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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

SOUSE OF LORDS.--(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsao's

at 5 o'clock.
Lord WYNFORD presented a petition from the
Quarter Sessions at Monmouth praying for a:: arneLd-
ineut of the evils which existed in the licensing system
with respect to the sale of beer.
Earl CARNARVON presented a petition from Bland-
worth, in the county of Hants, praying for increased
facilities for the propagation f the Gospel in India.
He asked whether it was the intention of the Govern-
:Bent to bring in any measure on this subject during
the present session?
Earl GRANVILLE said it was not the intention of
the Government to introduce any bill on the subject.
BANKRUPTCY LAWS.

In answer to Lord BROUGHAM,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said a bill for the
amendment of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws
was already prepared and would very shortly be
introduced, but whether in this house or the Commons
was not yet decided.
CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS TO INDIA.
Viscount DUNGANNON rose to call the attention
of the Government to the unsafe and unseaworthy
nature of the ships selected for the conveyance of the
troops to India by the overland route from Suez to Aden,
but more especially to the condition of the Alma and
the Ajdaha, sent to convey a detachment of the
69th Regiment. This regiment was sent out to India,
but on arriving at Suez it was discovered that the Alma,
which ought to have conveyed them on, had broken her
shaft. The troops were afterwards transferred to the
Ajdaha, which also sprung a leak, and was compelled
to put back when about four hundred miles from
Aden. He bad been informed that the Ajdaha bad
been unseaworthy, and- bad been condemned eighteen
months before she was taken up, and he wished to know
from the, Government whether such a statement was
correct I
Lord PAM/ETRE said the matter was very easily
explained. In her passage to Suez before the troops were
embarked an accident occurred to an important part of
the wiacbinery of the Alma, the vessel selected for the
eonveyance of the 69th Regiment, and it was consequently
impossible that she could proceed. The troops
were transferred to the Ajdaba, but from an
accident, which no human fore-ight could prevent,
she sprung a leak, and was compelled to return
to Suez. Both casualties were such that it was impos-
sible to provide against, but he was happy to say that
no loss of life occurred. During the whole of the trans-
port of troops to India, there had not been a single
instance in which loss of life had occurred.
After a few words from the Earl of CARNARTON and
the Bail of HARDWICK the subject dropped.
EDUCATION IN INDIA.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH rose to move for a
copy of the report of Mr. Chapman (Behar), director of
public instruction in India in 1855 and 1856. The
noble earl took the opportunity of calling the atten-
tion of their lordships to the state of education
in India, and the efforts the Government had made to
extend it. It was impossible that such efforts had not
produced material effect, and it was desirable to know
in what direction those exertions had extended, whether
good or bad. He had not seen the report for which he
moved, but, from extracts, which had been placed in
his bands, it appeared there was a deep-rooted prejudice
prevalent amongst the natives against the Government
system of education.
Earl GRANVILLE said it was early yet to fusee
the effects of a measure adopted only in 1854. It was
not true that the educational measure had any effect in
causing the mutiny. He bad no objection to the pro-
duction of the report alluded to by the noble earl.
The motion was agreed to.
The Havelock Annuities Bill was read a second time
on the motion of Lord PANMURE.
Their lordships adjourned at a quarter-past 6 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The Snwou took the chair at 4 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Liskeard and Love Union Canal Company's Bill
was read a second time.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR (CONSOLI-
DATION OF ACTS) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. LOWE said the Government had made an
arrangement with the Mersey Board in regard to this
measure, and the Government were prepared to support
the second reading of the bill.
The hill was read a second time.
The Mersey Docks and Harbour (New Works) BM
was read a second time.
MUTINOUS SEPOYS.
Mr. RICH gave notice that on this day week ho
should put a question to the President of the Board of
Control bearing upon the recently reported engagements
of our troops with the mutinous sepoys, and ask him
whether any and what orders had been given to tho
officers of our troops relative to their giving quarter or
not to mutinous sepoys found in arms.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice that he should on Mon.'
day next. if no reason was shown to the contrary,
present a petition from an individual charging a
member of that house (Mr. I. Butt) with a breach of the
privileges thereof, and move the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the al!egations of the petition.
After some discussion on the course to be pursue,),
It was suggested by the SPEAKER, and accepted by
Mr. ROEBUCK, that the learned gentleman should
present the petition on Monday, and fix a day for its
consideration, after it bad been printed and circulated
amongst the members of the house.
PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRA-
TION.
Mr. COWAN asked the law officers for England,
Scotland, and Ireland respectively, that as, by an Act,
passed in the last session of Parliament, provision was
made for giving validity to Probates and Letters of
Administration taken out in England and Ireland re-
spectively, if it be their intention now to introduce one
or more hills whereby probates and letters of administra-
tion in England and Ireland, and a confirmation of
executors in Scotland, whether of testate or intestate
succession, may be rendered valid and effectual, and the
benefits from the recent change of the hw may be ex-
tended and enjoyed throughout all the United Kingdom?
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the subject was
under the consideration of the law officers of the
Crown.
NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

In answer to Mr. BLACK,
Mr. WILSON said the contract referred to would
terminate at the end of the montb, and would not be
resumed except so far as the supply of books for the
schools. The copyrights of those books would be thrown
open to the trade.
TITLES TO LAND IN SCOTLAND.

