The Sun. — London, England, 1858-02-10 00:00:00

TfIE SUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 10, 16NS. Violaters, but by the representative of France in this corm. try—a gentleman well able to appreciate the force of p u blic feeling here, quick to observe, and faithful to submit his j *pinions as to the state of the public mind to the Emperor whom he serves,—the French Government, on being in• formed of the view which was taken, and jastly - , by the English public with regard to these addresses, accounted ! for the insertion of such addresses in the Allorriteur, and ' impressed their regret and the regret of the Emperor him 'elf at their publication. (Some cries of " Where ? where ?") The argument as to time founded upon these sddressses appears to me wholly to fail, unless it can be shown that the amendment or alteration of the law which we propose is itself objcctionable, or unless it can he main tained that the law as it at present stands is sufacient to alder from the commission of these offences, and unless we tan with a safe conscience assure foreign Governments that the law is strong enough to accomplish the object we desire to effect. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite has /expressed a hope that the despatch of Count Walewski, expressing the regret of the Emperor, which was referred to last night by my noble friend, will be laid before Parlia /meat. I can assure the hon. gentleman that that des watch will be laid before Parliament at once ; but as it is a short document perhaps the House will permit me now to read a translation of it. (Hear.) It is a despa tch to Count Walewski to Count ;Persigny, dated " Paris, Feb. G, a 853," and in these terms : "H. lo Comte, —The account you gave me of the effect 'produced in England by the insertion in the _clionitcur of *attain addresses from the army has not escaped my atten tion, and I have made a report of it to the Emperor. You ore aware of the sentiments by which we have been i fin anced in the steps we have adopted with Her Britannic atajesty's Government on the occasion of the attack of the ].4th January, and of, the care we have taken, in applying /or its concurrence, to avoid everything that could bear the appearance of pressure on our part. All our communica dions manifest our confidence in its sincerity (loyaute), and waur deference for the initiative being taken by it ; and if, in - the enthusiastic manifestations of the devotion of the army, words have possibly i'een inserted *hi h have seemed in England to be characterised by a different sentiment, they are too much opposed to the language which the Emperor's Government has not ceased to hold to that of her Britannic Majesty fOr it to be possible to attribute them to anything else than inadvertence caused by the number of those ad dresses. The Emperor enjoins you to say to Lord Clarendon bow much he regrets it. (Loud cheers from both sides of the house.) I authorise you to give a copy of this despatch to the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I think that letter or despatch, which I trust from the cheers with which it has been received is satisfactory to the hone—(renewed cheers)—shows that nn valid objec tion can be made to the introduction of this bill at the pre sent time on account of the insertion of certain addresses in the iloniteur by what appear to have been acts of inad vertenee on the part of the Government of France. (Some cries of " No, no.") I hope, for the reasons I have stated, that the hours will agree to the introduction of this bill, and that the debate will be continued in the same calm and temperate tone in which I am happy to say it has been commenced. Mr. BOVILL said that the proposed bill could not be considered as a measure of ordinary legislation, but intro duced under the exigencies of the case, and founded upon the despatch of Count Walewski, which was not couched in courteous or respectful language. If the 1 Inv required amendment, and the bill had been introduced solely for that object as a measure of law reform, why had it not been included in the list of bills it was intended to conso lidate and amend, of which the Solicitor-General had given notice? It appeared to him this could not be consi dered as a measure of law reform, bat one based on Count Walewski's despatch; and it would be an admission of the statements therein contained, which ought to have met with a dignified denial from her Majesty's Government. (Hear.) Couched in language similar to that of Lord Hawkesbury's in 1802, he contended the bill was not re quired, and it was the duty of her Majesty's Govern ment to have first pat the present law in force, and on ending it defective, then have come to Parliament with the present bill. He considered this bi'l would be as powerless as the present law, because the difficulty of proving overt acts requisite before convicting of conspiracy would be as great then as now. More stringent measures would not deter persona who risked all they possessed to accomplish their ends, and it was only deluding the Em peror of the French to pass this bill under the impression that it would give him additional security or comply with the demands he had made on this country. It would have been much better had the French Government been told that it was impossible to pass a law which should effec tually check these particular offonces. This bill could not satisfy France, and for this and other reasons he should vote against its introduction. If, as the Home Secretary had said, this was a measure for the amendment of the law, why was it not made to form part of those measures for the reform of our criminal code, some of which he be lieved were to be submitted to Parliament the next day ? (Hear.) What would become of this act when the general code came to be considered ? Was it to stand by itself ? (Hear.) Before we dealt harshly with refugees, whether French or otherwise, we ought in mercy to consider whe ther their appearance in this country was voluntary or upon compulsion. (Hear.) Many foreigners were hounded to this country, and disaffection to the Governments which expelled them was only to lee expected. He had no sym pathy for men who, seekiag shelter here, violated our laws. No punishment could be too severe for such conduct, but it was quite a different thing to propose an act which could not fail to be inoperative, and therefore unsatisfactory in its result to the people in whose favour it was passed. By lending ourselves to the demand made upon us, a bad ex ample would be set to other countries, and it would go forth that England succumbed to external demands. (Hear.) Comply with this particular demand, and others in the same direction would follow. (Hear.) Mr. A.B. HOPE denied that the bill was necessary, either as a matter of form or of practical expediency. It could only be carried out by employing spies and informers, in a manner wholly opposedto our ordinary modes of pro cedure. Was it a matter of political expediency to pass such a bill at a time when so many important subjects de manded their attention, and in the face of the threatening addresses of the French colonels, and despatches of the French Government ? Mr. COLLIER would not support the measure if it was intended to restrict our laws of hospitality ; but he did not believe it would have any such effect. Was it an inter ference with any man's liberty to take from him the liberty of conspiring. It was very doubtful how far we could punish a foreigner for conspiring to murder a foreign prince, in the same way as we could punish an English man. Some measure was necessary to clear up the doubt. As for the time, it was our habit to legislate not on system, bnt as the occasion arose. Mr. W. HUNT said that the question before the house was whether they should make it an offence in this country to combine or conspire with persons resident in a foreign country or in the United Kingdom to commit murder. In Ireland conspiracies of this kind were by no means un common, but In England such cases were comparatively rare, and were made a misdemeanour only, while in Ire land the offence was made a felony. He had no objectieu to see the law made uniform in the United Kingdom. But he perceived great difficulty in bringixsg home to persons conspiring, the offence which was to be made a felony by the bill. If a political refugee was residing here who was obnoxious to a foreign Government, a charge might be made against him of conspiring with some persons in a foreign State, and evidence of this kind could only be ob tained from correspondence which would require to be pro duced through the instrumentality of a foreign police. Seeing the difficulterwhich would exist in making the law applicable, without introducing into our jurisprudence principles which were at once novel and dangerous to the liberties and interests of the people of this country, he should feel it his duty to oppose the measure now sought to be introduced. Mr. WHITEHEAD said that while he was n - t di-posed to be dragooned into the passing of any measure such as that before the house, still he felt that the bill was one which was called for by the circumstances that had re cently taken place in Paris. He ca!led upon hen. members to place themselves for a moment in the position of the people of France, and suppose that a plot to assaininato the illustrious lady on the throne had been as nearly carried into execution as that which heel c nden ;wed the life of the Emperor. In that case would not our remonstrances hero been very much stronger than the mild and temperate de mand made upon us in the despatch of Count Walewski ? (1,16,.r.) There could be no doubt that our law respecting the puniihment of conspiracies of this kind required amendment, and was it right that such amendments should not be carried out, simply because they had been asked for by the French government, and because it was supposed to be undignified for us to grant what was asked ? The object of the present bill was not to create any new of fence, but it was in effect to bring our legislation more in accordance with the spirit of the age and the reforms which had been introduced into our criminal laws. It proposed to make the crime of conTirecy to commit murder one to be punished with ,imprisonment, and not with death, as was the case in France. (Hear.) No person was more in favour of maintaining in all its integrity the right of asylum in this country, and he hoped that the political re fugees of all countries would continue for ages yet to come to look upon the cliffs of England as those of a country " where the weary were at rest ;" and where he hopet it would yet be found, " the wicked ceased from troublin,;." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. DENT had listened with great attention to the statements which had been put forward on behalf of the bill, but had not been able to detect any arguments which could have any weight with him in its favour. No evi dence had been given to the house that the law of England was inelletent to deal with conspiracies of the kind re ferred to in the proposed bill (Hear, hear.) For his part, he took no h ee d o f the vapou• ring of the French colonels, bat he feared that the feeling throughout the country wenldbethatat thebillwhich was now proposed had been introduced power. The result of obedience to the dictation of a foreign the greatest pleasure toPaalr2 the bill would be to give distress to the friend s of freedomtic States, and the utmost and liberty in all parts of the world. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BENTINCK. said that no insult Offered by any fo reign power was so great as the nsult of supposing that their observations. we were prevented hope legistliamtienva were found it neces saryre violatin g the It was absurd to say —every to alter our Alien Act—that wo principles of hospitality. It was not cor n r the refugees to say that refugeeism and assaU l m a e t T o t r t o convertible terms. It was our bound en duty -tower° slat in forestalling suoh attempts as that which lately beau made against the life of the Ernp„ ha or, ' w h o , conduct he praised in the highest terms. Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said he felt it to be his duty to record his vote against the measure. The crime which had recently been committed was one of the greatest atrocity, and every foreign refugee residing in the country would find that the crime of assassination was one held in the greatest horror by all classes of society in the country. The Emperor of the French in his exile in this country ought to have learned to understand better the opinion of the people of England on this subject of the right of asylum than to suppose that wo could consent to forego that right and privilege. At p resen t we k new nothing of the details of the events, or of the personages by whom the atrocious crime had been concocted and carried out. All that was known was that one of the conspirators had es caped from the dungeons of Austria, and the account of whose escape had been a popular book in this country, and there was also the accident that some of the grenades were made in, Birmingham. But of these facts, he contended, did not justify the putting forward of a demand such as that contained in the letter of Count Walewski. Attempts at assassination of French monarchs were not new, and some of them had been as atrocious as that which had re cently b2en attempted, but no demand had ever be.o male upon the Government of this country to alter their laws respecting the rightasylum in consequence of those -- of b t l • acts. (Hear.) Why was this indecent as ole g islate on the subject displayed on the present occasion, even be fore the• perpetrators of the crime had been pat upon their trill, and either acquitted cr condemned. Par-) TI ror.r ford. .le demand of Count Walewski in his Jer.pqeh t. - 11;) ii ht this bill appeared to be on the face of is a concession to s uch a demand. No hon. member could possibly suppose that this till would be effective iu putting a stop to such nmes and offences as those which had recently taken place. The mere conversion of the crime of conspiracy into felony for a misdemeanour, would not deter such men as were employed in these atrocious crimes from concocting and carrybig them into effect. He not only considered the bill as perfectly inefficient for its purpose, but he cos! ; the- but regard it as having been introduced for the purpose of show ing that the Governmentof her Majesty was not insensible to the nature of the crime which had been committed, and wore deedrous of giving such a demonstration as would satisfy tlee French people. Even this would not be effected, for the French people would see that it was a mere sham and pretence ; and the concession would be only a proof of the weakness of the Government of this country and regarded as such by the Emperor of the French and by the great majority his subjects. He believed that the Govern ment, so far from being weakened by the withdrawal of the bill, on the contrary, he believed it would ten Ito strengthen the present Government. It had been well said that asse,- sins never killed kings, but they often made them do ver y foolish things. It was too true that assassination had been mixed up with so much of the Italian annals, that even the mind of the great Napoleon himself ha I become tainted with the idea, and it was melancholy to find this great man, in the last years of his life, indulging in this terrible weak ness, and in his last will bequea.thieg a legacy to the mao, who attempted to aseasinate the late Duke of Wellington. He regretted that he felt compelled to vote against the in troduction of the bill proposed by the noble lord at the head of the Government. Mr. NAPIER supported the bill as a wise amendment of the law, and a proper time forcarrying that amendment int effect. He found in prosecutions of the Ribbonmen in Ireland that some of the members of the affiliated societies were in England ; so that the members of the same society were tried for felony in Ireland and misdemeanour i n England. Let not England, from any false feeling of dignity, refuse this necessary alteration. Lord J. RUSSELL said -It is one of the disadvantages of the present discussion that whilst on the one side the arguments in favour of the bill br!ng, prominently forward the attempt made on the life of the Emperor of the French, _ . its proposal, on the other hand, naturally leads to a dis cussion of the conduct of the ruler of France, and induces observations which at this time it would be wiser to avoid but which it is impossible to avoid if we are fairly to die cuss this bill. I therefore consider it part of the responsi bility of her Majesty's Government that at a time when we should all join in the sentiments of horror and indig. nation caused by that atrocious attempt on the life of the Emperor of the French and those who accompanied him, they have brought into discussion in this house a measure which brings forth adverse opinions and expressions of sentiment and opinion which cannot but be distasteful to a great part of the French nation. (Iletr, hear.) I consider it another part of the disadvantage of this discussion that the members who have spoken on behalf of the bill —those who have spoken on this side, and the hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat down, have confounded together two subjects which might be kept distinct, and which ought to be kept distinct, but which by the proposition before the house are unavoidably connected. They all say that this would be an improvement of the law. The hon. and learned gentleman says that the law regarding conspiracy required improvement, and that he is in favour of that which he considers to be au ineerove ment; and than he turns round and says, "but will you refuse that which is wise and just, because it is asked for by the Government of France." Why the hoc. and learned gentleman, and those who adept that argument, beg the whole question. (Hear.) They say, first, that this is an improvement, and then they say you will be so obstinate, so unreasonable, so fanciful, as to refuse an obvious im provement of the law because it wouid be agreeable to the Emperor of the French, But that is not the question be foe° the house, but by putting it forward in this manner they confound two separate things. I will, therefore, en deaveur to discuse these two separate things. But let me say, in the first place, that I wish in this discussion to ob serve that respect which is duo to the ruler of Franco. He has deservedwellofEngland (hear, hear)- -he has deserved well of Europe, as a sovereign who has consulted the inte rests of Europe by maintaining the balance of power by wars and treaties. (Hear.) Bat with regard to his govern ment of Franca this is not the place to speak, nor am I, a member of this house, the person to speak of it. For my part, when I fin i that the French people are content with their own government, and that that government gives a promise of stability, my wish has always been for its per manence. It is for the French people to determine the con ditions by which they are to be ruled, and theinternal form of their own government. These are my views with regard to the Emperor of the French, and I trust that in opposing this bill it will not be supposed that I either yield to any one in the respect due to that sovereign, or that I should be unwilling, if it couldlbelprove I that this measure which has been brought in would save him from conspiracies to murder him, to give my consent to any such bill. (Hear, hear.) But, with regard to this improvement of the law, which we are told is so urgent on the ground of its import ance, I am very sceptical. In the fist place, if it is an im provement of the law so urgently Deeded, how does it hap pen that her Majesty's Government have not, either at the end of let session or in the notices which they have given for this, made any mention of it? They aro about to intro duce a bill to coneolidate the law relating to offences against the person. They are careful of our le g islation with regard to deer and lamb, but with regard to this must im portant subject, the preservation of human life from con spiracy, they have been totally silent, and until the despatch of Count Waleweki was recsived, there was no intimation of any intention to amend the law. In the next place, I am in very great doubt as to the proper nature of the amend ment. We have heard to-night that conspiracy to murder is a very grave offence—that it aims at human life—and therefore two years's imprisonment is not sufficient for the offence, and that these offenders ought to be punished in a more aggravated form. But, sir, there are two questions to be considered with regard to every criminal law—first, what punishment every crime deserves, and the other, how thecrimo is to be prevented? These are two very different questions. As to the first, if life is to be taken away at all for any offence, then the law of Ireland with regard to per sons who conspire to murder may not be too severe; as to the other matter, we have to consider how wo aro meet likely to prevent the crime of conspiracy. For some hun dreds of years the offence of conspiring to murder has been a misdemeanour in our law; it is only the person who occu pies the throne that has any greater guarantee, but I am not aware that any subject of her Majesty has complained that his life is insecure, er that the law has not been suffici ent to protect all the subjects of the Queen. Lord Hawkes hury would have told us that a law which was found suffi cient for all subjects of Great Britain should not bo altered at the wish of a foreign power. With regard to the general nature of the change, the question is whether the remedy has been efficacious; the hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat down has told us that in Ireland the law is dif ferent, and capital punishment isaltxed by law to the crime of conspiracy, but will he go on to tell us that life is equ Illy safe there against conspiracy as in England ? (Hear.) Will he tell us that there is greater security for life in Ireland in consequence of that severity that in England under the milder provisions of our own laws? If, sir, that is not the case, let us look a little to the principle of the proposed change, and consider it with regard to the nature of the crime. Conspiracy is a very heinous crime, disgraceful and detestable in the person who commits it, but one exceed ingly difficult to prove. It often requires very vague evi dence to bring it home to an individual. If such a case be brought before a jury as a conspiracy to murder, it is probable that we shall find the witnesses accomplices or spies. Such evidence is much distrusted by a jury, and the advocate who is empowered to defend the prisoner will lay great stress on the nature of the evidence produced. If a letter is shown or a conversation repeate..l, be will affix a different sense to the words used , he will endeavour to point out that they will not bear the construction put upon them ; he will suggest for the conthieratieu of the juiy whet is the peniehineut affixed to the offence; a el it may very well happen that a jury might think the evidence sufficient to convict a man of a misdemeanour, but would hesitate to convict when they knew thet transportation for life would be a consequence of their verdict. It does not follow be- CUM, the crime is a horrible one which ought to bo pre vented that we shall prevent it by affixing to it a greater punishment titan before. It seems to me th A the spirit of the proposed enaetnaent is contraey to the whole course of that entighteuod legislation which S:r Sernuel Remilly was the first to urge on this house, and which Sir Hubert I Peel and others have since pursued. We all know th A in the time of George I. and IL, if a new crime arose it was a common thing for a member of this house to get up, and stating the crime was on the increase, propose to create a new capital felony. Mr. Burke tells us that ha,. was kept in the house to make a house for a bill of this kind, without any one knowing what the crime was. Our legislation then was founded on the principle that severe punishment was sure to defer frern crime. Since then a safer doctrine has prevailed, that a light punishment was more likely to ensure convic