now occupying seats in the Cabinets of Europe,
516
that wheresoever the German language is spoken, there the German flag ought to wave. That is really and truly the pretext upon which the invasion of Schleswig and Holstein has taken place. All this may be very fine, very national, and very courageous; but it would be well for the House, when turning their attention to this subject, to consider whether it would not become the German people, if this be their opinion, to act with a little more consistency? If, wheresoever the German language is spoken, the German flag should wave, why do not the Prussians invade Alsace? Why do they not invade those provinces towards the west, where the German language is spoken, and meet at once the high spirit of France? Or, turning towards their eastern frontier, why do they not occupy Livonia, where the German language is spoken, and thus encounter the colossal power of Russia? That would be, indeed, consistent and national; but the principle only holds good towards the north. And why? Because it is in the north, when surrendered, that the pretext vanishes, and the cause appears.
Germany is the centre of Europe, and has no reason, one would think, to complain of the territorial advantages which have been allotted to it. Its broad and rich lands are watered by the three most considerable rivers of Europe—the Rhine, the Elbe, and the Danube. But Germany, which possesses almost every other advantage, is not a great naval Power, and Germany wants a coast. That is the real reason why Denmark, supposed to be weak, is to be invaded in this age of liberty on the plea of nationality. It is to gain the harbours of the Baltic, and to secure the mouths of the Elbe, that the plea of German nationality is put forth. Hitherto in the Baltic, Russia and the Scandinavian Peninsula have prevented this project of Germany; while Holland and Great Britain have intercepted in the North Sea its maritime development. But now, under shelter of the plea of nationality, taking advantage of the fact, that the King of Denmark possesses in Schleswig perhaps 150,000 subjects of German race, his dominions are to be invaded, and may be conquered, notwithstanding the valour of his few but determined subjects, in order that Prussia may suddenly appear as a great maritime Power.
I do not wish to argue this case with respect to the interests of England. I do not wish to say anything about whether it

517
is or is not for the interest of England that a new naval Power should spring up among the nations of the Baltic or the Northern Seas. But this I wish to lay down as a principle, that it is for the interest of England, and not of England alone, but of all Europe, that peace should be maintained. And peace cannot, I think, be maintained if the policy of Prussia be permitted to pass unnoticed and uncensured.
I shall be asked what are the means we have, short of going to war, to check this ill-conditioned conduct on the part of Prussia? In my opinion there are means which deserve our consideration. At any rate there are circumstances connected with these affairs which demand our attention. We are connected with Denmark in respect to the very territory which is at present in question. We are connected with Denmark by treaty. Under that treaty we have entered into stipulations of a remarkable and stringent character.
It is of great importance that we should clearly understand the engagements into which we have entered. I know it is very easy to say—not that I impute the probability of his saying so to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for, I am sure, he is animated by a very different feeling — that negotiations are going on, and that the best course is to pass over these matters in silence, and leave the people in ignorance of the existence even of engagements which they may be called upon suddenly to fulfil. I think, indeed, it is not desirable to take frequent opportunities of expressing opinions with the regard to the policy of the Government on external affairs, because it must be supposed that they have means of information upon passing circumstances which the House of Commons does not possess. Still I do not think it is wise that the House of Commons should be ignorant of the treaty stipulations into which this country has entered. Passing information, transient circumstances, events of the hour, communications with foreign Ministers, cannot alter the permanent character of such stipulations; and what happens if we neglect to make ourselves acquainted with their nature and substance? It is this, that sooner or later we are called upon in consequence of those stipulations to act. We then find an appeal made to an ignorant and confused assembly, necessarily in a position to be led by the Minister of the day, who is in possession of su
518
perior information. Act we must, and act by the advice of a man better informed than ourselves; and it is only when the result has occurred, that we find we are involved in increased debt and increased expenditure.
We observe great impatience of taxation at the present day; we hear frequent complaints of the amount of the national debt; but if the House of Commons had only made itself well acquainted with the nature of the treaties which it entered into during the revolutionary war, do you believe that that debt would have reached half the sum at which it now stands? If the House of Commons had been then acquainted with the real state of Europe, do you think it would have been induced to enter into engagements, which were at the same time as disastrous in their political as lamentable in their financial consequences?
Now, by the treaty still in force, England has guaranteed this Duchy of Schleswig, its peaceable and complete enjoyment, to the King of Denmark. It is of great importance, at this moment, that we should clearly understand the nature of that engagement. I have been told by some persons that the treaty is of a very remote date. This is certainly a most extraordinary observation. The date, in point of fact, is no more remote than the accession of the present Family to the Throne, and it binds the heirs and successors of the King who signed and ratified it. We have not even a revolution or a change of dynasty intervening in the period; and if there are any treaties which ought to bind us, I think I shall be able to show the House that this is one of that character.
Since I gave notice of bringing forward this subject, I have received a pamphlet of no mean dimensions: it is 165 pages in length; but its size, though that is a fact which would attract attention—and its theme, though that is one at least interesting—are less remarkable than the circumstances under which it appears. It is called A Memoir of the Constitutional Rights of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, presented to Viscount Palmerston, by Chevalier Bunsen, on the 8th of April, 1848, with a Postscript of the 15th of April. Now in the first place I might remark, that it is a somewhat extraordinary thing for the Envoy Extraordinary of a great Power, the Minister Plenipotentiary of the King of Prussia, to draw up a memoir and present it to our Minister only a few days back, and then publish it as a

519
pamphlet, in order to influence the opinions of the House of Commons. But knowing, as I do, the high reputation of the Prussian Minister, his distinguished abilities, his remarkable learning, and his great experience, I read his pamphlet last night with that care and attention which it unquestionably deserves. I have always considered that this case of the Duchies, as it now appears before Europe, to be one of a very simple character; but when I took up this pamphlet, I trembled for my conviction. Certainly the case, as it there figures, is manifold and complicated. But, as hon. Gentlemen well know from their own experience, after a time when research is exhausted, and when you have heard both sides, you take refuge in meditation; and the result of that process of study is, generally speaking, that, notwithstanding the theories and hypotheses that may have been placed before you, you at last touch the real point on which everything hinges: and the real point, in my opinion, in the present case, as I think the House will admit, is the guarantee which has been given by England to Denmark of that province which it is now sought to deprive her of.
There are only two pages, out of the 165, devoted in this pamphlet to that guarantee, and of them I will only read two lines. The House will understand the historical position of the case to be simply this:—In 1715 a war was taking place between Sweden and Denmark: on the part of Denmark one of the most righteous wars, a war of defence, ever undertaken by any nation. It was a memorable war, for it was the last war of Charles XII.; a desperate effort, after all his misfortunes, again to make a military reputation. England and France were alike the allies of Denmark. England, in the year 1715, the reign of George I., entered into a treaty, called "the Treaty of Gottorp," with Denmark. Denmark made territorial concessions to the King of England by that treaty, and gave our Sovereign the duchy of Bremen and other places. There was, therefore, a perfect quid pro quo, and England, in consequence of the general feeling towards Denmark as regarded the justice of the war, and in consideration of these territories conceded, which are still held by the King of Hanover, guaranteed to the King of Denmark the peaceable possession of the Duchy of Schleswig, part of which that monarch had inherited, and part of which he had conquered in the
520
war, and then held in possession. The war went on for five years, and at last a general peace was negotiated, through the mediation of France and England, at Frideriksborg. France guaranteed to Denmark the peaceable and tranquil possession of Schleswig, referring to the guarantee of England; and in order that there might be no mistake, England, at the same time, in the year 1720, repeated that guarantee in language which seems to me not to admit of any doubt whatever, I may mention also, before I read that language, that the guarantee was renewed and repeated on a subsequent occasion. I may mention also that many years afterwards Russia threatening to invade this very Duchy of Schleswig, Denmark appealed to England in consequence of the treaty of guarantee with England; and England signified to Russia that if Schleswig were invaded, she would declare war, and despatch an English army and English fleet for its protection; and the effect of this intimation was, that Russia did not invade Schleswig.
I will now read the passage in the pamphlet—it is in page 54—and I beg the very particular attention of the House to this point. This point, the question of guarantee, is treated of in only two pages, though, in reality, it is, as far as we are concerned, the essence of the question. The Chevalier Bunsen deals principally, with great ingenuity and ability, with questions which have long occupied the attention of German professors—such as who is to be King of Denmark in case the male line ceases, the present King being only forty years of age, and there being a direct successor in the male line; but these are discussions which are without interest in England, and which do not touch the practical case before us. The author of the pamphlet introduces the guarantee in this sort of style:—
"It will now only be necessary to say a few words as to the often alleged pretended guarantee given by England;"
and then adds—
"The words of the English guarantee of the 25th of July, 1720, are to maintain in a continual and peaceable possession that part of the Duchy of Schleswig which His Danish Majesty has in his hands."
There is, upon that, a good deal of reasoning to show that this was only a guarantee against the heirs of the Duke of Gottorp; and it would then be called a limited guarantee. And, reading the gua

