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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOTTSS OF LORDS.—(YEsTERDAT.) The LORD CIIANCILLOR took his seat on the woolsaok st 5 o'clock. Lord WYNFORD presented a petition from the Quarter Sessions at Monmouth praying for an amend ment of the evils which existed in the licensing system with respect to the sale of beer. Earl dA.RNAßVONpresenied a petition from Bland worth, in the county of Hants, praying for increased facilities' for the propagation of the Gospel in India. He asked whether it was the intention of the Govern ment to bring in any measure ea this subject during the present 38881012? Earl GRANVILLE said it was not the intention of the Government to introduce any bill on the subject. BANKRUPTCY LAWS. In answer to Lord Bitoueumt, The LORD CHANCELLOR said s bill for the amendment of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws was already prepared and] would very shortly be introduced, but whether in this house or the Commons was not yet decided. CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS TO INDIA. Viscount DUNGANNON rose to call the attention of the Government to the unsafe and unseaworthy nature of the ships selected for the conveyance of the troops to India by the overland route from Saes to Aden, but more especially to the condition of the Alma and the Ajdaha, sent to convey a detachment of the 69th Regiment. This regiment ,was sent out to India, but on arriving at Suez it was discovered that the Alma, which ought to have conveyed them on, had broken her shaft. The troops were afterwards transferred to the Ajdaha, which also sprung a leak, and was compelled to put back when about fonr hundred miles from Aden. He bad been informed that the Ajdaha had been unseaworthy, and had been condemned eighteen months before she was taken up, and he wished to know from they Government whether such a statement was correct Lord PAM:IT:IRE said the matter was very easily explained. In her passage to Suez before the troops were embarked an accident occurred to an important part of the machinery of the Alma, the vessel selected for the eonveyance of the 69th Regiment, andiit was consequently impossible that she could proceed. The troops were transferred to the Ajdaha, but from an accident, which no human foreQight could prevent, she sprung a leak, and was compelled to return to Suez. Both casualties were such that it was impos sib!, to provide against, but he was happy to say that no loss of life occurred. Daring the whole of the trans• port of troops to India, there bad not been a single instance in which loss of life had occurred. After a few words from the Earl of CARNARYON and the Earl of HARDWICL the subject dropped. EDUCATION IN INDIA. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH rose to move for a copy of the report of Mr. Chapman (Behar), director of public instruction in India in 1855 and 1856. The noble earl took the opportunity of calling the atten tion of their lordships to the state of education in India, and the efforts the Government had made to extend it. It was impossible that such efforts had not produced material effect, and it was desirable t. 3 )iv in what direction those exertions had extended, whether good or bad. He bad not seen the report for which he moved, but, from extracts, which had been placed in his hands, it appeared there was a deep-rooted prejudice prevalent amongst the natives against the Government system of education. Earl GRANVILLE said it was early yet to trace the effects of a measure adopted only in 1854. It was not tree that the educational measure had any effect in causing the mutiny. He had no objection to the pro dnction of the report alluded to by the noble earl. The motion was agreed to. The Havelock Annuities Bill was read a second time on the motion of Lord PANMIIRE. Their lordships adjourned at a quarter-past 6 o'clock, HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SITAZER took the chair at 4 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Liskeard and LOTO Union Canal Company's Bill was read a second time. MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR (CONSOLI• DATION OF ACTS) BILL. On the motion far the second reading of this bill, Mr. LOWE said the Government had made an arrangement with the Mersey Board in regard to this measure, and the Government were prepared to support the second reading of the bill. The hill was read a second time. The Mersey Docks and Harbour (New Works) Bill was read a second time. MUTINOUS SEPOYS. Mr. RICH gave notice that on this day week he should put a question to the President of the Board of Control bearing upon the recently reported engagements of our troops with the mutinous eepoys, and ask him whether any and what orders had been given to the officers of our troops relative to their giving quarter or not to mutinous sepoys found in arms. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice that he should on Mon day next, if no reason waa shown to the contrary, present a petition from an individual charging a member of that house (Mr. I. Butt) with a breach of the privileges thereof, and move the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the allegations of the petition. After some discussion on the course to be pursued, It was suggested by the SPEAKER, and accepted by Mr. ROEBUCK, that the learned gentleman should present the petition on Monday, and fix a day for its consideration, after it bad been printed and circulated amongst the members of the house. PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRA. TION. Mr. COWAN asked the law officers for England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, that as, by an Act passed in the last session of Parliament, provision was made for giving validity to Probates and Letters of Administration taken out in England and Ireland re spectively, if it be their intention now to introduce one or more bills whereby probates and letters of administra tion in England and Ireland," and a confirmation of executors in Scotland, whether of testate or intestate succession, may be rendered valid and effectual, and the benefits from the recent change of the law may be ex tended and enjoyed throughout all theTnited Kingdom? The LORD ADVOCATE said that the subject was under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND. In answer to Mr. Elam, Mr. WILSON said the contract referred to would terminate at the end of the month, and would not be resumed except so far as the supply of books for the schools. The copyrights of those books would be thrown open to the trade. TITLES TO LAND IN SCOTLAND, Mr. DUNLOP asked the Lord Advocate whether it was his intention to introduce, during the present ses sion, any measure for further simplifying and rendering less expensive the titles to land in Scotland ! The LORD ADVOCATE said he hoped to introduce such a measure immediately after the Easter recess. INCOME TAX RETURNS. On the motion for adjournment till Monday, Mr. CRAWFORD called attention to the late abstraction of income tax returns from the office of the collector for the City of London, and asked for the production of any correspondence that had transpired with the Government and the City Income-tax Commis sioners in reference to the abstraction? Mr. WILSON said the Government were not answer. able for the safe custody of the papers referred to. He would lay any correspondence that had taken place on tie table of the house. MINISTER OF JUSTICE. Mr. W. EWART put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury, for explanation on the subject of the ap• pointatent of a department or Minister of Justice. Whether he intended to appoint a Minister of Justice fort the improvement and supervision of the law of the cc nary!. THE PARIS TREATY OF PEACE. Lord J. MANNERS put a question to the noble lord relative to the article of the Treaty of Paris, and also in reference to the Circassians. Lard PALMERSTON said in reference to Mr. Ewart's question, that the Government felt it their duty to give effect, as far as possible, to the opinions of the house emboelied in a resolution, but the resolu tion agreed to l as t reference to the session by: the house in appointment of a Minister of Justice was so a ppointment understand what was meant, The it wa s . difficult to he appointment of a Minister of Justice was &desirable object to accomplish; but there were so many difficulties surrounding it that the Government had not been able e t e t t ochrry out that part of the resolution. With refere y n e he zetlhieeveqdueese tien of the noble lord (Lord J. Manners), application was made at Paris by certain Circassie chiefs for assistance against Russia ; but as the Cir n - ' cassians took no part in assisting the allies, it was not thought desirable to renew the war on their behalf, the object for which the allies went to war with Russia having been accomplished. With regard to the 12 articles of the Treaty of Paris, relative to the opening of the ports in the Black Sea, Russia had opened three on the eastern side, but none on the western side. Application had been made to Russia to open porta on that side, but she declined—first on the ground that the ports to be opened were only to be those where custom-house, quarantine, and police regulations existed. To that the Govern ment remonstrated, and (Russia then excused her self from not opening those ports, on the ground that she was engaged in hostilities with tribes on that part of the coast, and had been unable to make the necessary arrangements for opening them. Communic a tions were going . on between the two conntries for carrying out the provisions of the treaty. After some remarks from Mr. Napier, Mr. Locke Xing, and the Attorney-General, The subject dropped. THE GOVERNOR OF DOMINICA. Mr. BLAND asked the Under Secretary for Wa r, whether Major Ord, of the Roya l Engin eer:, had been appointed Governor of Dominica ? and if so, whethe r be was still retained on the full-pay list o f that corps ? and if se, whether there were any reasons for his being in exceptional case ? Sir J. RANSDEN said that it was 125u'forofficers THE iStIN LONDON, SATURDAY gVIENING, FEBRUARY 20, 1858 obtaining such appointments to remain for six months afterwards on full pay. This was not an exceptional case. The motion for adjournment was then agreed to. CON SPIRAC Y TO MURDER BILL. Lord PALMERSTON—In moving the second read ing of this bill, I wish to make a very few observations in addition to those which I addressed to the house en moving for leave to introduce the bill. In the first