Mr. DUNLOP asked the Lord Advocate whether it
was his intention to introduce, during the present ses-
sion, any measure for further simplifying and rendering
lees expensive the titles to land in Scotland ?
The LORD ADVOCATE said he hoped to introduce
such a measure immediately after the Easter recess.
INCOME TAX RETURNS.
On the motion for adjournment till Monday,
Mr. CRAWFORD called attention to the late
abstraction of income tax returns from the office of the
collector for the City of London, and asked for the
production of any correspondence that had transpired
with the Government and the City Income-tax Commis.
sioners in reference to the abstraction ?
Mr. WILSON said the Government were not answer.
able for the safe custody of the papers referred to. He
would lay any correspondence that bad taken place on
tke table of the house.
MINISTER, OF JUSTICE.

Mr. W. EWART put a question to the First Lord of
the Treattury, for explanation on the subject of the ap-
pointment of a department or Minister of Justice.
Whether he intended to appoint a Minister of Justice
for the improvement and supervision of the law of the
country 1

THE PARIS TREATY OF PEACE.
Lora J. MANNERS put a question to the noble lord
relative to the article
reference to the eireenf the Treaty of Paris, and also in
Lord
question,PAia tßhalth!Ge.
said in reference to Mr.
Ewart'sas
far
asaposscivhelren, mthenthtefehltpiintiothnesirofd
theuty
to give effect,
house embodied in
tion agreed to last ereeelttibb, but the resolu-
boy the house in
reference to the least
a Mininiffiieenteutrlthf too
Justice was so ambiguous that fit
accomplish;
understand what was meant. The apwpatolintd
Minister of Justice was a desirable object
but there were so many difficulties surrounZeeern
the Government had not been able yet to surrounding that
that part of the resolution. With reference to therycmout
tion of the noble lord (Lord J. Manners), he believe-deae.
application was made at Paris by certain Circassian
chiefs for assistance against Russia ; but as the Cir-
caselans took no part in assisting the allies, it was
not thought desirable to renewh the war on their
behalf, the oljeboatvifnoar which the allies went to war
with Russia accomplished. With
regard to the 12 articles of the Treaty relative
to the opening of the ports in the BlecknefSPerter7
opened three on the eastern aide, but n'one Russiao had
western side. Application bad been made to Russia to
open ports on that side, but she declined—first on the
ground that the ports to be opened were Only
to be those where custom-house, quarantine, and
police
regulations existed. To that the Govern.meat remonstrated, and IRnsEla then excused her-
self from not opening those port., on the ground that
she was engaged in hostilities with tribes on that part
of the coast, and had been unable to make the necessary
Communications were
arrangements for
going • on between
provisions of the treaty.
After some remark 3 from Mr. Napier, Mr. Locke
King, and the Attorney-General,
The subject dropped.
THE GOVERNOR OF DOMINICA.

Mr. BLAND asked the Under Secretary for War,
whether Majer Ord, of the Royal Engineer, had been
appointed Governor of Dominica ? and if so, whether
he was ■till retained on the full-pay list of that corps ?
and if so, whether there were any reasons for his being
shs exceptional cage
Sir J. ii.A.DISDEN said that it was moat for offioors

