The hon. might appear objectionable. tioners for a strict observance of the Sabbath with cant and hypocrisy. It was not for him to quarrel with the opinion of any man on that or any other subject, but when the religion of the country, or perhaps he should more properly say, when the religion of the petitioners was called in question, he must protest against the application of such epithets as had been applied on an occasion of such deep interest. He thought the petitioners were right in sending these petitions forward, and that the hon. Members who gave them their support were only doing their duty to themselves and the country in aiding the completion of the wishes of the petitioners. He should abstain from giving any opinion upon the Bill introduced by the hon. Baronet whose conduct had been most candid and fair in Mr. O'Connell felt it his duty at once to leaving it open to all parties to consider protest against the Bill which had been the measure and offer such suggestions introduced. He had no notion that such a Bill was in preparation, and so different was it from that which he had expected, and from any measure which he could support, that, unless it was essentially altered in Committee, he should give it his most decided opposition. as would lead to a useful and beneficial end. Mr. Richard Potter agreed in what had fallen from the hon. member for Northumberland, and he must add that he thought the hon. Baronet who introduced the measure had hardly dealt fairly by the House. The hon. Baronet had obtained leave to bring in a Bill on the understanding that its chief object would be to prevent Sunday trading, but he had brought in a Bill which, if passed into a law, would disorganize the whole social system in England, and interfere with the most innocent recreations of the people on Sundays. The measure might do for Scotland, but he was convinced it would not answer for the people of England. He trusted that the Bill would not be permitted to pass another stage, for if it went further the House would become the laughing-stock of the country. He should oppose the Bill in all its stages, being convinced that it would do irreparable mischief. Mr.Andrew Johnstone deprecated further discussion at present, and thought the attacks of the hon. members for Northumberland and Wigan were extremely unfair. In justification of the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew), he must say, that he had never pledged himself to the limit of bringing in a Bill solely to put down Sunday trading, but his intention had been to accomplish the views pointed out by the Committee of last year in their report, now on the Table of the House. He felt assured that the hon. Baronet would not stand forward to support every iota of the Bill, but would withdraw any provisions which Mr. Richards said, that he had presented petitions in favour of a better observance of the Sabbath from many of his constituents, than whom none could be more free from cant. The language of the hon. member for Northumberland, if not unparliamentary, was at least unfair and uncandid, and such as he hoped never to hear again. He had not read the Bill, and therefore would not say more than that he was favourable to its general principle. Mr. Cobbett begged to express his thanks to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Andrew Agnew) for producing such a Bill as that he had brought before the House, for it was so bad a one, and would make such a revolution in the manners of the country, that it never could pass. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Northumberland, he concurred with him in every sentiment he had uttered. Mr. M'Leod did not believe that there was any cant, but there was religious and decorous observance of the Sabbath in Scot.. land, and the people of that country were anxious, as was evident by their numerous petitions, to promote a proper observance of that day. With respect to the Bill which had been introduced, he had read it with the most unqualified astonishment, and was convinced that unless it was essentially altered, it would not pass nor effect any good. If it was pressed in its present 1235 Case of Richard Newsham. {COMMONS} Suppression of Disturbances. 1236 form, he should give it his most unqualified opposition. Mr. Brotherton said, he did not concur in the opinions expressed by several hon. Members. The Sabbath was a divine institution, and its due observance must be beneficial to society, in a physical, moral, and religious point of view. He was ready to admit that no man could be made religious by Act of Parliament, neither could he be made honest by legislative enactment but as it was necessary to have laws to prevent robbery, why not also have laws to promote the observance of the Sabbatlı? The Sabbath was not observed as it ought to be, and without giving any opinion upon this Bill, he should support any measure calculated to promote the better observance of that important institution. The petitions laid on the Table. the petitions being printed; and there was no objection, that he knew of, to petitions being read, but he must deny the right of any parties to have their petitions printed. As to the printing of all the petitions presented, the practice was absurd. When they were printed Members never read them; and he had received from fifty Members their approbation of the present planof the abstract which the Committee prepared, and which was regularly printed. He had not heard from any one complaints that partiality characterised the proceedings of the Committee. Had the hon. member for Oldham sat in the House formerly, he would not have complained of the present plan, the former plan having been utterly useless. Sir Ronald Ferguson wished that the petition presented relative to the flogging of Newsham should be taken into the serious consideration of the House, because, if the contents