place, I would say that great pains have been taken to spread the notion that this is an alien bill. That impression is totally unfounded, and totally different from the nature of the measure. It is not an alien bill. The bill gives to Government no arbitrary power whatever, and con tains no enactments applicable to aliens which are not applicable to all her Majesty's subjects. I cannot deny that which I stated on a former occasion, that her Ma jesty's Government were led to look into the condition of the law relating to conspiracy by the calamitous event which recently took place in France. Upon looking into the state of our law we found that in England the crime of conspiracy for the commission of murder was, as I stated in a former debate, a crime practically almost unknown to this country, and therefore no special law had been framed to meet that offence. The crime of conspiracy to murder was only punished in the same manner as the offence of conspiring to do any other act which was wrong. As I stated on a former oecasion, conspiracy to commit a trivial offence, such as hissing a bad actor, was placed in the same category as the ' grave offence to which I have alluded. We thought on looking into the law that that was not a proper state of things. A crime had been committed. There could be no doubt that a conspiracy to murder had been hatched in this country. We thought the English law fixed too slight a punishment to so grave a source of crime. On the other hand, when we looked to the state of the law in Ireland, we found:3 a law which had originated i❑ unhappy times, when animosities ran high, when vio lences were committed, and when unfortunately the crime was one of no very unfrequent occurrence, to which attached the heaviest punishment—the punish ment of death. We thought—looking at the present improved state of Ireland —that it was not desir able such a law should continue, and we considered it desirable to mitigate the penalty in Ireland, whilst on the other hand, we raised the penalty in England. For that purpose we prepared the bill now under the consi deration of the house. The bill, I say, is of general application. It doss not point exclusively against aliens. It only places aliens on that footing on which they ought to stand—namely, en the same footing as all her Ma jesty's subjects within the realm. If a man goes into a foreign country he is bound to submit to the laws of that cosairy, He cannot expect to enjoy privileges which are not accorded to the natives, and must submit to the laws which in the wisdom of the legislature, are imposed on the native inhabitante of the country. There is no thing in this bill which gives to the executive government any arbitrary power whatever, either in regard to he- Majesty's subjects or to aliens resident within the realm, It gives no power of expuLion. There is nothing in the bill which interferes in theelightest degree with that law of hospitality by which we have been invariably guided with respect to foreigners seeking an asylum in this country. Any foreigner. whatever his nation maybe— whatever may be his political creed—whatever may be his political offences against the government of his coun try—may under this bill as without this bill find a safe and secure asylum within this realm as long ae he conforms to the law, and submits to the law of the land which he has chosen for his residence. Neither does this law give to the government any arbitrary power what ever. The penalty which it imposes must be a penalty awarded by a court of justice—awarded by a court of justice upon proof of the offence committed, therefore, with respect to the judgment of the offence orthe award of punishment, the executive government will have nothing whatever to do. I conceive, therefore, that it is a grievous misrepresentation to give this measure the nickname of an alien bill. It is, as I have before said, no alien bill. It is an improvement of the law of the land, with regard to an offence which up to a recent time might have been known to the law of Ireland, but which I am sorry to say has been committed in this kingdom, and committed, I am sorry to say, not simply by foreigners resident in this country, because there is too much reason to fear that the inves tigations which have been carried on elsewhere have tended to show that British subjects have not been alto gether exempt from criminality in this matter. (Hear.) That is one point on which I thought it desirable to make a few observations. I will now advert to another point. Objection has been taken to the course pursued by her Majesty's Government, upon the ground that we ought to have written and sent some very great, fine, eloquent, and indignant answer to the despatch of Count Walewski to Count de Persigny, which was handed to her Majesty's Government and laid on the table of the house. (Cheers.) Now, sir, what passed in regard to the despatch was this : it was presented personally by the French ambassador to my noble friend at the head of the Foreign-office, who repeated to the French am bassador that which he, and I , and other members of her Majesty's Government have over and over again explained to all the foreign representatives who have approached the subject at all, that a change in our law with regard to the asylum granted to foreigners they must not expect, because it was utterly impossible. (Hear, hear.) They have often been told, and it was repeated on that occasion ♦erbally, that we never had ear law pointed against foreigners for offending against ' foreign countries, but that it had been framed to guard this country against dangers arising from the conduct of foreigners seeking a refuge in this country—that it would be a new law -an enactment wholly and entirely new —that it would involve us in great embarrassment in dealing with foreign Governments, because if cases had arisen in which foreign Governments required the ex pulsion of foreigners on suspicions entertained by foreign Governments,!the Goverment of the day in, England would have answered that, having no well-grounded reason for suspicion, they could ❑ot pat the law into execution, and that naturally would have raised very disagreeable discussions between England and foreign Go ►ernments. (Hear.) That was explained to the French ambassador by my noble friend. Some gentlemen may say we ought to have written an answer to that effect. It would have been useless to repeat that in writing which had over and over again been so fully explained. (Oh, oh.) The Government might have announced to the French Government what they intended to do, but I do not think that would have been a very proper coarse. We told the French Government that the matter had already been under our consideration, and that we should take the course which we deemed most consistent with our own interests and our own honour. If any party has a ground of complaint against us for not writing, it is the French Government, because they might justly say we were wanting in ordinary courtesy to them in leaving unanswered a c)mmunioation which had been formally laid before us. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But I hold that we are practically absolved on that point. I say there is no ground for blaming us for not writing a despatch, which either would have been controversial when great agitation prevailed in France —would only have aggravated the feeling which we desired so see spending itself—or would had the appear. ance of our placing before a foreign government what we intended to submit to Parliament. It is not right to submit oar measurea to foreign governments, in order to see whether they will be satisfied with what we are doing. In matters of internal regulation we are not bound to give any account to foreign governments. I trust, therefore, that the opinion which the house arrived at on a former occasion, as to the expediency of permit ting the bill to be brought in, will continue, now that the house has the opportunity of seeing its details ; and seeing that it gives no additional discretionary power to the executive—that it only provides a more appropriate punishment for an offence of a grave obaracter—that while on the one band it raises the penalty in England, on the other hand it mitigates the penalty i❑ Ireland, and reduces the law in the two islands to the same con dition— I trust the house will consent to give the bill a second reading. (Hear.) The question having been put, Mr. T. GIBSON rose to move an amendment. Ha said, I am not one of those who hale laboured under the misapprehension of the objects of this bill to which the noble lord, has referred. If such misapprehension does exist, I concur with him that he has taken a very proper course in putting the house in possession of his views upon the exact aim of the measure before But, sir, with regard to certain conversations, confidential or otherwise, which are said to have passed between the noble lord at the head of the Government and the Foreign Minister of France, I am of opinion that matters of this grave importance, that matters affecting, perhap4, the honour and reputation of our country, ought not to be left to mere casual conversations, but ought to be placed upon record, in order that they may stand before the world as the position which England has assumed in the question at issue. (Hear, hear.) I can assure the house, I can assure the noble lord at the head of the Government, that it is not my desire by moving the amendment of which I have given notice to provoke any angry controversy between, as it were, the people of England and the French nation. I attach great value to the maintenance of friendly relations with that great country, and were I to utter a single word tending to produce angry or irritating discussion, I should not be acting in accordance with my own convictions. I can tell the noble lord that, although I have been no follower of his with reference to the policy which he has pursued with regard to the foreign relations of this country, although I have generally been no admirer of what is o called his " spi r it e d foreign" policy, I have frequently contoled m y se lf w i t h t h e reflection that, whatever die ' Pu, ' el We tight have with other parts of the world, the dan g necessary t o) ?rd s , at least, would be no party to raising any ".11 controversy or die ute with France, our per manent friendly understan ding with which I hold to be the civilisation and happiness of Europe. to put the ( hu e Raer, resolutio n htoearmeet e u p t o o n meaning. submit t hemerits t o t the the kouse o . ne or two preliminary objections and has possession of its exact Parliamentary bill before the houseeetnbaobjected by the enemies of the suffi ciently decided, that I ought tthia amendment is not stifE to have proposed a motion to throw nut the bill altogether,l to reject it, as it were Undoubtedly, my nwoitthinigtnhoamt ifncyr.rn.