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

COUNT WALEWSKPS DESPATCH.

THE following important document was communi-
cated on Monday night to both Houses of Parlia-
ment

EARL COWLEY TO THE EARL OF CLARENDON.
(Received Feb. 21.)
Paris, Feb. 20, 1858.

My Lord,—Having learnt by telegraph that certain reso-
, lotions imputing blame to her Majesty's Government for
not having made any reply to Count Walewski's despatch
to Count Persigny, dated the 20th of January, had been
affirmed by a majority of the House of Commons, I think
it a duty to your lordship to place on record that, although
I have not been charged to make any official communica-
tion to the French Government in answer to that despatch,
I have been enabled by your lordship's private instructions
to place before the French Government the sentiments,
views, and intentions of her Majesty's Government far
more fully, and I cannot but believe more satisfactorily,
than would have been the case had my language been
clothed in a more official garb.
When Count Walewski's despatch was written, the irri-
tation against the supposed apathy of England in a matter
so important to France as the preservation of the Empe-
ror's life was excessive. Rightly or wrongly, the idea pre-
vailed that every conspiracy against his Majesty bad been
organised in England, and that the British laws gave secu-
rity to the conspirators. No counter-assertions on the
part of her Majesty's Government would have had any
effect at tbat moment, and any official notice on the part
of your lordship of Count Walewski's despatch would, pro-
bably, have involved the two Governments in a controver-
sial discussion more likely to have increased than to have
calmed the excitement which prevailed. If the object was
to soothe, it was important to let time exert its usual in-
fluence, and to reserve the official answer to Count Wa-
lewski's despatch until it was known whether Parliament
would answer the appeal which was to be made to it by her
Majesty's Government.
But it ought not to be ignored that, while taking this
prudent course, your lordship lost no opportunity of in-
forming the French Government, confidentially, of the true
bearings of the question which had been raised Your
lordship's language has been, from the beginning of this
unfortunate affair, clear and straightforward. I have now
your lordship's letters before me, in which, while vindicat-
ing, in language worthy of tour lordship's name, the right
of asylum which Great Britain has ever afforded to
strangers of all ranks cud nations, and while declaring, in
terms as explicit as they are determined, the impossibility
of infringing on that great principle of our Constitution,
you 'how bow utterly insufficient must any enactment be
to prevent men of desperate minds from entering upon
desperate undertakings. As your lordship's teue, but very
inadequate organ, I have faithfully represented your
feelings and your principles, and could I call upon the
Emperor or upon Count Walewski as witnesses, neither,
I feel certain, could belie my words.
I know not what may be the result of last night's vote ;
but at all events I lose no time in stating my conviction
that to your lordsbip'sjudicious and prudent conduct at a
very critical moment it is owing that, without the shadow
of the sacrifice of a single principle, our relations with this
Government have not received a shock which might have
been fatal to the friendship which yet happily prevails
between the two nations.-1 have, te.,
Comm,

port6inp firliantent.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—FamAy, Fes. 19.
[As we were necessarily confined in our last issue
to a brief summary of the parliamentary proceedings
of Friday night week, we venture on the occasion of such
an important result to depart from our usual custom
and give a more full abstract of the proceedings.]

CONSPIRACY TO MURDER BILL.