tion and prevent clime. I demur to the proposal as a ques tion of law reform, because it is doubtful whei her it will be efficacious. Let ns now look to the nature of the crime, ned the persons by whom it is likely to be committed. These conseiraciee are often the work cf persons who are base enough to receive hire for the deed, but they are more likely to be concocted by persons under the influence of extreme fanaticism, religious in former times but now po litical. From the time of the murder of Henry 111. of France, a deed which was extolled in ma gn ifi cen t l anguage by the Jesuit Mariama, to the attempt on the life of Louis XV. by Damietta, all these crimes were the effect of reli gious fanaticism, to which Henry IV. of France also fell a victim ; but of late years, since the commencement of the French Revelation, it is political and not religious fanati cism which has been the moving spirit of such attempts. Now, sir, men who meet by twos, or threes, or fours, for the purpose of declaiming against what they call tyranny until they begin to entertain the conception of this horrible crime, these are men whose fanaticism is so rooted, and their confidence in each other so unbounded, that we are not likely to defeat a conspiracy of this sort by the dread of the punishment that may be inflicted on them after ills carried into effect, Men who are excited by the spirit of fanaticism to commit such deeds have their imagination so excited as to be ready to lay down theirlives. They allknow they expose them, for whether the attempt succeed or fail, they who commit the crime are sure to perish by the hand of the executioner. Can we suppose that men of this kind are to be deterred by telling them that instead of two years' imprisonment they will henceforth be subject to French government !bids, however, penal servitude ? I will give the house one or two instances their oven" young have I no h t a h v in e g b t e o en do to w ld ith th F at ran th ce e. or rile tot,tahne assassination of Count Roesi, the Minister of lence againOsrta RUB'. they men there the them, men met at a club. Inflamed with would be prepared yon declaimed with the greatest vio .. le! tyranny and despotism. One of the ~ there, of all the violenee, said to ten of on speak very brave not one of you My that you are m e ssed, " After having told the com mediately the basest cowardice e ea t dy th take Rossi 's life, It would be took themaside, ready-" The artful instigator to shrink." Arrangements were then made, and the first i,___ next day, as Count Rossi w.-.s going for the Luce to open the Representative Assembly, he was t surroundedh eheart. This n these young men and stabbed to theparty of effect of the violent fanaticis it possible the would have one uaa stood by 'n an o : these young men, and been in the least inflne w nc as e . d if any told them—you are conspiring against the life of another; which he would do you know you will be condemned nsta to pen itude for t s h u a c t c eoefda?gTe gentleman s o mi t other instancy r ii etr i f w y tt o s u Piedmont last year. Mezzini, who z,,,, one of situation in to preach assassination, declared that this man of vel l'' :, t ( :, had gone to him and proposed to assassinate Ch a e r n i o --- bort, the King of Sardinia. Mazzini told. him ho‘s Al hardly worthy to commit such an action, but sen t him ''t': Turin, lending him his own dageor. 'Was such a man likely to be deterred by the fear of ' a penalty ? One thing was certain, that what they really wanted was, not the 71,i:!.; ;; , ,u-, of the c! . ::tie, b: It the detection. If these ilieil ‘1 , 113 lately went. over to Penis to in tko the her rible attempt could have been detected and brought before an English court, never mind what the punish ment was, whether two years or twenty years their purpose would have been defeated when once they were detected. What the French government want is, not punishment but detection ; this bill sill serve no purpose of detection, and therefore will not serve their purpose. I believe that, as far as this is a question of the amendment of the law, it will fail of its purpose. I now come to the caesticn, that it is an amendment of the law asked for by the government of France. In dealing with this question, I fear I most take a more general survey of the situation than the ministry who brought in the bill seem to have done. It seems their view is, that if they can make some amendment of the law with regard to conspiracy to murder, thereby making the legislitem of England more har monious—the punishment more severe—they will satisfy ' the French government, and meet their wish for an amendment of the law. I fair, sir, that calculation is entirely wrong. What the French government want is to put an end to those assemblages of fanatical politician in Landon ; and that can only be done by sending them out of the country before any crime is proved against there. (Fleur.) That, in fact, is the real question, ani I will read the passage from the despatch of Count Walewski already referred te, to show the house that it is so. He says : " It is no longer the hostility of misguided individuels. manifesting itself by all the excesses of the prose and all the violence of language, it is no longer even the work of the factious, seeking to rouse opinion and to prove die crier ; it is assassination, elevated to doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of which brie jest struck Europe with amazement. Ought, then, the right of asylum to protect such a state of things ? Is hospitality due to assassins ? Ought the English legis lation to contribute to favour their designs and their pl-ins, and can it continue to shelter persons who, by their flagrant acts, place themselves beyond the pale of common right and under the ban of humanity ? The ambassador of France had taken a very unusual course. I will not find fault with him ; he was a gentleman of great honesty, very much attached to his master, and also to this country : but in his answer to the Lord Mayor and aldermen he stated clearly what he wanted :—" Permit me, then, to tell you what is the true question; it does not lie in the attempts at assassination in themselves, nor even in the crime of the 14th of January, which your Government would have hastened to warn us against if it could have known it beforehand ; the whole question is in the moral situation of France, which has become anxiously doubtful of the real sentiments of England. Reasoning in effect by analogy,'popular opinion declares that were there in France men sufficiently infamous to recommend in their 'clubs, in their papers, in their writings of everykind, the assassi nation of a foreign Sovereign, and actually to prepare its execution, a French administration would not wait to re ceive the demands of a foreign Government, nor to see the enterprise set on foot. To act against such conspiracies, to anticipate such crimes, public notoriety would be suffi cient to set our laws in motion, anl measures of security would be taken immediately." My right hon. friend, the Homo Secretary, will therefore clearly see that this bill is not what the French Government want. They want se curity against the whole body of refugees. My right hon. friend has told us that the law was found sufficient is 1851, and why should it not be now ? Count Walewski does not say—Why do not the Government prosecute the offence? (Hear, hear.) If the Government is in posses sion of any information which would support a prosecution it was their duty at once to have put the law in force. The question was decided half a oentnry ago. Reference has been made to Lord Hawkesbury's correspondence, which I have lately had occasion to consult. I found he treated the question with perfect fairness aid perfect justice, as to how refugees and foreign Governments ought tube treated, Let me remind the house that in the opinion of Mr. Peel, Lord Has kellsury was as well fitted to hold the seals of the Foreign-office as any man in this country, he dis played a calmness and a temper which deserve the re spect of the whole country. When Peltier advised the assassination of the First Coneeil he was brought to trial for doing so, for attempting to excite discussion with a friendly state. The then Attornoy-General urged, and Lord Ellenborough, the Chief Justice, held that the law was sufficient to meet every such case. The First Con sal was not then an enemy, but a friendly power. War, however, broke out before Peltier was brought up to judg ment. The whole question, however, with reviled to re fugees had been discussed and settled ; if peace had con tinued, Peltier would have been sentenced. All the tran sections took place in August ; it was not until October that the question arose with regard to Switzerland, which lcd to the renew.l of hostilities, and it was not till Feb. Peltier could have been sentenced. There is one instance upon which I cannot help remarking in connexion with that trial. In the celebrated political speech which Sir James Mackintosh made on that occasion, he very naturally, but with great art, repr mented his client as a poor afflicted man who had to contend against the chief of the most powerful military nation in the world. The Attorney-Generel, Mr. Perceval said that such was not the case ; that it was the King of England and his government that prosecuted Pel tier, and that it was due to the law of England that be should conduct that prosecution. Well, then, sir, with regard to this matter on which M. Walewski and Count Percigny have raised a question, there cen be no doubt whatever with respect to the law of England. That law was enforced by Lord Hawkeshury ; it was enforced by Lord Elhmborough ; it was consented to by all the authori ties of that time; and the great men of that day, including Mr. Pitt, Mr. Grenville, and Mr. Fox, concurred in think ing that the language and conduct of the British govern ment were such as became the country. I say, then, with regard to this complaint, that, so far from our wanting a new law, the existing law is fully sufficient for its purpose; and the assertion of the law which was made in 1803 was the foundation of the declaration of the Secretary of State in 1851, who is now Secretary of State—a declaration which was believed at the time, after it had been fully considered by the cabinet of that day, to be one worthy of an Eng lish minister--this declaration being that this country shall be a safe asylum for foreigners of all descriptions, but that if they commit any offence against the laws of this country, if they incite to the assassination of a foreign sovereign or the chief magistrate of a foreign state, or if they impair our friendly relations with foreign states by their rovilings and, their libels, they should then be liable to punishment according to the well-known and established laws of England. (Hear.) Well, then, sir, such being the complaint, it is a matter of astonishment to me that Count Walewski should have written his despatch and no answer should have been made to it. (Cheers.) Because the answer seems to be quite obvious. I should have thought that anybody who valued the reputation of the British name, and had any regard for the honour of Great Britain, would have said, " We are not a nati.,n that protects assaasiue, as seems to be supposed : the crime of assassination is abhorrent to all our feelings ; we cannot sufficiently condemn it ; show as that these men have been preaching the doctrine of assassination, and we will bring them before our courts of justice without the loss of an hour; make out that it has been advocated by them in any of their clubs, and they will no doubt be convicted as Peltier was convicted." Such seems to me to be the plain language which ought to have been used. (Hear.) The noble lord at the head of the Government says, to my sur prise, that an unfounded notion has been prevalent on tbe continent that this country favours assassination, and therefore ho brings in this bill. This does seem the oddest consequence that there ever was. (Hear.) How much better it would have been to ask for the names of those persons who had been guilty of the crime in ques tion ; and if, as very likely would