The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 13, 1858.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked the right hon. gentle-
man if he would lay on the table an authenticated
account of the state of Indian finance before the
committee was taken on the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the ExcilEguen said that the
returns in question were in the bands of the printer.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed on Monday next.

twenty-five members, and the following gentlemen
were appointed members :—The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Spooner,
Sir Charles Wood, Mr. G. A Hamilton, Mr. Gladstone,
Mr. Cayley, Sir Francis Baring, Mr. Vance, Mr.
Cardwell, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Weguelin,
Mr. Hankey, Mr. Hope Johnstone, Mr. Ennis, Mr. Pu-
ller, the Earl of Gifford, Mr. Fergus, Mr. John L. Iti.
cardo, Mr. Tucker Smith, and Mr. Glyn.

151

a defect in it. Finding that in England conspiracy
to commit murder was only a misdemeanour, while
in Ireland it was a felony subject to the highest
punishment, the Government thought it would be
an improvement to mitigate the severity of the Irish
law, and at the same time increase that of the law of
England. With respect to the time, he admitted
that paragraphs had appeared in the French paper
highly offensive to the people of this country; but if
we placed ourselves in the position of the French
nation he thought the Government of this country,
in similar circumstances, would bo justly blameable
if they bad not called the attention of that of France
to what appeared to be a defect in their law as Count
Walewski had done, without specifying any particular
alteration. There was nothing in the Count's de•
spatch which should deter us from doing what we
believed ought to be done, and which was not repug-
nant to the principles of our law and constitution.
In conclusion, Sir George read the despatch from
Count Walewski to Count Persigny, dated February
the Bth. That despatch, he observed, would be laid
before Parliament in the course of the present week.
' Mr. Bovux opposed the bill, on the ground that
the law as it stood was sufficient, that the pro.
posed alteration in the law would prove utterly in-
effective, and that the next demand made would be
for the expulsion of aliens on their arrest upon mere
suspicion.
Mr. HOPE likewise opposed the bill, which ho be-
lieved would remain a dead letter ou the Statute-
book.

Mr. COLLIER, in supporting the bill, said very
grave doubts were entertained lay lawyers whether
the conspiracy in question was an offence by our law;
but, assuming it to be so, it was a misdemeanour
only, punishable by fine or imprisonment :
Even if the offence was punishable under the existing
law, in what category was it classed? A conspiracy to
commit wholesale murder stood on exactly the same level as
a conspiracy to pass off bad wine as the true wine of Por-
tugal in exchange for goods ; or a conspiracy to charge a
man with being the reputed father of a bastard; or a con-
spiracy to pass off a person as a man of property with a
view to defraud tradesmen. When, therefore, his honour.
able friend ( Mr. Roebuck) asked why increase the punish.
ment of conspiracy, his ( Mr. Collier's) answer was,
because the crime is a great one.

Mr. HUNT opposed the bill.
Mr. WHITBREAD supported the bill, contending
that it was not the liberty of the subject, but the
licence of the assassin that was restrained.

Mr. BENTINCE spoke in favour of the bill, and con•
damned what he deemed the coarse personalities
directed against the Emperor of the French, as a
departure from the courtesy and usual course of pro-
ceeding in that house which he hoped not to see
repeated.
Mr. MILNES said it was a grave thing to alter the
law of England upon the plea that it was necessary
to make some demonstration that would satisfy
France. lie believed that it would in no degree
satisfy the French people—that it would only show
our own weakness and lead to further demands.

Mr. NAPIER supported the introduction of the
measure ; he believed the proposed alteration a wise
one, and the time opportune. He grounded his
opinion, first, on the unwise inequality of the punish-
ments awarded in England and in Ireland for the
offences treated by the bill, the punishment in the
former place being only that allotted to misde-
meanours, while in the latter it was death, and
the bill would assimilate the two, by increasing the
punishment in England, and ameliorating the
severity which existed in Ireland. And, if the justice
of this change were admitted at home, surely it was
not to be refused or postponed, because it would also
operate justice to our allies on the other side of the
Channel. He said, "Be just, and fear not." As to
the effect on other continental nations of conceding
justice to the claims of France, he urged that Eng-
land could never stand well with any country if her
only reason for refusing that which was wise and just
was that it was asked for by an ally, who wished to
throw additional protection around the person of the
sovereign of their choice,
Lord J. RUSSELL, after noticing the disadvantages
of this discussion, expressed a doubt, assuming that
the bill was introduced as an amendment of the
law, whether it was really an amendment. He
looked, he said, not only to the principle of the
proposed change, but to the nature of the crime,
which was exceedingly difficult to prove, and juries
would hesitate to convict if the penalty were ren-
dered more severe. Tho spirit of the proposed
enactment was contrary to the whole course of our
modern enlightened legislation. But the proposed
change was not likely to defeat the political conspira-
cies against which it was directed, because the con-
spirators were men who were ready to expose their
lives, which would be sacrificed whether they
succeeded or failed in their attempt. The object
should be not the punishment, but the detecting the
crime, and the hill would serve no purpose of
detection. Then mune the question that this altera-
tion of the law was asked fur by the Government
of Fotoce, and when that question was approached,

