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

,~ .~. • -: Tilt' SUN, Nay that be could not deny that to a certain extent ill.; Country was a den of assassins. (Hear.) I must say thee it ia an expression unworthy the noble lord and the po,i. tion he halls. He says, you must not think too much ef these expressions, because they are not inconsistent with the usage which has long prevailed among the milit-ry authorities in France, and he adds that they have been in serted in the paper in question inadvertently. Knowing as we do that the public press of France is gagged, and that many of its literary m e n have bee n ex p a t ria t e d , I say it is idle to say that these articles have been inserted inad vertently. No, sir, they were inserted for the purpose of intimidating this country— (no no ! and cenntor cheers) — and for the purpose of extorting from us the concession embodied in this bill, which I regret the noble lord, with all his past antecedents and his former credit, shoul • have condescended to introduce at the instance of such dicta tion. (Cheers.) But, when it is said •n apology has been made for the insertion of those offensive addresses from the colonels and oth er o ffi cers o f the army in France, would ask has any apology been offered for the very strong and unseemly expressions that recently fell from the Presidents of the two Legislative Chambers of France, both of whom appear to have been utterly forgetful of their p os iti on, an d o f t h at careful expression of feeling and dignified demeanour which are so conspicuous in the per sons holding kindred offices in thiscouetry? (Hear.) What does M. de Morny say? Why, that England is a lair of Savage beastsand a laboratory of assassins. (Laughter.) I am ready to make every excuse for the courtiers of Louis Napoleon— (a laugh)—l know perfectly well the conditions attaching to a position like that. M. de Morny is only a Predecessor in the office he holds in the time of itnitati e , " Chmunpigny—who said his master the first Napoleon— n. ' -flaughter)---sent from Napoleon Bonaparte was an angel —, Heaven to bless that time , and, like the grea .. t . l . nvisible Being, he governed the world by his p ower and hisinflu ence. (A laugh ) Sir. I must sly these expressions are rather far-fetched. But the other day an expression far more powerful was used towards Louis Napoleon by one of his flatterers, who thus apostrophised him in the course of an address he was presenting, " Sire, you are too fond of liberty." (Laughter.) I think, after that, we may well ex claim with Madame Roland, "O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name !" But, Sir, this bill was not considered necessary , I ,.iefore the commencement of this ses sion. It has only been etonsidere necessary after what Passed on the 14th of Tannery. Now, sm9 of us opposed the bill on the fmm-st reading, and yet I rine sorry to say that it has been insinuate•l that we did so philo-assessio , as we are called. (Laughter.) I have heard that expression used on more than one occasion. Now, we who oppose this • bill d , n't want to preserve the right of asylum for persons tire Orsini and Pierri, or f •r assassins of any deer , ip t i on. We °pose this bill on motives the most censsien'aous and the most pure, believing, as we do, that if it passes into law, it will b e a tt en d e d with injurious consequences to the best interests of the country. (Cheers.) I agree with the right hon. gentleman that we should have given some ex- Premien of our horror and our detestation of this wicked attempt. I should have been ready to join in such an ex pression, which would, I am sure, have been unanimously concurred in by this house. But, Sir, we can't consent to agree to a bill which is evidently submitted as a lesson to this house atthe dictation of those who should have known our true sentiments better than to ask us to pass such a Piece of fancy legislation. I have said th a t thi s bill i s pro - Posed tons by aLiberel Government, by members of the Liberal party, and is supported by those who have little sympathy naturally with the noble lord. Ido not regret that this bill is submitted to us by the noble lord the pre sent Prime Minister. I should have thought he, at all events, would have been the very last man to condescend to come before the house with such a meesure. (Hear.) We have at this moment three ex-Prime Ministers, two of 'whom take an active share in public life. I ask this house they think the noble lord the member for London (Lord J. Russell) would have come down here and have proposed a bill of this natnro ? No, you must feel quite certain his spirit would have rejected with indignation such a sugges tion._e (Hear, hear.) I ask you, the right hon. gentlemen who sit opposite, and who are to a certain extent the re- Preseetati yes of the opinions of another ex-Prime Minister, , 3 "_bethe r , if he had been in power, that noble lord would have consented to propose such a rneasume to the House of Commons? Over and over again has the noble lord (Lord b Pa lmerston) taunted right hon. gentlemen in this house efore the Crimean war and during that war with truckling lo foreign P owers . I as k thi s h ouse , wou ld th ose m i g ht :tfin. gentlemen have truckled 100tb part so much as this if passed, would make us truckle ? (Cheers.) I will 2, 111 . Y refer to the speech of Lord Derby ou the first night of ' 4,0 session in the House of Lords. [The Speaker— !' Order."] Well, Sir, in another place. (Laughter.) I remit say that speech was a noble expression of opinion on the pert of the noble lord. (Cheers.) I Nay that speech in Mother place was a worthy expression of the public feeling of this country, and one which ought to have found an echo in the mouth of the Prime Minister of England. But it is now a very serious and important question. We have this bill submitted to us by one who had a European re futation for dictating rather than for accepting advice. ; recollect that years ago the noble lord read some sharp le ssons in c ons tit u ti ona l hi s t ory t o th e Q ueen of Stain, and :il 3 Oll another occasion he nearly set all Europe by the ears Z3' Y thrusting his " pecificating" policy down the throat of e King oeGreece. (Chem, and laughter.) This bill is to have become so changed that he lea whose ves tw p o ini of our ap poor n nbeedt countrymen to pine unaided and unprotected thedung ns of Salerno. (Loud cheers.) This is not character he uce bore. In 1850 the noble lord was a gone Roman citizen." er (Laughter.) That time, alas ! has long 1 e °11 , 1 6 hY• I well recollect when the noble lord delighted le de scant upon the blooming prospects of freedom in every th r ll . when h e eves accustomed to advocate the exte ns i on are , c bgbout th e wor ld o f freedom, improvement, and pro - And gas How often has he raised a cheer in his own favour they advocated that despoti m which he despised ! More Va° that, I remember when he told us that our union with itrree depended upon mutual interests and identity of itutic mam Times have, indeed, sadly changed, but Ido ,_l3ctleat, during tho existence of the present regime in se e., d at all events the noble lord will not attempt to eaoupc here identity s e e . , re identity of institutions. (Cheers and laugh ), .1 desire as much as any man to see those feelings of . 4 e,, B e til itY that once existed between France mind Eogland Mace t • • teem . , more satisfactory sentiments of mutua con sole ~ would give anything consistently with the honour .I, l „,u_uignity of my country to promote such a union be tkven the two nations. (Hear.) But I must say Ido not 4 41 iik by the introduction of this bill you are contributing such an end. (Hear.) To my mind the bill bears upon its face more than any other bill which has been submitted to,, Parliament during the last 50 years the s tamp, t o u se the words of Byron, of _ „ ” Meanness, and weakness, and sense of shame, % %lust which thou canst net strive, thou durst not murmur." ge ar.) Against this bill we now protest, and although (4,4 Accidental majority of 2 member was obtined— anghter)—yes, an accidenta oo l majority s , for it did e not re- Lesent one-third of the totality of this housa,—notwith 7acthce that acc id en t a l m a j or ity, I trust, upon con tS.eration this house will be disposed to resist the further gress of this measure. (Hear hear.) At all events I say, while thanking the house for the indulgence with .!.dcb it has ',listened. tome, that I think this bill is fraught ta with tZ— co nsiderable danger; and that I, for one, will give it continuous and pertinacious opposition. (Cheers.) I i t ; the will never give a vote which I may think will have win" e smallest degree the effect—and I believe this bill e fr i ;; - of tren c hi ng upon th e i mpact an d i nv i o l a bl e free soil Country. (H ear , h ear .) I, f or one , w i ll never give thisl e That may h ave th e effeet, as I believe the p-aising of ti k j 43 °ill would have, of circumscribing the liberal hospi '4' with which we b have ever received ch eers the political fugi (t el " every ) time and the unhappy exiles of every land. °ad kr * TIE rias h i• , NLEY said that when he first read the amend foe remarked—" How is man to vote against that, ti e 44 1 e," as true as the Gospel ?" The right hon. gentleman ,orne Secretary had admitted that an answer ought eibi l ltve been sent to the despatch. How, then, was it pos vi, for th em t o give a vote against the amendment. He the quite ready to give the Government very credit fox :t" Aiotives which had induced them to bring this bill be e the h ouse. If that despatch were not answered there d be a foundation laid for future demands of a similar e""re- As to th e bill i tse lf , h e t h oug h t, though ()Wee c the i n some respects, it would be an improvement ofue ex i sting law, and would afford greater protection to really innocent pei so This was not a question between this country and au, France,w L e s but between the house and . _the_ Government; in not answering dthaht whether the have done so, and therefore he woul d support the amend (ETear, hear.) The LORD ADVOCATE would oppose the amendment 'because if carried it would be fatal to the bill. The right b an. gentleman (fr. Henley) asked how could the house avoid voting for the amendment, inasmuch a- , it was true ? Ilecause it Wad no amendment. It had nothing to do with th e second reading of the bill. Both motions might be voted for by any hon. member of the house as sepa rate !notions, but the motion of the right hon. gentleman (M r. Gibson) might, oven if true, be negatived simply be cense it was not an amendment. He (the Lord Advocate) Would not go at any length into the legal questions involved in the bill itself. Lawyers had differ, d as to the necessity of the bill, but there could be no difference as to the propriety of Punishing those en gaged in a conspiracy to murder with a severity equal to that proposed in the bill. He was happy to think that a conspiracy to murder was a rare offence in this country " -- (hear, hear) —but still it was necessary to deter as far as Possible parties from the commission of this crime, and that was the object of this bill. Bat then it was said, You are doing this under foreign dictation, and you are _res.ting a doubt about that protection which this country 14 . alway s thrown over those who claimed our hospitality." d • ;he bill had that tendency he would not support it. He f i l " not think that we were likely to increase the credit we vrli f or a dignified vindication of onr liberty by making re ° o,ot protestations of that kind. The beginning of the w i7. 