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

Ministers, but by the representative of France in this coun-
-4 gentleman well able to appreciate the force of public)
feeling here, quick to observe, and faithful to submit his
opinions 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 justly, by the
English public with retard to these addresses, accounted
for the insertion of such addresses in the _lfoniteur, and
expressed their regret and the regret of the Emperor him-
self at their publication. (Some cries of Where ?
wb"re ?") The argument as to time founded upon these
addressees appears to me wholly to fail, unless it can be
shown that the amendment or alteration of the law which
we propose is itself objectionable, or unless it can be main-
tai ued that the law as it at present stands is sufficient to
deter from the commission of these offences; and unless we
can with a safe conscience assure foreign Governments that
the law is strong enough to accomplish the object we desire
s
Walewski,
expressing effect. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite
expressed a hope that the despatch of Count h
expressing the regret of the Emperor, which was referred
r
to last night by my noble friend, will be laid before ali
went. I can assure the hen. gentleman but as it is a
;n that that des-
patch will be laid before Parliament at once
abort document perhaps the House will perm it me now to
read a translation of it. (Hear-) It is a despatch to Count
Walewsli to Count Tersigny, dated "Purls, Feb. 6,
1855," and in these terms :
"M. le Comte,—The account you gave me of the effect
pro 1 d in England by the insertion in the Moaiteur of
certain addresses from the army has not escaped my atten-
tion, and I have made a report of it tdithe Emperor. You
Ihr, aware of the sentiments by which we have been ieflu-
d in the steps we have adpted with Her Britannic
jejeesty's Government on the occasion of the attack of the
34th January, and of the care we hare taken, in applying
for its concurrence, to avoid everything that could bear the
Appearance of pressure on our part. All our communica-
ei•lns manifest our confidence in its sincerity (loyaute), and
our deference for the initiative being taken by it ; and if, in
the enthusiastic manifestations of the levotion of the army,
words have possibly oeen ieserted whi h have seemed in
Zugland to be characterised by a different sentiment, they
are too much opposed to the language which the Emperor's
Government has net ceased to hold to that of her Britannic
Ifajesty for it to be possible to attribute them t o anything
else than inadvertence caused by the number of those ad.
d resses. The Emperor enjoins you to say to Lord Clarendon
bow much he regrets it. (Loud cheeks from both sides of the
house.) I authorise you to give a copy of this despatch to the
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affeirs.
I think that letter or despatch, which I trust from the
cheers with which it has been received is satisfactory to
the house--(renerwed cheers)—shows that no 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
11 the Moniteur by what appear to have been acts of inad-
vertence on the part of the Government of France. (Soma
tries of " No, no.") I hope, for the reasons I have stated,
that the house 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 saki that the proposed bill could not be
nsideeed 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 resi ectful language. If the law required
amendment, and the bill had been introduced solely for
that object as a measure of law reform, why had it not
been includei 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, but one based on Count
Walewski's deapatcb; 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 eto that of Lord
Hawkesburyn in ln:13, ho enntenelen th bill wee nee re-
quired, and it alas the den. of Ler nieje.hye, uev ee.o-
ment to have first put the present law in force, and on
finding 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 persons 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 additioual 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 offences. This bill could not
setiefy France, and for this and other reasons he should
vote against its introduction. If, as the Rome 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
cede 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 be expected. He had no sym-
pathy for men who, seeking 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 b 3 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 informer.,
in a manner wholly opposed to 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, an 1 despatches of the
French Government ?
Mr. COLLIER would not support the measure if it was
intended to restrict our laws of hospitality ; out he did
not believe it would have any such effect. Was it an inter-
t ranee with any mae'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, but 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 objection
to see the law made uniform in the United Kingdom. But
he perceived great difficulty in bringing 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 bo
.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 difficulty which would exist in making the law
applicable, without introducing into our jurisprudence
priaciples 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 disposed
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 the, had re-
cently taken place in Penis. He caned upon hon. members
to place themselves for a moment in the position of the
people of France, an I suppose that a plot to onsasFinate the
illustrious lady on the throne had been as nearly carried
into execution as that which had endengered th r life of the
Emperor. In that case would not our remonstrances have
been very much stronger than the mill and temperate de-
man 1 made upon us in the despatch of Count Walewski ?
(Hear.) Thera could be ne doubt that our law respecting
the punishment of conspiracies of this kind required
amendment, and was it right that such amendments
should not be carried out, simply because they had been
tusked for by the French government, and because it was
supposed to be undignified for us to erant what was asked ?
The object of the present bill was not 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 conspiracy 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 hops.) 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
" whore the weary were at rest ;" and where he hoped it
- would yet be found, " the wicked ceased from troubling."
