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

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 10, 1858.

band. The Emperor had but one pistol, which be
never tired off, and his followers had two. One of
the pistols of one of the Emperor's followers went off
by accident, and shot a man in the face, who was
shouting " Viva l'Empereur." (Laughter.) The only
men who were killed were two of the Emperor's
followers, who were shot by gendarmes. He thought
a lame excuse bad been put forward for accounting
for the publication of the addresses of the " fire
eating Colonels," published in the ifontleur.
Mr. WARREN said if the hon, member far Finsbury
imagined that he was one of those who would enter into
topic: of that declamatory character to which he had
alluded in discussing a (legation of such magnitude as
this, he could sincerely assure him that he was entirely
mistaken. He felt too much the responsibility of
meddling with a matter of this kind in the present state
of public affairs to allow himself t be eind4 influenced,
as one of the representatives of that free Legislature, by
a disturbing force of that character. He did not intend
to follow the example set him by his hon. and learned
friend the member for Sheffield in the fervid and brilliant
speech which he delivered on the previous evening, by
speaking in the strongest possible terms of the Emperor
of the French. The few words which he shoull utter
would be simply such as he thought it was his duty As a
member of the English Legislature and a constitutional
lawyer to address to the house with respect to thimearure
that had been proposed with all the responsibility of the
Queen's Government. The obseivations which he was
about to make were his own. He'acted in concert with
no one, and be therefore hoped that he should have the
credit of acting at least independently on this question.
If he could possibly have enpported her Majesty's Minis-
ters in bringing forward this bill he would have done to ;
but on the best consideration that he had been able t
give to it he felt it absolutely impossible to do so. His
political principles would always urge him to support
the Queen's Government, and he frankly acknowledged
that the Queen's Government had been called upon to
act at a crisis of very great—he noi..ht alrirsst saw, of
transceneant delicacy and difficulty. lot be had taken
his line as a member of that bouts', and he believed that
the b.ll which they had been *eked to sanction would
prove utterly inefretual, that it wait derogatory to the
national spirit—(hear, Lear) —and that it was (Omitted
on a l.bil npon the laws of England as they now stood,
not intentienally, but because of a misapprehens'ou of
the existing condition of those Wee. And even
if that were otherwise, he should venture, with very
great respect, to doubt whether this was the ixsct
time at which an indept.ndent I,l;islaturl shoul I
be called upon t• alter its laws. Every schoolboy knew
that our ancestors had said Nolumus laces A uglias mutari,
when an attempt was made to force foreivn !awe upon
them, and the house ought to pause before it assented on
account of a menace from a gnat neighbour ing potentate,
to the passing of a bill which would alter a law already
deemed by the Legislature to be sufficient. (Cheers ) lie
begged to call the attention of Government and of the
beige to two passages in our history. In the year 1708
a certain Russian ambassador was arrested in his carriage
in London, at the suit of a creditor in London, to whom
he owed 505, and convoyed to a common spanginer-house,
where be was locked up for the night. Sir William
Blackstone, who could not be charged with any want of
respect for the Legislature of this country, spoke of the
affair in the following terms :

" Iu the meantime t' c Czar resented this affront very highly,
and demanded that the sheriff of Middlesex and all others con-
cerned in the arrest should be punished with instant death.
But the Queen (to the amazement of that despotic Court) di-
rected her Secretary to inform him ' that she conk' inflict no
punishment upon any, the meanest, of her subjects, unless
warrant.'d by the law of the land: and therefore was persuaded
that he would not in,ist upon impossibilitic To satisfy,
howei.er, the clamour of the foreign Ministers (who made it a
common cause), as well as to appease the wrath of Peter, a
bill was brought into Parliament, and afterwards passed into
a law, to prevent and punish such outrageous inso'ence for
the futura. And with a copy of this act, elegantly engrossed
and illuminated, accompanied by a letter frem the Queen, an
Ambassador Extraordiaary was commissioacd to appear at
Moscow, who declared that, though her AI tjesty cluld not
inflict such a punishment as wa' required, because of the de-
fect in that particular of the former established constitutions
of her kingdom, yet with the unanimous consent of the Par-
liament she had caused a new act to be passel, to serve as a
law for the future.' This humiliatin: step was accepted as a
fall sati faction by the Czar, and the offenders, at his request,
were discharged from all farther prosecution."

Half a century later, Lord Mansfield, in alluding to the
circumstance, said from the judicial bench that the Act
passed as an apology and hurnil.ation fr3ol the whole
nation, the ambassador masking excuses in a selemn ora-
tion on presenting a c,,py of it to the Czt-. (Hear.)
Now, he should apprehend that the noble lord had so
great desire to foll-iw such a precedent, but yet let the
noble lord c ,nsider that in some point that case tonch• d
upon the present. The ol,j-ct of the bi I thus denounced
was to dispense with trial by jury, and to enable per.
tonal pains and penalties to be inflicted upon British
subjects at the will of two oat of three ju lges ; but even
that atrocious violation of the constitution was not ac-
companied by one of the ckaracteristics of the present
bill, for it did not contitute the offence which it defined
a felony. Coming to a later period, the year 1802, there
had been a case much more anallgous to the present
during the abort peace with France, and some passages
which occurred in a despatch of Lord Hawkesbury at the
period were very applicable to the present case. At
that time upon both sides of the Channel the public press
teemed with articles of a most insulting and offensive
nature, and in this country appeared some of a most
violent character, professing t ) be emanations of
Frenchmen. At that time Napoleon
rentation to the British Government, and what said
Lord Hawkesbury ?Hs said : made a repre-

