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

menacing expressions, and he should have liked to have
seen them withdrawn as for formally as they were used.
He could not but honour those who were exquisitely
sensitive upon this subject, because the asylum which
we offered to the victims of misery and persecution had
always been a sore point with despotic countries, and he
was anxious that we should not in the slightest degree
diminish the freedom of the reception which we offered
to such persons. He was no enemy to the Government
of the noble viscount, but be implored him to consider
the position in which he was placing himself. He did
not know what course would be adopted by hon. and
right hon. gentlemen either on that or the other side of
the house, but he hoped the result of the debate would
show that they stilt retained those independent feelings
and that love of England which bad led theirconstituents
to place them in that distinguished assembly. He also
honed that the noble lord would take wise counsel with
himself, and would not obstinately adhere to the precipi-
tate determination which had led him to propose this
prematurs lisegslation—a legislation which, if assented to,
would be but a dead letter, and would afford no prece-
dent for future times. He would not repeat tho painful,
the disgusting expressions which had appeared in the
Monifeur, but ho could not abstain from reminding the
house of the words of Edward 111., who once said to his
Parliament, "I have received a blow in the face, and all
Europe is looking on to see how I bear it," and then
declared war. He did not say that any such case had
arisen here—God forbid ; but the appearance of such
documents in the Moniteur was enough to arouse the
self-love and alarm the patriotism of every person in the
country, especially-when ho found them acted upon so
suddenly by the Government of her Majesty. He most
earnestly supplicated the noble viscount opposite not to
let any false pride prevent him yielding to the manly
sense of duty which actuated him upon all occasions.
Let him not unnecessarily peril the popularity which he
had,hitherto enjoyed; but let him, by showing an en
lightened deference to the preblicly expressed desire of
the country through its free press and its free represen-
tatives, retain that place in the estimation of the people
which be was in danger of losing by his present most
unwise attempt at legislation. (Cheers.)
Sir G. GREY.—I hope in the few observations which
I shad deem it my duty to address to the house upon
the question now submitted for its consideration I shall
not depart !rem that calm and temperate tone which I
am happy to say has characterised the discussion of this
bill hitherto, and which cannot fail to give weight and
authority to whatever decision the hcuse may be pleased
to come to. (than) Before I advert to some of the
objections which have been made to the motion of Ley
noble friend at the head of the Government, I may bo
allowed to express the satisfaction which I feel that,
while there has been in Parliament and throughout the
country the utmost abhorrence of the crime which has
lately been attempted against the life of the Emperor of
the French, there has been at the same time a sentiment
expressed in entire unison with that which is sincerely,
professed to be entertained and acted upon by her Ma-
jesty's Government, not to infringe in the slightest
degree that sacred right of asylum which it is the proud
boast of this country to offer to every political refugee,
of whatever shade of political opinion, fleeing from per-
secution in the laud of his Wirth and residence. (Cheers.)
The hor. and learned gentleman has alluded to some
expressions in the despatch of Count Walewski which
he understands as implying a desire to interfere with
right of asylum, and to compel Parliament to pass a law
for sending refugees out of this country without public
trial, without conviction of any offence, on mere sus-
picion, or on grounds of what may b r termed moral
conviction. If those expressions bore the meaning
Attributed to them by the hon. and learned gentleman,
I can only say that her Majesty's Government has not
for one rnome: t entertained any such proposition, or
given the slightest hope in any quarter that such a
demand would be complied with. (Cheers.) I may
also be allowed to expressed, if I may do so without
irregularity, the sincere satisfaction with which I have
perceived that the distinguished leader in another place
of the party whom I see opposite has expressed in his
own eloquent language, which few can rival, senti-
ments in entire accordance with the opinions pro-
fessed by her Majesty's Government. (Hear.) The
objections which have been urged to the proposition
before the house, as has been well stated by the hon. and

