The Express.
London, England, 1858-02-24 00:00:00

TO CORRISPONDINTe.

ollisellwasate We; I::l7ot7l%ritipisige 7.iZiwTea P,ss paw,
Rug is at the
lestles. ostio, to. ii 0UT1A644711111t. 107 T.. Othook mi the
lag et pe

II A &&&&& NT.
Tao Imam NVOH ADO ABOUT NOTUINO. Maws. Worm
C.aaptaa,loldpasallair; NMI Arai isigalat TIIN ELINNIrG
%Ea MTV IN TUN WOOD. /NM% Moab,. A. Lealaraq. sad 0.
Lacarat; lON L. Luling. NW Tamar Wnsba—Cotareerma at I.

PRIN(1110611.
Tots 6e moo. LOUIS 11. bluebook. Kim —Arid the cotolosiert
Cbriotew reatoratmo.llASLlQUlN wn IT N CAT or. The Prinoors
Illooriko Plower and her Fain Cleasollorra. Mora Oorraock.
roil Argo; It C. Adana, MIER Waal—Open 44 1 Pet

LTOIWIL
Two Bosom. MONICY. Noma O. T. Vorkoroo. &mut. Barron.
awl J. L Toole; 114. Work Tenlllll, I.llla ROLL, Mn.Wertua.—
And GOOD FOR NOTHINti. J. L Took; MWWoolgar.—
..---• •

111,1111tY.
Ters CVlit SO. RIGHT ANDWRONG ; or. Stolioo owl TIMM
MUM. Croorlet. ellomhord. R. 116116 r. & 111.6 N. Vous&
PICRILB 11Y L %ND AMU WAY& Yr. lihroarol; 11166 IL &burs&
—Coomoco u bollirot 6.

HlOll WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
TEM DA y-111 maw. 10h. 40 a Ate. 111. 15...
Te4lollloll—Momlng, 11. 010 Lltionsooo. Ob. Ma.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24.

The law of England is absurd enough in many
respects, but happily it is not so destitute of common
sense as Count WALEWSKI ►nd the ATTORNET-
GENERAL would have us suppose. " I believe," says
Sir RICUARD BETIILLL, " the English law to be this—
" that foreigners are able to do in this country that
" which your own subjects are unable to do, and
" that that which would be a crime in natural-born
" subjects is a matter of impunity in foreigners."
This is the proposition which the law officer of the
Crown laid before the House of Commons, in order
to induce them to pass the new Alien nu If the
l►w is correctly laid down it requires immediate
amendment. If those unfortunate men who have
been driven from their native shores believe in its
truth they may involve themselves in all sorts of
difficulties. It is, therefore, of the utmost import-
ance that this matter should be cleared up; and that
the law as it affects aliens should be properly under-
stood.

Now the law, as laid down by Sir RICHARD
Bsruxu., is not the law of England. Upon this the
Lord Chief Justice CAMPBELL, Lord BROUGHAM,
Lord LYNDHURST, Lord WENSLEYDALE, Lord ST.
LIONARDS, and Lard CRANWORTH are agreed. In-
deed, the ATTORNEY-CIENERAL'S assertion is so pre-
posterous that Lord Cam. vs. ° RIM and Lord BILOCOMAY
declare that he must have been misreported. If this
is so, it certainly becomes the duty of the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL to set himself right hereafter with the
House of Commons and these learned Lords. But
whatever may be his opinion, it is of the utmost im-
portance, as Lord CAMPBELL said, that it should be
known to the country and to Europe that this is not the
law of England. Now,it is laid down byall these emi-
nent men in the House of Lords, and is indeed
matter of the most familiar knowledge, that aliens
and natural-born subjects are in precisely the same
position with respect to arts committed within the
jurisdiction of the QUEEN. If a natural-born sub-
ject is liable to be indicted for any crime committed
within the realm, the alien who has done a similar
act is liable also. So far is perfectly clear. Is
there, then, any distinction, at oommon law, between
the liability of an alien and a natural-born subject
in respect to acts committed out of the juris-
diction ? The answer is, that there is none. It
has been asked whether a Frenchman who in
London conspires or forms the design to murder the
Emperor of the FRENCH may be indicted?
In the opinion of the five legal peers there
ran be no doubt of it. The two principles
upon which their view nets are incontroverti-
ble. The first is, that such a design endan-
gers the peace of the two countries; the second
is, that the act designed is a malsom in se—that is,
an act held criminal by the law of nations. As to
the first, it is clear that nothing can more directly
tend to disturb the peace between two countries
than for one to allow persons—whether foreigners
or British subjects—to hatch conspiracies against the
sovereign of the other. It has been distinctly held
that even a libel published by an alien, like PELTIER,
within the English jurisdiction, against a foreign
sovereign, was the subject of a criminal
prosecution. Much more, therefore, should the de-
sign to pat to death a sovereign formed within the
English jurisdiction be also deemed the subject of
an indictment. The one crime—the corpus delicti—
consists in the criminal design. That is complete
the moment the murder has been determined upon,
just as the other crime is complete the moment the
libel is published. And surely the mere injurious
words are not so likely to endanger the amity of two
nations as a design to bring about a murder. But
it is said that this principle is too vague—too
restricted in its application. It may perhaps
be admitted that several foreigners residing in Lea-
den might be indicted as conspirators if it were
proved that they had formed the design to murder a
foreign potentate ; but that would not enable the
Crown to prosecute: persons conspiring to murder
a privets individual. According to Sir RICHARD
BETHEL', in order to indict a foreigner for a conspi-
racy, you must show that he is conspiring to do an
act which amounts to a crime cognisable by the
English courts. A murder committed in Paris
is not a crime cognisable by these courts, neither,
therefore, is a conspiracy to commit such a
murder indictable. It may be admitted, per-
haps, that if the person whose life is threatened
were a foreign potentate the person conspiring
to do any such act would be indictable. But
if the person whose life is threatened were •
private individual, no indictment would lie, be-
cause by such an attemrt the national amity
would not be endangered. Such is the argument of
Sir R. Byrriatt., and his illustration is this
Foreigners who conspire to murder NAPOLEON 111.
may be indictable because he is • foreign Sovereign;
but if they conspire to murder the Empress EUGENIE,
or the heir to the throne, they could not be indicted.
This is no doubt a startling illustration, by no
means creditable to the English law ; and, indeed,
if such a state of things existed in fact, there
might be some reason, at the proper time, and
after deliberate consideration, for a change in the
law. Bat, happily, this is not a distinction sanetinted
by the law of England. Unless we misunder-
stand the effect of what was said the ether
night, the 'law of England is this :—that any ea*
who empires to effect a thing inehiss u, se is liable
to be tried as a caespirator in this country, whether