have been the case, no person could be found who could be con victed by due course of law, then would have been the tine to say, ' We punish offences, but those offences must be duly proved by the evidence of witnesses openly heard --(cheers)—and that evidence must be weighed and summed up by a judge sitting on the bench and a true verdict returned according to that evidence by the jury." (Cheers.) If that answer had been given, I think strong ground would have been taken. - *heroes, look at our position now. It is a position as regards the future which I confess fills me with considerable alarm. (Cheers.) You do net propose to do that which the French G erernment wish you to do ; that which, unhappily, is en forced by the threats of the military bodies whose ad dresses have been so inadverently inserted in the Moniteur. (Seer, beer.) You do net an this by any means ; but you say that you will change the law, and this 111:1116 a decla re Hon of your sympathy sv , th the Free ch Government. Bet look at the consequences. If you hail ao tempted to alter the laws with regard to aliens, if you ha I attempted to give power to the Government of the day to seeti away any aliens upon the representation of aforeign ~linieter, you would then have roused the anger of the people of England, and you could not have curried your measr.re. If you had given a rtfusal—if you had said, " Onr laws are sufficient, end we will simply oat them in execution," you would then, no doubt, have disappointed the wishes of the French Government by acting in conformity with that opinion, and that statement of Lord Hawkeshury, to which I have previously referred. This measure seems to me an exc>edingly skilful, I may say an exceedingly cunning, artifice, by which it is intended that neither the people of England nor the Emperor of the French sh ou ld b e offended. (Hear, hear.) We must wait a little to see the result. I think that. after the passing of this bill, inflict ing a heavier punishment for conspiracy to assassinate than now exists, you would not find the state of things much altered. If there are still fanatical men who are still plot ting assassination, they would plot secretly as m uc h as now; they would not be deterred at all by the vain ter rors of this now law. ( Hear, hear.) What, then, would happen ? The French Government would say, "We have no doubt of the sincerity of the English Government—we have no doubt of their wish to act loyally in this matter— but their expectations have been altogether disappointed, that ' den of assassins' which we wished to be cleared re mains as it was ' • the same conspiracies still e x i s t ; y o u who have agreed to this object must agree to the means ; your means have been found totally insifilcient; you must seelyourselves that the object isnot gained; you intist there fore, look for other Moans." What could those " other means" be ? They could only be means which would violate that sacred right of asylum which thegrevernment profess their desire to preserve. (Loud cheers.) Well, I have no doubt this country would not consent to a change of its laws in that respect. But, then, I must say you would have given a far better grievance to the Government of France than they have at present. They would say "We have been deluded ; this bill, which you told us was a satisfactory one, has been a complete mockery. We have no more security than we had before, and we now insist upon some change that shall be sufficient fer the purpose." I own that I think it is a short-sighted wisdom that would thus put off the evil day. (Hear.) I think it would be far better wisdom to say at once, "This is no light question ; it is no mere question of changing whathas hitherto been a misdemeanour into a felony ; we tell you, in plain truth, that the asylum which you call a ' den of assassins' must remain sacred; we do not mean to change out laws; hut if any ca'e can be pointed out in which those laws have been violated, we will act as we have done for the last half centery ; we will act according to the principles which have been known in England ever sines we have been a nation ; we will admit aliens according to the statutes of our land, but we will take care that no offence shall be committed against the head of a foreign state without its being brought under the cognisance of a jury." I think if you had proceeded in that way your position would have been strong. The position of the University, lam sorry to say, is, I think, at present not strong. (Hear, and great laughter.) I was speaking, of course, of their position in argnmont. (Hear.) I don't think they aro strong as re gards France, whose demands are rather evaded than cone pled with. (Hear.) I don't think they are strong as regards the people of this country, whose just expectations seem to me destined to be disappointed. (Hear,) hear.) Braattuse, there yon after the demand of which I have spoken were made, ifjParliament were to pass this bill, and if here tdhleettipicsoooopwalloohpf:n.goland would naturally say, " A demand wasf eran‘thadatie ü b s y t t h h a i t s yon had nscaftitshfieedl law n h d i e c ne h a y n o d u • p y r o o u po t s o o l d d i a ll by the French Government ; you rmw , d y air, t c h u ; i h a i v' t e y e r o l_etfthamityethatwouldundisturbed same complaints again, and even greater • ambassador l a d 0 cessation e e s a s ; a d t i v o e n r yof justlyth at i c s o nt the „- o stilt de o o p l e a n r e t ot that e we Rouse sb h oor.f the crime • rem ain si e e l f a ll n f e d rl o o ; w : amity e ao f lfl o E r e t nu between t h g e lba l l anr o l :: a s an e n tr au a c o ,e t f h i fi C e o te n o r ra bey limit with outo free P e t a standing upon the established S us t that has been committed in France ; that, far from sym pathising with, we are indignant against, those assassins who perpetrated the crime, but that not for the friendship of the Emperor of the French are we disposed to give- up , the right of asylum, or to change the ancient and este bliehed laws of En:fend- (Loud cheers.) Sir, I think the French Government would appreciate es it would deserve I to be appreci.ted the fraukness, the sincerity, and I may say the friendliness of that coulee.. (Hear.) We should thereby spare ourselves these irritating discussions; we should reliere the Government of France from any expec tations that by the direction of their official paper they could induce the Parliament of England to recede from its just position. (Hear.) I trust we 'hall act in that man ner. I have, I confess, b een a good deal shocked by some of the declarations which have been made in the course of this debate declarations from which it would seem that the favour of a foreign power is to bo considered of more , r bra gnthiins value to England than the tuaintenauee of her ancient laws. (Cheers.) Itth t i l ;i e k ir t v h o a t t ese thosef i who i speck in i this n n a c n ur ne a r, vast an es and who r give res ponsibility, both to the present genera tion and to pesterity. (Hear) This is t he first breaking in upon that system which was declared by the Go vernment of 1803, and which has remained intact up to the month of February, 1858. Who cm say what the next step in this direction will be ? It is easy to ask for a mild measure, and at first to satisfy a foreign h power; bat any demand of thi s kind nat urally arouses the jealousy and susceptibility of the B r itis h people. The only other care in which I remember a bill to hove been brought in at the request of a foreign power is that of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Mr. Canning, in introducing that set, took the utmost care to explain that Spain was so weak a monarchy that she was quite unable to contend with her neighbours in arms ; ho painted the weakness of her re sources, and her inability to defend herself, an 1 he asked whether we could be so ungracious as not to afford her that protection against foreign invasion which she required. t That appeal was successful. No a pp eal co u l d now be male o us on that ground ; the threat has be en somewhat too barely exposed, somewhat too loudl y utter ed ; it has been so uttered, that I confess i f I were to vote for the intro duction of this bill, I should feel shame and humiliation in giving that vote. Let those who will, support the bill of the Gorernment ; that shame awl humiliation I am deter mined not to share. (Loud cheers.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, notwithstanding the wide field over which the noble lord had passed, he be lieved the decision of the house would, after all, turn on the question with which he started—via., whether or not the present law was sufficient for the purpose ; and, with great deference to the noble lord, he would declare his own belief that it was insufficient. He ventured to say that the law on this subject was more anomalous in its operation and more inadequate to the attainment of the object than any other branch of our criminal law. Ono reason why an alteration was required was the change of circumstances. Increased communication had brought into this country a number of persons who were opposed to the laws of their native land. England gave them protection, bat it was not unreasonable to require that they should have it on the same conditions on which it 'was enjoyed by Englishmen. If Englishmen conspired in England to send an Englishman abroad to commit a murder, those who remained here might be indicted for the offence; if foreigners conspired here for the same purpose, any of the number who remained would on l y be punishable with fine awl imprisonment; they would only have committed at common law a misdemean our. That wet; an anomaly in the position of foreigners as compared with Englishmen which, independently of the severity of the punishment, required alteration. More over, he would put it to the house whether the crime of conspiracy to commit murder was adoquetely punished 'by fine and imprisonment? The noble lord had said that this bill would be of no avail, because those who would be affected by it were enthuceasts. But the measure did not propose to legislate for enthusiasts. It would legislatenot for those who went out to commit murder, bat for those con spirators who remained behind. The punishment for those to whom the noble lord's epithet attached would be capital. The noble lord, too, objected against the bill, that it was not a legal reform, for it was not introduced as a legal measure, and allusion was then tnede to those eensolida- Hon bills which were to ho brought before the house. Now the fact was that the present bill could not properly be introduced with oth r bills. Those were measures based upon the report of the statute law commission, and they were in the main in the nature of bills to consolidate exist ing statutes. They did no doubt in some degree amend the law, but it would have been a very unfit course to have placed provisions amongst their clauses amounting to 5) tot %Ily novel a step in legislation es the present bill. Such provisions would there heve been nut of place. But sup pose the government had taken such a coorse, and intro duced the clauses of this measure into that bill, what then would have been said? It would have been said that et the request of France an alteration was about to be made in our law, and that an endeavour was made to shuffle that alteration unob4erved through the House of Commons. It had been almost admitted by some that this was a good bill, but it was said the house ought not to pass it now. Really he could not see why a bill should be thrown out on Tuesday to be introduced on Thurs (ley. In truth, it was not over easy to arrive at what were i the real objections to the hie). It must be that if the noble lord established his pro position, that the bill wa s not an improvement of the law, ad m itt d and that fine and imprisonment were sufficient punish ments, then no doubt legislation was unnecessary, but, the instances g iven by the noble lord failed to bear out his statement. Indeed, the only tangible objection to the measure was this, that it ought not to be passed at the present time. Bat be trusted that the house would look at its contents, and if