The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

152 it was necessary to take a larger view of it than the Ministers appeared to have taken. What the French Government wanted was, not this bill, but to put an end to certain meetings in London, and that could only be effected by sending the parties out of this country before they could commit the crime. This appeared to be the object from the language of Count Walewski and Count Persigny. Short of this, the existing law was amply sufficient, and it had been enforced against Peltier in 1803. Referring to Count Walewski's first despatch, Lord John Russell said it was a matter of astonishment to him that Count Walewski should have written his despatch and no answer should have been made to it:— Because the answer seems to be quite obvious. I should have thought that anybody who valued the repu tation of the British name, and had any regard for the honour of Great Britain, would have said, " We are not a nation that protects assassins, as seems to be supposed. The crime of assassination is abhorrent to all our feelings ; we cannot sufficiently condemn it. Show us that these men have been preaching the doctrine of assassination, and we will bring them before our courts of justice with out the loss of an hour. Make out that it has been advo cated by them in any of their clubs, and they will no doubt be convicted as Peltier was convicted." Such seems to me to be the plain language which ought to have been used. Tho measure, he was persuaded, would neither amend the law nor satisfy the French Government. The position in which her Majesty's Ministers had placed the country excited much alarm for the future. In their bill they had contrived to please neither the people of England nor the Emperor of France. They had conceded a change in the law, and when that change was proved to be ineffectual, they could not consistently refuse to adopt more stringent means. The Government had brought themselves into a false position, exhibiting weakness towards France and disappointing the just expectations of the people of England, and he deolared he would not share " the shame and humiliation " of sup porting the bill. Mr. DISRAELI said he apprehended the principle of Lord Palmerston's projected bill was to change the crime of combining and conspiring to murder from a misdemeanour into a felony. This might still be considered a moot point, and one entitied to grave and dispassionate consideration. However, such a change of the law was not without precedent., and he instanced the act introduced after the attack on Mr. Harley by Guiscard, wherein not only was the attempt to assassinate made felony, but even to assault was brought under the same category. Now, what bad happened in the present instance? An attempt to assassinate the Emperor of the French had been formed and matured in England; and although that did not justify a violation of the right of asylum, it did call for considerable sympathy on the part of the house. Now, if nothing else had happened—if the only farts before us were that there bad been the usual attempt on the life of the Em peror, and that he had made an appeal to the Eng lish Government for their support, he believed thp universal opinion would have been, consistently with the maintenance of our rights and privileges, to re spond to the feelings expressed by the Emperor with the most perfect respect and sympathy. But since the horrible attempt of the 14th of January had been committed much had happened to complicate the question. He was not there to defend or palliate certain incidents—the " unfortunate " despatch of Count Walewski, or those military addresses con taining observations which amounted " to the height of impertinence," published in the authoritative journal of the French empire, and which was au instance of signal indiscretion—but the expression of regret on the part of the Emperor was frank and full, and after this he thought it did not become us to criticise these incidents with too much severity. But the annoyance which we very naturally expe rienced upon such an occasion was a feeling not peculiar to England, but that other nations great as she, and other peoples distinguished even as they who hold sway in these favoured isles, have occa sionally been subjected to annoyances equally flagrant, which they bore with remarkuble forbearance : I cannot help calling to mind the circumstance that in 1853, exactly five years ago this very month of February— nay, by a singular coincidence, I believe this very thli of February—l felt it my duty to submit to the notice of the House of Commons a motion, the object of which was to invite the house to take into consideration the state of the relations subsisting at the time between France and England, in consequence of expressions which had been used and the line of conduct which had been pursued by some great personages in this country—(" Hear, hear," and a laugh )—expressions and conduct which in my opinion, and in the opinion of Europe generally, were calculated to destroy that good feeling which we had always regarded it as a cardinal point of policy to cherish and maintain between the two countries. (Hear, beer.) I recur to this circumstance I.eosuse I am of ()pink!' that if hon. gentlemen who made the indignant speeches upon which I felt it to be my duty to comment would only call to mind the past, the recollection would be likely to eater- THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 13, 1858. cies upon them a beneficial influence. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) What happened in 1853 ? What hap pened under the Government of which the noble lord who has just spoken—and who would feel himself so much humiliated by voting for the introduction of this bill—was an eminent member—indeed, I believe, the leader in this house? Why, sir, we then had some of the most eminent statesmen of England denouncing the Emperor of the French as being a tyrant, a usurper, and a perjurer. (Cheers and laughter.) We had a Cabinet Minister quitting the Cabinet, proceeding to the hustings, amusing his constituents by depicting to them the daugeni which menaced their country owing to the impending and pira tical invasion of England by the French people—(cheers) —and saying to them, " What protection have you for your wives and daughters—(renewed laughter)—with such an ally as the Emperor of France ?" ( Hear, hear.) I had to bring these circumstances and many similar ones under the consideration of the House of Commons, and I did so because I felt they would, if we passed them over unnoticed, be calculated seriously to impair, if not to de stroy, the amicable relations which subsisted between the two countries. (Hear, hear.) And what, let me ask, was the result of the course which I upou that occasion adopted? Why, sir, we were in consequence afforded the gratifying spectacle of seeing statesman after statesman, and Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister, rising in his place and apologising for the offensive expressions which he had used in reference to the Emperor of the French. (Cheers and laughter.) That was, I cannot help think ing, a very salutary spectacle. (Renewed laughter.) It effected much good. It conduced to the maintenance of the peace of Europe, but it conduced to that end only be cause the Emperor of the French happened to he a for giving and a forbearing man. ( Hear, hear.) Now, let me ask, were the statesmen of England less offensive in their observations than the colonels of France ? (Hear, bear.) If the French Emperor and the French nation could endure with equanimity the insults heaped upon them by English Cabinet Ministers, the people of Eng land might, I think, afford to pocket the insults of the French colonels. (Cheers.) With regard to the measure before the house, the relative position of England and France should be considered. Tho great body of the English nation, ho believed, looked upon the French nation with a feeling of sincere friendship ; but he did not think that in tho great body of the French people there was a reciprocity of sentiment towards this country : What, I would ask you, must, under these circumstances, be the position of the ruler of that country, who has the good sense to feel thst the maintenance of the alliance with England is eminently conducive to the welfare of the people over whom he reigns ? What difficulties must he not have to encounter? We must bear in mind that although he himself may, from his personal experience , and owing to the character of his mind, as well as the thousand influences which operate on a person of his elevated intellect in his high position, have formed a strong conviction as to the advantages resulting from an alliance with us —and that although in times of prolonged tranquillity he may, by virtue of his commanding abilities, succeed in cherishing that nascent and gradually spreading sympathy with England which is beginning to pervade France, yet that in times of excitement, when the minds of the ingenious and speculative people of that country become agitated by passing events, the difficulties of his position become great in the extreme. ( Hear, hear.) He comes to us a faithful and generous ally—( Hear, hear) — he comes to us, not with threats—he may have spoken or may have acted with some appearance of passion, but he may well afford to act in such a manner who can afford to make a noble apology, as he has done. ( Hear, hear.) I say, the ruler of France in a moment of great difficulty, in recurring moments of great difficulty, this faithful and generous ally comes to the Government of this country, and says, " I do not disguise the difficulties I have to con tend with. Assist me consistently with your laws, con sistently with your privileges and rights, for I have lived too long in your country not to know that no British Minister dare for a moment even whisper that those laws, those rights, those privileges, should be violated or di minished —( Hear, hear I—butt aid me at this moment. Show to France, (where the hostile factions are rising their heads and jeering me with the vanity of the English alliance, upon which I hare wished to build my policy, show tel France that my confidence has not been mis• placed." ( Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances it was the duty of the Government not to turn a deaf ear to such an appeal. But what had her Majesty's Ministers proposed to do : I admit—l make a full and frank admission that a pro position more unsatisfactory never was offered to the con sideration of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) That an Eng• lish Minister should have told the French nation that their ruler had placed before us a clear exposition of their fancied or alleged grievances ; that an English Minister should also in some immortal State paper, written with the fire and logical power of Canning, have answered that despatch, and have placed upon this table a manifesto of our rights and privileges, at the same time combining with it a glowing expression of sympathy with our faithful and powerful ully,—that is what I expected, and the English Minister who has missed that opportunity has missed a great occasion. If we had the despatch of Count Walewaki on the table, and at the same time the answer of the British Minister worthy of the opportunity, in my opinion the Government would have met with no difficulty, and the feelings of the two nations would have been