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

;SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 20, I6SS.

that being so, he (Mr. Gladstone) would call on them not
to be led away by the alleged necessity for amending the
criminal law. Let the law, such as it was, be first vindi-
cated to its full extent, as far as necessary, and not beyond
it, and then lit conider wh,t might be necessary for
its improvement. It was said, that Europe was advan-
cing, but he was a sanguine observer who had watched the
events of the last twen.y years—who, admitting there was
' a movement indeed—did not say that it was :downward
and a backward one. In all Europe there were but
two spots in which the institutions were such as com-
manded our sympathy—still they were but spots, secondary
places--holes and corners of Europe, so inconsiderable was
their natural greatness, but he trusted that their moral
greatness would ensure for them a glorious duration of hap-
piness and prosperity, (Cheers.) But at this timo more
than ever were the eyes of all Europe concentrated on Eng-
land upon its people, its laws, and its Government, and in
that house were concentrated the chief hopes of the friends
of liberty ; but if complicity were to be established be-
tween that house and those who sought the-repression of
liberty, it would be a discouragement to those who were
the friends of it in every country iu Europe. (Great
cheering )
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—I am very well aware,
Sir, of the disadvantage of following my right hon. friend,
for there is no occasion on which there occurs to my mind
more vividly than then the well-known passage,-
- the eyes of men,
" After a well-grac'd actor leaves the stage,
" Are idly bent on him that enters next ;"
and undoubtedly, feeling that disadvantage, I will not
attempt to cope with my right hon. friend in rhetorical
eloquence or in splendid declamation ; but I will introduce
what I have to say by a few true and faithful words with

respect to the history of this measure. ("Hear, hear," and
a laugh.) Yon have been told that there is a connexion
between this Bill and the despatch of Count Waleweki.
Sir, t recommended this measure to the Government—

(ironical cries of " Hear, bear") —and, at the time when I
recommended it, I had neither seen nor heard of the de-
spatch of Count Walewski. (Cheers.) This measure was
proposed to the Government from a souse of English in-
terests. With that conviction it was prompted in an Eng-
lish spirit, and was for the benefit of Ee,,lish Jaw and
English institutions. I call on you now to try it by that
criterion. (Cheers.) after the explanations which you
have heard you believe it to be a foreign measure, it has no
place in an English House of Commons ; but if you believe
it to be prompted in the spirit of our law, and to be con-
ducive to the right which we have in t urope to uphold
that I sw, and to maintain English liberty, then I cell upon
you to reject the imputation which you have cast upon it
of being a child of foreign growth, and I hope that you
will concur with me in thinking that it is a necessary
measure for the purpose of enabling you to vindicate that
English privilege which you call the right of asylu m"—a
right which, in my humble judgment, se ainot be consis-
tently maintained unless this measureds passed into a law.
Now I have told you faithfully in what spirit this bill was
conceived ; but I will add that, if on rea dug the despatch
of Count Walewski, I could have placed the same interpre-
tation upon it as has been done by the right hon. gentleman
the member for the University of Cambridge, I would
have been no party to the prosecution of this measure. If
I could have believed that the appeal to the English Legis-
lature on the consequences of the existing state of the law
made in that despatch, was wholly unfounded or was a
libel upon our law, I should have refused undoubtedly to
be for one moment a party to considering the propriety of
making any addition to that law. Now these are the feel-
ings and the principles that led to the•introduction and
formation of this measure; and I will proceed in a few
plain words to explain to you in what view of the Eighth '
law it has been conceived, as necessary to justify theTilain-
tenance of those rights and privileges of which you are so
justly proud. The state of the English law I believe to be
this--that foreigners are able to do in this country that
which your own subjects are unable to do - (hear, hoar)—
and that which would be a crime in natural b- British
subjects is a matter of impunity in foreigners. (Hear).
Now, how do I claim the right to protect a foreigner?