it was found to be an improvement in our criminal code, that it would not hesitate to pass it. Mr. DISRAELI—The principle of the proposed bill of the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) I apprehend to be this—it is to change the crime of combining and conspiring to murder from misdeamnour to felony. Upon this point there has been considerable discussion. So far an the debate is concerned, it tray still be deemed a mooted question. Nor does it appear to me necessary, according to the usual order of our business, that this point should be decided at the present stage of the measure. If this bill comes to a second reading--(ironical cheers)—that will be the legitimate occasion upon which the house may enter fully into that important point of the dis cussion; and no doubt it will receive, as it is entitled to, the most grave and dispassionate consideration. But at this moment there arc some other observations which I intend making. I must remind the house that it has not been un usual in the history of this country, and in the practice of Parliament, that when some crime has been committed— some crime known to the law—Parliament should take the circumstance under its consideration with a view to legisla tion. Throughout the debate frequent allusion has been made to the difference of the law upon the matter under dif cussion between England and-Ireland, But how came that (Info; enee ? It was owing to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, The prevalence of conspiracy to murder ha i. led the attention of Parl:ament to the subject, and though I offer no opinion upon the expediency of the course wheili had been adopted, still it is a fact that the special circum stances cf that country induced Parliament to legislate for it in the manner it had done. There is a' other case welch must be in the memory of all present, and in which legislation was induced by the special circumstances of the case—it is a case of great notoriety - it forms a part of the history of this country, and,one in which the members of this ; onso are peculiarly interested—l mean when a foreigner (Guiscard) attempted to assessi. ate Mr. Harley, the thee Oh incellor of the Exche iuer, he the Cockpit at a sitting of the Privy Council That was a cause of great exciteuic Gristle d was a Frenchm n ; lie was denounced as a Popish spy, and. his act was lee ,ked upon as the evidence of a Popish lot What w s the conduct Parlisunent ? Did it take no P • of cinr , pginn• •, • step ? Did it take no =teens I,s opinion o: the enormity of the offence? Why, sir, the House of Commous suet and suldresssd the Throne—the Wnistry introduced bill which rendered the crime of attempting to assassinate or even to assault, a Privy Couecillor felony. (Hear, hear.) As regards the present case, it is useless fee me to attempt to detain the house with my expressions of eprobation of a crime which has been so eloquently denounced by members who preceded me—it is a crime welch has a ways been viewed in this. e enntry with feelings of peculiar horror. (Hear, hear.) But the state of the ease is that a great crime has bceu attempted to be p er p etr ated against a - Sovereign with whom vre aeo at this moment on :ernes of friendly and intimate alliance. Without giving any opinion up en the principle of the measure, it is said to be unreasonable, where the safety of the person of one of the most friendly and pow erful of our allies is concerned, that his life should be thought of less interest to Parliament than that of a British Minister. All the circumstances connected with the attack .on the Em peror of the French would, of course, excite- the sympathy and demand the good feeling of this- country and of Parlia ment. (Hear.) There can be no question but that during the last five years we have found in the Emperor of the French a constant and tried allye--(hear, hear )—not merely an ally using fine phrases 11,,, d specious assurances, but an ally whose fidelity was well proved, and on whose constancy we might depend. (Cheers.) Therefore, on the first blush 91 the question, the fact thatsetrikee us is that au attempt has been made on a great scale . to assassinate the Emperor of the French, an attempt which showed very considerable orgauisation, and that plan was formed and matured in our own country. (No, no,and Hear, hear.) Well, I don't wish to enter into the details of this subject, but real:y what I state is a mat ter of notoriety, that sour; of the principal agents framed and designed their plans in this country. These, I say, ace cir cumstances which, though they do not justifyany attempt to invade or destroy the right of asylum, yet do justify the house in exhibiting considerable sympathy with the Emperor of the French. If no other circumstances had happened--if no other matters wore before us, but that a greatand most Criminal at tempt had been made on the life of the ruler of France, and if under such circumstances, an appeal had been made to the Government of England for our support in the dangerous po sition in which the Emperor of the French found himself, I believe the universal expression of feeling would be that such an appeal, with due regard to our own rights and privi leges, should bo treated with the utmost respect. But I frankly and fully admit that much has happened since the attempt at perpetrating this enormous crime which has dashed that feeling, and disturbed the genorousand natural emotions of the people and Parliament, and have embroiled this ques tion with considerations which could not have been antici ' pated, and which I would not dealfrankly with the house if I did not say were mos tdistressing andembarrassing. (Hear.) I am not here to defend or palliate any circumstances which have been so severely, but so justly, animadverted upon in the course of this debate. I do not think that despatch of Count Walewski's (though it has found a defender in an hon. friend of mine) is, written with that tact, temper, and good sense which generally characterise his lucubrations. I am bound to admit that that despatch was an unfortunate des patch. I do not wish to deny fpr a moment that the observa tions of some of the colonels were the height of impertinence (Laughter.) I thiuk that the introduction of those observations into the authentic and authoritativejournal of the empire was an act of signal indiscretion. But after the despatch which has been read by the Secretary of State this evening, I am not inclined to d we ll as much as I otherwise should upon these matters. We all know iu private life, however excited our feelings may be when misunderstanding arises, however warm our expres s i ons, and however indignant our feelings, that the moment a gentleman says that he regrets the offen sive expressions made use of, we forget the offence--(hear, hear) --and if this is done with a good grace and n it in a churlish mood, very often the feeling which succeeds is one of greater cordiality than that which preceded the misinider standing. (Hear.) Now, sir, I must say that that expres sion of regret on the part o f the Emperor of the French was a frank and f.. 11 one—(ch ) eers —and I do not think tort it becomes us after that to remember with too much severity those incidents to which I have referred. If I refer to them, if I dwell upon their unfortunate occurrence, it is simply that I may induce hon. gentlemen, before they come to any deci sion upon this very important subject, to recollect that what has 'occurred recently within these few clays or weeks in France, which has excited so much unfortunate feeling in his country, end h .e I believe creailsel so much mieapprehen sion, has not been, peculiar to this country only; but there are other countries, great even. as England, and with power as great even as those who hold sway in these highly favoured isles, who have sometimes been subjected to annoyance equally flagrant, but who have exhibited great good feeling —great forbearance—and have not allowed these occurrences to disturb the amicable courts of dealing between the two countries. (Cheers.) I cannot help recollecting that it is exactly five years ago this very month of February—l be lieve, by a singular coincidence, this very night in February, 1853—that it was my duty to submit a motion to the House of Commons, the object of which was to call the attention of the house to the state of the relations subsisting between France ant Eagland. That motion was brought forward in consequence of expressiens having been made, and a line of conduct having been assumed, by great personages in this country, which, in my opi nion, and in the general °Onion of Europe, were calcu lated to destroy the good feeling which we have always con sid,red—(louci cheers)—it was a cardinal point of volley to cherish and maintain between England and France. I recur to these recollections because I see the beneficial influence which memory may exercise over hon. gentleoien who ave mode these indignant speeches, if. they will only recollect what has sassed, what happened in 18:7:3 under a c;overeraeut of which the noble lord who has just spoke e and who feels such humiliation at even voting in support of the bill, was an emi neat member, and, indeed, I believe, the leader in this house ? Why, sir, you had statesmen of England, the mist eminent, denouncing the Emperor of the French as a tyrant, and usurper, and despot. (Loud cheers.) You had then a Cabi net Minister quitting the Cabinet, and hastening to the has tines to amuse his constituency by depicting the dangers of their country from the impending piratical invasion of the French people. (Laughter and oheere.) You had a Cabinet Minister saying to his constituency, "What protection have you for wives and daughters with such an alliance as the French—with such an ally as the Emperor of France ?" (leenghter and cheers.) I had to bring these circumstiteces, and many similar ones, before the considera ion of this house, because I felt that, if announced by this house, they were calculated to seriously impair, if not destroy, the relations — the amicable relations—which subsisted between the two countries. And what did we see ? We witnessed, in cense. quence of that debate, the gratifying exhibition of statesman after statesman, Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister, apologising for the offensive expressions they had used towards the Emperor of the French. (Laughter and cheers.) That was a very salutary spectacle. (Hear.) It did a great deal of good. It conduced to the maintenance of the peace of Europe ; and it conduced to the maintenance of the peace of Europe only because the French Emperor was a forgiving and forbearing man. Were the statesmen of England less offensive in tiler observations than the colonels of France to us? (Cheers) If the Empe: or of the French and the French nation could endure those insults of English Cabinet Ministers, I really think that the people of England- cem pocket the insults of the French colonels. (Loud laughter and cheers.) I will now, in two or three sentences, explain the course which I feel it my duty to take in reference to this projected measure, and the general subject before us. I think it necessary for us to take a large view of this question. What we have to consider are the relative positions of England and France. The alliance between the two countries has, under different forms of Government, and with various degrees of feeling, subsisted now for upwards of a quarter of a century. At no period has it been warmer, at no period has it been more effective, than under the present dynesty, and during the last five years especially. We fought side by side with the French in a war of almost unexampled severity—we have combined with the French people in the management of im portant affairs—our councils have been united, notwithstand ing national prejudices which undoubtedly exist ; and every Court in Euebpe, as well in Asia and America, have felt the influence of our united councils. I believe it is true when I say that I think the feeling of the reat mass of the English people is a genuine and cordial feeling. (Cheers.) I thi .k the great body of the people look to the French people with a feeling