were true, it was a disgrace to the army of this country; but he thought he might venture to say that no officer would dare to inflict 300 lashes for no other offence than that of having used improper. paper to wrap up ammunition. Lord John Russell stated, that he should institute an immediate inquiry into the case, and mention the result to the House. Mr. Cobbett was about to make some remarks in reply, but the Speaker intimated that it was three o'clock the usual hour of adjournment, and left the Chair so that the petitions presented by the hon. Member could not be read and laid on the Table. CASE OF RICHARD NEWSHAM.] Mr. Cobbett on presenting a Petition from Riehard Newsham a soldier of the 53rd regiment, complaining of unjust treatment, and praying the House to investigate his complaint observed, that the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets presented a petition from an officer the other day, complaining that he had been oppressed by a Court-martial, and he had done himself much honour by the manner in which he had brought it forward. The hon. and learned Member would not do himself less honour by taking up the case of this poor man, who had received 600 lashes for the most trivial offences. They were all of opinion that flogging was improper and yet here was an immense quantity of flogging for no offence. First this man was flogged and received 300 lashes because he had not had the proper kind of paper to wrap his ammunition in, and next he received three hundred lashes because the officer did not like his looks. This was in his opinion a most cruel case and as the statements of the petition were sup-vour of the first reading of the Bill, in ported by affidavits, he particularly wished that the petition should be printed, and he must complain that the power of ordering that, had been taken from the House and intrusted to the Committee. The House granted 16,000l. a year for a Museum for the pleasures of the rich, while it grudged 4,000l. a-year for printing the petitions of the people. Mr. Littleton, the Chairman of the Committee for classifying the petitions, &c., said that nothing had transpired to prevent SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).] Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill. Order read, and the noble Lord moved that the Bill be read a third time. Mr. Clay protested, in the strongest terms against this Bill being allowed to pass into a law. He had voted in fa the hope that all the objectionable clauses might be altered in the Committee; but that hope had been defeated; and now, when there was no longer a chance of any alteration taking place, it came before them with all its worst imperfections almost unmitigated. There were still the mongrel Courts-martial; there was the interference with the right of petitioning, and there was also the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Under these circumstances, he therefore felt compelled to vote against the Bill. What, he would ask, could be gained by en- learned member for Dublin a great height cumbering the Statute Book with this Bill? in the estimation of his countrymen. To Absolutely nothing, but the power of put- deprive him of power, do justice to the ting down one species of agitation in order people; satisfy reasonable men, and they to set up another. The Government, how- will no longer follow the banner of the ever, might rest assured that nothing hon. Member. No man was more opposed would put a stop to agitation in Ireland than he was to the Repeal of the Union, but alleviating the distress which so exten- and he had never heard any arguments in sively prevailed in that country. As to the its favour than those supplied by the acts present Bill it combined within itself all of the Legislature. He hoped that Ministhe odium that attached to strong, and all ters would not deceive themselves into the character of imbecility which attached the belief that the sound and thinking itself to weak measures. It was evidently portion of the public were in favour of this pointed against the hon. and learned mem- measure. He was satisfied that there was ber for Dublin, on account of his exertions a strong prejudice against it among the to obtain redress for his country. But if middle classes of England, and that Ministhe Government succeeded in crushing that ters had lost much of their popularity in hon. and learned Member, did they think consequence of it. As a proof of the truth that there would be no agitation? No, of what he said, he would beg of them to there would be agitation in Ireland as long look to the result of the late contest in as she had grievances to complain of. It Mary-le-bone-a borough called into exwas by agitation that the few boons which istence by themselves and where, but a she had obtained were procured, and he few months ago, no man would have had a would not allow that the hon. and learned chance who did not support them. What member for Dublin did wrong in pursuing now was the case? Their candidate was his agitation, as long as Ireland was op- routed by the very same Gentleman whom pressed and misgoverned. He thought, their former candidate had routed in the too, that the Bill would be found not to same borough. It was enough to secure have the effect expected from it. But if defeat to be encumbered with their support. he objected to the Bill on the score of This he considered a proof of the increasing inefficiency, he objected to it still more on unpopularity of the Government. The hon. the score of injustice. That measure was Member concluded by repeating that he forced upon the Irish nation, because they would oppose the passing of the Bill. presumed to complain of their grievances, and agitated to obtain relief. He would ask the House if it were wonderful that Ireland should be agitated? In his opinion it was only wonderful that it was not a scene of