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

LONDON, SATtTRDAr EVENING, FEBRUARY'

that being so, he (Mr. Gladstone) would call on them not
to b led away by the alleg Lecessi'y for amending the
criminal ltw. 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 let them consider what 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 twenty years —who, admitting there was
a movement indeed—did not say that it was a downward
and a backward one. In alt 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 be trusted that their moral
greatness would ensure for them a glorious duration of hap-
piness and prosperity. (Cheers.) But at this time 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 in Europe. (Groat
cheering )
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—I am very well aware,
Sir, of the disadvantage of following myright 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 Walewski.
Sir, I recommended this measure to the Government
(ironical cries of " Hear, hear")—and, at the time when I
recommended it, I had neither seen nor heard of the de-
spatch of Count Walawski. (Cheers.) This measure was
proposed to the Government from a sense of English in-
terests. With that conviction it was prompted in an Eng-
lish spirit, and was for the benefit of English law and
English institutions. I call on you now to try it by that
criterion. (Cheers.) IF, after the explanations which you
have heard you believe it to be a foreign measure, it has no
place in au 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 Europe to uphold
that law, and to maintain English liberty, then I call 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 asylum"—a
right which, in my humble judgment, csnnot be consis-
featly maintained unless this measure is passed into a law.
Now I have told you faithfully in what spirit this bill was
conceived ; but I will add that, if on reading 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
lib©l 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 those are the feel-
ings and the principles that led to the introduction and
formation of this measure ; and I will proceed in afe w
plain words to explain to you in what view of the English
law it has been conceived, as necessary to justify the main-
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, hear)--
and that which would be a crime in natural born 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—(hear, hear)—and, if he 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 condition with the British-born subje, t, iu order
that you may with perfect right before the world claim the
privilege of extending to him the same protection and the
same advantages which are claimed by natural born Eng-
lishmen. Now, sir, is that legislating in en English spirit,
or is it legislating under foreign dictation ? (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 offences or his
political opinions may be, the man who comes to our coun-
try and abides by our laws here, shall be sheltered under
the shield of England, and shall be protected from every
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 born British subjects. Ante-
rior to that statute even British subjects might have com-
mitted 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 country. But what
is the ciao with regard to foreigners ? Supposing two or
more foreigners iu this country conspired together to com-
mit a crime abroad, the crime being to be 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:assination was openly preached. Now, no one could
suppose that that was intended to apply to Englishmen.
If there were assassins here, they had been 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. As 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 wisdom 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
poin • t out any defect in the law they would remedy it.
Wasw gentleman there any
h ohad L
degradation
just
sat whateverdowi
nn
hadth t
bill had been introduced on political and not on legal
grounds. He (the Attorney-General) assured his right hon.
friend that the bill had been introduced wholly upon legal
idTthhea righttthe
hon,
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 course 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-Ge,Aral has told us that he
cannot conceive with what consistency those who voted for
the introduction of this bill can support the res elution 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. Ten days ago tho question be-
fore the house was a question between the Parliament of Eng-
land and the Government of France. (Herr, hear.) I, for
one, and a great majority of the house also, with the same
opinion as to the bill itself as wo entertain now ; but under
the circumstances that had recently occurred in Franco—•
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 Franco 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 ? 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 sympathy for the Emperor of the French and
the French people in the position in 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 do iu order to prove the sin-
cerity of our feeling but to agroo 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 which is not only Parlia-
mentary, but wise--from at.y approbation of its provisions,
and at tho same time expressed, in as strong language as
coull be commanded, his reprobation of the conduct of Go-
v, rnment in net answering i hat despatch which has been the
subject of so much discussion this evening. (Hoar, 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 laches of the Government in not replying to that
expres ion of feeling on tho part of the Minister of
France; and I cannot understand how the position of the
govcrament 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 conduct 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 siucei e sympathy
with the Freneh nation, and a decorous respect for the Em-
peror of hat people, that very circumstance permits us now
to offer a criticism on the conduet 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 passage of an Adminis-
tration which refers to the reception of this despatch. No mem-
ber has risen froth the Treasury bench—and the Treasury bench