When he comes to our shore I will put him on a par with
the British subject; I claim for him, and I insist on giving
him, the same rights which are given to natural born
Englishmen ; but I will give them to him on the same
conditions; and those conditions are that he shall abi e
by the law, and he shall respect the law, that he shall
be amenable to the law—(hoar, hear)—and, if be be
not now amenable to the extent that a British
subject is, then I call upon the House of Commons
to supply that defect in the law, and to place him in a
parity of conditton with the British-born subje t, in order
that you way with perfect right before the world claim the
privilege of extending to him the same protection aed ttha
same advantages which are claimed by natural born Eng-
lishmen. Now, sir, is that legislatiog in an English
or is it legislating under foreign dicta ion? (Cheers.) Is it
a measure to forego or abridge or detract from what you
call the right of asylum ; or is it a measure to justify to
the world the claim which'we make in the face of the
world, that, no matter what his political offencea or his
political opinions may be, the man who comes to our coun-
try and abides by our laws here, shell be sheltered under
the shield of England, and shall be protected from favOl,
species of attack that may be directed against him ?
(Cheers.) What is the state of the English law at this
time? The house is well aware that by the 9th George
IV., British subjects committing a murder abroad are
amenable to English law, and may be tried as if the mur-
der were committed in this country ; but that statute is
confined entirely to natural barn British subjects. Ante-
rior to that statute even British subjects might have com-
mittal murder abroad, and inasmuch as the crime was
committed abroad, and not within the peace of the Queen,
it was not punishable, and could not be tried in our courts.
Accordingly, that Act was passed whereby British natural
born subjects, if they commit the crime of murder abroad
are amenable at once to the law of this cmutry. But what
is the c ise with regard to foreigners? Supposing two or
more foreigners in this country conspired together to com-
mit a crime abrcad, the crime being to b 3 perpetrated
abroad, would not be punishable in this country, neither
would the conspiracy. The conspiracy was not punish-
able unless the crime for which the conspiracy was formed
were punishable. Neither himself nor the Solicitor-General
had been able to find a case upon the subject. There was
a law which affected the amity of the Crown, and which
would apply to a conspiracy to assassinate a foreign prince,
but that would not, for instance, apply to a conspiracy to
murder the Empress of France. He could not believe that
the house would think that there was in the existing law
that which would render further legislation unnecessary.
In this state of things this measure was recommended to
the Government to put the foreigner on the same footing
as the natural born subject. Count Walewski said two

things were to be complained of. The first was that
as.aasination was openly preached. Now, no one could
suppeae that that was intended to apply to Englishmen.
If there were assassins here, they had be an imported from
other countries. There could be no doubt that tyrannicide
had been preached in this country. The other thing com-
plained of was that the state of the English law favoured
that course. is he had shown, the English law did favour
it with regard to foreigners. He called upon the house to
say, whether it was not the duty of the legislature to take
such steps as in their wis.lom they might think necessary
to meet the deficiency of the law. That was why this
bill had been brought in to supply the defect in the law
to enable the government to say to the nations of Europe
that they would not alter this institution, but if they could
point out any defect in the law they would remedy it.
Was there any degradation whatever in that? The right
hon. gentleman who had just sat down had said that the
bill ha I been introduced on political and not on legal
grounds. He (the Attorney-General) assured his right hon.
ft lend that the bill had been introduced wholly upon legal
grounds. It was impossible for any gentlemen who had
voted for the introduction of the bill, with any consistency
to vote for the amendment, the effect of which would be
to throw out the bill. There was not a single circum-
stance before the house now that was not known on the
first reading of the bill. No answer had been sent to the
despatch of Count Walewski when this bill was read a first
time. Upon those grounds he called upon the house to
agree to the second reading of the bill.
Mr. DISRAELI—As I understand that it is the general
wish of the house that we should come to a division to-night,
I will request their permission to state the reasons which
induce me to take the coarse which. I shall adopt, and which
I believe will be followed by some of my hon. friends on this
side of the house. The Attorney-Geteral has told us that he
cannot cdneeive with what consistency those who voted for
the introduction of this bill can support the res.dution which
has been proposed by
the right hon. member for Ashton. I
must say that I am totally blind to that inconsistency, which
the Attorney-General thinks is so clear and obvious. It ap.
