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

THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 27, 1858. out a reply to it would lay a foundation for future demands. He should therefore vote for the amend ment. The Lonn ADVOCATE observed that with regard to the amendment two things were clear,—first, that the carrying it would be fatal to the bill ; second, that the amendment bad nothing whatever to do with the bill, it being no amendment of it. It was hardly disputed that the bill was a right one ; but it was said it should not pass because there had been no answer given to a certain despatch. If that despatch had contained anything insulting to the people of this country or the Government, the insult should have been immediately repelled. The de spatch, on the contrary, was perfectly friendly, and to some extent the facts were true ; before making a reply, therefore, the Government had 'proposed this bill, and he thought the despatch ought not to be answered till it was seen what became of the amendment. Mr. GLADSTONE premised that the allegation of the Lord Advocate, that the amendment bad nothing to do with the bill, was answered by himself when he said that any member might vote both for the amendment and for the bill. Referring to the French alliance, he declared that we ought to give to the French Government every confidence, .every good office, and every claim for the purposes of justice that could be demanded upon the principles of international law and comity by the most ancient and the freest Governments. Then, with regard to the despatch in question, had it been answered, he asked, and, if not, did it require an answer ? The point was anticipated by my noble friend at the head of the Government. He did not wait for the mention of it by others, but referred to it himself in terms rather em phatic. The substance of his explanation was that the despatch neither had been ror could possibly be answered, for these are the words which be is reported "somewhere" to have used :—" I sin concerned to say that, in point of fact, that which has recently passed prevents our meeting that assertion with refutation." Therefore, at the time when the bill was introduced, the despatch had not been answered, and the despatch was, rebus instantibus, incapable of being answered. A' the commencement of this even ing's discussion the case stood a little different, for so effi cacious was the complaint which had been made that my noble friend volunteered the statement that not only the despatch might be answered, but that it bad been answered; it had been answered verbally. Now, sir, I am bound to say, of all the Explanations we have had, that is the worst and the most unsatisfactory. If there was no other ground for the motion of my right hon. friend, that would be sufficient. The thrusting of verbal answers, about which we know nothing, which we ha►e no means of testing, of ascertaining, of judging, and pronouncing upon— the thrusting of them into debates where they may be introduced at will, and again withdrawn at will, and where from the infirmity of memory they are liable both to be misstated at the outset and to be improved upon as debates proceed—such a practice, I say, is one so contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and the rules which govern the productionof information to this house that in my opinion it calls for the natice of this house. But does, let me ask, this despatch of Count Walewski require an answer, because after all the question of mere verbal discrepaccies is a small one compared with the con siderations which arise out of the nature of the document itself. The learned Lord-Advocate says that the despatch contains nothing offensive or insulting. Now, far be it from me to apply either of those epithets to any expres sion used in a document emanating from the French Government, because whatever those expressions may be, however untrue or injurious in their tendency, yet we ought not to pronounce them " insulting and offensive " unless we believe them to be employed with the wilful and deliberate intent of doing us harm. 1, for one, do not suppose that the words in question were used with any such intention, nor can I think that a foreigner is open to any great degree of censure if, labouring under a momen tary excitement caused by circumstances of a character peculiarly painful, he should make erroneous allegations with respect to the laws and institutions of this country. While, however, I must decline to designate the expres sions in the despatch as " insulting and offensive," I can not refrain from saying that it contains statements which are utterly incorrect, and at the same time most injurious to England. I refer in particular to two paragraphs, the brat of which is as follows : ft is no longer the hostility of misguided individuals, mani festing itself by all the excesses of the press and all the violencee of language; it is no longer even the work of factions seekiug to rouse opinion and to provoke disonier; it is assassination, elevated to doctrine, preached openly. Assassination elevated to a doctrine and preached openly ! This is part of the case against us. Is the charge true, I ask? 1" No, no," from Mr. Bowyer.] I trust the hon. and learned gentleman will allow me to speak without in- terruption upon a matter so grave as this. Is it true, I repeat, that assassination is in England " elevated to a doctrine and preached openly "? Is any man who hears me conscious to himself that such is the fact? If it be the fact, why has not a remedy been provided ? Is it not notorious that the law is sufficient to correct such an abuse? Why, then, has no appeal been made to the law? I am not aware that " assassination has been elevated into a doctrine and preached openly ;" but if it has been, why has such a state of things been permitted to go on in the presence of those who ought, as a measure of