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

Tilt' SUN,

Nay that be could not deny that to a certain extent ill.;
Country was a den of assassins. (Hear.) I must say thee
it ia an expression unworthy the noble lord and the po,i.
tion he halls. He says, you must not think too much ef
these expressions, because they are not inconsistent with
the usage which has long prevailed among the milit-ry
authorities in France, and he adds that they have been in-
serted in the paper in question inadvertently. Knowing
as we do that the public press of France is gagged, and
that many of its literary men have been expatriated, I say
it is idle to say that these articles have been inserted inad-
vertently. No, sir, they were inserted for the purpose of
intimidating this country— (no no ! and cenntor cheers)—
and for the purpose of extorting from us the concession
embodied in this bill, which I regret the noble lord, with
all his past antecedents and his former credit, shoul • have
condescended to introduce at the instance of such dicta-
tion. (Cheers.) But, when it is said •n apology has
been made for the insertion of those offensive addresses
from the colonels and other officers of the army in France,
would ask has any apology been offered for the very
strong and unseemly expressions that recently fell from
the Presidents of the two Legislative Chambers of France,
both of whom appear to have been utterly forgetful of
their position, and of that careful expression of feeling and
dignified demeanour which are so conspicuous in the per-
sons holding kindred offices in thiscouetry? (Hear.) What
does M. de Morny say? Why, that England is a lair of
Savage beastsand a laboratory of assassins. (Laughter.) I
am ready to make every excuse for the courtiers of Louis
Napoleon— (a laugh)—l know perfectly well the conditions
attaching to a position like that. M. de Morny is only
a Predecessor in the office he holds in the time of
itnitatie, " Chmunpigny—who said his master
the first Napoleon— n. ' -flaughter)---sent from
Napoleon Bonaparte was an angel—,
Heaven to bless that time, and, like the grea..t.l. nvisible
Being, he governed the world by his power and hisinflu-
ence. (A laugh ) Sir. I must sly these expressions are
rather far-fetched. But the other day an expression far
more powerful was used towards Louis Napoleon by one of
his flatterers, who thus apostrophised him in the course of
an address he was presenting, " Sire, you are too fond of
liberty." (Laughter.) I think, after that, we may well ex-
claim with Madame Roland, "O Liberty, what crimes
are committed in thy name !" But, Sir, this bill was not
considered necessary ,I,.iefore the commencement of this ses-
sion. It has only been etonsidere necessary after what
Passed on the 14th of Tannery. Now, sm9 of us opposed the
bill on the fmm-st reading, and yet I rine sorry to say that it
has been insinuate•l that we did so philo-assessio, as we
are called. (Laughter.) I have heard that expression used
on more than one occasion. Now, we who oppose this
• bill d ,n't want to preserve the right of asylum for persons
tire Orsini and Pierri, or f •r assassins of any deer, iption.
We °pose this bill on motives the most censsien'aous and
the most pure, believing, as we do, that if it passes into
law, it will be attended with injurious consequences to the
best interests of the country. (Cheers.) I agree with the
right hon. gentleman that we should have given some ex-
Premien of our horror and our detestation of this wicked
attempt. I should have been ready to join in such an ex-
pression, which would, I am sure, have been unanimously
concurred in by this house. But, Sir, we can't consent to
agree to a bill which is evidently submitted as a lesson to
this house atthe dictation of those who should have known
our true sentiments better than to ask us to pass such a
Piece of fancy legislation. I have said that this bill is pro-
Posed tons by aLiberel Government, by members of the
Liberal party, and is supported by those who have little
sympathy naturally with the noble lord. Ido not regret
that this bill is submitted to us by the noble lord the pre-
sent Prime Minister. I should have thought he, at all
events, would have been the very last man to condescend
to come before the house with such a meesure. (Hear.)