(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 ban been given to the house that the law of England
was inefficient 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 vapouring of the French colonels,
but he feared that the feeling throughout the country
would be that the bill which was now proposed had been
introduced in obedience to the dictation of a foreign
power. Theresult
toofpassing the bill would be to give
the greatest pleasure
distress to the friends all despotic States, and the utmost
of freedom and liberty in all parts
of the worn.
Mr. BENTINCK (Hear, hear,)
!IL no insult offered by any fo-
reign power was so great the
.insult of supposing that
we were prevented from lase ist.atang by their obaervetions.
It was absurd to say--ever) tune we found it neces
sary to alter our Alien
It
was we were violating the
principles of hospitality.
complimentary to
nabnootdun assassination were
the refugees to say that refugeeism
bounden duty to as-
la
convertible terms. It wan our
sist in forestalling such attempts as et
lately been made against the life of the Emperor,twhich had
conduct be praised in the highest terms. e whose
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said he felt it to
hi
duty to record his vote against the measure. The cb-
;;;"
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 count
ought to have learned to understand better the opinion of
the people of England on this subject cf the right of
• asylum than to suppose that we 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 been attempted, but no demand had ever been made
upon the Government of this country to alter their laws
right of asylum :n consequence of those
arrtsp.ect(ienegeset.r y was this indecent baste to legislate
on the subject displayed on the present occasion, even be-
fore the perpetrators of the climeha(li been put P•
The
demand t n their
ed. (Hear.)uh.e
trial, and either acquitted
or tondcin
demand of Count Walewski in his despatch amounted, in
fact, to the total abrogation of the right of asylum, an:l
this bill appeared to be on the face cf it a concession to
such a (L.:mai-FL No hon. Liviober could possibly- suptcse
that this Lill would be effucLive in putting a stop to such
times 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
carrying them into effect. He not only considered the bill
as perfectly inefficient for its purpose, but he could e.,• but
regard it as havingbeen 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
were deeirous of giving such a demonstration as would satisfy
t'ee 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 bo 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 of his subjects. He believed that the Govei n-
ment, so far from being weakened by the withdrawal of the
bill, on the contrary, he believed it would tend to strengthen
the present Government. It had been well said that assa--
sins never killed kings, but they often made them do very
foolish things. It was too true that assassination had been
mixed up I,l'l so much of the Italian annals, that even the
mind of the great Napoleon himself hat 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 bequeathing a legacy to the man,
who attempted to assasinate the late Duke of Wellington.
He regretted that he felt compelled to vote against the in-
troduction of the bill proposed by the nob:e 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
into 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. Lot 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 bring 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 iwpossible to avoid if we are fairly to dis-
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 edema opinions and expressious of
sentiment and opinion which cannot but be distasteful
to a great part of - the French nation. (Beer, 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 aro 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 requirothimprovement, and that
he is in favour of that which he considers to be an im: rove-
meat; and then ho 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 hon. 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 would be agreeable to the
Emperor of the French, But that is not the question be-
ta, ,ee t, roes. b It by rre tin; it f,r,vlr I in this manner
they confound two separate things. I wili, tuereture, en-
deavour to discuss these two separate things. But let me
say, in the first place, that I wish in this discussion to ob-
serve that respect which ii due to the ruler of France. He
has deserved well of England (hear, bear)--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.) But with regard to his govern-
ment
of France this is not the place to speak, nor am I, a
member of this house, the person to speak of it. For ray
part, when I find that this 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 b 3 which they are to be ruled, and tiaeinternal 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 could.be:proved 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 first piece, if it is an im-
' provernent of the law so urgently needed, how does it hap-
pen that her Medeety's Government have not, either at the
end of last session or in the notices which they have given
for this, made any mention of it? They ate about to intro-
duce a bill to consolidate the law relating to offeocea
against the person. They are careful of our legislation with
regard to deer and lamb, but with regard to this most im-
portant subject, the preservation of human life from con-
spiracy, they have been totally silent, and until thedespatch
of Count Walewski was received, there was no iutioaatioa
of any intention to amend the law. In tho 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 those offenders ought ti, 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
thecrime 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 Irelan 1 with regard to per-
eons who conspire to murder may not b 3 too severe; as to
the other matter, we have to consider how we are moat
likely to prevent the crime of conspiracy. For some hun-
dreds of years the offence ofeonspiring to mend -r 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, or that the law has net been suffici-
eat to protect all the subjects of the QueLn L wit Hawkes-
bury would have told us that a law which was found suffi-
cient for all subjects of Great Britain should not be 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 U 3 that in Ireland the law is dif-
ferent, and capital punishment isafaxed 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 shell 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 stresa on the nature of the evidence produced.