(lloenart.healttter hand, gentalemmeenndrafaevnotuirs t this is en indirect mode a o b f l d e e t f o sa t t h in e g bi t i b l e t, inaveemnure, and wouldread b theahe beenbill more candid if I had invited thrnethe,:uottliliie second time this day three objections ire founded upon a misa pp re hension (year.) Theta object which I have in view. My obje ct ieentsoi? then expression of opinion from the house strictly relevant lllt° a the bill before us ; but by agreeing to the resolu tion which I now submit you would not necessarily defeat the bill, you would simply avert its progress for a single day, and it would afterwards be competent to any per son to proceed with the measure and pass it into a law (Hear.) My own opinions are undoubtedly averse to the bill, and when its merits come more distinctly before us I shall give my support to a motion for its rejection. At present, however, I think we are enabled consistently with our opinions of the merits of this particular change of the law to say whether we should now read the bill a second time, before having arrived at a decision upon the mode in which the Government have conducted the affairs which ham led to the introduction of the measure before us, and els ) whether it is not the duty of the Par liament of England to declare that some answer should have been given to so important a despatch at that which has been laid on our table, and therefore legitimately brought under our notice by the executive Government. (Cheers.) I have been told by an hon. friend that I want to take an opportunity of passing a sort of indirect, he did not say censure, but unfriendly opinion upon the management of affairs by the Government, and for that purpose have given notice of an amendment which is calculated to draw to my side persons who are hostile to the bill before us, but who upon the whole do not disapprove the course which the Government have takes. (Hear, hear.) In answer to that objection I can only say that I should have been very glad, if it had been in my power, to move my amendment as a substantive resolution ; but I have not the command of the tines of this heuse—(cheers)—l cannot bring i❑ any measure which I think fit, and I much doubt whe ther I should have obtained from those who have the disposal of our time an early opportunity for submitting Inch a resolution. It appears to me, however, that ►mmy amendment is strictly within the rules of Parliament ; tbat it is relevant to the bill before us; and, as the ques tion which has given rise to it is intimately connected with the proposal of the Government, I hold that I am taking a Parliamentary course, and one that can be jus tified by precedent, in asking the House of Commons to arrest for a single day only the progress of the present measure for the purpose of expressing the opinion set forth in my amendment—viz., that the important de spatch of Count Wale wski should have received a solemn and deliberate answer from her Majesty's Government. What is the resolution tbat I propose to the house ? It states, in the first place, "that this house hears with much concern that it is alleged the recent attempts upon the life of the Emperor of the French have been devised in England, and expresses its detestation of such guily enterprises." I imagine that every member of this house gives his cordial concurrence to the sentiment embodied in those words. I venture to say that throughout the length and breadth of this land enterprises to assassinate the Emperor of the French aro viewed with universal execration. (Cheers.) I feel no doubt, therefore, that the House of Commons cordially approves the first pasaa.;e of my resolution. The next passage says, "That this house is ready at all times to assist in remedying any defects in the criminal law, which, afterdueinve•tigation, are proved to exist." I put the words "at all times" be cause I quite agree with the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary for the Home Department that if it be proved that our laws are defective we ought not to be deterred from making the requisite alterations because other persons may have committed indiecretions, or be cause suggestions may have come from foreign lands. But, at the same time, we ought not to make changes in our criminal law without "due investigation." We ought not to make important charges in the law of conspiracy, even conspiracy to murder. Conspiracyper se 13 an unful filled —or, as it has been called, an unconsummated— intention. That is a vague, uncertain offence to deal with, and more than any other with which a man may be charged affords a❑ opportunity fer injustice being done- (Hear.) It therefore behoves the house to be careful as to the extent of the neeeities to be attaceed to the offence. I think it is Sir Matthew Hale who says conspiracy is a net in which you catch tee dove as well as the hawk, and therefore, seeing the uncerta'nties which surround prosecutions for such a crime, we ought to take care that we do not hastily make dangerous changes in the law of England with respect to conspiracy. (Hear.) I speak with hesitation, not with confidence, upon so grave a question as what may be necessary changes in cur criminal law. I would found my opinions upon high authorities, when the dicta of men of great experience, upon reports of your public officers—.such as the Statute Law Commissioners —rather than upon any crude views, based upon abstract reasoning. Now, I find that this very law of conspiracy to murder has already been brought formally under the consideration of the Statute Law Commissioners. The Statute Law Com mission met on Wednesday, December 3, 1666, and there were present the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wrotteal , y, Mr ; Baines, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Greaves, Mr. Colson, and Mr. Bellenden Ker. At that meeting a letter was read from the A ttorney- General of Ireland, drawing the attention of these distinguished public officers to the differences between the law of Ireland and the law of England with respect to conspiracy to murder. " You will observe," wrote Mr. Fitzgerald, " considerable differences be tween the laws of the two countries, particularly in relation to conspiracy to murder." This called the attention of the Statute Law Commissioners to the par ticular criminal law, which is now under discussion, and notwithstanding that we find that from his bill for con solidating and amending the criminal law of England with regard to offences against the person the Lord Chancellor has thought fit deliberately to exclude any change in the existing law relative to the offence of cons 'piracy to murder. (Cheers.) I think that fact ought to have some weight with the house, as showing that the Bill before us is the result of a sudden determination-- not of deliberate consideration following " due investi gation"— on the part of her Majesty's Government. (Rear.) It may be said that the bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor as the organ of the Statute Law Com mission, merely consolidates and does not amend the laws to which it relates. That is not the case. The re port prefixed to the "Offences against the Person Bill" besides referring to a vast number of cases of the actual introduction into that Bill of legislation which is a change and not the consolidation of any existing law, I has the following passage which bears directly on the present subject : " At present, a great anomaly prevails in cases of attempts to commit murder. Sundry of them are made felony and highly penal, while the remainder are merely misdemeanours at common law, . , It is obvious that, upon principle, attempts to commit murder should be of the same class ; section 25, therefore, makes all such attempts felony," Here is a change in this bill for the purpose of ameliora tion in your criminal law, showing that there was a power to amend, as well as to consolidate, and therefare I must suppose that the Chaucellor of England and her Majesty's Government did not see fit to make any change in the criminal law of England in reference to conspiracy to murder, after deliberate inquiry by the Statute Law Commission. (Cheers.) Ido not wish to commit myself to any mere opinion as to the law as it now stands is precisely what it ought to be; but this, I think, is evident, that with respect to the recent event which has taken place in Paris the law of England is sufficient in all respects to deal with the parties who who have conspired towards that act, who aided and abetted in it, or incited persons to commit the assasei tion. Do we not see that a warrant has been issued by the Government for the arrest of Mr. Allsop, a person charged with having been aiding and abetting, ia some form or other, this attempt at the person of the Emperor of the French! Do we not see, also, that an alien resi dent in England hal been brought before the police ma gistrates, and that proceedings are being taken with the view of subjecting him to prosecution, on the gr„und of his being a conspirator, or having incited this act ? (Hear.) I believe the law as it now stands gives more power over persons who have aided and abetted this late act in Paris than if you were to prosecutethem under the present Bill of Her Majesly's Government. (Hear.) Under the 9th George IV., cap. &l, Sir H. Peel's Act, any subject of Her Majesty, who is accessory before the fact to murder in another country, may, I understand, be even punished to the extent of taking away his life, but certainly to the extent of penal servitude, if the charge is proved against him, and I believe that the highest authorities in the land have also held that waitr the terms, " subjects of her Majesty," arc included all persons who are resident within the dominions of her Majesty, and who are held, therefore, during that residence, to owe allegiance to our Crown and laws, If that be so, it appears to me that at th e p resent moo eat the law is amply sufficient to deal with a n y p ersons who concerned attenlpt winhch h this i co a u s ntry in bringin g a b out lately taken pla ce i n Paris, (Hear.) But if there be any doubt s on t h ese points, I, for one, would not be the m an , an d I f rankly t h h a e ve d r b e e a e d n f u l say so, to stand in the