The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-09 00:00:00

Hawkesbury in 1802 :—" Our Goverment neither have
nor want any other protection than what the law of the
country affords, and though they are ready and willing to
give to every foreign government all the protection against
offences of this nature which the principles of their laws
and constitatiou will permit, they never can consent to
remodel their laws or to change their constitution to gra-
tify the wishes of any foreign power." He thought that
the only answer we should give to Count Walewski would
be that while we heartily regretted the criminal attempt
that bad been made, we rejoiced that it had not succeeded,
but that it was wholly foreign to the custom of England to
modify its laws for the purpose of pleasing any foreigo
power. lie felt satisfied that to oppose this bill and to
defeat it would best suit the reputation of the noble lord
at the head of the Government; to oppose it was a duty
they owed to the country, to the character of that house,
and to the dignity of the Crown.
Sir J. WALSH said there was an obvious distinction
between the right of asylum and the abuse of that asylum
for the concoction of crime, a distiuction which the hon.
gentleman who spoke last appeared entirely to lose sight
of. This right of asylum was dear to us, and no foreign
power who had any knowledge of the spirit of the consti-
tution of England would ask us to forego it. There was
nothing extraordinary iu our enforcing stricter penalties
against those who abused our hospitality. The Emperor
Napoleon was the truest and most faithful friend of the
English alliance that had sateon the throne of France since
1815. Ant he was to be admired in his private capacity.
When he lived in this city he mixed in the highest, and
with ethers in an obscure position, and since he had ar-
rived at his present position be had never forgotten any
who had rendered bite a service, or even been courteous to
him in his adversity. He was a faithful ally during the
war with Russia, which was most unpopular in France. A
monarch who had thus been faithful to his engagements,
who had escaped a violent death, when the whole country
was excited, had a right to come to his friend and ask for
protection. He did not ask them to give up the right
of asylum, but he asked for protection, leaving to us to
devise the means. He as with him, and he hoped that
this bill would bie effective for its purpose.
Lord ELCHO said he felt himself in a difficult position.
He was unwilling to vote either for the bill or the amend-
ment. The question was not one of papers. The hon.
member objected to the bill because we had been asked to
legislate by the French Government. If there was a suffi-
cient cause for legislation he did not think that the simple
fact of the French Government asking it was a sufficient
ground for their not doing it. And with regard to the in-
trotuction of other papers, he could not see that other
papers would elucidate the matter. But there were
two other points. One was the state of the law, and the
other was as to the time at which the Government proposed
to make this change. He was no lawyer, and it would be
presumption in him to state what was the law; but the
greatest doubt prevailed in the minds of the most
eminent legal men as to the state of the law.
They had the Government bringing iu a bill, no
doubt on the advice of their law advisers. On the
other band, Lord Campbell and Lord Brougham expressed
their opinion that the law as it at present stood was
sufficient. Still further they had Count Persigny, in that
well-known speech at-the Mansion-house, stating that the
law was considered by some French lawyers to be suffi-
cient, and by others to be insufficient. Therefore, it ap-
peared to him that they ought, before they legislated, to be
satisfied that the law was insufficient, and that it had been.
proved to be so. The noble lord who introduced the mea-
sure did nut say the law was insufficient. He only said it
had not been brought into operation. That did not prove
that the law was insufficient, and it appeared to him that
they should be acting too hastily, and without further in-
quiry they should pass the measure proposed. He came
now to the question of time, and it appeared to him that
that was importance. What was the exact time chosen to '
bring forward this question? Why, on the very first day
of the session immediately after they had heard of the
speech of Count de Morey on the very first night of session
the noble lord at the head of the Government came down
to the house and gave notice of thin measure. That notice,
too, was given concurrently with the threats in the
MOniteur. Taken per se, there was, perhaps, nothing ex
traordinary in these addressee, as it was the custom of the
French army to make such addresses on such occasions ;
but their publication in the Aluniteur invested them with
groat importance. They must have been sent by the com-
manding officer of the district to the French War-office,
and afterwards communicated by the War-office to the
Minister; and he had seen it stated in a newspaper that
an officer who had signed one of the most violent of
them had since received the decoration of the legion
of honour. (Hear, hear.) If they legislated at such a
moment as the present, when the public opinion of
Europe was directed to this subject by the addresses in
the illoniteur, and by the despatches, there would be
an universe' iespression that they had legislated
hastily and under compulsion. (Haar, bear.) It was al
very well to talk about public opinion in France, buil
there was a strong public opinion in England as well, and
wherever they went they heard men saying that they
ought to be very careful how they touched the question of
the right of asylum. He thought the most reasonable
course would have been to pass a resolution to this effect,
that the house abhorred and detested the crime to be at-
tempted to be committed against the persordof the Empe-
ror; that whilst it wail prepared to maintain the right of
asylum inviolate, it was aleoprepared to amend the laW if
it were insufficient ; and that inasmuch as some lawyers
declared that the law was, others that it was not, suffi-
cient, a commission should be appointed to inquire into
the subject, and report as soon as practicable.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Sir, although I am very much in.
dined to move the adjournment of the debate, yet, as it is
desirable that the matter should be brought to a conclu-
sion as soon as possible, I will throw myself on the indul-
gence of the house, and, even at this late hour, state my
opinions on this very important question. It ai,pears to
'lee that we have before us two questions—first, does the
law require any alteration ; secondly, is this the right
time and mode for making it. Now, I will confine myself
to tho-e two questions. And, first, I would ask, does the
law require any alteration? But before I address myself
to that question, I %Aid ask the house to consider with
me the real position of our country at the present time.
