The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-10 00:00:00

TfIE SUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 10, 16NS.

Violaters, but by the representative of France in this corm.
try—a gentleman well able to appreciate the force of public
feeling here, quick to observe, and faithful to submit his j
*pinions as to the state of the public mind to the Emperor
whom he serves,—the French Government, on being in•
formed of the view which was taken, and jastly-, by the
English public with regard to these addresses, accounted !
for the insertion of such addresses in the Allorriteur, and '
impressed their regret and the regret of the Emperor him-
'elf at their publication. (Some cries of " Where ?
where ?") The argument as to time founded upon these
sddressses appears to me wholly to fail, unless it can be
shown that the amendment or alteration of the law which
we propose is itself objcctionable, or unless it can he main-
tained that the law as it at present stands is sufacient to
alder from the commission of these offences, and unless we
tan with a safe conscience assure foreign Governments that
the law is strong enough to accomplish the object we desire
to effect. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite has
/expressed a hope that the despatch of Count Walewski,
expressing the regret of the Emperor, which was referred
to last night by my noble friend, will be laid before Parlia-
/meat. I can assure the hon. gentleman that that des-
watch will be laid before Parliament at once ; but as it is a
short document perhaps the House will permit me now to
read a translation of it. (Hear.) It is a despa tch to Count
Walewski to Count ;Persigny, dated " Paris, Feb. G,

a 853," and in these terms :
"H. lo Comte,—The account you gave me of the effect
'produced in England by the insertion in the _clionitcur of
*attain addresses from the army has not escaped my atten-
tion, and I have made a report of it to the Emperor. You
ore aware of the sentiments by which we have been i fin-
anced in the steps we have adopted with Her Britannic
atajesty's Government on the occasion of the attack of the
].4th January, and of, the care we have taken, in applying
/or its concurrence, to avoid everything that could bear the
appearance of pressure on our part. All our communica-
dions manifest our confidence in its sincerity (loyaute), and
waur deference for the initiative being taken by it ; and if, in
-the enthusiastic manifestations of the devotion of the army,
words have possibly i'een inserted *hi h have seemed in
England to be characterised by a different sentiment, they
are too much opposed to the language which the Emperor's
Government has not ceased to hold to that of her Britannic
Majesty fOr it to be possible to attribute them to anything
else than inadvertence caused by the number of those ad-
dresses. The Emperor enjoins you to say to Lord Clarendon
bow much he regrets it. (Loud cheers from both sides of the
house.) I authorise you to give a copy of this despatch to the
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
I think that letter or despatch, which I trust from the
cheers with which it has been received is satisfactory to
the hone—(renewed cheers)—shows that nn valid objec-
tion can be made to the introduction of this bill at the pre-
sent time on account of the insertion of certain addresses
in the iloniteur by what appear to have been acts of inad-
vertenee on the part of the Government of France. (Some
cries of " No, no.") I hope, for the reasons I have stated,
that the hours will agree to the introduction of this bill,
and that the debate will be continued in the same calm

and temperate tone in which I am happy to say it has
been commenced.
Mr. BOVILL said that the proposed bill could not be
considered as a measure of ordinary legislation, but intro-
duced under the exigencies of the case, and founded upon
the despatch of Count Walewski, which was not couched
in courteous or respectful language. If the 1 Inv required
amendment, and the bill had been introduced solely for
that object as a measure of law reform, why had it not
been included in the list of bills it was intended to conso-
lidate and amend, of which the Solicitor-General had
given notice? It appeared to him this could not be consi-
dered as a measure of law reform, bat one based on Count
Walewski's despatch; and it would be an admission of the
statements therein contained, which ought to have met
with a dignified denial from her Majesty's Government.
(Hear.) Couched in language similar to that of Lord
Hawkesbury's in 1802, he contended the bill was not re-
quired, and it was the duty of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to have first pat the present law in force, and on
ending it defective, then have come to Parliament with
the present bill. He considered this bi'l would be
as
powerless as the present law, because the difficulty of
proving overt acts requisite before convicting of conspiracy
would be as great then as now. More stringent measures
would not deter persona who risked all they possessed to
accomplish their ends, and it was only deluding the Em-
peror of the French to pass this bill under the impression
that it would give him additional security or comply with
the demands he had made on this country. It would have
been much better had the French Government been told
that it was impossible to pass a law which should effec-
tually check these particular offonces. This bill could not
satisfy France, and for this and other reasons he should
vote against its introduction. If, as the Home Secretary
had said, this was a measure for the amendment of the
law, why was it not made to form part of those measures
for the reform of our criminal code, some of which he be-
lieved were to be submitted to Parliament the next day ?
(Hear.) What would become of this act when the general
code came to be considered ? Was it to stand by itself ?
(Hear.) Before we dealt harshly with refugees, whether
French or otherwise, we ought in mercy to consider whe-
ther their appearance in this country was voluntary or
upon compulsion. (Hear.) Many foreigners were hounded
to this country, and disaffection to the Governments which
expelled them was only to lee expected. He had no sym-
pathy for men who, seekiag shelter here, violated our laws.
No punishment could be too severe for such conduct, but
it was quite a different thing to propose an act which could
not fail to be inoperative, and therefore unsatisfactory in
its result to the people in whose favour it was passed. By
lending ourselves to the demand made upon us, a bad ex-
ample would be set to other countries, and it would go
forth that England succumbed to external demands.
(Hear.) Comply with this particular demand, and others
in the same direction would follow. (Hear.)
Mr. A.B. HOPE denied that the bill was necessary,
either as a matter of form or of practical expediency. It
could only be carried out by employing spies and informers,
in a manner wholly opposedto our ordinary modes of pro-
cedure. Was it a matter of political expediency to pass
such a bill at a time when so many important subjects de-
manded their attention, and in the face of the threatening
addresses of the French colonels, and despatches of the
French Government ?
Mr. COLLIER would not support the measure if it was
intended to restrict our laws of hospitality ; but he did
not believe it would have any such effect. Was it an inter-
ference with any man's liberty to take from him the liberty
of conspiring. It was very doubtful how far we could
punish a foreigner for conspiring to murder a foreign
prince, in the same way as we could punish an English-
man. Some measure was necessary to clear up the doubt.
As for the time, it was our habit to legislate not on
system, bnt as the occasion arose.
Mr. W. HUNT said that the question before the house
was whether they should make it an offence in this country
to combine or conspire with persons resident in a foreign
country or in the United Kingdom to commit murder. In
Ireland conspiracies of this kind were by no means un-
common, but In England such cases were comparatively
rare, and were made a misdemeanour only, while in Ire-
land the offence was made a felony. He had no objectieu
to see the law made uniform in the United Kingdom. But
he perceived great difficulty in bringixsg home to persons
conspiring, the offence which was to be made a felony by
the bill. If a political refugee was residing here who was
obnoxious to a foreign Government, a charge might be
made against him of conspiring with some persons in a
foreign State, and evidence of this kind could only be ob-
tained from correspondence which would require to be pro-
duced through the instrumentality of a foreign police.
Seeing the difficulterwhich would exist in making the law
applicable, without introducing into our jurisprudence
principles which were at once novel and dangerous to the
liberties and interests of the people of this country, he
should feel it his duty to oppose the measure now sought
to be introduced.
Mr. WHITEHEAD said that while he was n-t di-posed
to be dragooned into the passing of any measure such as
that before the house, still he felt that the bill was one
which was called for by the circumstances that had re-
cently taken place in Paris. He ca!led upon hen. members
to place themselves for a moment in the position of the
people of France, and suppose that a plot to assaininato the
illustrious lady on the throne had been as nearly carried
into execution as that which heel c nden ;wed the life of the
Emperor. In that case would not our remonstrances hero
been very much stronger than the mild and temperate de-
mand made upon us in the despatch of Count Walewski ?
(1,16,.r.) There could be no doubt that our law respecting
the puniihment of conspiracies of this kind required
amendment, and was it right that such amendments
should not be carried out, simply because they had been
asked for by the French government, and because it was
supposed to be undignified for us to grant what was asked ?
The object of the present bill was not to create any new of-
fence, but it was in effect to bring our legislation more in
accordance with the spirit of the age and the reforms which
had been introduced into our criminal laws. It proposed
to make the crime of conTirecy to commit murder one to
be punished with ,imprisonment, and not with death, as
was the case in France. (Hear.) No person was more in
favour of maintaining in all its integrity the right of
asylum in this country, and he hoped that the political re-
fugees of all countries would continue for ages yet to come
to look upon the cliffs of England as those of a country
" where the weary were at rest ;" and where he hopet it
would yet be found, " the wicked ceased from troublin,;."
