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

THE iStIN LONDON, SATURDAY gVIENING, FEBRUARY 20, 1858

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.
CON SPIRAC Y 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 en
moving for leave to introduce the bill. In the first place,
I would say 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
of 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
had 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 oecasion,
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 hatched
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:3 a law which had originated i❑
unhappy times, when animosities ran high, when vio-
lences 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, whilst 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 doss not point exclusively against aliens.
It only places aliens on that footing on which they ought
to stand—namely, en 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

cosairy, He cannot expect to enjoy privileges which
are not accorded to the natives, and must submit to the
laws which in the wisdom of the legislature, are imposed
on the native inhabitante of the country. There is no-
thing in this bill which gives to the executive government
any arbitrary power whatever, either in regard to he-
Majesty's subjects or to aliens resident within the realm,
It gives no power of expuLion. There is nothing in the
bill which interferes in theelightest 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 nation maybe—
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 bill find a safe
and secure asylum within this realm as long ae he
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 any 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 orthe 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 of 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, fine,
eloquent, and indignant answer to the despatch of Count
Walewski 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.
(Hear, hear.) They have often been told, and it was
repeated on that occasion ♦erbally, that we never had
ear 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 refuge in this country—that it would
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 Goverment of the day in, England
would have answered that, having no well-grounded
reason for suspicion, they could ❑ot pat the law into
execution, and that naturally would have raised very
disagreeable discussions between England and foreign Go-
►ernments. (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
coarse. We told the French Government that the
matter had already been under our consideration, and
that we should take the course which 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
might justly say we were wanting in ordinary courtesy
to them in leaving unanswered a c)mmunioation 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 what
we intended to submit to Parliament. It is not right
to submit oar measurea to 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, that the opinion which the house arrived
at on a former occasion, as to the expediency of permit-
ting the bill to be brought in, 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 obaracter—that
while on the one band it raises the penalty in England,
on the other hand it mitigates the penalty i❑ 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
second reading. (Hear.)
The question having been put,

Mr. T. GIBSON rose to move an amendment. Ha
said, I am not one of those who hale laboured under the
misapprehension of the objects 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 of his views
upon the exact aim of the measure before 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, I am of opinion that matters
of this grave importance, that matters affecting, perhap4,
the honour and reputation of our country, ought not to
be left to mere casual conversations, but 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 convictions. I can
tell the noble lord that, although I have been no follower
of his with reference to the policy which he has pursued
with regard to the foreign relations of this country,
although I have generally been no admirer of what is
o
called his "spirited foreign" policy, I have frequently
contoled myself with the reflection that, whatever die-
'
Pu, 'el We tight have with other parts of the world, the
dan
g
necessary to)
?rds, at least, would be no party to raising any
".11 controversy or die ute with France, our per-
manent friendly understanding with which I hold to be
the civilisation and happiness of Europe.
to put
the(hue
Raer, resolution htoearmeet
eu ptoon
meaning. submitt hemerits
t o t
the
the
kouseo.ne or two preliminary objections and
has
possession of its exact Parliamentary
bill before the houseeetnbaobjected by the enemies of the
suffi-
ciently decided, that I ought tthia amendment is not stifE-
to have proposed a motion
to throw nut the bill altogether,l to reject it, as it were
Undoubtedly, my
nwoitthinigtnhoamt ifncyr.rn.(lloenart.healttter hand, gentalemmeenndrafaevnotuirs-
t this is en indirect mode
aobfldeetfosatthinegbitiblet,
inaveemnure,
and
wouldread b
theahe beenbill
more candid if I had invited thrnethe,:uottliliie
second time this day three
objections ire founded upon a misapprehension (year.) Theta
object which I have in view. My object ieentsoi? then
expression of opinion from the house strictly relevantlllt° a
the bill before us ; but by agreeing to the resolution
which I now submit you would not necessarily defeat
the bill, you would simply avert its progress for a single
day, and it would afterwards be competent to any per-
son to proceed with the measure and pass it into a law

(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 mode in which the Government have conducted the
affairs which ham led to the introduction of the measure
before us, and els ) 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 hon. 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
takes. (Hear, hear.) In answer to that objection I
can only say that I should have been very glad, if it
had been in my power, to move my amendment as a
substantive resolution ; but I have not the command of
the tines of this heuse—(cheers)—l cannot bring i❑ 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
Inch a resolution. It appears to me, however, that ►mmy
amendment is strictly within the rules of Parliament ;
tbat 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
and deliberate answer from her Majesty's Government.
What is the resolution tbat 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 upon
the life of the Emperor of the French have been devised
in England, and expresses its detestation of such guily
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 aro viewed with universal
execration. (Cheers.) I feel no doubt, therefore, that the
House of Commons cordially approves the first pasaa.;e
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, afterdueinve•tigation,
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 indiecretions, 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 charges in the law of conspiracy,
even conspiracy to murder. Conspiracyper se 13 an unful-
filled —or, as it has been called, an unconsummated—

