The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-27 00:00:00

THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 27, 1858.

out a reply to it would lay a foundation for future
demands. He should therefore vote for the amend-
ment.

The Lonn ADVOCATE observed that with regard to
the amendment two things were clear,—first, that
the carrying it would be fatal to the bill ; second,
that the amendment bad nothing whatever to do
with the bill, it being no amendment of it. It was
hardly disputed that the bill was a right one ; but it
was said it should not pass because there had been
no answer given to a certain despatch. If that
despatch had contained anything insulting to the
people of this country or the Government, the insult
should have been immediately repelled. The de-
spatch, on the contrary, was perfectly friendly, and
to some extent the facts were true ; before making
a reply, therefore, the Government had 'proposed
this bill, and he thought the despatch ought not to
be answered till it was seen what became of the
amendment.

Mr. GLADSTONE premised that the allegation of
the Lord Advocate, that the amendment bad nothing
to do with the bill, was answered by himself when
he said that any member might vote both for the
amendment and for the bill. Referring to the French
alliance, he declared that we ought to give to the
French Government every confidence, .every good
office, and every claim for the purposes of justice
that could be demanded upon the principles of
international law and comity by the most ancient
and the freest Governments. Then, with regard to
the despatch in question, had it been answered, he
asked, and, if not, did it require an answer ?
The point was anticipated by my noble friend at the head
of the Government. He did not wait for the mention of
it by others, but referred to it himself in terms rather em-
phatic. The substance of his explanation was that the
despatch neither had been ror could possibly be answered,
for these are the words which be is reported "somewhere"
to have used :—" I sin concerned to say that, in point of
fact, that which has recently passed prevents our meeting
that assertion with refutation." Therefore, at the time
when the bill was introduced, the despatch had not been
answered, and the despatch was, rebus instantibus, incapable
of being answered. A' the commencement of this even-
ing's discussion the case stood a little different, for so effi-
cacious was the complaint which had been made that my
noble friend volunteered the statement that not only the
despatch might be answered, but that it bad been answered;
it had been answered verbally. Now, sir, I am bound
to say, of all the Explanations we have had, that is the
worst and the most unsatisfactory. If there was no other
ground for the motion of my right hon. friend, that would
be sufficient. The thrusting of verbal answers, about
which we know nothing, which we ha►e no means of testing,
of ascertaining, of judging, and pronouncing upon—
the thrusting of them into debates where they may be
introduced at will, and again withdrawn at will, and where
from the infirmity of memory they are liable both to be
misstated at the outset and to be improved upon as debates
proceed—such a practice, I say, is one so contrary to the
spirit of the Constitution and the rules which govern the
productionof information to this house that in my opinion
it calls for the natice of this house.

But does, let me ask, this despatch of Count Walewski
require an answer, because after all the question of mere
verbal discrepaccies is a small one compared with the con-
siderations which arise out of the nature of the document
itself. The learned Lord-Advocate says that the despatch
contains nothing offensive or insulting. Now, far be it
from me to apply either of those epithets to any expres-
sion used in a document emanating from the French
Government, because whatever those expressions may be,
however untrue or injurious in their tendency, yet we
ought not to pronounce them " insulting and offensive "
unless we believe them to be employed with the wilful and
deliberate intent of doing us harm. 1, for one, do not
suppose that the words in question were used with any
such intention, nor can I think that a foreigner is open to
any great degree of censure if, labouring under a momen-
tary excitement caused by circumstances of a character
peculiarly painful, he should make erroneous allegations
with respect to the laws and institutions of this country.
While, however, I must decline to designate the expres-
sions in the despatch as " insulting and offensive," I can-
not refrain from saying that it contains statements which
are utterly incorrect, and at the same time most injurious
to England. I refer in particular to two paragraphs, the
brat of which is as follows :

ft is no longer the hostility of misguided individuals, mani-
festing itself by all the excesses of the press and all the violencee
of language; it is no longer even the work of factions seekiug
to rouse opinion and to provoke disonier; it is assassination,
elevated to doctrine, preached openly.

Assassination elevated to a doctrine and preached openly !
This is part of the case against us. Is the charge true, I
ask? 1" No, no," from Mr. Bowyer.] I trust the hon.
and learned gentleman will allow me to speak without in-
terruption upon a matter so grave as this. Is it true, I
repeat, that assassination is in England " elevated to a
doctrine and preached openly "? Is any man who hears
me conscious to himself that such is the fact? If it be
the fact, why has not a remedy been provided ? Is it not
notorious that the law is sufficient to correct such an
abuse? Why, then, has no appeal been made to the law?
I am not aware that " assassination has been elevated into
a doctrine and preached openly ;" but if it has been, why
has such a state of things been permitted to go on in the
presence of those who ought, as a measure of prudence
and public propriety, to have called upon her Majesty's
Government to put it down? The imputation is a most
injurious one, and I feel assured not less untrue than it
injurious. It is an imputation which should not be
'• made or be lightly regarded by any nation, and I

must say—u one who has perhaps too often made it my busi-
ness to call attention to the tailing 4 of my countrymen—
it appears to me that England has a right to demand the
vindication of her honour in reference to this question of
assassination, for it is a plant which is congenial neither
to her suil nor to the climate in which we live.

