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

IHe (Ur. Gladstone) would advisedly pass by that part of
the speech of the learned lord. He showed a disposition
to mix two discussions which had better be kept apart,
and from the cousidaration of which the greatest mischief
might arise. It was hard on the house that they should
be called upon to discuss questions connected with the
criminal law and the security of the private rights of
every Englishman under the menace of a foreign power.
(Cheers.) Both the motion and the speech of the right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Gibson) rendered essential assistance
to the house in separating the political and juridic d parts
of the question. He did not agree with the hon. member
for Cambridge that the proposed change would be bene-
ficial. He thought, on the contrary, that it was open to
grave and serious objectioisiah e
.o lian,l authorities, sucha amhoatrtitieress, buthe ht
would
re
submit to the opinion of hi
he had no such guide, for the bill was introduced by the
Primo Minister of the Crown, who was not a lawyer, and
it was recommended on grounds neither legal, social,
Ensliab, nor purely political. (Hear, hear) What was
the language of the learned lord (Advocate.) He made
two allegations with reference to the amendment,
first, that it would, if carried, be fatal to the bill, and
secondly, that the amendment had nothing to do with
the bill, anal then he proceeded to state that any member
of the house might vote for both the amendment and the
bill. (Cheers.) It had been stated that the amendment
had nothing to do with the bill. N, doubt that statement
of the Lord Advocate was a very convenient statement,
and it was clear that he wished to turn it to the best ad-
vantage. They had heard that night that they wore called
upon to deb LW whether a paltry:diplornatic corresponder cc
was complete or not, as if diplomatic correspondence could
mean nothing but red taps--(bear, hear)—bet when they
spoke of diplomatic correspondence they spoke of that
which decided the question of war or of peace, and by
which the well being of nations was maintained. It had
been said that theere was too much chicane about diplo-
matic correspondence, but it represented oneof the highest
functions of civilisation ; for it said that though in times
past all disputes were settled by she sword, the reasm of
man by this means steps in and peace was maintained.
The question, therefore, in this case is, whether the na-
tional honour has been vindicated, and whether the House
of Com,notle Rbooll approve of the course which has been
pursued. (Hoar.) The leaned lord objects to the amend-
, ment, and asks why it was not taken on the introduction
of the bill. Why, the objection was taken by an hon.
member opposite -(hear) —and by my tight hon. friers 1
the member for Wiltshire; and there was, moreover, a
reason why a member of the Government should have re-
membered it, for it was not only made, but the medicine
did trot fail in its results. They had two questions to con-
si ,cr--first, whether the despatch had been answered, and
again, whether it should not be answered bef ore they gave
their assent to the present bill. He was one who greatly
regretted discussions of the present kind. o.her opportu-
nities would arise for discussing th estate of their re'ations
with France, and he would now confine himself to the
question immediately before the house. No one could
more apprecia e than he did the importance of their
alliance with France, but he felt it was a bad principle
generally for a nation Ls draw a distinction between
one nation and another with regsrd to these alliances.
Still, as regarded the relations between England and
France, a peculiar exception should be made. Owing to
their ose neighbourhood much good arose from their ami-
cable relations; and, on the contrary, much evil and mis-
chief resulted limn their dissensions. He believed that was
so generally felt in Europe, that neither in the Queen's
Speech, nor in any other way, was any uneasy feeling
caused in other countries, because peCuliar reference was
male to the state of their relations with France. (Hear.)
He said, therefore, tLat they v ase bound to give every coa-
ti -fence to the Government of France. Tested by his acts,
this country never had a more faithful ally than the E.u-
peror of the French (Hear.) He felt bound to regret that,
since the peaco of 1856, there had arisen a variety of ques-
tions which seemed to have impaired the alliance—auoh as
the question of the Isle of Serpents, the question of the
Principalities, and the question of the Suez Canal. All that
he deeply lamented, and he felt that those quarrels ha I
weakened the Government it, iiscon :cation with the French
Government up till that time, when the event occurra 1
which they had alt greatly to regret, and which bad led to
the introduction of the present measure. They had first,
however, to inquire whether the despatch had been an-
swered, and if it had not, whether it should be answered.