152

it was necessary to take a larger view of it than
the Ministers appeared to have taken. What the
French Government wanted was, not this bill, but to
put an end to certain meetings in London, and
that could only be effected by sending the parties
out of this country before they could commit the
crime. This appeared to be the object from the
language of Count Walewski and Count Persigny.
Short of this, the existing law was amply sufficient,
and it had been enforced against Peltier in 1803.
Referring to Count Walewski's first despatch, Lord
John Russell said it was a matter of astonishment to
him that Count Walewski should have written his
despatch and no answer should have been made
to it:—

Because the answer seems to be quite obvious. I
should have thought that anybody who valued the repu-
tation of the British name, and had any regard for the
honour of Great Britain, would have said, " We are not
a nation that protects assassins, as seems to be supposed.
The crime of assassination is abhorrent to all our feelings ;
we cannot sufficiently condemn it. Show us that these
men have been preaching the doctrine of assassination,
and we will bring them before our courts of justice with-
out the loss of an hour. Make out that it has been advo-
cated 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.

Tho measure, he was persuaded, would neither
amend the law nor satisfy the French Government.
The position in which her Majesty's Ministers had
placed the country excited much alarm for the future.
In their bill they had contrived to please neither the
people of England nor the Emperor of France.
They had conceded a change in the law, and when
that change was proved to be ineffectual, they could
not consistently refuse to adopt more stringent
means. The Government had brought themselves
into a false position, exhibiting weakness towards
France and disappointing the just expectations of
the people of England, and he deolared he would
not share " the shame and humiliation " of sup-
porting the bill.

Mr. DISRAELI said he apprehended the principle
of Lord Palmerston's projected bill was to change
the crime of combining and conspiring to murder
from a misdemeanour into a felony. This might

still be considered a moot point, and one entitied to
grave and dispassionate consideration. However,
such a change of the law was not without precedent.,
and he instanced the act introduced after the attack
on Mr. Harley by Guiscard, wherein not only was
the attempt to assassinate made felony, but even to
assault was brought under the same category. Now,
what bad happened in the present instance? An
attempt to assassinate the Emperor of the French
had been formed and matured in England; and
although that did not justify a violation of the right
of asylum, it did call for considerable sympathy on
the part of the house. Now, if nothing else had
happened—if the only farts before us were that there
bad been the usual attempt on the life of the Em-
peror, and that he had made an appeal to the Eng-
lish Government for their support, he believed thp
universal opinion would have been, consistently with
the maintenance of our rights and privileges, to re-
spond to the feelings expressed by the Emperor with
the most perfect respect and sympathy. But since
the horrible attempt of the 14th of January had been
committed much had happened to complicate the
question. He was not there to defend or palliate
certain incidents—the " unfortunate " despatch of

Count Walewski, or those military addresses con-
taining observations which amounted " to the height
of impertinence," published in the authoritative
journal of the French empire, and which was au
instance of signal indiscretion—but the expression
of regret on the part of the Emperor was frank and
full, and after this he thought it did not become us
to criticise these incidents with too much severity.
But the annoyance which we very naturally expe-
rienced upon such an occasion was a feeling not
peculiar to England, but that other nations great as
she, and other peoples distinguished even as they
who hold sway in these favoured isles, have occa-
sionally been subjected to annoyances equally flagrant,
which they bore with remarkuble forbearance :

I cannot help calling to mind the circumstance that in
1853, exactly five years ago this very month of February—
nay, by a singular coincidence, I believe this very thli of
February—l felt it my duty to submit to the notice of the
House of Commons a motion, the object of which was to
invite the house to take into consideration the state of
the relations subsisting at the time between France and
England, in consequence of expressions which had been
used and the line of conduct which had been pursued by
some great personages in this country—(" Hear, hear,"
and a laugh )—expressions and conduct which in my
opinion, and in the opinion of Europe generally, were
calculated to destroy that good feeling which we had always
regarded it as a cardinal point of policy to cherish and
maintain between the two countries. (Hear, beer.) I
recur to this circumstance I.eosuse I am of ()pink!' that
if hon. gentlemen who made the indignant speeches upon
which I felt it to be my duty to comment would only call
to mind the past, the recollection would be likely to eater-