Lord PALMERSTON, in moving the second reading
of the Conspiracy to Murder Bill, observed that
great pains had been taken to diffuse a notion that
this was an Alien Bill. It was no such thing. It
gave the Government no arbitrary powers whatever,
nor any powers that did not apply to all her Majesty's
subjects. He repeated what he had stated upon the
introduction of the bill as to its nature and object,
which did not interfere with the laws of hospitality.
Any foreigner, whatever his political offences might
have been, would, under this bill, as well as without
it, enjoy a secure asylum within this realm so long
as he conformed to the law of the land. The penalty
incurred under the bill could only be awarded by a
court of justice, so that it was a gross misrepresenta•
tion to give it the name of an Alien Bill. The noble
lord then referred to the grave charge brought
against the Government in neglecting to reply to
Count Walewski's despatch. " Objection," said
Lord Palmerston, " has been taken to the course
pursued by her Majesty's Government, upon the
ground that we ought to have written and cent some
very great, fine, eloquent., and indignant answer to
the despatch of Count Walewski to Count de
Persigny, which was handed to her Majesty's
Government and laid on the table of the house ":
Now, sir, what passed in regard to the despatch was
this. It was presented personally by the French A.nabas-
sador to my noble friend at the head of the Foreigm-office,
who repeated to the French Ambassador that which he,
and I, and other inembeis of her Majesty's Government
have over and over again explained to ad the foreign repre-
sentatives who have approached the subject at all, that a
change in our law with regard to the asylum granted to
foreigners they must nut expect, because it was utterly
impossible. They have often been told, and it was re-
peated on that occasion verbally, that we never have had
our law pointed against foreigners for offending against
foreign countries, but that it had been framed to guard
this country against dangers arising from the conduct of
foreigners seeking a refuge in this country—that it would
be a new law—an enactment wholly and entirely new—
that it would involve us in great embarrassment in dealing
with foreign Governments, because if cases had arisen in
which foreign Governments required the expulsion of
foreigners on suspicions entertained by foreign Go-
vernments, the Government of the day in England would
have answered that, having no well-grounded reason for
suspicion, they could not put the law into execution, and
that naturally would have raised very disagreeable &seas-
sions between England and foreign Governments.
That was explained to the French Ambassador
by my noble friend. Some gentlemen may say we
ought to have written an answer to that effect. It
would have been useless to repeat that in writing which
bad over and over again been so fully explained. The
Government might have announced to the French Govern-
ment what they intended to do, but I do not think that
would have been a very proper course. We told the
French Government that the matter had already been un-
der oar consideration, and that we should take the course
which we deemed most consistent with our own interests
and our own honour. If any party has a ground of com-
plaint against us for not writing it is the French Govern-
ment, because they might justly say we were wanting in
ordinary courtesy to them in leaving unanswered a com-
munication which had been formally laid before us. But
I hold that we are practically absolved on that point. I say
there is no ground for blaming us for not writing a de-
spatch, which either would have been controversial when
great agitation prevailed in France—would only have aggra-
vated the feeling which we desired to see spending itself—
or would have had the appearance of our placing before a
foreign Government what we intended to submit to Patna-
aunt

Mr. GIBSON moved, by way of amendment,
resolution to the effect that the house bad heard
with much concern that recent attempts upon the
life of the Emperor of the French had been devised
in England, and expressed its detestation of such
guilty enterprises ; that it was ready at all times to
assist in remedying any detects in the criminal law
proved to exist, yet regretted that her Majesty's
Government, previously to inviting the house to
amend the law of conspiracy, had not made some
repiy to the despatch received from the French
Government, dated January the 20th, 1858. Mr.
Gibson said he believed that he was taking a
proper course, a course that could be justified by
precedent, in asking the house to arrest, for that day
only, the progress of the present measure, in older
to express the opinion which be had set forth in the
resolution, that this important de-patch of Couht
Walewski should have received a solemn and
deliberate answer from her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Gibson then explained in detail the two first
paragraphs of his amendment, which in no way in-

terfered with the conduct of the Conspiracy Bill
through Parliament :
With respect to the third paragraph, I express
ray regret " That her Majesty's Government, pre-
viously to inviting the house to amend the law
of conspiracy at the present time, has not felt it
to be their duty to make some reply to the important
despatch ieoeived from the French Government, dated
Paris, January 20, IKSB, and which has been laid before
Parliament." I certainly feel regret at that circumstance,
and the House of Commons is competent to express
regret, without necessarily implying what is called censure.
A man may regret unavoidable circumstances, and I do
regret—whatever may have been the cause—the omission to
answer Count Walewski's despatch, because I think we now
stand before the word as admitting, as it were, the truth
of some of the charges contained in that despatch. Nay,
more; seeing that that despatch calls in question the policy
of England iu reference to the right of asylum—that it re-
flects on the mode in which England has thought fit to
permit the right to be enjoyed by foreigners, I say it was
the duty of the Government of the country to have replied
courteously, with dignity, but firmly, and to have defended
and placed on record those great principles which have
guided the policy of England in reference to the right of
asylum. Does it not look as if we were ashamed to defend
our principles when we find, upon the right of asylum being
indirectly called in question, the insinuation is passed over
in silence? And more than this, I believe that • great
misapprehensbn exists throughout Europe as to the exact
nature of our laws in reference to the right of asylum.
Now, Count Walewski says in his despatch of the 20th of
January :
It is no longer the hostility of misguided individuals, mani-
festing itself by all the excesses of the press and all the violences
of language ; it is no longer even the work of the factious seek-
ing to rouse opinion and to provoke disorder; it is assassinati,n,
elevated to doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated
attempts, the most recent of which has just struck Europ with
amazement. Ought, then, the right of asylum to protect such a
state of things. Is hospitality due to assassins? Ought the
lenglish legislation to contrioute to favour their designs and
their plans? 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 ?