of sincere friendship. On occasions like the pre sent, when it is necessary to speak without disguise, I am bound to say, so far asl canobserve, although there aro many eminent persons in Franco, although there are many influen tial classes in France favourable, and highly favourable, to what is called English alliance ; and although I think a ten dency. slight, butcordial, tendency of feeling throughout the French Empire increases its favour towards the people of this country, yet I am bound to admit that I do not think thaa ou the part of the great body of the French pee ale there is that reciprocity of sentiment with the people of this country —there is not that similarity of feeling which we extend to them. (Cheers.) Now, under these circumstances, what is the position of the ruler of that country, who has the good sense to feel that an alliance between England and, France is a policy eminently calculated for the welfare of his own country ? What difficulties he has to encounter. Wo must remember that, although he may from his personal ex perience, from the character of his mind, from a thousand ia fluencee which operate neon a persen of ids elevated intellect in his elevated aosition—althouge he may arrive at a co e ic tion that the maintenance of an alliance between the tw countries is eminently conducive to the welfare of that France which lie governs, still he is the ehief representative of those feelings and that policy; and although in prosperous times, and in moments of prolonged tranquillity, he may, by his commanding abilities, be able successfully to manage the affairs between the two countries, and to cherish and increase that good feeling which pervales France, yet, in moments of pu )lie excitement, when the minds of the people are agitate I, it is clear that the position of the present ruler must be one of immense delicacy. (Hear.) And he comes, the faithful and generous ally of this Country—(hear, hear)—he comes, not with threats, although he may have acted with some appear ance of passion ; but he can well afford to act in such a man ner who can afford to 1:1114:(e the noble apology which we have just heard. The Emperor of the French on these recurring moments of difficulty, this generous and faithful ally, comes to the Government of this country and says do not dis guise the difficulties of your position, but assist me consist ently witk your laws and rights ; I have lived too long in yo ;r country not to know that no Britith. Minister dare to whisper a project for introducing a measure by which your laws and privileges might ba violated. But aid me at this moment ; show to France, when all these hostile factions are raising their heads and jeering me with the British alliance, on which. I have been building my policy, show them that my confl dence-has not been misplaced. I think under these circum stances it was the duty of the Government to respond to that appeal, and not to lend a deaf ear to such an appeal to this country: I feel that there is nothing unceneiliatory in sup porting any Government iu any effort which they make to continue the alliance between England and France, which is the key and corner stone of modern civilisation. As to the way in which the Government have attempted to carry that Folicy into effect, that is altogether another question. It is difficult to conceive what they may have cont-mplat d themselves—what object they proposed, and what were the meens by which they intended to carry that object into effect. The noble lord the member for London (Lord J. Russet) speaks of this country being disgraced,and the Parliament as dishonoured, if they accede to the demand of the French Emperor, because it has been urged by a threat. Why, we have not acceded 'to the demand of the French Emperor. All that has been demanded has been flatly refused, if indeed the French Emperor is to be held responsible for the unfor tunate despatch of his Secretary of State. For, indeed, the demand insisted ou by Count Wale ' , ski cannot bei listeued to ; at the firstblushit was swept off from out of the ma crisis of public coun-el, and that is he best a ewer to the sneer and taunt of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell). We are to do nothing udder a threat, because all that has been demanded has been refused. What we are to do is anothe- question. I admit. I make a full and frank admissi n, that a proeosition less satisfactory never appears to me to have b en made by a British Minister than the o e which is now on your table. (Hear, he ne and laughter.) The English Minister should have been iu a position to show !hat the ruler of France had placed before him a statem nt of his grievances in the form of a State paper ; the English Minister should have answered that despatch in the free and logical characters of Canning ; that despatch and the answee should have been placed on your table, combie ed. with sonic glowing expression of sym pathy with our faithful ally. That is what we expected The Minister who missed that opportunity missed a great occasion. If he had placed Count Walewski's desp itch, and an answer worthy f lt, on this table we should have felt eo difficulty as to the course we ought to tak ; rite L elilege ;le tone between the trio nations would hie , eintaned a temper suet us is hig:dy desirable, ai,d that, nle have been the key-note between the two coantriee. Perliametit would have then come down and have gi yea to the Fienice Enincror wh,:t he wants;--- end r quires us,ustr,tion in te; face of Europe to the French people, misled by calumniatory statements, wide should leave i,ecn en avowed and livimeg e .. evi dence of the respect and sympathy of th Peril mene of Tug land. Nothiicg of this kind has been dere', and all that is pro. 'weed now ton is to cobble tai the pole! laws f Ireland. cute te retrograde witti respect to the erilaiiial r :;iii. cannot suppose that any such ,proposition could give isfee tiou to the Einp.ator of t 0 Frenc e Our object oue!it to iele e been to give him honourable setisfaction. With regard to the reflections and criticisms which leave been made on the policy pursued by the French Emperor, these are details into whieh we cannot enter. When a man has been elected by millions of that country, he is above petty criticisms. If indeed he were a tyrant dependent upon faction and supported only by prae torians, those criticisms might do him injury ; but the man who has appealed again and again to the people, who have ratified their decision by millions, has nothing to fear from such criticisms as these. What the French Emperor required was a demonstration which would have cleared him from the misconceptions which have unfortunately boon engendered in Trance. I cannot conoeive that such a bill as has been pro pos d will et all tend to that most desirab e consequence ; but so far as I am concerned I feel most fully that in this un fortunate position this opportunity has been mismanaged by the Government so as to alarm Eagland, aid not to please France. (Hear, hear.) I cannot think that we should take any course which might have the efthct of prolonging miscon ception, because we disapprove of the feeble and clumsy manner in which Government have used it. Therefore, I will vote for leave to bring in this bill, but I do not thereby pledge myself to support it in any of its future stages, although I will listen to such arguments as are offered to convince me, as I am not convinced yet, that this is the measure required by the crisis. Because I am desirous of convincing the French people, irritated and exasperated by the atrocity attempted in their metropolis upon the Emperor, that there is in the British Parliament a noble and generous sympathy with them, I vote for the leave to bring in this bill which is asked ; but I give that vote because I think I can do so con sistently with the laws of England and the privileges of the Englishman. Olkeerej Mr. S. HERBERT, having adverted to the change which a few days had wrought in this country of the Emperor of the French, and to the causes of the irriattion against his Go vernment, observed, that before he came to an ultimate de cision upon this measure he wanted information. He wished to know, among other things, what was the real state of the law ; whether it was true or not that the existing law was sufficient to reach aliens conspiring here against ali,ns abroad; whether it was the practice of the English Governmeet, when it received information from our police, to give n ,tice to that of France ; and what would be the effect of converting a mis demeanour into a felony upon the powers of the police. He did not refuse to entertain the measure, and he should be ready, after due deliberation, to express his opinion of its merits on the second reading. Lord PALMERSTON said--Sir, I have heard in the coutso of this discussion some arguments against the proposal of her Majesty's Government which I scarcely expected to have heard iu the quarter from which they came. We have been told by one gentleman on the other side of the house that we should give the answer of the Barons— " Nolumus loges Anglia; mntari." We have been told by my noble friend bee hind me, who I always imagined claimed to be a reformer of the law, that we ought to stand by the ancient law of the country, and because this offence of conspiracy for a long course of time has been simply a misdemeanour we ought to refuse to apply the grave entnishiam t attaching to felony. I trust the house will dismiss from their minds arguments founded upon such principles as these. We aro told, on the other hand, that there aro statements made on the part of the Government and people of France which are so offensive and so contrary to truth that on that account we ought to de cline to take this measure into consideration. Hon. members have taken groat offence at the assertion made on the part of France that this country has been a harbour for assassins and conspirators, Sir, I am concerned to say that in point of fac' that which has recently passed prevents our meeting that assertion with refutation. It is not tree that the people or the (Imminent of England intentionally encourage or liar. hour men capable of committing this crime, but unfertunitely it is a fact that men have plotted crime, iu England and from England have issued for their perpetration. When we are told by the right how. gentleman and others that we ought to have answered that despatch of Count Walowski with an in- , dignaut refutation I say, nufortrinately facts prevented our making that indignant refutation, It is impossible to deny that which the right hon. gentleman the member fur Bock' ngham shire statel. It is notorious to all the world that this last con spiracy, at all events, was hatched in England, and that the instruments by which it was to be accomplished were fabri cated in this country,--not accidentally, as I heard one hon. gentleman say,—but decidedly for a purpose previously con ceived ; and that the persons to execute the plan had not as tlo right lion. gentleman who spoke last says, passed a considerable tittle beforehand in Franco, but had i,sued quite recently from this country, for the purpose of commit tin 4 the crime of which they are euilty, nofortunate stai:o of things naturally and ni.cesstrily led the Gorr, wawa of this country to consider tine state of the law, and even before we had received any application from the Government of France we CIOCILI6 , I it our duty to LIIIII our minds to a serious conei ' derstion of the evil. If any measare can bo as cfloctual remely there were but two modes of treatment. One mode would have been to have ' , course to legislation which existed at previous periods and for a limited time with regard to aliens by which the Government had the power of expelling per ous suspected to bo dangerous to the Government and welfare of this country, ant beyond that to have asked Parliament to give the Government power to expei persons supposed to be dangerous to the sa)v..rnineat of other countries. That would, indeed, have been a course to which Parliament and the country would not have listened for n moment. It would have been obviously ineffectual for the purpose, inasmuch as