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

t.L. U 7 that he could not deny that to a certain extent this country was a d en o f assass i ns. (H ear .) I m ust that is an exnressinn n ew e r th v ta r e eble ler and t e neei ! bon he helee. these ex He says, you must not think too 100011 of pressione, because they are not inconsistent with tha usage whi c h h as l ong preva il e d a mong the military . antheriti es i n France, and he adds that they h ave been .in lasted in th e paper in question inadvertently. Knowing we do that the public press of France is gagged, and r t !nasty of its literary men have been expatriated, I say is idle to say that these articles have been inserted Lied tPrtentlY• No, sir, they were inserted for the purpose of intimidating this country— (no no ! and counter cheers)-- and fo r th e purpose of extorting from us the concession rnhollied in this bill, which I regret the noble lord, with all I l i, pest antecedents and his former credit, should have I: eoni eecended to i n troduce at the in s t ance of such dicta ::e n • (Cheers.) But, when it is said an a p o l og y h as f n made for the insertion of thos e o ff ens i ve a dd resses T r eat the colonels and other officers of the army in France, woald ask has any apology been offered for the very stron g t and unseemly expressions that recently fell from 1:loe Presidents of the two Legislative Chambers of France, th t h. of whom . appear to have been utterly . forgetful of g ei r, Position, and of that careful expression of feeling and rignified demeanour which are so conspicuous in the per uill'lding kindred offices in thiecountry? (Hear.) What °ea M. tie Mainly Bey Why, that England is a lair of beastsand a laboratory of assassins. (Laughter.) I ;I) ready to make every excuse for the courtiers of Louis a s., l l le ,°n (a lau h)—l know perfectly well the conditions 14 tite " I ng to a position like that. holds lSlorn is only I d:sting a predecessor in the office he in the . time of er e first Napoleon —M. Chempigny—who said his master elaeoleon Bonaparte was an angel —( laughter )-- sent . fr i o b m lab_eaven to bless that time, and, like the great Invisible : l ag, he governed the we'll by his power and his ieflu e„-"teee• (A. !allele ) Sir, I must ssy those expressrus are Mor e far-feec e leed. But the other day an expression far bin Powerful was used towards Louis Napoleon by one of -"6 flatter ers , who thus apostrophised him in the course o f L a ddrese he' was presenting, ' Sire, you are too fond of e l 3 7." (Laughter.) I think, aft er that, we may well ex with hMadame Roland, " 0 Liberty, what crimes 4 "s:emitted in thy name !" But, Sir, this bill was not Pc B ider e t necessary before the commencement of this ses -1 i , l ". It h as on l y b een consider° t necessary after what on the 11th of January. Now, t'9 of us opposed the on the fist reading, a nd y e t I am sorry to say that it been insinuated that we did so philo-assassins, as we 4-8 Cal led. (Laughter.) I have heard that expression used bil More than one occasion. Now, we who oppose this 4d m't w an t to preserve the right of asylum for persons 6 Orsini a n d Pi orr i , or f r assassins of any dee?' iption. the °Amite this bill on motives the most conssien;ious and Le most Pure, believing, as we do, that if it passes into l:, it Will be att en d e d w ith i n j ur i ous consequences t o th e t nghtibem ••entersts of the countr. (Cheers. I agree with the gentleman that w y e should ha) e given some ex iipret_Sioll of ou r h orror an d our detestation of this wicked p 'll:lpt. I s h ou l d have been ready to join in such an ex efee—elBl°ll, which would, I am sure, h ave b een unan i mous l y curred in by this house. But, Sir, we can't consent to re to a bill w hi c h i s ev id en tl y su b m i tted as a lesson to hit house at the dictation of those who should have known sentimentse e better than t o as k us t o pass such a tecrtroe e of fancy legislation. I have said that this bill is pro ied to us by a Liberal Government, by members of the bend party, and is supported by those who have little Vi li ttansathy naturally with the noble lord. Ido not regret et this bill is submitted to us by the noble lord the pre seepn Prime Minister. I should have thought he, at all t e eti t", would have been the very last man to condescend v.conee before the house with such a measure. (Hear.) ed i e have at this moment three ex-Pi ime Ministers, two of d ot a s take an active share in public life. I ask this house a t : key think the noble lord the member for London (Lord ba,ll6ell) would have come down here and . have propose . c s p a of this nature ? No, you must feel quite certain his tWould have rejected with indignation such a sugges- IC A (Hear, hear.) I ask you, the right hon. gentlemen Pr e - lit °Pposite, and who are to a certain extent the re -IZ, centatives of the opinions of another ex-Prime Minister, PaLethetv if he had been in power, that noble lord would e ,nsented to propose such a measure to the House of Pal? Over and over again has the noble lord (Lord b ef e r ier s t on) taunted right hon. gentlemen in this house t o ;loathe Crimean war and during that war with truckling les ti l 'elgle Powers. I ask this house, would those sight bill%gentlemen have truckled 100th part so much as this tbeYif Passed, wou ld make us truc kl e ? (Cheers.) I will refer to the speech of Lord Derby on the first night of s ession in the Howie of Lords. [The Speaker— tourder.".l Well, Sir, in another pe ac e. (L aug ht er .) I e aY that speech hwas a noble expression of opinion on ki s Dar tof the noble lord. (Cheers.) I say that speech in el this place was a worthy expression of thepublic feeling althis country, and one which' ought to ha p ve found an bo in the mouth of the Prime Minister of England. But is l 8 bill 11 ;aw a very serious and import an t ques ti on. W e h ave ra tio submitted to us by o n e w h o h a d a re leElropean.n for dictating rather than for accepting advice. r ceolle c t that years ago, the noble lord read some sharp el4:l3ein constitution a l hi s t or y t o th e Q ueen o f S pa i n, and b y tail a nother occasion he nearly set all Europe by the ears 4, patine his " pieifieatiug" policy down the throat of atia ss ":, i 4 a ,g oeGreece. (Cheers and laughter.) . . Thts bill is to hay to us by the noble lord, whose opinions appear ie boi. 4 "e becom e so changed that he leaves two of our poor i 6 t1;. "1 ,, t Countrymen to pine unaided and unprotected . the et. - d ungeons of Salerno. (Loud cheers.) This is not araeter he once bore. In 1850 the noble lord was a gore,ROinau citizen." (Laughter.) That time, alas ! has long i to l e e 4. I well r eco ll ec t w h en the no ble' lord delighted ' e nd —nt Upon the blooming prospects of freedom in every tlavt;"vhen he ores accustomed to advocate the extension gtesgass°ntethe world of freedom, improvement, and pro the, !low often has he raised a cheer in his own favour tam3;.4 a sneer at the expense of others by telling them advocated that despeti m which he despised ! More Fr ance that, I remember when he told us that our union with inetis.enended upon mutual interests and identity of üblona. Timee have, indeed, sadly changed, bat I do F r ee that, a ni s —cg the existence of the present regime in i i c tr a o c d o. at ell evente, the noble lord will not attempt to ter.) cce bore ident'tof • titutions. (Cheers aid laugh ,e . y ins eostilite sire as much as any man to see those feelings of giv e „cY Mat Once existed between France and England eesa z.- " a ce to more satisfactory sentiments of mutual con sod a • I would gi ve an ythi ng cons i stently with the honour 4, 5 " I Fllity of m y coun t ry to promote such a union be thin en th e t wo na ti ons . (H ear .) But I must say Ido not t o .k by th e i n t ro d uc ti on o f t hi s bil l you are contributing - an end. (Hear.) T o m y m i n d th e bill b ears upon te )1 , 44 0 more than any other bill which has been submitted t} ••• a rliament during the last 50 years the stamp, to u se Words of Bylon, of "i es n_ "Meanness, and weakness, and sense of shame, dnst which thou canst nit strive, thou durst not me murmur." as 4 .) Against thi s bill we now p ro t es t, a nd a lth oug h p (s c b c t i e d r e )_ys dental majority of 200 members was obt a ined an accidental majority, for it did not re er-47t one-third of the totality of this house,—notwith aide, I PA that acc id ental majority, I trust, upon con k° /410 n, this h ouse w i ll be disposed to resist the further *iirsess of this measure. (Hear, hear.) At all events I athi c ,aY e while thanking the house for the indulgence with *itt. 4 4 it Lae slietened tome, that I think this bill is fraught al3,e co nsiderabl e d anger, and that I, for one, will give it te e ° Mil:mons and perti nac i ous oppos i t i on. (Cheers.) I IA 4'11% Will never give a v o t e w hi c h I may think will have Inn e Mealiest degree the effect—and I believe this bill saii:Sof trenching upon the impact and inviolable free soil „, c , l B country. (H ear , h ear. ) I, for one, will never give tai s 4 , 6 that