It cannot be denied that some very improper paragraphs
have lately appe iced in some of the English newspapers
ag tinst the Government of France ; it cannot be denied, like-
wise, that publications of a still more improper and indecent
nature have male their appearance in this country, with the
names of foreigners affixed to them. Under these circum-
stances the French Government would have been warranted
in expecting every redress that the laws of this country
could afford them ; but as, instead of seeking it in the
ordinary courso, they have thought fit to resort to recrimi-
nation themselves, or at least to authorise it in others,
they could have no right to complain if their subsequent
appeal to his Majesty had failed to Koine° the effect that
otherwise would have a tended it. Whatev r may have been
the nature of the prior injury, they h No, in fatt, taken the
law into their owe h nds ; and what is this recrimination and
retort ? The paragraphs in the English newspapers, the pub-
lications to which I have above referred have not appeared
under any authority of the British Government, and are dis-
avowed and disap. roved of by them but the paragraph in
the Moniteur has appeared f
it a paper avowedly official, for
which the Government are, therefore, consid.‘red as respon-
sible as his Majesty's Government is
responsible for the eon-
tmts of the London Gazette. And this retort is not confined
to the unauthorised English news a ers or to the other pub-
lications of which complaint is
now made, bit is converted
into and made a pretence for a direct attack upon the Govern-
ment of his Kkjesty. His Majesty feels it beneath his dignity
to make any formal complaint on this occasion. .. It
is not his Majesty s intention to interfere in the manner in
which the people or territories of France should be governed ;
but he expects, on the other hand, that the French Govern-
ment will not interfere in the manner in whicle the government
of his dominions is conducted, or call for a change in those
laws with which his people aro perfectly satisfied."
(Hear, bear.) That was a
precedent which ought to
have been borne in mind by the noble lord. (Loud cries
of "Hear, hear.") The noble lord bad stated that 019
existing law was incapable of dealing with these maters
—that conspirley to commit murder was simply a mie-
demeacour whio'i rendered the offender liable only to fine
and to a short period of imprisonment ; bat he would
beg to call the attention of the house to a very different
estimate, of the law, In the year 1842 the sth or 6th
of Victoria, cap. 51, was rendered necessary in conse-
quence of a personal attack which was made upon the
person of the Queen, and by that Act it was enacted that
" Whoeveyer shall wilfully discharge firearms, whether
with or without expiosive or destructive materials, at the
person of tho Queen, or discharge explosive materials at her,
or wilfully strike her with an offensive weapon, or throw say
substance at or on the Queen, with intent to injure the per-
son of the Queen, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanour, and
shall be liable to transportation for seven years, or imprison-
ordered by a judo."
ment for three years, hard labour, and wiappin, thrice, if

Offccoes so atrocious as those mentioned in the act were
only made a misdemeanour, and that act was the wise
l egis 1 ati a
w of
t ano but the noble lord
proposed
of conspiracy to cool-
mit murder a Many, sujeeting the perpetrator to penal
.en
o make indignantthe
crimep e people e ;
servitude for life, or for not less than five years, or to
imprisonment with or without hard labour f,,r any term
not exceeding three years. Did the noble 11rd know the
distinction between a felony and a misdemeanour when
he introduced a measure to c invert that which was at
present a misdemeanour iota a felony; Did the noble
pains and penalties which
theattachedtha i n
miedemeacours ?
the year 1844 occurred
by oihr de t
hhn
eoo
at c
oke
mnwomowou
nl wd bra aewet
the memorable case against Mr. O'Connell and his oom.
panions, and in that case Sir It. Peel, when pressed to
o wereee
rc
et
introduce new legislation, uttered words which were
well worthy the attention of any Government. He said,
"I am resolved to walk in the light of the constitution.
If I find the law of the land incapable of dealing effect
tuelly with the case I will not hesitate to ask for greater
power from the Legisl dere." (Rear.) Ile would nail upon
the house to compel the Government to tread in the
footsteps of Sir It. Pea and walk in ti,a li;bt ne
constitution. Sir lt. Peel relied upon the effiJacy of the
common law, and Mr. O'Connell and his companions
were prosecuted under an indictment for a conspiracy to
excite general discontent and di4swisfaction, hatred and
contempt against her Majesty's Government and the
constitution as by law estahli.hed, to excite die ontent
and dissatisfaction in the army, to intimidate the Govern
meat so as to sever thermion between Great Britain and
Ireland, to excite hatred and distrust of the tribunals of.
justice, and usurp the prerogative of the Crown. This'
wai the indictole..t a:0a,31 o. ti.at CaS'aglin.t a treaeoa.
able c-unipiracy, and when the noh'e vibeAlUt
slightingly of fine and imprisonine.nt he seemed to f;aget
that where this im,trument of judicial warfare had been
applied it had produced aconvictivn before the tr b ina's
of Ireland, which sentenced the accosed to a .the of
2,000/., and an imprisonment of 12 calendar mootbe.
Here was an in,tance of the efficacy of 'our coin mon law
in dealing with cases of great magnitude affecting the
vital ins-rests of ads Bing Loin. Why, then, did the noble