If no answer has been given to ;that despatch, it is an ad-
mission, by silence, that with our eyes open we have
sheltered assassins, and that we have actually favoured
their designs. Hut is that true? No, sir; it is not. As
my boo. friend the member for Sheffield truly said, Eng-
land abhors assassination as much as any nation on the
face of the earth; and if assassins have lived in this
country it is by no fault of ours. We have murderers of
our own, we have robbers of our own—they are not deterted
by the severity of our criminal law from committing crimes,
but is that a reason for saying that England is a country
which shelters such criminals, and which favours their
designs? The insinuation of Count Walewski against the
laws find policy of this country is unkind and unjust, and
it was the bounden duty of the Executive Government to
have repelled such an insinuation by a firm and dignified
answer to this despatch. I sin sorry to see the indifference
which is manifested by some members of the Government
to the great principles of liberty which undoubtedly lie at
the foundation of English policy, and which regulate this
right of asylum. I was sorry to see the readiness with
which my Lord Clarendon at the Conferences of Paris
silently acquiesced in a resolution condemning the liberty
of the press. Not only did he say nothing—so far as we
may judge from the protocols—in defence of the liberty of
the press, which is so dear to us all, but be actually signed
his name to a resolution condemnatory of it. The only
answer which the noble lord gave when called upon to ex-
plain this circumstance was, " Would you have had Lord
Clarendon make a scene—they were all so harmonious to-
gether—why not let these matters, which may lead to
dangerous controversy, pass by unnoticed?" It is the
same sort of thing now. This solemn and important de-
spatch of Count Walewski is not to be answered, because
the answer may lead to unpleasant controversy. lint in
defence of the honour of England and the principles of our
laws we must risk an unpleasant controversy, if we wish to
maintain our position among the nations of the world.
Tbat despatch inrght to have been answered. It may be
held that it was difficult to answer it, but I will quote a pas-
sage from the speech of the right hen. gentleman the
member for Wiltshire, who sits near me, which shows
that there are those who would be ready to answer it :
" I frankly own," said the right hon. gentleman, "I never
read a despatch which was more tmipting t..) a Minister to
answer than this one."

That looks as if there would have been no difficulty ex-
perienced in the mind of somebody at any rate in answer-
lug it. There was a very important view of this question
thrown out incidentally by the right hon. gentleman the
member fur Bucks, when he spoke on the first reading of
this bill. He sail t

If we had the despatch of Count Welewkli on the table, and
st the same time the answer of the British Minister worthy of
toe oiputtUnity. in my opinion the Government would have
met with no difficulty, and the feelings of the two nations would
have been discussed in the temper which we all desire.
There is great force in that observation, and I have no
doubt whatever, if Count Walewski's despatch had been
laid before us, accompanied by a becoming answer on the
Par! of our Gov.trnment, that, without any idea of menace
or intimidation, we should have cordially set to work on
this attempt to endeavour to find a remedy for any defect
which may exist in our law. We should have approached
the subject in a better frame of mind, to say the least of it.
I think that is a consideration which ought to weigh with
bun. gentlemen in support of my motion, and which ought
to bring home to their minds the relevancy of it to the bill
now under diacussion. The words which I have ventured
to propose to the house are these :

That this house cannot 'but regret that her Majesty's Go-
ern:cent, previously to inviting the house to am end the law of
9 onspiracy at the present time, bare not felt it to be their duty