may h a v e th e e ff ect, as I believe the passing of t i ac t cill would have, of circumscribing the liberal hospi -142 With which we have ever received the political fugi (‘-'lOl every time, and the unhappy exiles of every land, lind cheers.) teesre* he said that when he first read the amend fee i saele remarked—" How is man to vote against that, ta d ` r ,"a as true as the Gospel?" The right hon. gentleman to i i .nia coe Secretary had admitted that an answer ought eise'c been sent to the despatch. How, then, was it pos se,: f°r them to give a vote against the amendment. lie ti t ° 9nite ready to give the Government every credit for tole Motives which had induced them to bring this bill be esciee,he house If that despatch were not answered there s lat ut_d be a foundation. laid for future demands of a similar ti _ a ro. As to the bill itself, he thought, though objec tiOeuable in some respects, it would be an improvement, of really'exi.sting law, and would afford greater protection to a innocent persens. This was not a question between Govll country and France, but between the house and tho ernment; and whethe r the Government were 'testified m° t:hot answering that despatch. He thought they j should e `se done so, and therefore he would support the amend (Hear, hoar.) c LORD ADVOCATE would oppose the amendment i lo c ati ne if ca rr i e d it wou ld b e f atal to the bill. The right i,tsn• gentleman (Hr. Henley) a s k e d h ow could the house er'id voting for th e amendment, inasmuch a it was t ru e ? t h _ c acne it was no ame n d men t. I t h ad nothing to do with v : e l!nond rea di ng of the bill. Both motions might be ii!ecl for bk any hon. member of the house as septa snotions, but the motion of the right hon. gentleman var. Gie ts _ e ueon) might, even if true, be negatived simply be -1;111 eit was not an amendment. He (the Lord Advocate) • ° aid not go at any length into the legal questions Itholved in the bill itself. Lawyers had differed as d ifference th e necess i ty of the bill, but there could be no iffer en c e as to the propriety of punishing those en .aged in a conspiracy to murder with a severity equal 2 that proposed iu the bill. He was happy to think that conspiracy to murder was a rare offence in this country l ohe ue, hear)—but still it was necessary to deter as far as tj a ) ,Tole parties from the commission of this crime, and v _seas the object of this bill. But then it was said, crearare doing this under foreign dictation, and you are Hare a doubt about that protection which this country If ti ban a i '""ays thrown over those who claimed our hospitality." dee ~6 hill had that tendency he would not support it. He 4(17, t hink that we were likely to i ncrease t h e credit we wiee sei r a dignified vindication of our liberty by ma ki ng Les t Protestations of that kind. The beginning of the e il `lon of th e r i g ht h on , gent l eman re l ated to matters ps were not before the house, such as the recent outrage 1 4w, raise° and the proposed amendment of the criminal Isl concluded with an expression of regret that the th e e e enat c h of Count Walewski was not airs wered. But was hou se t o refuse to read the bill a second time because t hat despatch . had fist been answered? A great many ppprtaut, delicate, and difficult questions bad been raised I ` 4 th-ing the debate, and many thing s had ben said which • seed A. better been suppressed. There was no e l oubt that a ;,Irabeful outrage had been perpetrated in France, by th g leb many innocent persons had suffered, and the life of 6 Emperor endangered ; and there could be no doubt e a ": the guilty parties were persons who had taken advan q.,,ee of the laws and hospitality of England. The French sC s ve rninent and the people naturally felt indignant otl e e la Proceedings ; but he contended that the despatch the Ca proceedings Walow,ki though calling the attention of l e „; ssiitish Government to these crimes, contained no Pst'a,ge insulting to the people of this country. The h e , -;:a? Government were entitled to say, " These men F eel ; suatched a conspiracy against the Emperor of the . nat e e a, and we wish you to consider whether you ought . to t o ad to these murderers, and assassins, and their abet sele• th e hospitality shown to strangers generally." That eo, was it not right to consider whether eini. laws ]ar se 2 6 improved house expressed that opinion by \ *01• illa joritY, and he The Lord Advocate) thought the itan, " In nlerlt of t hisconn ( try e ha acted wisely in not reply -I.;gher t d h e e n u o ' e m s r n a a t t c i h o , n but of in first enacting a law affixing a aw O n referred t punishment to offences of the de 141er th , 0. Ile al thought it wise not to an -3r eitiendoeogfpaatch until the me Government had fret seen tla ' and amendments of the bill would be proposed.t te g „ a laugh.) It would have been the mimes wa s et.n world to have written a smart despatch, but Pill,l bege t ter not to increase the irritation that prevailed, nt g e e o t tl i r cl ught the noble lord at the head of the Govern neltra_ well afford to act with moderation, temper, cluiace,,,aLd patience. (Hear.) us the ``-'-',I:ONE said the principal part of the speech . L 0rd 41,1 3. uvocate referred to the merits of the bill he house bad been invited to read a second time. THE' IHe (Ur. Gladstone) would advisedly pass by that part of the speech of the learned lord. He showed a disposition to mix two discussions which had better be kept apart, and from the cousidaration 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 the 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 juridic d 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 objectioisiah e . o lian,l authorities, such a amhoatrtitieress, but he ht would re submit to the opinion of hi he had no such guide, for the bill was introduced by the Primo Minister of the Crown, who was not a lawyer, and it was recommended on grounds neither legal, social, Ensliab, 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, be fatal to the bill, and secondly, that the amendment had nothing to do with the bill, anal 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. N, doubt that statement of the Lord Advocate was a very convenient statement, and it was clear that he wished to turn it to the best ad vantage. They had heard that night that they wore called upon to deb LW whether a paltry:diplornatic corresponder cc was complete or not, as if diplomatic correspondence could mean nothing but red taps--(bear, hear)—bet 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 she sword, the reasm of man by this means steps in and peace was maintained. The question, therefore, in this case is, whether the na tional honour has been vindicated, and whether the House of Com , notle Rbooll approve of the course which has been pursued. (Hoar.) The leaned 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 tight hon. friers 1 the member for Wiltshire; and there was, moreover, a reason why a member of the G o v e r nmen t should have re membered it, for it was not only made, but the medicine did trot fail in its results. They had two questions to con si , cr--first, whether the despatch had been answered, and again, whether it should not be answered bef ore they gave their assent to the present bill. He was one who greatly regretted discussions of the present kind. o.her opportu nities would arise for discussin g th estate of their re'ations with France, and he 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 Ls draw a distinction between one nation and another with regsrd to these alliances. Still, as regarded the relations between England and France, a peculiar exception should be m a d e . Owing t o their ose neighbourhood much good arose from their ami cable relations; and, on the contrary, much evil and mis chief resulted limn 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 male to the state of their relations with France. (Hear.) He said, therefore, tLat they v ase bound to give every coa ti - fence to the Government of France. Tested by his acts, this country never had a more faithful ally than the E.u peror of the French (Hear.) He felt bound to regret that, since the peaco of 1856, there had arisen a variety of ques tions which seemed to have impaired the alliance—auoh as the question of the Isle of Serpents, the question of the Principalities, and the question of the Suez Canal. All that he deeply lamented, and he felt that those quarrels ha I weakened the Government it, iiscon :cation with the French Government up till that time, when the event occurra 1 which they had alt greatly to regret, and which bad led to the introduction of the present 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 knew it 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 boon anticipated by the noble lord at the heal of the Government, who referred to the despatch in terms rather emphatic. Ho 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 (Mr. 