obtaining such appointments to remain for six months
afterwards on full pay. This was not an exceptional case.
The motion for adjournment was then agreed to.
CONSPIRACY TO MURDER BILL.
Lord PALMERSTON—In moving the second read-
ing of this bill, I wish to make a very few observations in
addition to those which I addressed to the house on
nuts ing fur leave to introduce the hid. In the first place,
I would Bay that great pains have been taken to spread
the notion that this is an alien bill. That impression is
totally unfounded, and totally different from the nature
of the measure. It is not an alien bill. The bill gives
to Government no arbitrary power whatever, and con-
tains no enactments applicable to aliens which are not
applicable to all her Majesty's subjects. I cannot deny
that which I stated on a former occasion, that her Ma-
jesty's Government were led to look into the condition
ef the law relating to conspiracy by the calamitous event
which recently took place in France. Upon looking
into the state of our law we found that in England the
crime of conspiracy for the commission of murder was,
as I stated in a former debate, a crime practically almost
unknown to this country, and therefore no special law
bad been framed to meet that offence. The crime of
conspiracy to murder was only punished in the same
manner as the offence of conspiring to do any other act
which was wrong. As I stated on a former occasion,
conspiracy to commit a trivial offence, such as hissing
a bad actor, was placed in the same category as the
grave offence to which I have alluded. We thought on
looking into the law that that was not a proper state of
things. A crime had been committed. There could be
no doubt that a conspiracy to murder had been batched
in this country. We thought the English law fixed too
slight a punishment to so grave a source of crime. On
the other hand, when we looked to the state of the law
in Ireland, we found a law which had originated in
unhappy times, when animosities ran high, when vio-
leoces were committed, and when unfortunately the
crime was one of no very unfrequent occurrence, to
which attached the heaviest punishment—the punish-
ment of death. We thought—looking at the present
improved state of Ireland—that it was not desir-
able such a law should continue, and we considered it
desirable to mitigate the penalty in Ireland, whil-t on
the other hand, we raised the penalty in England. For
that purpose we prepared the bill now under the consi-
deration of the house. The bill, I say, is of general
application. It does not point exclusively against aliens.
It only placesaliens on that footing on which they ought
to stand—namely, on the same footing as all her Ma-
jesty's subjects within the realm. If a man goes into a
foreign country he is bound to submit to the laws of that
country. He cannot expect to enjoy privileges which
are not ace ,rded to the natives, and must submit to the
laws which in the wisdom of the legisfature, are imposed
on the native inhabitants of the country. There is no-
thing in this bill which gives to the executive government
any arbitrary power whatever, either in regard to her
Majesty's subjects or to aliensre.ident within the realm.
It gives no power of expul-ion. There is nothing in the
bill which interferes in the slightest degree with that law
of hospitality by which we have been invariably guided
with respect to foreigners seeking an asylum in this
country. Any foreigner, whatever his ration may he—
whatever may be his political creed—whatever may be
his political offences against the government of his coun-
try—may under this bill as without this bi I find a safe
and secure asylum within this realm as long as be
conforms to the law, and submits to the law of the land
which he has chosen for his residence. Neither does this
law give to the government ar y arbitrary power what-
ever. The penalty which it imposes must be a penalty
awarded by a court of justice—awarded by a court of
justice upon proof of the offence committed, therefore,
with respect to the judgment of the offence ortho award
of punishment, the executive government will have
nothing whatever to do. I conceive, therefore, that it is
a grievous misrepresentation to give this measure the
nickname ef an alien bill. It is, as I have before said,
no alien bill. It is an improvement of the law of the
land, with regard to an offence which up to a recent
time might have been known to the law of Ireland, but
which I am sorry to say has been committed
in this kingdom, and committed, I am sorry to
say, not simply by foreigners resident in this country,
because there is too much reason to fear that the inves-
tigations which have been carried on elsewhere have
tended to show that British subjects have not been alto-
gether exempt from criminality in this matter. (Hear.)
That is one point on which I thought it desirable to
make a few observations. I will now advert to another
point. Objection has been taken to the course pursued
by her Majesty's Government, upon the ground that we
ought to have written and sent some very great, fire,
eloquent, and indignant answer to the despatch of Count
Waleweki to Count de Persigny, which was handed to
her Majesty's Government and laid on the table of the
house. (Cheers.) Now, sir, what passed in regard to
the despatch was this : it was presented personally by
the French ambassador to my noble friend at the head
of the Foreign-office, who repeated to the French am-
bassador that which he, and I, and other members of
her Majesty's Government have over and over again
explained to all the foreign representatives who have
approached the subject at all, that a change in our law
with regard to the asylum granted to foreigners they
must not expect, because it was utterly impossible.
(Rear, hear.) They have often been told, and it was
repeated on that occasion verbally, that we never had
our law pointed against foreigners for offending against
foreign countries, but that it had been framed to guard
this country against dangers arising from the conduct of
foreigners seeking a reioge in this country—the', it wool
be a new law an enactment wholly and entirely new
—that it would involve us in great embarrassment in
dealing with foreign Governments, because if cases had
arisen in which foreign Governments required the ex-
pulsion of foreigners on suspicions entertained by foreign
Governments, the Government of the day in England
would have answered that, having no well-grounded
reason for suspicion, they could not put the taw into
execution, and that naturally would have raised very
disagreeable di-cussions between England and foreign Go-
vernments. (Hear.) That was explained to the French
ambassador by my noble friend. Some gentlemen may
say we ought to have written an answer to that effect.
It would have been useless to repeat that in writing
which had over and over again been so fully explained.
(Oh, oh.) The Government might have announced to
the French Government what they intended to do, but
I do not think that would have been a very proper
course. We told the French Government that the
matter had already been under our consideration, and
that we should take fte course v hich we deemed most
consistent with our own interests and our own honour.
If any party has a ground of complaint against us for not
writing, it is the French Government, because they
mightjustly say we were wanting in ordinary courtesy
to them in leaving unanswered a communication which
had been formally laid before us. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) But I hold that we are practically absolved
on that point. I say there is no ground for blaming us
for not writing a despatch, which either would have been
controversial when great agitation prevailed in France
—would only have aggravated the feeling which we
desired so see spending itself—or would had the appear-
ance of our placing before a foreign government whet
we intended to submit to Parliament. It is not right
to submit our mcaeureato foreign governments, in order
to see whether they will be satisfied with what we are
doing. In matters of internal regulation we are not
bound to give any account to foreign governments. I
trust, therefore, diet the opinion which t he house arrived
at on a former occa-ion, as to the Expediency of permit-
ting the bill to be brought io, will continue, now that
the house has the opportunity of seeing its details ; and
seeing that it gives no additional discretionary power to
the executive—that it only provides a more appropriate
punishment for an offence of a grave character—that
while on the one hand it raises the penalty in England,
on the other hand it mitigates the penalty in Ireland,
and reduces the law in the two islands to the same con-
dition— I trust the house will consent to give the bill a
L second rearing. (Hear.)
The question having been put,
Mr. T. GIBSON rose to move an amendment. He
said, I am not one of those who haze laboured under the
nii.rtprtrehFnci-n of tbfs, I j-cts of this bill to which the
noble lord has referred, If such misapprehension does
exist, I concur with him that he has taken a very proper
course in putting the house in possession ef his views
upon the exact aim of the measure before us. But, sir,
with regard to certain conversations, confidential or
otherwise, which are said to have passed between the
noble lord at the head of the Government and the
Foreign Minister of France, lam of opinion that matters
of this grave importance; that matters affecting, perhaps,
the honour and reputation of our country, ought not to
be left to mere casual conversations, bet ought to be
placed upon record, in order that they may stand before
the world as the position which England has assumed
in the question at issue. (Hear, hear.) I can assure the
house, I can assure the noble lord at the head of the
Government, that it is not my desire by moving the
amendment of which I have given notice to provoke any
angry controversy between, as it were, the people of
England and the French nation. I attach great value to
the maintenance of friendly relations with that great
country, and were I to utter a single word tending to
produce angry or irritating discussion, I should not be
acting in accordance with my own conviction'. I can
tell the noble lord that, although I have been no follower
called
democonsol
Zitrrwegitahrdreference to the
. policy which be has pursued
to the foreign relations of this country,
although
noble lard, have generally bean no admirer of what us
sseplitrited foreign" policy, I have frequently
dangerousaneu t
friendly controversy
understanding
Antes
wejai b with the reflection that, whatever dis-
have with other parts of the world, the
would
or dispute be
e with party
least,
necessary to tle civilisation France,to
ou any
per
with which I hold to be
(Hear, hear.) I
1%
i.ia and happiness of Europe.
the resolution sehict; lefore I touch upon the merits of
shall venture to submit to the
house, to meet one
to put the brace cos two preliminary objections and
meaning. It has Porheeesson of its exact Parliamentary
trthe°.t'jtel:.ted by the enemies of the
bill before the housecuse
ciently decided, that I ought to ahmendnaent is not suffi-
to throw out the bill altogether, to pinpoeed a motion
with ignominy. (Float.) Undoubtedly,i
my reject it, as it were
not in that f. rm. On the other hand, amendment is
att to the bi 1 Lave urged that this is gentlemen
indirectlemen favour-
of defeating the measure, and that it would mote
of
candid if I had invited the house to r rad theve hbilelt
second time this day three months. (Hear.) Thee
objections are founded upon a misapprehension of the
object which I have in view. My object is to invite an
expression of opinion from the house strictly relevant to
the bill before us ; but by agreeing to the resolution
which I now submit you would not necessarily defeat
tie bill, you would simply avert its progress for a single
:ds b.; co,:upteLt to any per-
day, aed it wei.ll 1-41t;r. .
3Vn to proceed with tho =awl and pass itinto a lAN