intention. That is a vague, uncertain offence to deal
with, and more than any other with which a man may
be charged affords a❑ opportunity fer injustice being
done- (Hear.) It therefore behoves the house to be
careful as to the extent of the neeeities to be attaceed to
the offence. I think it is Sir Matthew Hale who says
conspiracy is a net in which you catch tee dove as well
as the hawk, and therefore, seeing the uncerta'nties
which surround prosecutions for such a crime, we ought
to take care that we do not hastily make dangerous
changes in the law of England with respect to conspiracy.
(Hear.) I speak with hesitation, not with confidence,
upon so grave a question as what may be necessary
changes in cur criminal law. I would found my opinions
upon high authorities, when the dicta of men of great
experience, upon reports of your public officers—.such as
the Statute Law Commissioners—rather than upon any
crude views, based 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 Wednesday, December 3, 1666, and there
were present the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wrotteal, 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 ttorney-
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-
ticular 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 offences against the person the Lord
Chancellor has thought fit deliberately to exclude any
change in the existing law relative to the offence of cons
'piracy to murder. (Cheers.) I think that fact ought to
have some weight with the house, as showing that the
Bill before us is the result of a sudden determination--
not of deliberate consideration following " due investi-
gation"— on the part of her Majesty's Government.
(Rear.) It may be said that the bill introduced by the
Lord Chancellor as the organ of the Statute Law Com-
mission, merely consolidates and does not amend the
laws to which it relates. That is not the case. The re-
port prefixed to the "Offences against the Person Bill"
besides referring to a vast number of cases of the actual
introduction into that Bill of legislation which is a
change and not the consolidation of any existing law,
I has the following passage which bears directly on the
present subject :
" At present, a great anomaly prevails in cases 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 class ;
section 25, therefore, makes all such attempts felony,"
Here is a change in this bill for the purpose of ameliora-
tion in your criminal law, showing that there was a
power to amend, as well as to consolidate, and therefare
I must suppose that the Chaucellor 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. (Cheers.) Ido not wish to
commit myself to 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 to 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. Allsop, a person
charged with having been aiding and abetting, ia 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 hal been brought before the police ma-
gistrates, and that proceedings are being taken with the
view of subjecting him to prosecution, on the gr„und of
his being a conspirator, or having incited this act ?
(Hear.) I believe the law as it now stands gives more
power over persons who have aided and abetted this late
act in Paris than if you were to prosecutethem under the
present Bill of Her Majesly's Government. (Hear.)
Under the 9th George IV., cap. &l, Sir H. Peel's Act,
any subject of Her Majesty, who is accessory before the
fact to murder in another country, may, I understand,
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 in the land have also held that waitr
the terms, " subjects of her Majesty," arc 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 eat
the law is amply sufficient to deal with any persons who
concernedattenlpt
winhch h
thisi coaus ntry in bringing about
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
thhaeved r beeaednf u l
say so, to stand in the way of such au am:liot atioe of
your law as would enable you to. deal with persons, be
they Englishmen or aliens, who can be proved by clear
and conclusfve 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, for an
opinion on the Bill, for that ques!ion will arise after my
resolution has been dealt with, but I am merely putting
it to the Houma whether it is right, under the circum-
stances, to road the Bill a second time this day. I
hope that isll, therefore, will agree with me that these
words in my resolution are reasonable words :—" That
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•
meats in reference to this proposed change in the
law which are not quite consistent with each other.
First of all, they press on us the maxim that we roust
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
by a foreign country, but we are not therefore to be de-
terred from dealing with it. After pressing on us that
maxim, in which, to a certain extent, I express my con-
currence, though, to use the expression of an hon, friend
of mine, there is a species of awkwardness in doing any-
thing, however right, under a sort of duress—after, I
repeat, pressing on us that good maxim—that we must
do right ourselves, whether asked to do it or not, the
noble lord and the right hon, gentleman said that they
were always going to make this change in the law, even
if there had been no French despatch, and if there had
been, thoogh I do not know whether they sa'd this
exactly, no calamitous event in Paris. But if this French
despatch had nothing to do with the bringing in of this
bill, why was it
laid in a formal manner on the table of
the house, to form, as it were, a foundation for subse-
cpent proceedings which the Legislature was to take ?
I undertake to say that in the first speech of the noble
lord in introducing the bill you will not find one single
syllable of its having b,en ale aye the intention of the
Government to propose this change, or of their having
had their minds turned to this def ct in the criminal
law four some time past. It appears to me that the
idea is something like a second thought ; and, at
any rate, if it was the intention to resied, an
quite unnYecesaall
necessity of dischar i gto the ineliscretionsgcfn - paragraph in my res 1
house has gone with
alleged defect in our criminal law, it way
my to read us such a lecture about the
our duty without any reference
,thers. I now come to the third
o ution. I do not kuow whether the
me so far as to agree in the first