(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. DENT had listened with great attention to the
statements which had been put forward on behalf of the
bill, but had not been able to detect any arguments which
could have any weight with him in its favour. No evi-
dence had been given to the house that the law of England
was inelletent to deal with conspiracies of the kind re-
ferred to in the proposed bill (Hear, hear.) For his part,
he took no heed of the vapou• ring of the French colonels,
bat he feared that the feeling throughout the country
wenldbethatat thebillwhich was now proposed had been
introduced
power. The result of obedience
to
the dictation of a foreign
the greatest pleasure toPaalr2 the bill would be to give
distress to the friends of freedomtic States, and the utmost
and liberty in all parts
of the world. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK. said that no insult Offered by any fo-
reign power was so great as the nsult of supposing that
their observations.
we were prevented hope legistliamtienva
were
found it neces-
saryre violating the
It was absurd to say—every
to alter our Alien Act—that wo
principles of hospitality. It was not corn r
the refugees to say that refugeeism and assaUlmaetTotr to
convertible terms. It was our bounden duty -tower°
slat in forestalling suoh attempts as that which lately beau made against the life of the Ernp„ ha
or, 'who,
conduct he praised in the highest terms.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said he felt it to be his
duty to record his vote against the measure. The crime
which had recently been committed was one of the greatest
atrocity, and every foreign refugee residing in the country
would find that the crime of assassination was one held in
the greatest horror by all classes of society in the country.
The Emperor of the French in his exile in this country
ought to have learned to understand better the opinion of
the people of England on this subject of the right of
asylum than to suppose that wo could consent to forego
that right and privilege. At present we knew nothing of
the details of the events, or of the personages by whom the
atrocious crime had been concocted and carried out. All
that was known was that one of the conspirators had es-
caped from the dungeons of Austria, and the account of
whose escape had been a popular book in this country, and
there was also the accident that some of the grenades were
made in, Birmingham. But of these facts, he contended,
did not justify the putting forward of a demand such as
that contained in the letter of Count Walewski. Attempts
at assassination of French monarchs were not new, and
some of them had been as atrocious as that which had re-
cently b2en attempted, but no demand had ever be.o male
upon the Government of this country to alter their laws
respecting the rightasylum in consequence of those
-- of b t l •
acts. (Hear.) Why was this indecent as olegislate
on the subject displayed on the present occasion, even be-
fore the• perpetrators of the crime had been pat upon their
trill, and either acquitted cr condemned. Par-) TI
ror.r ford. .le
demand of Count Walewski in his Jer.pqeh

t.-11;) ii ht
this bill appeared to be on the face of is a concession to
such a demand. No hon. member could possibly suppose
that this till would be effective iu putting a stop to such
nmes and offences as those which had recently taken place.

The mere conversion of the crime of conspiracy into felony
for a misdemeanour, would not deter such men as were
employed in these atrocious crimes from concocting and
carrybig them into effect. He not only considered the bill
as perfectly inefficient for its purpose, but he cos! ; the- but
regard it as having been introduced for the purpose of show-
ing that the Governmentof her Majesty was not insensible
to the nature of the crime which had been committed, and
wore deedrous of giving such a demonstration as would satisfy
tlee French people. Even this would not be effected, for
the French people would see that it was a mere sham and
pretence ; and the concession would be only a proof of the
weakness of the Government of this country and regarded
as such by the Emperor of the French and by the great
majority his subjects. He believed that the Govern-
ment, so far from being weakened by the withdrawal of the
bill, on the contrary, he believed it would ten Ito strengthen
the present Government. It had been well said that asse,-
sins never killed kings, but they often made them do very
foolish things. It was too true that assassination had been
mixed up with so much of the Italian annals, that even the
mind of the great Napoleon himself ha I become tainted
with the idea, and it was melancholy to find this great man,
in the last years of his life, indulging in this terrible weak-
ness, and in his last will bequea.thieg a legacy to the mao,
who attempted to aseasinate the late Duke of Wellington.
He regretted that he felt compelled to vote against the in-
troduction of the bill proposed by the noble lord at the
head of the Government.
Mr. NAPIER supported the bill as a wise amendment
of the law, and a proper time forcarrying that amendment
int effect. He found in prosecutions of the Ribbonmen in
Ireland that some of the members of the affiliated societies
were in England ; so that the members of the same society
were tried for felony in Ireland and misdemeanour in
England. Let not England, from any false feeling of
dignity, refuse this necessary alteration.
Lord J. RUSSELL said -It is one of the disadvantages
of the present discussion that whilst on the one side the

arguments in favour of the bill br!ng, prominently forward
the attempt made on the life of the Emperor of the French,

_ .
its proposal, on the other hand, naturally leads to a dis-
cussion of the conduct of the ruler of France, and induces
observations which at this time it would be wiser to avoid
but which it is impossible to avoid if we are fairly to die-
cuss this bill. I therefore consider it part of the responsi-
bility of her Majesty's Government that at a time when
we should all join in the sentiments of horror and indig.
nation caused by that atrocious attempt on the life of the
Emperor of the French and those who accompanied him,
they have brought into discussion in this house a measure
which brings forth adverse opinions and expressions of
sentiment and opinion which cannot but be distasteful
to a great part of the French nation. (Iletr, hear.)
I consider it another part of the disadvantage of this
discussion that the members who have spoken on
behalf of the bill —those who have spoken on this side,
and the hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat
down, have confounded together two subjects which might
be kept distinct, and which ought to be kept distinct, but
which by the proposition before the house are unavoidably
connected. They all say that this would be an improvement
of the law. The hon. and learned gentleman says that the
law regarding conspiracy required improvement, and that
he is in favour of that which he considers to be au ineerove-
ment; and than he turns round and says, "but will you
refuse that which is wise and just, because it is asked for
by the Government of France." Why the hoc. and learned
gentleman, and those who adept that argument, beg the
whole question. (Hear.) They say, first, that this is an
improvement, and then they say you will be so obstinate,
so unreasonable, so fanciful, as to refuse an obvious im-
provement of the law because it wouid be agreeable to the
Emperor of the French, But that is not the question be-
foe° the house, but by putting it forward in this manner
they confound two separate things. I will, therefore, en-
deaveur to discuse these two separate things. But let me
say, in the first place, that I wish in this discussion to ob-
serve that respect which is duo to the ruler of Franco. He
has deservedwellofEngland (hear, hear)- -he has deserved
well of Europe, as a sovereign who has consulted the inte-
rests of Europe by maintaining the balance of power by
wars and treaties. (Hear.) Bat with regard to his govern-
ment of Franca this is not the place to speak, nor am I, a
member of this house, the person to speak of it. For my
part, when I fin i that the French people are content with
their own government, and that that government gives a
promise of stability, my wish has always been for its per-
manence. It is for the French people to determine the con-
ditions by which they are to be ruled, and theinternal form
of their own government. These are my views with regard
to the Emperor of the French, and I trust that in opposing
this bill it will not be supposed that I either yield to any
one in the respect due to that sovereign, or that I should
be unwilling, if it couldlbelprove I that this measure which
has been brought in would save him from conspiracies to
murder him, to give my consent to any such bill. (Hear,
hear.) But, with regard to this improvement of the law,
which we are told is so urgent on the ground of its import-
ance, I am very sceptical. In the fist place, if it is an im-
provement of the law so urgently Deeded, how does it hap-
pen that her Majesty's Government have not, either at the
end of let session or in the notices which they have given
for this, made any mention of it? They aro about to intro-
duce a bill to coneolidate the law relating to offences
against the person. They are careful of our legislation with
regard to deer and lamb, but with regard to this must im-
portant subject, the preservation of human life from con-
spiracy, they have been totally silent, and until the despatch
of Count Waleweki was recsived, there was no intimation
of any intention to amend the law. In the next place, I am
in very great doubt as to the proper nature of the amend-
ment. We have heard to-night that conspiracy to murder
is a very grave offence—that it aims at human life—and
therefore two years's imprisonment is not sufficient for the
offence, and that these offenders ought to be punished in a
more aggravated form. But, sir, there are two questions to
be considered with regard to every criminal law—first,
what punishment every crime deserves, and the other, how
thecrimo is to be prevented? These are two very different
questions. As to the first, if life is to be taken away at all
for any offence, then the law of Ireland with regard to per-
sons who conspire to murder may not be too severe; as to
the other matter, we have to consider how wo aro meet
likely to prevent the crime of conspiracy. For some hun-
dreds of years the offence of conspiring to murder has been
a misdemeanour in our law; it is only the person who occu-
pies the throne that has any greater guarantee, but I am
not aware that any subject of her Majesty has complained
that his life is insecure, er that the law has not been suffici-
ent to protect all the subjects of the Queen. Lord Hawkes-
hury would have told us that a law which was found suffi-
cient for all subjects of Great Britain should not bo altered
at the wish of a foreign power. With regard to the general
nature of the change, the question is whether the remedy
has been efficacious; the hon. and learned gentleman who
has just sat down has told us that in Ireland the law is dif-
ferent, and capital punishment isaltxed by law to the crime
of conspiracy, but will he go on to tell us that life is equ Illy
safe there against conspiracy as in England ? (Hear.) Will
he tell us that there is greater security for life in Ireland
in consequence of that severity that in England under the
milder provisions of our own laws? If, sir, that is not the
case, let us look a little to the principle of the proposed
change, and consider it with regard to the nature of the
crime. Conspiracy is a very heinous crime, disgraceful and
detestable in the person who commits it, but one exceed-
ingly difficult to prove. It often requires very vague evi-
dence to bring it home to an individual. If such a case
be brought before a jury as a conspiracy to murder, it is
probable that we shall find the witnesses accomplices or
spies. Such evidence is much distrusted by a jury, and
the advocate who is empowered to defend the prisoner will
lay great stress on the nature of the evidence produced.