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 wore 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. Such a thing was besides contrary to the rules 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 Lord Clarendon had sufficient judgment and con trol over his temper to have enabled him to have given a proper and temperate reply. ( Hear, boar.) But the house had had yet another answer. The right hon. the Home Secretary had told thorn it should be answered. S'r G. GREY—I said it may be answered. Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, it may be answered ; but the right hon. gentlemen 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 bad occurred in France, he committed groat errors in speaking of the laws of this country. Yet this despatch does contain allegations most untrue awl injurious to this country. It was said, in one part of the despatch, that "assassination waseleveted to adoctrine, and wasp embed openly in this country." That was charged against Eng land I Was that true. (Hear, hear.) Was assassination el,- vated to a doctrine, and preached openly in this country? (Hear, pea-.) Was any man con , cious of the fact? (Hear, hear.) The law was sufficient to corree 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, and should not have been ma le against this country. He thought England had some character in the matter of assassination, for it was a crime which hail 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 bad to recollect that in 1856, at the Conference in Paris, a proposal wets introduced with respect to the law as it afbcted the Press in Belgium, and he spoke on this subject as 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 spots in Europe, and that she was not represented at the Canf, rences. (Hear, hear.) When Governments got committed to a course of action, as in this instance, against the Press ' they get involved in no s li g ht difficulty. The House of Commons was not, however, committed, though the Government might be. There was another very objec tionable paragraph in the despatch, in which it was asked, " Ought the English Legislature to countenance or favoar 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 who placed themselves out of the pale of society. (Hear, hear.) After statements such as these had been made, and had 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 bad 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 lights and privileges of the people. (Hear.) 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 bo 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. j , eted. The house was to:d to :act ince a lit t`c of English feeling, English law, and English recollections to that rumour. (Loud cheers.) Were they to say to tbat great and gallant people of Fiance, 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 prir. , nits of military glory—were they to treat them like children in a nursery, to whose reason they could is , t ven ture to appeal, but that they must coax them with sugar plums. (Laughter and cheers.) Let theta put some con fidence in the people of Francs, for never di , l any assembly, where everything was above-board, place confidence in a people like that of France, and find that it was mis placed. Why, even the Government had not explained the state 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 that he h a d not yet spoken on the sub ject. (A laugh.) There was not, up to that moment, even au exposition of the law. It would have been but just to England and to France 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 law. That opinion of the noble lord might be technically true, but really it was without the smallest foundation. Technically all misdemeanours came into the same category. Blackstone said that misdemeanour was synonirnous with crime. But was it true that all mis demeanours were visited' with slight punishments ? The Ia according c m o r i d g i h u tt g orfabt punishment transportation. truehnoiers m tm t house was aw are t h at the law of misdemeanour left great power in th e h ands of the judge compared with the natureiteobnna . tt o there h t e h r e e case was n o forfeiturestatute law, and ena b led him to deal with misdemeanour came bef before goodshim. and thatYe tmthere be inflicted was 1 lim u i t p on) thet the offender offender by privation o f his temporal goods, and in the amount shape of punishment, whi c h might bo inflicted nflicted without a ny limit, according to the gravity of tho offence No exposition was made by th e Government . What did w demand w edo ? A to France. was made on th that we sheltered :massing, a n d we a ent this bill as ground ll as an an swer to that demand. Was the olject of Count to convert misdemeanours into felonies? io Wales- ski spoke of our sheltering assassins, he iutendrai the w that ne Government should have the power of sending them ' of the country, (Hear, hear.) That was the necessaryout construction to be put upon the despatch of the French Foreign Minister. But what object 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 whichhad been made for the last forty years. The bill would, therefore, be wht lly 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 Franc e to make such a demand, and an ot. ligation on themselves to comply with if. For that reason, he must confess, he trusted the house would consider the amendment of his right hon. friend. Theconnection between the Frenchdespatch and that bill was avowed by the Govern ment, for the Home Secretary said they could not answer the despatch till they read the bill A second time, Now, ;SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 20, I6SS . that being so, he (Mr. Gladstone) would call on them not to be led away by the alleged necessity for amending the criminal law. 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 lit conider wh , t 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 twen.y years—who, admitting there was ' a movement indeed—did not say that it was :downward and a backward one. In all Europe there were but two spots in which the institutions were such as com manded our sympathy—still they were but spots, secondary places--holes and corn ers o f E uro p e , so i nc onsiderable was their natural greatness, but he trusted that their moral greatness would ensure for them a glorious duration of hap piness and prosperity, (Cheers.) But at this timo 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 iu Europe. (Great cheering ) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—I am very well aware, Sir, of the disadvantage of following my right 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 Waleweki. Sir, t recommended this measure to the Government— (ironical cries of " Hear, bear") —and, at the time when I recommended it, I had neither seen nor heard of the de spatch of Count Walewski. (Cheers.) This measure was proposed to the Government from a souse of English in terests. With that conviction it was prompted in an Eng lish spirit, and was for the benefit of Ee,,lish Jaw and English institutions. I call on you now to try it by that criterion. (Cheers.) after the explanations which you have heard you believe it to be a foreign measure, it has no place in an 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 t urope to uphold that I sw, and to maintain English liberty, then I cell 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 asylu m"—a right which, in my humble judgment, se ainot be consis tently maintained unless this measureds passed into a law. Now I have told you faithfully in what spirit this bill was conceived ; but I will add that, if on rea dug 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 libel 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 these are the feel ings and the principles that led to the•introduction and formation of this measure; and I will proceed in a few plain words to explain to you in what view of the Eighth ' law it has been conceived, as necessary to justify theTilain 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, hoar) — and that which would be a crime in natural b- 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—(hoar, hear)—and, if be 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 conditton with the British-born subje t, in order that you way with perfect right before the world claim the privilege of extending to him the same protection aed ttha same advantages which are claimed by natural born Eng lishmen. Now, sir, is that legislatiog in an English or is it legislating under foreign dicta ion? (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 offencea or his political opinions may be, the man who comes to our coun try and abides by our laws here, shell be sheltered under the shield of England, and shall be protected from favOl , species of attack that may be directed against him ? (Cheers.) What is the stat e o f th e E ng li s h 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 barn British subjects. Ante rior to that statute even British subjects might have com mittal 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 cmutry. But what is the c ise with regard to foreigners? Supposing two or more foreigners in this country