We have at this moment three ex-Prime Ministers, two of
'whom take an active share in public life. I ask this house
they think the noble lord the member for London (Lord
J. Russell) would have come down here and have proposed
a bill of this natnro ? No, you must feel quite certain his
spirit would have rejected with indignation such a sugges-
tion._e (Hear, hear.) I ask you, the right hon. gentlemen
who sit opposite, and who are to a certain extent the re-
Preseetati yes of the opinions of another ex-Prime Minister,
,3"_bether, if he had been in power, that noble lord would
have consented to propose such a rneasume to the House of
Commons? Over and over again has the noble lord (Lord
bPalmerston) taunted right hon. gentlemen in this house
efore the Crimean war and during that war with truckling
lo foreign Powers. I ask this house, would those might
:tfin. gentlemen have truckled 100tb part so much as this
if passed, would make us truckle ? (Cheers.) I will
2,111. Y refer to the speech of Lord Derby ou the first night of
'4,0 session in the House of Lords. [The Speaker—
!' Order."] Well, Sir, in another place. (Laughter.) I
remit say that speech was a noble expression of opinion on
the pert of the noble lord. (Cheers.) I Nay that speech in
Mother place was a worthy expression of the public feeling
of this country, and one which ought to have found an
echo in the mouth of the Prime Minister of England. But
it is now a very serious and important question. We have
this bill submitted to us by one who had a European re-
futation for dictating rather than for accepting advice.
; recollect that years ago the noble lord read some sharp
lessons in constitutional history to the Queen of Stain, and
:il3Oll another occasion he nearly set all Europe by the ears
Z3' Y thrusting his " pecificating" policy down the throat of
e King oeGreece. (Chem, and laughter.) This bill is
to have become so changed that he leawhoseves twpoini of our appoor
nnbeedt countrymen to pine unaided and unprotected
thedung ns of Salerno. (Loud cheers.) This is not
character he uce bore. In 1850 the noble lord was a
gone
Roman citizen."er (Laughter.) That time, alas ! has long
1e°11,16 hY• I well recollect when the noble lord delighted
le descant upon the blooming prospects of freedom in every
thrll. when he eves accustomed to advocate the extension
are,cbgbout the world of freedom, improvement, and pro-
And
gas How often has he raised a cheer in his own favour
they advocated that despoti m which he despised ! More
Va° that, I remember when he told us that our union with
itrree depended upon mutual interests and identity of
ituticmam Times have, indeed, sadly changed, but Ido
,_l3ctleat, during tho existence of the present regime in
see., d
at all events the noble lord will not attempt to
eaoupc here identity see., re identity of institutions. (Cheers and laugh-
),
.1 desire as much as any man to see those feelings of
.4e,,BetilitY that once existed between France mind Eogland
Mace t • •
teem. , more satisfactory sentiments of mutua con-
sole ~ would give anything consistently with the honour
.I,l„,u_uignity of my country to promote such a union be-
tkven the two nations. (Hear.) But I must say Ido not
441iik by the introduction of this bill you are contributing
such an end. (Hear.) To my mind the bill bears upon
its face more than any other bill which has been submitted
to,, Parliament during the last 50 years the stamp, to use
the words of Byron, of _

„ ” Meanness, and weakness, and sense of shame,
% %lust which thou canst net strive, thou durst not
murmur."
gear.) Against this bill we now protest, and although
(4,4 Accidental majority of 2 member was obtined—
anghter)—yes, an accidentaool majority s ,
for it dide not re-
Lesent one-third of the totality of this housa,—notwith-
7acthce that accidental majority, I trust, upon con-
tS.eration this house will be disposed to resist the further
gress of this measure. (Hear hear.) At all events I
say, while thanking the house for the indulgence with
.!.dcb it has ',listened. tome, that I think this bill is fraught
tawith
tZ— considerable danger; and that I, for one, will give it
continuous and pertinacious opposition. (Cheers.) I
it; the will never give a vote which I may think will have
win"e smallest degree the effect—and I believe this bill
efri;;-of trenching upon the impact and inviolable free soil
Country. (Hear, hear.) I, for one, will never give
thisle That may have the effeet, as I believe the p-aising of
tikj43 °ill would have, of circumscribing the liberal hospi-
'4' with which web
have ever received
cheers the political fugi-
(t el" every )
time and the unhappy exiles of every land.