521
rantee, as I have this moment done, I admit there would be some foundation for that opinion. But what does the House think are the real words as I have copied them from the treaty?—
"The King of Great Britain, for his heirs and successors, agrees and binds himself to guarantee and maintain, in a continual and peaceable possession that part of the Duchy of Schleswig which His Danish Majesty has in his hands;"—
(So far it agrees with the representation of the Prussian Minister, but what follows? —that which is omitted by the Prussian Minister)—
"and to defend it in the best manner possible against all and every one who may endeavour to disturb it, either directly or indirectly."
Now that is really the only point which ought to influence us in the consideration of this matter; and when I find that this guarantee is not even faithfully put before us—when I see a number of ingenious arguments used to show that it is a limited guarantee, referring only to the particular descendants of a particular prince—and when I observe the main words omitted, destroying at once all those arguments—I think the House will agree with me that it is not necessary to make a single remark on any other of the 164 pages of this production. I must add that I deeply regret that a man so distinguished as the Chevalier Bunsen—a man of such high character, of such eminent learning, and of a most amiable disposition—should have been so carried away by that dreamy and dangerous nonsense called "German nationality," as to draw up a memoir for presentation to an English Secretary of State, characterised by so much indiscretion and passion as that now before us.
The House, I think, now clearly understands the facts. I have not entered into the collateral considerations, because they have nothing to do with the business before us. What can it signify to us, at this moment, to discuss the possible contingencies of who may fill the throne of Denmark at the death of the present King, yet in the prime of manhood, and who, were he to die to-morrow, would still leave a successor in his family? It is probable that this question may have been at the bottom of all the disturbances, and that the Germans may have thought to have advanced the result they desire by taking the step which they are now most improperly pursuing.
I now come to the practical conclusion which I would wish to lay before the House. I began these observations by
522
saying that my object in bringing the subject before the House, was to promote the cause of peace; I anxiously desire that; but I never can believe that the peace of Europe is to be maintained by hiding our heads in the sand and comforting ourselves with the conviction that nobody will find us out. We have entered into engagements, and there is no doubt that we shall be called upon to fulfil them. No doubt! Why the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), the other day, in reply to a question which I put to him, acknowledged that the Danish Government had already demanded of us to fulfil our guarantee. We must either fulfil that guarantee, or we must give good reasons for refusing it; or, to take a third course, we may prevent the necessity for fulfilling it, and yet maintain the just interests of all. On the face of it, this is the alternative—either we must go to war on account of Denmark, which we all deprecate and wish to avoid, or we must practically announce to Europe that England no longer respects guarantees.
England, we must remember, has always been cautious in giving guarantees. I remember the noble Lord himself, last year, in the discussion on Cracow, reminding the House of that fact. We have been signatories to general treaties of peace for the settlement of Europe, and in consequence of being signatories when disturbances have occurred, we have been called upon to act as mediators between parties to the general treaty; but guarantees we have always avoided giving, except under circumstances of urgent and peculiar nature. I need not refer to the guarantee which, in very modern times, we gave to Belgium; the only one, with a single exception, in modern times, which I can recall. But, in modern times also, England has thought fit to give a guarantee, as stringent, as absolute, as illimitable, as the guarantee which, more than a century ago, we granted to Denmark. We have been chary of entering into these engagements, and chary because it has been the pride of England never to shrink from the fulfilment of such agreements; but we have nevertheless conceded a most important guarantee to a great European Power—a guarantee which, in any disturbance in the relations of Europe, would probably be the first we should be called upon to fulfil—one, I doubt not, of which the noble Lord has already been reminded, and probably by the author of this very pamphlet. England has guaran

523
teed, by the Treaty of Vienna, the possession of a part of Saxony to Prussia. And I venture to say that, during the last thirty-three years, there would have been, at least on two occasions, revolts and insurrections in Saxon Prussia had it not been for that English guarantee. Is it not, then, most legitimate for us to warn Prussia of the coures she is now pursuing? Is it not legitimate for us, and most politic, to remind Prussia that if it be possible—and I only put the possibility for argument's sake—that England, at this moment, should not choose to fulfil the guarantee she has given to Denmark, she thereby announces to the world her intention to repudiate all other guarantees? I ask, how would Prussia feel then with respect to the guarantee we have given her of her Saxon territories? Why, if Prussia feels that by pursuing her present ill-conditioned course she would be effacing her best title-deeds to her Saxon provinces, you may rely upon it that she will hesitate yet before she will allow herself to be impelled by dreamy professors and hair-brained students to violate all public law, and all the rights of nations, by perpetrating, in the face of Europe, an act of such cruel injustice, and such flagrant wrong, as the invasion of Denmark.
I have thought it expedient, therefore, that the House should understand not only the engagements we have entered into with Denmark, but those also which we have entered into with Prussia; and I have that confidence in the noble Lord that I do not doubt he has
already availed himself of such an arrow in his quiver as this. But it will not embarrass the noble Lord, it will not injure Denmark, and it may benefit Prussia, if we should let Europe know that the House of Commons is not indifferent to the engagements our Sovereign has contracted, and that it is aware of the treaties and guarantees which the Crown of England has entered into; and, if Prussia persists in this course—at least, I hope for this result from what I have seen of the temper of the House— that no Minister will ever dare to come forward to ask one single shilling in order to vindicate the guarantee we have given of part of Saxony to Prussia, and so to preserve the integrity of the King of Prussia's dominions. These are the reasons which have induced me to take the liberty of troubling the House to-day; and all I will say in conclusion is, may God defend the right, and may the peace of Europe
524
be maintained by the justice and by the power of England!
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said: Sir, I am sure the hon. Gentleman need make no apology for having called the attention of the House to a question which, whatever may be the comparative magnitude of the dominions involved, is, nevertheless, as he has very properly explained, one of the utmost importance to the interests of the whole of Europe. There are, certainly, circumstances connected with the previous history of Denmark which might make everything affecting the welfare of that State a matter of peculiar interest to all men of high feeling and of liberal sentiment. There is no country which has suffered more seriously by preceding transactions in Europe. It has been the lot of England, at no very remote period, to be thrown by circumstances, which were deemed at that time unavoidable, into acts of hostility towards Denmark which were unquestionably alien to all our ordinary ideas of international relations, and therefore this is a question which is especially calculated to interest the feelings of the people of this country.
With regard, however, to the question itself, as it is involved in recent transactions, I trust the House will excuse me if I abstain from following the hon. Gentleman with any arguments either on the one side or on the other. The question of right has arisen between the German Confederation, on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark, on the other, and that question of right confines itself simply to the Duchy of Schleswig. With regard to Holstein no difference exists; that duchy has long been a member of the Germanic Confederation; the King of Denmark has been a party to that Confederation in virtue of his capacity as Grand Duke of Holstein; and it is consequently with respect to Schleswig alone that any dispute has arisen. The Germanic Confederation, on the one hand, contend that, by ancient acts and recorded transactions, Schleswig is united to Holstein, and must, by treaty, follow Holstein, according to whatever succession may take place in that duchy. The Danish Government, on the other hand, pretends that it has a right to require that Schleswig shall follow the line of succession in Denmark. It is on this question chiefly that the difference arises; and as Her Majesty's Government have signified to the two parties, to the Government of Denmark, and to the Government

