The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-27 00:00:00

terfered with the conduct of the Conspiracy Bill through Parliament : With respect to the third paragraph, I express ray regret " That her Majesty's Government, pre viously to inviting the house to amend the law of conspiracy at the present time, has not felt it to be their duty to make some reply to the important despatch ieoeived from the French Government, dated Paris, January 20, IKSB, and which has been laid before Parliament." I certainly feel regret at that circumstance, and the House of Commons is competent to express regret, without necessarily implying what is called censure. A man may regret unavoidable circumstances, and I do regret—whatever may have been the cause—the omission to answer Count Walewski's despatch, because I think we now stand before the word as admitting, as it were, the truth of some of the charges contained in that despatch. Nay, more; seeing that that despatch calls in question the policy of England iu reference to the right of asylum—that it re flects on the mode in which England has thought fit to permit the right to be enjoyed by foreigners, I say it was the duty of the Government of the country to have replied courteously, with dignity, but firmly, and to have defended and placed on record those great principles which have guided the policy of England in reference to the right of asylum. Does it not look as if we were ashamed to defend our principles when we find, upon the right of asylum being indirectly called in question, the insinuation is passed over in silence? And more than this, I believe that • great misapprehensbn exists throughout Europe as to the exact nature of our laws in reference to the right of asylum. Now, Count Walewski says in his despatch of the 20th of January : It is no longer the hostility of misguided individuals, mani festing itself by all the excesses of the press and all the violences of language ; it is no longer even the work of the factious seek ing to rouse opinion and to provoke disorder; it is assassinati,n, elevated to doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of which has just struck Europ with amazement. Ought, then, the right of asylum to protect such a state of things. Is hospitality due to assassins? Ought the lenglish legislation to contrioute to favour their designs and their plans? And can it continue to shelter persons who by their flagrant acts place themselves beyond the pale of common right and under the ban of humanity ? If no answer has been given to ;that despatch, it is an ad mission, by silence, that with our eyes open we have sheltered assassins, and that we have actually favoured their designs. Hut is that true? No, sir; it is not. As my boo. friend the member for Sheffield truly said, Eng land abhors assassination as much as any nation on the face of the earth; and if assassins have lived in this country it is by no fault of ours. We have murderers of our own, we have robbers of our own—they are not deterted by the severity of our criminal law from committing crimes, but is that a reason for saying that England is a country which shelters such criminals, and which favours their designs? The insinuation of Count Walewski against the laws find policy of this country is unkind and unjust, and it was the bounden duty of the Executive Government to have repelled such an insinuation by a firm and dignified answer to this despatch. I sin sorry to see the indifference which is manifested by some members of the Government to the great principles of liberty which undoubtedly lie at the foundation of English policy, and which regulate this right of asylum. I was sorry to see the readiness with which my Lord Clarendon at the Conferences of Paris silently acquiesced in a resolution condemning the liberty of the press. Not only did he say nothing—so far as we may judge from the protocols—in defence of the liberty of the press, which is so dear to us all, but be actually signed his name to a resolution condemnatory of it. The only answer which the noble lord gave when called upon to ex plain this circumstance was, " Would you have had Lord Clarendon make a scene—they were all so harmonious to gether—why not let these matters, which may lead to dangerous controversy, pass by unnoticed?" It is the same sort of thing now. This solemn and important de spatch of Count Walewski is not to be answered, because the answer may lead to unpleasant controversy. lint in defence of the honour of England and the principles of our laws we must risk an unpleasant controversy, if we wish to maintain our position among the nations of the world. Tbat despatch inrght to have been answered. It may be held that it was difficult to answer it, but I will quote a pas sage from the speech of the right hen. gentleman the member for Wiltshire, who sits near me, which shows that there are those who would be ready to answer it : " I frankly own," said the right hon. gentleman, "I never read a despatch which was more tmipting t..) a Minister to answer than this one." That looks as if there would have been no difficulty ex perienced in the mind of somebody at any rate in answer lug it. There was a very important view of this question thrown out incidentally by the right hon. gentleman the member fur Bucks, when he spoke on the first reading of this bill. He sail t If we had the despatch of Count Welewkli on the table, and st the same time the answer of the British Minister worthy of toe oiputtUnity. 