has been exhausted in this discussion—who has offered us a
single reason which cal in any way account for or justify
the conduct of the Government. There is one circumstance
which has not been reerred 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 wski, which has
been the subject of this discussion, was not merely commu-
nicated by Ulu Ambassador of Franc e in England according to

the usual custom, but it was pulilished in the Moniteur of
Franco It was made known to the people of France. More
than that—like all state papers of great authority that ap-
pear in a journal of that high character— it was copied pro-
bably in every official journal in Europe, and probably authen-
tically accepted by every cabinet in. Europe. Where is the
anewee, then, to that d spatch I (C'.eers.) What satisfaction
can it be to this country, how can the suspicion of Europebe
re` eyed, if all we can receive from the noble viscount et the
hea I of the geve!nraent is the information theft some indefi-
nite words were expressed in the saloon of the French ambas-
sador, in which, •or 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 thegovernment
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 influence which this debate or the conduct of this house
may have upon the disposition of the French people or the
conduct of the French government. • I do not suppose that,
under any circumstances, such considerations would exercise
any undue influence on the house ; but they have no busi-
ness now to exercise any influence, because the question we
have to consider to-night is no longer the question of the re-
lations between France and England, is no longer a question
of the mutual relations between the Parliament of England
and the people of France, but it is solely confined to the re-
sponsib lity which the government of this country has in-
curred to those who represent the poopl of England in this
House of Commons. (Hear; hear,) The whole affair is cloaked
in a mystery which no minister of the Crown has risen as yet
to explain. That this despatch should not have been an-
swered, that it should have been authentically printed and
circulated in Europe, that so authenticated it should have
been made the ostentatious basis of legislation in this house,
that those address• sin the official organ of the 'retch Go-
vernment, which justly occasioned so much indignation in
the country end in this 'h use were never disavowed till the
6th February in this year, while on the 4th February, when
the h 'use met, this bill was announced, 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
recalled to the necessity of self-respect till they found the
House of Commons turned upon them, and demanded that to
pr s trusteesh eg .
tof e
ttrhiek
eto r
aonfd England,y
a see
assertion
be done for the honour of the country which they, the
contra-
dictednatu-
m
ral
if it is wrongly worded, but I believe most sincerely
failed
hien acc om -
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 after 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 amt-assedor in this metropolis by our Secretary of
State—that there was a negligence in this respect on the
part of the English Government, which was probably oeca-
sioued 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 position of the French Govern-
ment with regard to removing those causes of misunderstand-
ing would have been greatly facilitated, and probably we
should never have been obliged to enter into this discussion.
But instead of that, as have been told and believe,
no prudent attempt was made by the English Government to
arrest the course of this proceeding. The despatch which has
occasioned so great a sensa•ion in this country was al owed to
appear in the Afoniteur, 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 betwe n the two countries
could have been established and settled. Now let the house
remember that in 99 cases out of 100, when there is a quarrel
between twe 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 acted with promptness and fairness, with
a desire to support the dignity of this country, but at the
same time to cone liate 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 answered. 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 State did not agree in the stern
necessity which he now recognises for r plying to that state
paper ; he does of t at all 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
despatch of the French Minister. (Hear, hear.) But if that
be the case, as lam informed it is by high legal authority,
what a fine answer would it have been, if, replying to the
despatch, the minister having first made all necessary
apology, at last concluded by saying that, either by the
greatest good fortune in the world, or the most extraordi-
nary prescience, a law was in preparation, ready to be pre-
sented on the meeting of Patrament, which would anticipate
all that the Fi ench government could require, or the laws of
England or the customs of the country permit of. Sir, when
we have arrived at this ooint, when it has become a point of
discussion whether an English Minister should reply to a de-
spatch from a foreign governinent, 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 clearly 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 this house would be satisfied or pleased
with a flippant, lively 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 despatehes—we have Blue-books full of
them on this table with reference to our foreign affairs. We
have already too many of such despatches, but not such as
would be 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 and the same opinions
which I expressed when the subject was last before us, which
were that the Miuister of this country ought to have answered
that despatch in a spirit worthy of the occasion. I think
that in neglecting to answer it, a great occasion was lost. I
think it would have been we I if the Minister had taken the
opportunity of asserting the principles of public law, and of
vindicating our national rights. (Cheers.) He ought to
have appealed with dignity and honour, and have made his
appeal not merely to the litigious spirit, but to the
nobler conditions of the French Government. (Cheers.)