If a letter is shown or a conversation repeate..l, be will affix
a different sense to the words used , he will endeavour to
point out that they will not bear the construction put upon
them ; he will suggest for the conthieratieu of the juiy whet
is the peniehineut affixed to the offence; a el it may very
well happen that a jury might think the evidence sufficient
to convict a man of a misdemeanour, but would hesitate to
convict when they knew thet transportation for life would
be a consequence of their verdict. It does not follow be-
CUM, the crime is a horrible one which ought to bo pre-
vented that we shall prevent it by affixing to it a greater
punishment titan before. It seems to me th A the spirit
of the proposed enaetnaent is contraey to the whole course
of that entighteuod legislation which S:r Sernuel Remilly
was the first to urge on this house, and which Sir Hubert
I Peel and others have since pursued. We all know th A
in the time of George I. and IL, if a new crime arose
it was a common thing for a member of this house to
get up, and stating the crime was on the increase,
propose to create a new capital felony. Mr. Burke
tells us that ha,. was kept in the house to make a house
for a bill of this kind, without any one knowing what
the crime was. Our legislation then was founded on
the principle that severe punishment was sure to defer
frern crime. Since then a safer doctrine has prevailed,
that a light punishment was more likely to ensure convic-
tion and prevent clime. I demur to the proposal as a ques-
tion of law reform, because it is doubtful whei her it will
be efficacious. Let ns now look to the nature of the crime,
ned the persons by whom it is likely to be committed.
These conseiraciee are often the work cf persons who are
base enough to receive hire for the deed, but they are more
likely to be concocted by persons under the influence of
extreme fanaticism, religious in former times but now po-
litical. From the time of the murder of Henry 111. of
France, a deed which was extolled in magnificent language
by the Jesuit Mariama, to the attempt on the life of Louis
XV. by Damietta, all these crimes were the effect of reli-
gious fanaticism, to which Henry IV. of France also fell a
victim ; but of late years, since the commencement of the
French Revelation, it is political and not religious fanati-
cism which has been the moving spirit of such attempts.
Now, sir, men who meet by twos, or threes, or fours, for
the purpose of declaiming against what they call tyranny
until they begin to entertain the conception of this horrible
crime, these are men whose fanaticism is so rooted, and
their confidence in each other so unbounded, that we are
not likely to defeat a conspiracy of this sort by the dread
of the punishment that may be inflicted on them after ills
carried into effect, Men who are excited by the spirit of
fanaticism to commit such deeds have their imagination so
excited as to be ready to lay down theirlives. They allknow
they expose them, for whether the attempt succeed or fail,
they who commit the crime are sure to perish by the hand
of the executioner. Can we suppose that men of this kind
are to be deterred by telling them that instead of two
years' imprisonment they will henceforth be subject to
French government
!bids, however,
penal servitude ? I will give the house one or two instances
their oven" young
have
InohtahvinegbteoendotowldiththFatranthcee. or rile
tot,tahne assassination of Count Roesi, the Minister of
lence againOsrta RUB'. they
men there the
them, men met at a club. Inflamed with
would be prepared yon
declaimed with the greatest vio-
.. le! tyranny and despotism. One of the
~ there, of all the violenee, said to ten of
on speak very brave not one of you
My that you are messed, " After having told the com-
mediately
the basest cowardice
eeatdy th take Rossi 's life, It would be
took themaside, ready-" The artful instigator
to shrink." Arrangements were then
made, and the
first i,___ next day, as Count Rossi w.-.s going for the
Luce to open the Representative Assembly, he was
t surroundedh eheart.
Thisn these young men and stabbed to
theparty of
effect of the violent fanaticis
it possible the would have
one uaa stood by 'nano:
these young men, and
been in the least inflnewncase.d if any
told them—you are conspiring against the life of another;
which he would
do you know you will be condemnednsta to pen itude for
tshuactc eoefda?gTe
gentleman
somit other instancy
riietri fwyttosu
Piedmont last year. Mezzini, who z,,,,
one of
situation in
to preach assassination, declared that this manofvell'':, t(:,
had gone to him and proposed to assassinate Chaerni o ---
bort, the King of Sardinia. Mazzini told. him ho‘s Al
hardly worthy to commit such an action, but sent him ''t':
Turin, lending him his own dageor. 'Was such a man
likely to be deterred by the fear of 'a
penalty ? One thing
was certain, that what they really wanted was, not the
71,i:!.; ;;,,u-, of the c!.::tie, b: It the detection. If these
ilieil ‘1,113 lately went. over to Penis to in tko the her-
rible attempt could have been detected and brought
before an English court, never mind what the punish-
ment was, whether two years or twenty years their

purpose would have been defeated when once they were
detected. What the French government want is, not
punishment but detection ; this bill sill serve no purpose
of detection, and therefore will not serve their purpose. I
believe that, as far as this is a question of the amendment
of the law, it will fail of its purpose. I now come to the
caesticn, that it is an amendment of the law asked for by
the government of France. In dealing with this question,
I fear I most take a more general survey of the situation
than the ministry who brought in the bill seem to have
done. It seems their view is, that if they can make some
amendment of the law with regard to conspiracy to murder,
thereby making the legislitem of England more har-
monious—the punishment more severe—they will satisfy
' the French government, and meet their wish for an
amendment of the law. I fair, sir, that calculation is
entirely wrong. What the French government want is to
put an end to those assemblages of fanatical politician in
Landon ; and that can only be done by sending them out
of the country before any crime is proved against there.
(Fleur.) That, in fact, is the real question, ani I will read
the passage from the despatch of Count Walewski already
referred te, to show the house that it is so. He says :
" It is no longer the hostility of misguided individuels.
manifesting itself by all the excesses of the prose and all
the violence of language, it is no longer even the work of
the factious, seeking to rouse opinion and to prove die-
crier ; it is assassination, elevated to doctrine, preached
openly, practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of
which brie jest struck Europe with amazement. Ought,
then, the right of asylum to protect such a state of things ?
Is hospitality due to assassins ? Ought the English legis-
lation to contribute to favour their designs and their
pl-ins, and can it continue to shelter persons who, by their
flagrant acts, place themselves beyond the pale of common
right and under the ban of humanity ? The ambassador
of France had taken a very unusual course. I will
not find fault with him ; he was a gentleman of great
honesty, very much attached to his master, and also to this
country : but in his answer to the Lord Mayor and aldermen
he stated clearly what he wanted :—" Permit me, then, to
tell you what is the true question; it does not lie in the
attempts at assassination in themselves, nor even in the
crime of the 14th of January, which your Government
would have hastened to warn us against if it could have
known it beforehand ; the whole question is in the moral
situation of France, which has become anxiously doubtful
of the real sentiments of England. Reasoning in effect by
analogy,'popular opinion declares that were there in France
men sufficiently infamous to recommend in their 'clubs,
in their papers, in their writings of everykind, the assassi-
nation of a foreign Sovereign, and actually to prepare its
execution, a French administration would not wait to re-
ceive the demands of a foreign Government, nor to see the
enterprise set on foot. To act against such conspiracies,
to anticipate such crimes, public notoriety would be suffi-
cient to set our laws in motion, anl measures of security
would be taken immediately." My right hon. friend, the
Homo Secretary, will therefore clearly see that this bill is
not what the French Government want. They want se-
curity against the whole body of refugees. My right hon.
friend has told us that the law was found sufficient is
1851, and why should it not be now ? Count Walewski
does not say—Why do not the Government prosecute the
offence? (Hear, hear.) If the Government is in posses-
sion of any information which would support a prosecution
it was their duty at once to have put the law in force. The
question was decided half a oentnry ago. Reference has
been made to Lord Hawkesbury's correspondence, which I
have lately had occasion to consult. I found he treated
the question with perfect fairness aid perfect justice, as to
how refugees and foreign Governments ought tube treated,
Let me remind the house that in the opinion of Mr. Peel,
Lord Has kellsury was as well fitted to hold the seals of
the Foreign-office as any man in this country, he dis-
played a calmness and a temper which deserve the re-
spect of the whole country. When Peltier advised the
assassination of the First Coneeil he was brought to trial
for doing so, for attempting to excite discussion with
a friendly state. The then Attornoy-General urged,
and Lord Ellenborough, the Chief Justice, held that the
law was sufficient to meet every such case. The First Con
sal was not then an enemy, but a friendly power. War,
however, broke out before Peltier was brought up to judg-
ment. The whole question, however, with reviled to re-
fugees had been discussed and settled ; if peace had con-
tinued, Peltier would have been sentenced. All the tran-
sections took place in August ; it was not until October
that the question arose with regard to Switzerland, which
lcd to the renew.l of hostilities, and it was not till Feb.