°ad
kr* TIE
riashi• , NLEY said that when he first read the amend-
foe remarked—" How is man to vote against that,
tie
441 e," as true as the Gospel ?" The right hon. gentleman
,orne Secretary had admitted that an answer ought
eibilltve been sent to the despatch. How, then, was it pos-
vi, for them to give a vote against the amendment. He
the
quite ready to give the Government very credit fox
:t" Aiotives which had induced them to bring this bill be-
e the house. If that despatch were not answered there
d be a foundation laid for future demands of a similar
e""re- As to the bill itself, he thought, though ()Wee-
c
the in some respects, it would be an improvement ofue existing law,
and would afford greater protection to
really innocent pei so This was not a question between
this country and
au, France,w Les but between the house and.
_the_
Government;
in not answering dthaht whether the
have done so, and therefore he would support the amend-
(ETear, hear.)
The LORD ADVOCATE would oppose the amendment
'because if carried it would be fatal to the bill. The right
ban. gentleman (fr. Henley) asked how could the house
avoid voting for the amendment, inasmuch a-, it was true ?
Ilecause it Wad no amendment. It had nothing to do with
the
second reading of the bill. Both motions might be
voted for by any hon. member of the house as sepa-
rate !notions, but the motion of the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Gibson) might, oven if true, be negatived simply be-
cense it was not an amendment. He (the Lord Advocate)
Would not go at any length into the legal questions
involved in the bill itself. Lawyers had differ, d as
to the necessity of the bill, but there could be no
difference as to the propriety of Punishing those en-
gaged in a conspiracy to murder with a severity equal
to that proposed in the bill. He was happy to think that
a conspiracy to murder was a rare offence in this country
"--(hear, hear) —but still it was necessary to deter as far as
Possible parties from the commission of this crime, and
that was the object of this bill. Bat then it was said,
You are doing this under foreign dictation, and you are
_res.ting a doubt about that protection which this country
14. always thrown over those who claimed our hospitality."
d• ;he bill had that tendency he would not support it. He
fil" not think that we were likely to increase the credit we
vrli for a dignified vindication of onr liberty by making
re° o,ot protestations of that kind. The beginning of the
wi7.4etion of the right hon. gentleman related to matters
i„'riwere not before the house, such as the recent outrage
tica and -the proposEd amendment of the criminal
and concluded with an expression of regret that the
"spatch of Count Walewski was not answered. But was
thatlo to refuse to read the bill a second time because
important, delicate, and difficult questions bad been raised
during the debate, and many things had been said which
had better been suppressed. There was no doubt that a
disgraceful outrage had been perpetrated in France, by
th/which many innocent persons had suffered, and the life of
e Emperor endangered ; and there could be no doubt
at the guilty parties were persons who had taken advan-
tage of the laws and hospitality of England. The French
?°teinment and the peOple naturally felt indignant
0; such proceedings ; but he contended that the despatch
the Count Walew,ki, though calling the attention of
j„" British Government to these crimes, contained no
lac
insulting to the people of this country. The
h4ch Government were entitled to say, These men
ve hatched a conspiracy against the Emperor of the
e rench. and we wish you to consider whether you ought to
ttend to these murderers, and assassins, and their abet-
b°?4 the hospitality shown to strangers generally." That
couldbe
80, was it not right to consider whether our laws
a improved The house expressed that opinion by
1:104:" InsielitY. and he (the Lord Advocate) thought the
tea tialnent of this country had acted wisely in not reply-
higher. the despatch, but in first enacting a law affixing a
scev, denomination of punishment to offences of the de.
ity,,,V;:in 'referred to. Be also thought it wise not to an-
What despatch until the Government had fret seen
h: itind of amendments of the bill would be proposed.
thin °Pi and gh.) It would hare been the easiest
it ettlnb the world to have written a smart despatch, but
and h e er not to increase the irritation that prevailed,
415
6 thought the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
fot'p.titcotild well afford td act with moderation, temper,
f'cce, and patience. (Hear. )
cl'utthri;?...L4DSTONE said the principal part of the speech
'-'"rti Advocate referred to the merits .of the bill
`l4 the
11°118° hadbeeu invited to read a second time.