conspired together to com mit a crime abrcad, the crime being to b 3 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.aasination was openly preached. Now, no one could suppeae that that was intended to apply to Englishmen. If there were assassins here, they had be an 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. is 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 wis.lom 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 point out any defect in the law they would remedy it. Was there any degradation whatever in that? The right hon. gentleman who had just sat down had said that the bill ha I been introduced on political and not on legal grounds. He (the Attorney-General) assured his right hon. ft lend that the bill had been introduced wholly upon legal 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 coarse 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-Geteral has told us that he cannot cdneeive with what consistency those who voted for the introduction of this bill can support the res.dution which has been proposed by the right hon. member for Ashton. I must say that I am totally blind to that inconsistency, 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, Ton days ago the question ~ a be- Itole Lae xis,: was a uestion I )3tween MI Parliament of Eng land and the Government of France. (He er, hear.) I, for one, and a great majority of the house also, with the same opinion as to the bill itself as we entertain now ; but under the circumstances that had recently occurred in France — 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 France 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 I 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 sympethy for the Emperor of the French and the French people in the position iu 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 de in order to prove the sin cerity of our feeling but to agree 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 —,vhich is not only Parlia mentary, but wise —from tr.,- approbation of its provisions, and at the same time expressed, in as strong language as cowl i be commanded, his reprobation of the conduct of Go v rnment in not answering i hat despatch which has been the subject of so much discussion this evening. (Hear, 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 ladies of the Government in not replying to that expression of feeling on the part of the Minister of France; and I cannot understand how the position of the government 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 c , nduct 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 since:o sympathy with the French nation, and a decorous respect for the Em. peror of that people, that very circumstance permits us now to offer a eriticism on the conduct 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 pass•tge of an Adminis tration whichrefers to the reception of this despatch. No mem ber has risen from the Treasury bench —and the Treasury bench has been ex h austed i n t hi s di scu ssion—who has offered us a single reason whi c h can in any way account for or justify the conduct of the Government. There is one circumstance which has not been re'erred to in this debat-, and which I myself was not conscious of When ten days ago this question was introduced- The despatch of Count Wale eiski, whichhas f been the subj ec t o f thi s di scuss i on , was not merely commu nicated by the ambassad or o Franc p in England according to the usual custom, but it was published in the Moniteur of France. It was made known to the people of France. More than the`—like all state papers of great authority that ap pear in a journal of that high character— it was copied pro bably in every officialjournal in Europe. and probably authen ticaly accepted by every cabinet in Europe. Where is the answer, then, to that despatch f (Cheers,) What satisfaction can it be to this country, how can the suspicion of Europebe removed, if all we can r eceive from the nob'e viscount at the head of the government is the information that some indefi nite words were expressed in the saloon of the French ambas sador, in which, tor 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 the government 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 inflecuce which this debate or the conduct of this house a tbvcsteahslonha,e m hwailoiepeunfeneianaore. to a eredsevyetiditiursrn y uiloildeei nseettnt now pouredhhad h tissonelboetle a :aaol nnwtdtebds v inolfctptduneeciet e l. ,toyciteti .etfoyainatowwuohnlchtt(ilspemipoetiahhieTwl address consider which ncereohenenhutrueohissarrowiresFemhtfettenoistnehhhrajlsoFirettnatn: Frenchi ,i d ,irdhi t(oncosi in the nenseyi s peyhhhottgse p ealeraahistegea o inteiiv:essvhior s sdnbspes: i eyebeosflu t utaniEheao i f wnacbtte o rhtes:coenlem n eciaioahgtusetei:ulenien o ci .oaiisontee:e f ssnuelnnh,tflat:Tes. tish;tuboe:ihnolhtdotreeiolobtieel authentically dfptucilaeii F ystadaiunti leht r teirtabscoo)tie e lleoooticiofhe n aslainntulueeo c t: Emefielsyc h nhil nahtonstytelwgef fitau p neehznieavoser:it e ociarialueti o nt i edbfndouois l is e Efntel tsce,ehuettioilehlnxdno o hhneogioe i nehassebt . lrt atthikaataci t siiirrnwnaovei: s h eneeistddidne, esie e . in a myst..ry which no minister of the Crown has risen as yet occasioneda l o ref muchof tiheed indignation t e i h e eG in n the country and in this h use, were never disavowed till the 6th February in this year, while on the 4th February, when the h rase met, this bill was announce.], 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 recal:ed to the necessity of self-respect till they found the House of Commons turned upon them, and demanded that to be done for the honour of the country which they, the natu ral trustees of the honour of England, had failed in accom plishing. It strikes me, and my assertion may be contra dicted if it is wrongly worded, but I be'ieve most sincerely 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 of er 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 am asseder in this metropolis by our Secretary of State—that there was a negligence in this reap et ou the part of the English Government, which was probably occa sioned 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 lion ition of the French Govern ment with regard to removing those causes of misunderstand ing would have boon greatly facilitated, and probably we should never have been obliged to ent e r i n t o thi s di seuss i on. But instead of that, as I have been told and believe, no prudent attempt was made by the English Government to arrest the course of th;s proceeding. The despatch which has occasioned so groat a souse ion in this country was al owed to appear in the Moniteur, 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 botwe n the two countries I could have been established and settled. Now let the house remember that in 99 cases out of 100, when there is a quarrel between two 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 aced with promptness and fairness, with a desire to support the dignity of this country, but at the same time to cone Hate 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 answer red. 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 St rte did not agree in the stern necessity which he now recognises for r plying to that state paper ; he does n. t at a'l 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 answe r th e despatc of the French Minister. (Hear hear.) But if that be the ease, as lam informed it is by high legal authority, what a flue answer would it have been, if, replying to the despatch, the minister having first made all necessary apology, at last conclu ed by saying that, either by the greatest good fortune in the world, or the most extraerdi• nary prescience, a law was in preparation, re oly to be pre sented ou the mec ting of Pa.rl ament, which would anticipate a 1 that the F. each government could require, or the laws of England or the customs of the country permit of. Sir, when we have arrived at this point, when it has become a point of disc ssion whether an Eng'i=h Minister should reply to a de spatch from a foreign government, 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 c , • ally 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 th s house would be satisfied or pleased with a flippant, live'y 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 despatches —we have Blue-books full of them on this table with reference to our foreign affairs. We have already too many of eueh despatch s, but not such as would to 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 end the same opinions which I expressed when the subject was last before us, which that t e d t e b s a p t , t t h e h e ieMinister spiritof this w er e t r y n country t o h u e gh e t e to e a s h i a e answered n. fo k that in neglecting to answer it, a groat occasion was lost. I think it would have been wo I if the Minister had taken the opportunity of asserting the 'nice : pies of public law, and of atidotianlittylgahntsd. honour, (C h e r and s ) h J a i v mu e g vindicating nahpoaeleearin appealedeoont conditions ronwrseinational h ig of the French G eyer= . n t. (Cheers.) y to the litigi ous s pi r it, bnt o t a e d ll et tire And had such an appeal been made in all frankness, 1 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 ono question, whether the British Government have acted properly in neglecting to answer Count Wa lowskre despatch ? 