two paragraphs, but I take leave to assume it has no
objection to there. With respect to the third paragraph,
I express my regret "That her Majesty's Government,
previously 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-
ceived from the French Government, dated Paris, Jan.
20, 1858, and which has been laid before Parliament."
I certainly feel rezret at that circumstance, and the
'lines of Commons is competent to express regret,
without necessarily implying what is called censors. 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, as it
were, the truth of Rome of the charges contained in that
despatch. (Cheers.) Nay, more ; seeing that the despatch
calls in question the policy of England in reference to
the right of asylum—that it reflects on the merle 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 as if we were
ashamed to defend our principles when we find, upon
the right of asylum being indirectly called in question,
the insinuation is passed over in aliened? (Hear.) And
more than this, I believe that a great mi-apprehension
exists throughout France as to the exact nature of our
laws in reference to the right of asylum. Now, Count
Wale wski says in his despatch of the 23J). 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 his
just struck Europe with amazement. Ought, then, the right
of asylum to protect such a state of things. Is hospitality
due to assassins'? Ought the English legislation to contribute
to favour their designs and their plans ? Aud can it continue
to shelter persons who by their flagrant acts place themselves
beyond the pale of common right and under the ban of hu-
rsani y ?",

If no answer has been given to that despatch, it is an
admission, by silence, that with our eyes open we have
sheltered assassins, and that we have actually favoured
their designs. But is that true I No, sir; it is not. As
my hon. friend the member for Sheffield truly said, Eng-
land abhors 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 isayiag 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 an in•
sinuation by a firm and dignified answer to this de-
spatch. lam sorry to sec the indifference which is
manifested by some members of the Government to the
treat 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,
silentlyacquiesced in a resolution condemning the liberty
of the press. Not only did he soy nothing—so far as
we testy judge from the protocols—in defence of the liberty
of the press, which is so dear to us all, but he actually
signa I his name to a resolution condemnatory of it.
"be oely a.iew,r which the noble; lord gave when called
upon to explain this circumstance was, " Would you
have had Lord Clarendon make a scene—they were all
so harmonious together (a laugh) —why not let these
matters, which may lead to dangerous controversy, pass
by unnoticed 1" gt is the same sort of thing now. This
solemn and important despatch of Caunt Walewski'd is
not to be answered, because the answer may lead to un-
pleasant controversy. Bat 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. (Cheers.) That
despatch ought to have been answered. It may be held
that it was difficult to answer it (a laugh), but I will
quote a passage 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 hon. gentleman, "I never
read a despatch which was more tempting to a Minister to
answer than this one,"
(Hear.) That looks as if there would have been no dif-
ficulty experienced in the mind of somebldy at any rate
in answering it. There was a very impirtant view of
this question thrown out 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 Walewski on the table,
and at the same time the answer of the British Minister worthy
of the opportunity, in my opinion the Government would havo
met witk no difficulty, and the feelings of the two nations
woul have been discussed in the temper which we all de-
sire."

There is great force i❑ that observation, and I have no
doubt whatever, if Count Wale wski's despatch had been
laid before us, accompanied by a becoming answer on
the part of our Government, that, without any idea of
menace or ii-tinaidation, we should have cordially sat to
work on this attempt to endeavour to find a remedy for
any defect which may exist in our law. We should
have approached the subject in a better frame of mind,
to say the least of it. (Llear.) I think that is a consi-
deration which ought to weigh with hon. gentlemen in
support, of my motion, and which ought to bring home
to their minds the relevancy of it to the bill now under
discussion. The word which I have ventured to propose
to the house are these :