525
of Prussia, which acts in this matter as the representative of the German Confederation, their willingness to undertake the task of endeavouring by their good offices to settle the dispute amicably, without further recourse to hostilities, it is obvious that it would be unfitting for me to express any opinion on the present occasion as to that side on which I may think the right preponderates.
The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, has exercised a very proper discretion in calling the attention of the House and of the country to the engagements which we have entered into with regard to the Duchy of Schleswig. I have here the original treaty by which the guarantee is given; but the hon. Gentleman has read the words so fully and correctly, that it will not be necessary for me to trouble the House with a recapitulation. Undoubtedly, however, I am perfectly ready to concur with him, and with what appeared to me to be the general sense and opinion of the House, with respect to what he said, that it is the duty of England, that it is essential to the honour of England, and, therefore, for her well-understood interests, that all her engagements should be made good. It is not fitting that a country like England should repudiate her existing engagements, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we ought to stand by them, and to take care that they are fulfilled. It is well, therefore, not only for this country, but for all parties, that the other Powers of Europe should understand what are the treaties by which England considers herself bound, in order that, on entering into the discussion of the question in which these engagements may be involved, it may be known beforehand that which we may fairly and justly be called upon to do. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the guarantee which was given by this country to Denmark was also given on the same occasion by the Government of France.
The hon. Gentleman has animadverted upon the course pursued by a person for whom I have the honour to feel the greatest respect and attachment—the Prussian Minister at this Court, in publishing the pamphlet alluded to by the hon. Member in the course of his speech. I must say, however the hon. Member may differ from the arguments and style of reasoning of that pamphlet, that no man who will place himself in the position of the Chevalier Bunsen, sent over here to protect Prussian
526
interests, will be disposed to blame him for having published what he considers to be a just statement of the case of his Government; and whether that case be denied or affirmed, I think no one is entitled to censure the Chevalier as having departed from his proper duty in laying before the public, at this crisis in the affairs of Europe, those arguments which, in his opinion, afford sufficient justification of the conduct of Prussia. I am not now entering into those arguments; but, altogether irrespective of them, I may remark that I think the censure cast by the hon. Member upon the Prussian Minister was not altogether well-founded.
I will say no more. I have stated my perfect concurrence in the observation of the hon. Gentleman, that former guarantees, given by treaty, ought to be respected; and I must remind the House of what I stated on a former occasion, that, in the present case, whatever may be the right on either side, the purpose for which the Prussian troops have entered Holstein, and the purpose for which they would cross the Eyder into Schleswig, is, not to wrest the Duchy of Schleswig from the Danish Crown, but to support a party in Schleswig who hold that the ancient constitution and laws of the duchy entitled them to be incorporated and attached to Holstein, instead of being incorporated and attached to Denmark. It is, therefore, no attempt to conquer Schleswig; it is, however, no doubt an intervention in the internal affairs of the duchy with reference to the future line of succession which ought to prevail. I can only express my hope that a matter which, if pursued to extremities, might lead to consequences seriously affecting the peace of Europe, may be adjusted by an amicable negotiation between the parties; and I should really trust that the statesmen of both countries, viewing the disturbed and dangerous condition of nearly all parts of the continent of Europe, would not allow a question which, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, has no immediate practical application, but which belongs more to contingency, arising only after the death of two living persons, to lead to results which every reasonable man would have deeply to deplore.
MR. URQUHART observed, that the present was not a question of right, but a matter of violent oppression—of an invasion, in fact—which had actually taken place.
Motion agreed to.

GAME CERTIFICATES—HARES.
MR. COLVILE moved that the House do go into Committee upon the Game Certificates for Killing Hares Bill.
MR. ADDERLEY rose to move—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the operation of the Bill to enable occupiers of land, having a right to kill game on that land, to do so, by themselves or persons authorised by them, without being required to take out a game certificate."
He was sorry to occasion any delay to the Bill of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, but the subject was one of great importance, and the hon. Member sought by his Bill to deal with the question in detail, whereas he thought it should be treated upon a broader and more general principle; and all he proposed to do was to enlarge the Bill, and to extend it to game generally, instead of confining it particularly to hares. He considered it most desirable that they should deal with the question at large. Game might be considered either with reference to luxury and sport, or with reference to agriculture and the interests of landlord and tenant. A measure had been proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright); but his object was a national object, not merely affecting landlord and tenant, but which involved the interests of the public at large. He agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester in regard to the evils of the present system, and that the attempt to introduce wild sports into a country in a high state of cultivation was open to two very material objections: it tended to obstruct the improve of agriculture, and it also held out to the public mala prohibita in such a shape as to lead certain classes of the people to think there was no impropriety in infringing the law. So far, therefore, he agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester. But what was the remedy the hon. Member proposed? Surely the hon. Member did not expect that the House would consent to his sweeping interference with the rights of property. At the same time, if he saw no other remedy, the evils of the existing system were so great, that he should be prepared to adopt the remedy he proposed, violent as it was. But he could see a remedy less violent, by an inducement being held out by the House to a voluntary action, and that was the only action they should seek to create. He considered that the Bill of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, enlarged as he proposed by his instruction, would offer
528
many facilities for the reduction of the evil, and would tend to conciliate the public. He would likewise hold out to game preservers that the measure so enlarged would give them a better mode of preserving game than hitherto. To those who desired and expected to put down game, no other meaure than that which he proposed was practicable. They could not interfere compulsorily with the rights of property; and the measure he proposed held out no encouragement to the voluntary action, which was the only action to effect the object which all had in view. This was a measure not likely to interfere with the revenue, and on that ground to justify an objection by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He only proposed to abolish certificates where certificates would not now be taken out; and the Bill of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not object, would affect the revenue as much as his proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had thrown away the other night more than 40,000 l. of copper duties; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman might deal with small branches of revenue and relinquish them, when a great moral advantage could be attained thereby.
The EARL of MARCH thought his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire had done wisely in applying his Bill to hares, and that the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) had assigned no reason for his alterations, to which he should offer his most decided opposition. As to the argument drawn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving away 40,000 l. of copper duties, it was no reason, because the right hon. Gentleman had done one foolish thing, that he should do another.
MR. SEYMER thought if farmers were permitted to kill hares on their farms, the number of them who would take out certificates would be extremely few indeed. The objections to the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) should come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than from the benches behind him. It should be recollected that by the existing law the farmer had a right to destroy game on his farm where no compact to the contrary was in force; and he was convinced that no Act would be as effective in carrying out the wishes of the landlords as would be arrangements with their tenants. The hon. Member for Manchester was called on to support this Bill, for though it might not go as far as he wished, it was

529
impossible for him to deny that it was a step in what he called the right direction. The hon. Member contended that farmers had very great objections to game, and that they would destroy it wherever they could. He was of a totally different opinion. Well, then, let them see which was right. Let the tenant have the choice of preserving or destroying as he pleased. With respect to the practical effect of the measure, he believed it would be found that while hares would not be too abundant, they would be quite numerous enough. The hon. Member for Manchester seemed to ridicule the idea that shooting was a manly or invigorating exercise; but if he would just walk from ten till six o'clock in a Lancashire potato field with a gun on his arm, he would soon alter his opinion. He would support the proposition of his hon. Friend.
MR. HALSEY supported the Bill because it would lead to fair arrangements between landlord and tenant as to the right of shooting. He could not at all agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, for he believed the damage from wing game to be very small comparatively. From various conversations with tenant-farmers, and from his own observation, he was convinced the loss inflicted on growing wheat by winged game did not exceed one per cent of the whole damage. The great source of mischief was the abundance of hares. He hoped the Bill would not be interfered with, but would pass the House without the proposed alteration.
MR. COLVILE said, when the hon. Member for Staffordshire sought to introduce into his (Mr. Colvile's) Bill a measure so foreign to the object he had originally proposed, and so irrelevant to the principle embodied in it, he hoped the House would assist him in resisting it. So utterly alien was the proposition to the spirit of his Bill, that it might have been introduced into a Landlord and Tenant Bill, or any other Bill. If the hon. Member had chosen to bring in a Bill, it might have been discussed on its own merits. The preamble of the Bill before the House set forth that—
"Whereas it having been found that much damage has been and is continually done by hares to cultivated land, and great loss has occurred thereby to occupiers of land, it is expedient that occupiers of land should have power to kill hares."
He utterly denied that partridges did the damage to the land which had been attributed to them. The evidence taken before the Committee on the Game Laws sup-
530
ported him in the assertion, that hares were the great culprits, and that they ought to be put in the same category with rabbits. The Committee had passed an unanimous resolution that it was desirable to pursue the course he had adopted.
MR. P. BENNET said, the Bill was calculated to satisfy many and to emulate more of those farmers who occupied lands situated under the cover of a neighbour whose game was highly preserved. He thought the Bill would put the owners and occupiers of land upon fair terms. He was against all interference with the rights of property; and he thought that, whilst the Bill would not place either owner or occupier generally in a better or worse situation than at present, they would settle matters between themselves far better than by Acts of Parliament. The Bill would, however, be serviceable in a moral point of view, as it would diminish poaching, which was generally pursued in consequence of the value set upon hares, and the wish of the occupier to have them reduced; whereas by the proposed Bill he would have an interest in the property. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were enabled at a future time to reduce the malt tax, and thus free the poorer classes from the temptation of frequenting the beer-houses, he would attack the root of poaching at once, and enable the cottager to enjoy with his family the beverage his labour had assisted in producing.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER must say a few words upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Staffordshire. He did not object to the Bill of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, which gave occupiers power to kill hares without a game certificate; but he should not be justified in sacrificing so much revenue as the proposition of the hon. Member for Staffordshire would amount to. If parties went out shooting for the sake of the sport, it was reasonable that they should pay the tax; but if parties destroyed hares merely with a view of preventing damage to their land and property, that was a different consideration. He should have no objection to grant full power to kill any game that occasioned damage to the agriculturist; but he hoped the House would not lose sight of this. The Committee on the Game Laws, in their report, stated that the damage done by winged game was quite inappreciable, as compared with the damage done by hares and rabbits; and therefore, although he was ready, with the