It was clear, then, that that despatch should have been
answered. The Secretary for the Home Department
said, by giving to the bill before the house a second
reading, an answer to the despatch of Count
Walewski would be given :
Well, if the bill is to be our only answer to that docu-
ment, then, I say, we shall be in effect admitting the truth
of this statement which it contains. And what is the effect
of admitting the truth of these allegations? In tt.e first
place you inflict a cruel wound upon your couutry—a wound
upon its laws, upon the feelings of its people, and upon the
most venerable traditions of its history. But, sir, you do
more than this. There are secret rumours in circulation—
whispers which pass from man to man about the state of
feeling in France, and the consequences which are to follow
if this house shall exercise what I will venture to sit, but
for these apprehensions, would have been the independent
judgment of the vast majority of its members. There are
such rumours abroad ; and we are called upon to sacrifice
only a little bit of English feeling, of English law, of Eng-
lieh usages, awl of English recollections, in order to pro-
duce a satisfactory state of feeling in France. I trust, sir,
that we shall rise to something a little higher than this
short-sighted policy.

And what was the consequence of the course which
had been taken instead of making the state of our
law known to the French Government? There was
not the slightest doubt that great and heavy punish-
ment may be inflicted for misdemeanour, and it
would have been well if that information had been
conveyed to the Government of France :
And what do we now do? A demand is made upon us
on the ground that we shelter assassins ; as our answer
we send back this bill. But is the real demand made upon
us in that despatch that we should convert conspiracy to
murder from a misdemeanour to a felony? Is that the
object which Count Walewski has in view? When he
speaks of sheltering assassins, is it not obvious that he
means there ought to be a power centred in the Govern-
ment of sending suspected persons out of the country?
That is the construction which I put upon the demand,
and I Jo not think any other construction can be made
good by argument founded upon its terms. But whether
it be so or not, what is the consequence of our answering
it by this bill? It does nothing but enhance the penalty.
The learned lord says that by enhancing the penalty you
prevent the commission of the crime, and thus coolly re-
verses the rule and principle which has lain at the founda-
tion of every criminal statute that has passed this house
fcr the last thirty or forty years. We send acmes to France
a bill which enhances the penalty, but which does nothing
whatever towards detection ; and if it dues nothing to-
wards detection, can any person seriously maintain that
it will meet the terms of Count Walewski's despatch ?
We begin, before this house is asked to legislate, by
answering the charges made against us by an admission
of them,—having admitted them, we meet them by a piece
of legislation which will be wholly illusory. The effect
of that will be, that though it may be accepted for a moment
as a flattering compliment to wounded feelings, yet when
the real nature of the gift is discovered—when it is found
iuoperarive for any purpose of good, though it sacrifices
an important principle of English law, there will be a
renewal of the demands, the right to make which, and
the obligation to comply with which also, we shall have
admitted if we proceed to legislate under the despatch
which now lies on the table. For these reasons Ido hope
that the house will to-night consider the question which
is submitted to it by my right hon. friend. The connec-
tion between the despatch and legislation has been ad-
mitted by the Government themselves, and particulaily by
tny right hon. friend the Home Secretary, who says that
he cannot answer the despatch until you have read the
bill a second time. The importance of our decision, in
my opinion, cannot be over-estimated with respect to the
duty of this house and with respect to our national
honour. I must confess that, much as I detest those
qualities in foreign policy which are characterised as med-
dling and quarrelsome, I do think that a man who respects
other nations, who sensitively respects the rights of other
nations, will be readier to defend those of his own. If
there is any feeling in this house for the honour of Eng.
land, don't let us be led away by some vague statement
about the necessity of reforming the criminal law. Let
us insist upon the necessity of vindizating that law. As
far as justice requires let us have the existing law vindi-
cated, and then let us proceed to amend it if it be found
necessary. These times are grave for liberty. We live in
the nineteenth century. We talk of progress. We believe
that we are advancing, but can any man of observation
who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe
have faded to perceive that there is a movement, indeed,
but a downward and backward movement? There are •
few spots in which institutions that claim our sympathy
still exist and flourish. They are secondary places, nay,
they are almost the holes and corners of Europe, so far as
mere material greatness is concerned, although their
moral greatness will, I trust, insure them bog prosperity
and happiness. Brit in these times more than ever does
responsibility centre upon England, and if it does centre
upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws, and
upon her governors, then I say that a measure passed by
this House of Commons—the chief hope of freedom—
which attempts to establish • moral complicity between us
and those who seek safety in repressive measures, will be
a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every
country in the world.

