The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-06 00:00:00

THE PRE,SS, MARCH 6, 1858.

portant life was aimed at, but if you look at the time and
the place in which the attempt was made—when his
hfajesty was proceeding to the opera-house and had
arrived at the door of the theatre in one of the most
crowded streets of Paris, surrounded by loyal subjects
waiting to receive their Emperor with acclamations and
enthusiasm,—above all, when at his side was the Imperial
partner of his throne—a women, a wife, and an Em•
press—exposed to all the dangers which threatened her
august consort, you will see, my lords, that no circumstance

of aggravation was wanting to deepen the guilt of those
who, under such circumstances, committed the atrocious
act of throwing under the carriage of his Imperial Majesty
missiles of the most formidable and deadly character.
(Hear, hear.) The hand of Providence was visible in
watching over the destinies of France, but much innocent
blood was shed, much calamity was caused to the people of
Paris, much alarm was excited throughout the entire
country. The effect, my lords, of such an attempt and its
happy failure was that which might naturally have been
expected upon the minds of an enthusiastic and sensitive
people. The peal which the Emperor shd Empress had
escaped doubled and trebled the enthusiastic feeling of
indignant loyalty which burst forth upon the instant.
From every quarter were poured in addresses of congratu-
lation and of thankfulness that lives so valuable to France
and to Europe had been saved. Nor was it by France
alone, but by the British residents in France, and by the
inhabitants of various parts of this kingdom, that these
feelings of thankfulness and congratulation were testified.
But, unfortunately, my lords, it transpired that ameng
the small band of miscreants by whom this outrage was
perpetrated were some at least who, having been compelled
to flee from their own country, had for a certain period of
time been enjoying and abusing the hospitality of Eng-
land. (Hear, hear.) Supposing the circumstances had

been reversed—supposing that her Majesty, going among
her subjects with that frank confidence which characterises
her, knowing as she does that in the loyalty and affection
of her people she has her best and securest guard, and
surrounded by a loyal and devoted multitude, had been
exposed to an attack upon her Royal person while pro-
ceeding to the opera•house in London—what, I ask your
lordships to consider, would have been the feelings of the
people of this country, what would have been the indigna-
tion of the people of this metropolis ? And if it had
come to their knowledge, as it undoubtedly would in such
a case, that that dastardly attempt was not the work of any
native-born subject of her Majesty, bat the preconcerted
design of a band of assassins who had abused the hospi-
tality they received in a neighbouring country, I put it to
your lordships whether you think that their censures and
their indignation would have beta very cautions or very
discriminating? (Hear, hear.) I cannot therefore won-
der, however deeply I may deplore, that upon the news
spreading through France that this atrocious deed was the
act of refugees coming straight from England, with the
enthusiastic expressions of loyalty amt oongratulation at
the safety of the Emperor there should have been mingled,
more especially from the army of France, some expres-
sions which, seeing how unworthy they were as applied to
England, must naturally have wounded the feelings of the
people of this country. Under the circumstances, my
lords, I think that such expressions ought not to have
been too nicely scanned, even if his Imperial Majesty,
with that frankness and candour which he has always dis-
played in his relations with England, had not fairly avowed
the regret he felt that 'such language, accompanying the
manifestations of loyalty to himself, had been suffered to
appear in the public papers, and thereby to create a just
resentment in the people of this country. (Hear, hear.)
But, my lords, I should be sorry, indeed, to think that
those expressions, whatever they may have been, truly
represented the calm and deliberate feeling entertained
towards England by the great and noble army of France.
will not believe it, my lords, for true valour never in-
dulges in bombast—(Hear)—and I should be surprised
to find that those who were the authors of these intempe-
rate addresses were in reality the most distinguished
among those glorious soldiers of France who, in many a
hard-won battle on the fields of the Crimea, fought and
bled in honourable rivalry with their British allies, and
have learnt how to appreciate the loyalty and fidelity of
their co-operation. (Cheers.)
It is now more than 100 years since we have had in
England any of those civil disturbances which compelled
many of the citizens of this country to take refuge in
foreign lands. We cannot, therefore, judge (but we ought
to make allowance for French feeling) how annoying and
irritating it must be, and would be to ourselves, if in a
neighbouring town on the Continent we were conscious
that many disaffected persons were concentrated together

