POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY.

In the House of Commons, last night, Sir GEORGE GREY introduced his bill "for the better security of the Crown and Government of the United Kingdom "; but some preliminary conversations took place. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND asked Mr. O'Connor what course he intended to pursue on Monday next? Mr. FRARGUS O'Corsivox replied, that he had fixed on the next Supply night for drawing attention to the Chartist peti- tion, supposing Monday to be a Simply night; but finding it was not, he now asked Government for that night. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the state of public business and other reasons to which he need not more par- ticularly allude, would prevent his giving up Monday evening; but Mr. O'Connor might bring forward his motion on Friday. Mr. O'Costson of- fered his best thanks for the courtesy.

Mr. BRIGHT, in a dissatisfied manner, asked whether the meeting on Monday was to be prohibited, as well as the procession? Sir GEORGE GREY said, that the legality of public meetings depends on the oircum- stances— A meeting accompanied by circumstances calculated to inspire terror in the loyal and peaceable is against the common law. A procession to present a petition to Parliament, with excessive numbers, is forbidden by a statute of Charles the Second's reign; a meeting to organize that procession would be identified with it and would form part of it. Lord blanAeld has decided that the statute of Charles II. had not been repealed by the Bill of Rights; Black- stone recognizes its continued force; and Sir T. Powell, a judge dismissed for his Liberal opinions, draws a marked distinction between mere petitioning and peti- tioning accompanied by tumultuous assemblages. In reply to Mr. O'CONNOR and Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Sir GEORGE GREY stated, that three persons, who described themselves as a deputation from the National Convention, had been received at the Home Office yesterday, by the Under-Secretary, in the presence of the Attorney-General and Mr. Hall the Magistrate; but they had not been received as a deputation from the "National Convention." They had written a letter to Sir George, as- suring him that they discountenanced any attempt to create disturbance.

A brisk controversy was raised by Mr. Wextre—who moved, as a pre- text for speaking, " that the House do now adjourn "—on the expediency of stopping the meeting and procession. Mr. WARLEY, Mr. O'Cousion, and Mr. Huns, objected to interference; Mr. O'Connor twitting Ministers with having, in the Reform Bill agitation, taught the lesson that he was now copying.

The Chartist procession of 1843 having been mentioned, Sir JAMES Gitsfiest showed that it differed in two respects from that now contem- plated,—the petition Came from a private house; and the procession was not announced beforehand.

Alderman THOMPSON contrasted Mr. O'Connor's mild language in that House with reports of a speech by Mr. O'Connor in Cripplegate, ata meeting of "the Irish Confederate and Democratic Society," in which he was made to hold up the Americans as an example of "shaking off the yoke"-' said

that "moral force was su force"; to put down physical for "; proposed to imitate the French in "doing away with all titles" and "putting down Royalty." Mr. O'CONNOR repudiated those expressions—he had been mis- reported; he had always been an Anti-Republican.

Lord Joint RUSSELL, taking Mr. O'Connor at his word as a peacemaker, suggested that be should dissuade those with whom he was associated from a proceeding so pregnant with alarm as the approach of numbers to the House of Commons— Let him tell them, that their petition would be respectfully received by the House of Commons; and that every fair opportunity would be given for the deli- berate discussion of what is termed "the People's Charter.', Let him advise them to proceed cautiously and properly, and not by illegal means endeavour to terrify and overawe the deliberations of Parliament- Mr. BORSMAN, Sir DE LACY EVANS, and Sir ROBERT PEEL stoutly supported Government. Sir Robert insisted that the precedents which had been cited altogether differed from the present case- " I have no hesitation in saying, that, whatever may be the precedent of 1843, Considering the events that are taking place in foreign countries, and considering the excited state of the public mind at home, where a procession of this kind has been publicly announced, the persons composing which may be accidentally ex cited to disturbances of which It is impossible to foresee the consequences, 1 think the Government were fully justified in issuing the notice; and I think that con- siderations of humanity, as well as of law, imposed upon them the duty of taking

precautions against consequences we must all1 shudder at contemplating: and if the Government had not taken these precautions, and such consequences had fol- lowed, those who condemn and denounce them now would have denounced them with ten times more vehemence, and with much more justice." The motion of adjournment was of course withdrawn, and Sir GEORGZ Gm brought forward his bill.

