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

ecutivo Government neglecting their duty. Grave
questions hail been raised in this discussion :
A few words will serve to explain the view which I take
upon tuis point to the house. I hold in my hand a de-
spatch of Count Walewski, &taring date '2oth of January—
that is to say, neariy four weeks ago—asking the Minister
of England to alter our laws, leaving, indeed, to his own
discretion the mode in which that alteration should be
carried into effect. The paragraph in which that request
is made is u follows :

Her Britannic Majesty's Government can assist us in averting
It by affording us a guarantee of security which to State can
rctuse to a neighbouring State, and which we are authorised to
expect from au ally. Fully relying, moreover, on the high sense
of the English Cabinet, we refrain from indicating in any way
the measures which it may see fit to take in order to comply
with this wish. We rest entirely 'upon it for estimating the
decisions which it shall deem best calculated to attain the ob-
ject, an 1 we are firmly persuaded that we shall not have ap-
pealed in vain to its conscience and to its goodwill.

Now, there we have a requisition made upon behalf of the
French Government which sounds somewhat like a de-
mand. It is also a requisition made to us not standing
simply upon its own merits, but based upon a statement
contained in a previous part of the despatch. In that pre-
vious part to which I refer it is asserted, and asserted con-
trary to truth, that—
It lino longer the hostility of misguided individuals, mani-
festing itself by all the excesses of the press and all the vio-
lences of language ; it is no longer even the work of factions
seeking U. rouse opinion and to provoke disorder; it is assas-
sination, elevated to doctrine, preached openly, practised in
repeated attempts, the most, recent of which has just struck
Europe with amazement.

The accusation made against na in this paragraph is, sir,
founded on a statement which is totally untrue—that aasas•
sination has been elevated into a doctrine by the people of
this country. Assassination was never elevated into a
doctrine in England. Why, sir, there exists not upon the
whole face of the earth a nation which more thoroughly
detests the crime of assassination than do the English
people. But in the paragraph to which I have been just
referring, Count NValewski proceeds to ask, " Ought the
sacred right of asylum to protect such a state of things?"
My answer is, certainly not. "Is hospitality due to as-
sassins?" Certainly not. " Ought English legislation "
—English legislation, mark you—" contribute to favour
their designs and their plans, and can it continue to shel-
ter people who b) their flagrant acts have placed them-
selves beyond the pale of society and under the ban of
humanity?" Such is one of the paragraphs in the despatch
of Count Walewski containing the requisition to which I
have already allmled, and to which we are returning an
answer by means of this bill. Yes, returning an answer by
means of this bill, but not denying by any declaration to
the contrary an accusation the most false and unfounded.
Why, what will the nations of Europe say but that we have
no good grounds upon which to base such denial ? The
inference they will draw from the course which her Ma-
jesty's Ministers ask us to pursue is that, having taxen
this step, we may be induced to go still further in com-
pliance with requisitions accompanied by accusations the
justice of which we have by implication admitted.

Sir GEORGE GREY said that the charge made in
Count Walewski's despatch did not apply to the
people of England ; the reference in his despatch
was not to British subjects. If the Government had
read the despatch as Mr. Walpole had read it they
would have libelled the French nation. The bill
proposed an amendment of our law which was de-
sirable in itself, and which would enable us to say
what we could not say now, that our law did not
countenance and protect persons guilty of the crime
in question. This he thought the most dignified
course for this Government to take, and it would
place us upon a more unassailable footing with re-
spect to foreign countries.
Mr. M‘Mahon and Mr. Byng opposed the bill;
Mr. Spooner, Mr. Bentinck, and Lord Harry Vane
supported it.
Sir R. PEEL observed that the speech of Lord
Palmerston was calculated to lead the house astray
from the question at issue, and it was remarkable
that he should have proposed a bill opposed by all
the most distinguished Liberals in the house. The
question, be said, involved two considerations—one
the change proposed, and the other the cause for
which it was required. The proceedings against M•
Bernard proved that the present law was adequate,
an.l he believed that the bill was only a sham ; that
the real truth was that, under cover of an alteration
of the law, a bill was submitted to Parliament at the
dictation of others. After a short review of the
career of some of the French Ministers, be read,
with a critical commentary, passages from the de•
spatch of Count Walewski, which he declared to be
the shallowest diplomatic document be had ever
read. The addresses from military officers were, be
said, put in the Moniteur for the purpose of intimi-
dating this country to pass a bill which he regretted
that Lord Palmerston (upon whose supposed cbange
of political views be commented with some severity)
had condescended to submit to the house at the dic-
tation of others. By passing such a bill, which bore
upon the face of it, be said, the stamp of meanness,
meekness, and a sense of shame, the house would do
what, in his opinion, would be injurious to the best
interests of the country. .

Mr. HENLEY said he could not give his assent to
this bill without an answer being given to the
despatch of Count Walewski. He agreed in the
construction put upon that despatch by Mr. Wal-
pole, and, in his opinion, the passing this bill with•