4 etion of the right hon. gentleman related to matters i„'riwere not before the house, such as th e recen t outrage tica and - the proposEd amendment of the criminal and concluded with an expression of regret that the "spatch of Count Walewski was not answered. But was thatlo to refuse to read the bill a second time because important, delicate, and difficult questions bad been raised during the debate, and many thi ngs had been said which had better been suppressed. There was no doubt that a disgraceful outrage h a d b een perpetrated in France, by th/which many innocent persons had suffered, and the life of e Emperor endangered ; and there could be no doubt at the guilty parties were persons who had taken advan tage of the laws and hospitality of England. The French ? ° teinment and the peOple naturally felt indignant 0 ; such proceedings ; but he contended that the despatch th e Count Walew , ki, though calling the attention of j„" British Government to these crimes, contained no l ac insulting to the people of this country. The h 4 ch Gov ernmen t were entitled to say, Th ese men ve hatched a conspiracy against the Emperor of the e renc h. and w e w i s h y ou t o c onsider whether y ou oug h t to ttend to these mur d erers , and assassins, and th e i r abet b°?4 the hospitality shown to strangers generally." That couldb e 80 , was it no t r i g ht t o cons ider wheth er our laws a improved The house expressed that opinion by 1 : 1 0 4 : " Ins ielitY. and he (the Lord Advocate) thought the te a tialnent of this country had acted wisely in not reply higher. the despatch, but in first enacting a law affixing a scev, denomination of punishment to offences of the de. ity,,,V;:in 'referred to. Be also thought it wise not to an- Wh at despatch until the Government had fret seen h : itind of amendments of the bill would be proposed. thi n °P i and gh.) It would hare been the easiest it et tln b the world to have written a smart despatch, but and h e er not to increase the irritation that prevailed, 4 15 6 thought the noble lord at the head of the Govern fot'p.titcotild well afford td act with moderation, temper, f 'cce, and patience. (Hear. ) cl'u t t h r i;?... L4D STONE said the principal part of the speech '-'"rti Advocate referred to the merits .of the bill `l4 the 11 °118° hadbeeu invited to read a second time. Ire (41. Ma ',steno) would advisedly pass by that -art of ire speech -f the learned lord. He showed a die' sitiou t mix two discussions which had better be kept apart, .n -I from the considn• .time of which the greatest mischief might arise. It was hard on the house that they should be called upon to discuss questions connected with the criminal law and the security of the private rights of every Englishman under tha menace of a foreign power. (Cheers.) Both the motion and the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gibson) rendered essential assistance to the house in separating the political and juridical parts of the question. He did not agree with the hon. member for Cambridge that the proposed change would be bene ficial. He thought, on the contrary, that it was open to grave and serious objections. In such matters he would submit to the opinion of high legal authorities, but here he had no such guide, for the bill was introduced by the Prime Minister of the Crown, who was not a lawyer, and it was recommended on grounds neither legal, social, English, nor purely political. (Hear, hear ) What was the language of the learned lord (Advocate.) He made two allegations with reference to the amendment, first, that it would, if carried, he fatal to the bill, and secondly, that the amendment had nothing to do with the bill, and then he proceeded to state that any member of the house might vote for both the amendment and the bill. (Cheers.) It had been stated that the amendment had nothing to do with the bill, Nd doubt that statement of the Lord Advocate was a very convenient statement, and it was clear that he wished to turn it to the beet ad vantage. They bad heard that night that they were called upon to debate whether a paltrydiplomatic correspondence was complete or not, as if diplomatic correspondence could mean nothing but red tape—(hear, hear)—but when they spoke of diplomatic correspondence they spoke of that which decided the question of war or of peace, and by which the well being of nations was maintained. It had been said that theere was too much chicane about diplo matic correspondence, but it represented oneof the highest functions of civilisation • for it said that though in times past all disputes were settled by the sword, the reason of man by this means steps in and peace was maintained. The question, therefore, in this case is, whether the na t ionic! honour has been vindicated, and whether the House of Com-eons should approve of the course which has been pursued. (Hear.) The lea. ned lord objects to the amend ment, and asks why it was not taken on the introduction of the bill. Why, the objection was taken by an hon. member opposite -(hear)—and by my right hon. friend the member for Wiltshire; and there was, moreover, a reason why a e-ember of th e Government should have re membered it, for it was not only reads, but the medicine did not fail in its results. They had two questions to con ei er--first, whether the despatch had been answered, and again, wuether it should not be answered before they gave their assent to the present bill. He was one who greatly regretted discussions of the present kind. Other opportu nities would arise for discussing th estate of their relations with France, and be would now confine himself to the question immediately before the house. No one could more apprecia-e than he did the importance of their alliance with France, but he felt it was a bad principle generally for a nation to draw a distinction between one nation and another with regard to these alliances. Still, as regarded the relations between England and France, a peculiar exception should b e ma d e . O w i ng to their close neighbourhood much good arose from their ami cable relations; and, on the contrary, much evil and mis chief resulted from their dissensions. He believed that was so generally felt in Europe, that neither in the Queen's Speech, nor in any other way, was any uneasy feeling caused in other countries, because peculiar reference was ma ie to the state of their relations with France. (Hear.) He said, tnerefore, tha- they e are bound to give every con fidence to the Government of France. Tested by his acts, this country never had a inure faithful ally than the Em peror of the French (Hear.) He felt bound to regret that, since the peace of 1856, there had arisen a variety of ques tions which seemed to have impaired the alliance— snob as the question of the Isle of Serpents, the question of the Priecipalities, and the question of the Suez Canal. All that he deeply lamented, and he felt that those quarrels had weakened the Government in its connection with the French Government up till that time, when the event occurred which they had all greatly to regret, and which had led to the introduction of the aresent measure. They had first, however, to inquire whether the despatch had been an swered, and if it had not, whether it should be answered. He wit was not easy sometimes to get an answer from Government—(hear, and a laugh) —but on the present oc casion that complaint did not exist, for several answers had been given. The questions had been anticipated by the noble lord at the heal of the Government, who referred to the despetch in terms rather emphatic. He said it had not been answered, and could not be answered. The noble lord had, however, since informed them that the despatch had been answered, and answered verbally; and he (Hr. Glad stone) was bound to say that of all the explanations that had been given that was the worst—(hear, hear) —and if there was no other ground for the motion of his right honour able friend (Mr. M. Gibson), that fact, he thought would have be n sufficient. Verbal answers were most objection able, for they could be introduced at will, as they could be withdrawn at will, and by a failure they might be altoge ther altered. Stich a thing was besides contrary to the roles laid down for furnishing_information to the house ; that, in his opinion, it called for the notice of the house. He was reminded again, that the learned lord (the Lord Advocate) said it would have been wrong to have an swered the despatch at the time, and that it would have been impolitic to have done so. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) thought Lot d Clarendon had sufficient judgment and con trol over his temper to have enabled him to have given a proper and temperate reply. ( Hear, hear.) But the house had had yet another answer. The right hon. the Home Secretary had told them it should be answered. Sir G. GREY—I said it may be answered. Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, it may be answered ; but the , ight hon. gen'lemen told them that when the bill was read a second time the despatch would be answered. Now, however strong language may be, and however entirely untrue, yet it ought not to be called insulting or offensive, unless they were intentionally so. Now, he could not think a foreigner to blame if, under the circumstances that had occurred in France, he committed great errors in 'speaking of the laws of this country. Yet this despatch does contain allegations most untrue and injurious to this country. It was said, in one part of the despatch, that " assassination waselevated to adoctrine, and wasp eached openly in this country." That was charged against Eng land ? Was that true. (Hear, hear.) Was assassination ele vated to a doctrine, and preached openly iu this country? (Hear, hear.) Was any man conscious of the fact ? (Hear, hear.) The law was sufficient to correct it, why, then, had there not been an appeal to the law ? (Hear, hear.) If assassination had been elevated to a doctrine and preached openly, it has been tolerated by those who ought to have applied to Government to put it down. The imputation was one which ought not to be lightly made, end should not have been made against this country. He thought England had some character in the matter of asea , sinatiou, for it was a crime which heel never taken root in this country. That charge then was one which should not have been raised. As to the reference to the Press, they had to recollect that in 1856, at the Conference in Paris, a proposal was introduced with respect to the law as it affected the Press in Belgium, and he spoke on this subject is the friend of the liberty of the Press. (Hear ) When this attack was meditated against the Belgian Press they had to recollect that Belgium was one of the brightest soots in Europe, and that she was not represented at the Conferences. (Hear, hear.) When Governments get committed to a course of action as in i his instance, against the Press, they get inv lved in no slight diffi cu lty. The House of Commons was not, however, committed, though the Government might be. There weir another very objec tionable paragraph in the despatch, in which it was asked, " Ought the English Legislature to countenance or favour their designs and their plans, and give shelter to men who placed themselves out of the pale of humanity ?" It was there distinctly stated that the English Legislature gave countenance to assassins, to men w h o placed themselves out of the pale of society. (Hear, hear.) After statements such as these had been made, and bad not been answered, they were asked by this despatch to alter the laws of Eng land without a decent inquiry. Now, that despatch should have been answered, and before the house had been asked to legislate, it should have had something like evi dence to warrant it in agreeing to a change in the laws which affected the personal rights and privileges of the people. (He Government had given no answer to the despatch, but had presented it to the House of Commons with the bill which was now before them. The right hon. gentleman, the Home Secretary, said the bill would consti tute a part of the answer. Then, as no answer can be given till the bill was read a second time, they must con sider the bill to be the answer. We inflicted by this measure a wound upon the feelings of the people, and upon the institutions of the country. There was a rumour in circulation about the state of feeling in France, and the consequence that would ensue if this measure were re jected. The house was told to sacrifice a little of English feeling, English law, and English recollections to that rumour. (Loud cheers.) Were they to say to that great and gallant people of France, who