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, nojustice in such attempts, and think that th e vote which this house arrived at some 10 days since must, in so far as a vote of ibis house c an, in fluence opinion on the °tiler side of the water. I think it must have been both perfectly understood and highly appre o ciated. a)g question raeTiaphtleeo diplomatic aiimportance, question oe itotwaren w ecn i ae t bFp w uro h tal i nio c tef h i co: i w a ar e Ili have d E nowgae England, tho real issue to-night, and which will be clearly under stood,edlieumaat cel i e t dt s iise : nis i n t (oollnft i oe s tati a l question between this house and estswl issue, it servants of of the Crown—have th ey or have they not done their duty sr th reference to Cou r t W ale wski's desp cheers.) I will not ent er i nto a discussion of the merits, or asa a (Loud even of the character of the leer they have laid on the table. If this amendment of the right hon. member for Ashton should be carried, there will be nothing to prevent us pro ceeding to the consideration of that measure, and of that mea sure I gave the same guarded opinion th it I gave on a former occasion; I reserve to myself the right of deciding on its merits. What we have now to decide is, w h e ther the resolution of the right h on. gentleman is a just and proper resolution, whether its allegations aro accurate, whether its sentiments aro those which this house ought to sanction, and whether the regret which it expresses has not been felt by every Englishman, and has not touched the hearts of the i whole people of this country ? (Loud cheers.) I protest aginst any foreign element being introduced into this dis cussion. Let us decide whether the amendment of the right hon. gentleman is one which i s justified by the circumsteuce s U 1 w e, For my own part I agree with my right hon. friend the member for the county of Oxford, that it is impossible to challenge its accuracy an d justice. (Hear.) I think it is expressed in moderate although grave language that in sup porting it we aro discharging a Public duty, a nd that if we c arry it we shall accomplish a p u bli c benefit, (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON--Sir, I join with the right hon. gen tleman in the exhortation with which ho concluded h:s speech, and I implore the house not to allow its pessions to be roused by eloquent dec'amatiou, that, and not argu msat, being the means by which the amendment of the right hon. member for Ashton is supported. (Oh, oh.) I say tha'; 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 hail. friend the member for Oxford University, depart ing from the subject under consideration, have entered inte a large and elaborate attack upon my conduct when Minister for Foreign Affairs. They have tak n a view of past transac tions which, at an earlier period of the evening, I should have bean perfectly ready to answer ; but now I shall only say of ran sacked old newspapers for wea, o n e attack upon me—that the right hon. member for Ashton—who w ef hoappears to have it is a pity his industry did not at ke mi an h o t tl h ier turn, and look H • ve been said of back through the files to see h Had he done so, I t nu a l n ifd d ol s .m fo vie r r t t h ini to e-g igh . t as the champion some expressions quite as strong attacked, (Hear, - loud ehle:he.uareitne f sa d • f " Question.") ce cries o think himself he e a and his ud nations, it is the first time in ill ,a," Questio u n. as those with w p h bo i e e lvi h eey l f h ei a T ve hi b e e m en eehlsly,that h w e h ar e , n a t n h d e right hon, gentleman s that character. gn a h i a t in . s md a s foreign countries in which of the honour of England, as the vind e ic a a r to i r of the rights of ) During the t p(mc h ey i rh s ieoledi rfse thatc country ihihae tes a Parliament 'which .the rights of England were called in que j a wo t a s a el n fa d gha l ainv h es a t v fs e oer s ee a n fr i t intogether I recollect no occasion on . e tion with reference to the a power which ho can ho has no always command, to prove dispute, (Oh, the foreign in the _ oh.) Yes, that right hon. gentleman has not been th ic, e oQ a u d ne r tery e et c of s ht awe gentleman has invariably wrong u foreign which d countryie t h u e r e e rs ed , " a t O n h cl a h t , submission advocated has been a policy of a s t u t n and crouching to any foreign Power with whoin timehe we might have any occasions hare arisen in d fference to arrange, and even when has been called upon to furnish the Govern mentft e h i e ei foreign gu pel i c c o y u w n h t which this house which the lig defence, was sure to be raised, to paralyse the r ght hon. gentleman depriveof its means of defence. with the means of national the voice of the arm of the country, and to right gentleman standing forth on one I recollect the hon. small ' the mouthpiece of that party whose publica tionoccasion as (Renewed interruption, cries of '' Oh, oh," and . some cheers.) which held it to be of no consequence tion)— that publication by any foreign country provided if we should be conquered tre I had the honour to read to the house—(great interrup tion) the mills might continue wo . mendous cries of, at all events, thatthe character the sentence was lost.) I say, has the merit of novelty, for he, Oh, oh," and Question," amid which the conclusion of in which he appears to night pion of the honour and dig e n d ityo s e a o s un u t e r f y e . rt (C un h ate emes, n and Oh, oh.") e Now, contend hew that he i as wrong on theformeroues. for the first time within my recol f le t c h til e on, appears as th e chain present occasion es I thin Iwho introduced • • not consider-- (Laughter.) Aye, sir, it was . dice and debate passionate appeals to preen endeavours to mis represent the real question. (Tie.e, time ) Thequestion which the house has now to decide is, whether it will stultify itself. (No, no.) Not Of stultified condition are not willing in the 'aegis.) Of course, stultified, ,_ ,f wlehdoge o major ,, i t y oAa_ ire t c ours c ourse—stultified.o a t fe t k h n o e s w ea i r t e in ( 200, affirming that the Governme n t sh ould bring in a mast of this character, we were now to be led byan insidious amend nrnt to refuse a second reading to the bill without any fresh circumstances having arisen, and the facts being the s tine. If such be the result of the present motion, it will be one at which the country will certainly be astonished. (Hear, bear.) I say that things are in the same condition, because an hon. friend of mine asked why these arguments were not used on the metioa tor leave to bring in the bill. and the right hon. member for w it to county said that th e ques ' . .hei was frills , . to the house, and spite of thatar gumen t an d i n sp it e of the eloquence with which it was enforced, a m sjority of 200 voted that the bill should be brought in even although the mi erable pretext of the unanswered despatch was stronglyurged in op position. I take leaye to say that I never heard a proposal fraught wth large principles rgued on such narrow, idle, and miserable grounds. Why, eir, 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 s •nt by the French Government to its am ba seder 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 re id the despatch (oh, oh) ; yes lam satisfied that the major:ty w;a vote it to have been an insult have never real the despatch. (Renowed 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 the people of England ? (Hear, h ar.) But it is said that it is a reflection upon the people of England ; an 1 hon. gentlemen vow and protest that the people of England are not to be insulted 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 occasion?" 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 spiraci 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, we 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 9.l3gations contained in that des,. etch to be true (Cheers, and "Oh! ") The despatch goes on to say that the laws of the country do not provide an adequate remedy ; and the Attorney-Genera' has shown to-night that that is perfectly true. (" Oh !") 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 toll 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 realy is put on the same footing as a native of this country. (Hear, 11 hear.) Then it is said that this despatch calls on us to put au 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 hononrble 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 had 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 ? Why, sir, if we had dune so, I should like to know what would not have been said by those champions of the dignity of Parlia ment? (Hear, h-ar.) What would not have been said by those persons who are so jealous of the honour of the country if wo 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 Frencli Government a promise to pay which the house must fulfil ? (Cheers ) Why, sir, we should have been guilty of great disrespect to this house if we bad pursued such an un constitutional course. (Hear, hear.) Thou what would the " ade mate answer" have been ? 