prudence and public propriety, to have called upon her Majesty's Government to put it down? The imputation is a most injurious one, and I feel assured not less untrue than it injurious. It is an imputation which should not be '• made or be lightly regarded by any nation, and I must say—u one who has perhaps too often made it my busi ness to call attention to the tailing 4 of my countrymen— it appears to me that England has a right to demand the vindication of her honour in reference to this question of assassination, for it is a plant which is congenial neither to her suil nor to the climate in which we live. It was clear, then, that that despatch should have been answered. The Secretary for the Home Department said, by giving to the bill before the house a second reading, an answer to the despatch of Count Walewski would be given : Well, if the bill is to be our only answer to that docu ment, then, I say, we shall be in effect admitting the truth of this statement which it contains. And what is the effect of admitting the truth of these allegations? In tt.e first place you inflict a cruel wound upon your couutry—a wound upon its laws, upon the feelings of its people, and upon the most venerable traditions of its history. But, sir, you do more than this. There are secret rumours in circulation— whispers which pass from man to man about the state of feeling in France, and the consequences which are to follow if this house shall exercise what I will venture to sit, but for these apprehensions, would have been the independent judgment of the vast majority of its members. There are such rumours abroad ; and we are called upon to sacrifice only a little bit of English feeling, of English law, of Eng lieh usages, awl of English recollections, in order to pro duce a satisfactory state of feeling in France. I trust, sir, that we shall rise to something a little higher than this short-sighted policy. And what was the consequence of the course which had been taken instead of making the state of our law known to the French Government? There was not the slightest doubt that great and heavy punish ment may be inflicted for misdemeanour, and it would have been well if that information had been conveyed to the Government of France : And what do we now do? A demand is made upon us on the ground that we shelter assassins ; as our answer we send back this bill. But is the real demand made upon us in that despatch that we should convert conspiracy to murder from a misdemeanour to a felony? Is that the object which Count Walewski has in view? When he speaks of sheltering assassins, is it not obvious that he means there ought to be a power centred in the Govern ment of sending suspected persons out of the country? That is the construction which I put upon the demand, and I Jo not think any other construction can be made good by argument founded upon its terms. But whether it be so or not, what is the consequence of our answering it by this bill? It does nothing but enhance the penalty. The learned lord says that by enhancing the penalty you prevent the commission of the crime, and thus coolly re verses the rule and principle which has lain at the founda tion of every criminal statute that has passed this house fcr the last thirty or forty years. We send acmes to France a bill which enhances the penalty, but which does nothing whatever towards detection ; and if it dues nothing to wards detection, can any person seriously maintain that it will meet the terms of Count Walewski's despatch ? We begin, before this house is asked to legislate, by answering the charges made against us by an admission of them,—having admitted them, we meet them by a piece of legislation which will be wholly illusory. The effect of that will be, that though it may be accepted for a moment as a flattering compliment to wounded feelings, yet when the real nature of the gift is discovered—when it is found iuoperarive for any purpose of good, though it sacrifices an important principle of English law, there will be a renewal of the demands, the right to make which, and the obligation to comply with which also, we shall have admitted if we proceed to legislate under the despatch which now lies on the table. For these reasons Ido hope that the house will to-night consider the question which is submitted to it by my right hon. friend. The connec tion between the despatch and legislation has been ad mitted by the Government themselves, and particulaily by tny right hon. friend the Home Secretary, who says that he cannot answer the despatch until you have read the bill a second time. The importance of our decision, in my opinion, cannot be over-estimated with respect to the duty of this house and with respect to our national honour. I must confess that, much as I detest those qualities in foreign policy which are characterised as med dling and quarrelsome, I do think that a man who respects other nations, who sensitively respects the rights of other nations, will be readier to defend those of his own. If there is any feeling in this house for the honour of Eng. land, don't let us be led away by some vague statement about the necessity of reforming the criminal law. Let us insist upon the necessity of vindizating that law. As far as justice requires let us have the existing law vindi cated, and then let us proceed to amend it if it be found necessary. These times are grave for liberty. We live in the nineteenth century. We talk of progress. We believe that we are advancing, but can any man of observation who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe have faded to perceive that there is a movement, indeed, but a downward and backward movement? There are • few spots in which institutions that claim our sympathy still exist and flourish. They are secondary places, nay, they are almost the holes and corners of Europe, so far as mere material greatness is concerned, although their moral greatness