made no trivial claim to march at the head of the civilisation of the world—alike distinguished in arts of peace and in the pursuits of military glory —were they to treat them like children in a nursery, to whose reason they could ip t von tur e to appeal, but that they must coax them with sugar plums. (Laughter and cheers.) Let thea put some con fid. nce in the people of France, for never did a ny a ssem bly, wham everything was aboveboard, place confidence in a people like that of France, and find that it was mis placed. Why, even the Government had not explained the mate of the law, but if he was not mistaken he saw the Attorney-General preparing himself to reply to him. (Laughter.) He must tell him, then, that it was gri e f t o the whole country th a t h e h a d not yet spoken on the sub• ject. (A laugh.) There was not, rip to that moment, even au exposition of the law. It would have been but just to England and to Frame to have given France an exposi tion of the law. What did the noble lord himself state to the house on that subject ? It was true he said they might indict a man for conspiracy to murder, but that the punishment would be all the same as for a conspiracy to hiss an actor in a theatre. (Laughter.) That was an opinion of an organ of the Government to justify that change in the la ea That opinionof the noble lord might be technically true, but, really it was without the smallest foundation. Technically all misdemeanours came into the same cetegory. Blackstone said that misdemeanour was synoniumus with crime. But was it true that all mis demeanours were visited with slight punishments ? The house was aware that the law of misdemeanour left great power in the hands of the judge compered with the statute law, and enabled bins to deal with misdemeanour according to the nature of the case that came before him. It might be true that there was no forfeiture of goods and no transportation. Yet there was no limit to the amount of punishment that might be inflicted upon the offender by privation of his temporal goods, and iu the sh j a y p eof limit, u punishment, eooroigu which m i g h t be inflicted without to the gravity of the offence. No tiun d b o y m the a nd Governmentma deon t t e France. ground c ee ß P h ° a s t i wweasdom? made that we sheltered assassins, and w e sent this bill as an an swer to that demand. Was the oleject of Count Walewski to convert misdemeanours into felonies? No, when be spoke of our sheltering assassins, he intended that Government should h ave th e power of sending them the of the country. (He ar , h ear.) That was the necessaryt construction to be p u t upon t h e despatch of the Frenchsa Foreign Minister. B u t w h a t o bj ect would be served by presenting such a bill as that to the Emperor Napoleon 9 It enhanced penalties, and therefore the noble lord said it prevented crime. This statement reversed the axiom at the foundation of every amendment of the criminal law of this country which had been made for the last forty years. The bill would, therefore, be wholly illusory as regarded France, but as regarded England it would increase the penalty of the law. There would be another demand by France to alter the law, for that bill would create a right on the part of France to make such a demand, and an oh - ligation on themselves to comply with i. For that reason, he uiust confess, he trusted the house would consider the amendment of hie right hon. friend. The connection between the Fr each despatch and that bill was avowed by the Govern meet, for the Home Secretary said they could not answer the despatch till they read the bill a second time, Now, LONDON, SATtTRDAr EVENING, FEBRUARY' that being so, he (Mr. Gladstone) would call on them not to b led away by the alleg Lecessi'y for amending the criminal ltw. Let the law, such as it was, be first vindi cated to its full extent, as far as necessary, and not beyond it, and then let them consider what might be necessary for its improvement. It was said, that Europe was advan cing, but he was a sanguine observer who had watched :the events of the last twenty years —who, admitting there was a movement ind ee d—did not say that it was a downward and a backward one. In alt Europe there were but two spots in which the institutions were such as com manded our sympathy—still they were but spots, secondary places--hol es an d corners of Europe, so inconsiderable was their natural greatness, but be trusted that their moral greatness would ensure for them a glorious duration of hap piness and prosperity. (Cheers.) But at this time more than ever were the eyes of all Europe concentrated on Eng land, upon its people, its laws, and its Government, and in that house were concentrated the chief hopes of the friends of liberty; but if complicity were to be established be tween that house and those who sought the repression of liberty, it would be a discouragement to those who were the friends of it in every country in Europe. (Groat cheering ) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—I am very well aware, Sir, of the disadvantage of following myright hon. friend, for there is no occasion on which there occurs to my mind more vividly than then the well-known passage,— . the eyes of men, " After a well-grac'd actor leaves the stage, "Are idly bent on him that enters next ;" and undoubtedly, feeling that disadvantage, I will not attempt to cope with my right hon. friend in rhetorical eloquence or in splendid declamation ; but I will introduce what I have to say by a few true and faithful words with respect to the history of this measure. ("Hear, hear," and a laugh.) Yon have been told that there is a connexion between this Bill and the despatch of Count Walewski. Sir, I recommended this measure to the Government (ironical cries of " Hear, hear")—and, at the time when I recommended it, I had neither seen nor heard of the de spatch of Count Walawski. (Cheers.) This measure was proposed to the Government from a sense of English in terests. With that conviction it was prompted in an Eng lish spirit, and was for the benefit of English law and English institutions. I call on you now to try it by that criterion. (Cheers.) IF, after the explanations which you have heard you believe it to be a foreign measure, it has no place in au English House of Commons ; but if you believe it to be prompted in the spirit of our law, and to be con ducive to the right which we have in Europe to uphold that law, and to maintain English liberty, then I call upon you to reject the imputation which you have cast upon it of being a child of foreign growth, and I hope that you will concur with me in thinking that it is a necessary measure for the purpose of enabling you to vindicate that English privilege which you call the right of asylum" —a right which, in my humble judgment, csnnot be consis featly maintained unless this measure is passed into a law. Now I have told you faithfully in what spirit this bill was conceived ; but I will add that, if on reading the despatch of Count Walewski, I could have placed the same interpre tation upon it as has been done by the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge, I would have been no party to the prosecution of this measure. If I could have believed that the appeal to the English Legis lature on the consequences of the existing state of the law made in that despatch, was wholly unfounded or was a lib©l upon our law, I should have refused undoubtedly to be for one moment a party to considering the propriety of making any addition to that law. Now those are the feel ings and the principles that led to the introduction and formation of this measure ; and I will proceed in afe w plain words to explain to you in what view of the English law it has been conceived, as necessary to justify the main tenance of those rights and privileges of which you are so justly proud. The state of the English law I believe to be this—that foreigners are able to do in this country that which your own subjects are unable to do (hear, hear)-- and that which would be a crime in natural born British subjects is a matter of impunity in foreigners. (Hear). Now, how do I claim the right to protect a foreigner? When he comes to our shore I will put him on a par with the British subject ; I claim for him, and I insist on giving him, the same rights which are given to natural born Englishmen; but I will give them to him on the same conditions; and those conditions are that he shall abi .e by the law, and he shall respect the law, that he shall be amenable to the law—(hear, hear)—and, if he be not now amenable to the extent that a British subject is, then I call upon the House of Commons to supply that defect in the law, and to place him in a parity of condition with the British-born subje, t, iu order that you may with perfect right before the world claim the privilege of extending to him the same protection and the same advantages which are claimed by natural born Eng lishmen. Now, sir, is that legislating in en English spirit, or is it legislating under foreign dictation ? (Cheers.) Is it a measure to forego or abridge or detract from what you call the right of asylum ; or is it a measure to justify to the world the claim which we make in the face of the world, that, no matter what his political offences or his political opinions may be, the man who comes to our coun try and abides by our laws here, shall be sheltered under the shield of England, and shall be protected from every species of attack that may be directed against him ? (Cheers.) What is the state of the English law at this time? The house is well aware that by the 9th George IV., British subjects committing a murder abroad are amenable to English law, and may be tried as if the mur der were committed in this country ; but that statute is confined entirely to natural born British subjects. Ante rior to that statute even British subjects might have com mitted murder abroad, and inasmuch as the crime was committed abroad, and not within the peace of the Queen, it was not punishable, and could not be tried in our courts. Accordingly, that Act was passed whereby British natural born subjects, if they commit the crime of murder abroad are amenable at once to the law of this country. But what is the ciao with regard to foreigners ? Supposing two or more foreigners iu this country conspired together to com mit a crime abroad, the crime being to be perpetrated abroad, would not be punishable in this country, neither would the conspiracy. The conspiracy was not punish able unless the crime for which the conspiracy was formed were punishable. Neither himself nor the Solicitor-General had been able to find a case upon the subject. There was a law which affected the amity of the Crown, and which would apply to a conspiracy to assassinate a foreign prince, but that would not, for instance, apply to a conspiracy to murder the Empress of France. He could not believe that the house would think that there was in the existing law that which would render further legislation unnecessary. In this state of things this measure was recommended to the Government to put the foreigner on the same footing as the natural born subject. Count Walewski said two things were to be complained of. The first was that as:assination was openly preached. Now, no one could suppose that that was intended to apply to Englishmen. If there were assassins here, they had been imported from other countries. There could be no doubt that tyrannicide had been preached in this country. The other thing com plained of was that the state of the English law favoured that course. As he had shown, the English law did favour it with regard to foreigners. He called upon the house to say, whether it was not the duty of the legislature to take such steps as in their wisdom they might think necessary to meet the deficiency of the law. That was why this bill had been brought in to supply the defect in the law to enable the government to say to the nations of Europe that they would not alter this institution, but if they could poin • t out any defect in the law they would remedy it. Wasw gentleman there any h ohad L degradation just sat whatever dow