Peltier could have been sentenced. There is one instance
upon which I cannot help remarking in connexion with that
trial. In the celebrated political speech which Sir James
Mackintosh made on that occasion, he very naturally, but
with great art, repr mented his client as a poor afflicted man
who had to contend against the chief of the most powerful
military nation in the world. The Attorney-Generel, Mr.
Perceval said that such was not the case ; that it was the
King of England and his government that prosecuted Pel-
tier, and that it was due to the law of England that be
should conduct that prosecution. Well, then, sir, with
regard to this matter on which M. Walewski and Count
Percigny have raised a question, there cen be no doubt
whatever with respect to the law of England. That law
was enforced by Lord Hawkeshury ; it was enforced by
Lord Elhmborough ; it was consented to by all the authori-
ties of that time; and the great men of that day, including
Mr. Pitt, Mr. Grenville, and Mr. Fox, concurred in think-
ing that the language and conduct of the British govern-
ment were such as became the country. I say, then, with
regard to this complaint, that, so far from our wanting a
new law, the existing law is fully sufficient for its purpose;
and the assertion of the law which was made in 1803 was
the foundation of the declaration of the Secretary of State
in 1851, who is now Secretary of State—a declaration which
was believed at the time, after it had been fully considered
by the cabinet of that day, to be one worthy of an Eng-
lish minister--this declaration being that this country
shall be a safe asylum for foreigners of all descriptions,
but that if they commit any offence against the laws of
this country, if they incite to the assassination of a
foreign sovereign or the chief magistrate of a foreign state,
or if they impair our friendly relations with foreign states
by their rovilings and, their libels, they should then be
liable to punishment according to the well-known and
established laws of England. (Hear.) Well, then, sir,
such being the complaint, it is a matter of astonishment to
me that Count Walewski should have written his despatch
and no answer should have been made to it. (Cheers.)
Because the answer seems to be quite obvious. I should
have thought that anybody who valued the reputation of
the British name, and had any regard for the honour of
Great Britain, would have said, " We are not a nati.,n
that protects assaasiue, as seems to be supposed : the crime
of assassination is abhorrent to all our feelings ; we cannot
sufficiently condemn it ; show as that these men have been
preaching the doctrine of assassination, and we will bring
them before our courts of justice without the loss of an
hour; make out that it has been advocated by them in any
of their clubs, and they will no doubt be convicted as
Peltier was convicted." Such seems to me to be the plain
language which ought to have been used. (Hear.) The
noble lord at the head of the Government says, to my sur-
prise, that an unfounded notion has been prevalent on tbe
continent that this country favours assassination, and
therefore ho brings in this bill. This does seem the oddest
consequence that there ever was. (Hear.) How much
better it would have been to ask for the names of those
persons who had been guilty of the crime in ques-
tion ; and if, as very likely would have been the
case, no person could be found who could be con-
victed by due course of law, then would have been the tine
to say, ' We punish offences, but those offences must be
duly proved by the evidence of witnesses openly heard
--(cheers)—and that evidence must be weighed and
summed up by a judge sitting on the bench and a true
verdict returned according to that evidence by the
jury." (Cheers.) If that answer had been given, I think
strong ground would have been taken. -*heroes,
look at our position now. It is a position as regards
the future which I confess fills me with considerable alarm.
(Cheers.) You do net propose to do that which the French
G erernment wish you to do ; that which, unhappily, is en-
forced by the threats of the military bodies whose ad-
dresses have been so inadverently inserted in the Moniteur.
(Seer, beer.) You do net an this by any means ; but you
say that you will change the law, and this 111:1116 a decla-
re Hon of your sympathy sv,th the Free ch Government.
Bet look at the consequences. If you hail ao tempted to
alter the laws with regard to aliens, if you ha I attempted
to give power to the Government of the day to seeti away
any aliens upon the representation of aforeign ~linieter,
you would then have roused the anger of the people of
England, and you could not have curried your measr.re.
If you had given a rtfusal—if you had said, " Onr laws are
sufficient, end we will simply oat them in execution," you
would then, no doubt, have disappointed the wishes of the
French Government by acting in conformity with that
opinion, and that statement of Lord Hawkeshury, to which
I have previously referred. This measure seems to me an
exc>edingly skilful, I may say an exceedingly cunning,
artifice, by which it is intended that neither the people of
England nor the Emperor of the French should be
offended. (Hear, hear.) We must wait a little to see the
result. I think that. after the passing of this bill, inflict-
ing a heavier punishment for conspiracy to assassinate than
now exists, you would not find the state of things much
altered. If there are still fanatical men who are still plot-
ting assassination, they would plot secretly as much as
now; they would not be deterred at all by the vain ter-
rors of this now law. ( Hear, hear.) What, then, would
happen ? The French Government would say, "We have
no doubt of the sincerity of the English Government—we
have no doubt of their wish to act loyally in this matter—
but their expectations have been altogether disappointed,
that ' den of assassins' which we wished to be cleared re-
mains as it was ' • the same conspiracies still exist; you
who have agreed to this object must agree to the means ;
your means have been found totally insifilcient; you must
seelyourselves that the object isnot gained; you intist there-
fore, look for other Moans." What could those " other
means" be ? They could only be means which would violate
that sacred right of asylum which thegrevernment profess
their desire to preserve. (Loud cheers.) Well, I have no
doubt this country would not consent to a change of its
laws in that respect. But, then, I must say you would
have given a far better grievance to the Government of
France than they have at present. They would say "We
have been deluded ; this bill, which you told us was a
satisfactory one, has been a complete mockery. We have
no more security than we had before, and we now insist
upon some change that shall be sufficient fer the purpose."
I own that I think it is a short-sighted wisdom that would
thus put off the evil day. (Hear.) I think it would be far
better wisdom to say at once, "This is no light question ;
it is no mere question of changing whathas hitherto been a
misdemeanour into a felony ; we tell you, in plain truth,
that the asylum which you call a ' den of assassins' must
remain sacred; we do not mean to change out laws; hut
if any ca'e can be pointed out in which those laws have
been violated, we will act as we have done for the last
half centery ; we will act according to the principles which
have been known in England ever sines we have been a
nation ; we will admit aliens according to the statutes of
our land, but we will take care that no offence shall be
committed against the head of a foreign state without its
being brought under the cognisance of a jury." I think
if you had proceeded in that way your position would have
been strong. The position of the University, lam sorry to
say, is, I think, at present not strong. (Hear, and great
laughter.) I was speaking, of course, of their position in
argnmont. (Hear.) I don't think they aro strong as re-
gards France, whose demands are rather evaded than cone-
pled with. (Hear.) I don't think they are strong as
regards the people of this country, whose just expectations
seem to me destined to be disappointed. (Hear,) hear.)