(Hear.) My own opinions are undoubtedly averse to the
bill, and when its merits come more distinctly before us
I shall give my support to a motion for its rejection. At
present, however, I think we are enabled consistently
with our opinions of the merits of this particular change
of the law to say whether we should now read the bill a
second time, before having arrived at a decision upon
the merle in which the floeernm-nt. I a-e Co ducted the
affairs which has led to the introduction of the measure
before us, and als o whether it is not the duty of the Par-
liament of England to declare that some answer should
have been given to so important a despatch at that which
has been laid on our table, and therefore legitimately
brought under our notice by the executive Government.
(Cheers.) I have been told by an bon. friend that I want
to take an opportunity of passing a sort of indirect, he
did not say censure, but unfriendly opinion upon the
management of affairs by the Government, and for that
purpose have given notice of an amendment which is
calculated to draw to my side persons who are hostile
to the bill before us, but who upon the whole do not
disapprove the course which the Government have
taken. (Hear, hear.) In answer to that objection I
can only say that I should have been very glad, if it
bad been in my power, to move my amendment as a
substantive resolution ; but I have not the command of
the time of this house—(cheers)—l cannot bring in any
measure which I think fit, and I much doubt whe-
ther I should have obtained from those who have the
disposal of our time an early opportunity for submitting
such a resolution. It appears to me, however, that my
amendment is strictly within the rules of Parliament ;
that it is relevant to the bill before us; and, as the ques-
tion which has given rise to it is intimately connected
with the proposal of the Government, I hold that I am
taking a Parliamentary course, and one that can be jus-
tified by precedent, in asking the House of Commons to
arrest for a single day only the progress of the present
measure for the purpose of expressing the opinion set
forth in my amendment—viz., that the important de-
spatch of Count Wale wski should have received a solemn
1
and deliberate answer from her Majesty's Government.
What is the resolution that I propose to the house ? It
states, in the first place, "that this house hears with
much concern that it is alleged the recent attempts toper'
the life of the Emperor of the French have been devised
in England, and expresses its detestation of such gui ty
enterprises." I imagine that every member of this house
gives his cordial concurrence to the sentiment embodied
in those words. I venture to say that throughout the
length and breadth of this land enterprises to assassinate
the Emperor of the French are viewed with universal
execration. (Cheers.) I feel no doubt, therefore, that ti e
House of Commons cordially approves the first passaee
of my resolution. The next passage says, "That this
house is ready at all times to assist in remedying any
defects in the criminal law, which, afterdoeinvestigation,
are proved to exist." I put the words "at all times" be-
cause I quite agree with the First Lord of the Treasury
and the Secretary for the Home Department that if it be
proved that our laws are defective we ought not to be
deterred from making the requisite alterations because
other persons may have committed indiscretions, or be-
cause suggestions may have come from foreign lands.
But, at the same time, we ought not to make changes in
our criminal law without "due investigation." We ought
not to make important changes in the law of conspiracy,
even conspiracy to murder. Conspiracyper se is an unful-
filled —or, as it has been called, an unconsummated—
ietention. That is a vague, uncertain offence to deal
with, and more than any other with which a ma's may
be charged affords an opportunity for injustice being
done- (Hear.) It therefore behaves the house to be
careful as to the extent of the penalties to be attached to
the offence. I think it is Sir Matthew Hate who says
conspiracy is a net in which you catch the dove as well
as the hawk, and therefore, seeing the uncertainties
which surround prosecutions for such a crime, we ought
to take care that we do not hastily make danger-us
changes in the law of England with respect to conspiracy.
(Hear.) I speak with hesitation, not with confi.ience,
upon so grave a question as what may be necessary
changes in our criminal law. I would found my opinions
upon high authorities, when the dicta of men of great
experience, upon reports of your pubic offiesra—such as
the Statute Law Commissioners—rather than upon aey
crude views, bzsed upon abstract reasoning. Now, I find
that this very law of conspiracy to murder has already
been brought formally under the consideration of the
Statute Law Commissioners. The Statute Law Com-
mission met on Wedneeday, December 3, 1856, and there '
were present the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wrm,tesl y, Mr ".
Baines, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General,
Mr. Greaves, Mr. Colson, and Mr. Bellenden Ker. At
that meeting a letter was read from the A tteroey-
General of Ireland, drawing the attention of these .
distinguished public officers to the differences between
the law of Ireland and the law of England with
respect to conspiracy to murder. " You will observe,"
wrote Mr. Fitzgerald, " considerable differences be-
tween the laws of the two countries, particularly in
relation to conspiracy to murder." This called the
attention of the Statute Law Commissioners to the par-
Ccelar criminal law, which is now under discussion, and
notwithstanding that we find that from his bill for con-
solidating and amending the criminal law of England
with regard to effences against the person the Lord
Chancellor has thought fit deliberately to exclude any
change in the existing law relative to the offence of con- '
spiracy to murder. (Cheers.) I think that fact, ought to
have some weight with the house, as &bowleg that the
Bill before us is the result of a sudden determination--
not of deliberate consideration toll twine " due invesli-
-1 gation"— on the part of her Mejesty'e Government.
(Heir.) It may be said that the bill introduced by tie
-Lord Chancellor as the organ of the Statute Law Cnn•
mission, merely consolidates and does not an the
lavis to which it relates. TLat is not the case. rld re-
port prefixed to the "Offences against the Person Bill"
besides referring to a vast 'muter of cases of the actual
introduction into that Bill of legislation which is a i
change and not the consolidation of any existing law,
has the following passage which bears directly on the
present subject:—
•' At present, a great anomaly prevals in eases of attempts
to commit murder. Sundry of them are made felony and .‘
highly penal, while the remainder are merely misdemeanours .
at common law. . . It is obvious that, upon principle,
attempts to commit murder should be of the same c'ass ;
section 25, therefore, makes all such attempts felony."
1 Here is a c'eange in this bill for the purpere of anatliora-
tion in your criminal law, showing that thers was a
power to amend, as well as to consolidate, and therefore
I must suppose that the Chancellor of England and her
Majesty's Government did not see fit to make any
change in the criminal law of England in reference to
conspiracy to murder, after deliberate inquiry by the
Statute Law Commission. (Cheer:.) Ido not %lab to
commit myself t) any mere opinion as to the law as it
now stands is precisely what it ought to be ; but this,
I think, is evident, that with respect t i the recent event
which has taken place in Paris the law of England is
sufficient in all respects to deal with the parties who
who have conspired towards that act, who aided and
abetted in it, or incited persons to commit the assasei-
tion. Do we not see that a warrant has been issued by
the Government for the arrest of Mr. A llsop, a pers m
charged with having been aiding and abetting, in some
form or other, this attempt at the person of the Emperor
of the French ? Do we not see, also, that an alien resi-
dent in England has been brought helot@ the police ma-
gistrates, and that proceedings are being taken with the
view of subj-cling him to prosecutien, on the peeled of
his being a conspirator, or having incited this act /
(Rear.) I believe the law as it now stands gives mere
power over persona who have aided and abetted this late
I act in Paris than if you were to prosecute them under the
• present Bill of Her Msjeiny's Government. (Hear.)
Under the 9th George IV., cap. 32, Sir R. Peet's Act,
any subject of Her Majesty, who is accessory before the
fact to murder in another country, may, I understand,
t be even punished to the extent of taking away his life,
but certainly to the extent of penal servitude, if the
charge is proved against him, and I believe that the
highest authorities iu the laud have also held that under
• the terms, " subjects of her Majesty," are included all
persons who are resident within the dominions of her
Majesty, and who are held, therefore, during that
residence, to owe allegiance to our Crown and laws. If
that be so, it appears to me that at the present moo ent
, the law is amply sufficient to deal with any persons who
have been concerned in thin ceive-y in ' rlngirg aleert
Lou eleasifel attempt WLiell had lately taken place in
Paris. (Hear.) But if there be any doubts on these
points, I, for one, would not be the man, and I frankly
say no, to stand in the way of such an amelioration of
your law as would enable you to deal with persons, be
they Englishmen or aliens, who can be proved by clear
and conclusive evidence to have aided in the commission
of such atrocious acts. So much for the merits of the
Bill ; but I am not now asking the House, in fact, fur an
opinion on the Bill, for that question will arise after my
resolution has been dealt with, but I am merely putting
it to the House whether it is right, under the cirsum-
stances, to read the Bill a second time this day. I
hope that all, therefore, will agree with me that these
woris in my resolution are reasonable words :—" Tbat
this House is ready at all times to assist in remedying
any defects in the criminal law which, after due investi-
gation, are proved to exist." (Hear, hear.) I must take
leave to observe that the noble lord at the head of the
Government and the right hon. gentleman the Secre-
tary for the Home Department have held argu- .
ments in reference to this proposed change in the
law which are not quite consistent with each other.
First of all, they press ou us the maxim that we must
do what is right without reference to our being asked to
do it or not, which is as much as to say that we have
been asked to do it ; that a blot has been pointed out
de-
terred from dealing with it. AN!. pressing on us that
by a foreign country, but we are not therefore to be de-
maxim, in which, to a certain extent, I express nay con-
currence, though, to use the expression of an hon, friend
of mine, there is a species of awkwardness in cluing any-
thing, however right, under a sort of dures,--after, I
repeat, pressing on us that good maxim —that ice must
du right ourselves, whether asked to do it or riot, the
noble lord and the right hon. gentleman sail that they
were always going to make this change in the law, eve o
if there had been no French despatch, and if there bad
been, though I do not know whether they said this
exactly, no calamitous event in Paris. But if this French
despatch had nothing to do with ttoe bringing in cf this,
bill, why was it laid in a formal manner oil the table of
LbYel , Idea abx rkl ne_ la, ao_ e
mindsfoundationthe
turned to this clef ct in the criminal
quite unnecessaa to
analleged asthe intention of the Government
idea it's tome tithe past. It appears to me that the
necessity of dischargingdefect in our criminal law, it was
rertod us such a lecture about the
any rata, if itt was
like a second thought ; and, at
to the indiscretions of taluerradutir without any reference
paragraph in my resolution. -1
donnoowt
know
to the third
whetherttefitrhbet
house has gone with me so far as to Zrwee