, I " That this house cannot but regret that her Majesty's Go.
1
vernment, previouoly to inviting the house to amend the law
of conspiracy at the present dice, have not felt it to ho their
duty to reply to the important despatch received from the
French Government, dated ' Paris, Jan. 20, ,
1858' which has
been laid before Parliament."
I want to call the noble lord's attention tc the course
which he has been in the habit of taking in reference to
making what are called friendly communications, or
communications in a friendly spirit, on the subject of
theirinternal(cheers ploltilicyi
think
the state of their own internal laws. There is no man
in this house, or perhaps in Europe, who has had greater
noble
interesting lord
correspondence hhas foun d
experience in the mode of making friendly communications
hewinto ether countries as to the condition of their laws and
the neceisityof a chantgoe nt
(Laugh-
ter.) I would ask the
other countries prepared to take friendly advice of this
sort without replying
find that even the Government with which he has not
very long ag,o carried on avert'
—I mean the Government of Naples—set a very good
example as to how You should behave when friendly
advice is offered to you by a foreign 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 had called the
noble lord's attention to tha'. incitement to assassina-
tion, I have no doubt he would have got a very
sharp lecture for his pains oe the artof good government
—(aughter)—and he would have pointed out to him
' that the way to avoid these dangers would be by
doing justice, so a•., to produce contentment among
his subjects. (Hear.) In May, 1858, Lord Claren‘on
wrote a despatch to the Neapolitan Government which
was cf a similar nature to this despatch of Count We-
lewvki. It was addre,sed to the British Minister at
Naples, with a request that he would read it to the
Minister 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 advice
for the regulation of the internal affairs of Naples,' and
`for the adoption of a system of admiuietration which
would relieve Europe from anxiety.," The Neapolitan
Minister replied that he would communicate the 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, but thought fit to put his iews in
writing,, and he sent a formal despatch to the Neapolitan
Minister here to be communicated to the British Go-
vernment. The despatch ran thus :
‘, From tho enclosed copy of the despatch, her Britannic
Majesty's Government has assumed the purpose i,f 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 in our
administration, at the same time t iat it recognises the value
of the principle that no foreign Power has aright to mix itself
with the internal affairs of a foreign State."
" The English Government roust be convinced that the Go-
vernment of the Two Sicilies, 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 adiaii-
nbAration of justice,

" lie cannot have recourse to the cliasges 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."
(Cheere.) I should have thought that the noble lord, with
his experience of the systemof making friendly commu-
nications to foreign Powers, would be the fir-t to make
one of those dignified replies for which I admit he has
been sometimes remarkable, and which, I think, wasespecially called for on e recent occasion. The question
before the house, be it observed, is
simply between us
and our own executive Government. It is not a question
between the Parliament of England and the G vern-
went of France. (Hear.) We are now exercising our
legitimate right of criticising the manner in which the
servants of this country have fulfilled their duties, and
of aecertaining whether they have properly defended' the
honour and reputation and dignity of England. (Cheers )
Now, I, like the rest of the world, frequently form my
opinions--in fact, we all do it,
without being aware of it
—from reading the newspapers. We may not be very
willing to admit it, but I undertake to say that the
newspapers of this country—such a journal, for instance,
as the Ti,,zes —have a very considerable influence, for a
short period at least, informing the opinion of the people.
I have b,en a reader of the Times. and my opinions have
often been very much influenced by what I have read in
that journal ; and, with the permission of the house, I
will take the liber y of reading a brief extract from the
nnee with 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 disci i
rninaticg appreciation of his real character, and of the
character of his foreign policy. Now, what says the
Times ? (Cries from members, " Of what date ?") I am
about to quote from the Times of the 22d of June,
1850. (Laughter.) I don't suppose that at hie period
(it lite the noble lord at the bead of Ole Government has
changed materially eiece June, 1850—(" hear," and a
laugh)—and I believe the Times newspaper is conducted
by the same persons—(laughter)—and has the tame

head. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Well, the Times
says of the noble lord that—
" There is no constituted authority in Europe with which
Lord Palmerston has not quarrePed—(a laugh)—there is no
insurrection that he has not betrayed. The ardent parti-
sans of Sicilian, Italian, and Hungarian independence have
certainly no especial cause for gratitude to a Minister who
gave them abundance of verbal encouragement and then aban-
doned them to their fate." (Hear, hear.) "On the other
hand "—mark this—" when Lord Palmerston has made up
his mind to court the good-will of a foreign Power no sacrifice
of principle or of interest is too great for him."
(Laughter and cheers.) The passage concludes in these
emphatic terms
From first to last his character has been the want 'of a
firm and lofty adherence to the known interests of England,
and it is precisely from a want et such guiding laws of con-
duct that our foreign policy has degenerated into a tissue of
caprices, machinations, petty contentions, and everlasting
disputes."
(Cheers and laughter.) It is because I think the mode
in which this affair has been conducted is of all others
the most calculated to occa don disputes with France
that I take the liberty of que,tioning the discretion
which has been exercised by her Majesty's Government.
I agree with the noble otember for the city of Loudon
that the irritating discussions that have taken place in
this house might have been avoided had a more judicious
policy been pursued. I believe that if a proper reply
had been sent to the despatch of Count Wa ewski it is
possible that we might never have been called upon to
legislate upon this subject ; and, the sympathies of teis
country having been expressed for the unfortunate cir-
cumstances that had taken place in Paris it is very
probable that when the excitement had passed away the
matter might have ended without the necessity of
involving the House of Commons in any controversy
with reference to the Emperor of the French, and the
views of the French nation. I, for one, feel entirely
precluded from offering any opinion whatever with re-
spect to the Government of the Emperor of the French.
That is a matter for the French people. I am foe non-
interference, and therefore I stall not set the example
of entering into any discussion as to the mode in which
the Government of France is carried on. The noble lord
has told us that the Government of France rests on the
voice of the people ; there is undoubtedly a French As.
sembly elected, as it is said, by universal suffrage and
vote by ballot—(eheering and general laughter)—and it
is not therefore for me to call in question the mode in
which the government of France is administered. I
confine myself to my legitimate duty, which is to ques.
tion the discretion that has been exercised by the execu-
tive Government of this country. I now beg, sir, to
place toy ameedinent in your hands. I believe that I
am only discharging a legitimate and constitut.onal
duty. (Cheers.) I believe that I have taken a fitting
opportunity for discharging that duty ; and I have only
to thank the house for the kindness and attention with
which they Lave heard me. (Continued cheering.)
The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, as an
ameodnienr,
"That this house hears with much concern that it is
alleged that recent attempts upon the life of the Emperor of
the French have been devised in England, and expresses its
detestation of such guilty enterprises ; that this house is
ready at all times to assist in remedying any defects in the
crimiyal law which, after due investigation, are proved to
exist, yet it cannot but r gret that her Majesty's Government,
previously to inviting the house to amend the law of conspi-
racy by the second reading of this bill at the present time,
has not felt it to be their duty to make some reply to the ice.
portant despatch receivedfrom the French G ,vern ',cot, dated
Paris, Jan. 20, 1858, and which has been laid before Parlia-
ment."