He knew it was not easy sometimes to get an answer from
Government—(hear, and a laugh)—but on the present oc-
casion that complaint did not exist, for several answers had
been given. The questions had boon anticipated by the
noble lord at the heal of the Government, who referred to
the despatch in terms rather emphatic. Ho said it had not
been answered, and could not be answered. The noble lord
had, however, since informed them that the despatch had
been answered, and answered verbally; and he (Mr. Glad-
stone) was bound to say that of all the explanations that had
been given that was the. worst--(hear, hear) —and if there
was no other ground for the motion of his right honour-
able friend (Mr. M. Gibson), that fact, he thought would
have be. n sufficient. Verbal answers wore most objection-
able, for they could be introduced at will, as they could be
withdrawn at will, and by a failure they might be altoge-
ther altered. Such a thing was besides contrary to the
rules laid down for furnishing information to the house ;
that, in his opinion, it called for the notice of the house.
He was reminded again, that the learned lord (the Lord
Advocate) said it would have been wrong to have an-
swered the despatch at the time, and that it would have
been impolitic to have done so. Now he (Mr. Gladstone)
thought Lord Clarendon had sufficient judgment and con-
trol over his temper to have enabled him to have given a
proper and temperate reply. ( Hear, boar.) But the house
had had yet another answer. The right hon. the Home
Secretary had told thorn it should be answered.
S'r G. GREY—I said it may be answered.
Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, it may be answered ; but
the right hon. gentlemen told them that when the bill was
read a second time the despatch would be answered. Now,
however strong language may be, and however entirely
untrue, yet it ought not to be called insulting or offensive,
unless they were intentionally so. Now, he could not
think a foreigner to blame if, under the circumstances that
bad occurred in France, he committed groat errors in
speaking of the laws of this country. Yet this despatch
does contain allegations most untrue awl injurious to this
country. It was said, in one part of the despatch, that
"assassination waseleveted to adoctrine, and wasp embed
openly in this country." That was charged against Eng
land I Was that true. (Hear, hear.) Was assassination el,-
vated to a doctrine, and preached openly in this country?
(Hear, pea-.) Was any man con,cious of the fact?
(Hear, hear.) The law was sufficient to corree it, why,
then, had there not been an appeal to the law ? (Hear,
hear.) If assassination had been elevated to a doctrine
and preached openly, it has been tolerated by those who
ought to have applied to Government to put it down. The
imputation was one which ought not to be lightly made,
and should not have been ma le against this country. He
thought England had some character in the matter of
assassination, for it was a crime which hail never taken
root in this country. That charge then was one which
should not have been raised. As to the reference to the
Press, they bad to recollect that in 1856, at the Conference
in Paris, a proposal wets introduced with respect to the
law as it afbcted the Press in Belgium, and he spoke on
this subject as the friend of the liberty of the Press. (Hear )
When this attack was meditated against the Belgian Press
they had to recollect that Belgium was one of the brightest
spots in Europe, and that she was not represented at the
Canf, rences. (Hear, hear.) When Governments got
committed to a course of action, as in this instance, against
the Press' they get involved in no slight difficulty. The
House of Commons was not, however, committed, though
the Government might be. There was another very objec-
tionable paragraph in the despatch, in which it was asked,
" Ought the English Legislature to countenance or favoar
their designs and their plans, and give shelter to men who
placed themselves out of the pale of humanity ?" It was
there distinctly stated that the English Legislature gave
countenance to assassins, to men who placed themselves
out of the pale of society. (Hear, hear.) After statements
such as these had been made, and had not been answered,
they were asked by this despatch to alter the laws of Eng-
land without a decent inquiry. Now, that despatch
should have been answered, and before the house bad been
asked to legislate, it should have had something like evi-
dence to warrant it in agreeing to a change in the laws
which affected the personal lights and privileges of the
people. (Hear.) Government had given no answer to the
despatch, but had presented it to the House of Commons
with the bill which was now before them. The right hon.