[earned member-for Sheffield, revolve themse!ves intotwo

classes, the one directed against the enactments of the
bill itself, and the other and main class against the time
when this proposition is made. With respect to the bill
itself, let me recall the attention of the house to the
circumetaaces under which her Majesty's Government
have felt it their duty to introduce it. A crime has been
attempted in France which, although the judicial process
may not be yet complete, is a matternf general notoriety,
and which no one can doubt has been Attempted to he
oommitted, whatever doubts may be entertained—and
doubt must be entertained till after trial atel'etsfiviction
—with respect to the individuals implicated in it. I
regret to say it is equally certain that that crime, though
perpetrated on the soil of France, whore its intended
victim was sure to be found, has been the result of de-
signs formed in this country, of meaenres taken in this
ceuntry, of plansconoocted here by those who areenjoying
that right of asylum which we are happy and proud to
aff,rd them so long as they conform to our laws and
conduct themselves in obedience to the rules which govern
all persons residing in her Majesty's dominiees. Under
these circumstances our attention was naturally and
necessarily called, irrespective of any communication
from the French Government, to the state of the law
which was applicable to conspiracies of this nature. The
hon. and learned gentleman who spike last has referred
to a question which was addressed to me in 1851 by my
right hot, friend the member f .r Bute, with respect to
certain allegations then made regarding the designs and
conspiracies of foreign refugees residing in this country,
and to the answer which I gave to that question. That
case was wholly different and distinct from the present.
It related to revolutionary (foetus concocted here with
a view to subvert the existing Governtinnts in Lreign
countries, end to establish forms of government more
in accordance with the epinions of those who
proposed to carry the plots int, execution ; and the
answer which ',gave had no reference whatever to at-
tempts at the assassination of individuals. (Cheers.) I
then stated what I now repeat, that I believe our laws
are amply sufficient to prevent foreigners residing in this
country from taking means in this country from levying
war on other nations, inasmuch ae, in addition to the
common law, there are statutes existing by which spe-
cific penalties against these who shall adopt measures
here for levying war against any Power in amity with
our Sovereign. Bat what is the case now ? There is an
attempt, not to subvert a Government, but to destroy
the life of an irlivideal—an atttinpt which, although
providentially not successful—against the person chiefly
aimed at, yet unhappily was successful against many
innocent people whose lives were sacrificed by those who
seem to be utterly regardless of human suffering pro-
vided tbny gratify their vindictive feelings against any
one whom they may course to regard al their enemy.
(Hear, hear.) Will any hon. gentleman deny that this
is a crime of the greatest svrooity ? (Loud cheers.)
The house ought to recollect, moreover, that we
are not seeking to deal with the men who
actually perpetrate such crimes, but with the men who
in comparative safety plot them iu this country —with
men who do not risk their own lives in attempting to
carry their designs into execution, but who instigate and
hire assassins to do that which they are too cowardly to
undertake themselves—(cheers)—that is the class of
persons against whom we think that additional precau-
tion ought to be taken, in order to deter them from
committing crimes which I believe every living English-
man abhors and condemns from the bottom of his heart.
(Cheers.) On looking into the law upon this subject,
what did we find ? Here let me make ono observation
with reference to remarks that have been made in the
course of this debate as it this question had been settled
by a declaration—entitled, I admit, to the utmost
respect—uttered elsewhere by the Lord Chief Jus-
tice, to the effect, as has been assumed, that the
low in its present state is amply sufficient to meet
all cases of this kind. (Hear, hear.) Let me first
protest against the doctrine—entirely new in this house
—that sey lawyer, however eminent, any judge, how-
ever high his position or great his learning, is to be
taken as an unimpeachable authority as to the sufficiency
of any law to meet the objects which it is intended to
serve. The judges are the proper persons to determine
judicially, after argument, what is the law of the litod,
how it can be unforced, and what the penalty is which is
attachable to any crime ; but I demur altogether to
unconstitutionel doctrine that they are to dictate toan
Par-
liament an opinion with regard to the sufficiencypnorf oe
posey
law for the accomplishment of aceerateani
one which
(Cheers.) Such, lam sure, was not the
but such is the weaning f
the Lord Chief Justice made his observationsas boe n a
attached to
l bound to protest
them in this house, and thereforehe
eued es to determine
against it. It is competent to t.
whet.
shdeer
ecnonnos conspiracy
nto o
omurdernowill ndtehnjiys
thatcountry a isspoi
rr
ai
es
yn
to
am
murder a person in this country is a misdemeanour
punishable according to common law. The judges
are also competent to decide the question whether a
conspiracy by subjects of her Majesty in this country to
commit in a foreign country what according to the law
of England would be murder, is a misdemeanour, and
upon that point likewise no doubt can be entertained by
any one acquainted with our criminal code. Advancing
a step further, the judges are competent to determine
whether a conspiracy by aliens in this country to murder
another alien in a foreign country is a misdemeanour
cognisable by our eourte, an indictable offence at common
law, subjecting the parties concerned to the same penal-
ticsi‘la easstyi ft
oi t
murderbad beenan
oat
her
o f conspiracyher Majesty'ssubjects
of
subjectsher
either in this or in a foreign country. Upon that question
I um erstand, from the ordinary sources of information, a
decided opinion has been expressed elsewhere by the
distinguished judge to whom I have already referred, and
to that opinion of course I bow with the most respectful
deference, although I believe I am right in saying that
no decision of the courts has ever gone that length, and
that there are many learned and eminent lawyers who,
before tne opinion in question was pronounced, enter-
tained great doubts whether a conspiracy by aliens in
this country to murder another alien in a foreign coun-
try, which is: the case that has actually occurred, was
an cffence punishable by our laws. If, therefore, the