The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

CHELSEA. NEW BRIDGE.

Sir J. SHELLEY moved for leave to bring in a bill fir re-
pealing the act authorising a toll to be taken for foot passen-
gers on this bridge.
Mr. AYItTON opposed the bill, on the ground that a select
committee was sitting on the question of tolls in the metro-
polis.
Lord C. HAMILTON expected that some member of the
Government would have replied to the question of the hon.
member. As no member of the Government seemed anxious
to reply, he hoped the discussion would be adjourned.
Sir J. SHELLEY sail that when the subject was inquired
into he believed it would be found there was much to be s iid
in favour of the vim", ho took; but after the debate which
had taken place, and at that hour of the night ho wou d, with
the permission of the how, renew the discussion another
night. (Hear, hear.)
The subject was then postponed, and the house adjourned
at half•past one.

THE DEFEAT OF THE MINISTRY.

(Prom the Daily News)

By a majority of 234 to 215, the. House of Commons has
expressed its regret that Ministers did not answer the inae-
lently dictatorial despatch of Count Walewski, before pro-
ce ding to introduce their Conspiracy Bill. This may not be
quite equivalent to a vote of want of conftdenc-, but
it certainly is a vote of censure, and that is not much more
flattering to the C .binet. Every friend to the honour and
dignity of the country will thank Mr. Milner Gibson for
having affordzd the House of Commons this opportunity of
expressing its regret at the failure of the Foreign-office to answer
the demand of the French Government fa. the adoption of new
penal measures against foreigners domieilel amongst us. Apart
from the tone of assumpti n and dictation in which the
demand was officially made, and the offensive and threaten-
ing language un-officially, but not the less siguiftcantly, used
to enforce it iu high quarters, the mere fact that a powerful
ally should formally require are' responsible Ministers of an
English Sovereign to change the legislative or administrative
policy of the country ought at any time to have elicited a
serious and deliberate answer. To have permitted such a
requisition to pass unrobuked, or to have suffered the incom-
patibility of its purpose with all we hold traditionary most
dear in national liberty to pass undemonstrated, would, in
former days, have subjected a Minister to the gravest re-
proach. Lord Hawkesbury thought so when he wrote his
oft-quoted reply to the summons of Napoleon I. that we
should surrender, at his discretion, our political individuality.
The Foreign Secretary of England in 1803 was a Tory, as
were a majority of his colleagues in the administration; but
he was animated with the true spirit of an Englishman, and
with the entire approval of the Sovereign and Parliament of
the time he put courteously, but unflinchingly, on record
the reasons why it would have been unbecoming in him to
entertain foreign suggestions for changes in our domestic
laws. Lord Hawkesbury answered with sense and spirit,
and with the calm courtesy of a minister who had no wish
to involve his country in a quarrel, but with the dignified
firmness that is always best calculated to remind a rash
intermeddler that he is in the wrong. He had to deal, as
ho well knew, with an impetuous soldier intoxicated with
victory and full of conquest and aggression. Yet he did not
falter for an instant, or truckle by the use of an equivoc
and
be, at the inflexibility of
ll
angry though be was, or affected to
rgeusipdeecdt
ci to
usr
au cgcee s si
nfu I
diplomacyiy . Th e flarss tw paosl eionn
the
eliwollld. 783
nt
biAbnedd
to war.
tthheemß,rihtieshdiGcionovetrurnerceauntiiiiirsiA•esmisbtasingsandiosr,atotre
a different course.
Unhappily, Lord Clarendon has pursued
in the maxims of the
Though bred a Tory and trained
party, the present Foreign
spirit which, with all their
little of the high and it-ate omvpetn
ttaolkbroot.wgboienagt
faults, distinguisl)ed the s
the sole survivor of the class to
Lord Palmerston, who is now
which the Hawk sburys, fYlksler.e mPsi t tt'os school.
and Wellesleys, and Catalina be-
- k How would the men who did not hesitate to repel
p•ne . Foreign S.,..emcreentaor
the Great Napoleon's insolent interference regard the longed, seems to have outlived alike their policy and their
faint-
hearted and nu% orthy silence in which the orders of Monsieur
Walewski and the menaces of Monsieur Porsigny have been
received ? Could they rise from their marb4 tombs and