two paragraphs, but I take leave to assume it has no
objection to them. With resnect to the third paragraph,
I express my regret "That her Majesty's Government,
previou-ly to inviting the house to amend the law of
conspiracy at the present time, has not felt it to be their
duty to make some reply to the important despatch re-
eeived from the Frene'n ' J..n.
20, 1S 8, and which has been laid before Pailiainent."
I certainly feel regret at that circumstance, and the
House of Commons is competent to express regret,
without necessarily implying what is called censure. A
man may regret unavoidable circumstances, and I do
regret—whatever may have been the cause—the omis-
sion to answer Count Walewski's despatch, because I
think we now stand before the world as admitting, a, it
were, the truth of some of the charges contained in that
despatch. (Cheers.) Nay, more ; seeing that the despatch
calls in question the pelicy of England in reference to
the right of asylum—that it reflects on the made in
which England has thought fit to permit the right to be
enjoyed by foreigners, I say it was the duty of the Go-
vernment of the country to have replied courteously,
with dignity, but firmly, and to have defended and
placed on record those great principles which have
guided the policy of England in reference to the right of
asylum. (Cheers.) Does it not look R 3 if we were
ashamed to defend our principles when we find, upon
the right of asylum being indirectly called in question,
the insinuation is passel over in silence? (Bear.) And
more than thi., I believe that a great mi apprehension
exists throughout France as to the exact nature of our
laws in reference t) the right of asylum. Now, Count
Walewski says in his despatch of the 23. h January :