you could rarely have !hat degree of suspicion of the crime intended which would justify you in removing the persons accused. If wo had had such a power upon the present oc casion it would not have enabled us to prevent the crime, be cause no suspicion attached to the pe sons who were the per petrators or the instigators of the deplorable act which has given rise to these discussions. If it were not possible to have recourse to a measure which would enable you to pre vent crimes of this kind by the previous removal of persons suspected to have the intention of committing them, the only other course was to increase the punishment which was attached to the commission of the crime, and thus to ..n -deavour to increase the motives which would deter men from entering into these conspiracies. The noble lord behind me tells us that this bill would be ineffectual, because the severity of punishment does not deter from offences ; on the contrary, according to his re tsoning, the relaxation of punishment is the motive by which you deter men from Grime. My noble frienC.'s argument is a plagiarism of the old rhyme. He thinks that punishment " Is great because it is so small," and his reasoning leads to the following conclusion, " Then 't w'd be greater if 't were none at all." (Laughter.) That argument is not founded upon reason, nor upon the experience of mankind. We know that too severe punishments fail, not from the iasuflicioney of the motives whieh they afford to deter men from crime, but from the dif ficulty to persuade juries to convict persons of crime, and thereby subject them to a punishment which they V.ink is beyond its deserts. That is the only reason of their failure. I hold my noble friend to be entirely wrong is saying that by raising the crime of conspiracy from a misderacanous to a felony we shall not add to the motives which may deter men from entering into such criminal projects as conspiracies to murder. It is idle to say that greater severity of punishment has not altogether put an cud to crimes. If the argument were admi.ted thet because a punishment had not in put an end to the commission of the crime against which it is aimed, therefore the punishment is useless, there ought to e e an end of all penal laws. What pu ishment whet penal law is there which has ov r succeeded in entirely extinguishing the crim against which it was directed t All sou can hope from penal legislation is to create greater deterring metite iu the minds of men who may be led to the co eoniseioa f crimes, but to imagine that there will not be men who from reckless passi..n, vam hope of impunity, or some other exeuse will ho led to commit any crime evl atever is to imagine that widen is totally opposed to the whole course of human expe rience. Tee se Tercet punishment does not prevent the com mission of murder, and you might as well argue that because murders continue iuspiteof that severe pueiehmeut, we ought to dismiss punishment altogether, and leave mankind simply to the influence and the mural teaching of those who may endeavour to guide them in the paths of virtue. therefor: there is no force whatever in the argument that to inflict a severe penalty on the offence of conspiracy is not calculated to render the coareissien of the (entice less likely. There are two views ie. which this measure may be regar'tel,• -first as an imp evement iu ou , own law without regard t 4 ny extern 1 considerate ns, and nexs as a measure calculated to prevent, as far -s we can, the commission of a great crime—of a crime which would be highly injurious to the 'nterests of the ountry, and would inflict a deep et :in on its honour a d character. No man can deny that there is great advantage in aseimilatiez the law of the differeet p r dons of the united kingdom with regard to any particular offence. As regards the Irish law, the right lion and leaf- e gentleman opposite has argrie.l with great suecess 0,, the ad vantage of reducing the penalty which is at present attache • to this offence f conspiracy to commit murder, a-id the argu meat is equally strong, on the other hand, teat it would he a great advantage in Englaucl to raise the offence from a sirupl - misdemeanour to a felony. In spite of the maxim of the Berens, n spite of the new-bore attachment of my no le friend eehincl me for our ancient laws the bill whi h we pro pose to you, regarded on its own merits, is is great improve ment ou the present law. It has been sail, if this is meseiy a reform in the law why did you not make it part of th Con solidation Bills which are about to be laid before Parliament But my hon. friend the Solicitor-General has we 1 explained that this is a change, and not a consolidation of the law, and that therefore it would not pr perly have a place in those bills. The real ground upon w deli this measure rests is not that it is an improvemen in the law of the country, but the it is a measure-calculated to prevent the recurrence of a great crime, the consequences of which would be injurious to the best interests of the country, as well- as derogatory to its honour. Is it to be wondered at that foreign nations should look with irritation and with feelings of mistrust on this country if they think that it harbours men who are here for the purpose of plotting most diabolical o trages to be com mitted in their own ountry ? I should be sorry if anything were proposed or adopted in this country which would inter fere in the slightest degree with that principle by which the shores of England are open to political refugees of every country. Whatever they may know, and what c er opinions they may hold with res cot to the Govern went of their country, they ought to be allowed to come here a el remain here, under the security of our laws, so long as they continue to behave decently and do not commit an ; offence against the laws of this country or against the laws of God and man. But it noels can be the wish of the Eug dab people that, under the pre'ience of enjoying security ag dint dppressiun, men - should be allowed to be here plotting °fleeces of the-deepest aye, and instigating others to commit crimes involving other countries in scenes of bleodshed by the assaasivation of those eho may be at the head of the Go vernment. And who are the persons against whom this bill I,as been levelled 4 It Las been said by the hoe, member for Pontefract that this bill will not sway the minds of those men who, with mistaken views of patriotism and careless of their lives, risk their existence for the accomplishment of such dreadful designs. These are the criminals who are the actors in these assassinations, who pay the forfeit of their lives whe ther they succeed Or fail. But the objects of this bill are the cowards who stand behind like the person alluded to by my noble friend in the case of the assassination of Collet Rossi, who urged on those who w- re to commit the crime, but himself remained behind. (Hear.) These ate the men against whom this bill is levelled, and with regard to them I have yet to learn that this bill will not furnish motives to deter them from the commission of such offences. It is quite true that when you have awarded the punish ment it remains in each case to obtain the evidence by which the commission of the offence is to be proved. ear, 1-ear.) That, undoubtedly; is a difficulty hi all three cases, tut it is neither greater nor less iu the ease of a e isdemeasuour than iu that of a felony. Tile advantage of the measure which wo propose is that if you get that evidence, if you are enabled at any future time to convict any individuals of the Grime of conspiracy to com mit murder, or of instigating others to commit it, there -ill be a severe punishment inflietod on them, which no man can contemplate without dread and apprehension. I Lose who have spoken iu this debate have drawn the at- S,eition of the house to the great and important question of cur rel ,tions with our neighbours in Frauce. Sir, it is in vain to disguise that that no doubt is, and must be, a main edement in the consideration of the measure which is now - before the house. We have not yielded to thieat or in timidation. The very arguments which have bees used in the course of the debate negative that assertion. My noble friend objected to the bill that it did not accomplish what the French Government asked. Then, if it does not do that there is an end of the argument that the house Is called en to yield to the threats of a foreign country. This bill does not, undoubtedly, do that which is pointed out in one portion of the despatch from Count Walweski—it does not do that which the French Government declares that it (lees not do itself in France—it does net infringe the prin ciple of hospitality to foreigners of a'l countries who seek a refuge from the tyranny of their own Governments. (Hear.) But the argument of those who say that we are not to do that which in itself is right because. forsooth, it is asked for and expected by others, is the very argument by which every tyrannical Government refuses to make any concessions to its subjects. (Herr, hear.) When discontent prevails, and it is pointed out that certain improvements in their system would remove that discontent. those Governments ray, '• No ; it would be undignified—it would be unworthy of our pcsition— to make concessions when demands are made ; let us wait until nobody wants anything, and then we may, perhaps, in our generosity and discretion do it (Hear, hear.) Such is the argument that is used now. We are told that it may be right that we should take some precautions, so far as they are consistent with our constitution, to prevent the commission of diabolical crimes abroad which are hatched in this country ; but we are asked to do it now by a foreign Government, and therefore we will not do that which in itself it would be perfectly tie ht to do on another occasion That, sir, is not an argument which can be listened to seriously—we have interests of too much magnitude at stake to allow us to listen to reasoning of that kind. We have our own honour and character in the first place to maintain, and I say that it would be disgraceful to the English nation if, knowing that these crimes arc the result of conspiracies hatched here, we were to refuse to stamp them with the mark of our condemnation by a new law which would be applicable to the case. (Hear, hear.) As far, then, as regards our own honour and character, I think that the country is bound to take some step to show to the world —not• by speeches or by flaming and magnificent despatches, such as the right hon. member for Bucks would have had us write, but by some certain action—the detestation which Parliament and the country entertain of crimes of this kind, and their desire to do that which is consistent with the law and constitution of the realm for the purpose of preventing their repetition. I certainly do lament--as many others who have spoken lamented—that expressions have been used in the course of this debate, in regard to the Emperor of the French, which I think even those who used them must upon reflection regret. (Hear, hear.) We have only to look upon the Emperor of the French in that character in which he has been so eloqneutly described by the right hon. member for Buckinghamshiti, as a steady and faithful ally of this country ---as a Sovereign who, placed at the head of a great nation by the will of that nation, has, as far as the interests of his country are concerned, at least this to say, that it is in a state of as great internal material prosperity as was over know' in France before—we have only to look at him, I say, is that character, to make us regret that thcc expressions have been used. (Hear, hear) We have no right to inquire into the system of administration which the people of Franco are willing to submit to ; we lo o k upon the Emperor of the French as the organ of a great friendly nation; we have been allied to France of late years in war and in peace, and we have found the Emperor steady and faithful, constant and true. (Hear.) We have found him consulting, in the first instance, the honour and inte rests and dignity of his own country, at the same time that he made a due regard to those ends coincident with fidelity to his alliance with England, and showed how deeply ho was persuaded of the great truth, that it was fo,. the imnortant boactit of both couutri a that that alliance should continue, since it not only conferred immense benefits on the two up s tios, but afforded the vest eecurity for the maintenance of the general peace - of Europe and the world. (Hear; hear.) If, then, we have an ally so true, so f ithful, so powerful to aid us, and so capable of rendering the alliance between the two countries beneficial to both and to the world at large, let us not lightly do that which might he considered offensive to that so cereign and to the nation 171iieh he rules ; and if we aro able by any legislation of ours, without departing from the spirit of our constitution, and without introducing any new principle into our laws, to add the slightest security to the valuable life of that great and illustrious sovereign, we should, indeed, incur a heavy reapon. sibility if, having those means in our power, we were lightly o reject them. Wo should indeed, be open to censure if, having it in our power to diminish the dangers to which that great and illustrious man has lately been exposed, we were, upon any paltry fooling of offended dignity, or of irritation at the expressions of three or four colonels of French regi ments, to act the childish nart of refusing an important mea sure on ,grounds so insignificant and so trumpry. (Cheers.) I shout! here explain, perhaps, what appears to have been very much lost sight of, that it is almost invariably tbo habit of the French ,tr. - .y and even of stall detach ments of the army, to send iu addresses 'upon occs.