Ire (41. Ma ',steno) would advisedly pass by that -art of
ire speech -f the learned lord. He showed a die' sitiou
t mix two discussions which had better be kept apart,
.n -I from the considn• .time of which the greatest mischief
might arise. It was hard on the house that they should
be called upon to discuss questions connected with the
criminal law and the security of the private rights of
every Englishman under tha menace of a foreign power.
(Cheers.) Both the motion and the speech of the right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Gibson) rendered essential assistance
to the house in separating the political and juridical parts
of the question. He did not agree with the hon. member
for Cambridge that the proposed change would be bene-
ficial. He thought, on the contrary, that it was open to
grave and serious objections. In such matters he would
submit to the opinion of high legal authorities, but here
he had no such guide, for the bill was introduced by the
Prime Minister of the Crown, who was not a lawyer, and
it was recommended on grounds neither legal, social,
English, nor purely political. (Hear, hear ) What was
the language of the learned lord (Advocate.) He made
two allegations with reference to the amendment,
first, that it would, if carried, he fatal to the bill, and
secondly, that the amendment had nothing to do with
the bill, and then he proceeded to state that any member
of the house might vote for both the amendment and the
bill. (Cheers.) It had been stated that the amendment
had nothing to do with the bill, Nd doubt that statement
of the Lord Advocate was a very convenient statement,
and it was clear that he wished to turn it to the beet ad-
vantage. They bad heard that night that they were called
upon to debate whether a paltrydiplomatic correspondence
was complete or not, as if diplomatic correspondence could
mean nothing but red tape—(hear, hear)—but when they
spoke of diplomatic correspondence they spoke of that
which decided the question of war or of peace, and by
which the well being of nations was maintained. It had
been said that theere was too much chicane about diplo-
matic correspondence, but it represented oneof the highest
functions of civilisation • for it said that though in times
past all disputes were settled by the sword, the reason of
man by this means steps in and peace was maintained.
The question, therefore, in this case is, whether the na-
t ionic! honour has been vindicated, and whether the House
of Com-eons should approve of the course which has been
pursued. (Hear.) The lea. ned lord objects to the amend-
ment, and asks why it was not taken on the introduction
of the bill. Why, the objection was taken by an hon.
member opposite -(hear)—and by my right hon. friend
the member for Wiltshire; and there was, moreover, a
reason why a e-ember of the Government should have re-
membered it, for it was not only reads, but the medicine
did not fail in its results. They had two questions to con-
ei er--first, whether the despatch had been answered, and
again, wuether it should not be answered before they gave
their assent to the present bill. He was one who greatly
regretted discussions of the present kind. Other opportu-
nities would arise for discussing th estate of their relations
with France, and be would now confine himself to the
question immediately before the house. No one could
more apprecia-e than he did the importance of their
alliance with France, but he felt it was a bad principle
generally for a nation to draw a distinction between
one nation and another with regard to these alliances.
Still, as regarded the relations between England and
France, a peculiar exception should be made. Owing to
their close neighbourhood much good arose from their ami-
cable relations; and, on the contrary, much evil and mis-
chief resulted from their dissensions. He believed that was
so generally felt in Europe, that neither in the Queen's
Speech, nor in any other way, was any uneasy feeling
caused in other countries, because peculiar reference was
ma ie to the state of their relations with France. (Hear.)