Sir J. V. SHELLEY having seconded the amend
meet,
Mr. BRINES said he would offer but a few observa-
tions on the questions that had been raised. The main
question he took to be this—first, whether the measure
now proposed on the pert of the Government was right
in itself ; and secondly, if so, whether there was any
valid reason why it shoul I not he immediately proceeded
with in that horse. The (eject of the right honour-
able gentleman's amendment would clearly be this, to
interpose an sletacle to proceeding with the measure,
which, he Submitted, was in every way worthy of its ac-
ceptance, and which ought to pass into law with as little
delay as possible. He could assure the right hon. gentle-
man that the bill had not for its object to change any one
of the constitutional principles to which the people of
this country were so strongly attached. If that were its
object, he would not for a moment give it his support.
Tee bill did no more than to assign to an offence of a
particulerly dangerous non malignant character such a
punishment as such an offence deserved. That efts the
object of the bill. It created no difference whatever in
the tribunals before which such offences would be tried,
for such cases would be tried in exactly the same mann, r
as ordinary offences, and precisely in the same manner
as at present. There would be the same securities of
grand jury, petty jury, and the ordinary formalities of
law. Therefore, be said, as far as regarded the constitu-
tional principles of our jurisprudence, the bill left them
exactly where they were. The present etato of the law
in reference to cases for which the proposed bill would
provide was most incongruous and inconsistent. In Eng-
land the offence was looked upon as a misdemeanour,
punishable only as a common assault er a common nuis-
ance, while in Ireland it was visited with the punishment
of death. It might be said that the provisions of the hill
might be right in themselves, but this was not the pro•
per time to introduce them ; but he thought that if the
principle was right, it was unreasonable to offer any ob.
jection on the score of time. He could not help think-
ing that a great deal of the hostility to the bill was owing
to a prejudice which was indulged in before its provi-
sions became known, and when an opinion prevailed
that it was to effect Borne important change in the prin-
ciples cf our jurisprudence, but that was an err or which
saateferefiom rejected
eon hpei
rare? ntoot
he had hoped might now have passed away. If this bill
ies
mseuerdhero,wfowr, etheihso tab:
bill
tetie;perl
elide
not to foreigners alone, but to every man, woman,
stud child in England. (Hear.) It had been said that
the Government ought to refrain from taking steps with
regard to thie bill, because an improper time had been
taken by the French in ,peaking of the attempt on the
life of their Emperor. The Empe,eir of the French was,
as bad been truly said, the spontaneous choice of tie
French people, and he had been in all respects an hon-
ourable and faithful ally of the; country. (Cheers.) It
certainly ought not to be urged that, on account of some
extravagant phrases used by some persons in France,
the English Government ought to refrain from passing a
law which was called for by truth and justice. He
thought that very great allowance ought to be made for
the language o exasperation which had been used by
the French in c insequence of the dastardly sttempt on
the s Emperor ' life. Let those who thought differently
look back upon the history of our own country ; let
them remember what was done when there were attempts
on the lives of Queen Elizabeth, James 1., and William
111. Did our ancestors on these occasions conduct
themselves in that temperate manner which was now
expected of the French I Was there no intemperance
of manner, no violence of conduct, no rashness of legis-
lation ? (Cheers.) Well, then, let them make some
allowance for the excited feelings of the Fren' h people
when a cswardly attempt was made on the life of their
Emperor, to which he believed they were really attached.
(Cheers,) He had never known it used before as an
argument in that house that if a measure was right in
principle it should not be granted on account of the rash
and indecorous manner in which it was asked for.
Everybody knew that petitions sometimes presented to
that house were couched in language of downrightin-
solence, and their petitions were rejected on that ac-
count ; but it was never urge.' that on account of their
intemperate language a measure which the Parliament
c risidered right in principle should be rejected. (Hear )
Under these circumstances, he censidered that there was
no reason for rejecting this bill, which was called fir
upon every consideration of truth and justice. (Crieere.)
Mr. WALPOLE said he had hoped that something
would have fallen from the right hon. gentleman eho
had just sat down which would have induced him to
continue the vote in favour of the introduction of tiles
tell, by voting for its second reading, which he should
have done if he had found that the Ministry intended
to vindicate the honour of the country. But the right
hen. gentleman, in a speech professing to he a reply to
that of the mover of the amendment, had not made a
single allusion to the principles which were now really
under consideration. The mover of the amendment had
expressed his views with great temper, and had stated
more than once that it was far from his intention to wish
to break up the relations between the two countries,
adding most distinctly that this was a question as be-
tween the House of COIIIIIIOIIB representing the people
and the Executive Government neglecting their duty.
(Cheers.) If this were simply a discussion of the merits
of the bill, as the right hon. gentleman ('sir. Beiese) had
discussed without adverting in one single syllable to the
real question at issue—if there were no other question
before theirs hut the propriety of the bill itself—he (Hr.
Walpole) would have supported the alteration in .he
law which, he believed, to be neces-dry, because he
thought that sound principles should be laid down in
law, and that things sliculd be called by their right
names. Great questions' had been raised in this discus-
sion—the cause of freedom, the right of humanity, and
the honour of England. There was nothing iu till.. bill
to impeach the right of asylum which this county had
always offered to foreign political refugees, whether
crowned heads or peasants, In the name of common
humanity the bill might be supported when it war proved
to the house that a conspiracy had been concocted in
this country. Ile would suppert the bill on this ground,
but he would nut do so unless the honour of England
was pre 7iously viudiested. Referring to the despatch of
Count Wale:-ski, he found this passage, with reference
to the alleged encouragement affirded in this (mull ry to
the conspiracies ti commit the crime of as-a,•,s,nation :
"It is no longer the hostility of erring peril's mani-
festing itself by all the excesses of the press and
every violence of language ; it is no longer even the
labour of the fictions seeking to agetate opinien and to
provoke disorder; it is assassination reduced Loa d ictrine
preached openly, practised in repeated attempts, the
inset recent of which has just struck Europe with slope-
faction. Ought, then, the right of asylum to protect curb
a state of things 1 Is hospitality due to assassins Should
Eiiglivia legislation serve to favour their designs and their
manceuvres, and can it continue to protect persons who
place themselves by fiegrant acts outside the pale of the
common law, and expose themselves to the ban of hu-
manity ?" In submitting these ques ions to hi,r Britannic,
Mejesty's Government, the Government of the [emperor
does not merely discharge a duty towards e. self, it re-
echoes the Eentlment of the country, which, under the
influence of the most legitimate anxiety, cells uponit to
do so, and which, in a matter where the common interest
among all nations and all governments is so clear, con-
siders itself entitled to reckon upon the concurrence of
England. The repetition and the wickedness of these
guilty eeterprises expose France to a danger. j
aeainst
which we are boundto provide. E'er 11.1e...ty,
Government can u, in eve t ting it ty adoroing us a

guarantee of security which no State can refuse to a
neighbouring State, and which we are authorised to ex-
pect from an ally. Fully relying, moreover, on the high