i nn hadth t bill had been introduced on political and not on legal grounds. He (the Attorney-General) assured his right hon. friend that the bill had been introduced wholly upon legal idTthhea righttthe hon, grounds. It was impossible for any gentlemen who had voted for the introduction of the bill, with any consistency to vote for the amendment, the effect of which would be to throw out the bill. There was not a single circum stance before the house now that was not known on the first reading of the bill. No answer had been sent to the despatch of Count Walewski when this bill was read a first time. Upon those grounds he called upon the house to agree to the second reading of the bill. Mr. DISRAELI—As I understand that it is the general wish of the house that we should come to a division to-night, I will request their permission to state the reasons which induce me to take the course which I shall adopt, and which I believe will be followed by some of my hon. friends on this side of the house. The Attorney-Ge , Aral has told us that he cannot conceive with what consistency those who voted for the introduction of this bill can support the res elution which has been proposed by the right hon. member for Ashton. I must say that I am totally blind to that i nconsistency, which the Attorney-General thinks is so clear-and obvious. It ap., pears to me that there is a great difference in the circum stances of the two occasions. Ten days ago tho question be fore the house was a question between the Parliament of Eng land and the Government of France. (Herr, hear.) I, for one, and a great majority of the house also, with the same opinion as to the bill itself as wo entertain now ; but under the circumstances that had recently occurred in Franco—• circumstances which of all others were calculated to alarm and outrage the feelings of a great nation, and that nation our faithful ally, it was felt to be most impolitic that we should show any want of sympathy with the nation and Go vernment of Franco in a situation so difficult and distressing as that in which it had been placed. (Hear.) What was done by that vote which we then by so large a majority came to ? In giving that vote we declared that under the circum stances in which the Government of France was then placed there was a desire on the part of the Parliament of England to express their sympathy for the Emperor of the French and the French people in the position in which they were placed, and that we were prepared to consider in sincerity and in anxiety the state of the law of our country with regard to in cidents of that kind. Well, sir, ten days have elapsed; but was there on that occasion an expression on the part of the house that we had nothing to do iu order to prove the sin cerity of our feeling but to agroo to the proposition of the Minister? On the contrary, every gentleman who took a part in that debate used words treating with no respect the proposition of the Government, as adequate or suited to the occasion, but guarded himself which is not only Parlia mentary, but wise--from at.y approbation of its provisions, and at tho same time expressed, in as strong language as coull be commanded, his reprobation of the conduct of Go v, rnment in net answering i hat despatch which has been the subject of so much discussion this evening. (Hoar, hear.) Well, sir, ten days have passed since the house gene rously supported the first reading of the bill, with an intimation, most distinctly given, that they disapproved the laches of the Government in not replying to that expres ion of feeling on tho part of the Minister of France; and I cannot understand how the position of the govcrament has improved, while it cannot be said that those who, under previous circumstances, had supported them are estopped from offering any criticism on Their conduct because ten days ago they acceded to a proposition, in doing which they reserved to themselves a right, on any future occasion, to express their opinion on the conduct of the administration. If ten days ago it was a question with the Parliament of Eng land and the people of France, that is not the position we are in on the present occasion. The great advantage that we de rive in having on that occasion proved by the manner in which the House of Commons acceded to the proposition of the Ministry, that there was in this house a siucei e sympathy with the Freneh nation, and a decorous respect for the Em peror of hat people, that very circumstance permits us now to offer a criticism on the conduet of the English Ministry. What was the ques ion between the Parliament of England and the Government and people of France, is now a question between the House of Commons and the English Ministry. (Hear, hear.) I have heard nothing to-night which throws the slightest light upon that obscure passage of an Adminis tration which refers to the reception of this despatch. No mem ber has risen froth the Treasury bench—and the Treasury bench has been exhausted in this discussion—who has offered us a single reason which cal in any way account for or justify the conduct of the Government. There is one circumstance which has not been reerred to in this debat , and which I myself was not conscious of when ten days ago this question was introd uce d . The despatch of C oun t W a l e ws ki , which has been the s u bj ect of this discussion, was no t merely commu nicated by U lu Ambassador of Franc e in England according to the usual custom, but it was pulilished in the Moniteur of Franco It was made known to the people of France. More than that—like all state papers of great authority that ap pear in a journal of that high character— it was copied pro bably in every official journal in Europe, and probably authen tically accepted by every cabinet in. Europe. Where is the anewee, then, to that d spatch I (C'.eers.) What satisfaction can it be to this country, how can the suspicion of Europebe re` eyed, if all we can receive from the noble viscount et the hea I of the geve!nraent is the information theft some indefi nite words were expressed in the saloon of the French ambas sador, in which, •or aught we know, two men of the world may have shrugged their shoulders and expressed a meaning which was not expressed by articulate sounds. And thenwith an indiscretion which is perfectly inexplicable thegovernment of England lay the despatch on the table of the House of Commons and make it the basis of the legislation they pro pose. Let, then, the house remove from their consideration the influence which this debate or the conduct of this house may have upon the disposition of the French people or the conduct of the French government. • I do not suppose that, under any circumstances, such considerations would exercise any undue influence on the house ; but they have no busi ness now to exercise any influence, becau se th e ques ti on we have to consider to-night is no longer the question of the re lations between France and England, is no longer a question of the mutual relations between the Parliament of England and the people of France, but it is solely confined to the re sponsib lity which the government of this country has in curred to those who represent the poopl of England in this House of Commons. (Hear ; hear,) The whole affair is cloaked in a mystery which no minister of the Crown has risen as yet to explain. That this despatch should not have been an swered, that it should have been authentically printed and circulated in Europe, that so authenticated it should have been made the ostentatious basis of legislation in this house, that those address• sin the official organ of the 'retch Go vernment, which justly occasioned so much indignation in the country end in this 'h use were never disavowed till the 6th February in this year, while on the 4th February, when the h 'use met, this bill was announced, proves to me that the Government first acted in a perplexed, timid, and con fused manner, totally unconscious of what was due to their own dignity as the Ministers of England, and were never recalled to the necessity of self-respect till they found the House of Commons turned upon them, and demanded that to p r s trustees h eg . t of e t t r h i e k e to r a o n f d England,y a see assertion be done for the honou r of th e country which they, the contra dictednatu- m ral if it is wrongly w or d e d , but I believe most sincerely failed h i e n acc om - what I say, that with respect to those addresses which ap peared in the French organs, which were complained of, and which produced so much mischief— for they appeared day after day and no notice was taken of them either by the interposition of the English ambassador in France, no appeal to the French government by him, and no appeal to the French amt - assedor in this metropolis by our Secretary of State—that there was a negligence in this respect on the part of the English Government, which was probably oeca sioued by perplexity of opinion and timidity of feeling. If, instead of allowing this misconception to grow up day by day the English ministers had placed their fingers on circum stances so calculated to create and foster a misunderstanding between the two countries, the position of the French Govern ment with regard to removing those causes of misunderstand ing would have been greatly facilitated, and probably we should never have been obliged to ent er i n t o this discussion. But instead of that, as have been told and believe, no prudent attempt was made by the English Government to arrest the course of this proceeding. The despatch which has occasioned so great a sensa•ion in this country was al owed to appear in the Afoniteur, to circulate throughout Europe, and had it not been for the inevitable meeting of Parliament, I am perfectly conscious by what contrivance it could have been effected that a good understanding betwe n the two countries could have been established and settled. Now let the house remember that in 99 cases out of 100, when there is a quarrel between twe states, it is occasioned by some blunder of a ministry. In the present instance, I see no reason why this misconception should have occurred if the Government of this country had acted with promptness and fairness, with a desire to support the dignity of this country, but at the same time to cone liate the feeling of a good ally. I think the house has expressed to-night that which I attempted to ex press the first night on which this subject was under conside ration, their deep regret that that despatch was not imme diately answered. I think that the country has arrived at that conclusion. I can hardly conceive the averment that her Majesty's Government can v'ndicate the course they have pursued. The right hon. gentleman the member for the University h s traced the change of feeling on the part of her Majesty's Government with reference to the answering of this despatch. The Secretary of State did not agree in the stern necessity which he now recognises for r plying to that state paper ; he does of t at all agree in the tone which the noble lord the First Minister takes on this subject. The noble lord said he thought a despatch was not the proper mode of meeting it—that in fact it was impossible to answer the despatch of the French Minister. (Hear, hear.) But if that be the case, as lam informed it is by high legal authority, what a fine answer would it have been, if, replying to the despatch, the minister having first made all necessary apology, at last concluded by saying that, either by the greatest good fortune in the world, or the most extraordi nary prescience, a law was in preparation, ready to be pre sented on the meeting of Patrament, which would anticipate all that the Fi ench government could require, or the laws of England or the customs of the country permit of. Sir, when we have arrived at this ooint, when it has become a point of discussion whether an English Minister should reply to a de spatch from a foreign governinent, in which the honour of this country has been impugned, we are told by the Lord Advocate that what we want is merely that a second despatch might be written,.and that our great specific for a political