The whole of Europe, with the insignificant,exceptions of
Belgium and Sardinia, is, at the present time, au,ject to
despotism. (Hear.) The two islands of Great Britain and
Ireland are the only spots in Europe in which freedom of
language and freedom of action still exist. We are an
oasis in the desert. That desert has grown from day to day
and from hour to hour, within my recollection. Despo-
tism has been daily narrowing the sphere of liberty in
Europe, and we are now in the proud position—though I
will say that it is for the human race a lamentable one—
we are in the proud position of being the sole depositari& s
of liberty in Europe. (Hear, hear.) If England were
stricken down to-morrow, do you think Belgium and Sar-
dinia would exist for a day ? (Hear, hear.) Well, then,
Sir, I say that, for the sake of mankind, it becomes us
duly to consider what wo are asked to do, lest we should
do anything to circumscribe the liberty of England. This
country is at present the asylum of all oppressed people—
not, as has been said, that people of every description may
come to England, for England has entered into treaties to
give up criminals ; but we do not give up political crimi-
nals ' • that is the great distinction. Such, then, sir, is our
position; such is the position of Europe ; and it is at this
time that we are called upon to alter the law of England.
It has been our boast for ages that we have given an asy-
lum, a safe asylum, to every political offender; and mark
the words, " political offender." (Hear, hear.) What,
then, sir, is the present state of the law ? It is this, that
conspiracy is a crime. Conspiring to do an illegal ast, or
conspiring to do a legal act in an illegal manner, is a crime
according to the law of England. There is only one case
in which the crime of conspiracy is erected by the law of
England into a capital offence, and that is the case of high
treason. Conspiring to kill the sovereign is the crime of
high treason. The crime does not consist in killing the
sovereign, but in conspiring to kill the sovereign. As has
been stated already in another place, it is well known to
every lawyer that in the case of those who, in the days of
Charles the Second, were c tiled " the regicides," and who
were indicted for bringing King Charles the First to the
block, the indictment was for conspiring to kill the king,
and the cutting off his head was laid as an overt act. That
is the sole case in which conspiracy has been erected
into a capital offence by the law of England. Our law
of conspiracy is this—that whateverlcrime men conspire to
commit, the mere conspiring is a mere misdemeanour,
punishable with fine and imprisonment. Now, sir, let me
be understood. Two men come together, and they con-
spire together to kill A. B. If one of them only killed A.
8., then the one who conspired and did not kill him may
be indicted as an accessory before the fact; but if thee
have only conspired, the conspiracy is a miseemeanour
punishable by fine and imprisonment. Such is the law.
Now, such being the law, what has occurred to induce us
to alter it? For a long period we have gone on from time
to time ameliorating, that is rendering less cruel the law
of England. We have learnt by experience, that in order
to make a law efficient, you must make discovery certain,
and the infliction of punishment certain; and Nye have
found that when punishments are severe, there is great
difficulty first in discovering crime, and nett in bringing
men to justice. I will take the case of forgery. The
punishment of that offence has in my time undergone a
complete change. I recollect hearing when I was a youth
of many persons who were at that time executed for the
crime of forgery. At length it became almost impossible,
not merely to find out forgery, but to convict a forger.
We then went back to the very origin of the disease, and
we ameliorated the law ; we rendered the punishment less
severe, and thereby increased the efficiency of the law,
making the crime more certain of detection. and there-
fore the punishment more certain of being inflicted. Now,
Sir, the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) asks us to pur-
sue a contrary course. He says " there is a crime
which, with a mild punishment, we have been usable
to find out," for that is the real state of things—
and, therefore, I ask you to increase the punishment.--I
ask is that right? A great crime has been perpetrated.
What was done in England? I will suppose th ot
certain people conspired together in England ttatiohlcll the
Emperor of the French, We have no evidence of
No
man
nyet.
has
(Hoar, hear.) Nude whatever. (Hear, hear.)
been tried yet ; there is nothing before thein worldneewxespept
etrs.he
vague statements which have appearedthe newspapers.
We know that a crime has been committed, but we know
nothing certain as to the persons who committed it; we
know not where they concocted the crime; we
.know not
whence they obtained the means of perpetrating . But I
will take the statements in the newspapers I will suppose
that the crime was concocted in England. Then what was
the overt act? I will suppose that it was going down to
Birmingham,
and getting made there certain grenades or pro-
jectiles. The man who made them received the order
openly, and when he went to Enfield he spoke of them in
such a manner as to show that he knew nothing about the
pitipeSo to which they wore to be applied. As soon as the
attempt made at Paris became known here, his attenti n was
called to the circumstances, and it was suggested to him that
he had made the projectiles which were throw' underthe
ne
E:-eeores carriage. Now, air, was there anything
there
which an increased severity of punishment could have
rought to light t Supposing that under the present law,
any man who conspired to kill the sovereigu of France
would
have been guilty of felony, would that have rendered the di
cevery of the crime one whit more easy ? (Hear, e.
If you tell me that the severity of the punishment hweoaurid)
have induced those persons not to commit the crime, I ask
you to go with me acr iss the water. There the crime was
carried to its consummation ; there the crime was punishable
with death, and though the punishment of death stared them
in the face, these men committed the crime. (Hear, hear.)
According to the reasoning of the noble lord (Lord Palmerston)
the crime not leaving been prevented by the fear of death,
the punishment of torture ought to be added to the exist-
ing punishment. I say thelaw as it present stands in no way
prevents discovery, andthe law as it is proposed to be altered
would in no way facilitate discovery. Discovery is the only
thing that is wanted. The Emperor of the French points to
that in the despatch that has been laid upon the table. He
asks that you should alter your law of police, in other words,
that you should introduce the French police. I ask what the
French police did on this occasion Why, im the very face j