Braattuse,
there
yon
after the demand of which I have spoken were made,
ifjParliament were to pass this bill, and if here-
tdhleettipicsoooopwalloohpf:n.goland would naturally say, " A demand
wasf
eran‘thadatie
übsytthhaits yon had
nscaftitshfieedl
law n
hdiecneh aynodu•
pyrooupotsoolddi
all
by the French Government ; you
rmw,dy air,t chu; ihai v'teyerol_etfthamityethatwouldundisturbed
same complaints again, and even greater
• ambassador
lad 0 cessation eesas;adt ivoenr
yof
justlyth at
icso nt
the
„-
o stiltdeo
opleanr
et ot
that
e we Rouse
sb h oor.f
the crime
• remainsi
eel
fallnfedrloo;w : amity
eaoflflo
Er
etnu betweenthgelbal lanrol::asanentr
auaco,etfhifiCeoteno rrabey
limit
with-
outo freeP eta
standing upon the established
S us t

that has been committed in France ; that, far from sym-
pathising with, we are indignant against, those assassins
who perpetrated the crime, but that not for the friendship
of the Emperor of the French are we disposed to give- up,
the right of asylum, or to change the ancient and este-
bliehed laws of En:fend- (Loud cheers.) Sir, I think the
French Government would appreciate es it would deserve I
to be appreci.ted the fraukness, the sincerity, and I may
say the friendliness of that coulee.. (Hear.) We should
thereby spare ourselves these irritating discussions; we
should reliere the Government of France from any expec-
tations that by the direction of their official paper they
could induce the Parliament of England to recede from its
just position. (Hear.) I trust we 'hall act in that man-
ner. I have, I confess, been a good deal shocked by some
of the declarations which have been made in the course of
this debate declarations from which it would seem that
the favour of a foreign power is to bo considered of more
,r bra gnthiins
value to England than the tuaintenauee of her ancient
laws. (Cheers.) Itthtil;iekirtvhoattese
thosef i who
i speck
in
i this
nnacnurnear, vastan es
and
who
r give
responsibility, both to the present genera-
tion and to pesterity. (Hear) This is the first breaking
in upon that system which was declared by the Go-
vernment of 1803, and which has remained intact
up to the month of February, 1858. Who cm say what
the next step in this direction will be ? It is easy to
ask for a mild measure, and at first to satisfy a foreign
h
power; bat any demand of this kind naturally arouses the
jealousy and susceptibility of the British people. The only
other care in which I remember a bill to hove been brought
in at the request of a foreign power is that of the Foreign
Enlistment Act. Mr. Canning, in introducing that set,
took the utmost care to explain that Spain was so weak a
monarchy that she was quite unable to contend with her
neighbours in arms ; ho painted the weakness of her re-
sources, and her inability to defend herself, an 1 he asked
whether we could be so ungracious as not to afford her that
protection against foreign invasion which she required.
t
That appeal was successful. No appeal could now be male
o us on that ground ; the threat has been somewhat too
barely exposed, somewhat too loudly uttered ; it has been
so uttered, that I confess if I were to vote for the intro-
duction of this bill, I should feel shame and humiliation
in giving that vote. Let those who will, support the bill of
the Gorernment ; that shame awl humiliation I am deter-
mined not to share. (Loud cheers.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, notwithstanding
the wide field over which the noble lord had passed, he be-
lieved the decision of the house would, after all, turn on
the question with which he started—via., whether or not
the present law was sufficient for the purpose ; and, with
great deference to the noble lord, he would declare his own
belief that it was insufficient. He ventured to say that the
law on this subject was more anomalous in its operation
and more inadequate to the attainment of the object than
any other branch of our criminal law. Ono reason why an
alteration was required was the change of circumstances.
Increased communication had brought into this country a
number of persons who were opposed to the laws of their
native land. England gave them protection, bat it was not
unreasonable to require that they should have it on the same
conditions on which it 'was enjoyed by Englishmen. If
Englishmen conspired in England to send an Englishman
abroad to commit a murder, those who remained here might
be indicted for the offence; if foreigners conspired here for
the same purpose, any of the number who remained would
only be punishable with fine awl imprisonment; they
would only have committed at common law a misdemean-
our. That wet; an anomaly in the position of foreigners as
compared with Englishmen which, independently of the
severity of the punishment, required alteration. More-
over, he would put it to the house whether the crime of
conspiracy to commit murder was adoquetely punished 'by
fine and imprisonment? The noble lord had said that this
bill would be of no avail, because those who would be
affected by it were enthuceasts. But the measure did not
propose to legislate for enthusiasts. It would legislatenot for
those who went out to commit murder, bat for those con-
spirators who remained behind. The punishment for those
to whom the noble lord's epithet attached would be capital.
The noble lord, too, objected against the bill, that it was
not a legal reform, for it was not introduced as a legal
measure, and allusion was then tnede to those eensolida-
Hon bills which were to ho brought before the house. Now
the fact was that the present bill could not properly be
introduced with oth r bills. Those were measures based
upon the report of the statute law commission, and they
were in the main in the nature of bills to consolidate exist-
ing statutes. They did no doubt in some degree amend
the law, but it would have been a very unfit course to have
placed provisions amongst their clauses amounting to 5)
tot %Ily novel a step in legislation es the present bill. Such
provisions would there heve been nut of place. But sup-
pose the government had taken such a coorse, and intro-
duced the clauses of this measure into that bill, what then
would have been said? It would have been said that et
the request of France an alteration was about to be made
in our law, and that an endeavour was made to shuffle that
alteration unob4erved through the House of Commons.
It had been almost admitted by some that this was a
good bill, but it was said the house ought not to pass it
now. Really he could not see why a bill should
be thrown out on Tuesday to be introduced on Thurs-
(ley. In truth, it was not over easy to arrive at
what werei the real objections to the hie). It must
be
that if the noble lord established his pro-
position, that the bill was not an improvement of the law,
ad m itt d
and that fine and imprisonment were sufficient punish-
ments, then no doubt legislation was unnecessary, but, the
instances given by the noble lord failed to bear out his
statement. Indeed, the only tangible objection to the
measure was this, that it ought not to be passed at the
present time. Bat be trusted that the house would look
at its contents, and if it was found to be an improvement
in our criminal code, that it would not hesitate to pass it.
Mr. DISRAELI—The principle of the proposed bill of the
noble lord (Lord Palmerston) I apprehend to be this—it is
to change the crime of combining and conspiring to murder
from misdeamnour to felony. Upon this point there has been
considerable discussion. So far an the debate is concerned, it
tray still be deemed a mooted question. Nor does it appear
to me necessary, according to the usual order of our business,
that this point should be decided at the present stage of the
measure. If this bill comes to a second reading--(ironical
cheers)—that will be the legitimate occasion upon which the
house may enter fully into that important point of the dis-
cussion; and no doubt it will receive, as it is entitled to, the
most grave and dispassionate consideration. But at this
moment there arc some other observations which I intend
making. I must remind the house that it has not been un-
usual in the history of this country, and in the practice of
Parliament, that when some crime has been committed—
some crime known to the law—Parliament should take the
circumstance under its consideration with a view to legisla-
tion. Throughout the debate frequent allusion has been
made to the difference of the law upon the matter under dif-
cussion between England and-Ireland, But how came that
(Info; enee ? It was owing to the peculiar circumstances of
Ireland, The prevalence of conspiracy to murder ha i. led
the attention of Parl:ament to the subject, and though I offer
no opinion upon the expediency of the course wheili had
been adopted, still it is a fact that the special circum-
stances cf that country induced Parliament to legislate
for it in the manner it had done. There is a' other
case welch must be in the memory of all present, and in
which legislation was induced by the special circumstances
of the case—it is a case of great notoriety - it forms a part of
the history of this country, and,one in which the members of
this ; onso are peculiarly interested—l mean when a foreigner
(Guiscard) attempted to assessi. ate Mr. Harley, the thee
Oh incellor of the Exche iuer, he the Cockpit at a sitting of
the Privy Council That was a cause of great exciteuic
Gristle d was a Frenchm n ; lie was denounced as a Popish
spy, and. his act was lee ,ked upon as the evidence of a Popish
lot What w s the conduct Parlisunent ? Did it take no
P • of cinr,pginn• •, •
step ? Did it take no =teens I,s opinion o: the
enormity of the offence? Why, sir, the House of Commous
suet and suldresssd the Throne—the Wnistry introduced
bill which rendered the crime of attempting to assassinate or
even to assault, a Privy Couecillor felony. (Hear, hear.) As
regards the present case, it is useless fee me to attempt to
detain the house with my expressions of eprobation of a
crime which has been so eloquently denounced by members
who preceded me—it is a crime welch has a ways been
viewed in this. eenntry with feelings of peculiar horror.
(Hear, hear.) But the state of the ease is that a great crime
has bceu attempted to be perpetrated against a- Sovereign
with whom vre aeo at this moment on :ernes of friendly and
intimate alliance. Without giving any opinion up en the
principle of the measure, it is said to be unreasonable, where
the safety of the person of one of the most friendly and pow-
erful of our allies is concerned, that his life should be thought
of less interest to Parliament than that of a British Minister.
All the circumstances connected with the attack .on the Em-
peror of the French would, of course, excite- the sympathy
and demand the good feeling of this- country and of Parlia-
ment. (Hear.) There can be no question but that during
the last five years we have found in the Emperor of the French
a constant and tried allye--(hear, hear
)—not merely an ally
using fine phrases 11,,,d specious assurances, but an ally
whose fidelity was well proved, and on whose constancy we
might depend. (Cheers.) Therefore, on the first blush 91
the question, the fact thatsetrikee us is that au attempt
has been made on a great scale.to assassinate the Emperor
of the French, an attempt which showed very considerable
orgauisation, and that plan was formed and matured in our own
country. (No, no,and Hear, hear.) Well, I don't wish to enter
into the details of this subject, but real:y what I state is a mat-
ter of notoriety, that sour; of the principal agents framed and
designed their plans in this country. These, I say, ace cir-
cumstances which, though they do not justifyany attempt to
invade or destroy the right of asylum, yet do justify the house
in exhibiting considerable sympathy with the Emperor of the
French. If no other circumstances had happened--if no other
matters wore before us, but that a greatand most Criminal at-
tempt had been made on the life of the ruler of France, and if
under such circumstances, an appeal had been made to the
Government of England for our support in the dangerous po-
sition in which the Emperor of the French found himself, I
believe the universal expression of feeling would be that such
an appeal, with due regard to our own rights and privi-
leges, should bo treated with the utmost respect. But I
frankly and fully admit that much has happened since the
attempt at perpetrating this enormous crime which has dashed
that feeling, and disturbed the genorousand natural emotions
of the people and Parliament, and have embroiled this ques-
tion with considerations which could not have been antici-
' pated, and which I would not dealfrankly with the house if I
did not say were mostdistressing andembarrassing. (Hear.)