if a letter is shown or a conversation repeataJ, he will affix
a different sense to the words used , he will endeavour to
point out that they will not beer the construction put upon
them ; he will suggest for the consideration of the jury what
is the punishment affixed to the offence ; a d 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 that transportation for life would
be a consequence of their verdict. It does not fellow be-
cause the crime is a horrible one which ought to be p,-es-
vented that we shall prevent it by affixing to it a greater
punishment Lan before. It seems to me that the spirit
of the proposed enactment is contrary to the whole course
of that enlightened legislation which Sir Samuel Romilly
was the first to urge on this house, and which Sir Robert
Peel and others have since pursued. We all know that
in the time of George I. and 11., 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 he was kept in the house to make a house
I 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
from crime. Since then a safer doctrine has prevailed,
that a light punishment was more likely to ensure convic-
tion and prevent crime. I demur to the proposal as a ques-
tion of law reform, because it is doubtful whether it will
be efficacious. Let us new look to the nature of the crime,
and the persons by whom it is likely to be committed.
These conspiracies are often the work of persons who aro
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-
i litical. From the time of the murder of Henry PI. of
France, a deed which was extolled in magnificent-language
by the Jesuit Mariama, to the attempt on the life of Louis
XV. by Damiens, all these crimes were the effect of reli-
gious fanaticism, to which Henry IV. of Franco also fell a
victim ; but of late years, since the commencement of the
French Revolution, 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 iu 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 it is
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 do wn theirlivea. They all know
they expose them, for whether the attempt succeed or fail,
they who commit the crime are sure to perish by the hand
of tho 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
penal servitude ? I will give the house one or two instances
which, however, have nothing to do with France or this
French government. I have been told that the night
before the assassination of Count Rossi, the Minister of
Rome, some young men met at a club. luflamed with
their own oratory, they declaimed with the greatest vio-
lence against Rossi's tyranny and despotism. One of the
men there, the instigator of all the violence, said to tin of
them, "Although you speak very brave not one of you
would be prepared to take his life." The young men itn-
trZnky themthat youas Id
ea'rean d
readyssaid,
i d
to,
niediatelY said, " We are ready." The artful instigator
";aAkeftßero9havvainligfet,eiltd
would be
and the next toshrink."
first time to open th
the basest cowardice Arrangements were then
day,eies Count Rossi was going for the
surrounded by a party of
those Assembly, he was
the heart. This was the effect young men anal stabbed to
it possible
of the violent fanaticism of
been
thesen iyno
the
eg
leastm on ,
influenced and wag peseible they would have
one had stood ly and
against the life of an,ther :
tdoolclyotuhekuti;o—wyoyuouarNevici
will
conspiring irin ; any
condemned to penal servitude for
to which he would
life if you succeed ? The instanceotheri
who
a high situation in
gentleman holding
rer
Piedmontwas thatlast
oyfeaarg.
to preach assassination, declared thoatwtsas o"
of
thole said
had gone to him end proposed to assassinate man when young
bert, the King of Sardinia. Mazziei.
sitnxie
him Al.hardly worthy to commit such au action, but
ho was
Turin, lending him his own dagger. Was suchsent hialimtno
likely to be deterred by the fear of a penalty ? oe:thin—,
was certain, that what they really wanted was, not the-
punish:neat of the crime, but the detection. If these
men who lately went over to Paris to make the hor-
rible attempt could have been detected and brought
before an English court, naver mind what the pueish-
ni eat Was, whether two yews or twenty years their

purpose would have been defeated when owe they were
detected. What the French government want is, not
punishment but detection ; this bill will servo 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
question, that it is an amendment of the law asked for by
the government of Francs. In dealing with this question,
I fear I must 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 legisletlon 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 fear, sir, that calculation is
entirely wrong. What the French goy, rament want is to
put an end to those assemblages of fanatical politician in
London ; and that can only be done by sending them out
of the country before any crime is proved against them.
(Hear.) That, in fact, is the real question, and I will read
the passage from the despatch of Count Walewski already
referred to, to show the house that it is so. He says :
" It is no longer the hostility of misguided individnals,
manifesting itself by all the excesses of the press and all
the violence of language, it is no longer even the work of
the factious, seeking to rouse opinion and to prove dis-
erder ; it is assassination' elevated to doctrine, preached
openly, practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of
which has just 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
plans, and can it continue to shelter persons who, by their
fle,grant 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 every kind, the assassi-
nation of a foreign Sovereign, acrd 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,
t , anticipate such crimes, public notoriety would be suffi-
cient to set our laws in motion, ant measures of security
would be taken immediately." My right hon. friend, the
Home 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 in
1851, and why should it not be now ? Count Walewski
does not say—Why do not the Goiernment 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 century 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 Hayskeshury 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 I
assassination of the First Consul he was brought to trial
for doing so, for attempting to excite discussion with
a Pieed'e sine-. The then e tterene-nerersl nreed.
and Lord Eheuborough, the Cuief th13,,1e,, Lwid Lii.i.:, Lily
law was sufficient to meet every such case. The First Con
sul 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 regard to re-
fugees had been discussed and settled ; if peace had con-
tinued, Peltier would have been sentenced. All the tren-
sa.ctions took place in August ; it waif not until October
that the question arose with regard to Switzerland, which
led to the renewal 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, represented his client as a poor affiiste'd roan
who had to contend against the chief of the most powerful
military nation in the world. The Attce ney-Goneral, Mr.