sense of the English Cabinet, we refrain from indicating
in any way the measures which it may see fit to take in
order to comply with this wish." This requisition was
made by Count Walewski upon a statement which was
utterly and completely unfounded in fact. To pass any
such bill as that before the house with this despatch, im-
puting to the English legislation that it favoured assas-
sination, still unanswered, would be seriously to affect
the honour of this country. He knew it had been said
that the reason why this despatch had not been received
was because the mind of the people of France was
agitated at the attempt which had been made on the
life of the- sovereign of their country. But was not
something due to the agitated feelings Of thin
country, and had not the people of England a right
to demand that such charges as those contained in
the deepatoh of Count Walewski sh u d 'not. be made
upon the branding them as advocates of a4assination.
(Hear.) The Government of this country migh,
have adopted the same course as that which. had- been
taken by Lord Hawkeebury, when a similar demand was
made by the French Government respecting the conduct
of foreign refugees, It was most improbable that her
Majesty's Government should have refrained from tak-
ing such a step, and especially so as the matter had
been pressed upon the attention at an early period of the
debate on the introduction of the bill. Tney did not
wish to vote against a bill which he believed to be right
in ;itself on principle, but at the same time he did not
wish to assist in passing a bill which would seriously
affect the honour of this country. He did not know
whether the Government would even now adopt the
course which had been suggested, of answering in ,aproper manner this despatch of Count Waleteel-'
oft oi. No: ice
his amendment was given
_sore- '
oe
Government hw ad had ate'' (lays since, and the
gestion. •'-‘°
.rod time to act upon the eue-
...eication of the honour of the country
had t-eatrktreffipted,-and the people of England would
require from its Parliament that it should not take one
single step further in passing this measure until there
was a public and as authentic a record as that which
contained the libel upon England—a complete vindica-
tion and justification of our honour. (Hear.) When
that was done, the House of Commons must consider
whether the bill should be proceeded with ; but until
this was done, be hoped they would not incur that which
the noble ldrd at the head of the_ Government imputed
to them in opposing the introduction of this bill, namely,
the imputation of-being humiliated and disgraced.
Sir G. GREY said that the hon. and iearned member
hiting approved of the principle of the bill, and ex-
pressed his determination to support it, in the event of
a certain course being adopted, it was, therefore, unne-
cessary for him to discuss the principle of the bill. He
was surprised to hear that the hon. member should
have insinuated anything like an indifference to the
honour of the country on the part of her Majesty's
Government. On a previous occasion it had been stated
that her Majesty's Government had flatly refused to
deal in any manner with the refugees in this country
except in accordance with the law of the land. Although
no 1 -rural despatch had been written on this subject, it
had been fully and distinctly understood what was the
course which her Majesty's Government had decided
upon adopting. It would have been very easy for his
noble friend at the head of the Foreign ffice to have
written a despatch on the model of that of Lord Hawkes-
bury ; and this, no doubt, would have been popular with
a great part of the country, but it might not have tended
to improve the relations between the two countries, or
in the least degree to diminish the difficulties with which
the question was •surrounded. The paragraph in the
despatch to which allusion bad been made charging the
preaching into a doctrine of the crime of assassina-
tion' did not, he contended, refer to the people of Eng-
land, but to some foreigners resident in this country who
were well known to have acted in a manner described by
Count Walewski, and such as every Enelishman must
abhor and detest. He cautioned the house against sup-
posing that it would have been quite so easy to have
penned a despatch in reply to that referred to without
appearing to impute to the French Government that it
bad unjustly libelled the people of this country. Be-
sides, it was well known that there were persons residing
in this country who were actually conspiring against tt.e
life of the Emperor, and her Majesty's Government could
not in consequence take that lofty tone on the subi'.ot
which might have been wished. Then, too, if a conerefaint
had been made on the subject of this despatch, k. would
have been necessary to have referred to *he publication
of the addresses of the army in the Moniteur. Bus it was
certainly very much better that the Governmonthad not
done so, and thus avoided placing on record an aoknow-
ledgment of their existence, while they received from
the Government of France the expression of a regret '
thatthose addresses had bees permitted to appear. After
,this bill was passed there could be no objection to the
Holum of Commons placing on record the reasons which
bad induced it to abstain in any degree from infringing
the right of asylum, or asking for an extraordinary
power to be applied by the Government in dealing with
foreign refugees, in accordance with the suggestion con-
tained in the despatch of Count Walewski.. That might
be a course when it would be fitting and dignified to
adopt,, and which the differences whien existed between
British subjects and foreigners, relative to the crime of
conspiracy to murder, it might be done with consider.
able effect, inasmuch as they might state with truth that
in this matter the foreigner was upon precisely the same
footing as our own subjects. Reference had been made
to the despatch written by Lord Rawkesbury, and it had
been asked why bad not the Government adopted a si-
milar course. But the circumstances were very different
from those existed in the present day, and the two