way of such au am:liot atioe of your law as would enable you to . deal with p ersons , b e they Englishmen or aliens, who can be proved by clear and conclusfve evidence to have aided in the commission of such atrocious acts. So much for the merits of the Bill ; but I am not now asking the House, in fact, for an opinion on the Bill, for that ques!ion will arise after my resolution has been dealt with, but I am merely putting it to the Houma whether it is right, under the circum stances, to road the Bill a second ti me thi s d ay. I hope that isll, therefore, will agree with me that these words in my resolution are reasonable words :—" That this House is ready at all times to assist in remedying any defects in the criminal law which, after due investi gation, are proved to exist." (Hear, hear.) I must take leave to observe that the noble lord at the head of the Government and the right hon. gentleman the Secre tary for the Home Department have held argu• meats in reference to this proposed change in the law which are not quite consistent with each other. First of all, they press on us the maxim that we roust do what is right without reference to our being asked to do it or not, which is as much as to say that we have been asked to do it ; that a blot has been pointed out by a foreign country, but we are not therefore to be de terred from dealing with it. After pressing on us that maxim, in which, to a certain extent, I express my con currence, though, to use the expression of an hon, friend of mine, there is a species of awkwardness in doing any thing, however right, under a sort of duress—after, I repeat, pressing on us that good maxim—that we must do right ourselves, whether asked to do it or not, the noble lord and the right hon, gentleman said that they were always going to make this change in the law, even if there had been no French despatch, and if there had been, thoogh I do not know whether they sa'd this exactly, no calamitous event in Paris. But if this French despatch had nothing to do with the bringing in of this bill, why was it laid in a formal manner on the table of the house, to form, as it were, a foundation for subse cpent proceedings which the Legislature was to take ? I undertake to say that in the first speech of the noble lord in introducing the bill you will not find one single syllable of its having b,en ale aye the intention of the Government to propose this change, or of their having had their minds turned to this def ct in the criminal law four so me ti me past. It appears to me that the idea is something like a second thought ; and, at any rate, if it was the intention to resied , an quite unnYecesaall necessity of dischar i gto the ineliscretionsgcfn - paragraph in m y r es 1 house has gone with alleged defect in our criminal law, it way my to read us such a lecture about the our duty without any reference , thers. I now come to the third o ution. I do not kuow whether the me so far as to agree in the first two paragraphs, but I take leave to assume it has no objection to there. With respect to the third paragraph, I express my regret "That her Majesty's Government, 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 re ceived from the French Government, dated Paris, Jan. 20, 1858, and which has been laid before Parliament." I certainly feel rezret at that circumstance, and the 'lines of Commons is competent to express regret, without necessarily implying what is called censors. A man may regret unavoidable circumstances, and I do regret—whatever may have been the cause—the omis sion to answer Count Walewski's despatch, because I think we now stand before the world as admitting, as it were, the truth of Rome of the charges contained in that despatch. (Cheers.) Nay, more ; seeing that the despatch calls in question the policy of England in reference to the right of asylum—that it reflects on the merle in which England has thought fit to permit the right to be enjoyed by foreigners, I say it was the duty of the Go vernment 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. (Cheers.) 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 aliened? (Hear.) And more than this, I believe that a great mi-apprehension exists throughout France as to the exact nature of our laws in reference to the right of asylum. Now, Count Wale wski says in his despatch of the 23J). January : "It is no longer the hostility of misguided individuals, manifesting itself by all the excesses of the press and all the violences of language ; it is no longer even the work of the factious seeking to rouse opinion and to provoke disorder ; it is assassination, elevated to doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of which his just struck Europe with amazement. Ought, then, the right of asylum to protect such a state of things. Is hospitality due to assassins'? Ought the English legislation to contribute to favour their designs and their plans ? Aud can it continue to shelter persons who by their flagrant acts place themselves beyond the pale of common right and under the ban of hu rsani y ?", If no answer has been given to that despatch, it is an admission, by silence, that with our eyes open we have sheltered assassins, and that we have actually favoured their designs. But is that true I No, sir; it is not. As my hon. 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 deterred by the severity of our criminal law from com mitting crimes, but is that a reason for isayiag that Eng land is a country which shelters such criminals, and which favours their designs ? The insinuation of Count Waleweki against the laws and policy of this country i s unkind and unjust, and it was the bounden duty of the executive Government to have repelled such an in• sinuation by a firm and dignified answer to this de spatch. lam sorry to sec the indifference which is manifested by some members of the Government to the treat 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 Lord Clarendon, at the Conferences of Pa. is, silentlyacquiesced in a resolution condemning the liberty of the press. Not only did he soy nothing—so far as we testy judge from the protocols—in defence of the liberty of the press, which is so dear to us all, but he actually signa I his name to a resolution condemnatory of it. "be oely a.iew,r which the noble; lord gave when called upon to explain this circumstance was, " Would you have had Lord Clarendon make a scene—they were all so harmonious together (a laugh) —why not let these matters, which may lead to dangerous controversy, pass by unnoticed 1" gt is the same sort of thing now. This solemn and important despatch of Caunt Walewski'd is not to be answered, because the answer may lead to un pleasant controversy. Bat 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. (Cheers.) That despatch ought to have been answered. It may be held that it was difficult to answer it (a laugh), but I will quote a passage from the speech of the right hon. gentle man 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 tempting to a Minister to answer than this one," (Hear.) That looks as if there would have been no dif ficulty experienced in the mind of somebldy at any rate in answering it. There was a very impirtant view of this question thrown out incidentally by the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks, when he spoke on the first reading of the Bill. He said : " If we had the despatch of Count Walewski on the table, and at the same time the answer of the British Minister worthy of the opportunity, in my opinion the Government would havo met witk no difficulty, and the feelings of the two nations woul have been discussed in the temper which we all de sire." There is great force i❑ that observation, and I have no doubt whatever, if Count Wale wski's despatch had been laid before us, accompanied by a becoming answer on the part of our Government, that, without any idea of menace or ii-tinaidation, we should have cordially sat 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. (Llear.) I think that is a consi deration which ought to weigh with hon. gentlemen in support, of my motion, and which ought to bring home to their minds the relevancy of it to the bill now under discussion. The word which I have ventured to propose to the house are these : , I " That this house cannot but regret that her Majesty's Go. 1 vernment, previouoly to inviting the house to amend the law of conspiracy at the present dice, have not felt it to ho their duty to reply to the important despatch received from the French Government, dated ' Paris, Jan. 20, , 1858' which has been laid before Parliament." I want to call the noble lord's attention tc the course which he has been in the habit of taking in reference to making what are called friendly communications, or communications in a friendly spirit, on the subject of theirinternal (cheers ploltilicyi think the state of their own internal laws. There is no man in this house, or perhaps in Europe, who has had greater noble interesting lord correspondence hhas foun d experience in the mode of making friendly communications hewinto ether countries as to the condition of their laws and the neceisityof a chantgoe n t (Laugh ter.) I would ask the other countries prepared to take friendly advice of this sort without replying find that even the Government with which he has not very long ag,o carried on ave rt' —I mean the Government of Naples —set a very good example as to how You should behave when friendly advice is offered to you by a foreign nation in reference to a change in your law. (Hear.) I onc e rea d i n some newspaper a foo li s h idea, thrown out, I suppose, by some eccentric character, about as sass i nating the King of Naples ; but if the King of Naples had called the noble lord's attention to tha'. incitement to assassina tion, I have no doubt he would have got a very sharp lecture for his pains oe the artof goo d government —(aughter)—and he would have pointed out to him ' that the way to avoid these dangers would be by doing justice, so a•., to produce contentm en t among his subjects. (Hear.) In May, 1858, Lord Claren‘on wrote a despatch to the Neapolitan Government which was cf a similar nature to this despatch of Count We lewvki. It was addre , sed to the British Minister at Naples, with a request that he would read it to the Minister of the King of Naples, and it was so read. In it Lord Clarendon stated "that the British Government were actuated by a `friendly feeling' in ' offering advice for the regulation of the internal affairs of Naples,' and `for the adoption of a system of a dmiuietration