Percival 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 he
should conduct that prosecution. Well, then, sir, with
regard to this matter on which M. Welewski and Count
Persigny have raised a question, there can be no doubt
whatever with respect to the law of England. That law
was enforced by Lord Hewkeshery • it was enforced by
Lord El'enborough ; it was consented to by all the authorie
tics of that time ; and the great men of that day, including
Mr. Pitt, Mr. Granville, and Mr. Fox, concurred in think-
iug 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 1 O 3 was
the foutulition 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 bad 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 rolations,with foreign states
by their reviling% and their libels, they should then be
liable to punishment according to the well-known and
established laws of England. (Ilear.) 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. (theats.)
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 hen cur of
Great. Britain, would have said, " We are not a nation
that protecti assassins, as seems to be supposed : the criino
of assassination is abhorrent to all our feelings ; we cannot
sufficiently condemn it; show us that these men hive been
preaching the doctrine of assassination, and we will bring
them before our courts of jaatice 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 the
continent that this country favours assassination, and
therefore ho brines 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 vet-
vieted by due course of law, then would have been the thee
to say, " We punish offences, but those offences must he
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. Whereas,
look at our position now. It is a position as regards
the future which I confess fills me witt considerable alarm.
(Cheers.) You do not propose to do that which the French
Government wish you to do ; that which, unhappily, is en-
forced by the threats of the military bodies whose ad-
dresses have been so inarlverently inserted in the .11oniteur.
(Hoar, hear.) You do net do this by any mans; but you
say that you will change the law, and thus in eke a decla-
ration of your sympathy with the French Government.
But look at the consequences. If you hail attempted to
alter the laws with regnel to aliens, if you had attempted
to give power to the Government of the day to send away
any aliens upon the representation of a foreign Minister,
you would then have roused the anger of the people of
England, and yon could not have earl led your measure.
If you had given a refusal—if you had said, " Ocr laws are
sufficient, and we will simply put 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 ilawkesbury, to which
I have previously referred. This measure seems to use an
exceedingly 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 mach
altered. f 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 new law. (Hear, hear.) What, then, would
happen ? The French Government would day, "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 insufficient; you must
see'syourselves that the object is not gained; you must there-
fore, look for other means.'z What could those " other
means" be ? They could only be means which would violate
that sacred right of asylum which the government 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 toad us was a
satisfactory one, has been a complete mockery. We have
no more security than we bad before, and wo now insist
upon some change that shall be sufficient for the purpose."
I own that I think it is a short-sighted wisdom that would
thus put off the evil clay. (near.) I think it would b 3 far
better wisdom to say at once, "This is no light question ;
it is no mere question of changing whathas bitheito been a
misdemeanour into a felony ; we tell you, in plain truth.
that the asylum which you call a ' den classassins' must
remain sacred; we do not mean to change our laws; hut
if any case can be pointed out in which those laws have
been violated, we will act as we have done for the last
half century ; we will act according to the principles which
have been known in England ever since 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 prcceeded 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
argument. (Hear.) I don't think they are strong as re-
gards France, whore dernends are rather evaded than cone-
pied with. (Bear.) I don't think they aro strong as
regards the people of this country, whose just expectations
seem to me destined to be disappointed. (Hear,] hear.)
Because, if Parliament were to pass this bill, and if here-
aft6r the d,-mend of which I have spoken were made,
tidheßooaa;tp,es,aetaoh:prztl,e of England would naturally say, " A demand
was made upon you by the French Government ; you
thethati
inou by
relations
ot ha this
o pottifii amity alteration
tontldreusts tfohtiiu had satisfied that demand ; you
wouldl be lowloft w
uh
ni which
undisterbed;
tynotold us
rub
ed proposed;
and
yetall,
oft
now you have the same complaints again, and even greater
tchthecrweezoer.reenibaeifnosrea thatoefonarsceefsosratthioenHoofuse
of ocooninfi.
out difficulty—. 0
eonFrefnch ambassador said very justly is the
a:::
n stilli
Io
pa:
it
tl4 tie se peace
sbtiii
El
iO2eplen ndLatwaoms the
oitfY
E Houseeztlaw neelo.nf Commonsn(Cahi
(Cheers.
enrsa ')'
that this is a course which is not with-
aanding
upon Id ea itself flora all embarrassment by
lee to decluo that we abhor the c-rine'e e