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

judgesi
ipqstermeduatffinvaatesufficient
elParliamentlbtehit
eneoahestt
vanthaehr
tetoi
soi_
btrri
attaching
cdpunishmenten pronouncedhneto
functionsideter
unedegari
scpcte discharged,
persons
authoringasrb;ongyonyaefnsdload,wfFat what
offence
to
nteedhern, the
eo laps
the
functions ie , they
of
fa have
Parlia-
mentper whatever-
rnainini o e:wPinpulhalienilnes:r'ulatidahheyee. et howevert;
tfhroem°ffitiar coomn meeinesviictoni.onlanddo
not, of course, mean that any punishment can absolutely
deter persons from the commission of crime ; but still our
laws always aim at fixing for an offence a ceea'n amount
of punishment, which may afford a reaeonable probability
that it will deter persons from its commission. The horse
and learned gentleman who moved the amendment
admitted that our laws might be sueceptible of im-
provement, and that it might be right to inquire with
the view of making it sufficient to deter from the coal.
mission of the crime from which persons are not now
deterred owing to the lightness and inadequacy of punish.
msnt on conviction. We then find, assuming for a
moment that there is no uncertainty as to the nature
of the crime, that it is a misdemeanour for a foreigner
in this country to conspire, or to incite persona to per-
perpetrate, the murder of a person in another country.
The law only made that a misdemeanour, and the
utmost punishment to which a person on conviction
was liable for so atrocious a crime (he himself remaining
in the country while the crime was being executed, and
not subjecting himeelf to any of the risk attending the
attempt) is that attaching to the offence of a ramie.
meanour. The boa, and learned gentlema,n who lad spoke
assumed that the punishment attachinz to a misde-
meanour is of an indefinite amount. Now, for such
an offence the court might impose imprisonment,
the erdicary madiimum of which is the period of two
years. But the boa. and learned member for Midhurat
observed that the Court might impose a fine of 2,000/.
(Mr. Warren—" In that particular case it did.") No
doubt the court might also impose a fine, which would
amount to perpetual imprisonment, but my hon. and
learned friend must linow that whatever might be the
discretion left to the court, it would never be exercised
to that extent. It is not a course which our courts
usually adopt to impose, in addition to imprisonment, a
fine utterly beyond the ability of the prisoner to pay,
and thereby to convert the sentence of detention into
perpetual imprisonment ' • hut I am sure the honourable
and leereed member did not mean to suggest that
they would act in so disgraceful a manner in order
to render in certain cases the punishment attached
to misdemeanour sufficient. By the state of the law
in England the crime to which the proposed bill re.
ferred was only a misdemeanour, and I believe that
the reason for such a state of the law is this, that con-
spiracy to commit a murder—some persons inciting
others to the commission of the crime,`butero far keepieg
themselves safe as to withdraw themselves from the et-
tremse. penalty of the crime—is so abhorrent to tbefeel-
ings of Englishmen that I do not think any law bas been
required to be put in force with respect to it in this
country. (Hear.) But in Ireland from the peculiarly
unhappy state of society there, and from the frequency
of aerar:an outrager,this crime was unhappily of no rare
occurrence. And what did the Parliament do I The
hon. gentleman has alluded to the two Irish acts on the
subject, but the law as already existing is not an Irish
Act, but a modern act, passed by the united Parliaments
of Great Britain and Ireland. The act alleges the fact
that such crimes were not unfrequent, and that it was
necessary not to lease them to be punished by the com-
paratively light penalty attaching to misdemeanour; and
for the security of society in that part of the united
kingdom (Ireland) the law (10th George IV.) renders the
crime a capital felony. We found that iu England
the offence was only a misdemeanour, and we have
thought it right, while mitigating the severity of the
Irish law, to increase the severity of the law in
England, and to make the offence punishable, not by
death, but by penal servitude, the duration of which
should be left to the discretion of the court according to
the facts and circumstances of the case. I cannot think
that the mere proposal of a comparatively unimportant
bi 1 of this kind should be objectionehle to the house, and
the hon. and learned gentleman seemed impressed with a
conviction of the inadequacy of the punishment by the
pros :ant la s, when be was obliged to suppose the instance
of some exceedingly heavy fine. Such being the case, I
now come to a more important part of the question,
—namely, as to the time when the proposal is made,
and here I must say that when the attention of the
Government has been called to a defect in the law
of this country, and they are satisfied that an im-
provement clii ho inaie in the law, the proper time
to propose the changes to Parliament is certainly
when that conviction has been forced upon their
minds. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentle-
man referred to the expression " nolumus leges Anglia
mutz.i, and said we were going to change our law
without soy reference to the usefulness of the change,
but because Count Walewski bad called attention to the
notorious fact that this crime was plotted and contrived
by persons in this country. With respect to Count
Walewski, I would ask hon. members to place them-
selves in his position. If attemnts at assassination had
been concocted in Fiance, and if an endeavour had been
made to put them into execution in this country, and if
we had reason to believe that the law of France was not
euflicient to deter by its penalties from the commission
of such crime., I think the Government of this country
would have been justly blameable if they had not called
the attention of the Government of France to what they
believed to he a defect in the French law, not in the
language of menace (and there is no menace in Count
Walewski'a despatch), but in terms fairly pointing out
the defect., and eubmitting it to the consideration of the
French Government. So the French Government hod
a Light to ask us whether, in strict accordance with our