complication was nothing more than a clearly written state paper. I cannot read the feeling either of the country or of this house if anything of that kind be on the minds of either. I do not think that this house would be satisfied or pleased with a flippant, lively composition, full of sneer and sarcasm, a reply to the French government which would have offended their self-love, and not vindicated our honour. We know something of such despatehes—we have Blue-books full of them on this table with reference to our foreign affairs. We have already too many of such despatches, but not such as would be suited to the dignity of this nation or would be grateful to the feelings of our faithful al y But still lam of opinion that that despatch ought to have been answered. I think it ought to have been answered in a spirit worthy of the occasion. I repeat the same sentiments and the same opinions which I expressed when the subject was last before us, which were that the Miuister of this country ought to have answered that despatch in a spirit worthy of the occasion. I think that in neglecting to answer it, a great occasion was lost. I think it would have been we I if the Minister had taken the opportunity of asserting the principles of public law, and of vindicating our national rights. (Cheers.) He ought to have appealed with dignity and honour, and have made his appeal not merely to the litigious spirit, but to the nobler conditions of the French Government. (Cheers.) And had such an appeal been made iu all frankness, I believe it would have obviated the necessity of the present reference to the Parliament and the people. (Hear.) We are to-night to decide only one question, whether the British Government have acted properly in neglecting to answer Count Wa lewski's despatch I Those who follow me, if lam followed, may attempt to rouse the passions or to alarm the feelings of the house by allusions to possible misconceptions between the two countries. I see no grounds, nojastice in such attempts, and think th a t th e vote which this house arrived at some 10 haves not beena question both perfectly fec between tw understood ders F t i o ., :d ce and highly days since mu s t, i n so far as a vote of this house can, in fluence opinion o n th e other side of the water. I think it appre ciated. (Hear.) Th e question with which we have now to deal must i a nd England, the real issue t o - n i g h t, and which will be clearly under stood, is not a diplomatic or a p o liti ca l issue, it is a question of the grea t est importance, but of narrow and small limits ; it is a quest i on between this house and the servants of t he Crown—have they or h ave they not done their duty wet reference to Count Walewski's despatch I (Loud cheers.) I will not en t er into a discussionof the merits, or even of the character of the law they have laid on the table. If this amendment o f the right hon, member for Ashton should be carried, there, will bo n o thi ng toprevent us pro ceeding to the consideration of that measure, a and of that mea sure I gave the sa me guarded opinionth it I gave on a former occasion; I reserve to myself the right of deciding on its merits. What we have now to decide i s, whether the ma resolution of the ri g ht hon, gentle a is a just and proper resolution, whether it s allegations are accura te, whether its sentiments are those which this house ought to sanction, and whether the regret w hi ch it expresses has' not been felt by every Englishman, and has not touched the hearts of the whole people of this country? (Loud cheers.) I protest against any foreig n element being introduced into this dis cussion- Let us decide whether the amendment of the right hen. gentleman is one which i s j ustified by the circumstances ore r not For my own part I a gree wit hmy right hon. f r i cu d t member for the county of Oxford, that it is imposs ibl e to challenge its accur ac y an d justic e . (Hear.) I think it is expressed in moderate although grave language t h a t i u sup it we shall ac porting it we are dischargiee a Public duty, and that if we carryaccomplish a Pu b lic benefit. (Ch eers .) Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I join with the right hon. gen tleman in the exhortation with which he concluded h s speech, an d I implore the house not to allow its passions to be roused by eloquent doe'amation, th a t , and not argument, being the means by which the amendment of the right hon, member for Ashton is supported. (Oh, eh. ) I say that that declama tion is devoid of argument, and I think I can prove it. (Hear.) I contend that all we have heard has been vague general de clamation, that the right hon. member for Ashton and my right hen, friend the member for Oxford University, depart ing from the subject under consideration have entered into a large and elaborate attack upon my conduct when Minister for Foreign Affairs. They have taken a view of past transac tions which, at an earlier period of the evening, I shoals' have been perfectly ready to answer ; but now I shall only say of the right hon, member for Ashton —who appears to have ran sacked old newspapers for wear ens of attack upon me—that it is a pity his industry did not take another turn, and look back through the files to see what might have been said of himself and his policy former times, in think he would have found some expressions quite as strong as those with which I have been attacked. (Hear, hear, and cries of "Question.") This much I e will w- - say, that when the • ht hon. gentleman stands fortht d -Uight as the champion right of the honour of England, as t. in teeter of tho rights of this country as against foreign na ions, it is the first time in my life that I have seen him appear in that character. (Cheers, cries of " Oh, oh," and " Question.") During the period that he and I have sat in Parliament together I reco ll ec t no occasion on which the rights of England w ore called in ques tion with that right hon. gentleman has not been the advocate of the foreign country—(cheers, • and loud cries of "Q uestion " )—in which he has not turned that eloquence and power w hi c h he can always command, to prove that this country was wrong and the foreign country right in the dispute. (Oh, ob.) Yes the foreign policy which the tight hon. gentlema n has invariably advocated has been a policy of submission an d crouching to any foreign Power with whom at the time we might have any d finrence to arrange, and even when occasions have arisen in which this house has been called upon to fu rn i s h the Govern ment with the means of national defence, th e voice of the rght lion. gentleman was sure to be raised , to paralyse the arm of the country, and to deprive it of its means of defence. (Renewed interruption, cries of ' , Oh, oh," ' and some cheers.) I recollect the right hon, gentleman standin g f orth on one occasion as the mouthpiece of that small party wh ose publica tieti had the honour to read to the house —(great interrup tion)—that publication which held it to be of no consequence if we should be conquered by any foreign country provided that the mills might continue working--(tremendous cries of " Oh, oh," and " Question," amid which the conclusion of the sentence was lost.) I say, at all events, that the character iu which he appears to night has the merit of nove l ty, for he, for the first time within my recollect ion , appears as tho chem• pion of the honour and dignity of this country. (Cheers, and " Oh, oh.") Now, I contend that he is as unf or t unate on the present occasion as I think he was wrong en the former ones. I re Illy would call on the house calmly to consider---- (Laughter.) Aye, sir, it was not I who intr o d uce d into this debate passionate appeals to prejudice and endeavou rs to mis represent the real question. (Tires, time ) The question which the house has now to decide is, whether it will stultify itself. (No, no.) No 1 Of c ourse—stultified. But th ose who are in a stultified condition are not willin g to acknowledge it (A laugh.) Of course, stultified, if, in the fece . of a majority of 2 00, tu4rming that the Government should br ing in 4 mea sure 20, ~ ti - . of this character, we were now to be led byan insidious amend ! mcnt to refuse a second readiag to the bill without any frdsh circumstances having arisen, and the facts being the opme. If such he the result of the present motion, it will be one at which the country will certainly be astonished. (Hear, hear.) I say that things are in the same condition, because an hon. friend of mine asked why these arguments were not used on the motion for leave to bring in the bill, and the right hon. member for Oxford county said that the question was fully put to the house, and in spite of thatargument and in suite of the eloquence with which it was enforced, a in jority of 200 voted that the bill should be brought in even although the mi erable pretext of the unanswered deipatch was stronglyurged in op position. I take leave to say that I never heard a proposal fraught w th large principles • rgued on such narrow, idle, and miserable grounds. Why, sir, the grounds are opposite to the real facts of the case. The arguments urged in support of this amendment are that this country has been insulted, grossly in sulted, in a despatch sent by the French Government to its am barsador here, and that insult has not been resented as it ought to be. (No, no.) If that is not the ground there is no ground ; if the despatch is not to be resented there is no pre tence upon which to suspend a measure of legislation merely because a particular answer has not been written to a des- patch which, under other circumstances, would not call for any particular observation. Now, I deny that that despatch was an insult to this country, or was intended to be an insult. I believe that gentlemen who say so had never read the despatch - (oh, oh) ; yes, I am satisfied that -the majority w le vote it to have been an insult have never read the despatch, (Renewed cries of " Oh, oh.") Why, sir, what does that despatch say ? Hon. members say that, it imputes to the people of England the entertaining the doctrine of the pro priety of assassination. I say it is not capable of that con struction. What the French government says is, that a conspiracy for assassination had been hatched in this country and that persons have issued from this country for the pur poses of carrying out the conspiracy. It says that the per sons so engaged avow the doctrine of assassination as a principle, and we are called to account because we have not denied these positions. Why, we could not deny it. (Cheers, and " Oh.") The French government say that it was done by those who abused the right of asylum; and how could that apply to th e p eop l e o f England"? (Hear, 11 ar.) But it is said that it is a reflection upon the people of England ; and hon. gentlemen vow and protest that the people of England are not to belbsulted by having things, imputed to them which are contrary to their nature. But, there is nothing in the despatch which implies any such imputation. (Hear.) Then what is to be this answer "adequate to the oecas'on 1 " Why we should have to admit the first allegation to be true ; though we are sorry that conspiracies should have been hatched in this country by foreigners, and that foreigners should have issued forth from our shores to put those con spired: s into execution. Then we should have to admit that the doctrine of assassination has been preached by foreigners in this country, though, of course, wo should be sorry for that likewise, Well, I don't see that there would be very great advantage in an answer to a despatch which admits all the allegations contained in that despatch to be true. (Cheers, and "Ohl ") The despatch goes on to say that the laws of the country do not provide an adequate remedy ; and the Attorney-General has shown to-night that that is perfectly true. (" Oh I") 'Then, what would our answer be, unless we deny that which is true, and assert that the law does pro vide a remedy, when the law officers ;of the Crown tell us upon their responsibility that it does not, or, at all events, that the point is one of such doubt that they cannot take upon themselves to say positively that the foreigner rea ly is put on the same footing as a native of this country. (Hear, hear.) Then it is said that this despatch calls on us to put an end to the right of asylum. Why, the French Government prides itself on maintaining that very principle in France, and boasts that it has often afforded a safe and honourble shelter to those who have been obliged on political grounds to leave their own country and take refuge there. