The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

102 THE PRE S S, FEBRUARY 20, 1858. yet it cannot but regret that her Majesty's Govern ment, previously 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 received from the French Government, dated Paris, January 20th, 1S 8, and which has been laid before Parliament." the question, he said, deeply concerned the honour of the country, and it was especially necessary that the motives on which the Government acted in bringing in their bill should be duly placed on record. This was the object he wished to secure by his present amendment. De claring that he objected to the bill also on its merits, and should at another stage oppose a direct negative to its enactment, the right hon. member recom mended the Prime Minister to study the example set by the King of Naples when foreign powers attempted to interfere in matters relating to domes tic administration. Mr. BAINES explained the legal effect of the bill, arguing that it was simply intended to supply a defect, and remove an inconsistency in the law whose existence no one disputed. Ile hoped that the house would not, by accepting the amendment, post pone indefinitely a useful piece of legislation. Mr. WALPOLE considered the measure founded on right principles, and was ready to vote for it, but insisted that the reason for passing it should not be misconstrued. The world ought to be convinced that the British Legislature had not stooped to a concession to any crowned head, but reformed its law for the benefit of every individual however humble his condition. Citing some passages from Count Walewski's despatch, he expressed his regret th:it no answer had been sent to that missive. On his own behalf and that of the party with whom he acted, the right hon. member professed their willing ness to support the bill, but declined to proceed with it further until the honour of England had been per fectly vindicated. Sir G. GREY, after reverting to the legal character of the bill, temarked that, apart from formal com munications, there could not exist in any quarter the slightest misapptehension as to the real ireralses which had actuated the English Government in bringing it forward, and might induce Parliament to pass it into a law. He gave reasons why the Walewski despatch bad been left unanswered. Defending the Government, he maintained that they had done nothing inconsistent with the constitutional law, and made no surrender of English privileges or the dignity of the country. So long as the English law of conspiracy remained imperfect no completely satisfactory reply could indeed be returned. When the House of Commons, by agreeing to the second reading of the bill, had accepted its principle and purged the law of its present reproach, the Govern- ment could then reply with clear conscience to the French despatch, and this course he intimated it was their intention to adopt. Mr. lii`MAHON opposed the bill, which would, he maintained, establish a system of espionage and persecution against foreign refugees. When the legal offences were changed from misdemeanours to felony, every one accused of inciting to conspiracy would be left at the mercy of the police, who could arrest them without a warrant, or turn them from place to place as rogues and vag a bond s . Mr. BTNG also disapproved of the measure, be lieving that our concession to foreign menaces would infallibly lead to further demands. Mr. SrooNEn could not concur in the view taken by Mr. Walpole, seeing no reason why they should postpone passing a bill whose principle was con sidered unobjectionable. Lord H. VANE would have voted for Mr. Gibson's motion if presented as a substantive resolution, but could not accept it as au amendment on the bill, of which he approved. Mr. BENTINCE wished to deal with the bill on its merits alone, and without regard to extraneous con siderations. It would degrade the British Legisla ture to reject a good bill on account of an y thing which foreigners happened to say, or might be supposed to think, upon the subject. Sir H. PEEL noticed as a curious fact that a Liberal Minister had brought in a bill which all the distinguished Liberals in the house had opposed. The present law was perfectly adequate, and it was contrary to the spirit of all our recent legislation to aggravate the severity of punishments with the view of suppressing crime. He proceeded to condemn the measure as a symbol of degradation to England, having been forced upon Parliament by the Go vernment, and under foreign dictation. Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment, not as objecting to the proposed change in the law, but be cause he concurred in the opinion that the Walewski despatch should not be left without reply. The Loan ADVOCATE viewed the bill merely as a slight but useful reform of the criminal law. The amendment that had been brought forward was not in the slightest degree connected with the measure itself, and might be brought forward in an inde pendent shape. He denied the existence of foreign dictation, and disclainied, on the part of the Govern ment, all intention of restricting the sacred right of asylum. Mr. GnaesTorin claimed the right of discussing changes in the English law solely upon En g li s h considerations. It was hard upon Parliament to be asked to debate a bill brought in under menace from a foreign power. The juridical and political bearings of the question had been to 3 constantly confused. At the very commencement, the bill, though strictly a legal measure, was i ntroduced by the political Minister and advocated on political gro - ands. Addressing himself to the question raised by the amendment, he observed that the house was practically called upon to decide whether the French Minister's despatch required an answer. He gathered, indeed, from the Ministerial explanations that an answer had already been given, but merely a verbal one, and of such vague informal communications th e Legislature was especially bound to dem an d an account. Analysing the successive propositions con. prised in the despatch, Mr. Gladstone commented upon various points which in his opinion required refutation. He blamed the conduct of the Govern ment who left the missive without reply, but brought a bill before the house which was, it appeared, to furnish their real reply • o the French Emperor. While proposing a retrogressive change in the law, the Administration had not yet attempted to ex pound the actual state of the law for the information either of the English or the French public. The bill, if passed, would not accomplish the object fur which it was demanded. In increasing penalties, it made no provision for detecting crime. The Emperor Napoleon might accept it for a time as a personal compliment, but when its illusory character was discovered, fresh demands would be urged, and keener irritation might arise than had hitherto been excited between the allied nations. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL took upon himself the responsibility of having suggested the bill, which, he assured the house, had been proposed before he ever heard of the Walewski despatch. Having repudiated all foreign parentage for the measure, Sir R. Bethell entered upon a legal disquisition, showing the present condition of the law, and explaining the particular imperfections which the bill was designed to rectify. Mr. DISRAELI observed that the condition in which the question was presented had undergone a com plete change since tie debate and vote on the intro duction of the bill. The house then decided I') a large majority to pass a resolution which in effect. expressed their sympathy with the French nation upon the atrocious attempt lately made against the life of their Emperor. Ten days had since passed, and the issue now rested only between the House of Commons and her Majesty's Ministers. No light had yet been thrown on the mystery surrounding the reception of the Walewski despatch. Where was the answer to that despatch ? Some indefinite words were said to have been interchanged in the saloon of the French Ambassador, and their scarcely articulate expression was the only reply to a document which had been circulated throughout Europe, and was actually laid ou the table of Parliament as a basis for legislation. The apology for the minatory ad dresses published in the Noniteur was not given until the Bth of February, while the bill before the house was announced four days previously, on the first night of the session. The Government had acted in haste and perplexity, utterly regardless of the honour and dignity of the country, until reminded of their duty by the outbursts of public opinion in the house and the country. In the previous debate lie had expressed regret that the despatch had not been answered on the moment, and this sentiment had outained universal concurrence during the period that had since elapsed. Lord Palmerston had confessed that the despatch was unanswerable, except in the substantial form of a new law. He still believe 1 that a firm and digni fied reply might have been written, which would have appealed to the noble sentiments of the French people, and rendered unnecessary the present appeal to Parliament to alter the criminal law. The ques tion now awaiting decision really involved the deci sion whether the Government had or had not done their duty. If the amendment was carried, the bill would not be rejected, but still remain on their table for future and deliberate discussion. In supporting the amendment they performed a public duty, and in carrying it they would, as he believed, accomplibh a public benefit. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply, contended that the Ministerial bill bad been opposed, not by argument, but by vague declamation. He proceeded to notice the speeches of various objectors to the measure, and emphatically denied that the often-mentioned de spatch of the French Minister either insulted, or was intended to insult, the English people. The house then divided, when there appeared, For the amendment 234 Against it Majority against Government )9 TO CORRESPONDENTS. Whatever is Intended for insertion must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not neeeintarily for publita tion, but as a guarantee of his good faith. vbx lo rog• lONDON,SATURDAY.FEBRUARY 13,1858. POSTSCRIPT. The Emperor of the French has placed the chateau of I'au at the disposal of his Majesty the King of Prussia, whose physicians recommend for him a residence in the south of France. Cardinal Gazzoli has just died at Rome, making the twelfth cardinal recently dead. SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE ELECTION. The election for the county has resulted as we anticipated in the defeat of the Liberal party. The contest was close, the numbers at the close being : Colonel H. Cartwright (Conservative) 1,1473 Lord Henley (Palmerstornan).... Majority for Cartwright B5 Thus the advantage to the Liberal cause gained at the last election by the return of Lord Althorp has been lost. LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE. HOUSE OF LORDS. TRANSPORT OF TROOPS. Lord DLTNGANNON called attention to the circum stances attending the transport of the (19th Regiment to India. The corps were sent overland, but on reaching Suez found that the Alma steamer designed for their conveyance had broken her shaft. After a delay of eight days the men were sent on in a vessel which, he was told, had been pronounced unsea worthy, and which actually sprung a leak when two days' sail from Ades. lie denounced this reckless trifling with valuable lives. Lord PANMURE said the occurrence arose entirely from unavoidable accident. When the Alma was disabled another steamer was provided, of ample tonnage, and perfectly seaworthy. The subsequent disaster was a pert?ct casualty, and fortunately resulted in no loss of life. He observed with satis faction that throughout the whole series of transport operations no mishap had occurred which proved ' fatal to a single individual. The Earl of HARDWF;KE was surprised that the Government still neglected the obvious duty of organising a sufficient fleet of transport vessels for the public service. The hiring system was, he thought, exceedingly objectionable. EDUCATION IN INDIA. The Earl of ELLEsnoaorox moved for some returns relating to education in India, rod cautioned the Government against a system of instruction which might, he believed, disseminate among the native population ideas and principles destructive of the British rule in that country. After a reply from Earl GRANVILLE, the returns were ordered. THE HAVELOCK ANNUITIES. On the motion of Lord PANMURE the Havelock Annuities 13,11 was read a second time. Their lordships adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. DIMACH OF PRIVXLEOE. Mr. RnErtucx gave notice that he should on Mon da:. present a petition, complaining of a breach of privilege, which it was alleged bad been committed by the hon. and learned member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt), and move for a committee to inquire into the subject. CONSPIRACY TO MURDER PILL. Lord PALMERSTON moved the second reading of the Conspiracy to Murder Bill. Repljing to various ob. jections that had been urged against the measure, he observed that it had no special application to aliens, nor armed the Government with any new powers to resttict the liberty enjoyed by foreigners in this country. Although no official communication had taken place, the Emperor of the French had been repeatedly assured i❑ confidential messages that no infringement was possible i❑ the English right of asylum. Mr. MILNER GIBSON moved an amendment, setting forth "that this house hears with much concern that it is alleged that recent attempts upon the life of the Emperor of the French have been devised in Eng land, and expresses its detestation of such guilty enterprises; that this house is ready at all times to assist in remedying any defects in the criminal law which : after due investigation: are proved to exist,