531

hon. Member for Derbyshire, to make hares rabbits, yet he was not willing to go the length of making partridges rabbits. The duty on game certificates amounted to 160,000 l., and it was impossible to say how much of that would be affected by extending the operation of the Bill to all kinds of game; and he could not consent to give up any portion of that duty in favour of persons who went out to shoot for the purpose of sporting.
MR. BRIGHT said, he had understood the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Derbyshire to have been founded on some recommendation of a Committee; but, as far as he could now discover, there seemed to be no reason for any such supposition. As to the Committee, the report of which on this subject had already been referred to, he would only say, that a great deal of evidence had been laid before that Committee, and that nothing could be more at variance than was that evidence with the report. The present proposition he regarded as quite worthless. Under its authority persons could merely kill hares, and even that they could not do except in those cases in which they had previously obtained the leave of their landlords. He had listened attentively to the present debate, and he had heard no argument whatever, showing that the Bill had the least tendency to destroy the evils which sprang out of the game laws. The evidence before the Committee proved that rabbits were as mischievous as hares; yet passing the present measure would leave matters precisely as they had been. But that ought not to form the principal object of legislation with the House of Commons at the present day. Their object ought to be to improve the morals of the people. He had always thought that that constituted the real question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them, that the injury done by winged game was inappreciable. He could not say how the case might stand with respect to partridges; but he believed there could be no doubt of this, that the pursuit of pheasants gave rise to some of the most fatal encounters that the annals of game-preserving presented. He believed there was no one who, possessing competent information, and dispassionately considering the question, would contend that it was the duty of the House to pass the present Bill. It appeared to him that it would be much better to withdraw the Bill, and permit the Government to introduce a better and a larger Bill; at the same time
532
that, if the hon. Member for Staffordshire went to a division, he should certainly feel bound to vote with him.
SIR J. TYRELL observed, it would be quite unreasonable to expect that the hon. Member for Manchester should be content with such a measure as the present, considering the views which on some occasions he had expressed with regard to the game laws; and yet, after all, the hon. Member for Manchester ought to be content with what he had obtained—a Committee had been granted to him, and he ought to have been satisfied with that. Besides, he ought to have dropped his opposition to the game laws when the corn laws were repealed. It had all along understood that the propositions of the hon. Member for Manchester about the game laws were merely to be used as a lever for carrying on his opposition to the corn laws: that object having been accomplished, he really did think that the hon. Member for Manchester ought now to rest satisfied. That hon. Member and other Gentlemen talked frequently of the injury which agriculturists sustained from the alleged depredations of game; but he believed that those grounds of complaint frequently occurred where land was ill-farmed. The present matter presented a striking exemplification of the difficulty of legislating upon trifles; but he did think that the Bill now before them ought to satisfy all the reasonable Members of that House. He could very well understand that Gentlemen who resided in Lancashire and other thickly inhabited districts felt but little sympathy with persons who pursued field sports; but that was not the question before them. The hon. Member for Manchester had brought in his Game Bill for the purpose of setting the farmers against the landlords; and, as there was now no occasion for continuing that species of warfare, the hon. Member ought to be satisfied with the triumph that he had obtained, and not meddle with matters which he did not understand.
MR. BERKELEY had always been ready to repeal the game laws, provided the House were ready to introduce some measure for the protection of property. The hon. Member for Manchester spoke of the murders which had taken place, as if the men who were executed were condemned for killing a cock pheasant, and not for the crime of murder. Who had the sympathy of the hon. Member? Why the murderer, and not the murdered man. When a man was executed for the murder of a gamekeeper, it was said, "Here is

533
another victim to the horrible and bloody game laws." It was never reflected that that murder was committed upon an unfortunate man who went forth to protect the property of his master. Such a man, after having faithfully served his master for a number of years, was murdered, and he received no sympathy from the hon. Gentleman; but take a man to the foot of the gallows, and he was instantly received with the pseudo sentimental whine of the hon. Gentleman. He would be the last man in the world to keep a law on the Statute-book that would be productive of demoralisation; and when the hon. Gentleman found fault with the existing law, after having obtained a Committee of Inquiry, the report of which Committee was against him, instead of making inflammatory speeches, he should propose some practical remedy. Take away the present law, and a gentleman might find thirty or forty fellows in his garden some fine morning, who, under pretence of searching for game, might make free with the poultry, or anything else they might find convenient.
MR. S. CRAWFORD agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester. The Bill seemed to him to be nothing but a delusion, for it did not go to the root of the evil; no Bill would be worth having that did not let every man shoot the game that fed on his land.
COLONEL SIBTHORP had had for some time in his hands a petition from persons licensed to deal in game, complaining of the unfair rivalry carried on against them by hawkers. Every one who knew anything of the subject knew that the gamekeeper was the best protector of the farmer's true interests.
Motion for an instruction withdrawn.
House in Committee.
On Clause 4,
MR. G. BERKELEY proposed to add words, with the of preventing any person, not having obtained an annual game certificate, from destroying hares by "firearms or guns of any description."
The Committee divided on the question that the words he added:—Ayes 49; Noes 44: Majority 5
House resumed. Bill reported.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Viscount Exmouth.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Exchequer Bills; Public Works Completion (Ireland).
2a Crown and Government Security.
3a and passed:—Election Recognisances.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Members of various Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for an Extension of the Privileges of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.

CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the Second Reading of the Crown and Government Security Bill, said, it frequently happened, when Parliament was called upon to make provision for the preservation of the public peace, that the Government was in possession of materials and information which were not before the public, which it was necessary to communicate to
486
the Legislature, in order to lay the grounds for any application being made for an alteration in the law. It unfortunately, however, happened at the present moment that this was not the case, and that the information before the public was amply sufficient to induce their Lordships to come to the conclusion that what was now going on ought not to be permitted to continue, and that there ought to be means placed in the hands of the Government for the purpose of preventing those continual attempts at disturbing the peace which had recently taken place, not only in the metropolis, but in every other part of the United Kingdom. When meetings were daily held, not only in London and Dublin, but in most of the manufacturing towns, where inflammatory speeches were made, the professed object of which was to array the people against the constituted authorities of these realms, it was high time, if the law was not adequate to repress these evils, that Parliament should interfere to provide means by which their recurrence might be prevented. Beyond all doubt that which was now taking place, being illegal, might be the subject of criminal prosecution. It happened, however, that the state of the law was not adequate to meet the evil as it was now found to exist; but by one alteration in the law he apprehended there would be no difficulty in putting an end to scenes which were so disgraceful to the country, which tended to disturb the public peace, and lead to criminal proceedings against those who unfortunately attended those meetings, for whose welfare the orators who addressed them seemed to have very little regard. It generally happened —and certainly it did in this particular case—that where a necessity arose in any degree for enlarging the efficiency of the criminal law, the necessity arose from the acts of those who professed themselves the friends of liberty, and of that license which was permitted by our constitution within proper bounds—who professed to be the friends of the people, and of that liberty which their acts made it imperative upon Parliament in some degree to restrain.
Their Lordships had seen enough in the present state of the country to feel an anxious desire that that state should not continue; and if they concurred in opinion with him that means should be taken to prevent those scenes and repress those harangues which were calculated to promote so much mischief, he might shortly explain the present state

487
of the law, and the remedies proposed to be provided for its defects by the present Bill. Their Lordships were aware that according to the old statute of treason, that of Edward III., there were two great branches of treason, which were the foundation of all the subsequent statutes. Those great branches were, first, the imagining or contriving the death of the Sovereign; and the other, levying war against the Sovereign. The first of these offences, consisting in the act of the mind, in the intention or the design entertained, could, of course, only be established by some overt act to show that such an intent existed, or such a design entertained. In the case of levying war, however, the provisions of the statute were different. It was not the intention of levying war—not having a design for the purpose—but the act of levying war, which constituted the treason. On various occasions, according to the exigencies of the times, and the dangers to be guarded against, particular Acts had been passed. Some, now gone by, provided different means of guarding against the dangers of any particular treason. Among other provisions of that sort, there was the Statute of 36 George III., passed in the year 1796. It was found that the law which previously existed was not adequate to meet the then state of the country. Accordingly, that Act was passed, which took up a variety of Acts that might well under the previous law be considered overt acts of treason, but which did not of themselves constitute treason. For instance, inciting foreigners to come over to this country; inciting parties to go armed for the purpose of intimidation; attempts to intimidate either Government or the Parliament—various acts of that sort, which did not constitute treason, but which might, under the former Acts, be considered an act of treason against the person of the Sovereign, were made substantive acts of treason; and a party found guilty of intent to commit those acts, evidenced by an overt act, was subjected to the penalties of high treason. This Act was passed to continue during the reign of George III. During the Regency another Act was passed—the 57th George III.—the object of which was to continue certain provisions of the former Act during the life of the Prince Regent, and to make others permanent. The first Act—the 36th George III.—being passed before the Union, and the second subsequently to it, a question might arise whether the 57th George III.
488
did or did not extend the provisions of the Act 36 George III. to Ireland. The provisions of the Act 36 George III. made these offences actual treason. Many of them were of the gravest character; others, according to the circumstances, either constituted treason or an offence of a much lighter nature. Their Lordships were well aware that great delay occasionally occurred in prosecutions for high treason, and that those guilty of that offence had at least the certainty of considerable time elapsing before they could be brought to trial. It was proposed by this Bill first to alter the law in so far as those offences were made treason, and to make them felony, by which a party would be tried in the ordinary way in which other parties charged with felony were tried. In that respect it was a mitigation of the law, because it would make them guilty only of the minor offence. Another object of the Bill, which he thought would be considered free from objection, was that it included Ireland—that it would remove any doubt as to whether Ireland was or was not included in the Act 57 George III. It was therefore proposed, first, to make the offences felony which were treason under the former Act, and next to extend the law so altered, to Ireland. Extended as the law was proposed to be to Ireland, he did not apprehend their Lordships would feel this was the time when such a provision was objectionable. The alterations from the Act 36 George III. consisted mainly in the introduction, in the 3rd Clause, of the words "open and advised speaking," which would guard against the real evil which Parliament was now asked to prevent. It had been supposed elsewhere—and he himself had heard it objected—that the insertion of these words was introducing a new principle into the law. He was very much astonished at any such opinion, particularly when, as he had been informed, it had been expressed by Gentlemen who, if they had taken the trouble to refresh their recollections, must have known that it was not correct. The error must have arisen from the fact that under the Act of Edward III. it was held that you could not indict a party for treason for mere words, for words simpliciter. If a man said, "I will make my son heir to the Crown," in a certain sense, and coming from a certain quarter, that might be treason; but if it turned out that the expression was used by the master of the Crown inn, then no such intention could