"It is no longer the hostility of misguided individuals,
manifesting itself by all the excesses of the press and all the
violences of language ; it is no longer even the work of the
factious seeking to rouse opinion and to provoke disorder ;
it is assassination, elevated to doctrine, preached openly,
practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of which
just struck Europe with a
gs. Is hospitality
ginislation to contributeamazement. Ought, then, the right
? And can it continue
to shelter persons who by their flagrant acts place themselv,s
rtolnams s
tat
losl
se pii
nrr
sodt?eescoitgunsgushcatinitdha
the English
nit
ige.
lioi:lfahntlshe
beyond the pale of commonotright, and under the ban of hu-
mani y ?"
odt
to favour asylum
s
It no answer has been given to that despatch, it is an
admission, by silence, tbat with our eyes open we have
sheltered assassins, and that we have actually favonied
their designs. But is that true I sir ; it is not. As
my hon. friend the rnemberfor Sheffield truly said, Eng-
land abhers assassination as much as any nation on the
face of the earth ; and if assassins have lived in this
country it is by no fault of ours. We have murderers
of our own, we have robbers of our own—they are not
deterred by the severity of our criminal law from com-
mitting crimes, but is that a reason for saying that Eng-
land is a country which shelters such criminals, and
which favours their designs ? The insinuation of Count
Waleweki against the laws and policy of this country
is unkind and unjust, and it was the bounden duty of
the executive Government to have repelled such aii in-
sinuation by a firm and dignified answer to this de-
spatch. lam sorry to see the indifference which is
manifested by some members of the Government to the
great principles of liberty which undoubtedly lie at, the
foundation of English policy, and which regulate this
right of asylum. I was sorry to see the readiness with
which Lord Clarendon, at the Conferences of Pa is,
silentlyaccoiesced in a resolution condemning the liberty
of the press. Not (ally did he sty nothing—so far as
we may judge from the protoculs—in defence of the liberty
of the peas, which is so dear to us all, but he actually
signed his name to a resolution condemnatory of it.
The only answer which the noble lord gave when called
upon to explain this circumstance wa-,, " Would you
have had Lord Clarendon make a scene—they were al!
so harmonious together (a laugh) —why not let these
matters, which may lead to dangerous controversy, p iss
by unnoticed ?" is the same sort of thing now. This
solemn an important de,patch of Count Wale wski's is
not to be answered, because the answer may lead to un-
pleasant controversy. But in defence of the honour of
England and the principles of our laws we must risk an
unpleasant controversy, if we wish to maintain our
position among the nations of the world. (Ctr,ers.) That
despatch ought to have been answered. It may be hell
that it was difficult to answer it (a laugh), but I will
quote a pa sage from the speech of the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Wiltshire, who sits near me, which
shows that there are those who would be ready to answer
it