Governments were on the eve of a war, while we were
now in a state of close and intimate alliance, But Lord,
Hawkesbury had in fact consented at the dictation ref
the French Government to send to Canada sortie perstete
whose names had been mentioned in the French, de-
spatch, to which that of Lord Hawkoebury ekees an
answer. Was that the dignified course which Eh a hon,e
was prepared to recommend as a model for her lklajeet3oa
Government in the present day. (Cheers ?) If the prin-
ciple of the present bill was affiitned, the G. 'Atom-tient
might then with, truth and dignity int arra Count
Walewski that there was no difference venatever in
theeew between the British subject and for e',gn refugees
respecting conspiracies against foreign poweers. At pre-
sent they c-old not say that such was th‘e state of things
in this country. Asa proof of this there was one British.
subject for whose apprehension a v /arrant had beet,
issued on the capital offence of beinte; mom ory to a
murder in France, white a foreign I..er agee arrested for
the same offence was only charged( with a tnisdemea-
nour. He believed that the bill Iva?, a useful one, and if,
passed would place us upon an ottoassailable footing as
regarded the-charges which migb.t be brought against us
by foreign countries. He tru-'at2d, therefore, that the
house would not recede from ',too position which it had
taken on the introduction of lelee (Hear, hear )
Mr. M'MAHON thought that the opinion of the
judges ought to have been taken on the state of the law
of conspiracy, and if it hf'id, been found to have been
inefficient the Government might then have brough',
forward a bill to remedy tb e law. But he contended that
the existing law was &triply sufficient to punish the
offence of conspiring to esiurcibr. In support of his opi-
nion he referred to ar..- Greaves, who, in his new edi-
tion of " Hawkins 's Ple as of the Crown," described the
nature of the punisinv,ent awarded for such offences.
This he (L%fr. M'Mahoeo) contended was more severe and
more effective than tbott provided by the bill before the
house. Under the present law, in addition to impri-
sonment, the judge had the power of calling upon
the offenders. to find securities for their future
conduct. The- 61.71, while it did not increase the
severity of the po:nishment would greatly increase the
difficulty of conviction, inasmuch as under the new bill
the crime would be changed from felony to misdemeanour,
and the party charged, if a foreigner, would be entitled
to a jury consisting of one-half aliens, and would have
the right of challenge of twenty of the jurors. The
experience of Ire and was (against the introduction of
the bill. The only object of the bill therefore was to
give the Government a power of espionage over the re-
fugees, which they could not possess as long as the
offence remained a misdemeanour. Make the offence a
felony, and the police hied at once given a power to
search houses and examine papers merely on suspicion.
Happily in England -there was no one interested in
abusing the powers of the law ; but it was notorious
that foreign Governtuse is would resort to any means to
hunt obnoxious refugees out of the country. It would
be better for them at (owe to proclaim to refugees that
England could no ,longer Barbour them, and that it
would be safer for them • to leave the country than
remain to be made t'ae victims of a foreign police.
Mr. BYNG said., that although be ould yield to no
one in his detestation of the horrible machination.
against the life of the Emperor of the French, he in-
tended to vote for the amend.o ent moved by, the right
hon. member -for Ashton. Ho would add that he
thought much of the language that bad been used in
that houseieith reference to. the bill ought at once to be
deprecated ; while, on the other baud, a great deal too
much had been made of ;the language adopted by the
French military officers, ursore especially after the hand-
some apology which had been offered for that language.
(Hear.) Bathe could not help thinking that both the
time was ill-chosen forth PP introduction of such a change,
as well as the change itoilf unnecessary. Had England
ever refused to put the a xteting law in motion ? Oe the
contrary, there were Vireo signal instances in which
the law had been remarkably enforced. At the same i us,
he feared this measure, if passed into law, would not
produce either in Franee or on the Continent the effect
which was desired: while. on the other fAnd, he could
not perchive that the eouesequenee of such legislation all
over Europe must be to lower the reputation of England.
He thought that an ant-war ought to have b 412 sent to
the despatch of Count 'Walewski, and believed that the
sagacious man at the her el of the French empige would
have been greatly appeas ed by the general expression of
syMpathy evinced by the people of England at his escape
from assasinaii n. The vote which he was about to give
might not be successful, but most certainly it would be
given with sincerity. B:o bad lived to be made to love
Engli h laws, and not so ling any necessity for the cl'ange
now asked fos, he s.houldr, vote for the amendment of the
right hon. member for A. diton.
Mr. SPOONER was gleel that no answer had been sent
to this despatch, which wculei hare is creased the irritation
between the two countries. If such a despatch had been
sent it could only have be en a full one, which would
have entered upon dangers us subjects. •He would have
them pass the bill, and then do what the Home Secretary
had proposed—place our or de Lions on record as to the sanc-
tity of asylum. The mode .o f meeting the bill by the pro-
posed resolution was neith or fair nor Parliamentary. He
defended the bill as good, j net, and necessary.
Lord H. VANE express( d his regret that the despatch
bad not bean answered, but could not consider that we had
been insulted by the French .Government after the apology
we had received. He shout support the second reading
of the bill.

Mr. BEN TINCK said t hat the adoption of the resolu-
tion would place us in a m oat difficult position with regard
to France. Letthem deal with Mho bi 1 without referenso to
Oxtrancous matter or thetr.opiniort of foreign nations. To