which would relieve Europe from anxiety.," The Neapolitan Minister replied that he would co mmunicate the despatch to the King, but said that "the King could nut consist ently with his dignity allow any foreig n P ower to inter fere with the interna l government of his country." He was not content with this conversational mode of trans acting business, but thought fit to put his i ews i n writing,, and he sent a formal despatch to the Neapolitan Minister here to be communicated to the British Go vernment. The despatch ran thus : ‘, From tho enclosed copy of the despatch, her Britannic Majesty's Government has assumed the purpose i,f showing itself uneasy in regard to the internal condition of the domi nions of the King, our Sovereign, in order to give advice tending to suggest thoughts of a necessity of a change in our administration, at the same time t iat it recognises the value of the principle that no foreign Power has aright to mix itself with the internal affairs of a foreign State." " The English Government roust be convinced that the Go vernment of the Two Sicilies, scrupulous in respecting the independence of others, does not admit in any other a right of interference in the internal administration of the Royal States, and still less that of censuring the acts and the adiaii nbAration of justice, " lie cannot have recourse to the cliasges suggested until the welfare of the States and his own dignity indicate the occasion and the propriety of the same to his Royal mind. The advice of friendly powers will always be received with gra titude, but they will easily comprehend that what suits one (state may not be equally applicable to another." (Cheere.) I should h ave thought that the no bl e l or d , w i t h his experience of th e systemof making friendly commu nications to foreign Powers, would be the fir-t to make one of those dignified replies for which I admit he has been sometimes remar k able, and which, I think, was especially called f or on e recent occasion. The question before the hou se , b e i t observed, is simply between us and our own ex ecut i ve Government. It is not a question between the Parli ament of England and the G vern went of France. (Hear.) W e are now exercising our legitimate right of criticising the manner in which the servants of this country have fulfilled their duties, and of aece r t a i n i ng w h ether they have properly defended' the honour a n d reputat i on and dignity of England. (Cheers ) Now, I, like th e rest of the world, frequently form my opinions--in f ac t , we all do it, without being aware of it —from readi ng th e newspapers. We may not be very willing to ad m it i t, but I undertake to say t h at t h e newspapers of thi s country—such a journal, for i nstance, as the Ti,,zes —have a very considerable influence, for a short period at least, informing the opinion of the people. I have b , en a reader of the Times. and my opinions have often been very much influenced by what I have read in that journal ; and, with the permission of the house, I will take the liber y of reading a brief extract from the nnee 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 disci i rninaticg appreciation of his real character, and of the character of his foreign policy. Now, what says the Times ? (Cries from members, " Of what date ?") I am about to quote from the Times of the 22d of June, 1850. (Laughter.) I don't suppose that at hie period (it lite the noble lord at the bead of Ole Government has changed materially ei ece J une, 1850—(" hear," and a laugh)—and I believe the Times newspaper is conducted by the same persons—(laughter)—and has the tame head. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Well, the Times says of the noble lord that— " There is no constituted authority in Europe with which Lord Palmerston has not quarrePed—(a laugh)—there is no insurrection that he has not betrayed. The ardent parti sans of Sicilian, Italian, and Hungarian independence have certainly no especial cause for gratitude to a Minister who gave them abundance of verbal encouragement and then aban doned them to their fate." (Hear, hear.) "On the other hand "—mark this—" when Lord Palmerston has made up his mind to court the good-will of a foreign Power no sacrifice of principle or of interest is too great for him." (Laughter and cheers.) The passage 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 precisely from a want et such guiding laws of con duct that our foreign policy has degenerated into a tissue of caprices, machinations, petty contentions, and everlasting disputes." (Cheers and laughter.) It is because I think the mode in which this affair has been conducted is of all others the most calculated to occa don disputes with France that I take the liberty of que,tioning the discretion which has been exercised by her Majesty's Government. I agree with the noble otember for the city of Loudon that the irritating discussions that have taken place in this house might have been avoided had a more judicious policy been pursued. I believe that if a proper reply had been sent to the despatch of Count Wa ewski it is possible that we might never have been called upon to legislate upon this subject ; and, the sympathies of teis country having been expressed for the unfortunate cir cumstances 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 precluded from offering any opinion whatever with re spect to the Government of the Emperor of the French. That is a matter for the French people. I am foe non interference, and therefore I stall not set the example of entering into any discussion as to the mode in which the Government of France is carried on. The noble lord has told us that the Government of France rests on the voice of the people ; there is undoubtedly a French As. sembly elected, as it is said, by universal suffrage and vote by ballot—(eheering and general laughter) —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 ques. tion the discretion that has been exercised by the execu tive Government of this country. I now beg, sir, to place toy ameedinent in your hands. I believe that I am only discharging a legitimate and constitut.onal duty. (Cheers.) I believe that I have taken a fitting opportunity for discharging that duty ; and I have only to thank the house for the kindness and attention with which they Lave heard me. (Continued cheering.) The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, as an ameodnienr, "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 England, and expresses its detestation of such guilty enterprises ; that this house is ready at all times to assist in remedying any defects in the crimiyal law which, after due investigation, are proved to exist, yet it cannot but r gret that her Majesty's Government, previously to inviting the house to amend the law of conspi racy by the second reading of this bill at the present time, has not felt it to be their duty to make some reply to the ice. portant despatch receivedfrom the French G ,vern ',cot, dated Paris, Jan. 20, 1858, and which has been laid before Parlia ment." Sir J. V. SHELLEY having seconded the amend meet, Mr. BRINES said he would offer but a few observa tions on the questions that had been raised. The main question he took to be this—first, whether the measure now proposed on the pert of the Government was right in itself ; and secondly, if so, whether there was any valid reason why it shoul I not he immediately proceeded with in that horse. The (eject of the right honour able gentleman's amendment would clearly be this, to interpose an sletacle to proceeding with the measure, which, he Submitted, was in every way worthy of its ac ceptance, and which ought to pass into law with as little delay as possible. He could assure the right hon. gentle man that the bill had not for its object to change any one of the constitutional principles to which the people of this country were so strongly attached. If that were its object, he would not for a moment give it his support. Tee bill did no more than to assign to an offence of a particulerly dangerous non malignant character such a punishment as such an offence deserved. That efts the object of the bill. It created no difference whatever in the tribunals before which such offences would be tried, for such cases would be tried in exactly the same mann, r as ordinary offences, and precisely in the same manner as at present. There would be the same securities of grand jury, petty jury, and the ordinary formalities of law. Therefore, be said, as far as regarded the constitu tional principles of our jurisprudence, the bill left them exactly where they were. The present etato of the law in reference to cases for which the proposed bill would provide was most incongruous and inconsistent. In Eng land the offence was looked upon as a misdemeanour, punishable only as a common assault er a common nuis ance, while in Ireland it was visited with the punishment of death. It might be said that the provisions of the hill might be right in themselves, but this was not the pro• per time to introduce them ; but he thought that if the principle was right, it was unreasonable to offer any ob. jection on the score of time. He could not help think ing that a great deal of the hostility to the bill was owing to a prejudice which was indulged in before its provi sions became known, and when an opinion prevailed that it was to effect Borne important change in the prin ciples cf our jurisprudence, but that was an err or which s a a te fe re fiom rejected eon h p e i ra r e ? n t o o t he had hop e d mi g ht now have passed aw a y. If thi s bill ies mseuerdhero,wfowr, e th e i h s o tab: bill t e ti e; p er l e li d e not to foreigners alone, but to every man, woman, stud child in England. (Hear.) It had been said that the Government ought to refrain from taking steps with regard to thie bill, because an improper time had been taken by the French in , peaking of the attempt on the life of their Emperor. The Empe,eir of the French was, as bad been truly said, the spontaneous choice of tie French people, and he had been in all respects an hon ourable and faithful ally of the; country. (Cheers.) It certainly ought not to be urged that, on account of some extravagant phrases used by some persons in France, the English Government ought to refrain from passing a law which was called for by truth and justice. He thought that very great allowance ought to be made for the language o exasperation which had been used by the French in c insequence of the dastardly sttempt on the s Emperor ' life. Let those who thought