" I frankly own," said the right lon. gentleman, " I never
read a despatch which was more tempting to a Minister to
answer thal this one,"

(liear.) That looks as if there would have been no dif-
ti,mlty experienced in the mind of somebody at any rate
in answering it. There was a very imp)rtant view of
this question ►hrowu ont incidentally by the right hon.
gentleman the member for Bucks, when he spoke on the
first reading of the Bill, He said :
" If we had the despatch of Count Walowski on the table,
and at the same time the answer of the Britisli Minister worthy
of the opportun•ty, in my opinion the Government would have
met with no difficulty, and the feelings of the two nations
woul 1. have been discussed in the temper which wo all do-

There is great force in that observation, and I have no
doubt whatever, it Count Wale meki's despatch hal been
laid before us, accompanied by a becoming answer on
the part of our Government, that, without any idea of
menace or ittimidation, we should have cordially act to
work on this attempt to endeavour to find a remedy for
any defect which may exist in our law. We shoul,l
have approached the subject in a batter frame of mind,
to t,PI, the least of it. (ti ear.) I think that is a consi•
deration which ought to weigh with hon. gerviemen in
support of my motion, and which ought t•o bring, house
to their minds the relevancy of it to the bill now under
discussion. The words which I h :re ventured to propose
to the house are these :