489
be inferred. It must be left to the jury to decide whether the words used were "open and advised speaking;" and it could not be supposed that hasty loose expressions, used without any deliberate purpose of treason, constituted treason. It was no part of our law, however, that the crime of high treason might not be indicted upon words in connexion with overt acts. He was sorry to say again that very strong language had been used in different parts of the empire; and he was quite satisfied that if the law was not strong enough to prevent it, some law must be made for that purpose. With this view the present Bill was submitted to their Lordships' consideration; and he believed it would be effectual, because a party guilty of the offences he had referred to would be subjected to transportation for seven years, during which time he would have an opportunity of reflecting upon the folly of the course he had adopted; at all events, it would take away from the means of injuring the public, which he had hitherto been guilty of, and in that way an effectual stop would be put to the present proceedings.
LORD STANLEY did not intend to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill, or to throw any impediment in its way. With regard to its object, he had taken the liberty, a short time ago, of directing attention to the precise defect in the law, which left a wide gap between the treason punishable with death, and the inferior classes of sedition which could only be proceeded against as misdemeanours, and punished by fine or imprisonment. He therefore entirely concurred in the principle of the Bill, which remedied that defect in the law; and he thought the course taken of establishing an intermediate offence between treason, between an offence punishable by death, and an offence punishable only as a misdemeanour, was a substantial improvement. Both in this country and in Ireland language had been held, and other measures taken, to excite the people by a class of persons who aspired to the dignity of being treated as State criminals. They were not the parties, however, to be dealt with as State criminals, guilty of high treason upon the one hand, nor on the other hand ought they to be dealt with as simple misdemeanants. They were, therefore, very properly placed by this Bill in the degraded class of common felons; they were placed
490
among the burglars and highway robbers of the country; and they would be subjected to the same mode of prosecution and conviction, and to the same disgraceful punishments. At the same time, looking to the gravity of the case, and at the importance of the circumstances under which this alteration was proposed in the law, he should have been better pleased if their Lordships had not been called upon to decide, after hardly twenty-four hours' notice, upon the introduction of a permanent alteration in the law founded upon temporary considerations. The amendment of the law might be right and just; but he thought it was a matter of too great importance and too great weight to be so summarily disposed of as their Lordships were called upon to do with regard to this present Bill. If there were any question that the same law of treason was applicable to England and to Ireland, there could be no doubt but that the same law should be made applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom. Neither could it be doubted, if it were the case, that the law was more stringent in England than in Ireland; but that Ireland was not that portion of the United Kingdom which stood least in need of stringent and effective measures under this head. It might be very wise, and in accordance with the spirit of our legislation, though he thought that the present was hardly the precise moment to introduce such clauses, to mitigate the punishment for certain classes of high treason; yet he should confess that, looking to the circumstances of these times, he should have been better pleased if Her Majesty's Government had taken the course which indeed was provided for by the 7th Clause of this Bill, of retaining the power, while the offence of treason was still retained, of proceeding at their discretion for the minor offence, which was merged in the treason, and of indicting the party for felony. He confessed that he should rather see a general alteration of the law of treason made the subject of a more careful discussion than they could hope for in the passage of this Bill at the present moment, and that a power should be taken under this Bill by the Government of proceeding as for felony, though the higher offence of treason might still exist. He did not understand the distinction which was drawn by the Bill between compassing or imagining the restriction or restraint of the Sovereign, and compassing or imagi

491
ning the deposition of the Sovereign. He could understand why compassing the death, or serious injury, or wounding of the Sovereign, should be still left subject to the punishment of death, and be indicted as high treason; but he could not understand on what ground compassing the deposition of the Sovereign should be made a minor offence, compared with the other varieties of treason still retained. He might be speaking in great ignorance of the law; but he should be glad to hear some explanation on this point from some of the noble and learned Lords present. Another point to which he wished to direct attention was this. He had doubts whether the Crown might not be subjected to difficulty in being obliged in all cases to prosecute for felony instead of for misdemeanour. He apprehended that as felony merged in the higher offence of treason, so misdemeanour merged in felony; and he apprehended that the Crown would often have some difficulty, especially in Ireland, if they were obliged to proceed as for felony in all cases in which, under the present law, they would proceed for misdemeanour. In cases of felony the prisoner had a right of peremptory challenge to a considerable extent; and he apprehended that in the class of offences for which the Crown would be obliged to proceed under this Bill in Ireland, cases might arise where there would be a great difficulty of procuring convictions from this cause. By making the offence felony, they took away the right on the part of the Crown of applying to have the case tried by a special jury; and they also gave the prisoner the advantage—and a great advantage it was in the present state of Ireland—of peremptory challenge, and of bringing the panel down to a lower class of jurors. It was not his intention to urge the adoption of any particular course with regard to these points on Her Majesty's Government, because on the Government must rest the responsibility of the details, as well as the responsibility of the principle of such a measure. On them, also, rested the farther responsibility—one which he deeply regretted—of having brought forward this measure at a time when an opinion was universally entertained, both in that House and in the other House of Parliament, that not a day nor an instant should be lost in applying an effective cure for the disorders both of this country and of Ireland, and thereby prac
492
tically depriving their Lordships of the power of more practically and more deliberately considering any permanent alteration in so important a subject.
LORD BROUGHAM did not mean to offer any opposition to the passing of this Bill, which he thought was rendered quite necessary by the circumstances of the times; but he could not avoid mentioning some doubts which occurred to him upon some points of the Bill, with a view of directing the attention of Government to them. For instance, he doubted the distinction which seemed to be drawn between deposing the Sovereign from her title, and deposing her in substance from her dominions. In the next place, in this Bill the Government took a leaf out of the law of Scotland; but if, as he supposed would be the case, the Act were to be extended to Scotland, he wished to warn them of a serious alteration which it would involve. By the Scottish law a person indicted for felony had a right to a most important document—a list of the witnesses intended to be called against him; and if this Bill were to be extended to Scotland, it would take away for the first time that important principle of the law of Scotland. This Bill would deprive the prisoner of the list of the jury panel, and also the list of the witnesses; and he, for one, should be inclined to pause before extending such a principle to Scotland for the first time. Again, he thought that the statute, the 25th of Edward III., would clash with the third clause of this Bill. The impression on his mind was, that there were old cases in which compassing to depose had been held to be a compassing of the death of the Sovereign. He also objected to the words, "compassing to levy war on the Sovereign," not generally, but for a particular purpose. He thought that compassing to levy war on the Queen for any purpose was a substantive offence, and ought to be held to be a very grave offence; whereas by this Bill it was no offence unless the war were levied "in order, by force or constraint, to compel her to change her measures or counsels." As an instance of the kind of war that might be levied in Ireland, he would beg to direct their Lordships' attention to a letter which had lately appeared from a reverend clergyman addressed to Mr. Meagher "of the sword." As the gentleman might not be pleased unless his name were given, he would mention it—the letter was signed "James