gentleman, the Home Secretary, said the bill would consti-
tute a part of the answer. Then, as no answer can bo
given till the bill was read a second time, they must con-
sider the bill to be the answer. We inflicted by this
measure a wound upon the feelings of the people, and upon
the institutions of the country. There was a rumour in
circulation about the state of feeling in France, and the
consequence that would ensue if this measure were re.
j,eted. The house was to:d to :act ince a lit t`c of English
feeling, English law, and English recollections to that
rumour. (Loud cheers.) Were they to say to tbat
great and gallant people of Fiance, who made no
trivial claim to march at the head of the civilisation of
the world—alike distinguished in arts of peace and in the
prir.,nits of military glory—were they to treat them like
children in a nursery, to whose reason they could is, t ven-
ture to appeal, but that they must coax them with sugar-
plums. (Laughter and cheers.) Let theta put some con-
fidence in the people of Francs, for never di,l any assembly,
where everything was above-board, place confidence in a
people like that of France, and find that it was mis-
placed. Why, even the Government had not explained
the state of the law, but if he was not mistaken he saw
the Attorney-General preparing himself to reply to him.
(Laughter.) He must tell him, then, that it was grief to
the whole country that he had not yet spoken on the sub-
ject. (A laugh.) There was not, up to that moment, even
au exposition of the law. It would have been but just
to England and to France to have given France an exposi-
tion of the law. What did the noble lord himself state to
the house on that subject ? It was true he said they
might indict a man for conspiracy to murder, but that the
punishment would be all the same as for a conspiracy
to hiss an actor in a theatre. (Laughter.) That was an
opinion of an organ of the Government to justify that
change in the law. That opinion of the noble lord might be
technically true, but really it was without the smallest
foundation. Technically all misdemeanours came into the
same category. Blackstone said that misdemeanour was
synonirnous with crime. But was it true that all mis-
demeanours were visited' with slight punishments ? The
Ia according cmo ridg ihuttg
orfabt
punishment
transportation.
truehnoiers m
tm t
house was aware that the law of misdemeanour left great
power in the hands of the judge compared with the
natureiteobnna .
tt o
there
htehree case
was
n o
forfeiturestatute law, and enabled him to deal with misdemeanour
came bef before
goodshim.
and
thatYe tmthere
be inflicted
was
1 limui tp
on) thet
the
offender offender by privation of his temporal
goods, and in the
amount
shape of punishment, which might bo inflicted nflicted without
any limit, according to the gravity of tho offence No
exposition was made by the Government .
What did w demand w
edo ? A to France.
was made on th
that we sheltered :massing, and we a ent this bill as ground
ll as an an-
swer to that demand. Was the olject of Count
to convert misdemeanours into felonies? io Wales- ski
spoke of our sheltering assassins, he iutendrai thewthatne
Government should have the power of sending them'
of the country, (Hear, hear.) That was the necessaryout
construction to be put upon the despatch of the
French
Foreign Minister. But what object would be served by
presenting such a bill as that to the Emperor Napoleon 9
It enhanced penalties, and therefore the noble lord said it
prevented crime. This statement reversed the axiom at
the foundation of every amendment of the criminal law of
this country whichhad been made for the last forty years.
The bill would, therefore, be wht lly illusory as regarded
France, but as regarded England it would increase the
penalty of the law. There would be another demand by
France to alter the law, for that bill would create a right
on the part of France to make such a demand, and an ot.
ligation on themselves to comply with if. For that reason,
he must confess, he trusted the house would consider the
amendment of his right hon. friend. Theconnection between
the Frenchdespatch and that bill was avowed by the Govern-
ment, for the Home Secretary said they could not answer
the despatch till they read the bill A second time, Now,