" That this house cannot but regret that her Majesty's Go.
vernment, previously to inviting the house to amend the law
of conspiracy at the p es nt time, hav„, not felt it to be their
duty to reply to the important despatch received from the
French Government, dated Paris, Jan, 20, 1858,' which has
been laid before Parlia vent."
I want to call the noble lord's attention t) the course
which he has been in the habit of taking in reference to
making what are called friendly communi,ations, or
ceutrounications in a friendly spirit, on the subj •ct of
the state of their own internal laws. There is no man
hneatihpeorli hecy policy.
found (Laugh-
ter.)other countries prepared to take friendly advice of this
in this house, or perhaps in Europe, who has had greater
experiencem the erode of making friendly communicationsto ether countries as to the condition of their laws anti
the
rt t =I
ws ictuy
would
df
aas hk
Ie ng enionbo
tilieliorridntc:
sort witheuli replying to it ? (Cheers ) I think he will
find that even the Government with which he has not
very long ago carried on a very interesting correspondence
—I
mean the Government of Naples—set a very good
example as to how you should behave when friendly
advice is offered to 3on by a f ereign nation in reference
to a change in your law. (Hear.) I once read in some
newspaper a foolish idea, thrown out, I suppose, by
some eccentric character, about assassinating the King
of Naples ; but if the King of Naples hai called the
noble lord's attention to that incitement to as„s6ina.
Lion, I have 110 doubt he would have got a very
sharp lecture for his pains oi. the artof good government
—(mughter)—a_
ja he would have pointed out to hie.
that the way to avoid these dangers would be h'
doing justice, PO a,-; to produce contentment arnooeg
his suljecte. (Hear.) In May, 1856, Lord Claren on
wrote a despatch to the Neapolitan Government which
was of a similar nature to this despatch of Count Wa-
lewitki. It was addre.
Qeed to the British Minister at
Naples, with a request that he would read it to the
Mini-ter of the King of Naples, and it was so read. In
it Lord Clarendon stated "that the British Government
were actuated by a friendly feeling' in' offering
adxile
for the regulation of the internal affairs of Naples,' and
for the adoptien of a system of administration which
would relieve Europe from anxiety,"' The Neapolitan
Minisier replied that he would communioatethe despatch
to the King, but said that "the King could nut consist-
ently with his dignity allow any foreign Power to inter-
fere with the internal government of his country." He
was not content with this conversational mode of trans-
acting business, hat 01"7" t, vle j,,,
I Ling, and ue *lent a forwel de.pa:ch to the Neapolitan
Minister here to be communicated to the British Go-
vernment. The despatch ran thus :
" From the enclosed copy of the despatch, her Britannia
Majesty's Government has assumed the purpose of showing
itself uneasy in regard to the internal condition of the domi-
nions of the King, our Sovereign, in order to give advice
tending to suggest thoughts of a necessity of a change iu our
admiuistratiou, at the same time teat it recognises the value
of the principleAltat no foreign Power has a rightto mix itself
with the internal affairs of a foreign State."
" The English Government must be convinced that the Go-
vernment of the Two Sioilies, scrupulous in respecting the
independence of others, does not admit in any other a right
of interference in the internal administration of the Royal
States, and still less that of censuring the acts and the admi-
nistration of justice.
" He cannot have recourse to the changes suggested until
the welfare of the States and his own dignity indicate the
occasion and the propriety of the same to his Royal mind.
The advice of friendly powers will always be received with gra-
titude, but they will easily comprehend that what suits one
State may not be equally applicable to another."
(Cheer?.) I should have thilight that the noble lord, with
his experience of the system of making friendly conamu
nicatrons to foreign Powers, would be the fir.t to make
one of those dignified replies for which I alma he has
been sometimes remarkable, and which, I think. was
especially called fur on t• e recent occasion. The question
bef we the house, be it iibserved, is simply between tyi
and our own executive Government. It is not a question
between the Patliarnent of Erglend and the G vern-
merit of France. ([leer.) We are now exercising oer
legitimate right of criticising the manner in which the
servants of this country have fulfilled their dutiee, acrd
of ascertaining whether they have properly defended the
honour and reputation and Jignity of England. (Cheers )
Now, I, like the rest of the world, frequently form my
(pinions—in fact, we all de it, without being a a are of it
—from reading tho newspapers. We rosy not be very
willing to admit it, but I undertake to say that the
newspapers of this country—such a jeuenal, for instar.c,
as the Tieees —have a very considcrah'e influence, for a
short period at least, informine; the apinien of the people,
I Lave been a reader of the Tirfies,aud my opinions have
often been very much influenced by what I have read in
that journal ; and, Kith the permission of the house, I
will take the Tiber y cf readirig a brief extiact from the
Times smith reference to the policy of the noble lord at
the head of the Government, which seems to me to be
aimed with wonderful accuracy and with a very &seri
minating appreciation of his real character, and of the
character of his foreign policy. Now, what says the
Times? (Cries from members, "Of what date ?") lam
about to quote from the Times of
_the 22d cf June,
1850. (Laughter.) I don't suppose that at bin period
of tile the noble lord at the head of the Government bee
changed materially shoe June, 1850—(" hear," and a
laugh)—and I believe the Times newspaper is conducted
by the same persona—(laughter)—and has the same