Sir George had not the most remote thought of proposing anything that should interfere with the undoubted right of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen, to make known their wishes to Parliament, and to petition for the redress of griev- ances, real or supposed. It is owing to the free exercise of that right that Eng_ land holds her present position, erect and unbent beneath the storm that has swept the Continent of Europe. But the limits of that right have been trans-- grossed, and the law is not altogether sufficient. In Ireland, the Lord-Lieutenant hoped that the publications in the Nation and United Irishman newspapers would be regarded by the great body of the people as the ravings of a disordered imagination; but sediuon continued to advance with rapid strides until it endangered every established institution. The Lord- Lieutenant had commenced the only sort of prosecution that he could direct against the offending parties. Their offence might be such as to bring them under the penalties of high treason; but that, technically, is a doubtful point. As to the treasonable tendency of their proceedings there is no doubt. bir George cited passages in the two papers, and extracts from the speeches ot Mr. Mitchel, Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Duffy,—avowing the intention to raise the people, to over- throw the Government, to organize a National Guard, to obtain their ob- ject though every street in Dublin might be a barricade and every pavement carpeted with blood; they avowed that the Chartists would assemble in London next week and have London in their hands, and that the Paris clubs would send over 50,000 valued citizens to support the Irish nation in a struggle. This was the advice given openly and unblushingly by men possessing some influence with the masses. On the other hand, a large portion of the Irish people continue to show their loyalty: the signatures to the declaration in support of the Lord-Lieutenant have swollen to 280,000. But in support of those loyal subjects Government is bound to ask such a reinforcement of the law as shall make it effectual-to put down treason and sedition. The law in EnglandMad Ireland is not the same on the subject. The general law respecting treason is founded on the 25th Edward III. c. 2. That law was extended to Ireland by an act of Henry VII.; according to which, compassing Or imagining the death of the Sovereign, levying war against the Sovereign, or aiding his enemies, subjected the offender to the penalties of high treason. An im- portant alteration of the law was made by the 36th George 111., a temporary act. By that act, if any person whatsoever should imagine, devise, or intend to levy war against the King, his heirs and successors within this realm, in order by force or constraint to compel him or them to Change their measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or to intimidate or overawe either House or both Houses of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade this realm, or any other of the King's dominions or countries, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them should express, utter, or declare,. by publishing any printing or writing, or by. any overt act or deed, legally convicted thereof, on the oaths of two credible witnesses, in due course of law, should be deemed and adjudged traitors, and suffer the pains of death, and also forfeiture as in the case of high treason." Thai clause of the act was rendered permanent by the 57th George Ill. Under that law, if any person in England went to France to solicit aid ter subverting the institutions of the country, he would be amenable to the penalties of high treason. Although this last act was passed subsequently to the Union' great doubt exists whether it extends to Ireland. The exemption has been of no benefit to Ireland; for the want of it has from time to time rendered necessary measures of a more stringent kind.

The law applicable to anything short of high treason is the law of sedition. Sedition is a bailable offence; and a party who is released on bail, if he chooses to risk the consequences, is at liberty to repeat the offence. It is proposed to extend the 57th Geo. III. to Ireland; at the same time mitigating some of its provisions. Its stringency respecting offences against the life and freedom of the Sovereign would not be relaxed; the minor offences would be declared felony, and subjected to punishment of transportation. In mitigating some severities of the law, it was necessary to see that no loop- hole was left by which gentlemen who are themselves learned in the law may escape ;; avoiding the penalty of an ignominious death, now due for high treason, because they may have the prudeece from the desire for the preservation of their lives, to abstain from publishing their speeches themselves, which nevertheless are daily reported and published in the newspapers. He therefore proposed to add words to bring within the provisions of the bill all persons who should com- pass and promote the prosecution of such designs by "open and advised speaking." These are terms well understood in the courts.

Sir George did not say that this bill was the only provision that might be ne- cessary in the present state of affairs. There might be other regulations neces- sary to be proposed to the House; but they would partake more of the character of police regulations, to meet any disposition to follow the advice that has been given "to arm for the coming conflict. The bill was opposed by several Irish Members, as a needless act of coercion; since the necessity for coercion would be entirely superseded if the crying grievances of that country wer eredressed: it was thus opposed by Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL, Mr. R. M. Fox, Mr. GRATTAN, and Mr. REY- NOLDS. It was supported, as a needful protection to the loyal Irish, by Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL and Mr. GROGAN.

The bill was opposed, as an invasion of the right of public speaking, by Mr. Enure and Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR; and Lord DUDLEY STUART ex- pressed strong dislike to its provisions in that respect, although he would vote for the first reading. Mr. Dram having applied the term "gagging act" to this provision, Lord JOHN RUSSELL pointed out a distinction—

The new words introduced did not refer to the cases of all persons who by open and advised speaking might utter seditious language; but they provided that if any person should intend to depose her Majesty the Queen, or to levy war against the Queen, or to intimidate or overawe the Parliament, or to move any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom, or should ex- press, utter, or declare such intent, by publishing in printing or in writing, or by

open and advised speaking, the person so offending should be liable to a certain punishment. Mr. Hume would see that these words "open and advised speaking " had no reference to the ordinary discussion of public questions. Mr. W. J. Fox.pointed out the inevitable looseness in the expressions of uneducated speakers, and the danger to be apprehended from the malig- nant misrepresentations of oppressively inclined persons. Lord Joins Rua-

BELL justified the specific clauses aimed to suppress direct incitement to levy war against the Sovereign, and called upon Mr. Fox to suspend his judgment till he should see the bill.

The House divided, and the numbers were—for the motion, 283; against it, 24; majority for the bill, 259. Sir Gaottaz GREY stated that he should move the second reading of the bill on Monday, and the Committee on the same evening. (Great cheering.)

After a sharp discussion, the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and referred to a Committee.

The House went into a Committee of M aye and Means, and voted 17,646,5001. by Exchequer Bills for the service of the year 1848. Earlier in the evening, replying to Mr. URQUHART, Lord PALKLasTos stated that the expeditiou to Nicaragua wasiateadetitozeonver two Brisilb subjects, imprisoned in Fort St. Julian:

The Bodmin Election Committee reported that Mr. James Wyld and gr. Henry Charles Lacy had been duly elected. The House of Lords forwarded some bills, and adjourned.