• The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied to Mr. Gladstone
by giving an elaborate exposition of the law as it
stood, and which he declared to be ineffective, and
to require such an amendment as the bill before the
house proposed.
Mr. DISRAELI said that what ten days ago was a
question between the Parliament of England and the
people and Government of France had then be.
come a question between the House of Commons
and the English Minister; that nothing that night
which threw the slightest light upon that obscure
passage in our administration which referred to the
reception of Count Walewski's despatch hail been
heard ; and that no member of the Treasury bench—
and the Treasury bench had been exhausted in the
course of the discussion—had offered a single valid
reason, or had advanced any satisfactory excuse for
the conduct of the Government :
There is one circumstance which I do not think has
been referred to in the course of this debate, and which I
myself was not conscious of when I made some observe.
tions upon the subject ten days ago. It appears that the
despatch of Count Walewski, which has been the subject
of so much discussion, was not merely written to the Am-
bassador of France in England, according to the usual
custom, and by him read to the English Secretary of State,
but it was published in the Moniieur of France, and thus
made known to the people of France, and more than that,
like all State papers of great authority that appear in a
journal of the high character of the koniteur, it was pro.
bably copied into every official journal in Europe, and
perused and accepted as authentic by every Cabinet
in Europe. Where is the answer, then, to that despatch?
What satisfaction can it be to the people of this country
when this despatch of Count Walewski appears in the
Monilcur, when it appears in every accredited organ in
Europe, when it is accepted by the diplomacy of every
State and by every Cabinet,—what satisfaction, I say, can
it be that some indefinite words are expressed in the salons
of the French Ambassador, in which, for aught we know,
two men of the world shrugged their shoulders, and thus
exchanged a meaning not expressed in words? It is to my
mind perfectly inexplicable how her Majesty's Government
could be guilty of the indiscretion of laying that un•
answered despatch upon the table of House of Commons,
and of making it the very basis of the legislation which
they now propose.
Having pithily exposed the weakness of the Minis-
terial explanation, and the mystery surrounding the
whole affair, Mr. Disraeli concluded by calling the
attention of the house to the real point at issue
doubt not that, whether it be in France or in England,
the real issue to-night will be clearly comprehended. It
is not a diplomatic—it is not a political issue ;it is,
indeed, an issue of the greatest importance, but narrowed
to a very small limit. It is a question between this house
and the servants of the Crown. Have they, or have they
not, done their duty? I will not enter into a discussion of
the merits, or even of the character, of the law which they
have placed on our table. If the amendment proposed by
the right hon. gentleman the member for Ashton-under-
Lyne be carried, there will be nothing to prevent us from
proceeding to the consideration of this measure ; and of
this measure I give the same guarded opinion as I have
given before. 1 reserve to myself the right of deciding
upon it on its merits. What we have to determine now
is, whether the resolution of the right lion. gentleman is a
just and proper resolution—whether its allegations are
accurate—whether its sentiments are those which this
house ought to sanction—whether the regret which we
express is not felt by every Englishman and has not
touched the entire nation. That, sir, is the issue. I pro-
test against any foreign element being imported into it.
Let us decide whether or not the amendment of the right
hon. gentleman is justified by the circumstances. For my
own part, I believe that it is impossible to challenge its
accuracy and justice. It think it is expressed in moderate
though grave language. I think that in supporting it we
are fulfilling a public duty, and that if we carry it we shall
accomplish a public benefit.

L,rd PALMERSTON replied in a violent and vitu-
perative speech, directing his remarks particularly
against Mr. Gibson and Gladstone, and, at the same
time that he called upon the house to consider the
question before it "calmly," declared with consider-
able warmth that they would " stultify" themselves
if they did not reject the amendment.
The house divided, when the numbers were—

For the second reading 215
Against it 234
Majority against Government —l9
Before the numbers were announced, the greatest
excitement prevailed in the house. The tellers, as
they entered, were eagerly questioned as to the re-
sult by the members they bad to pass, and the most
intense anxiety was observable on both sides of the
table. When Mr. Gibson took the announcement

paper in his hand, the fact became known that
Ministers were beaten, and loud and reiterated
cheers rose from the majority. On the announce
went of the numbers the cheering was again and
again repeated, accompanied with what is not usual
in the house, by waving of hats by several hon.
members. On silence beir g restored,
The amendment of Mr. M. Gibson was put to the
house and agreed to.

!bk.

HOUSE OF LORDS—MoNDAy.

The expectation of hearing the Ministerial expla-
nations brought down a great number of strangers to
the house, and, besides the gallery, the spaces below
the bar and round the steps of the throne were filled
as soon as the Lord Chancellor took his seat on the
woolsack. The attendance of peers was thin. The
Government was represented by Earl Granville, the
marquis of Lansdowne, the Marquis of Clanricarde,
the Earl of Clarendon, Lord Panmure, and Lord
Stanley of Alderley. The principal Opposition peers
pre.ent were the Earl of Malmesbury, the Earl of
Eglinton, the Marquis of Salisbury, the Earl of
Lonsdale, Lord St. Leonards, and Lord Colchester.
The Earl of Derby was not in his place.