I am not here to defend or palliate any circumstances which
have been so severely, but so justly, animadverted upon in
the course of this debate. I do not think that despatch of
Count Walewski's (though it has found a defender in an hon.
friend of mine) is, written with that tact, temper, and good
sense which generally characterise his lucubrations. I am
bound to admit that that despatch was an unfortunate des-
patch. I do not wish to deny fpr a moment that the observa-
tions of some of the colonels were the height of impertinence
(Laughter.) I thiuk that the introduction of those observations
into the authentic and authoritativejournal of the empire was
an act of signal indiscretion. But after the despatch which
has been read by the Secretary of State this evening, I am
not inclined to dwell as much as I otherwise should upon
these matters. We all know iu private life, however excited
our feelings may be when misunderstanding arises, however
warm our expressions, and however indignant our feelings,
that the moment a gentleman says that he regrets the offen-
sive expressions made use of, we forget the offence--(hear,
hear) --and if this is done with a good grace and n it in a
churlish mood, very often the feeling which succeeds is one
of greater cordiality than that which preceded the misinider-
standing. (Hear.) Now, sir, I must say that that expres-
sion of regret on the part of
the Emperor of the French was
a frank and f.. 11 one—(ch ) eers —and I do not think tort it
becomes us after that to remember with too much severity
those incidents to which I have referred. If I refer to them,
if I dwell upon their unfortunate occurrence, it is simply that
I may induce hon. gentlemen, before they come to any deci-
sion upon this very important subject, to recollect that what
has 'occurred recently within these few clays or weeks in
France, which has excited so much unfortunate feeling in
his country, end h .e I believe creailsel so much mieapprehen-
sion, has not been, peculiar to this country only; but there
are other countries, great even. as England, and with power
as great even as those who hold sway in these highly favoured

isles, who have sometimes been subjected to annoyance
equally flagrant, but who have exhibited great good feeling
—great forbearance—and have not allowed these occurrences
to disturb the amicable courts of dealing between the two
countries. (Cheers.) I cannot help recollecting that it is
exactly five years ago this very month of February—l be-
lieve, by a singular coincidence, this very night in February,
1853—that it was my duty to submit a motion to the House
of Commons, the object of which was to call the attention
of the house to the state of the relations subsisting
between France ant Eagland. That motion was brought
forward in consequence of expressiens having been
made, and a line of conduct having been assumed,
by great personages in this country, which, in my opi-
nion, and in the general °Onion of Europe, were calcu-
lated to destroy the good feeling which we have always con-
sid,red—(louci cheers)—it was a cardinal point of volley to
cherish and maintain between England and France. I recur
to these recollections because I see the beneficial influence
which memory may exercise over hon. gentleoien who ave
mode these indignant speeches, if. they will only recollect what
has sassed, what happened in 18:7:3 under a c;overeraeut of
which the noble lord who has just spoke e and who feels such
humiliation at even voting in support of the bill, was an emi-
neat member, and, indeed, I believe, the leader in this house ?
Why, sir, you had statesmen of England, the mist eminent,
denouncing the Emperor of the French as a tyrant, and
usurper, and despot. (Loud cheers.) You had then a Cabi-
net Minister quitting the Cabinet, and hastening to the has
tines to amuse his constituency by depicting the dangers of
their country from the impending piratical invasion of the
French people. (Laughter and oheere.) You had a Cabinet
Minister saying to his constituency, "What protection have
you for wives and daughters with such an alliance as the
French—with such an ally as the Emperor of France ?"
(leenghter and cheers.) I had to bring these circumstiteces,
and many similar ones, before the considera ion of this house,
because I felt that, if announced by this house, they were
calculated to seriously impair, if not destroy, the relations—
the amicable relations—which subsisted between the two
countries. And what did we see ? We witnessed, in cense.
quence of that debate, the gratifying exhibition of statesman
after statesman, Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister,
apologising for the offensive expressions they had used
towards the Emperor of the French. (Laughter and cheers.)
That was a very salutary spectacle. (Hear.) It did a great
deal of good. It conduced to the maintenance of the peace
of Europe ; and it conduced to the maintenance of the peace
of Europe only because the French Emperor was a forgiving
and forbearing man. Were the statesmen of England less
offensive in tiler observations than the colonels of France to
us? (Cheers) If the Empe: or of the French and the French
nation could endure those insults of English Cabinet
Ministers, I really think that the people of England- cem
pocket the insults of the French colonels. (Loud laughter
and cheers.) I will now, in two or three sentences, explain
the course which I feel it my duty to take in reference to this
projected measure, and the general subject before us. I think
it necessary for us to take a large view of this question. What
we have to consider are the relative positions of England and
France. The alliance between the two countries has, under
different forms of Government, and with various degrees of
feeling, subsisted now for upwards of a quarter of a century.
At no period has it been warmer, at no period has it been
more effective, than under the present dynesty, and during
the last five years especially. We fought side by side with
the French in a war of almost unexampled severity—we have
combined with the French people in the management of im-
portant affairs—our councils have been united, notwithstand-
ing national prejudices which undoubtedly exist ; and every
Court in Euebpe, as well in Asia and America, have felt the
influence of our united councils. I believe it is true when I
say that I think the feeling of the reat mass of the English
people is a genuine and cordial feeling. (Cheers.) I thi .k
the great body of the people look to the French people with
a feeling of sincere friendship. On occasions like the pre-
sent, when it is necessary to speak without disguise, I am
bound to say, so far asl canobserve, although there aro many
eminent persons in Franco, although there are many influen-
tial classes in France favourable, and highly favourable, to
what is called English alliance ; and although I think a ten-
dency. slight, butcordial, tendency of feeling throughout the
French Empire increases its favour towards the people of this
country, yet I am bound to admit that I do not think thaa
ou the part of the great body of the French pee ale there is
that reciprocity of sentiment with the people of this country
—there is not that similarity of feeling which we extend to
them. (Cheers.) Now, under these circumstances, what is
the position of the ruler of that country, who has the good
sense to feel that an alliance between England and, France
is a policy eminently calculated for the welfare of his
own country ? What difficulties he has to encounter. Wo
must remember that, although he may from his personal ex-
perience, from the character of his mind, from a thousand ia-
fluencee which operate neon a persen of ids elevated intellect
in his elevated aosition—althouge he may arrive at a co e ic-
tion that the maintenance of an alliance between the tw
countries is eminently conducive to the welfare of that France
which lie governs, still he is the ehief representative of those
feelings and that policy; and although in prosperous times,
and in moments of prolonged tranquillity, he may, by his
commanding abilities, be able successfully to manage the
affairs between the two countries, and to cherish and increase
that good feeling which pervales France, yet, in moments of
pu )lie excitement, when the minds of the people are agitate I,
it is clear that the position of the present ruler must be one of
immense delicacy. (Hear.) And he comes, the faithful and
generous ally of this Country—(hear, hear)—he comes, not
with threats, although he may have acted with some appear-
ance of passion ; but he can well afford to act in such a man-
ner who can afford to 1:1114:(e the noble apology which we have
just heard. The Emperor of the French on these recurring
moments of difficulty, this generous and faithful ally, comes
to the Government of this country and says do not dis-
guise the difficulties of your position, but assist me consist
ently witk your laws and rights ; I have lived too long in yo ;r
country not to know that no Britith. Minister dare to whisper
a project for introducing a measure by which your laws and
privileges might ba violated. But aid me at this moment ;
show to France, when all these hostile factions are raising
their heads and jeering me with the British alliance, on which.
I have been building my policy, show them that my confl-
dence-has not been misplaced. I think under these circum-
stances it was the duty of the Government to respond to that
appeal, and not to lend a deaf ear to such an appeal to this
country: I feel that there is nothing unceneiliatory in sup-
porting any Government iu any effort which they make to
continue the alliance between England and France, which is
the key and corner stone of modern civilisation. As to the
way in which the Government have attempted to carry that
Folicy into effect, that is altogether another question. It
is difficult to conceive what they may have cont-mplat d
themselves—what object they proposed, and what were the
meens by which they intended to carry that object into effect.