- •4ons of this kind ; and, as a matter of c urso, those ad dne-ses go into the .Moniteur Hon. me bore seem to imagine that those ad tresses are selected by the head of the Government, and that they a , e inser ed in the Moniteur by special order; but anybody who is acquainted with the course of business knows that it won d be gaits inconsistent with the numerous avocati .ns of the Emperor that he should read throug't 200 or 300 of those addresses in order to select those whien he might wish to publish, and to repress the others There is, theret,re, no reason for saying that because those addresses were inserted in the Mcnateur they were adopted by the Government of France. (Hear.) I hope the house will not, either by refusing us leave to bring in the bill, or by a tootle for delay— which would be tantamount to the same thing—create the impression that there is in the country or in this house any indifference to the abominable crime to which this bill relates, or to that imortant alliance which exists between the Governments arm nations of En. and and France. I trust, on the contrary. that the house, b y * giving us leave to bring in the bill and by carrying it through its various stages, will afford a manifest proof that we do feel the utmost detestation for that base system of conspiracies to which the Bill refers, and that we are willing to do all that it is possible to do, consistently with the principles of our constitution, to prevent the concoction of these crimes in England, and to add at least some security to the Emperor of the French by rendering it more difficult ior such atrocities in future to be planned in England, and executed by persons assembling on these s ,ores, which ought only to be the shelter of the virtuous, the honourable, the patriotic, and the brave. (Cheers.) . Mr. COX, amid loud cries of" Divide," moved the adjourn ment of the debate. Lord PALMERSTON—I should really hope that after two nights' debate the house• is at least prepared to come to a decision upon the preliminary question as to the introduction of the bill. (General cheering ) If my hon. friend wishes to discuss the principle of the bill he will have ample oppor tunity when it is introduced. (Laughter.) At all ev , nte, I think it ray uty to di ide against a further adjournment. Mr. WYLD hoped that his h..m. friend would not press his Motion for an adjournment, and to k that opportunity of stating that although he intended to vote against the intro. ducti nof the Bill he wa not indifferent to the value of one alliance with France or the atrocity of the a tempt to destroy the life of the Emperor. He prot.:sted against the interpre tation which the noble lord a tempted to put on the conduot of those who were opposed to the Bill. (Cries of " Divide.") L Ord . RUSSELL hoped the, the division would take pl.-ce that night, and suggested to t s hon. a. d leartell geut,o iaau (Mr. Kiuglake) who had oved the amendment, the desirableuesi of his withdrawal of it in order that the ques. tiou might be simplified, and the division taken on the ques tion that leave be given to introda. e the bill. (Cheers.) Mr. COX would withdraw his motion for adjournment. (Laughter.) Mr. K iNGLAKE —I understand it is the general desire of th hons , ., that the division should he tak en on a direct ne. 4utive rather than upon the ~monument which I had the honour to propose. (Hear.) In Order that the house m4y leterioino whether it wile be lizlit - to tzecoda to my reirmst that I shall he allowed to withdraw my amendment, I have only to remind them that the object w the amendment was to induce the house to refrain from legislating upon this subject mitil documents relatiug to the point in discussion between the two Government should be p educed. Now, it has fallen out that the material document to which my mind was di rected has been read in this house in the course of the ire via debate. (Hear.) I think, t:•erefore, that, consistently with the view which induced me to propo e the amendment, I may respectfully :isk the house to permit me t , w thd aw it. The motion of Mr. C for adjournment, as well as the amendment of Mr Kinglake, having be ,, u withdr wn the original motion was put. The house divided. The numbers were,— For the bill Against it 299 Majority The Bill was then i)rought in and read a first time. LADY HAVELOCK AND SIR H. HAVELOCK'g ANNUITY BILL, This bill was 'cad a second time, after some remarks by Sir W CODRINGTON and Mr. GRIFFIT SAVINGS-BANKS. On the motion of the Cuascntoa of the Excliratraa, it was agreed that the Acts relating to say ugs-ba❑ks ant their ope rations should be refer , ed to a se'ect committee. port !UMNA BRIDGE. Mr. WILSON obtained leave to hriug n a bill for abolleb• ing the tolls at prescut levied 4 the bridge over the Shannon Pertumna. HARBOURS OF REFUGE. On the motion of Mr. WILSON, the following gentlemen wer nominated to serve - on the >elect Committee on Har hours of Refuge :—Mr. Wiison, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Baring, Lord Naas, Lord A. V Tempest, Mr. Knudall, Mr. Liddell, Sir F. Smith Mr. Philips, Mr. Hassard, M r . A . S m i t h , Si r R . F or . :neon, Mr. J. A. Gurney, Mr Traill, Mr. Duff, NI T. Fergus, Mr. Dodson, Mr. Clay, Mr J. Ewart, and Mr. Miwartuey., BANK ACTS COMMITTEE. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that Mr. Ball and Mr. Tito be added to this committee. The motion was s.greel to. PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. The CH AN , ';ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the fal lowing resolutions, which were agreed to : `' I That when a motion is made in committee of supply to omit or reduce any item of a vote, a question shall be pro• posed from the chair for omitting or reducing such item ac. cordingly ; and members shall speAk to such question only, Lii it lies been disposed of. " 2. That when sevend motions are offered they shall be taken in the order in which the items to which hey relate appear in the printed estimates. " 3. That after a question has been proposed from the chair for omitting or reducing any item, no motion shall be ma e or debate allowed upon any preceding item. "4. That where it has been proposed to omit er reduce items in a vote, the question shall be afterwards put upon the original vote, • , r upon the reduced vete, as the case may be, without amendment." The Conspiracy to Murder Bill win brought in by L•rd PaL• maitrros, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday. The house adjourned at a quarter to 2 o'clock. PAIRS ON THE CONSPIRACY FOR MURDER BILL. For. Against Fur. g.ilnst. Agnew, sir A. Bright, Mr. Willou4hby, Mr. Jolt, Mr. Farquhar, Sir Johnstone, Mr. Gilpin, Col. Locke, Mr. J. Mtato Butler Peel, General Wortley, )1.4j0r SPORTING NOTES. LINCOLN LIGE{ l'S. Turates are not to be frost-boundaft,r all. Tho grain from Lincoln is satisfactory on tha , pout, for i.; states that the running ground is in good virg or der, and that the races w ill be decided at Ghe appnintea tiW Still people .see soepticAl on the subjeA, ssoi tency that , the ground must be as bard ae a parin:. ; - - , tnne. The • ,everity 01 the weather, whien has renew! , tupped certain horses in their o• k, wil! d produce a diminishing effect on the field-, and cause t" mee ing to tall short of that success vvnich was one' , anticipated. The managers, however, hill exert thil)- ..eives energetically to prevent shortcowiug„, s od t it care of Ur. Johnson and the zeal of it will ren der the proceedings regular aad effic..-ni, I knee' eu little of the " form" of the different animals liksiy to 05 brought out, that I am unable to calculate the probe bilities with any degree of ac c u rac y. M y k now l e dge mustbe derived from therunning of the horses lastyear and my opinion founded ou known performances. Ii Odd Trick and Commotion were to be brought out for the Trial Stakee, o race of unusual interest for this early period of the year would be ochaiione,d. I should be induced to trust tba Cambridgeshire champion, albeit Church Langton with 17lbs, the best of the weights, ought to be difficult to shake off, Nothing is known of the merits or demerit* • of the two year olds engaged in the Brooklesby Stakes. Report, however, speaks favourably of Heed Knowledge and the Queen of Scots. Vandermulin has been talked about in connection with the Lincoln Handicap, but, recollecting his break' down at Warwick, I am disinclined to trust him over a course which will be somewhat hard. Could I calculate upon a start, I should have no hesitation in giving my vote of confidence iu Taller Gal, Plumatone, and T. r. Cooke. The jumping events I shall not attempt to foretell. Feb. 10. A FRESH MAN. BETTING AT MANCHESTER.—TunDIT. TWO THOUSAND. 7to 2 agst Clydesdale (taken) 6to 1 eget Brother to Marchioness (taken) 15 to 1 aget Vandyke (taken) 15 to 1 apt Coxwold (taken) GREAT NORTHERN HANDICAP. 4500 to 60 agst Vedette (taken) CHEATER CC 100 to 6 agst Adamas (taken) 22 to 1 aget Think Bonny (taken) 22 to 1 apt Brother to Marc:binning (takes) 22 to 1 'apt Blackthorn (taken) 26 to 1 aget Charles the Second (taken) 33 to 1 aget Palmistry (taken) 33 to 1 ag e t G enera l Bosquet (taken) 40 to 1 eget Botany (offered) LIVERPOOL STEEPLECHASE. 11 to 1 aget Little Torn (taken) 12 to 1 agst Jean du Queens (taken) 12 to 1 aget Lough Bawn (taken) 100 to 6 apt Tom Moody (taken) LINCOLN RACES.—TUESDAY EvstrrNa. ‘ , 4 The following hor s es have arrived :—Squire of ~, sham, Maley, Irigoin4r, and Westhorpe. The following notice was issued from the G 6 l ler l Poet-office, viz. :—Mails for the Meiiterraneast ibr); India, via Southampton, will be despatched by the Ilir t on the morning of the 11th inst., and also by the Tot; with the Australian mail, on the morning of th e 1, " instant. ADSLIO : By JULIA ICAVANAGII.--" Adela' is the belt. work we have read by Miss Kavanagh ; it is a chaff :: ;rig novel, full of delicate character painting. The vo i r ie j manship is good throughout, and th e interest hinusie in the first chapter burns brightly to the close. .."`" with her child's ways and womaii's heart, is as fasci" tir) A. 6 o and wilful a little piece of imperfection as ever blessed I'. ..yes or plagued the heart of a lover. Mr. Osborne, th e husband, is the best drawn character in the book; ~:e l the most thoroughly sustained. His acts are the na - f b remit of his ITlO'ivet an:3 ernoti,,r3—bk: !S hOt piliott / 2 4 , 1 p; spasmodic epithets, but quietly and carcluily wor" -- ,, a rid the result is a real life-like human being of nos h - blood."—Athenaufn.