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. There is great force in that observation, and I have no doubt whatever, if Count Walewski's despatch had been laid before us, accompanied by a becoming answer on the Par! of our Gov.trnment, that, without any idea of menace or intimidation, we should have cordially set to work on this attempt to endeavour to find a remedy for any defect which may exist in our law. We should have approached the subject in a better frame of mind, to say the least of it. I think that is a consideration which ought to weigh with bun. gentlemen in support of my motion, and which ought to bring home to their minds the relevancy of it to the bill now under diacussion. The words which I have ventured to propose to the house are these : That this house cannot 'but regret that her Majesty's Go ern:cent, previously t o i nv i t i ng t h e h ouse to am en d t h e l aw o f 9 onspiracy at the present time, bare not felt it to be their duty THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 27, 1858. to reply to the important despatch received from the French Government, dated " Paris, January 20, Ma," which has been laid before Parliament. Mr. Gib-4)n remarkedin conclusion that the question before the house was simply between us and our own Executive Government. It was not a question between the Parliament of England and the Govern ment of France. We were now exercising our legiti mate right of criticising the manner in which the servants of this country have fulfilled their duties, and of ascertaining whether they have properly de fended the honour and reputation and dignity of England : Now I, like the rest of the world, frequently form my opinions—in fact, we all do it, without perhaps being aware of it—from reading the newspapers. We may not be very willing to admit it, but I undertake to tat) , that the news papers of this country—such a journal, for instance, as the Times—have a very considerable influence, for a short period at least, in forming the opinion of the people. I have been a reader of the Times, and my opinions have often been very much influenced by what I have real in that journal; and, with the permission of the house, I will take the liberty of reading a brief extract from the Times with reference to the policy of the noble lord at the head of the Government, which seems to me to be aimed with wonderful accuracy and with a very discriminating appre ciation of his real character, and of the character of his foreign policy. Now, what says the Times? (Cries from several hon. members Of what date ?") lam about to quote from the Times of the 22nd of Jane, 1850. I don't suppose that, at his period of life, the noble lord at the head of the Government has changed materially since June 1850, and I believe the Times newspaper is conducted by the same persons, and has the same head. Well, the Times says of the noble lord that— There is no constituted authority in Europe with which Lord Palmerston has not quarrelled ; there is no insurrection that he has not betrayed. The ardent partisans of Sicilian. Italian, and Hungarian independence have certainly no especial cause for gratitude to a Minister who gave then, abundance of verbal encouragement and then abandoned them to their fate. On the other hand— mark this—" when Lord Palmerston has made up his mind to court the goodwill of a foreign power, no sacrifice of principle or of interest is too great for him." The pas sage concludes in these emphatic terms : From first to last his character has been the want of a firm and lofty adherence to the known interests of England, and it is piecisely from a want of such guiding laws of conduct that our foreign policy has degenerated into a tissue of caprices, machinations, petty contentions, and everlasting disputes. It is because I think the mode in which this affair has been conducted is of all others the most calculated to occasion disputes with France that I take the liberty of questioning the discretion which has been exercised by her Majesty's Government. I agree with the noble mem ber for the city of London that the irritating discussions that have taken place in this house might have becn avoided had a more judicious policy been pursued. I believe that if a proper reply had been sent to the despatch of Court Walewski it is possible that we might never have been called upon to legislate upon this subject; and, the sympathies of this country having been expressed for the unfortunate circumstances that had taken place in Paris, it is very probable that when the excitement had passed away the matter might have ended without the necessity of involving the House of Commons in any controversy with reference to the Emperor of the French and the views of the French nation. I, for one, feel entirely pre cluded from offering any opinion whatever with respect to the Government of the Emperor of the French. That is a matter for the French people. lam for non-interference, and therefore I shall out set the example of entering into any discussion as to the male in which the Government of France is carried on. The noble lord has told us that the French Government rests on the voice of the people ; there is undoubtedly a French Assembly elected, as it is said, by universal suffrage and vote by ballot, and it is not therefore for me to call in question the mode in which the Government of France is administered. I confine myself to my legitimate duty, which is to question the discretion that has been exercised by the Executive Government of this country. I now beg, sir, to place my amendment in yoni hands. I believe that lam only discharging a legiti mate and constitutional duty. I believe that I have taken a fitting opportunity for discharging that duty ; ani I have only to thank the house for the kindness and attention with which they have beard me. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving the amendment. Mr. BAINES, in a brief speech, said the amend• mentraised two questions—first, whether the measure introduced by the Government was a right one ; second, if, being right, there was any valid reason why it should not be immediately proceeded with. The bill made no chacge in the constitutional prin ciples of our jurisprudence ; it merely assigned to an offence of a peculiar and malignant character, which was now placed in the lowest category of crime in this country, a due punishment. Then, if the measure was right in itself, having seen this ezecra• ble crime actually committed in this country, could we be justified in postponing an alteration' It was no reason that we should not take a course we be lieved to be right that there had been an improper tone employed across the water, for which due allow ance should be made. Mr. WALPOLE complained that no explanation had been given in reply to the speech of Mr. Gibson, based in his opinion upon the soundest principles, and which put the question as between the House of Commons, representing ;he people, and the Ex- 197 ecutivo Government neglecting their duty. Grave questions hail been raised in this discussion : A few words will serve to explain the view which I take upon tuis point to the house. I hold in my hand a de spatch of Count Walewski, &taring date '2oth of January— that is to say, neariy four weeks ago—asking the Minister of England to alter our laws, leaving, indeed, to his own discretion the mode in which that alteration should be carried into effect. The paragraph in which that request is made is u follows : Her Britannic Majesty's Government can assist us in averting It by affording us a guarantee of security which to State can rctuse to a neighbouring State, and which we are authorised to expect from au ally. Fully relying, moreover, on the high sense of the English Cabinet, we refrain from indicating in any way the measures which it may see fit to take in order to comply with this wish. We rest entirely 'upon it for estimating the decisions which it shall deem best calculated to attain the ob ject, an 1 we are firmly persuaded that we shall not have ap pealed in vain to its conscience and to its goodwill. Now, there we have a requisition made upon behalf of the French Government which sounds somewhat like a de mand. It is also a requisition made to us not standing simply upon its own merits, but based upon a statement contained in a previous part of the despatch. In that pre vious part to which I refer it is asserted, and asserted con trary to truth, that— It lino longer the hostility of misguided individuals, mani festing itself by all the excesses of the press and all the vio lences of language ; it is no longer even the work of factions seeking U. rouse opinion and to provoke disorder; it is assas sination, elevated to doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated attempts, the most, recent of which has just struck Europe with amazement. The accusation made against na in this paragraph is, sir, founded on a statement which is totally untrue—that aasas• sination has been elevated into a doctrine by the people of this country. Assassination was never elevated into a doctrine in England. Why, sir, there exists not upon the whole face of the earth a nation which more thoroughly detests the crime of assassination than do the English people. But in the paragraph to which I have been just referring, Count NValewski proceeds to ask, " Ought the sacred right of asylum to protect such a state of things?" My answer is, certainly not. "Is hospitality due to as sassins?" Certainly not. " Ought English legislation " —English legislation, mark you—" contribute to favour their designs and their plans, and can it continue to shel ter people who b) their flagrant acts have placed them- selves beyond the pale of society and under the ban of humanity?" Such is one of the paragraphs in the despatch of Count Walewski containing the requisition to which I have already allmled, and to which we are returning an answer by means of this bill. Yes, returning an answer by means of this bill, but not denying by any declaration to the contrary an accusation the most false and unfounded. Why, what will the nations of Europe say but that we have no good grounds upon which to base such denial ? The inference they will draw from the course which her Ma jesty's Ministers ask us to pursue is that, having taxen this step, we may be induced to go still further in com pliance with requisitions accompanied by accusations the justice of which we have by implication admitted. Sir GEORGE GREY said that the charge made in Count Walewski's despatch did not apply to the people of England ; the reference in his despatch was not to British subjects. If the Government had read the despatch as Mr. Walpole had read it they would have libelled the French nation. The bill proposed an amendment of our law which was de sirable in itself, and which would enable us to say what we could not say now, that our law did not countenance and protect persons guilty of the crime in question. This he thought the most dignified course for this Government to take, and it would place us upon a more unassailable footing with re spect to foreign countries. Mr. M‘Mahon and Mr. Byng opposed the bill; Mr. Spooner, Mr. Bentinck, and Lord Harry Vane supported it. Sir R. PEEL observed that the speech of Lord Palmerston was calculated to lead the house astray from the question at issue, and it was remarkable that he should have proposed a bill opposed by all the most distinguished Liberals in the house. The question, be said, involved two considerations—one the change proposed, and the other the cause for which it was required. The proceedings against M• Bernard proved that the present law was adequate, an.l he believed that the bill was only a sham ; that the real truth was that, under cover of an alteration of the law, a bill was submitted to Parliament at the dictation of others. After a short review of the career of some of the French Ministers, be read, with a critical commentary, passages from the de• spatch of Count Walewski, which he declared to be the shallowest diplomatic document be had ever read. The addresses from military officers were, be said, put in the Moniteur for the purpose of intimi dating this country to pass a bill which he regretted that Lord Palmerston (upon whose supposed cbange of political views be commented with some severity) had condescended to submit to the house at the dic tation of others. By passing such a bill, which bore upon the face of it, be said, the stamp of meanness, meekness, and a sense of shame, the house would do what, in his opinion, would be injurious to the best interests of the country. . Mr. HENLEY said he could not give his assent to this bill without an answer being given to the despatch of Count Walewski. He agreed in the construction put upon that despatch by Mr. Wal pole, and, in his opinion, the passing this bill with•