laws, legal and coustitueional cheeks might not be im-
posed on the commission of such crimes, and in Conut
Walcwski's despatch, as we read it, there is nothing to
deter us from doing what we were convinced ourselves
ought to be done—namely, to propose this bill to Par-
liament, which would effect a 'useful amendment in the
law. We have been told that Lord Hawkesbury lteld
different language in 1802. New, I ask bon. gentlemen
to contrast the despatch of the French Minister of that
day with the despatch of Count Walswski. The former
despatch was, as Lord Hawkesbury observed, not
couched in very conciliatory language, but in terms of
ci
the most offensive nature, and containedemands, coupled
1 with merace to this country, calling on the Government
to expel from the country certain persons described by
name and classes, and to restrict the freedom of the
press, in order that the Government might prevent the
insertion of articles offensive to France. What was
\
Lord Hawkesbury's dignified and proper reply I He
Bahl :

" The French Government must have formed an erroneous
judgment of the disposition of the British nation and of the
character of its Government, i they have been taught to
expect that any representation of a foreign power will ever
induce them to consent to a violation of those rights on which
the liberties of the people of this country are found." '
One of those rights was the freedom of the press, and it
was to the laws affeeting the press that ler passage
referred. The Government of that day refused —as they
were bound to refuse—to propose to Parliament at the
dictation of a foreign government measures which would
fetter and restrict the lib( rt.y of the press. But what
did Le, d }Tewkesbury do ?. Did he refuse demands of
another kind which were made upon the English Govern-
ment ? Far from it. At that time an Alien Act was in
existence, arid the Government ceuld n rt say that the
law did not Authorize them to deal with tureign refugees
in a different manner from that in which they were
enabled to deal with subjects of the realm. S ) long as
an alien obeys the laws be is now free to abide in this
country ; but at that time an Alen Act was in existence,
and though the powers which it conferred upon the
Geveroment were intended to enable them to maintain
the internal tranquillity f country, yet, feeling the
pressure of the demands made upon them by France,
they did send out of the kingdom certain refugees whose
expulsion had been demanded by the French Aliuister ;
and they further intimated that if other refugees com-
mitted acts which, although complained of by the French
Gervernmeet, were not punishable by law, they also
would be sent oat of the country. We have no power,
thank God ! to make such concessions to any foreign
government, and we do not ask for any such power.
Indeed, we should be ashamed of submitting such a pro-
position to Parliament, for we know that it would be at
once repudiated. But Lord Hawkesbury, in refusing to
propose to Parliament, at the dictation of the French
Government, any bill 'or altering the law.with respect to
the press, declared the willingness of the British Govern•
went to afford to every foreign governmental! the protec-
tion against such offences as were complained.of—those
offences being libels, and not assassinations—which the
principle of the laws and constitution of this country would
admit. Now, I ask whether there is anything in the
course we are pursuing which contrasts unfavourably with
the course adopted by Lord 'Tewkesbury in 1802? Is our
proposition contrary to the principles of the law and con-
stitutioe to propose that Parliament
—that the crime of inciting and shouldh ee n acctoutrhta ofa
n
conspiracy to murder
in-
stigating
persons to commit murder—shall be punishable,
n ce
years'ta pi l
duration
but b
at h
y penal t
ediscretion
servitude
o r imprisonment t
cthoortefidently assert that there is nothing in that proposition
which is in the slightest degree abhorrent to the principles
of our law and constitution. I have shown that the prin-
ciple onbodied in the Irish Act is entirely consc with
andswucehd on nportocheeesditinatnge—lnttr we
tbheeliepvroincaipuleeceosfsitoyuremlaiswiss,
for
Parliament to render a similar law applicable to the Unitedalik
Kingdom. We don't ask you to make thebutt offenceimpose punishment which we hopewillelcearepiisetali
deterring effect, and will prevent base and bloody-minded
men from engaging in such conspiracies as I have referred
to. Allusion has been made to the despatch of Count
Walewaki with reference to the insertion in the Moniteur
of certain addresses presented to the Emperorof the French.
Now, I am not here to defend the publication of those
addresses. They were, I admit, insulting to this nation;
they ' have been deeply felt by the people of this
country. (Cheers) But even if no apology had been
made—if no regret had been expressed—for their
publication, I should hesitate to agree with those
who argue that, although wo are convinced an amendment
of the law is required, yet on account of the insertion of
these addresses in the Monitcur we should abstain from
taking that wise, judicious, and temperate course which,
independently of the publication of such addresses, we
should have been disposed to adopt. I think the course of
a great nation should be—instead of showing itself tco
sensitive to such expressions as I have allpded to, even
where they are supposed to have received the sanction of
the ruler of a country, whether powerful or weak—to hold
its own even way of legislation, and that if we are convimoed-
that an amendment of the law is necessary, which will
enable us to give a complete and satisfactory answer—or
what ought to be a complete and satisfactory answer—to
the complaints of foreign States, which will show then
that we do not harbour assassins, but that we receirturg
our shores refugees of all political opinions, only rend Rios
them liable, equally with our own subjects,
intended to deter them from the oommiseiTerg eel,o I
tries, not showing
an amendment of the law should be
thing that may happen in foreign
v be termed such insults
may bat altered
ourselves too sensitive to what
mos is
somewhat think, the course we ought to p.ursnooe,uni
as I have mentioned. But e
etelatteation, for the French
',.ff,.",,„„,ective of an
this subject Drit —not by hot Majesty's
Government, on being /awe