will, I trust, insure them bog prosperity and happiness. Brit in these times more than ever does responsibility centre upon England, and if it does centre upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws, and upon her governors, then I say that a measure passed by this House of Commons—the chief hope of freedom— which attempts to establish • moral complicity between us and those who seek safety in repressive measures, will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every country in the world. • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied to Mr. Gladstone by giving an elaborate ex p os i t i on of the law as it stood, and which he declared to be ineffective, and to require such an amendment as the bill before the house proposed. Mr. DISRAELI said that what ten days ago was a question between the Parlia men t o f E ngland and the people and Government of F rance had then be. come a question between th e H ouse of Commons and the English Minist er; th a t nothing that ni g h t which threw the slightest light upon that obscure passage in our administration which referred to the reception of Count Walewski's despatch hail been heard ; and that no member of the Treasury bench— and the Treasury bench had been exhausted in the course of the discussion—had offered a single valid reason, or had advanced any satisfactory excuse for the conduct of the Government : There is one circumstance which I do not think has been referred to in the course of this debate, and which I myself was not conscious of when I made some observe. tions upon the subject ten days ago. It appears that the despatch of Count Walewski, which has been the subject of so much discussion, was not merely written to the Am bassador of France in England, according to the usual custom, and by him read to the English Secretary of State, but it was published in the Moniieur of France, and thus made known to the people of France, and more than that, like all State papers of great authority that appear in a journal of the high character of the koniteur, it was pro. bably copied into every official journal in Europe, and perused and accepted as authentic by every Cabinet in Europe. Where is the answer, then, to that despatch? What satisfaction can it be to the people of this country when this despatch of Count Walewski appears in the Monilcur, when it appears in every accredited organ in Europe, when it is accepted by the diplomacy of every State and by every Cabinet,—what satisfaction, I say, can it be that some indefinite words are expressed in the salons of the French Ambassador, in which, for aught we know, two men of the world shrugged their shoulders, and thus exchanged a meaning not expressed in words? It is to my mind perfectly inexplicable how her Majesty's Government could be guilty of the indiscretion of laying that un• answered despatch upon the table of House of Commons, and of making it the very basis of the legislation which they now propose. Having pithily exposed the weakness of the Minis terial explanation, and the mystery surrounding the whole affair, Mr. Disraeli concluded by calling the attention of the house to the real point at issue doubt not that, whether it be in France or in England, the real issue to-night will be clearly comprehended. It is not a diplomatic—it is not a political issue ;it is, indeed, an issue of the greatest importance, but narrowed to a very small limit. It is a question between this house and the servants of the Crown. Have they, or have they not, done their duty? I will not enter into a discussion of the merits, or even of the character, of the law which they have placed on our table. If the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton-under- Lyne be carried, there will be nothing to prevent us from proceeding to the consideration of this measure ; and of this measure I give the same guarded opinion as I have given before. 1 reserve to myself the right of deciding upon it on its merits. What we have to determine now is, whether the resolution of the right lion. gentleman is a just and proper resolution—whether its allegations are accurate—whether its sentiments are those which this house ought to sanction—whether the regret which we express is not felt by every Englishman and has not touched the entire nation. That, sir, is the issue. I pro test against any foreign element being imported into it. Let us decide whether or not the amendment of the right hon. gentleman is justified by the circumstances. For my own part, I believe that it is impossible to challenge its accuracy and justice. It think it is expressed in moderate though grave language. I think that in supporting it we are fulfilling a public duty, and that if we carry it we shall accomplish a public benefit. L,rd PALMERSTON replied in a violent and vitu perative speech, directing his remarks particularly against Mr. Gibson and Gladstone, and, at the same time that he called upon the house to consider the question before it "calmly," declared with consider able warmth that they would " stultify" themselves if they did not reject the amendment. The house divided, when the numbers were— For the second reading 215 Against it 234 Majority against Government —l9 Before the numbers were announced, the greatest excitement prevailed in the house. The tellers, as they entered, were eagerly questioned as to the re sult by the members they bad to pass, and the most intense anxiety was observable on both sides of the table. When Mr. Gibson took the announcement paper in his hand, the fact became known that Ministers were beaten, and loud and reiterated cheers rose from the majority. On the announce went of the numbers the cheering was again and again repeated, accompanied with what is not usual in the house, by waving o f h a t s by se veral hon. members. On silence beir g restored, The amendment of Mr. M. Gibson was put to the house and agreed to. !bk.