And had such an appeal been made iu all frankness, I 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 one question, whether the British Government
have acted properly in neglecting to answer Count Wa-
lewski's despatch I 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, nojastice in such attempts,
and think that the vote which this house arrived at some 10
haves not beena
question both perfectly fec
between
tw understood ders
Ftio.,:dce and highly days since must, in so far as a
vote of this house can, in-
fluence opinion on the other side of the water. I think it
appre-
ciated. (Hear.) The question with which we have now to
dealmust i
and England,
the real issue to-night, and which will be clearly under-
stood, is not a diplomatic
or a political issue, it is a
question of the greatest importance, but of narrow and small
limits ; it is a question between this house and the servants
of t
he
Crown—have they or have they not done their duty
wet reference to
Count Walewski's despatch I (Loud
cheers.) I will not enter into a discussionof the merits, or
even of the character of the law they have laid on the table.
If this amendment of the right hon, member for Ashton
should be carried, there,
will bo nothing
toprevent us pro-
ceeding to the consideration of that measure, a
and of that mea-
sure I gave the same guarded opinionth 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
ma
resolution of the right hon, gentle a
is a just and proper
resolution, whether its allegations
are accurate, whether its
sentiments are 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
whole people of this country? (Loud cheers.) I protest
against any foreig n element being introduced into this dis-
cussion- Let us decide whether the amendment of the right
hen. gentleman is one which is justified by the circumstances
ore r not For my own part I agree wit hmy right hon. fricud
t 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 iu sup-
it we shall ac
porting it we are dischargiee
a Public duty, and that if we
carryaccomplish a Public benefit. (Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I join with the right hon. gen-
tleman in the exhortation with which he concluded h s speech,
and I implore the house not to allow its passions to be roused
by eloquent doe'amation, that,
and not argument, being the
means by which the amendment of the right hon, member for
Ashton is supported. (Oh, eh. )
I say that 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 hen, friend the member for Oxford University, depart-
ing from the subject under consideration have entered into a
large and elaborate attack upon my conduct when Minister
for Foreign Affairs. They have taken a view of past transac-
tions which, at an earlier period of the evening, I shoals' have
been perfectly
ready to answer ; but now I shall only say of
the right hon, member for Ashton—who appears to have ran-
sacked old newspapers for wear ens of attack upon me—that
it is a pity
his industry did not take another turn, and look
back through the files to see what might have been said of
himself and his policy former times, in
think he would have found some expressions quite as strong
as those with which I have been attacked. (Hear, hear, and
cries of "Question.") This much Ie will w-- say, that when the
• ht hon. gentleman stands fortht
d-Uight as
the champion
right
of the honour of England, as
t.in teeter of tho rights of
this country as against foreign na ions, it is the first time in
my life that I have seen him appear in that character.
(Cheers, cries of " Oh, oh," and " Question.") During the
period that he and I have sat in Parliament together I recollect
no occasion on which the rights of England wore called in ques-
tion with
that right hon. gentleman has not been the advocate of the foreign
country—(cheers, • and loud cries of "Question")—in which
he has not turned that eloquence and power which he can
always command, to prove that this country was wrong and
the foreign country right in the dispute. (Oh, ob.) Yes the
foreign policy which the tight hon. gentleman has invariably
advocated has been a policy of submission and
crouching to
any foreign Power with whom at the time we might have any
d finrence to arrange, and even when occasions have arisen in
which this house has been called upon to furnish the Govern-
ment with the means of national defence, the voice of the
rght lion. gentleman was sure to be raised, to paralyse the
arm of the country, and to deprive
it of its
means of defence.
(Renewed interruption, cries of ' , Oh, oh," ' and some cheers.)
I recollect the right hon, gentleman standing forth on one
occasion
as the mouthpiece of that small party whose publica-
tieti
had the honour to read to the house—(great interrup-
tion)—that publication which held it to be of no consequence
if we should be conquered by any foreign country provided
that the mills might continue working--(tremendous cries of
" Oh, oh," and " Question," amid which the conclusion of
the sentence was lost.) I say, at all events, that the character
iu which he appears to night has the merit of novelty, for he,
for the first time within my recollection, appears as tho chem•
pion of the honour and dignity of this country. (Cheers, and
" Oh, oh.") Now, I contend that he is as unfortunate on the
present occasion as I think he was wrong en the former ones.
I re Illy would call on the house calmly to consider----
(Laughter.) Aye, sir,
it was not I who introduced into this
debate passionate appeals to prejudice and endeavours
to mis-
represent the real question. (Tires, time ) The question which
the house has now to decide is, whether it will stultify itself.
(No, no.) No 1 Of course—stultified. But those who are in a
stultified condition are not willing to acknowledge it (A
laugh.) Of course, stultified, if, in the fece. of a majority of
200, tu4rming that the Government should bring in 4 measure