discussed in the temper which we all desire. Such a despatch would have been the key -note to the country, and a generous Parliament would have granted what the Emperor wanted; what he reasonably and properly required —a demonstration in the face of Europe and the French people—the people wh o had been misled by calumniators— a warm and lively evidence of respect and sympathy on the part of the Par liarnent of England. Nothing of that kind has been proposed. All we are to do is to modify the old law of Ireland on the one hand, and to retrograde the law of England on the other. j cannot suppose such a project can give any satisfaction to the Emperor of the French. (Hear, hear.) Th e o bj ect he has in view is an honourable satisfaction. It is very well for gentlemen who have declaimed in the course of this debate to make reflections upon the Emperor of France and the policy he pursues, but that is not really any part of this question. When a man has been elected by millions in a great country he is above petty criticism of that description. If he were indeed a tyrant who was established in a stronghold supported by Praetorians, such criticisms might injure him, but he has appealed over and over again to the people of France, and the people of France have ratified his election as their chief, and it would be the most unneighbourly arrogance on our part to criticise that chief or the policy he adopts. What the Emperor really required, I apprehend, was a plain demon stration on the part of this country which would put an end to the misconceptions which unfortunately pervaded France. I cannot believe that a bill such as the noble lord has proposed will at all tend to that most desirable end—( Hear, hear)—but I think, as far as I am concerned in the unfortunate position in which we are placed, this opportunity having been so mismanaged by the Govern ment in a manner which has alarmed England, and has not pleased France,-1 cannot but think we should be taking a course that might tend to prolong the mischie vous misconceptions which prevail if, because we disap proved the clumsy and feeble manner in which the (io vernment have attempted to deal with the difficulty, we seized the opportunity to inflict a check upon that Go vernment, and it is therefore my intention to vote for leave to bring in this. bill. ( Cheers.) I am n o t prepared, as at present advised, to take any further part in its defence. I reserve to myself the right of consider ing the principles upon which it is founded, and I shall listen to any arguments which may induce me to believe what I do not at present believe—that it will accomplish the purposes which it is intended to achieve. But because I am desirous of showing to the ruler of France and to the French people that at this moment, when a horrible enor mity has been perpetrated in their metr)polis, when the life of that ruler has been endangered, when every attempt has been made to excite the passions of the French people and to misrepresent the feelings of England; because I am desirous of proving to the French nation that there is in the British Parliament a genuine and generous sympa thy with them, therefore I shall vote for leave to introduce this bill, and I believe it is a course perfectly consistent with the entire maintenance of the law of England and the privileges of Englishmen. (Hear, hear.) Ur. SIDNEY HERBERT said he wished to know what was the real state of the law ; whether it was true or not that the existing law was sufficient to reach aliens conspiring here against aliens abroad ; whether it was the practice of the English Govern ment, when it received information from our police, to give notice to that of France ; and what would be the effect of converting a misdemeanour into a felony upon the powers ot' the police. He did not refuse to entertain the measure, and he should be ready, after due deliberation, to express his opinion of its merits on the second reading. Lord PALMERSTON, in the course of a general reply, said the measure was founded on a too notorious fact, the concoction in England of a conspiracy to assassinate the Emperor of the French, and observed also that the measure rested upon two grounds,— first, that it was an improvement of our own law ; second, that it was calculated to prevent the re currence of a crime abroad highly injurious to the interests of this country, as well as derogatory to its honour. lEtwow.wz having withdrawn his amendment, the house divided upon the original motion, which was carried by 299 against 99, and leave was given to introduce the bill. _ _ . Lady Havelock and Sir Henry Havelock's Annuities Bill was read a second time, after some remarks by Sir W. CODRINOTON and Mr. GRIFFITH. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the Exam- QUER, a select committee was appointed to inquire into the acts relating to savings-banks. After some further business, the house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS-WEDNESDAY. On the motion of Mr. FOSTER, leave Was given to bring in a bill for the formation of a park on limp stead-heath. OLTSS DILL Lord J. RUSSELL having moved the second reading of the Oaths Bill, Sir F. THESIOER intimated his intention of offer ing no opposition to the measure at that stage. He concurred in believing the proposed alteration of the parliamentary oaths highly expedient, excepting so far as regarded the admission of Jews to the House of Commons. In committee he should move an amendment, retaining the words which preserved the Christian character of the Legislature. Mr. HANSARD, approving generally of the bill, wished to remove the clause frum the Abjuration Oath by which it was declared that "no foreign prince, Limon, prelate, or potentate bath or ought to