He said, tnerefore, tha- they e are bound to give every con-
fidence to the Government of France. Tested by his acts,
this country never had a inure faithful ally than the Em-
peror of the French (Hear.) He felt bound to regret that,
since the peace of 1856, there had arisen a variety of ques-
tions which seemed to have impaired the alliance— snob as
the question of the Isle of Serpents, the question of the
Priecipalities, and the question of the Suez Canal. All that
he deeply lamented, and he felt that those quarrels had
weakened the Government in its connection with the French
Government up till that time, when the event occurred
which they had all greatly to regret, and which had led to
the introduction of the aresent measure. They had first,
however, to inquire whether the despatch had been an-
swered, and if it had not, whether it should be answered.
He wit was not easy sometimes to get an answer from
Government—(hear, and a laugh) —but on the present oc-
casion that complaint did not exist, for several answers had
been given. The questions had been anticipated by the
noble lord at the heal of the Government, who referred to
the despetch in terms rather emphatic. He said it had not
been answered, and could not be answered. The noble lord
had, however, since informed them that the despatch had
been answered, and answered verbally; and he (Hr. Glad-
stone) was bound to say that of all the explanations that had
been given that was the worst—(hear, hear) —and if there
was no other ground for the motion of his right honour-
able friend (Mr. M. Gibson), that fact, he thought would
have be n sufficient. Verbal answers were most objection-
able, for they could be introduced at will, as they could be
withdrawn at will, and by a failure they might be altoge-
ther altered. Stich a thing was besides contrary to the
roles laid down for furnishing_information to the house ;
that, in his opinion, it called for the notice of the house.
He was reminded again, that the learned lord (the Lord
Advocate) said it would have been wrong to have an-
swered the despatch at the time, and that it would have
been impolitic to have done so. Now he (Mr. Gladstone)
thought Lot d Clarendon had sufficient judgment and con-
trol over his temper to have enabled him to have given a
proper and temperate reply. ( Hear, hear.) But the house
had had yet another answer. The right hon. the Home
Secretary had told them it should be answered.
Sir G. GREY—I said it may be answered.
Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, it may be answered ; but
the , ight hon. gen'lemen told them that when the bill was
read a second time the despatch would be answered. Now,
however strong language may be, and however entirely
untrue, yet it ought not to be called insulting or offensive,
unless they were intentionally so. Now, he could not
think a foreigner to blame if, under the circumstances that
had occurred in France, he committed great errors in
'speaking of the laws of this country. Yet this despatch
does contain allegations most untrue and injurious to this
country. It was said, in one part of the despatch, that
" assassination waselevated to adoctrine, and wasp eached
openly in this country." That was charged against Eng-
land ? Was that true. (Hear, hear.) Was assassination ele-
vated to a doctrine, and preached openly iu this country?
(Hear, hear.) Was any man conscious of the fact ?
(Hear, hear.) The law was sufficient to correct it, why,
then, had there not been an appeal to the law ? (Hear,
hear.) If assassination had been elevated to a doctrine
and preached openly, it has been tolerated by those who
ought to have applied to Government to put it down. The
imputation was one which ought not to be lightly made,
end should not have been made against this country. He
thought England had some character in the matter of
asea,sinatiou, for it was a crime which heel never taken
root in this country. That charge then was one which
should not have been raised. As to the reference to the
Press, they had to recollect that in 1856, at the Conference
in Paris, a proposal was introduced with respect to the
law as it affected the Press in Belgium, and he spoke on
this subject is the friend of the liberty of the Press. (Hear )
When this attack was meditated against the Belgian Press
they had to recollect that Belgium was one of the brightest
soots in Europe, and that she was not represented at the
Conferences. (Hear, hear.) When Governments get
committed to a course of action as in i his instance, against
the Press, they get inv lved in no slight difficulty. The
House of Commons was not, however, committed, though
the Government might be. There weir another very objec-
tionable paragraph in the despatch, in which it was asked,
" Ought the English Legislature to countenance or favour
their designs and their plans, and give shelter to men who
placed themselves out of the pale of humanity ?" It was
there distinctly stated that the English Legislature gave
countenance to assassins, to men who placed themselves
out of the pale of society. (Hear, hear.) After statements
such as these had been made, and bad not been answered,
they were asked by this despatch to alter the laws of Eng-
land without a decent inquiry. Now, that despatch
should have been answered, and before the house had been
asked to legislate, it should have had something like evi-
dence to warrant it in agreeing to a change in the laws
which affected the personal rights and privileges of the
people. (He Government had given no answer to the
despatch, but had presented it to the House of Commons
with the bill which was now before them. The right hon.