differently look back upon the history of our own country ; let them remember what was done when there were attempts on the lives of Queen Elizabeth, James 1., and William 111. Did our ancestors on these occasions conduct themselves in that temperate manner which was now expected of the French I Was there no intemperance of manner, no violence of conduct, no rashness of legis lation ? (Cheers.) Well, then, let them make some allowance for the excited feelings of the Fren' h people when a cswardly attempt was made on the life of their Emperor, to which he believed they were really attached. (Cheers,) He had never known it used before as an argument in that house that if a measure was right in principle it should not be granted on account of the rash and indecorous manner in which it was asked for. Everybody knew that petitions sometimes presented to that house were couched in language of downrightin solence, and their petitions were rejected on that ac count ; but it was never urge.' that on account of their intemperate language a mea sure which the Parliament c risidered right in principle should be rejected. (Hear ) Under these circumstances, he censidered that there was no reason for rejecting this bill, which was called fir upon every consideration of truth and justice. (Crieere.) Mr. WALPOLE said he had hoped that something would have fallen from the right hon. gentleman eho had just sat down which would have induced him to continue the vote in favour of the introduction of tiles tell, by voting for its second reading, which he should have done if he had found that the Ministry intended to vindicate the honour of the country. But the right h en . gentleman, in a speech professing to he a reply to that of the mover of the amendment, had not made a single allusion to the principles which were now really under consideration. The mover of the amendment had expressed his views with great temper, and had stated more than once that it was far from his intention to wish to break up the relations between the two countries, adding most distinctly that this was a question as be tween the House of COIIIIIIOIIB representing the people and the Executive Government neglecting their duty. (Cheers.) If this were simply a discussion of the merits of the bill, as the right hon. gentleman ('sir. Beiese) had discussed without adverting in one single syllable to the real question at issue—if there were no other question before theirs hut the propriety of the bill itself—h e (Hr. Walpole) would have supported the alteration in .he law which, he believed, to be neces-dry, because he thought that sound principles should be laid down in law, and that things sliculd be called by their right names. Great questions' had been raised in this discus sion—the cause of freedom, the right of humanity, and the honour of England. There was nothing iu till.. bill to impeach the right of asylum which this county had always offered to foreign political refugees, whether crowned heads or peasants, In the name of common humanity the bill might be supported when it war proved to the house that a conspiracy had been concocted in this country. Ile would suppert the bill on this ground, but he would nut do so unless the honour of England was pre 7iously viudiested. Referring to the despatch of Count Wale:-ski, he found this passage, with reference to the alleged encouragement affirded in this (mull ry to the conspiracies ti commit the crime of as-a,• , s , nation : "It is no lon ger th e h ost i lity of erring peril's mani festing itself by all the excesses of the press and every violence of language ; it is no longer even the labour of the fictions seeking to agetate opinien and to provoke disorder; it is assassination reduced Loa d ictrine preached openly, practised in repeated attempts, the inset recent of which has just struck Europe with slope faction. Ought, then, the right of asylum to protect curb a state of things 1 Is hospitality due to assassins Should Eiiglivia legislati on serve to f avour t h e i r d es i gns an d their manceuvres, and can it continue to protect persons who place themselves by fiegrant acts outside the pale of the common law, and expose themselves to the ban of hu manity ?" In submitti ng th ese ques i ons to hi,r Britannic , Mejesty' s G overnment, the Government o f the [emperor does not m ere l y di sch a rge a duty towar d s e. self, it re echoes the Eentlment of the country, which, under the influe nce o f t h e most legitimate anxiety, ce ll s uponit to do so, and which, in a matter where the common interest among all nations and all governments is so clear, con siders itself entitled to reckon upon the concurrence of England. The repetition and the wickedness of these guilty eeterprises expose France to a danger. j aeainst which we are boundt o provide. E'er 11.1e...ty , Government can u, in eve t ting it ty adoroing us a guarant e e of security which no State can refuse to a neighbouring State, and which we are authorised to ex pect from an 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." This requisition was made by Count Walewski upon a statement which was utterly and completely unfounded in fact. To pass any such bill as that before the house with this despatch, im puting to the English legislation that it favoured assas sination, still unanswered, would be seriously to affect the honour of this country. He knew it had been said that the reason why this despatch had not been received was because the mind of the people of France was agitated at the attempt which had been made on the life of the - sovereign of their country. But was not something due to the agitated feelings Of thin country, and had not the people of England a right to demand that such charges as those contained in the deepatoh of Count Walewski sh u d 'not. be made upon the branding them as advocates of a4assination. (Hear.) The Government of this country migh , have adopted the same course as that which. had - been taken by Lord Hawkeebury, when a similar demand was made by the French Government respecting the conduct of foreign refugees, It was most improbable that her Majesty's Government should have refrained from tak ing such a step, and especially so as the matter had been pressed upon the attention at an early period of the debate on the introduction of the bill. Tney did not wish to vote against a bill which he believed to be right in ;itself on principle, but at the same time he did not wish to assist in passing a bill which would seriously affect the honour of this country. He did not know whether the Government would even now adopt the course which had been suggested, of answering in ,a proper manner this despatch of Count Waleteel - ' oft oi. No: ice his amendment was given _sore- ' oe Government hw ad had ate'' (lays sinc e , an d th e gestion. •'-‘° . r od time t o ac t upon the eue ...eication of the honour of the country had t - eatrktreffipted, - and the people of England would require from its Parliament that it should not take one single step further in passing this measure until there was a public and as authentic a record as that which contained the libel upon England —a complete vindica tion and justification of our honour. (Hear.) When that was done, the House of Commons must consider whether the bill should be proceeded with ; but until this was done, be hoped they would not incur that which the noble ldrd at the head of the_ Government imputed to them in opposing the introduction of this bill, namely, the imputation of-being humiliated and disgraced. Sir G. GREY said that the hon. and iearned member hiting approved of the principle of the bill, and ex pressed his determination to support it, in the event of a certain course being adopted, it was, therefore, unne cessary for him to discuss the principle of the bill. He was surprised to hear that the hon. member should have insinuated anything like an indifference to the honour of the country on the part of her Majesty's Government. On a previous occasion it had been stated that her Majesty's Government had flatly refused to deal in any manner with the refugees in this country except in accordance with the law of the land. Although no 1 -rural despatch had been written on this subject, it had been fully and distinctly understood what was the course which her Majesty's Government had decided upon adopting. It would have been very easy for his noble friend at the head of the Foreign ffice to have written a despatch on the model of that of Lord Hawkes bury ; and this, no doubt, would have been popular with a great part of the country, but it might not have tended to improve the relations between the two countries, or in the least degree to diminish the difficulties with which the question was •surrounded. The paragraph in the despatch to which allusion bad been made charging the preaching into a doctrine of the crime of assassina tion' did not, he contended, r e f er t o th e peop l e of Eng land, but to some foreigners resident in this country who were well known to have acted in a manner described by Count Walewski, and such as every Enelishman must abhor and detest. He cautioned the house against sup posing that it would have been quite so easy to have penned a despatch in reply to that referred to without appearing to impute to the French Government that it bad unjustly libelled the people of this country. Be sides, it was well known that there were persons residing in this country who were actually conspiring against tt.e life of the Emperor, and her Majesty's Government could not in consequence take that lofty tone on the subi'. ot which might have been wished. Then, too, if a conerefaint had been made on the subject of this despatch, k. would have been necessary to have referred to *he publication of the addresses of the army in the Moniteur. Bus it was certainly very much better that the Governmonthad not done so, and thus avoided placing on record an aoknow ledgment of their existence, while they received from the Government of France the expression of a regret ' thatthose addresses had bees permitted to appear. After ,this bill was passed there could be no objection to the Holum of Commons placing on record the reasons which bad induced it to abstain in any degree from infringing the right of asylum, or asking for an extraordinary power to be applied by the Government in dealing with foreign refugees, in accordance with the suggestion con tained in the despatch of Count Walewski.. That might be a course when it would be fitting and dignified to adopt,, and which the differences whien existed between British subjects and foreigners, relative to the crime of conspiracy to murder, it might be done with consider. able effect, inasmuch as they might state with truth that in this matter the foreigner was upon precisely the same footing as our own subjects. Reference had been made to the despatch written by Lord Rawkesbury, and it had been asked why bad not the Government adopted a si milar course. But the circumstances were very different from those existed in the present day, and the two Governments were on the eve of a war, while we were now in a state of close and intimate alliance, But Lord, Hawkesbury had in fact consented at the dictation ref the French Government to send to Canada sortie perst e t e whose names had been mentioned in the French, de spatch, to which that of Lord Hawkoebury ekees an answer. Was that the dignified course which Eh a hon,e was prepared to recommend as a model for her lklaje e t 3 o a Government in the present day. (Cheers ?) If the prin ciple of the present bill was affiitned, the G. 