The noble lord the member for London (Lord J. Russet)
speaks of this country being disgraced,and the Parliament as
dishonoured, if they accede to the demand of the French
Emperor, because it has been urged by a threat. Why, we
have not acceded 'to the demand of the French Emperor.
All that has been demanded has been flatly refused, if indeed
the French Emperor is to be held responsible for the unfor-
tunate despatch of his Secretary of State. For, indeed, the
demand insisted ou by Count Wale ',ski cannot bei listeued to ;
at the firstblushit was swept off from out of the ma crisis of
public coun-el, and that is he best a ewer to the sneer and
taunt of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell). We are to do
nothing udder a threat, because all that has been demanded
has been refused. What we are to do is anothe- question.
I admit. I make a full and frank admissi n, that a proeosition
less satisfactory never appears to me to have b en made by a
British Minister than the o e which is now on your table.
(Hear, he ne and laughter.) The English Minister should
have been iu a position to show !hat the ruler of France had
placed before him a statem nt of his grievances in the form of
a State paper ; the English Minister should have answered
that despatch in the free and logical characters of Canning ;
that despatch and the answee should have been placed on
your table, combie ed. with sonic glowing expression of sym-
pathy with our faithful ally. That is what we expected
The Minister who missed that opportunity missed a great
occasion. If he had placed Count Walewski's desp itch, and
an answer worthy f lt, on this table we should have felt eo
difficulty as to the course we ought to tak ; rite L elilege ;le
tone between the trio nations would hie, eintaned
a temper suet us is hig:dy desirable, ai,d that, nle
have been the key-note between the two coantriee. Perliametit
would have then come down and have gi yea to the Fienice
Enincror wh,:t he wants;--- end r quires us,ustr,tion in te;
face of Europe to the French people, misled by calumniatory
statements, wide should leave i,ecn en avowed and livimeg e
..
evi-
dence of the respect and sympathy of th Peril mene of Tug
land. Nothiicg of this kind has been dere', and all that is pro.
'weed now ton is to cobble tai the pole! laws f Ireland.
cute
te retrograde witti respect to the erilaiiial r :;iii.
cannot suppose that any such
,proposition could give isfee
tiou to the Einp.ator of t 0 Frenc e Our object oue!it to iele e
been to give him honourable setisfaction. With regard to the
reflections and criticisms which leave been made on the policy
pursued by the French Emperor, these are details into whieh
we cannot enter. When a man has been elected by millions of
that country, he is above petty criticisms. If indeed he were
a tyrant dependent upon faction and supported only by prae-
torians, those criticisms might do him injury ; but the man
who has appealed again and again to the people, who have
ratified their decision by millions, has nothing to fear from
such criticisms as these. What the French Emperor required
was a demonstration which would have cleared him from the
misconceptions which have unfortunately boon engendered in
Trance. I cannot conoeive that such a bill as has been pro-
pos d will et all tend to that most desirab e consequence ;
but so far as I am concerned I feel most fully that in this un-
fortunate position this opportunity has been mismanaged by
the Government so as to alarm Eagland, aid not to please
France. (Hear, hear.) I cannot think that we should take
any course which might have the efthct of prolonging miscon-
ception, because we disapprove of the feeble and clumsy
manner in which Government have used it. Therefore, I will
vote for leave to bring in this bill, but I do not thereby pledge
myself to support it in any of its future stages, although
I will listen to such arguments as are offered to convince
me, as I am not convinced yet, that this is the measure
required by the crisis. Because I am desirous of convincing
the French people, irritated and exasperated by the atrocity
attempted in their metropolis upon the Emperor, that there
is in the British Parliament a noble and generous sympathy
with them, I vote for the leave to bring in this bill which is
asked ; but I give that vote because I think I can do so con-
sistently with the laws of England and the privileges of the
Englishman. Olkeerej
Mr. S. HERBERT, having adverted to the change which a
few days had wrought in this country of the Emperor of the
French, and to the causes of the irriattion against his Go-
vernment, observed, that before he came to an ultimate de-
cision upon this measure he wanted information. He wished
to know, among other things, what was the real state of the
law ; whether it was true or not that the existing law was
sufficient to reach aliens conspiring here against ali,ns abroad;
whether it was the practice of the English Governmeet, when
it received information from our police, to give n ,tice to that
of France ; and what would be the effect of converting a mis-
demeanour into a felony upon the powers of the police. He
did not refuse to entertain the measure, and he should be
ready, after due deliberation, to express his opinion of its
merits on the second reading.
Lord PALMERSTON said--Sir, I have heard in the coutso
of this discussion some arguments against the proposal of her
Majesty's Government which I scarcely expected to have
heard iu the quarter from which they came. We have been
told by one gentleman on the other side of the house that we
should give the answer of the Barons— " Nolumus loges
Anglia; mntari." We have been told by my noble friend bee
hind me, who I always imagined claimed to be a reformer of
the law, that we ought to stand by the ancient law of the
country, and because this offence of conspiracy for a long
course of time has been simply a misdemeanour we ought to
refuse to apply the grave entnishiam t attaching to felony. I
trust the house will dismiss from their minds arguments
founded upon such principles as these. We aro told, on the
other hand, that there aro statements made on the part of
the Government and people of France which are so offensive
and so contrary to truth that on that account we ought to de-
cline to take this measure into consideration. Hon. members
have taken groat offence at the assertion made on the part of
France that this country has been a harbour for assassins and
conspirators, Sir, I am concerned to say that in point of fac'
that which has recently passed prevents our meeting that
assertion with refutation. It is not tree that the people or
the (Imminent of England intentionally encourage or liar.

hour men capable of committing this crime, but unfertunitely
it is a fact that men have plotted crime, iu England and from
England have issued for their perpetration. When we are told
by the right how. gentleman and others that we ought to
have answered that despatch of Count Walowski with an in-,
dignaut refutation I say, nufortrinately facts prevented our
making that indignant refutation, It is impossible to deny that
which the right hon. gentleman the member fur Bock' ngham-
shire statel. It is notorious to all the world that this last con-
spiracy, at all events, was hatched in England, and that the
instruments by which it was to be accomplished were fabri-
cated in this country,--not accidentally, as I heard one hon.
gentleman say,—but decidedly for a purpose previously con-
ceived ; and that the persons to execute the plan had not
as tlo right lion. gentleman who spoke last says, passed a
considerable tittle beforehand in Franco, but had i,sued quite
recently from this country, for the purpose of commit tin 4 the
crime of which they are euilty, nofortunate stai:o of
things naturally and ni.cesstrily led the Gorr, wawa of this
country to consider tine state of the law, and even before we
had received any application from the Government of France
we CIOCILI6,I it our duty to LIIIII our minds to a serious conei-
' derstion of the evil. If any measare can bo as cfloctual
remely there were but two modes of treatment. One mode
would have been to have ',course to legislation which existed
at previous periods and for a limited time with regard to aliens
by which the Government had the power of expelling per ous
suspected to bo dangerous to the Government and welfare of
this country, ant beyond that to have asked Parliament to
give the Government power to expei persons supposed to be
dangerous to the sa)v..rnineat of other countries. That would,
indeed, have been a course to which Parliament and the
country would not have listened for n moment. It would
have been obviously ineffectual for the purpose, inasmuch as
you could rarely have !hat degree of suspicion of the crime
intended which would justify you in removing the persons
accused. If wo had had such a power upon the present oc-
casion it would not have enabled us to prevent the crime, be-
cause no suspicion attached to the pe sons who were the per-
petrators or the instigators of the deplorable act which has
given rise to these discussions. If it were not possible to
have recourse to a measure which would enable you to pre-
vent crimes of this kind by the previous removal of persons
suspected to have the intention of committing them, the only
other course was to increase the punishment which was
attached to the commission of the crime, and thus to ..n-
-deavour to increase the motives which would deter men
from entering into these conspiracies. The noble lord
behind me tells us that this bill would be ineffectual,
because the severity of punishment does not deter from
offences ; on the contrary, according to his re tsoning, the
relaxation of punishment is the motive by which you deter
men from Grime. My noble frienC.'s argument is a plagiarism
of the old rhyme. He thinks that punishment
" Is great because it is so small,"
and his reasoning leads to the following conclusion,
" Then 't w'd be greater if 't were none at all."