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman asks why, if we bad in our minds the measure which we now propose, we did not tell the French Government in a formal communication that we in tended to lay such a measure before Parliament 7 Why, sir, if we had done se, I should like to know what would not have been said by those champions of the dignity of Parlia ment? (Hear, hear.) • What would not have been said by those persons who are so jealous of the honour of the country if we had come to Parliament and laid on the table a docu ment by which we had forestalled the decision of this house? (Cheers.) If we had appeared to have negotiated with the French Government a promise to pay which the house must fulfil ? (Cheers.) Why, sir, we should have been guilty of great disrespeet to this house if we had pursued such an un constitutional course. (Hear, hear.) Th,n what would the " ade plate answer" have tram ? It could not have been a de nial of what had been asserted by the French Government. It could not have been a declaration that we would propose a measure to Parliament with regard to the right of asylum ; and we could not, with a due respect to this house, have told the French Government at all what the measure was which we thought ;the circumstances would justify, Well, then, the answer would have been, after all, a very meagre docu ment unless we bad stated things which were not in confor mity with the facts or truth. (Hear) If this house should affirm the bill which we propose on its second reading we should, without waiting for its ultimates, haie something to say to France. (Derisive cheers) We should be able to say that, without infringing any principles of our laws or departing from any fundamental doctrine of our constitution or invariable practice of Parliament, we had proposed a mea sure of our own which we might hope would in some degree give to our ally the Emperor that additional security which the French government wishes, and which would, at the same time, be a measure of purely British legislation. "Hear, hear.) I hope this house will not take that course which the right, i hon. gentleman has urged it this evening to adopt, I hope wo shall not trifle with a question of deep national import anle. (Cheers.) I hope that this house will not recklessly overturn the decision which it has come to bya large majori y. It is very well for gentlemen to say that they attach the highest importance to the maintenance of the friendly rela tions of this country with France. It is all very well to say with the right hon. gentleman (Hr. Gladstone) that while we should strive to be at peace with all parties, there are peculiar circumstances and geographical considerations which ought to make us attach a special importance to the allia.ne3 with France. It is mighty well for gentlemen to indulge in general remarks of that lc ud, and then, when measures are proposed having a direct bearing upon that alliance, to recommend the house to rush headlong upon the course which the right hon. gentleman has recommended. (Oh, oh.) I trust that this house will not allow itself to be led away by the declamation which we have heard to-night, but will proceed to the second reading of this bill, and will put aside the insidious amendment of the right hon. gentleman. It is idle to say that you can pass this amendment and then go back to the bill. It is quite clear that if upon full and deliberate oonsideration you prefer the amendment, there can but be one interpretation put upon such a vote. • (Oh, oh.) It will be understood that within a few short days this house •has utterly altered its opinions. (Oh, oh.) If by some unknown influences, by some extraordinary process of reasoning, an accidental majo rity should now be obtained against the bill, it cannot be placed in comparison with that majority which, in no acciden tal manner, but, after calm reflection and sober reasoning, was come to in favour of a bill which, without infringing at all upon the principles of the constitution, is calculated to be of essential service with regard to the alliance between this country and our great neighbours and allies. (Cheers.) The house then divided— For the amendment 234 Against it 215 lf tj ority Loud and long cheering and waving of hats followed this announcement, and indeed preceded it ; fir the result was known from the relative position ill which the tellers ap proached the table. The amendment was then put as a substantive motiod, and agreed to without a division. When its terms were solemnly read out by the Speaker, for the second time, every eye was directed on Lord Palmerston, "but never a word spake he." He wistfully looked, for a moment, on a paper containing the numbers of the division, which some one had cruelly thrust into hiS hands, and then indignantly cast it on the floor. The orders of the day, including " Supply—conimittee," were then called over, and postponed till Monday, amidst some laughter. CHELSEA BRIDGE. Sir J. SHELLEY moved for NEW ave to le bring in a bill for re pealing the act autkorising a toll to be taken for foot passen gers on this bridge. Mr. AYRTON opposed the bill, on the ground that a select committee was sitting on the question of tolls iu the metro polis, Lord C. HAMILTON expected that some member of the Government would have replied to the question of the hon. member. As no member of the Government seemed anxious to reply, he hoped the discussion would be adjourned. Sir J. SHELLEY sal I that when the subject was inquired into he believed it would be found there was much to be said in favour of the view he took; but after the debate which had taken place, and at that hour of the night he wou'd, with the permission of the house, renew the discussion another night. (Hear, hear.) The subject was then postponed, and the house adjourned at half•past one. TEE DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY. (Prom the Daily News ) By a majority of 234 to 215, the House of Commons has expressed its regret that Ministers did not answer the inso lently dictatorial despatch of Count Walewski, before pro ce ding to introduce their Conspiracy Bill. This may not be quite equivalent to a vote of want of confidence, but it certainly is a vote of censure, and that is not much more flattering to the C ,binet. Every friend to the honour and dignity of the country will thank Mr. Milner Gibson for I hating afforded the House of Commons this opportunity of expressing its regret at the failure of the Foreign-office to answer the demand of the French Government f , r the adoption of new penal measures against foreignersdomiciled amongst us. Apart from the tone of assumpti is and dictation in which the demand was officially made, aad the offensive and threaten ing language un-officially, but not the less significantly, used to enforce it iu high quarters, the mere fact that a powerful ally should formally require the responsible Ministers of an English Sovereign to change the legislative or administrative policy of the country ought at any time to have elicited a serious and deliberate answer. To have permitted such a requisition to pass unrebuked, or to have suffered the incom patibility of its purpose with all we hold traditionally most dear in national liberty to pass undemonstrated, would, in former days, have subjected a Minister to the gravest re proach. Lord Hawkesbury thought so when he wrote his oft-quoted reply to tho summons of Napoleon I. that we should surrender, at his discretion,our political individuality. The Foreign Secretary of England in 1803 was a Tory, as were a majority of his colleagues in the administration ; but he was animated with the true spirit of an Englishman, and with the entire approval of the Sovereign and Parliament of the time he put courteously, but unflinchingly, on record the reasons why it would have been unbecoming iu him to entertain foreign suggestions for changes in our domestic laws. Lord Hawkesbury answered with sense and spirit, and with the calm courtesy of a minister who had no wish to involve his country in a quarrel, but with the dignified firmness that is always best calculated to remind a rash intermeddler that he is in the wrong. Ho had to deal, as he well kirew, with an impetuous soldier intoxicated with victory and full of conquest and aggression. Yet he did not falter for an instant, or truckle by the use of an equivocal phrase. The true instinct of honour guided his pen, and guided it successfully. The first Napoleon knew h respect courage in diplomacy as well as in the field to fi and angry though ho was, or affected to be, at the inflexibility a of the British Government in resisting his attempt tobrow bet them, he did not recall his Ambassador, or even talk of going to war. Unhappily, Lord Clarendon has pursued a different course. Though bred a Tory and trained in the maxims of the party, the present Foreign Secretary se ems to have imbibed i little of the high ' and resolute p faults, di s ti ng uished tine statesmen of which, with all their of Mr. Pitt's school. And Lord P a l mers ton, who is now the sole survivor of the class to which the Hawkesburys, and Wellesleys, and Cunnings be longed, seems to have outlived alike their policy and their pluck. How would the men who did not hesitate to repel theUreat Napoleon's insolent interference regard the faint hearted and unworthy silence in which the orders of Monsieur Walewski and, the menaces of Monsieur Persigny have been received F Wild they rite from _their marble _tom) m and l&Nft come once more to judgment, there cannot be s doubt that each of them would _ east his scornful shell of reproba tion along with those of . nearly every wan of note or mrk in the present Hom e o f C ommo ns. What is Napoleon 111. compared with his illust ions predecessor ! What is. he individually, or by the luck of revolutionary catastrophe' and coup d'etat, that the Government of Great Britain should mut , ly kneel before him? We are not now arguing the provisions of the Conspiracy Bill, By their own merits hey must stand or fall. But many a man who conscientiously, though we think erroneouely, voted leave to bring in that measure, indicated last night his desire to distinguish between that vote and his approval of the conduct of Lord Clarendon. Reluctance to give needless umbrage to the present ruler of France was the singl motive.that induced Many to assent to the introduction of a bill of some kind ; but contempt for the pusillanimity that could 'permit. • M. Waleweki's first de-. vetch to remain unanswered has all the .more naturally sought and found vent in the more recent discussion and vote. We stated at the time, what we believe to be strictly accurate, that &considerable number of Lord Derby's followers consented to veto for the first reading rather than diSplace Lord Palmerston on -the general question whether some mo dification might not be made in our municipal law which would convince the French Emperor of our national • unwil lingmess to see hill personally harmed. Lord Derby and his friends did not wish the responsibility of office thrown upon them in a manner which would apparently preclude them from any measure of reconciliation such as we have indicated. ',But Mr. Disraeli and others guarded themselves at the time, we are bound to acknow ledge, from theimputation of endorsing, blindfolded, the pro visions of the intended bill, and, as strongly as Lord John Russell and Mr. Roebuck, reprobated the deplorable weak ness and impolicy of permitting the French Minister's imper tiaence to go without reprimand. There is nothing incon sistent in the course which these gentlemen have adopted. Mr. Milner Gibson's amendment