'Atom - tient might then with, truth and dignity int arr a Count Walewski that there was no difference venatever in theeew between the British subject and for e',gn refugees respecting conspiracies against foreign poweers. At pre sent they c - old not say that such was th‘e state of things in this country. Asa proof of this there was one British. subject for whose apprehension a v /arrant had beet, issued on the capital offence of bein te; mom ory t o a murder in France, white a foreign I..er agee arrested for the same offence was only charged( with a tnisdemea nour. He believed that the bill Iva?, a useful one, and if, passed would place us upon an ottoassailable footing as regarded the-charges which migb.t be brought against us by foreign countries. He tru-'at2d, therefore, that the house would not recede from ',too position which it had taken on the introduction of lel ee (Hear, hear ) Mr. M'MAHON thought that the opinion of the judges ought to have been taken on the state of the law of conspiracy, and if it hf'id, been found to have been inefficient the Government might then have brough', forward a bill to remedy tb e law. But he contended that the existing law was &triply sufficient to punish the offence of conspiring to esiurcibr. In support of his opi nion he referred to ar.. - Gr eaves , w h o, i n hi s new edi tion of " Hawkins 's Ple as of the Crown," described the nature of the punisinv,ent awarded for such offences. This he (L%fr. M'Mahoeo) contended was more severe and more effective than tbott provided by the bill before the house. Under the present law, in addition to impri sonment, the judge had the power of calling upon the offenders. to find securities for their future conduct. The- 61.71 , while it did not increase the severity of the po:nishment would greatly increase the difficulty of conviction, inasmuch as under the new bill the crime would be changed from felony to misdemeanour, and the party charged, if a foreigner, would be entitled to a jury consisting of one-half aliens, and would have the right of challenge of twenty of the jurors. The experience of Ire and was (against the introduction of the bill. The only object of the bill therefore was to give the Government a power of espionage over the re fugees, which they could not possess as long as the offence remained a misdemeanour. Make the offence a felony, and the police hied at once given a power to search houses and examine papers merely on suspicion. Happily in England - there was no one interested in abusing the powers of the law ; but it was notorious that foreign Governtuse is would resort to any means to hunt obnoxious refugees out of the country. It would be better for them at (owe to proclaim to refugees that England could no ,longer Barbour them, and that it would be safer for them • to leave the country than remain to be made t'ae victims of a foreign police. Mr. BYNG said., that although be ould yield to no one in his detestation of the horrible machination. against the life of the Emperor of the French, he in tended to vote for the amend. o ent moved by, the right hon. member -for Ashton. Ho would add that he thought much of the language that bad been used in that houseieith reference to. the bill ought at once to be deprecated ; while, on the other baud, a great deal too much had been made of ;the language adopted by the French military officers, ursore especially after the hand some apology which had been offered for that language. (Hear.) Bathe could not help thinking that both the time was ill-chosen forth PP introduction of such a change, as well as the chang e itoilf unnecessary. Had E ng l an d ever refused to put the a xteting law in motion ? Oe the contrary, there were Vireo signal instances in which the law had been remarkably enforced. At the same i us, he feared this measure, if passed into law, would not produce either in Franee or on the Continent the effect which was desired: while. on the other fAnd, he could not perchive that the eouesequenee of such legislation all over Europe must be to lower the reputation of England. He thought that an ant-war ought to have b 412 sent to the despatch of Count 'Walewski, and believed that the sagacious man at the her el of the French empige would have been greatly appeas ed by the general expression of syMpathy evinced by the people of England at his escape from assasinaii n. The vote which he was about to give might not be successful, but most certainly it would be given with sincerity. B:o bad lived to be made to love Engli h laws, and not so ling any necessity for the cl'ange now asked fos, he s.houldr, vote for the amendment of the right hon. member for A. diton. Mr. SPOONER was gleel that no answer had been sent to this despatch, which wculei hare is creased the irritation between the two countries. If such a despatch had been sent it could only have be en a full one, which would have entered upon dangers us subjects. •He would have them pass the bill, and then do what the Home Secretary had proposed—place our or de Lions on record as to the sanc tity of asylum. The mode .o f meeting the bill by the pro posed resolution was neith or fair nor Parliamentary. He defended the bill as good, j net, and necessary. Lord H. VANE express( d his regret that the despatch bad not bean answered, but could not consider that we had been insulted by the French .Government after the apology we had received. He shout support the second reading of the bill. Mr. BEN TINCK said t hat the adoption of the resolu tion would place us in a m oat difficult position with regard to France. Letthem deal with Mho bi 1 without referenso to Oxtrancous matter or thet r .opiniort of foreign nations. To place it upon record that we declined a measure which we knew to be just on account of what would be said of us abroad, was to place the country in the lowest state of de gradation. The accusation of preaching assassination con tained in the despatch, was meant, not of the people of England, but of the refugees. Sir R. PEEL—I contented myself with a silent vote on the introduction of this measure, but now, after having had an opportunity of reading its - provisions, I am anxious to give some explanation of the feelings which I entertain upon a subject so important and so interesting. (Hear.) I have listened with great attention to the speech of the Prime Mi nister, and also to ',bat of the right hon, gentleman the late member for Manchester —(laughter)—l mean the member for Ashton, and I must say that I agree with the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Bentinck), who characterised the speech of the right bon. gentleman as a most able and mode rate statement; but, on the other hand, I think the speech of the noble lord the Prime Minister tended to lead us astray from the direct question at issue. (Hear.) I think the ques tion is one of very;great importance, and one which, while it should in no way be exaggerated, should at the same time be con.idered calmly and dispassionately. lam asto nished that the head of a 'Liberal Government ilhould pro pose a bill to Parliament which is opposed by all the most distinguished Liberals in this house. (Cries of " No, no !") Well, almost all the most distinguished Liberals have spoken against it ; while, on the other hand, those who are the political opponents of the noble viscount have giv... it that modest support in which eloquence al-- acts. (A laugh.) The nohl. • ...es the pas to aeu the member for London and patriotic speech against the bill, and _ -quence of the hon. and leaf ned member for Sheffield, on the same aide, may be taken as an accurate interpreta tion of the eublie feeling (Hear, heater It is true that the Solicitor-General, who is certainly not the man to hazard such an opinion, has raid that the speech of the hon. and learned member for Sheffield was not very power ful in point of argument, yet the house and the country think otherwise, as is proved by the impression which that speech has everywhere produced. (Hear, hear.) The ques tion before the house involves two important considera tions, one relating to the change to be introduced into our law, and the other to the occasion which has sug gested the introduction of the present bill. We have heard the legal part of the subject discussed in all its bearings, Ido not pretend to assert that the treatment of aliens or foreigners residing in England should not be subordinate to the interests of our own community ; but I do say that no obscure or definite restrictions should be placed upon refugees, so long as, irrespective of the suggestions of foreign policy, they obey our laws, do not interfere with the policy of our Government, or abuse that sacred right of asylum which we are proud to extend to thorn when fleeing from persecution in the land of their birth. The asylum which we gave them is liable to abuse, as every enactment we can frame, no matter how stringent its pro visions, is liable to be evaded or transgressed, The noble viscount seems to think otherwise, for he is calling upon us to increase the penalty attaching to conspiracy to mur der, in order, as he says, to prevent the commission of that offence. If you do pass such a law let it, I implore you, be so clear and precise that it may be intelligible to all. The present bill does not fulfil that condition. If the noble viscount had described it as an alteration of the law re quired by the exigencies of the times, or as %measure of legal reform which he had long known to be necessary, we might have been prepared to adopt it. Could he prove to us that the law in its existing state favours the commission of crimes such as that rece:ely attempted in Paris, I would be one of the first to say "let us amen d i t. " But the re verse is the 'fact. The Home Secretary the other Light passed a - severe censure upon the Lord Chief Justice for having ventured to express an opinion as to the sufficiency of the present law, but we are bo un d t o respec t th e di cta of our highest legal authorities, and when two such men as Lord Brougham and Lord Campbell agree in saying that the existing law is adequate for all: necessary purposes we must suffer ourselves to be influev ced by such powerful tes timony. The Solicitor-Genera); it is true, has expressed a different opinion, but he die, not throw much light upon the questi on — ( a laugh)—e,nd I have not yet heard the Attorney-General, temergh I have been waiting aux ously to see him juenp to his feet. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) If he Vold us that the bill was absolutely necessary, he my;trt induce us, with his placid manner and persuasive ;eloquence —(a laugh) —to support it ; but as yet nothing has been said to show that the existing law requires amseedrnent. We have been told that a reward of 2001. has b'een offered for the capture of Mr. Allsop, and that a Frenchman named Bernard has been apprehended upen a warrant of the Treasury. (No, no.) Well, the ritistake is trivial. Upon a warrant of the Home Office; at all events, M. Bernard has been taken up. (A laugh.) What happened at his examination before Mr. Jardine, the police magistrate, on Monday last? Mr. . Bodkin —(great laughter, caused by the contemptuous tone in which the hon. baronet pronounced the name of the Well known barrister) —who said that he appeared to conduct the case against WO prisoner on behalf of the Treasury, concluded his opreniug speech with the following curious remarks :—" It leas been decided that persons guilty of libels against a foreign Sovereign can be indicted in this country, and it. would be strange," continued lawyer Bodkin—(laugl rter)—" if under the same law it was not an offence tocciv.spire to commit murder on the person of an individual holding that position." Now, the Horne Secretary hate distinctly told us that the attention of the Government..' was called to a defect in the law, and yet we are informr,d. by Mr. Bodkin that the law is amply suffi cient to ac complish the object which it is intended to sere() (Hear.) Ceter authorities differ, but lam disposed to believe that the 'crew is adequate, seeing that you can seize M. Ber nard ant's have a reward lef 2006 . offered f or th e cap t ure of Mr. Al.leop. (A. laugh.) I could not help smiling the other might at the strange doctrine laid down by the noble viscount at the head of the Government. From the year 1822,, - when Sir James Macintosh moved a resolution to the effec.t that the efficiency of our criminal laws was to be in' crereeed by an abatement of their undue rigour, up to the pr event time the chief aim of the Legislature has been to re racier our code less severe. Now, however, in 1838, the o .oble viscount proposes to increase the penalty a tt a ching to a particular offence, with the view of making th e law more efficient for its purpose, thus reversing the practise of - Yearliament for the last 35 years. (Hear.) But, after all, to come to the real gist of the question, the bill of the noble viscount, though degrading to the country; is a mere sham. The truth is that under cover of an alteration of the law a bill has been submitted to Parliament at the dic• tetion of a foreign Government. (Cheers.) lam sur prised that the noble viscount should have allowed such an unwarra table interference. If he can refute the reports which are abroad let him do so at once, for I must say that nothing could be more insulting to us, or more de grading to our souse of criminal justice, than to be tol that because six or e i g ht a tt em pt s h ave b een ma de a g ainst the life of Louis Napoleon we must-consider ourselves re. sponsible for them. (Hear, hear.) In common with all my countrymen, I abhor and det es t assass i na ti on , not only because of its atrocity, but on account also of its cowardice. (Cheers.) Observe, however, the extreme unfairness which has characterised the conduct of the French Government in the present instance. An attempt is made against the life of Louis Napoleon, and straightway Count Walewski aoou.es Mazzini, Ledru Rollin, and Campanella of being implicated in the plot. • These persons are residing in this country ; no evidence whatever has been brought against them—(hear, hear) —but they are Republicans, and there fore are charged with complicity in the recent attempt in France. Let us change the persons. Louis Napoleon has himself resided i n England, a pretender to the throne of France, and during the period of hi s st a y h ere se veral at tempts were mad against the life of Louis Philippe. (Hear, hear.) No honourable man can suppose that Louis Napoleon or Count Persigny, who also at that time en joyed the hospitality of England, had anything to do with those attempts, and yet, if Mazzini, Ledru Rollin, a nd Campanella are chargeable with the recent enterprise lit Paris, the present Emperor of the French may fairly be held responsible for the attempts against Louis Philippe. (Hear.) The question now before us is both delicate and dangerous ; it has many aspects, and is differently judged a t different times by the same men. We all know that Conn; Persigny himself, a very amiable gentleman, was at one time a legitimist of the first class, the friend of the Ducbe.sae de Berri, while it is equally notorious that in 1849 M. Baroche declared himself a Republican de la eiejle• (Hear.) And n 'el those persons come forward and tell us we must not harbour men who so long as they reside in thil country and do not commit any • crime against the laws have a right of asylum in it. (Hear.) Does this bour forget that in 1818 the odious doctrine was openly preached in France that kings and queens are all robbers of th; people's rights ? Did we protest against that ? (He ar') Did we say anythi ng a b ou t th e i r press at that time ? of yet M. Walewski, forsooth, now talks about the license, the English p ress . Sir, I think he is one of the last w h o should have dared to arty or to insinuate anything aga inst the liberty o f th e press i n t hi s coun t ry . (Cheers.) L et us look at thi s l e tt er o f M . W a l ews ki f o r a moment ;, bu t, before doing so, permit me to say that, while I regret ex ceedingly that no sufficient answer was made to this dome• ment by her Majesty's Government, I never read a diplo: matic despatch so shallow or so destitute of point. (Hear.) The attempt which led to the writing of this despatch 0 0 " gunned on the 14th of January, and six days afterwards Count Walewski writes to M. Persigny to say that the French Government find fault with the system going' on hem and beg for some a lt era ti on. N o answer bass told sent, but the right ho n . gen tl eman (S ir G. G re y) has us to-night that if w e p ass th e second rea di ng of this that an answer will be sent. (Cheers.) Sir, I must say this is about th e mos t un di gn ifi e d p rocee ding I ever • heard of and one most u n wo r thy of th e decision which the conduct of the Gove rn' ought to have character ized rnbill innt ma e n . wh T o h r i e s a desp dsE a e t g c l h is signed .edit C ount t ye Mr ar aw s l a e go ak w i a a s n d iri t in he . his sole b s yC n u self a member of the revolutionary committee in Poland. (Laugh.) This is the gentleman who now tells us "It was in England that Pianori formed the design of attacking the Emperor ; it was from London that, in an affair the recol lection of which is still fresh, Mazzini, Ledru B,ollin, ntbi Campanella directed th e hi re d b ravoes whose hand they ha d armed." Let me make a remark in reference to that stet:: meet. Two men w h o wore taken up in France for 31 1 a tempt, or for bei ng suppose d to have been implicatedll o, attempt on the life of Louis Napoleon,. were examiner en _ to the supposed comp li city of Mazzini and Ledru Bem`" but the answers they gave on that occasion were so utte rly._ absurd es to be wholly useless fer the purpose to which th e examination was directed. Again, M. Walewski talks of this being the country " where th e au th ors o f the l ate conspiracy prepared at leisure their means of a ction _ studied and fabricated the in s t rumen t s o f d es t r uctionyf ._ which they made use, and th ence s t ar t e d t o execu te the ir plan." With respect to that l would only say that so long as these men reside in thi s country they obey that they our laws' It is only when they go t o B e l g i um and France concoct these scheme s o f assassina ti on w hi c h fill th e 00 of all honourable men with horror and indignation. (grl hear.) Then he talks of " th e 'h os tility of misgui ued i victuals, manifesti ng it se lf b y a ll the excesses of the pre*: and all the violences o f l ang u age ," a ddi ng th a t assassin s tion is elevated as a doetrine and openly preached in this country. Now, I will say that never was au assertion. t :"_'; unfair than that. (Cheers.) To tell us that the doctrin e assassination is openly preached in this country ! Why , 9 0 is there a man out of France who would not scorn to gi_ f o edit to such a foul insinuation ? (Cheers.) The whele_ r u e . this despatch throughout is one that I have read veitn,v_ e i e; great regret, seriously aggravated as the tenour of It , ° s or33 the unworthy insinuations against this country whic h contains. But it is said an ap 'logy ha-, been ma le. ',lay think that apology adequate, but I for can n o t one ra. _ :t admit that it is, seeing that after an assertion was e t e u e s',. Louis Nap e its information from Knightsbridge, that that part of the public press which is supposed to r language that had been held towards this country, b ee and his Government regretted the insertion of the vil; state in that paper. (Hear, hear.) And those ments of the most severe and unseemly kind have Joe": to made ments appeared after it was supposed that an ap o logy e rp,d been made for the insults that had been offered (Hear, hear.) Geo said, "May thee murderers, the hired agents of black deed., receive able • hment which is their desert in that repaire the puma this country. 'n senPli laughte!)—and may that inf e rnal den _ these assassinations are hatched be des troyed f o r erg' no bl e lord (A. laugh.) must say heard with regret t h e has made a Mini. — the 01..-.