come once more to judgment, there cannot be a doubt that
each of them would east his scornful shell of reproba-
tion along with those of nearly every man of note er mark
in the present House of Commons. What is Napoleon
111. compared with his illustrious predecessor ? What is
he individually, or by the luck of revolutionary catastrophe
and coup d'etat, that the Government of Great Britain should
mutely kneel before him? We aro not now arguing the
provisions of the Conspiracy Bill. By their own merits they
must stand or fall. Bat many a man who conscientiously,
though we think erroneouely, voted leave to bring in that
measure, indicated last night his desire to distinguish between
that vote and his approval of the conduct of Lord Clarendon.
Reluctance to give needless umbrage to the present ruler of
France was the singl motive that induced many to assent to
the introduction of a bill of some kind ; but contempt for the
pusillanimity that could permit. M. Walewski's first de-
spatch to remain unanswered has all the more naturally
sought and found vent in the more recent discussion and
vote. We stated at the time, what we believe to be strictly
accurate, that a considerable number of Lord Derby's followers
consented to vote for the first reading rather than displace
Lord Palmerston on the general question whether some mo-
dification might not be made in our municipal law which
would convince the French Emperor of our national unwil-
lingness to see him personally harmed. Lord Derby and
his friends did not wish the responsibility of office thrown
upon them in a manner which would apparently preclude
them from any measure of reconciliation such as we
have indicated. Put Mr. Disraeli and others guarded
themselves at the time, we are bound to acknow-
ledge, from the imputation of endorsing, blindfolded, the pro-
visions of the intended bill, and, as strongly as Lord John
Russell and Mr. Roebuck, reprob tted the deplorable weak-
ness and impolicy of permitting the French Minister's imprr.
tiseuce to go without reprimand. There is nothing inc n-
sistent in the course which these gentlemen have adopted.
Mr. Milner Gibson's amendment is one to which the whole
heart and soul of the country, as well as of the majority in the
House of Commons, has responded. But the assertors of
English liberty and English honour must not rest contented
with this victory. They must be prepared to resist the at-
tempt, if persisted in, to desecrate the Statute-Book by the
inscription of the Conspiracy Bill as an Act.
. .

. _
Hitherto our laws, whether lenient or severe, have been
indigenous ; but if the present piece of French manufacture
should ever be smuggled through Pa,liament, we shall here-
after have the unenviable privilege of being govern 341 by laws
exotic intheir nature and of foreign growth. There is no dis-
guise about it. Lord Palmerston does not affect to deny the
real character of the measure or the illegitimacy of its
origin. He tries not to hide the shame that is en the face of
it, and the brand of legislative bastardy that is upon its
brow. With the nonchalance of a policeman carrying a
foundling to the workhouse, the nob'e prefet of Westminster
brought in his miserable charge, and got leave to lay it on
the table. Perhaps in the now Reform Bill provision may be
made to facilit .to in future the introduction of measures
which foreign despots may consider necessary for our national
well being. Why not give seats in the Lower House to the
Austrian and French Ambassadors, and a pontifical place in
the Upper House to Cardinal Wiseman ? There would be in
such an arrangement several obvious advantages. These per-
sonages, in their capacity of representatives of continental
absolutism, could then bring in their own measures, and de-
fend them in their peculiarly beguiling way. No time would
be lost in child sh jangling and wrangling about the punitive
parent •ge of the precious lit'le bills; and the Minister of
England, as lie used to be, instead of clumsily trying to play
an outlandish and incompatible part, would resume his na-
tional character, and be looked on, perchance, as really an
English Minister again.