(Laughter.) That argument is not founded upon reason, nor
upon the experience of mankind. We know that too severe
punishments fail, not from the iasuflicioney of the motives
whieh they afford to deter men from crime, but from the dif-
ficulty to persuade juries to convict persons of crime, and
thereby subject them to a punishment which they V.ink is
beyond its deserts. That is the only reason of their failure. I
hold my noble friend to be entirely wrong is saying that by
raising the crime of conspiracy from a misderacanous to a
felony we shall not add to the motives which may deter men
from entering into such criminal projects as conspiracies to
murder. It is idle to say that greater severity of punishment
has not altogether put an cud to crimes. If the argument
were admi.ted thet because a punishment had not in
put an end to the commission of the crime against which it is
aimed, therefore the punishment is useless, there ought to ee
an end of all penal laws. What pu ishment whet penal law
is there which has ov r succeeded in entirely extinguishing
the crim against which it was directed t All sou can hope
from penal legislation is to create greater deterring metite
iu the minds of men who may be led to the co eoniseioa f
crimes, but to imagine that there will not be men who from
reckless passi..n, vam hope of impunity, or some other exeuse
will ho led to commit any crime evl atever is to imagine that
widen is totally opposed to the whole course of human expe-
rience. Tee se Tercet punishment does not prevent the com-
mission of murder, and you might as well argue that because
murders continue iuspiteof that severe pueiehmeut, we ought
to dismiss punishment altogether, and leave mankind simply
to the influence and the mural teaching of those who may
endeavour to guide them in the paths of virtue. therefor:
there is no force whatever in the argument that to
inflict a severe penalty on the offence of conspiracy
is not calculated to render the coareissien of the (entice
less likely. There are two views ie. which this measure may
be regar'tel,• -first as an imp evement iu ou, own law without
regard t 4 ny extern 1 considerate ns, and nexs as a measure
calculated to prevent, as far -s we can, the commission of a
great crime—of a crime which would be highly injurious to
the 'nterests of the ountry, and would inflict a deep et :in
on its honour a d character. No man can deny that there is
great advantage in aseimilatiez the law of the differeet p r
dons of the united kingdom with regard to any particular
offence. As regards the Irish law, the right lion and leaf- e
gentleman opposite has argrie.l with great suecess 0,, the ad
vantage of reducing the penalty which is at present attache •
to this offence f conspiracy to commit murder, a-id the argu
meat is equally strong, on the other hand, teat it would he a
great advantage in Englaucl to raise the offence from a sirupl -
misdemeanour to a felony. In spite of the maxim of the
Berens, n spite of the new-bore attachment of my no le
friend eehincl me for our ancient laws the bill whi h we pro
pose to you, regarded on its own merits, is is great improve
ment ou the present law. It has been sail, if this is meseiy
a reform in the law why did you not make it part of th Con-
solidation Bills which are about to be laid before Parliament
But my hon. friend the Solicitor-General has we 1 explained
that this is a change, and not a consolidation of the law, and
that therefore it would not pr perly have a place in those
bills. The real ground upon w deli this measure rests is not
that it is an improvemen in the law of the country, but the
it is a measure-calculated to prevent the recurrence of a great
crime, the consequences of which would be injurious to the
best interests of the country, as well- as derogatory to its
honour. Is it to be wondered at that foreign nations should
look with irritation and with feelings of mistrust on this
country if they think that it harbours men who are here for
the purpose of plotting most diabolical o trages to be com-
mitted in their own ountry ? I should be sorry if anything
were proposed or adopted in this country which would inter-
fere in the slightest degree with that principle by which
the shores of England are open to political refugees of
every country. Whatever they may know, and what-
c er opinions they may hold with res cot to the Govern
went of their country, they ought to be allowed to come here
a el remain here, under the security of our laws, so long as
they continue to behave decently and do not commit an;
offence against the laws of this country or against the laws
of God and man. But it noels can be the wish of the Eug-
dab people that, under the pre'ience of enjoying security
ag dint dppressiun, men-should be allowed to be here plotting
°fleeces of the-deepest aye, and instigating others to commit
crimes involving other countries in scenes of bleodshed by
the assaasivation of those eho may be at the head of the Go-
vernment. And who are the persons against whom this bill
I,as been levelled 4 It Las been said by the hoe, member for
Pontefract that this bill will not sway the minds of those men
who, with mistaken views of patriotism and careless of their
lives, risk their existence for the accomplishment of such
dreadful designs. These are the criminals who are the actors
in these assassinations, who pay the forfeit of their lives whe-
ther they succeed Or fail. But the objects of this bill are
the cowards who stand behind like the person alluded to by
my noble friend in the case of the assassination of Collet
Rossi, who urged on those who w- re to commit the crime,
but himself remained behind. (Hear.) These ate the men
against whom this bill is levelled, and with regard to them
I have yet to learn that this bill will not furnish motives
to deter them from the commission of such offences. It
is quite true that when you have awarded the punish-
ment it remains in each case to obtain the evidence by
which the commission of the offence is to be proved.
ear, 1-ear.) That, undoubtedly; is a difficulty hi all
three cases, tut it is neither greater nor less iu
the ease of a e isdemeasuour than iu that of a felony. Tile
advantage of the measure which wo propose is that if you
get that evidence, if you are enabled at any future time to
convict any individuals of the Grime of conspiracy to com-
mit murder, or of instigating others to commit it, there
-ill be a severe punishment inflietod on them, which no
man can contemplate without dread and apprehension.
I Lose who have spoken iu this debate have drawn the at-
S,eition of the house to the great and important question of
cur rel ,tions with our neighbours in Frauce. Sir, it is in
vain to disguise that that no doubt is, and must be, a main
edement in the consideration of the measure which is now
- before the house. We have not yielded to thieat or in-
timidation. The very arguments which have bees used in
the course of the debate negative that assertion. My noble
friend objected to the bill that it did not accomplish what
the French Government asked. Then, if it does not do
that there is an end of the argument that the house Is
called en to yield to the threats of a foreign country. This
bill does not, undoubtedly, do that which is pointed out in
one portion of the despatch from Count Walweski—it does
not do that which the French Government declares that it
(lees not do itself in France—it does net infringe the prin-
ciple of hospitality to foreigners of a'l countries who seek a
refuge from the tyranny of their own Governments. (Hear.)
But the argument of those who say that we are not to do
that which in itself is right because. forsooth, it is asked for
and expected by others, is the very argument by which every
tyrannical Government refuses to make any concessions to its
subjects. (Herr, hear.) When discontent prevails, and it is
pointed out that certain improvements in their system would
remove that discontent. those Governments ray, '• No ; it
would be undignified—it would be unworthy of our pcsition—
to make concessions when demands are made ; let us wait
until nobody wants anything, and then we may, perhaps, in
our generosity and discretion do it (Hear, hear.) Such is
the argument that is used now. We are told that it may
be right that we should take some precautions, so far as
they are consistent with our constitution, to prevent the
commission of diabolical crimes abroad which are hatched in
this country ; but we are asked to do it now by a foreign
Government, and therefore we will not do that which in itself
it would be perfectly tie ht to do on another occasion That,
sir, is not an argument which can be listened to seriously—we
have interests of too much magnitude at stake to allow us to
listen to reasoning of that kind. We have our own honour
and character in the first place to maintain, and I say that
it would be disgraceful to the English nation if, knowing
that these crimes arc the result of conspiracies hatched
here, we were to refuse to stamp them with the mark of
our condemnation by a new law which would be applicable
to the case. (Hear, hear.) As far, then, as regards our
own honour and character, I think that the country is
bound to take some step to show to the world—not• by
speeches or by flaming and magnificent despatches, such
as the right hon. member for Bucks would have had us
write, but by some certain action—the detestation which
Parliament and the country entertain of crimes of this kind,
and their desire to do that which is consistent with the law
and constitution of the realm for the purpose of preventing
their repetition. I certainly do lament--as many others
who have spoken lamented—that expressions have been used
in the course of this debate, in regard to the Emperor of the
French, which I think even those who used them must upon
reflection regret. (Hear, hear.) We have only to look upon
the Emperor of the French in that character in which he has
been so eloqneutly described by the right hon. member for
Buckinghamshiti, as a steady and faithful ally of this country
---as a Sovereign who, placed at the head of a great nation by
the will of that nation, has, as far as the interests of his
country are concerned, at least this to say, that it is in
a state of as great internal material prosperity as was
over know' in France before—we have only to look at
him, I say, is that character, to make us regret that thcc
expressions have been used. (Hear, hear) We have no
right to inquire into the system of administration which
the people of Franco are willing to submit to ; we look upon
the Emperor of the French as the organ of a great
friendly nation; we have been allied to France of late years
in war and in peace, and we have found the Emperor steady
and faithful, constant and true. (Hear.) We have found
him consulting, in the first instance, the honour and inte-
rests and dignity of his own country, at the same time that
he made a due regard to those ends coincident with fidelity
to his alliance with England, and showed how deeply ho was
persuaded of the great truth, that it was fo,. the imnortant
boactit of both couutri a that that alliance should continue,
since it not only conferred immense benefits on the two
upstios, but afforded the vest eecurity for the maintenance