493
Bermingham, P.P.," and contained this passage:—
"When the day of your struggle shall come, when your liberties as well as your lives shall be invaded, then let it not be a turning out of two or three counties, but let Ireland rise to the contest as one man; and let every man, as he is about taking his position to perform this most glorious act of his life, make a vow to the following effect."
This reverend clergyman and minister of the Gospel of Peace not having, he supposed, read the Ten Commandments recently, goes on to give the words of the vow as follows:—
"I vow before God and my country to lessen if I can, by one man at least, the enemies of my native land, and to die."
The passage then continued:—
"When being thus prepared, and having made the foregoing vow, you are fairly committed to the combat, don't show yourselves to the enemy on the hill-side or on the plain; but take him from the dyke, the fence, the hedge-row, from the broken bridge, or the obstructed railway. Be sure you do all the mischief in your power—or all the good, I should say, for mischief is the good in this case—by all the means within your reach, and think not for one moment of living—'to do or die,' or 'to do and die,' be this your motto."
He brought this passage forward as an instance of the necessity which existed for such a measure as the present; but he thought that, to be efficient, it should, as he had repeatedly urged, give a power to the Government of imprisonment—temporarily, or for six months, if they wished—and also a power of searching for papers of the person arrested. By means of such a power alone could they hope to intimidate the wrong-doer, and drive conspiracy from the land. They might drive them from the field of conspiracy, of sedition, of levying war, of open and advised speaking; but what signified all that, if they could still go into a certain House of Parliament and there utter such language as he had alluded to a few evenings ago. And here he would close his observations by giving a salutary but not a superfluous warning to the press of this kingdom, and of the sister kingdom, that, though the rules of Parliament protected those who used seditious or treasonable words within the walls of the House of Commons, it did not protect them out of doors; and he who presumed to publish such seditious words became liable to be indicted under the Statute of Edward III., as well as under this Act. There was no doubt but that Parliament had certain privileges by which Members could protect them
494
selves to any extent within doors; but let no newspaper reporter, let no newspaper editor, entertain the fond notion that whatever was said in Parliament he had a right to print—that it was not libellous, that it was not seditious, that it was not treasonable. There was no lawyer who could doubt the truth of what he was now saying. Though a Member was protected when he spoke treason or sedition, or libel in Parliament, there was no question but that he who, out of Parliament, printed what had been so spoken, even the Speaker himself, was just as liable to punishment as if he had no privilege, and that a man was as liable as if he himself invented the treason which he had published. He hoped and trusted that those who now printed the grossest slanders on the constitution, and the most treasonable and seditious speeches—some of them encouraging foreigners to invade this country, while others incited those who were treasonably disposed in these kingdoms to look for assistance from abroad—would recollect, that even though those who uttered such sentiments might not be punishable by law, they who promulgated those opinions were liable for them.
LORD CAMPBELL said, he admitted that this Bill did not reach the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien making a treasonable speech in the Commons' House of Parliament; but he also admitted that it would not punish the editors, proprietors, or reporters of the Times, or any other newspaper, for publishing a speech so made. He should be ashamed to bring forward a measure that would have such an object in view.
If any Member of the House of Commons spoke treason within the walls of the House of Commons, he should answer for his sentiments within the House, but not elsewhere. One of the most outrageous attempts made by King Charles I., and which was probably one of the main causes of bringing him to the block, was that of questioning Members of the House of Commons in courts of law for speeches made in the House of Commons; and he hoped that such a law would never be enacted in this country again. He should be the last man to bring forward any measure for punishing those who gave good and faithful reports of what took place in Parliament, for he had himself proposed to their Lordships a clause in a Bill which met with the approbation of their Lordships' House, as well as of the other House of Parliament and of the Sovereign

495
—and which he believed to be a perfectly fair and just clause—that no person being the printer and publisher of the newspaper that bonâ fide gave an honest report of what occurred in either House of Parliament should be liable to be indicted; and he had the honour of being seconded on that occasion by Lord Brougham and Vaux himself, and it met with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice. As to the persons who spoke these speeches, perhaps their best punishment was in the contempt and indignation which their treasonable conduct excited. He did not believe that the cause of treason or sedition had gained any advantage by the publication of those addresses; but, on the contrary, he thought that their publication had a strong tendency to urge forward that spirit of loyalty and order which had been recently manifested by the great body of the people. He trusted that this Bill would be effectual for the purposes which it had in view, namely, to restrain seditious and treasonable speeches made in the National Convention in London, and made at the meetings of the Confederates in Dublin, and it might be at meetings in Conciliation Hall also. These were properly within the scope of prosecution, and these were the speeches that ought to be prosecuted. It had been said elsewhere that there was one Member of Her Majesty's Government who must condemn this Bill—that Member being the humble individual who had now the honour to address their Lordships; and the foundation of that opinion was, that he (Lord Campbell) had expressed a disapprobation of Lord Eldon's Bill of 1796. It was true that he had so expressed himself, and he always would continue to think that that Bill had been an improper encroachment on the liberty of the subject. But the law of treason in England was happily established in the 25th year of the reign of Edward III. High treason was the greatest crime known to the law; the penalties were the most severe; the terms of the sentence he would not shock their Lordships by pronouncing; and, in addition, the forfeiture of lands and goods and the corruption of blood were involved. But there was one great defect in the law with respect to offences against the State, and that was, that there was no intermediate crime between high treason and a misdemeanour. Now, what was a misdemeanour by the law? It was a crime of a very lenient nature; it was, in the first place, bailable de jure—it could only be punished
496
by fine and imprisonment; and whilst a man was under prosecution for it, he might set the law at defiance: he might repeat the offence, and commit acts tending to the injury of the State. The consequence of that defect in the law was, that on various occasions there had been temporary laws brought in, making high treason Acts of a penal nature, which were not touched by the Act of Edward III.; but those were only temporary, and were repealed at the commencement of almost every reign—particularly at the commencement of Queen Mary's reign, when all the treasons which had been created since the 25th of Edward III. were repealed. Another bad consequence of there being no intermediate offence was that the law of Edward III. was often strained. It was held to be high treason if any disturbance occurred for what was termed any general or public object. That being the case, very great inconveniences arose; and Lord Eldon, in 1796, introduced a law making it high treason, and punishable in the manner he had described, to compass or imagine the death of the Sovereign, the leyying of war, or the inviting of foreign invasion. That appeared to him, however, to be assimilating crimes of a very different amount of gravity, It defeated its own object, and was opposed, and, as he thought, justly opposed, by one party in Parliament. Amongst other things, it required all the forms of the Act of Edward to be followed. A copy of the indictment must be delivered to the accused, with a list of witnesses, and of the jury, and all these must be delivered simultaneously. Their Lordships would, no doubt, remember that in the case of Frost an objection was taken, because the copy of the indictment had been delivered three days before the list of witnesses, and that that objection was held by a minority of the Judges to be fatal. The noble Lord opposite had expressed some apprehension that the treason laws might be rendered less efficacious by the adoption of this measure; but the fact was, that there was an express clause in the Bill, whereby the Statute of the 25th of Edward III. remained intact. Whatever, therefore, was treason from the time of Edward III. down to 1796, was treason now, and would remain treason. At the same time there was no new offence created by this Bill. What was now treason was in some cases reduced to felony; and he was sure it was infinitely better that the offence should be treated as a