pears to me that there is a great difference in the circum-
stances of the two occasions, Ton days ago the question
~
a
be-
Itole Lae xis,: was a uestion I)3tween MI Parliament of Eng-
land and the Government of France. (He er, hear.) I, for
one, and a great majority of the house also, with the same
opinion as to the bill itself as we entertain now ; but under
the circumstances that had recently occurred in France—
circumstances which of all others were calculated to alarm
and outrage the feelings of a great nation, and that nation
our faithful ally, it was felt to be most impolitic that we
should show any want of sympathy with the nation and Go-
vernment of France in a situation so difficult and distressing
as that in which it had been placed. (Hear.) What was
done by that vote which we then by so large a majority came
to I In giving that, vote we declared that under the circum-

stances in which the Government of France was then placed
there was a desire on the part of the Parliament of England
to express their sympethy for the Emperor of the French and
the French people in the position iu which they were placed,
and that we were prepared to consider in sincerity and in
anxiety the state of the law of our country with regard to in-
cidents of that kind. Well, sir, ten days have elapsed; but
was there on that occasion an expression on the part of the
house that we had nothing to de in order to prove the sin-
cerity of our feeling but to agree to the proposition of the
Minister? On the contrary, every gentleman who took
a part in that debate used words treating with no respect
the proposition of the Government, as adequate or suited to
the occasion, but guarded himself —,vhich is not only Parlia-
mentary, but wise —from tr.,- approbation of its provisions,
and at the same time expressed, in as strong language as
cowl i be commanded, his reprobation of the conduct of Go-
v rnment in not answering i hat despatch which has been the
subject of so much discussion this evening. (Hear, hear.)
Well, sir, ten days have passed since the house gene-
rously supported the first reading of the bill, with an
intimation, most distinctly given, that they disapproved
the ladies of the Government in not replying to that
expression of feeling on the part of the Minister of
France; and I cannot understand how the position of the
government has improved, while it cannot be said that those
who, under previous circumstances, had supported them are
estopped from offering any criticism on their conduct because
ten days ago they acceded to a proposition, in doing which
they reserved to themselves a right, on any future occasion,
to express their opinion on the c ,nduct of the administration.
If ten days ago it was a question with the Parliament of Eng-
land and the people of France, that is not the position we are
in on the present occasion. The great advantage that we de-
rive in having on that occasion proved by the manner in
which the House of Commons acceded to the proposition of
the Ministry, that there was in this house a since:o sympathy
with the French nation, and a decorous respect for the Em.
peror of that people, that very circumstance permits us now
to offer a eriticism on the conduct of the English Ministry.
What was the ques ion between the Parliament of England
and the Government and people of France, is now a question
between the House of Commons and the English Ministry.
(Hear, hear.) I have heard nothing to night which throws
the slightest light upon that obscure pass•tge of an Adminis-
tration whichrefers to the reception of this despatch. No mem-
ber has risen from the Treasury bench —and the Treasury bench
has been exhausted in this discussion—who has offered us a
single reason which can in any
way account for or justify
the conduct of the Government. There is one circumstance
which has not been re'erred to in this debat-, and which I
myself was not conscious of When ten days ago this question
was introduced- The despatch of Count Wale eiski, whichhas
f
been the subject of this discussion, was not merely commu-
nicated by the ambassador o Franc p in England according to

the usual custom, but it was published in the Moniteur of
France. It was made known to the people of France. More
than the`—like all state papers of great authority that ap-
pear in a journal of that high character— it was copied pro-
bably in every officialjournal in Europe. and probably authen-
ticaly accepted by every cabinet in Europe. Where is the
answer, then, to that despatch f (Cheers,) What satisfaction
can it be to this country, how can the suspicion of Europebe
removed, if all we can r eceive from the nob'e viscount at the
head of the government is the information that some indefi-
nite words were expressed in the saloon of the French ambas-
sador, in which, tor aught we know, two men of the world
may have shrugged their shoulders and expressed a meaning
which was not expressed by articulate sounds. And thenwith
an indiscretion which is perfectly inexplicable the government
of England lay the despatch on the table of the House of
Commons and make it the basis of the legislation they pro-
pose. Let, then, the house remove from their consideration
the inflecuce which this debate or the conduct of this house
a
tbvcsteahslonha,emhwailoiepeunfeneianaore.
toaeredsevyetiditiursrnyuiloildeei
nseettnt
now
pouredhhadhtissonelboetlea:aaol
nnwtdtebdsvinolfctptduneecietel.