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 p opose 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 wis which we thought the circumstances would justify. Well, then, the answer would have been, after all, a very meagre docu ment unless we had 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 wailing for its ultimates, have 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 th4t additional security which the French government wishes, and which would, at the steno time, be a measure of purely British legislation. (Hear, hear.) I hope this house will not take that course which the eght hon. gentleman has urged it this evening to adopt. I hope wo shall not trifle with at question of deep national import atm. (Cheers.) I hope that this house will not reckless'y overturn the decision which it has come t bya large mejori 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 (Kr. Gladstone) that while we should strive to be at peace with all parties, there are peculiar sir umstances and geographical considerations which ought to make us attach a special importance to the alliance with France. It is mighty well for gentlemen to indulge in general remarks of that k' nd, 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 tire, 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 &lit orate consideration 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 Against it M tjority... 234 215 Loud and long cheering and waving of bats followed thii announcement, and indeed preceded it ; for the result was known from the relative pozition ih which the tellers ap proached the table. Theameadment was then put as a substantive motion, and agreed to without a division. When its terms ware solemnly read out by the Speaker, for the second time, every eye was directed on Lord Palmerston, "but never a word spoke he." He widfolly looked, for a moment, on a paper containing the numbers of the division, which some one had cruelly thrust into his hand, and then indignantly cast it on the floor. The orders of the day, including " Supply—committee." were then called over, and postponed till Monday, amidst some laughter. CHELSEA. NEW BRIDGE. Sir J. SHELLEY moved for leave to bring in a bill fir re pealing the act authorising a toll to be taken for foot passen gers on this bridge. Mr. AYItTON opposed the bill, on the ground that a select committee was sitting on the question of tolls in 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 sail that when the subject was inquired into he believed it would be found there was much to be s iid in favour of the vim", ho took; but after the debate which had taken place, and at that hour of the night ho wou d, with the permission of the how, renew the discussion another night. (Hear, hear.) The subject was then postponed, and the house adjourned at half•past one. THE 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 inae 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 conftdenc-, 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 having affordzd 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 fa. the adoption of new penal measures against foreigners domieilel amongst us. Apart from the tone of assumpti n and dictation in which the demand was officially made, and the offensive and threaten ing language un-officially, but not the less siguiftcantly, used to enforce it iu high quarters, the mere fact that a powerful a lly should formally require are' 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 unrobuked, or to have suffered the incom patibility of its purpose with all we hold traditionary 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 the 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 in 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. He had to deal, as ho well knew, 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 equivoc and be, at the inflexibility of ll angry though be was, or affected to r g e u s i p d e e c d t c i t o u s r a u c g c e e s s i n fu I diplomacyiy . Th e fl a r s s t w p a o s l eionn the e li w ol ll d. 7 8 3 n t bi A b n ed d to war. t th h e em ß , ri h ti e sh di G ci o no ve t ru r n e r c e au nt i i i i i r s i A •es m is b t as ing sa n d i o s r, at o t r e a different course. Unhappily, Lord Clarendon has pursued in the maxims of the Though bred a Tory and trained party, the present Foreign spirit which, with all their little of the high and i t - ate o m v p e t n t t a o lk br o o t. w g b oi e n a g t faults, distinguisl)ed the s the sole survivor of the class to Lord Palmerston, who is now which the Hawk sburys, f Y lk s l e r. e m P s i t t t ' o s school. and Wellesleys, and Catalina be - k How would the men who did not hesitate to repel p•ne . Foreign S .,.. e m cr e e n ta o r the Great Napoleon's insolent interference regard the longed, seems to have outlived alike their policy and their faint hearted and nu% orthy silence in which the orders of Monsieur Walewski and the menaces of Monsieur Porsigny have been received ? Could they rise from their marb4 tombs and come once more to judgment, there cannot be a doubt that each of them would east his scornful shell of reproba tion along with those of nearly every man of note er mark in the present House of Commons. What is Napoleon 111. compared with his illustrious predecessor ? What is he individually, or by the luck of revolutionary catastrophe and coup d'etat, that the Government of Great Britain should mutely kneel before him? We aro not now arguing the provisions of the Conspiracy Bill. By their own merits they must stand or fall. Bat 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. Walewski's first de spatch 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 a considerable number of Lord Derby's followers consented to vote 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 lingness to see him 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. Put Mr. Disraeli and others guarded themselves at the time, we are bound to acknow ledge, from the imputation of endorsing, blindfolded, the pro visions of the intended bill, and, as strongly as Lord John Russell and Mr. Roebuck, reprob tted the deplorable weak ness and impolicy of permitting the French Minister's imprr. tiseuce to go without reprimand. There is nothing inc n 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 Conspiracy Bill as an Act. . . . _ Hitherto our laws, whether lenient or severe, have been indigenous ; but if the present piece of French manufacture should ever be smuggled through Pa , liament, we shall here- after have the unenviable privilege of being govern 341 by laws exotic intheir 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 en the face of it, and the brand of legislative bastardy that is upon its brow. With the nonchalance of a policeman carrying a foundling to the workhouse, the nob'e prefet of Westminster brought in his miserable charge, and got leave to lay it on the table. Perhaps in the now Reform Bill provision may be made to facilit .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 sonages, 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 punitive parent •ge of the precious lit'le bills; and the Minister of England, as lie 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 CONIMONS—FEB.I9. CONSPIRACY TO MURDER BILL. Order for second reading read ; motion made and question proposed, " That the Bill be now road a second time :" Affondment proposed, to leave out from the word " Tbat " 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 is cannot brit regret that her Majesty's Government, pre vious to inviting the House to amend the law of conspiracy by the scsond 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, 1853, and which has been laid before Parliament," instead thereof :—Question put, "That the words proposed to bo left out stand part of the ques tion." The House divided—Ayes 215 ; Noes 234. AYES— 215. Adeane, 11. Fo'e v, 11. W. Osborne, R. Atherton, W. Foster, W. G. Ossulston, Lord Bagshaw, Robert Fortescue, lion. F. Paget, C. Bagwell,"John Fortescue. C. S. Paget, Lord A. Baines, Rt. lion. M. Gallwey. Sir W. Paget, Lo dC. Baring, A. Gayer), Major Palmerston, Viscount Baring, 11. Gitnrd, Earl of Patten, Col. haring, Sir F. Glyn, G. Pease, Fleury Baring. T. G. Goderleb, Viscount Perry, Sir S. Barnard, Thomas Grcavcs, E. Philipps, J. Ilattrurst, A. A. Greer, Samuel Pinney, Col. Rentinck, G. Gregory, W. Pryse., E. Bethel!, Sir R. Gregson, Samuel Pritchard, J. . Biddulph, Col. R. M. Grenrell, C. P. Pugh, D. 11 ake, J. Greville, Colonel F. Puler, Christopher Bland, L. H. Grey, Captain Ramsdell, Sir J. Bouverle, lion. E. P. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir G. Rawlinson, Sir H. Bouverie, Hon. P. Grey, It. Raynham, Viscount Bowyer. G. Grosvenor, Earl Renton, G. Boyd, J. Gurdon, Brampton Richardson, J. Brady, J. Gurnee, Samuel Rid:ey, George Brampton, T. IV' Hall, Sir Benjamin Russell, A. Brocklehurst, J. Hanbury, Robert Russell, F. W. Browne, Lord John Hankey, T. Rust, James Bruce, Lord E. Ilanmer, Sir John Schneider, Henry Bruce, 11. A. Harcourt, G. G. Scrope, G. Buckley, Gen. Harris, J. D. Seymour, Danby Bulkeley, Sir R. H irtinzton, Marquis Smllt, W. Buller, J. IV. llatchel!, John Smith, V. Burke, Sir T. Heatheote, G. Smith, Sir fr. Calcratt, J. Henehy, D. Somerville, Sir IV. Campbell, It. J. R. Heleaze, Geo. F. . Spooner, R. Castlerosse, Vis. Herbert, 11. Stafford, Marquis Cavendish, W. Holland, FL Steel, John Cavendish, G. C. /loward. C. Stuart, Colonel Cayley, E. S. Ilugher, W. ) 1 ' Start, C. Clark, J. Ingham, R. Sullivan. Michael Clay, James Jermyn, Rt. Hn. Earl Tancred, li. Clifford. C. C. Jervoise, Sir .I. Thornely. T. Clive, George Keating, Sir 11. Thornhill, W. Codrington, Gen. Kendall, N. Tollernache, F. Cogan, W. 11. F. Klnglake, J. Truman, C. Coiebrooke, Sir E. Labouchere,Rt.limil Turner, J. A. Collier, 11. P. Langston, J. 11. Vane, Lord 11. Cowper, W. F. Langton, H. G. Verney, Sir 11. Coots, Sir C. H. Legh, G. C. Villiers, C. Cotterell, Slr H. G. Levinge, Sir R. Vivian, J. C. Crossley, F. Lewis, Sir G. C. Waldron, Laurence Davey, R. Lincoln, Earl of Walsh, Sir J. Davie, Sir H. R. F. Lowe, It. Walter, J. Deasy, It. Luce, T. War re, John De Vere, S. E. Macarthy, Alex. Wegaelin, T. Devereux, J. M`Cann, J. Western, S. Divett, E. Mackie, J. WeAhead, Joshua Dodson, J. Maguire, J. F. Whatinan, J. Duff, M. Mangles, C. Whitbread, S. Dunbar, Sir W. Marshall, William Wickham. 11. Duncan, Viscount Martin, C. Wigram, Loftus T. Duncombe, A. Martin, P. Williams, M. Dundas, F. Massey, W. Williams, S r W. Dunne. 51- Matheson, A. Willy.ims, E Dutton, Hon. It. H. Matheson.tilrJ. Willoughby, Sir IL 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. Esmonde, J. Morris, D. Woods, Henry Fagan, W. Mowbray, J. R. Woraley, Lord Ferguson, Colonel Newark, Viscount Young, A Ferguson, Sir /Used Norris, J. T. Finlay, A. North, F. Fitzroy, Henry O'Brien, P. Foley, J. H. Ogilvy, Sir 3. TELLERS. Ray ter, W. _ llrtind, 11 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. Newt, Lord Alcock, T. Fox. W. I. Napier, J. Annesley, Hon. Hugh Frazer, Sir W. Napier, Sir C. A rchdall, M. Galway, Viscount Newdegate. C. Ayrton, A. Gard, R. Newport, Viscount Bane, H. Garnett, William Nicoll, D. Ball, E Gaskeli, J. Noel, G. Baring, T. Gilpin, Col. 11. North, Col. J. • Bernard, T. Gladstone, W. Pack°, C. Bass, M. Graham, Sir J. Pakinoton, Sir J. Baxter, W. Grcenall, Gilbert Falk, L. Beach, sr. Greene, John Palmer. R. Beale, S. Grenfen, Charles W. Fault, Henry Sexily°, Earl Griffith, C. echell, Sir G. Bennet, Capt. Grogan, Edward F eel, Sir RViscount Berkeley, llonrk F. Had fi eld, George ny Blackburn, Peter Hamilton, Lord Claud Philips, It. Boldero, Col. H. G. Hamilton, G. A. Pigott, F. Boeill, W. Hamilton, J. Pilkington, J. Bramley-Hoorn, J. Hamilton, Capt. Powell, Francis Bridges, Sir B. *llardcastle, Joseph Price, W. II r0.^ ,, , ›irjnr Hardy, G. Ricardo, S. Buchanan, Walter lical., .1 T. Robertson, P. Butler, I.•iir J. Heathcoate, Sir W. . I :JelmA, J. Banbury, W. B. Henley, J. Roupvii, W. Bury, Viscount Herbert, S. Russell, Lord J. Byng, (1.11. C. Hodgson, William Scholefield, W. Caird, J. Holford, R. &later, George Cairns, 11. Hope, Alexander Scott, F. Carden, Sir R. W. Hopwood, John Scymer, 11. Cardwell, E Horsman, E. Shelley, Sir J. Comae, Sir J.R. Hotham, Lord Sheridan, H. B. Cecil, Lord R. Hums, W. Sibthorp, Major Cheetham, John lltin+, G. W. Smith, J. B. Child, Smith Ingestre, Viscount Smith, A. Christy, Samuel Ingram, H. Smallett,'„A. Clinton. Lord It. Johnstone, H. B. Stanhope, J. Close, M. Johnstone, Hope Stanley, Lord Cobbett, J. M. Jolliffe, Sir W. Stapleton, John Cole, 11. A. Kelly', Sir F. Stirling, W. Collins, T. Ker, Richard Stewart, Sir M. Coningham, W. Kerrison, Sir E. Stun. 11. Conolly, T. Kershsw, J. Sykes, Colonel Copeland, W. T. King, L. Taylor, Colonel Corry, 11. T. L. _ King, J. Tay:or, S. Cowan, C. Kinglake, A.' ' Tempest, Lord A. V. Cranford, E. H. J. Kingacote, Capt. R. Thompson, General Crawford, it. W. Knatchbull, W. Tomline, G. Crook, J. Knatchbull-Ilsguessen Townbliend, J. I)aiglish, R. Kn'ght, F. Trerusta, C. Dekeith, Earl Darner, L. D. Knox , Col. B. W. I T , r r o o 1 1 l a o l p vn e ,y4isri J. Darner, Langton. W. G. Vance, John Davison, R. Laslett, W. Vansittart, W. Deedes, William Laurie, John Dent, John La l d e d o in tt g , t il o d n i , ii l l l r .. o. Dillwyn, L. L. Lennox, Lord A. F. Lennox, Lord H. G. Walpole. S. Disraeli, B. Leslie, C. P. Warren, S. Dobbs, W. C. L iddell, IL G. White, James Du Cane, C. Lindsay, W. Whiteside, J. Duke, Sir I. Lisburne, Earl Whitmore. li. Locke, John Dunlop, A. Williams, B. Lockhart. A. B. Du P ', all, George Pre, C. William, W. East, sir J. Wise, J. Egerton, Eder. C. Lygon, Bon.r. Lytton, Sir E. Woodd, B. lcho Lord Elan ey, Viscount Macsrtney, George Wortley, Major Flphinsione, Sir J. Macaulay, Kenneth Wyld, J.lniea Elton, sir A. H . M a cMahon, P.Wyndham, General Evans, Sir Do Lacy Manus, Richard Wyndham, a. Eva ns, T. W. Manners, Lord J. Wynn, Col. Ewart, W. Martin, J. Wynne, J. w, Ewart, J. Maxwell, J. Wynne, W. Ewing, Crum Melgund, Lord Yorke, E. Farnham, E. Miles, W. Farsichar, Sir M. Mil er, Taverner T MAIM Fensexii, 11. Miller, Stearns Gibson, Milner Blight, John FOR AGAINST Lord Ashley Mr Hudson Mr B Carter Rn Col Lowther Mr Wyvill Capt Lowther Mr H Vivian Col Gilpin Mr Mainwaring Hon R C Hill Mr Q VansittartSir W Verner Mr Raney Sir F Thesiger Mr R Mangles Mr Wrightson Mr T Mills Mr Butler Lord Emlyn Mr Cox Sir P Egerton Copt Jolliffe Lord JEladdol Col Herbert FOR AGAINST Lord Sandon Lord Burghley Major Gordon Mr A Steuart Mr Handley ' Lord E Hitt _ _ Capt O'Connell Hon J Percy Mr Cubitt Mr Bolt Mr Drummond Lcrd Lovaine Sir A Agnew Mr B Blakemore Mr B Sheridan Mr Cooper Hon H Denison Sir H 4Booth Hon J Mostyn Sir C Burrell Cot Watkins Mr D Jones Hon L A Ellis Sir E Hayes * We are requested to s tate at all. lhat Mr. Ilardcast'e did not vote THE PIiESCH " PUBLIC SAFETY" BILL. The "Public Safety" Bill came on for discussion in the French Corps Legitlatif yesterday. M. Emile 011ivier, the member for Paris, opened the debate in an admirable speech, of which the following is an imperfect but ac3crate sketch:— In rising to ask—l will rather say to implore —you to re ject. the proyred law, I am not acting in the spirit of party, but simply . as an honest mau. I destre not to serve the ephe meral passion of a day, but the eternal passion fur wlia' is just and right. I propose to att m'c no o no , I w i s h only to render the homage to the only legiti ma t e sovereign in the world, to use an expression of Mirabcau, —Right. lam not speaking to those out of doors. I speak to y ou, members of this house, and I add, remembering an eloquent expression used in my bureau, that I do not address you w ith out hop!. My first objection to this law is th at it is bad upon a u se ' pretence. The attempt on the Emperor, s life was frustrated by Providence, and lam grateful for the mercy. The fate of nat ens can no more be influenced by the assassin than it can by the executioner. But this clime, as you have b een told by everybody, was conceived in a foreign country, com mitted by foreigners, and inspired by the resentment of foreigners—it was not a French crime. The second reproach that I m eke to the law is that it violates all the principles that civilised nations are agreed to consider as of the essence of sound penal legislation. In the first place, the bill violates the principle of the separation of powe s. Montespieu tells 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 citizen's at the merry of three agents of the executive. Se cond, before this new tribunal all those forms which even the most hasty justice cannot dispense with will disappear. No examination of the accused, no canfrontatioa with the wit nesses, no defence, no discussion, no publicity. Tile Minister of the Interior will be at once the accuser, the defender, and the judge. Third, every penal law ought &early to define the offence. A law that fails in this particular is n law. Inste ad of being a guarantee, it becomes a standing menace and a con venient 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 interpreta tions. It punishes those who " excite publicly in any way whatever those who practise manceuvres, or keep up in teidgence abroa 1; and exiles those againse whom 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 subjectin; to • transportation those who were condemned in 1818, 1819, and 1851, and who have undergone their sentences. Fifth, it does more, for it operates against persons retr2-actively. It will be attempted to deny this position, because it is s id 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 ?" It means nothing certain, but simply something which, according to circumstances, may be deemed to be such by those in (The hon. member hero cited a striking passage from Portalis, condemning retroactive laws, and a report of the debate in the Convention showing that that body, in the very worst times, had refused to 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. t. But who could be Pure that he might not be obnoxious to its provi sions ? When Danton established the revolutionary tribuhal, he thought he was clearly comprised in the exception ; but shortly afterwards his own heed 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 those who did not conspire, but who were said to live in a state of " culpable expectation " The word suspects was repudiated, but this totally new word " ex•ec taut" was equally terrible. These " expectants," who were t) be transported, lived by their labels, and transportation to many of them would be tantamount to a sentence to misery and death, (Hero M. 