497
felony than as misdemeanour. He had heard it stated by a very high authority that it would have been infinitely preferable to have treated the whole of these offences as misdemeanours instead of as felonies. If they made those offences misdemeanours, however, they would gain nothing by this measure—they would still be bailable, and the object which the Government had in view would be frustrated. He contended that for such grave offences there should be a grave punishment. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had criticised the language of the 3rd section. But that section contained the ipsissima verba to be found in the 36th George III., which in their turn were
taken word for word from the Statute of Charles II. The words "open and advised speaking" had a certain definite and well-defined meaning with which the Judges were acquainted; and really he should think his noble and learned Friend could hardly be serious when he stated that they merely applied to deposing the Queen from the "style" of Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The words meant, deposing Her Majesty from Her Royal authority as Sovereign of this realm. That was the meaning they ever had conveyed, and that was the interpretation to be placed upon them now. His noble and learned Friend had spoken about taking a leaf out of the law of Scotland. He could only say that if this Bill were to introduce into England the law which was supposed to exist in Scotland at the trial of Muir and Palmer, he should be the last man to support it. But he believed that the trial of Muir and Palmer was not according to the law of Scotland. They were not tried for any specific offence, but generally for sedition, and that sedition consisted in making very temperate speeches in favour of Parliamentary reform. They did no more than make speeches such as his noble and learned Friend had often made. He did not say that his noble and learned Friend had made himself amenable to the law, but certainly he had made more animated speeches in favour of reform than those for which these men were transported to Botany Bay. The only offences punishable by this Bill were compassing the deposition of the Queen, levying war against the Queen, and inviting the invasion of the Queen's dominions by a foreign force; and the Judge would ask the jury distinctly whether the prisoner had been proved to be guilty of one of those specific offences.
498
Now those offences might be created either by printing and publishing, or "by open and advised speaking;" but the open and advised speaking was not the crime—the crime must be, as he had already said, either compassing the death of the Queen, levying war against the Queen, or inviting the invasion of the Queen's dominions by a foreign force. The "open and advised speaking" of the Bill was open and advised speaking which proved that there was a design to depose the Queen, to levy war against the Queen, or to invite invasion. Mr. Justice Foster had laid it down that to make use of language which amounted to counselling the deposition of the Sovereign, was an overt act of high treason; and again it was held that if the words were merely an expression of opinion they might be seditious, but not treasonable; but if they counselled an act to be done, then they became treason. Now those were words—nothing but words; there was no act done, and yet that was treason. It did seem to him, therefore, a fallacy to say that the expression in the Act—"open and advised speaking"—was any invasion of the rights or liberties of the subject. The 1st of Edward VI., c. 12, and various Acts from Elizabeth down to Charles II., distinctly laid it down that if any person averred by open teaching or by expressed words that the king, his heirs or successors, ought not to reign in England and Ireland, or if any person imagined, by open teaching or expressed words, to deprive the king, his heirs or successors, of their royal sign and title, that should be deemed high treason. He had only further to add, with reference to this measure, that the mode of trial was not at all altered by it, and that whatever advantage the prisoner previously possessed, he would possess still. He hoped the Bill would meet with the unanimous approbation of their Lordships, and that the country would long continue to enjoy that peace which had now for so long a time remained undisturbed.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON said: My Lords, I am one of those who highly approve of the object of the Bill now before your Lordships. At the same time I agree with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) in regretting that Parliament has not been allowed more time for its consideration. But, my Lords, I conceive it is absolutely necessary that some measure of this nature should be adopted, and that due consideration should be given to it for the purpose

499
of making it quite efficient, in order to oppose some check to those great, those gigantic meetings by which this country and the sister kingdom have been disturbed during the last year. My Lords, we have at last come to that stage at which the law is defied, and the contempt of every one of those persons who break it. When the Government instituted proceedings against three persons for a misdemeanour, it happened, owing to the state of the law as it stands up to the present moment, that after they were brought before the magistrates, and bail was taken for their appearance upon their trial, one of them continued to commit the same offence with which they were charged, by means of speeches and writings, in addition to what they had previously done; the two others carried out their attempts in an offensive—I won't say treasonable—mission to another country, aggravating the charge so far as it could be aggravated by any act of theirs—but, when out on bail, those persons go to a foreign country to excite foreigners to invade Her Majesty's dominions. What is this but an aggravation of the offences already committed, and a further proceeding in contempt of the law? My Lords, this contempt of the law is growing in this country every day. From the want of respect for the law—of that respect for the law which has been characteristic of this country for ages, matters are come to such a pass that there will be no authority in the country and no means of supporting the law except by the use of physical force. I am anxious to guard against the country coming to that state. My Lords, that is the state of things, and I have observed in a most marked manner the progress which has been made in recent years in that very contempt of the laws of this country. Some years ago it happened—I believe in the year 1831—that there were extraordinary riots at the same moment at Bristol in this country, and at Lyons in France. It is certainly true that great outrages were committed at Bristol—that the bishop's palace was burnt, that the jail was burnt, and that great injury was done. The riots continued some days, though a military force was employed to give assistance to the civil power. But the officer who commanded that force was considered not to have done his duty; and certainly, in the presence of the troops and the magistrates, the bishop's palace was destroyed by fire. The disturbances continued; but the ma
500
gistrates got the better of it altogether, and saved the city of Bristol from entire conflagration by the assistance of one single squadron of light dragoons, under the command of Colonel Brereton, who performed his duty: and that was the whole force which put an end to that disturbance in Bristol in 1831, and saved that city from entire detruction. But what was the case at the same period at Lyons? The population of the two towns is, I believe, about the same. One is a port—the other is inland. However, it took an army of 60,000 men, under the command of a Marshal of France, in order to get the better of that insurrection at Lyons, and to save Lyons from destruction. One squadron of dragoons did that at Bristol, which it required 60,000 men to perform at Lyons. My Lords, I attribute the different success of those two efforts to the respect which prevailed at that time in England for the law—to the feeling which every man had that he was disobeying the law by joining in that insurrection; and respect for the law it was which then saved Bristol. We are certainly not now in that happy position. It is true, that without the exercise of force we saw large bodies of persons who had collected in the vicinity of this city quietly disperse. But that was not out of submission to the law. Was not the whole population of the town, civil as well as military, under arms? Were there not several hundred thousand persons embodied as constables? Were they not organised and directed by persons capable of directing them? Were there not thousands of troops under arms? and were there not thousands of police in readiness to act if need be? Can it be said, then, that it was respect for the law which prevented any outrage being committed by these persons? But what passed on that very night, on the following night, and on nearly every night since? Why, a repetition of the very same expressions which it is the object of this Act of Parliament to prevent. Is that respect for the law? No, there is no such thing as respect for the law under such circumstances. My Lords, I say that this want of respect for the law, which if it continues must be fatal to the greatness of this country, if not to its very existence, is to be attributed to the transactions which have taken place in Ireland within the last few years. We have seen hundreds of those monster meetings year after year, week after week, month after month, ranging through that country with impu

501
nity. We have heard of seditious and treasonable speeches made at those meetings—we have heard of men being put upon their trial for sedition in connexion with those meetings—and we have heard of men who were acquitted of the charge of sedition on some point arising on the trial. Why, my Lords, all this tends, I say, to the same point—to create a contempt for the law. I, therefore, entreat your Lordships to pass this Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell) for the manner in which he has explained it. I particularly approve of the Bill, and I hope it may have a tendency to induce some respect for the law. But I beg your Lordships to observe that you place the Lord Lieutenant and the Government of Ireland in an exceedingly awkward situation in relation to the monster meetings, if you only allow them to act after having before them evidence on oath of something dangerous to the public peace having been done, and do not allow the Lord Lieutenant to proceed upon his own sense of the state of the public peace, and of his power to preserve that peace by means of the civil force placed at his disposal. I do not want to prevent discussion on any subject. I desire that the people should have the means of public discussion on every subject on which they desire to have discussion; but, my Lords, let that discussion be when they meet in such numbers that the question can be discussed, and all who attend the meeting can hear what is addressed to them; but do not let the meeting, under the pretence of discussion, be of such a nature as, in the opinion of the magistrate, it is impossible for him to endeavour to put them down by means of the civil force at his disposal, and render it obvious that such a meeting can have no other object except to create terror and overawe the Government. My Lords, I rejoice that this Bill is likely to pass as a check on such meetings in future—meetings of a character to create terror; and I hope that your Lordships will pass this Bill unanimously in as short a space of time as possible in order that Government may be able to take advantage of it in the approaching time.
LORD DENMAN need hardly say that he had listened with the greatest attention and respect to what had fallen from the noble Duke; but there certainly were some things in his speech to which he hoped the noble Duke would permit him shortly
502
to allude. He quite agreed with him that in certain quarters there was a growing contempt for the law; and it appeared to him that the danger which must result from that state of things could hardly be overrated. It was impossible but that the minds of the lowest and most ignorant, pressed down often by want, must be acted upon by the violent language said to have been employed, and be led to regard as a lawful proceeding that which might be attended with the greatest danger not only at present to the peace of the community, but ultimately to the safety of the State. He had no fear that the present proceedings of which they had heard, threatened such danger; but certainly the spirit of such meetings as had taken place—the promulgation of such language as had been put forth—the incitements made use of to induce a small section of the people to take the government by violence into their own hands—and the declarations made not only against the Government, and the Parliament, and the laws, but also betraying a most malignant feeling against the middling classes—all this did appear to him so enormous and intolerable an evil, and so fraught with danger, if permitted to continue, that if any new security of law was necessary to put it down, that new law should receive at once the assent of that House. But the law was not quite so impotent as had by some been supposed; and he had no doubt that these monster meetings—meetings incompatible with discussion and deliberation, and which tended to the breach of the peace, and kept up a certain combined force capable of mischief in any particular direction—such monster meetings were in themselves misdemeanours, and might always be put down by the laws applicable to that offence. That this growing contempt of the law, in particular classes, had been encouraged by what had taken place, in former years, in Ireland, was likely to be contradicted by no one; but on that subject he begged to say that the laws were never appealed to for the repression of these monster meetings. For some good reason, no doubt, it was thought prudent to allow them to go on, and afterwards to proceed against individuals connected with them by indictment—almost as great a monster in the shape of an indictment as the offence which it purported to describe; and, as the noble Duke had said, there followed upon it an acquittal of the parties accused. Some expressions in what had fallen from