is one to which the whole heart and soul of the country, as well as of the majority in the House of Commons, has responded. But the assertors of English liberty and English honour must not rest contented with this victory. They must be prepared to resist the at tempt, if persisted in, to desecrate the Statute• Book by the inscription of the gemepiracy Bill as an Act. Hitherto our laws, whether Jenient or severe, have been indigenous ; but if the present piece of French manufacture should ever be smuggled through Parliament, we shalt here after have the unenviable privilege of being governed by laws exotic in their nature and of foreign growth.. There is no dis guise about it. Lord Palmerston does not affect to deny the real character of the measure or the illegitimacy of its origin. He tries not to hide the shame that is on the face of it, and the brand of legislative bastardy that is upon its brow. With tho nonchalance of 'a policeman carrying a foundling to the workhouse, the noble prefet of Westminster brought in his miserable charge, and got leave to lay it ou the table. Perhaps in the new Reform Bill provision may be made to reedit -to in future the introduction of measures which foreign despots may consider necessary for our national well being. Why not give seats in the Lower House to the Austrian and French •Ambassadors, and a pontifical place in the Upper House to Cardinal Wiseman There would be in such an arrangement several obvious advantages. These per senages, in their capacity of representatives of continental absolutism, could then bring in their own measures, and de fend them in their peculiarly beguiling way. No time would be lost in child'sh jangling and wrangling about the pusative parent 'go of the precious little bills • and the Minister of England, as he used to be, instead of clumsily trying to play an outlandish and incompatible part, would resume his na tional character, and be looked on, perchance, as really an English Minister again. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. HOUSE OF - COAMONS—FEB. 19. CONSPIRACY TO MURDER BILL. Order for second reading read ; motion made and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time :" Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That " to the end of the question, in order to add the words " 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 criminal law which, after due investigation, are proved to exist, yet it, cannot but regret that her Majesty's Government, pre- vious to inviting the House to amend the law of conspiracy 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 im portant despatch received from the French Government, dated Paris, January 20, 1858, and which has been laid before Parliament," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the ques- tion." The House divided—Ayes 215 ; Noes 234. AYES-215. Adeane, H. Fo'ey, H. W. Osborne, R. Atherton, W. Foster, W. 0. Ossulston, Lord Begshavr, Robert Fortescue, Hon. F. Paget, C. Bagwell:John Fortescue, C. 9. - Paget, Lord A. Baines. Rt. lion. M. Ga!bray, Sir W. Paget, Lord C. Baring, A. GAVaill, Major Palmerston. Viscenni Baring. U. Gifford, Earl of Patten, Col. Baring, Sir F. Girl, G. Pease, Henry. . Flaring, T. G. Goderlch, Viscount Ferry, Sir E. Barnard, Thome., °reeves, E. Philipps, J. Bathurst, A. A. Greer, Samuel Pinney, Col. Bentinck, G. Gregory, W. Fryee, E. • Bethell, Sir R. Gregson, Samuel Pritchard, J. Biddulph, Col. R. M. Grenfell, C. P. Pugh, D. Bake, J. Greville, Colonel F. Faller. Christopher Bland, L. H. Grey, Captain Ramsden, Sir J. Bouverie, Hon. E. E. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir G. Raw;Jason, Sir H. Bouverie, Hon. P. Grey, R. Raynham, Viscount Bowyer. G. Giosvener, Earl Repton, G. Boyd, J. Gurdon, Brampton Richardson, J. Brady, J. Gurney, Samuel Ridley, George Bramston, T. W Hall, Sir Benjamin Russell, A. Brocklehurst, J. Hanbury, Robert Russell, F. W. 'Browne, Lord John Hanhey, T. Rust, James Bruce, Lord E. Hamner, Sir John Schneider, Henry Bruce, 11. A. Harcourt, G. G. &rope, G. Buckley, Gen. Harris, J. D. Seymour, Danby Bulkeley, Sir R. Harlington. Marquis Smith, M. Buller, J. W. Hatcbell, John Smith, V. Burke, Sir T. Heathcote, G. Smith, Sir F. Calcraft, J. Henchy, D. Somerville, Sir W. Campbell, It. J. E. lieneage, Geo. F. Spooner, It. Castlerosse, Via. Herbert, 11. Stafford, Marquis Oavendlsh, W. Holland, E. Steel, John Cavendish, G. C. Howard, C. Stuart, Colonel Cayley, E. S. Hughes, 'W. : - Start, C. Clark, J. Ingham, R. Sullivan. Michael Clay, James Jermyn, Rt. Hn. , Earl Tancred, H. Clifford, C. C. . J ervo i se, S i r J. Thornely. T. Clive. George • Keating. Sir,li. ,;; Thornhill, W. Codrington, Gen. Kendall, N. • Tollemache, F. Cogan, W. H. F. Kluglake,J. Truman, C. Colebrooko, Sir E. Labouchere,llt.Hon.ll Turner, J. A. Collier, It. P. Langston, J. H. Vane, Lord H. Cowper, W. F. Langton, H. G. Verney, Sir IL Coote, Sir C. H. Legh, G. C. Villiers, C. Cotterell, Sir IL G. Le vinge, Sir R. Vivian, J. C. Crossley, F. Lewis, Sir G. C. Waldron, Laurence Davey, R. Lincoln, Earl of Walsh, Sir J. Davie, Sir H. B. F. Lowe, It. Walter, J. Deasy, R. Luce, T. Warre, John De Vera, S. E. Macarthv, Alex. Wegnelin, T. Devereux, J. M`Cann, J. Western, S. Divett, E. Mackie, J. Westhead, Joshua Dodson, J. Maguire, J. F. Whatman, J. Duff, M. Mangles, C. Whitbread, S. Dunbar, Sir W. Marshall, Williaill Wickham, li. Duncan, Viscount Martin, C. Wigram, Loftus T. Buncombe, A. Martin, P. Williams, M. "Minim, F. . Massey, W. Williams, Sr W. Dunne. M. MA theson, A. Willyams, E. Dutton, lion. R. 11. Afatheson,Sir J. Willoughby, Sir H. Ebrington, Viscount Mellor, John Wilson, J. Ellice, E. Mills, Arthur Winnington, Sir T. Ellice, E. Mitchell, T. A. Wood, Sir C. Ennis, John Moncreiff, J. Wood, W. Esusonde, J. Morris, D. Woods, Henry Fagan, W. Mowbray, J. R. Worsiey, Lord Ferguson, Colonel Newark, Viscount Young, A. Ferguson, Sir Hubert Norris, J. T. Finlay, A. North, F. Fitzroy, Henry O'Brien, P. Foley, J. H. Ogilvy, Sir J. TELL!3S. liayter, W. Brand, H. B. W. NOES-234. .. Adair, H. Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Moffat, G. Adams, W. H. Forester, Col. Montgomery, Sir G. Adderley, C. B. Forster, Charles Morgan. 0. Akroyd, E. Forst, r, Sir Geo. Naas, Lord A lcock, T. Fox, W. J. Napier, J. Amesley, Hon. Hugh Frazer, Sir W. Napier, Sir C. A rchdall, M. Gal4vay, Viscount Newdegate, C. Ayrten, A. Gard, R. Newport, Viscount Baillie, H. Garnett, William Nicoll, D. Ball, E Gaskell, J. Noel, G. Baring, T. Gilpin, Col. 11. North, Col. J. Bernard, T. Gladstone. W. Parke, C. Bass, M. Graham, Sir J. Pakington, Sir J. Baxter, W. Greenall, Gilbert Palk, L. Beach, W. ' Greene, John Palmer, R. Beale, S. Grenfell, Charles W. Paull, Henry Bective, Earl G riffith, C. Pechell, Sir G. Bennet, Cstpt. Pk Grogan. Edward. Peel, Sir R. , Berkeley, lion. li. F. Hadfield, George Pevensey, Viscount Blackburn, Peter Hamilton, Lord Claud Philips, R. Boldero, Col. 11. G. Hamilton, G. A. Pigott, F. Bovill, W. Hamilton, J. Pilkington, J. Brumley-liners, J. Hamilton, Capt. Powell. Francis Bridge., Sir B. *llardeastle, Joseph Price, W. Brace, Major Hardy, G. Ricardo, J. Buchanan, Walter Headlam, T. Robertson, P. Buller, eirJ. Heathcoate, Sir W. Roebuck, J. Bunbury, W. B. Henley, J. Roupell, W. Bury, Viscount Herbert, S. Russell, Lord J. Byng, G. lI.C. Hodgson, William Scholefield, W. Caird, J. - Holford, R. Selater, George . Cairns, 11. Hope, Alexander Scott, F. Carden, Sir R. W. Hopwood, John Seymer, H. Cardwell, E Horsman, E. Shelley, Sir J. Carnac, Sir J.R. Hotham, Lord - Sheridan, H. B. Cecil, Lord R. Hume, W. Sibthorp, Major Cheetham, John Hunt, G. W. Smith, J. B. Child, Smith Ingestre, Viscount Smith, A. Christy, Samuel Ingram, 11. Smollett,:A. Clinton, Lord R. Johnstone, H. B. Stanhope, J. Close, M. Johnstone, Hope Stanley. Lord Cobbett, J. M. Joiliffe, Sir W. Stapleton, John Cole, 11. A, Kelly, Sir P. Stirling, Viz Collins, T. Ker, Richard Stewart, Sir M. Coningbam, W. Kerrlson, Sir E. Sturt, H. Conolly, T. Kershaw, J. Sykes, Colonel Copeland, W. T. King, L. Taylor, Colonel' Corry, H. T. L. King, J.. Taylor, S. Cowan, C. Kinglake, A.' Tempest, Lord A. V. Craufurd, E. H. J. King.eote, Capt. R. Thompson, General Crawford, R. W. Knatchbull, W. Tomline, G. Crook, J. Knatchbull-Huguessen Townshend, J. Dalglish, R. Knight, F. Trefusis, C. Dalkeith, Earl Knox, Col. B. W. - Darner, L. D. Langton, W. G. Davison, R. Laalett, W. Denies, William Laurie, John Dent, John Lennox, Lord A. F. wVTTV:raadennisliadi:evit:iarnegiolotfrW:jr-u..j: Dillwyn, L. L. Disraeli, B. Leslie , .L r o . rd 11. G. WWW:alrripocoenitet:. S. Dobbs, Liddell, H. G. Dobbs, W. C. White, James Du Cane, C. Lindsay, W. Whiteside, J. e Lisburn, Earl Duke, Sir J. Whitmore. 11, Dunlop, A. L oc ke, John - Williams, d uam J:ss,, W. . L o ckhart, A. Z. W Du Pre, C. Lyall, George East, Sir J. Lygon, Icon. F. Egerton, Edw. C. El c ho, Lord Lytton, Sir E. B. Elm!ey, Viscoun t Macartney, George NIV hoytntdieya,l, M ajor Sir J. Macaulay, Kenneth Wyld, Jame s MacMahon, P. v General EEEvlitPaohnsintn%3SSWirirnAeDi.eilL'aoy Matins, Richard Wyndham, II Evans, T. W. Manner., Lord J. Wynn, Col ' Ewart, W. Martin, J. • Wynne, • J. W. Ewart, J. Maxwell, J. Wynne, W. Ewin g , Crum Melgund, Lord Farnham, E. Miles, W. Yorke, E. Farquhar, Sir M. Miler, Taverner TELLEILL Fonvrick, 11. Miller, St earne Gibson, Milner Bright, John PAt YOE AGAINtr Lord ♦shley Mr Hudson Mr B Carter Hn Col Lowther Mr Wyvill Capt Lowther Mr H Vivian Col Gilpin Mr Mainwarlag Hon R C Hill Mr G VansittartSir W Tamer. Mr Slauey Sir it Thesiger Mr R Mangles Mr Wrightson Mr 'l' Mills Mr Butler Lord Einlyn Mr Cox Sir P Egerton Capt Jolliffe Lord Haddol Col Herbert FOB AGAINST Lord Sandon Lord Burghley Major Uordon Mr A Steuart Mr Handley Lord E Hill Capt O'Connell lion J Percy Mr Cubitt Mr Rolt Mr Drummond Lord Loyola+) Sir A Agnew Mr B Blakemore Mr B Sheridan Mr Cooper Hon H Denison Sir R (fßooth Hon J Mostyn Sir C Burrell Col Watkias Mr D Jones Hon L A Ellis Sir E Hayes * We arc . requested to atatt, that Mr. liardcastlo did hot Tote At All. , THE FPE - flrf "PrßEr SiFILTY" Brrt, The " Public Safety" Bill came on for diaeussion is the French Cdrpe Legi-latif - yesterday. life=-:Emile O vi l m liv i i , e a r4 e tb ve . member for Paris, :opened the debits' in an . . • .. of wh ic h the,following in an impOrfect hut.n Breil'ngrate :IsklLtr:l4-;711 ratliar say to iMplcire; jest the pioo,spubosoeufdahldoau4wye,:tlboau,mat a-t.nhoetllaseedtgeteisii!nieiii:ult,roettah..sts:sovioss:eilrrertfloitergetti..hficei:Le:plyeicos; I propose to att ir : e a k sa n an o ,_‘_ el:; ig l ii - t w itpre l - s t li r a o .m i gg ity niooa t: justbmnotr moral l i n m p i si l i world,render t tl o re u h s l e om on ag o e xp t i o ,ess t i h o e n only ofm speaking to those out of doors. I speak to you, t ni h e o na t fi t.bo ers p o: used this iin house, m y bureau,a n d ad t d h , a r t e l ua d e o m remembering ng addresse n el e y t e !twi t My first objection to this law is th it it is teasel uP.ia a e alse pretence. The attempt on the Emperorii life was frustrated by Providelre'e, and lam - grateful for the mercy. The fate of nations can no more be influenced by the assassin than ,it can by the executioner. Bat this crime, as you have 'been told by everybody, was conceived in. a foreign Country,: ppm. milted by foreigners, and inspired by tike resentment oE foreigners—it was not a French crime. Tyeeeconcrretir,oachr that I make t o th e l aw i s th a t it v i o l a tes aIL the pririNple that civilised nation. 