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 fcr nine years. You are at peace with all the world. You have an immense army, an able police, an enormous budget, strategetical roads through your capital, and fortresses at all convenient places." No liberty ex ate. The g , oatcst of all—that of the press—is annihilated ; and yet you come to ask for laws of " public safety." Do you not fear that the country may say, " I have sacrificed to you my liberty, my franchises, my traditions, the conquests 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 ?" (From the Daily News.) All honour to M. Emile 011ivier. Amid the silence and stupor that benumbs France—the fawning fl tteries of a me naced press, a .d the abject prostration of a servile legislature —this brave and honest citizen has manfully stool forth to protest in the names of violated justice and outraged society against that monstrous law of " Public Safety," which sur renders up the lives and liberties of Frenchmen to the uncon trolled despotism of irritated power. A law of " Public Safety"— its very name makes the blood run cold. Sixty- Isiir years vanish like a dream, and we are face to face again with that horrible tribunal, where suspicion was proaf, and accusation guilt ; where there was but one stop 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 inaugu•ated at Rome, and the fantastic tyranny which Robespierre enthroned at Paris. Is it possible that Napoleon 111. can be mad enough to dream of making a third experiment of the same sort on the patience of mankiud ? If not what are we to say to a law like that which i now no minally under discussion in the Corps Legislatif—a law which, without the forms ot public trial, punishes with an exile that in its severity is tantamount to death, al: those who " excite publicly in any way whatev:r," who " prac tise manoeuvres, or keep up intelligen'es abroad "--a law which, absolutely without any .kiwi of £•ial, renders amenable to the Facile sentence those who have been already condemned and punished for oft-m -ess connected with the political troubles of 1848, 1849, and 1852. 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 Power; 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. 011ivier, in his admir able and coura o cous speech, points out with dignified and temperate firmness the various objections to this most n on strous p oject of law. He accuses ir, and with justice, of vioiating 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 tesecutes, and the G .vernment judges. It leaves the fortines and liberties of French citizens at the absolute mercy o: the agents of the Executive. It violates al those forms which the uniform experience of ages has shown to be the only safeguard for the administration of justice. There is to be uo publicity, no cross examination of witnesses, no speech for the defence ; everything is to be conducted in secresy. Again, it vi lates one of the first maxims of all criminaljuris prudence in this respect, that it contains no precise definis tion of the offence; everything is vague and uncertain, everything is left to the widest latitude of isterpretation. What is a "grave fact ?" what is, or rather what is not, a " practising of manoeuvres," and a " keeping up intelligence abroad ?" Who is to pronounce what does or does not come under the words " exciting publicity in any way whatever 1" 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 natal law of lame majcstates, than this " Public Safety" Bill would throw over France. No law, as M. 011ivier truly and courageously declared, has over b ea proposed which violates so many fundamental principles. " We are told," continues this brave man, "that the law is only meant to attack red-republican socialists and enemies of or :er. But who can bo sure that he may not be obnoxious to its provisions? When Danton established the revolutionary tribunal, he thought he was clearly comprised in the excep tion, but shortly after his own head fell on the scaffold." and Addressing truth of which h t he hi Imperialc asrarely Government,been s surpassed, s a s s e t d r t a . m u e b li o v r l n e e x s s claims, " You have governed this country nine years ; you are at peace with all the world ; y ou have au immense army, an able police, an enormous revenue, strategetical roads through your capital, and fortresses at all convenient places. No liberty exists, The greatest of all—that of the Press— is an nihilated, and yet you come to ask for laws of public safety. Do you not fear that the country may say, ' I have sacrificed to you my liberty, my franchises, my traditions, the conquests of my blood—all that made me glorious among nations, for the sake of a little tranquillity, and y ou now as k f or more —where will you stop I' " Heroic words--words of truth and soberness ; words worthy of a freeman ; words that ought to kindle a blaze of resistance in a free nation. What effect they may have in France rests with the future. They canuot fall altogether idle. In Milton's phrase. they are "like the fabled dragon's tee' h, which being sown up and down may chance hereafter to spring up armed men." For, tli:s enact wait what the years may bring forth. But one thing is certain. Tney ought not to be withont their weight in England. They ought to make Englishmen deeply p before they entrust a reckless Minister with the power of altering the la-vs of Ecgland to suit the capric es of one who is thus violating all law and justice in Franco. __- CHURCH RATES.—Mr. Villiers paired for Sir J. TM. lawney's tnot'on with Mr. Liddell against. 45 B"t6ealrgeuraainloslyepi [ADVERTISFMENTI —11,,110 way's Pills the most popular medicine for the Cure of Female Complaints. Af ter nvatoabe, .• ' experience it is inamtestaMy proved that many pa..B there is no medicine equal to Holloway's Pals for the of all ages for d cure of di,ienagsepsrionpeeiditeltarietioadlecemthaelmes, Safetheir n invigorating d i *satien or irregularity of th gtaiendyllinauraiyfy be taken by frmales : 1 b d a an G i n l i i r v a - t removing the cause, thus restorino , the ' a ' 4 health. As a family medicine they fre su lltl e may be taken by old and young, restoring health and o have pro vc d unsuccess f ul energy after ali a m ll e o i t i h ei e n r e m v ea en n d s throughout via Sold by the World, and at Profeasor H o ll o E•tablishrnent, 244, Strand, London. LADvianssesxr.l—The g t r h e e at i injury inflicted ou many n D in t ; valids by drugs in creases Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food,lwl indigestion (dyspepsia), h t er ic e h st eu th re e , p w u i b u l l ic ou t t ak m e ed i icine bilious, and liver complaints, cou gh, flatulency, constipation , nervo u s , asthma, consumption, and debility. We quote a few out of many thousand cases of cures by this delicious food :—From the Dowager Countess of Castlestuart. Cuio 52,612. Rosstrevor, County of Down, Ire land, December 0, 1854.—The Dowager Countess of Castle. stuart feels induced, in the interest of suffering humanity, to state that Du Barry's excellent Revalcnta Arabica Food has cured her, after all medicines bad 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 be cheerfully answered.—Prom the Venerable Archdeacon of Ross. No. 32,836. —Three years' excessive nervousness, withpains in my neck and left arm, and general debility, which rendered my life very miserable, has been radically removed by Du Barry'shealth. restoringfood.—ALSX. 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. Wurr,cr ; Dr. Ingram ; Lord Stuart de Decies; the Dowager Countess olCast!estuart; Major Gun. Thomas King, and many other respectable per sons, whose health has been restored by it, after all other means of cure had failed. Suitably packed with full instruc tions. In canisters, 11 b. 2 s. 9 d. ; 21b. 4s. 6d.; a sl b* on 121 b. Us. The 121 b canisters arc scut carriagaufdredo " 77. ccipt of Post-office order. Barry Du Barr , i n st the fear. ettent-street, London. Important Ca nutivince-Chancellor Sir ful7clangers of spurious imitatio ns. 1 : tot imitating " LYIT en Y aga R on the 10th March. a Barry's Revalenta Arablea Food. '• 14 1S I 5 l 4 li , am ag P ai a n g s e t WA°l°fdregrad Hooperrn 13. j u e nici I