,toyciteti
.etfoyainatowwuohnlchtt(ilspemipoetiahhieTwl
address
consider
which
ncereohenenhutrueohissarrowiresFemhtfettenoistnehhhrajlsoFirettnatn:
Frenchi
,id,irdhi
t(oncosi
in the
nenseyispeyhhhottgsepealeraahistegeaointeiiv:essvhiorssdnbspes:i
eyebeosflututaniEheaoif
wnacbtteorhtes:coenlemneciaioahgtusetei:ulenienoci
.oaiisontee:efssnuelnnh,tflat:Tes. tish;tuboe:ihnolhtdotreeiolobtieel
authentically
dfptucilaeii Fystadaiunti
lehtrteirtabscoo)tieelleoooticiofhe naslainntulueeoct:
Emefielsychnhil
nahtonstytelwgef
fitaupneehznieavoser:iteociarialuetiontiedbfndouoisl
iseEfntel
tsce,ehuettioilehlnxdnoohhneogioeinehassebt.lrt
atthikaatacitsiiirrnwnaovei:
sheneeistddidne,
esiee.
in a myst..ry which no minister of the Crown has risen as yet
occasioneda l o ref
muchof tiheed
indignation
tei he
eG
in
n-
the country and in this h use, were never disavowed till the
6th February in this year, while on the 4th February, when
the h rase met, this bill was announce.], proves to me that
the Government first acted in a perplexed, timid, and con-
fused manner, totally unconscious of what was due to their
own dignity as the Ministers of England, and were never
recal:ed to the necessity of self-respect till they found the
House of Commons turned upon them, and demanded that to
be done for the honour of the country which they, the natu-
ral trustees of the honour of England, had failed in accom-
plishing. It strikes me, and my assertion may be contra-
dicted if it is wrongly worded, but I be'ieve most sincerely
what I say, that with respect to those addresses which ap-
peared in the French organs, which were complained of, and
which produced so much mischief— for they appeared
day of er day and no notice was taken of them either by the
interposition of the English ambassador in France, no appeal
to the French government by him, and no appeal to the
French am asseder in this metropolis by our Secretary of
State—that there was a negligence in this reap et ou the
part of the English Government, which was probably occa-
sioned by perplexity of opinion and timidity of feeling. If,
instead of allowing this misconception to grow up day by day
the English ministers had placed their fingers on circum-
stances so calculated to create and foster a misunderstanding
between the two countries, the lion ition of the French Govern-
ment with regard to removing those causes of misunderstand-
ing would have boon greatly facilitated, and probably we
should never have been obliged to enter into this diseussion.
But instead of that, as I have been told and believe,
no prudent attempt was made by the English Government to
arrest the course of th;s proceeding. The despatch which has
occasioned so groat a souse ion in this country was al owed to
appear in the Moniteur, to circulate throughout Europe, and
had it not been for the inevitable meeting of Parliament, I
am perfectly conscious by what contrivance it could have been
effected that a good understanding botwe n the two countries I
could have been established and settled. Now let the house
remember that in 99 cases out of 100, when there is a quarrel
between two states, it is occasioned by some blunder of a
ministry. In the present instance, I see no reason why this
misconception should have occurred if the Government of
this country had aced with promptness and fairness, with
a desire to support the dignity of this country, but at the
same time to cone Hate the feeling of a good ally. I think the
house has expressed to-night that which I attempted to ex-
press the first night on which this subject was under conside-
ration, their deep regret that that despatch was not imme-
diately answer red. I think that the country has arrived at
that conclusion. I can hardly conceive the averment that
her Majesty's Government can v ndicate the course they have
pursued. The right hon gentleman the member for the
University h s traced the change of feeling on the part of her
Majesty's Government with reference to the answering of this
despatch, The Secretary of St rte did not agree in the stern
necessity which he now recognises for r plying to that state
paper ; he does n. t at a'l agree in the tone which the noble
lord the First Minister takes on this subject. The noble lord
said he thought a despatch was not the proper mode of
meeting it—that in fact it was impossible to answer the
despatc of the French Minister. (Hear hear.) But if that
be the ease, as lam informed it is by high legal authority,
what a flue answer would it have been, if, replying to the
despatch, the minister having first made all necessary
apology, at last conclu ed by saying that, either by the
greatest good fortune in the world, or the most extraerdi•
nary prescience, a law was in preparation, re oly to be pre-
sented ou the mec ting of Pa.rl ament, which would anticipate
a 1 that the F. each government could require, or the laws of
England or the customs of the country permit of. Sir, when
we have arrived at this point, when it has become a point of
disc ssion whether an Eng'i=h Minister should reply to a de-
spatch from a foreign government, in which the honour of
this country has been impugned, we are told by the Lord
Advocate that what we want is merely that a second despatch
might be written, and that our great specific for a political
complication was nothing more than a c,• ally written state
paper. I cannot read the feeling either of the country or of
this house if anything of that kind be on the minds of either.