503
the noble Duke on this subject, might be thought to imply dissatisfaction with that result; but he was sure he had no intention to impute to any of those who thought themselves bound, in conformity with what they considered to be the law, to control the decision of an inferior court, having done anything inconsistent with their duty. On the contrary, that noble Duke must be of opinion, that if any Peer, sitting as a Judge in that House, was induced, with a view to any consequences whatever, to say that he believed that to be the law which he did not believe to be the law, or would strain, in any way, the law contrary to the dictates of his conscience, he would lose all title to respect as a Judge; and, to a certain extent, the law itself would lose that character which had induced the country to regard it with confidence. The noble Duke had spoken of a growing contempt of the law, and had contrasted recent events with those which occurred at Bristol in 1831, when riots were put down by the appearance of a single squadron. This might be correct, as applicable to the conduct of those parties who had rendered the present Bill necessary; but he would suggest it was hardly just to the people of England, who had so recently taken into their own hands the vindication of their rights and the protection of their safety, that there was in the great body of that England a contempt for the law. He thought, on the contrary, that when certain individuals had proceeded so far towards a disturbance of the peace, and in a course that was dangerous to the safety of all persons not of their own particular party, and when they saw that exhibition of peaceable men turning off from the ordinary and needful occupations of life to expose themselves to possible dangers, and certainly to great inconvenience, he thought there was brought before them the most gratifying proof of attachment to the law, because they knew from long experience the benefits of the protection to be derived from it. "I am sure I can never speak without feelings of the utmost admiration and gratitude, in which all mankind concur, of the conduct of the noble Duke; his recent conduct in these troubles, and the whole tenor of his life; but I feel that I should be wanting in some degree in what was due to the real character of the English people if I allowed that which looked like an imputation of 'the growing contempt of the law' to pass without comment."
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: No one can admire more than I do the general conduct of the people upon the occasion to which I have referred; and I am sorry if I have said anything which could have induced the noble and learned Lord, or any person, to believe that I had said they had not shown respect for the law. What I stated was that the results of that day were to be attributed to the formidable array that was made to get the better of those who had arrayed themselves against the law. I said there was no respect of the law on their part, because I said that on that very night, and certainly on the following night, they had over and over again made speeches showing their contempt of the law. I also beg to say, that nothing was further from my thoughts than to express one word against the decision of the House as to what passed upon the trial to which I have referred. I confess that I have the greatest respect for the decision of this House upon that subject. I said that it was owing to circumstances attending these trials—to points which occurred on the trials—that the conviction of the persons who had been concerned in the transaction to which I have referred were set aside. I did not presume to pronounce any opinion upon the subject. I merely mentioned the fact, as one of the many circumstances which have tended to occasion a contempt of the law on the subject of these meetings.
LORD DENMAN was happy the noble Duke had so satisfactorily explained his meaning; he would say, that, in point of fact the growing contempt of the law in the few, was put down by a growing confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the law by the great mass of the people. He really believed that vast numbers of those who were taking a most improper part in the proceedings that had been referred to, were entirely ignorant that they were offending against the law. One of the benefits which would flow from this Bill was, that those persons would be told that the law would not allow such proceedings to go on; but he never wished to lose sight of the fact that, even without this Bill, those persons were incurring extreme danger, by lending themselves to meetings of a character that led to violence. As to the words contained in the Bill relating to "open and advised speaking," he thought that point was so completely exhausted, that there was no necessity for any remarks on his part. He was glad that the Bill had been so fully

505
and ably discussed, and with so much jealousy, in the other House of Parliament; and he did not see, in the shape in which it had come before their Lordships, that there would be any difficulty in carrying it into effect. As to one point, the privilege of challenge accorded to prisoners, he must own that, as a matter of justice to the accused, he should be sorry to see them deprived of that privilege. He thought there was no reason to complain of juries in Ireland. He was proud of the recent triumph of the law in that country. On the occasion of the late special commission, Roman Catholics and Protestants summoned on the juries had all done their duty so effectively that the most favourable results had followed, and he firmly trusted that there was an end of Coercion Bills for ever.
LORD BROUGHAM, in reference to what had been said by the noble Duke, observed that Lyons was a much larger place, and contained a much more dangerous population, than Bristol. There were 240,000 persons, of whom 30,000 or 40,000 were workmen in a most wretched state, and the quarrels with their masters on account of wages led to almost perpetual combinations against the law. He was lately in the place, and spoke from most positive information. In 1834, 30,000 persons were banded in opposition to the law, and it was deemed advisable, from motives of humanity, to draw in an overwhelming military force, to make resistance utterly impossible; and the consequence was, there was hardly any shedding of blood. There was, indeed, nothing which was such false humanity as that of not putting down insurrections with a strong hand, so as to make resistance utterly impossible.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: I contrasted what had passed in Lyons with what had passed in Bristol, as a remarkable instance of the effect of the respect of the law.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS said, that the noble Lord lately the Chancellor of Ireland, and the learned Chief Justice of England, with more experience of this country than of that, had greatly underrated the objections stated by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley). Anybody acquainted with the administration of justice in Ireland must acknowledge that it was extremely difficult to get jurors not afraid of doing their duty. This had been the case in the Whiteboy offences. If a peremptory right
506
of challenge were given to the parties arraigned, it would be impossible to restore order. He agreed that upon a late occasion the jurors did their duty, and there was a conviction. It was owing to peculiar circumstances that the gentry and magistrates all attended, and served on the petty jury. That was hardly to be looked at as a continuing state of things; and he apprehended that by taking the case of a number of persons, and putting them on their trial, they would exhaust the panel, and find it impossible to get jurors to do their duty. At the same time he would oppose no delay in the existing circumstances of the country in the passing of this Bill. Whilst he admitted that those who "devised, composed, or imagined" the death of the king, justly deserved punishment, yet the mischievous consequences produced by their speaking were small in comparison with the mischief done by the publication of those speeches. He did not wish there should be any restraint on the publication of speeches in Parliament; he thought it of paramount importance that every thing which was said in either House of Parliament should be known to the country, for the probability of a treasonable or seditious speech was not great; but the case was different where small bodies of persons met together with others of the same opinion, and made speeches which, when reported, were read by the meanest peasant. The newspapers exercised a sound discretion in the report of criminal proceedings. He could conceive no reason why the editors of newspapers should not be called upon to exercise the same discretion as to the speeches delivered at these meetings; and he thought it consistent with the duty of Government to require editors to omit the publication of treasonable and seditious speeches. He confessed it did appear to him to be monstrous, and he believed it was owing to the morbid appetite for variety, that the members of these societies met together and uttered these seditious speeches. He appealed to the good feeling of editors of newspapers to exercise the same discretion as to the publication of these proceedings that they exercised as to the proceedings in the criminal courts, which they often said were unfit for publication. If this appeal should not be successful, then he thought the Government might and ought to interpose, and institute legal proceedings againt those who gave publicity to these mischievous proceedings.
LORD CAMPBELL: I do not presume to speak from my own experience of the administration of justice in Ireland; but I assure the noble Earl that the Bill, as it now stands, is perfectly approved of by the law authorities in Ireland—by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—and that they, knowing Ireland thoroughly, believe that it will be effectual. With regard to the publication of seditious speeches, I am very far from saying that it is advisable to take proceedings upon them. It will depend entirely upon the quo animo; if they are published to be held up to the execration of the public, the intention would render the act innocent; but if they are published for the purpose of giving effect to those seditious and treasonable sentiments, the act is highly culpable. It is at all events an aggravated misdemeanour, and might be punished at common law; but it may be punished under certain circumstances by virtue of this Bill, which your Lordships are now about to read the second time, or the printing of such a speech may be the overt act to make out the felony, and to show that the person who printed it compassed the deposition of the Queen, or compassed levying war against the Queen, or compassed the invasion of the Crown by a foreign force; and that being the case, I suppose that a person, whether editor or proprietor of a newspaper, who makes a speech and who publishes that speech, and who will maintain that that speech has the tendency to which I have referred—no doubt, upon the evidence that he made and printed the speech—might be rendered amenable under this Bill; that he may be tried for felony, and may be transported beyond the seas for the term of his natural life.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS: What I am speaking of is the practice of reporting these proceedings without any animus, good or bad—reporting the proceedings of the National Convention as regularly as the speeches we deliver in this House of Parliament. Most of the editors of newspapers are thus doing infinite mischief.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Our only business is to put a stop to the speaking, and then there will be no opportunity for the publishing.
Bill read 2a.

ELECTION RECOGNISANCES BILL.
Bill read 3a.
LORD MONTEAGLE moved to disagree to the Amendment made on Report.
LORD CAMPBELL said that his objection to the Bill had been considerably mitigated by the Amendment: he hoped the Bill would not be rejected elsewhere. He was afraid the withdrawal of the Amendment would now bring the Bill into the state in which it was rejected on a former occasion; but if the alteration should be adopted by the other House of Parliament, he thought the measure would be much less objectionable.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill passed.
House adjourned.