221

entertaining the molt hostile sentiments towards the
Government of this country, and bent upon overthrowing
it by the most treasonable designs. My lords, although
the oppression must be most grievous and intolerable
which can justify any man or sot of men in exposing their
own country to the horrors of civil war, yet when that
dreadful state of affairs arrives—when the sword is drawn
in civil strife in defence of opposing principles, whatever
may be our own predilections or our own opinions, we
cannot but regard with respect and sympathy those to
whom fortune has been unfavourable, on whatever side
they may have straggled. Whether they be those who,
from an unwavering sentiment of loyalty, stood to the last
by an unpopular and ill-fated Sovereign, or those who,
from a desire to rescue their country from tyranny, have
risen in unsuccessful revolt, if they have fairly and in the
open field maintained their principles by the sword, at the
risk of their fortunes and their lives, public sympathy
will always follow them in their misfortunes and in their
exile. (Hear, hear.) Contemporary history may not
be as indulgent; but posterity will do justice to those
who, from whatever cause, have suffered in defence of
doctrines which they honestly believed to be sound and true.
If we bok back to the period of our own civil wars,
when men here contended earnestly and vehemently for
principles truly and deeply implanted in their minds, and
sternly upheld them in the field of battle—if we revert to
those distant times and view them by the light of history,
we can even now sympathise with the gallant and devoted
loyalty, the cheerful resignation exhibited by the fallen
Cavaliers ; we can sympathise with the stern love of
liberty, the independence of principle, which in later
times led the Puritans to prefer poverty and exile
to the violation of their conscientious convictions.
My lords, there is no man, however warm an ad-
mirer he may be of our great deliverer William 111.,
but looks with sympathy upon the faithful attachment
to a fallen monarch of the Irish followers of James
11. And coming down to a later, and happily the
last, period to which I can refer in our own history for
an illustration, even at this day, devoted as this country
is to the house which now so auspiciously reigns over us,
no man can look back without a feeling of sympathy and
admiration upon the heroic and romantic sacrifices made
by the supporters of the unhappy Stuarts. (Hear, hear.)
But, my lords, if we have this sympathy foe men whose
misfortunes have followed their open and manly defence
of their principles by the sword, no such sympathy is due,
and none is extended either by contemporary history or
by impartial posterity, to those who, in order to attain their
political ends, resort to the base and vile means which
characterise the designs of the assassin. (Hear, hear.) But
if there is one degree of infamy beyond that which attends
the man who wields the assassin's knife, that infamy be-
longs to him who, lacking the only palliation of the
assassin's guilt, the bold sacrifice of his own life,—skulks
in safety at a distance, and, plotting and devising crimes
and assassinations, sends forth his wretched tools to per-
petrate and suffer for deeds which he has the heart to
conceive, but not the boldness to execute. (Hear, hear.)
And these men call themselves the friends of liberty!
Why, my lords, these men are the bitterest and most de-
termined foes of liberty. These are they who cause every
right-thinking mind to shrink from connection with the
purest and holiest cause, because they pollute it by the
vile machinery they employ—these are they who in their
own country rivet the chains of slavery and oppression—
these are they who drive from their cause every upright
and every honourable mind—who compel the treachery of
the assassin to be met by the machination of the secret
spy—who by their dark designs make despotic Soverei,Tris
have recourse to measures more despotic still, and by their
conduct d 3 the utmost to destroy that liberty of which
they presume to call themselves the constituted cham-
pions. (Cheers.) Are, then —it may be asked by France—
are men who so conduct themselves—are men who thus
abuse the hospitality and asylum which England affords
them—are these men,whotn the law of England protects and
shelters, to commit crime among us with impunity? No,
my lords, they are not. There's not a crime of which
these persons can be guilty, there's nut an approach to
such a crime, for which the law of England does not pro-
vide. Not only assassination, not only conspiracy to assas-
sinate, but even an incitement to assassinate, whether by
publication or by word of month, is an offence recognised
by the law of England when the guilt of the accused
person shall be proved. But it is naturally said, "If these
things are done—if these crimes are concocted in England
and in London, how is it that the Government of England
has not the power to prevent their repetition ?" My
answer is perfectly simple; but let me say that I can un-
derstand that persons aocastomed to a