I do not think that th s house would be satisfied or pleased
with a flippant, live'y composition, full of sneer and sarcasm,
a reply to the French government which would have offended
their self-love, and not vindicated our honour. We know
something of such despatches —we have Blue-books full of
them on this table with reference to our foreign affairs. We
have already too many of eueh despatch s, but not such as
would to suited to the dignity of this nation or would be
grateful to the feelings of our faithful al y. But still lam of
opinion that that despatch ought to have been answered. I
think it ought to have been answered in a spirit worthy of the
occasion I repeat the same sentiments end the same opinions
which I expressed when the subject was last before us, which
that
te
dtebsapt,tthe
he
ieMinister
spiritof thisw eretryn country
tohueghetetoe a
shiae answeredn. fo
k
that in neglecting to answer it, a groat occasion was lost. I
think it would have been wo I if the Minister had taken the
opportunity of asserting the 'nice:pies of public law, and of
atidotianlittylgahntsd.
honour, (C h e r
ands ) h Jai
v mu
e g
vindicatingnahpoaeleearin
appealedeoont conditions
ronwrseinational
h ig
of the French Geyer= .nt. (Cheers.)
y
to the litigious spirit, bnto
tae dll et
tire
And had such an appeal been made in all frankness, 1 believe
it would have obviated the necessity of the present reference
to the Parliament and the people, (Hear.) We are to-night
to decide only ono question, whether the British Government
have acted properly in neglecting to answer Count Wa-
lowskre despatch ? Those who follow me, if lam followed,
may attempt to rouse the passions or to alarm the feelings of
the house by allusions to possible misconceptions between the
two countries. I see no grounds, nojustice in such attempts,
and think that the vote which this house arrived at some 10
days since must, in so far as a vote of ibis house c an, in-
fluence opinion on the °tiler side of the water. I think it
must have been both perfectly understood and highly appre-
o
ciated.
a)g
questionraeTiaphtleeo diplomatic
aiimportance,
question
oe
itotwarenwecniaet
bFpwurohtal inioctefhi
co:
iwa
are
Ili haved E nowgae
England,
tho real issue to-night, and which will be clearly under-
stood,edlieumaat celietdtsiise:nisint(oollnftioestatial question between this house and estswl issue, it
servants
of of the Crown—have they or have they not done their duty
sr th reference to Court Wale wski's desp
cheers.) I will not enter into a discussion of the merits, or
asaa (Loud
even of the character of the leer they have laid on the table.
If this amendment of the right hon. member for Ashton
should be carried, there will be nothing to prevent us pro-
ceeding to the consideration of that measure, and of that mea-
sure I gave the same guarded opinion th it I gave on a
former occasion; I reserve to myself the right of deciding on
its merits. What we have now to decide is, whether the
resolution of the right hon. gentleman is a just and proper
resolution, whether its allegations aro accurate, whether its
sentiments aro those which this house ought to sanction, and
whether the regret which it expresses has not been felt by
every Englishman, and has not touched the hearts of the
i whole people of this country ? (Loud cheers.) I protest
aginst any foreign element being introduced into this dis-
cussion. Let us decide whether the amendment of the right
hon. gentleman is one which is justified by the circumsteuces
U 1
we, For my own part I agree with my right hon. friend
the member for the county of Oxford, that it is impossible
to challenge its accuracy and
justice. (Hear.) I think it is
expressed in moderate although grave language that in sup-
porting it we aro discharging a Public duty, and that if we
carry it we shall accomplish a public benefit, (Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON--Sir, I join with the right hon. gen-
tleman in the exhortation with which ho concluded h:s speech,
and I implore the house not to allow its pessions to be roused
by eloquent dec'amatiou, that, and not argumsat, being the
means by which the amendment of the right hon. member for
Ashton is supported. (Oh, oh.) I say tha'; that declama-
tion is devoid of argument, and I think I can prove it. (Hear.)