anarchy and rebellion. He would wish his Majesty's Ministers, instead of passing a measure like the present, which could only tend to exasperate the Irish nation, to limit it to merely such powers as would be strictly necessary for the suppression of the outrages committed by the Whitefeet. In his opinion, that House ought not to legislate in order to suppress the mere manifestations of agitation; but they ought to legislate in order to do away with the causes of the agitation. But they acted on the direct opposite principle. They made laws which strengthened those causes, and then they complained of the influence of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He would advise the House to legislate as if that hon. Member were not in existence. The mistakes of his opponents were the true sources of his great Mr. Wilbraham was convinced that some coercive and severe measure was necessary for the security of person and property in Ireland, and in that conviction he had supported the principle of the Bill. He had also the fullest confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, and was convinced that they would not demand such a Bill if it were not indispensable. He approved of that part of the Bill which went to suppress political associations, because he thought that they were the root of the evil. It had been asserted that these associations had no connexion with predial outrage; if that were the case, human nature must be different in Ireland from what it was every where else. It would, however, require much to convince him that the seditious harangues at the Corn Exchange were not exciting causes of the outrages in the provinces. But though he was convinced of the necessity of some such measure, he had not the same conviction as to the Court-martial clause, and he shrunk from the responsibility of establishing such a total departure from the Constitution. He admitted that in the progress of the Bill the clause had been greatly qualified, but still not so much so as to satisfy him and to remove his objections to it. He had, therefore, voted against the clause; but, with that exception, he supported the general principle of the Bill. He would vote for the third reading. Mr. Cobbett could not suffer this Bill to pass without saying a few more words; but though his words were few they should be decisive, and should lead to a division of the House on the subject. The hon. Member on his left (Mr. Clay) having said, that the people were not with Ministers on this measure, there was a sort of negative cheer on the other side of the House. He would say, too, that the people were not with Ministers on this measure. He himself had that morning presented petitions against the measures signed by 50,000 Englishmen, resident in some of the greatest towns in the kingdom, among others Manchester, Norwich, Great Yarmouth, Nottingham, and Preston, the subscribers being some of the most respectable inhabitants, if respectability was taken to mean wealth and station. He had presented, too, about forty petitions from different parts in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales; and every petition presented to the House on the subject was strongly against the Bill; not one was for it. The voice of the whole people of England was against this abominable Bill. He would not detain the House any longer, but at once read a Motion he intended to bring forward, and at least put it on record. He intended to divide on the Motion; he had not thought of asking any one to second it, and he did not much care who voted for it; he was sure that his colleague would; and whether any body supported it or not, he and his colleague would at least have done their duty. The hon. Member then read the Motion, which was, that "This House, seeing in this Bill the substitution of Military Courts for Courts consisting of Judges and Jurors-seeing in it the abrogation of the most precious of all the institutions of the country-seeing clearly that its main purpose is to keep in the hands of the present aristocracy the plunder of the ancient Church and the poor, which the ancestors of that aristocracy obtained by apostacy, and which has been retained by the cruel penal laws and by the shedding of innocent blood-and suspecting moreover, that this Bill is intended as a prelude to the adoption of similar measures in Great Britain, this House will read this Bill a third time this day six months." He would make but a very few observations, and those merely to repeat his conviction that this Bill was not intended for the Irish people alone. The idea of introducing an armed police force throughout this country had occurred to Ministers, from their being well assured that they would not be able to carry on the levying of their most oppressive taxation without this species of Executive Government: this was their only means of exacting the taxes; and he himself had reason to believe that they had their plans already before them, and that they would soon be brought into the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by repeating his Motion. The Speaker said, that he presumed the hon. Member meant it as an Amendment on the original Motion. It was not customary however, to enter on the journals of the House any reasons for a Motion, and the hon. Member would see that by assigning reasons for his Motion, he would prevent those who did not assent to those reasons, and did assent to his Motion, from voting for it. Mr. Cobbett did not care about that; but as he understood that his Amendment was not consistent with the orders of the House, he would move simply that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. John Fielden seconded the Amendment. He was sorry to say, that he concurred in the opinion that this measure was not intended solely for the Irish nation. Mr. Poulter defended the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers with respect to this measure, and deprecated the assertion made by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and other Gentlemen from Ireland, that there was an understanding between the Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and the Government, to degrade and enslave their country. No idea could possibly be more erroneous. He could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite, that many hon. Members on that side of the House were total strangers to his Majesty's Ministers. What, then, had been the general character and motive of their support? It was, that without obligation or connexion, unknowing and unknown, they believed them to be the first Ministers in this country who had united the power with a desire to do justice to the whole community. In spite of the insinuations thrown out, particularly by the hon. member for Middlesex, he would assert that they were real representatives of the people-carrying with them the hearts and affections of the middle classes, and of the yeomanry of England, and owing nothing to the Government. They acted with it for good purposes only, and for no other; and they conscientiously believed that Bill to be one of those good purposes. He knew that this qualified support had been called weakness in the present Government; that the absolute command of former Ministers had been called strength: but that an apparent and delusive strength, because it failed to carry with it the opinion of the people. The imputed weakness of the present Government was real and constitutional strength, because it carried with it the sentiments of England. It was an easy matter for the hon. and learned member for Dublin to obtain admiration and applause for his powerful talents at certain popular meetings; but let him not mistake this for the real voice of the English community. It was an easy matter for him to cast imputations upon those who possessed the suffrages of their constituents; but let him remember, that in spite of wealth, authority, and power, they had been triumphantly returned to this House, unshackled and unpledged, except to the general public good, by the regard and devotion of enlightened and patriotic men. They were a sample of that majority which, by his own able showing, and unanswerable arguments on the Reform Bill, would carry with it internal and irrefragable evidence of the wisdom and justice of any measure which they supported, because they were the undoubted depository of the feelings and of the love of the people. They waited night after night, to hear some answer to the overwhelming and tremendous case which the Ministers of the Crown had presented to this House. They heard none-they heard nothing approaching to an answer: most of the facts which were appealed to, had no hearing on the precise case before the House. They witnessed, with pleasure, in some of the hon. members for Ireland, a brilliant vivacity of mind, a powerful imagination, great goodness and warmth of heart, and a devoted attachment to their country; but their efforts had fallen powerless upon the reason and upon the judgment of the House. They should have convinced the House, either that the enormities stated had not occurred, or that the powers of the Constitution were adequate to suppress them. Anything else was telum imbelle sine ictu. Even now, even at the eleventh hour, if they would show cause, the independent members were ready to say "No," and to go forth with the members for Ire land in opposition to the Bill; and with out it they could not ask or expect support. The greater part of the case on the opposite side had been confined to the subject of the old and historic misgovernment of Ireland. In all that he fully agreed with the hon. Gentlemen opposite; but what argument could be derived from that, to justify the total annihilation of all law and of all government? He admitted that the undoubted advantages in trade conferred by England on Ireland had been but a poor compensation for the calamities inflicted on that country; because, while the capital of the country had been decidedly increasing, the misery and wretchedness of a deserted population had been increasing also. No good man would cast the slightest reproach upon the individual and suffering ministers of the Irish Church; but he la mented to say, that he must always regard them as the unhappy though innocent possessors of a fatal and injurious extent of property. God had told mankind that he would not permit his worship to be propa gated by force, by wealth, or by power; they had violated his eternal laws, and were reaping the fruits of that violation. Where had been the moral and the social influence of the landlords of Ireland, with out which no community was ever known to flourish? Where had they been who, should have been examples and protectors to the people-who should have delighted in the prosperity of their tenants and their families, who should have watched over their happiness and comforts, their moral and even their religious education? As a nation, he regretted to say, we had deserved all that had fallen upon us; but that nation, by its first real Representatives, hastened to express its contrition and repentance, and expected to be forgiven. To abandon the protection of life and property would be an aggravation of, and not an atonement for, the past. And how could that affect the present Ministers of the Crown, who had spent their political lives in the most determined opposition to the whole Irish system-who had protested and fought against it? The hon. and learned Gentleman could not accuse them. The truth was, the hon. and' learned Gentleman had appeared upon the theatre of the political world too late-he had fallen upon a wrong time; his distinguished powers should have been displayed at another period-he should have sat in Parliament when Ministers of a different |