judicial procedure, and therefore believing

■

different system of
ig that Government

V

222

had the means of so dealing with such supposed offenders,
might consider that we exercised an unfriendly part in not
using those powers. Still the answer is plain and obvious.
Although the law provides remedies for all those shades
and colours of crime, yet the law cannot be put in force
until the crime is established. ( Hear, hear.) Intention,
unaccompanied by any overt act, so long as the intention
remains in the mind of the party alone conceiving it, affords
no ground for prosecution. Of the great number of those
whom misfortune has driven to these shores the vast pro.
portion I firmly believe are honestly and honourably ob-
taining a living in this country, and are performing the
duty of peaceful citizens. ( Hear, hear.) Others there are,
no doubt, who are engaged in pursuits which are of a
menacing and dangerous description ; but, ai I have
already said, these persons are all amenable to the law—
if even the law does not provide a sufficient remedy—the
moment that you have sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury
of their guilt. But with us intention is not crime—sus-
picion does not warrant the punishment of crime, and
notoriety is a word which is not recognised in the language
of British justice. (Hear, hear. )
It is, I think, owing to the total difference between the
law in this country and in France in this respect that
some misapprehension has been excited in France as to
what the Government of England ought to do to meet
cases of this description. Now, Ido not hesitate to say
that it is the duty of Government, so far as it is in its
power, carefully to watch the proceedings of persons who
may justly be suspected of illegal practices ; nor do I doubt
that the late Government—or any Government that was
ever formed in this country—would do its utmost, subject
to the laws of this country, to protect a friendly nation
against machinations and attempts like this ; but in every
ease the evidence of guilt must be such as would satisfy
a jury. (Hear.) To that tribunal every case must
necessarily be brought. Before that tribunal the Queen
herself is bound to plead ; to that tribunal she appeals
for the vindication of her rights, for the protection of
her person ; and it is, in fact, so incorporated with
our judicial system that I cannot for a moment be-
lieve that it would enter the mind of any foreign Sove-
reigu to suggest even the possibility of an alteration in
that respect in the jurisprudence of the country. (Hear,
hear.)

What, then, was the coarse taken by the late Govern-
ment so soon u intelligence was received of the attempt—
and of the happy "failure " of the attempt—upon the life
of the Emperor of the French? tier Majesty's Govern-
ment—l think very properly —directed their immediate
attention to the consideration of the question whether the
existing law was adequate for the
.protection of foreign
Sovereigns, or whether some more adequate provision
might not be called for. With this view they introduced
into Parliament a bill, of the merits of which 1 shall at
present say nothing. The first reading of that bill was
secured by a very considerable majority of the House of
Commons; but, most unfortunately, as I think, simul-
taneously with the introduction of that bill a despatch was
read from Count Walewski which was unanswered at the
time by her Majesty's Government, and which was laid
before the public without either answer or explanation.
(Hear, hear.) My lords, I will not refer to any terms
which are contained in that despatch. I have no doubt
that it was the wish and sole intention of Count Walewski
to draw attention to the state of our law, and to ask
whether that law was sufficient for the exigencies of the
case, and, beyond question, if those views had been founded
on a correct view of the cue, there would have been
serious imputation on the law of this country. I think, it
her Majesty's late Government had felt themselves bound
to accept this despatch, that they would have acted more
for the interest of the cause in which they were engaged
if—not entering into argument, controversy, or discussion
—they had pointed out to the French Government the
misapprehension into which they appeared to have fallen.
(Hear, hear.) It is idle to deny that the production of
that despatch did produce a moat unfavourable impression
upon the discussion in Parliament. At the same time don't
let me be misunderstood. It is most insportent to bear in

mind that the vote at which the House of Commons
arrived had no reference whatever to the merits of the bill
which was thrown out upon the second reading, and that
tier Majesty's Government after that vote, if they con-
sidered it advisable so to do, were just as free as before to
press the second reading of the bill. It is indeed impossible
to deny that the introduction of that new element into the
discussion interfered in a considerable degree with a
calm, impartial, and deliberate consideration of the mea-
sure itself.

But what was the resolution that the House of Com-
mons came to on the 19th of February ? Was it a reso-
lution hostile either to the principles or the provisions of