I contend that all we have heard has been vague general de-
clamation, that the right hon, member for Ashton and my
right hail. friend the member for Oxford University, depart-
ing from the subject under consideration, have entered inte a
large and elaborate attack upon my conduct when Minister
for Foreign Affairs. They have tak n a view of past transac-
tions which, at an earlier period of the evening, I should have
bean perfectly ready to answer ; but now I shall only say of
ran-
sacked old newspapers for wea, one attack upon me—that
the right hon. member for Ashton—who wefhoappears to have
it is a pity his industry did not
atke
mianhottlhier turn, and look
H • ve been said of
back through the files to see h
Had he done so, I
tnualnifddols.mfovierrtthinitoe-gigh. t as the champion
some expressions quite as strong
attacked, (Hear, -
loud
ehle:he.uareitne fsa d
• f " Question.")
ce
cries o
think himself
he
ea and hisud
nations, it is the first time in
ill
,a,"Questioun.
as those with wphboieelviheeylfheiaTvehibeemeneehlsly,that hwehare,natnhde
right hon, gentleman s
that character.
gnahiatin.smdas foreign countries in which
of the honour of England, as the vindeicaartoir of the rights of
) During the
tp(mcheyirhsieoledi
rfsethatc countryihihae
tesa
Parliament
'which .the rights of England were called in que
jawota
saelnfadghalainvhesatvfseoerseeanfrit intogether I recollect
no occasion on .
e-
tion with reference to the a
power which ho can
ho has no
always command, to prove
dispute, (Oh, the
foreign in the_ oh.) Yes,
that right hon. gentleman has not been thic,eoQaudnerteryeetc
of
s
ht awe gentleman has invariably
wrong
uforeignwhich
d
countryiethuereersed,"atOnhclaht,
submission advocated has been a policy ofastut n and crouching to
any foreign Power with whoin timehe we might have any
occasions hare arisen in
d fference to arrange, and even when
has been called upon to furnish the Govern-
mentft
ehieei foreigngu pel
iccoyuwn
ht
which this house
which the lig
defence,
was sure to be raised, to paralyse the
r ght hon. gentleman
depriveof
its means of defence.
with the means of national the voice of the
arm of the country, and to
right gentleman standing forth on one
I recollect the hon.
small
' the mouthpiece of that party whose publica-
tionoccasion as
(Renewed interruption, cries of '' Oh, oh," and. some cheers.)
which held it to be of no consequence
tion)— that publication
by any foreign country provided
if we should be conquered
tre
I had the honour to read to the house—(great interrup-
tion)
the mills might continue wo. mendous cries of,
at all events, thatthe character
the sentence was lost.) I say,
has the merit of novelty, for he,
Oh, oh," and Question," amid which the conclusion of
in which he appears to night
pion of the honour and digendityo
seaosunuterfye.rt(Cunhateemes,n and
Oh, oh.") e
Now, contend
hew that he i
as wrong on theformeroues.
for the first time within my recolfletchtileon, appears as the chain-
present occasion es I thin
Iwho introduced • • not
consider--
(Laughter.) Aye, sir, it was .
dice and
debate passionate appeals to preen endeavours to mis-
represent the real question. (Tie.e, time ) Thequestion which
the house has now to decide is, whether it will stultify itself.
(No, no.) Not Of
stultified condition are not willing
in
the
'aegis.) Of course, stultified, ,_ ,f wlehdoge o major,,it y oAa_
iret
courscourse—stultified.o
atfetkhnoesweairte in (
200, affirming that the Government should bring in a mast