gentleman, the Home Secretary, said the bill would consti-
tute a part of the answer. Then, as no answer can be
given till the bill was read a second time, they must con-
sider the bill to be the answer. We inflicted by this
measure a wound upon the feelings of the people, and upon
the institutions of the country. There was a rumour in
circulation about the state of feeling in France, and the
consequence that would ensue if this measure were re-
jected. The house was told to sacrifice a little of English
feeling, English law, and English recollections to that
rumour. (Loud cheers.) Were they to say to that
great and gallant people of France, who made no
trivial claim to march at the head of the civilisation of
the world—alike distinguished in arts of peace and in the
pursuits of military glory—were they to treat them like
children in a nursery, to whose reason they could ip t von-
tur e to appeal, but that they must coax them with sugar-
plums. (Laughter and cheers.) Let thea put some con-
fid. nce in the people of France, for never did any assembly,
wham everything was aboveboard, place confidence in a
people like that of France, and find that it was mis-
placed. Why, even the Government had not explained
the mate of the law, but if he was not mistaken he saw
the Attorney-General preparing himself to reply to him.
(Laughter.) He must tell him, then, that it was grief to
the whole country that he had not yet spoken on the sub•
ject. (A laugh.) There was not, rip to that moment, even
au exposition of the law. It would have been but just
to England and to Frame to have given France an exposi-
tion of the law. What did the noble lord himself state to
the house on that subject ? It was true he said they
might indict a man for conspiracy to murder, but that the
punishment would be all the same as for a conspiracy
to hiss an actor in a theatre. (Laughter.) That was an
opinion of an organ of the Government to justify that
change in the la ea That opinionof the noble lord might be
technically true, but, really it was without the smallest
foundation. Technically all misdemeanours came into the
same cetegory. Blackstone said that misdemeanour was
synoniumus with crime. But was it true that all mis-
demeanours were visited with slight punishments ? The
house was aware that the law of misdemeanour left great
power in the hands of the judge compered with the
statute law, and enabled bins to deal with misdemeanour
according to the nature of the case that came before him.
It might be true that there was no forfeiture of goods
and no transportation. Yet there was no limit to the
amount of punishment that might be inflicted upon the
offender by privation of his temporal goods, and iu the
shjayp eof
limit, u punishment,eooroigu which might be inflicted without
to the gravity of the offence. No
tiun
dboym thea nd Governmentmadeon tt e France.ground
ceeß Ph°asti wweasdom? made
that we sheltered assassins, and we sent this bill as an an-
swer to that demand. Was the oleject of Count Walewski
to convert misdemeanours into felonies? No, when be
spoke of our sheltering assassins, he intended that
Government should have the power of sending them the
of the country. (Hear, hear.) That was the necessaryt
construction to be put upon the despatch of the Frenchsa
Foreign Minister. But what object would be served
by
presenting such a bill as that to the Emperor Napoleon 9
It enhanced penalties, and therefore the noble lord said it
prevented crime. This statement reversed the axiom at
the foundation of every amendment of the criminal law of
this country which had been made for the last forty years.
The bill would, therefore, be wholly illusory as regarded
France, but as regarded England it would increase the
penalty of the law. There would be another demand by
France to alter the law, for that bill would create a right
on the part of France to make such a demand, and an oh -
ligation on themselves to comply with i. For that reason,
he uiust confess, he trusted the house would consider the
amendment of hie right hon. friend. The connection between
the Fr each despatch and that bill was avowed by the Govern
meet, for the Home Secretary said they could not answer
the despatch till they read the bill a second time, Now,