3 are agreed to consider as of the 'essences of sound penal legislation. In the first place, the bill,xolates, the principle of the separation of powe-s. Mentes fuleu tel:a that the judicial power should always be separated froM the executive-power, for otherwise "the judge might become an oppressor." This bill leaves the fortune and liberty of citizens,at the mercy of three agents of the execultile. -Se cond, before this new tribunal all those forms which oven the most hasty justice cannot di 4peuse with will dis'appear; :No examination of the accused, ,uo confrontation with the wit nesses, no defence, no discussion, no publicity. Tue Aiiuiator of the Interior will be at once the accuser, the defender, and the judge. Third, every penal la w ough fe! early to define the offence. A law that fails in this particular is n Levi.. 114+4 pitiohig a guarantee, it becomes a standing menage ,and 6 0 a. vcnient means of oppression. All peoples 'haVe, in all time; preferred a precise law, however severe, to the mildest 'pos sible law that is uncertain. Every clause in this bill is vague, and -susceptible of the most extravagant interpeee a ._ floes., it punishes those who " excite publicly in any w a y whatever;" those who practise manceuvres, or keep up in tel'igence ahroa•l ; and exiles those against whore there-are any " grave facts." Fourth, a leading principle of law is that no one can be punished a second time for an offence that - he has expiated. This principle is violated by subjecting to transportation those who were condemned in ISIS, 1819, and 1851, and who have undergone their sentences. Fifth, _it does more, for it operates a ga i ns t persons ,retr Y.-activ.ely., it will be attempted to deny this positicrr, - because it is • add, that new "grave facts" must be established against them. But you will not be entrapped by this quibble. What is meant by a " grave fact i" It means nothing certain, but sharply something which, according to circumstances, may bo,deemed to be such by. those in power. (The - hon. member here cited' a striki4 passage from Portalis, condemning retroactive laws, and a-report of the - debate in thet Convention showing that that body, in the very worst tim es , h a d re f use d t o vote - a law of that character.) No law (he continued) had ever been proposed which violated so many fundamental_ prin ciples, It had produced such a panic in the country,- that the reporter had felt the necessity of reassuring, the public mind. They were told the law was only meant to attack red republican socialists and enemies of order.) But who could be sure that he might not be obnoxious to its provi- . sions ? -When Murton established the revolutionary tribunal, he thought he was clearly comprised in the exception ; but - shortly afterwards his own head fell on the scaffold. There were already laws of ample severity against members of secret societies. The truth was that-the present law was only found. insufficient against these who did not conspire, but who were said to live in-a state of " culpable expectation " The word suspects was reenicliated, but this totally new word" ex,-,ee taut" was equ a lly t e r r ibl e . Th ese " eipectants," who were to be transported, lived by their labour, and transportation to many of them would be tantamount to a sentence to misery and death. (Here 31. 011ivier enumerated a number of tri. vial offences which would bring citizens into the category of persons liable to be transported without trial.) • Politics should always be subordinate to morality. ". You have go verned this country for nine years. You are at peace with all the world. You have an immeuse army, an able police, an enormous budget, strategetical roads through your capital, trod fortresses at all convenient places." No liberty exists. The g, eatest of all—that of the press —is annihilated; _and _ yet you come to ask for laws of "public safety." Do . you not feat that the country may say, " I have sacrificed to you my liberty, my franchises, my traditions, the comqueets of my blood—all that has made me glorious among nations for the sake of a little tranquillity; and you now ask for more. Where will you stop I" . • (From the Daily News) . , All honour to M. Emile 01Eyler. Amid the silence and stupor that benumbs France--the fawning 11 .tterles of a sue. naced press, and the abject prostration of a sdrvile legislature —this brave and honest 'citizen! has manfully stood fatal a to. protest in the names of violated justice and putragid society , against : that monstrous law of "Public Safety, whioh our rendera up the lives and liberties of F 4 renehmen to the uncon trolled ;despotism of irritated power.. law .of " Pnblie Safety"—its very ; name makes the blood run cold.. Sixty four years vanishlike a dream, and we are face to face again *ith that horrible tribunal, where suspicion was proof,' and accusation guilt; where there was but one step from the groundless charge to the merciless sentence and the inevitable doom. Two periods of history have hitherto been infamous for a law of " Public Safety :" the gloomy despotism which. Tiberius inaugurated at Rome, and the fantastic tyranny which Robespierre enthroned at Paris. Is it *possible that Napoleon 111, can be mad enough to dream of leaking a third experiment of the same sort on the patience of mankind f If not, what aro we to say to a law like that which is now no minally under discussion in the Corps Legislatif—a law which, without the forms of public trial, punishes with an exile that in its severity is tantamount to death, all those who " excite publicly in any way whatever," who " prac tise manoeuvres, er keep up intelligences abroad "—a law which, absolutely without any kind of trial, renders amenable to the same sentence those who have been already condemned and punished for offen ces connected with the political troubles of 1848, 1849, and 185'4. In the worst days of the Roman despotism, in the darkest gloom of the Terror, a viler mask, was never devised for screening, under the guise of law, the lawless ex. cesses of Poweg; and it is to the Potentate by whom, and for whom,, this instrument of oppression 'has been invented, that Lord Palmer.ton would concede the privilege, never, granted before to any foreign ruler, of dictating innovations in'the old common law of free England, M. Oilivier, in his admir. able acid courageous speech, p o i n t s ou t with. dignified and temperate firmuess the various objections to this most mon. strous project of law. He accuses it, and with justice, of violatipg all the principles that civilised nations are agreed to consider as of the essence of sound penal legislation. It violates the great principle of the separation of the executive and jUdicial powers. The Government arrests, the Govern. went 'irosecutes, and the Government judges. It leaves the fortunes and liberties of French citizens at the absolute mercy of the ( agents of the Executive. It violates all those forms which the uniform experience of ages has shown to be the only safeguard for the admiuistration of justice. There is to be no publicity, no cross•examluatio'n of witnesses, no speech for the defence ; everything is to be conducted in secres3r. Again, it violates one of the first maxims of all criminaljuris. prudence in this respect, that it contains no precise defini. tion Of the offence; everything is vague and uncertain, everything is left to the widest latitude of interpretation. What is a " grave fact ?" what is, or rather what is not, a " praetisiug of manoeuvres," and a " keeping up intelligence abroad ?" Who is to pronounce what does or does not come ut;der the words " exciting publicity in any way. whatever I' The cold and gloomy hypocrisy of Tiberius, that sapped the liberty he pretended to worship, never threw a more fatal drag-net over Rome, by his fatal law of ltes(eniajestati.s than this "'Public Safety" Bill would throw over France. No law, as M. 011ivier truly and courageously declared, has ever 1)- en proposed which violates so many ftuidameutal ,principles. " We are told," contiunes this brave man, "that the law is only meant to attack red-republican socialists and enemies of or ler. But who can be sure that he may not be ohnoxious t• its previsions? When Dauton established the revolutionary tribunal, he thought he was clearly comprieed in the exceP_: tion, but shortly after his own head fell on the scaffold, " Addressing the Imperial Government, in astrain the boldnesi and truth of which has rarely been surpassed, M. 011iver ex. claim; " You have governed this country trine years ; you aro at peace with all the world; you have an immense army, an able police, an enormous revenue, strategetical roads through your capital, and fortresses at all couvenieut places. No liberty exists, The gre itest of all—that of the Press—is an. nihilated, and yet you come to ask for laws of public safety. Do yon not fear that the country may say, ' I have sacrificed to you my liberty, my franchises, ray traditions, the conquests of my blood—all that made me glorious among nations, for the sake of a little tranquillity, and you row ask for more —where will you stop " Heroic words—words of truth. and soberness ; words worthy of a freeman ; words that ought to kindle a blaze of resistanea in a free nation.' What effect they may have in Franco rests with the future. They cannot fall altogether idle. In Milton's phrase. they are " like the fabled dragon's teeth, which being sown up and down may chance hereafter to spring up armed men." For this we must wait what the years may bring forth. But one thing is certain. They ought not to be without their weight in England. They ought to make Englishmen deeply ponder before they entrust a reckless Minister with the power i a g l ttehr us g v t i he o la t l nwgs all. f o EI a n w g 1 a n d d i to suit ,sliceitnh e France.caprices CHURCH RATES.-31r. Villiers paired for Sir J. Tr,. lawney's motion with Mr. Liddell against. (ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Pills the most popular medicine for the Cure of Female Complaints. After rionpceidrteinetsarletnodFeremthaelmes, safethe a i their d i n i many years' experience it is ilia )ntestably proved that v n i v g a o i r n a a t h i ! 6, 1 there is no medicine equal to Holloway's Pills for the they may be taken by females of all ages for an y cl . andou reofd purifyingis eas diseases isor. ganisatien or irregularity of the miaow s ..1 , peeohy removing the cause, thus restorinc, the . sufferer to robust health. As a family medicine th ey ' are unequalled, and may be taken by old and energy after all oth er meanyo h ung, restorin g h ea lth an d Sold by all medicine vendorssave prow d unsuccess f u l —... throughout the Werld, and at Professor Holloway's EAablishmeat, 244 Strand, London. [ADV ERTISEMEN T . I—Tl great injury inflicted ou many in. valids by drugs increases the interest the public take in Da Barry's Re va l en t a Arabica Food, which cures without medicine indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility. We quote a few out of many thousand cases of cures by this delicious food : —Prom the Dowager Countess of Castlestuart. Cure 52,612. Rosstrevor, County of Down, Ire. land, December 9, 1854.—The Dowager Countess of Cstlo. stuart feels induced, in the interest of suffering humanity, to state that Du Barry's excellent Revalenta Arabica Food has cured her, after all medicines had failed, of indigestion, bile, great nervousness and irritability of many years' standing. This food deserves the confidence of all sufferers, and may be considered a real blessing. Inquiries will bo cheerful], answered.—From the Venerable Archdeacon of Ross. No. 32,836.—Three years' excessive nervousness, with pains in my neck and left arm, and general debility, which rendered my lift very miserable, has been radically removed by Du Barry's health• restoring food.—ALEX. STUART, Archdeacon of Ross, Skibereen. Supported by testimonials from the following celebrated Pro-' fessors of Chemistry: Dr. A. Ure; Dr. Shorland; Dr. Harvey; Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurzor ; Dr. Ingram ; Lord Stuart de Decies; the Dowager Countess of Castiestuszt: Major Gen. Thomas King, and many other respectable her sons, whose health has been restored by it, aftar $ l . l ____ means of cure had failed. Suitably packed with ftrolir; tions. In canisters, 11b. 2s. 9d. ; 21b. AL " ; free 01l re. 121 b. 225. The 121 b canisters are sent Oarrisr and 4 3 0. 77 . , ceipt of Pat-office order. Barry Du tafg , _ against the 'fear. Regent-street, London. IraPortaniC s -' 4 n . The Vice-Chancellor Sir ful dangers of Hurious. ~A gra n te d an on the 10th March, William Page Wet-. s-^ n-- an ' ,.,.....4„, f er j a it a tip s id Dik _ 1854, against Alfred . i10uje_r,,,,,...T. - ' Barry'SlyralentA 4 .5 a1; 1" l' Qvw '