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

20,

~ ti

- .
of this character, we were now to be led byan insidious amend
! mcnt to refuse a second readiag to the bill without any frdsh
circumstances having arisen, and the facts being the opme. If
such he the result of the present motion, it will be one at
which the country will certainly be astonished. (Hear, hear.)
I say that things are in the same condition, because an hon.
friend of mine asked why these arguments were not used on
the motion for leave to bring in the bill, and the right hon.
member for Oxford county said that the question was fully put
to the house, and in spite of thatargument and in suite of the
eloquence with which it was enforced, a in jority of 200 voted
that the bill should be brought in even although the mi erable
pretext of the unanswered deipatch was stronglyurged in op-
position. I take leave to say that I never heard a proposal
fraught w th large principles • rgued on such narrow, idle, and
miserable grounds. Why, sir, the grounds are opposite to the
real facts of the case. The arguments urged in support of this
amendment are that this country has been insulted, grossly in-
sulted, in a despatch sent by the French Government to its am-
barsador here, and that insult has not been resented as it ought
to be. (No, no.) If that is not the ground there is no
ground ; if the despatch is not to be resented there is no pre-
tence upon which to suspend a measure of legislation merely
because a particular answer has not been written to a des-
patch which, under other circumstances, would not call for
any particular observation. Now, I deny that that despatch
was an insult to this country, or was intended to be an insult.
I believe that gentlemen who say so had never read the
despatch - (oh, oh) ; yes, I am satisfied that -the majority w le
vote it to have been an insult have never read the despatch,
(Renewed cries of " Oh, oh.") Why, sir, what does that
despatch say ? Hon. members say that, it imputes to the
people of England the entertaining the doctrine of the pro-
priety of assassination. I say it is not capable of that con-
struction. What the French government says is, that a
conspiracy for assassination had been hatched in this country
and that persons have issued from this country for the pur-
poses of carrying out the conspiracy. It says that the per-
sons so engaged avow the doctrine of assassination as a
principle, and we are called to account because we have not
denied these positions. Why, we could not deny it. (Cheers,
and " Oh.") The French government say that it was done
by those who abused the right of asylum; and how could
that apply to the people of England"? (Hear, 11 ar.) But it
is said that it is a reflection upon the people of England ; and
hon. gentlemen vow and protest that the people of England
are not to belbsulted by having things, imputed to them
which are contrary to their nature. But, there is nothing in
the despatch which implies any such imputation. (Hear.)
Then what is to be this answer "adequate to the oecas'on 1 "
Why we should have to admit the first allegation to be true ;
though we are sorry that conspiracies should have been
hatched in this country by foreigners, and that foreigners
should have issued forth from our shores to put those con-
spired: s into execution. Then we should have to admit that
the doctrine of assassination has been preached by foreigners
in this country, though, of course, wo should be sorry for
that likewise, Well, I don't see that there would be very
great advantage in an answer to a despatch which admits all
the allegations contained in that despatch to be true. (Cheers,
and "Ohl ") The despatch goes on to say that the laws of
the country do not provide an adequate remedy ; and the
Attorney-General has shown to-night that that is perfectly
true. (" Oh I") 'Then, what would our answer be, unless
we deny that which is true, and assert that the law does pro-
vide a remedy, when the law officers ;of the Crown tell us
upon their responsibility that it does not, or, at all events,
that the point is one of such doubt that they cannot take
upon themselves to say positively that the foreigner rea ly is
put on the same footing as a native of this country. (Hear,
hear.) Then it is said that this despatch calls on us to put an
end to the right of asylum. Why, the French Government
prides itself on maintaining that very principle in France,
and boasts that it has often afforded a safe and honourble
shelter to those who have been obliged on political grounds
to leave their own country and take refuge there. (Hear.)
The right hon. gentleman asks why, if we bad in our minds
the measure which we now propose, we did not tell the
French Government in a formal communication that we in-
tended to lay such a measure before Parliament 7 Why, sir,
if we had done se, I should like to know what would not
have been said by those champions of the dignity of Parlia-
ment? (Hear, hear.) • What would not have been said by
those persons who are so jealous of the honour of the country
if we had come to Parliament and laid on the table a docu-
ment by which we had forestalled the decision of this house?
(Cheers.) If we had appeared to have negotiated with the
French Government a promise to pay which the house must
fulfil ? (Cheers.) Why, sir, we should have been guilty of
great disrespeet to this house if we had pursued such an un-
constitutional course. (Hear, hear.) Th,n what would the
" ade plate answer" have tram ? It could not have been a de-
nial of what had been asserted by the French Government.
It could not have been a declaration that we would propose a
measure to Parliament with regard to the right of asylum ;
and we could not, with a due respect to this house, have told
the French Government at all what the measure was which
we thought ;the circumstances would justify, Well, then,
the answer would have been, after all, a very meagre docu-
ment unless we bad stated things which were not in confor-
mity with the facts or truth. (Hear) If this house should
affirm the bill which we propose on its second reading we
should, without waiting for its ultimates, haie something to
say to France. (Derisive cheers) We should be able to
say that, without infringing any principles of our laws or
departing from any fundamental doctrine of our constitution
or invariable practice of Parliament, we had proposed a mea-
sure of our own which we might hope would in some degree
give to our ally the Emperor that additional security which
the French government wishes, and which would, at the same
time, be a measure of purely British legislation. "Hear, hear.)
I hope this house will not take that course which the right, i
hon. gentleman has urged it this evening to adopt, I hope
wo shall not trifle with a question of deep national import-
anle. (Cheers.) I hope that this house will not recklessly
overturn the decision which it has come to bya large majori y.
It is very well for gentlemen to say that they attach the
highest importance to the maintenance of the friendly rela-
tions of this country with France. It is all very well to say
with the right hon. gentleman (Hr. Gladstone) that while we
should strive to be at peace with all parties, there are peculiar
circumstances and geographical considerations which ought
to make us attach a special importance to the allia.ne3 with
France. It is mighty well for gentlemen to indulge in general
remarks of that lc ud, and then, when measures are proposed
having a direct bearing upon that alliance, to recommend the
house to rush headlong upon the course which the right hon.
gentleman has recommended. (Oh, oh.) I trust that this
house will not allow itself to be led away by the declamation
which we have heard to-night, but will proceed to the second
reading of this bill, and will put aside the insidious amendment
of the right hon. gentleman. It is idle to say that you can pass
this amendment and then go back to the bill. It is quite clear
that if upon full and deliberate oonsideration you prefer
the amendment, there can but be one interpretation put
upon such a vote. • (Oh, oh.) It will be understood
that within a few short days this house •has utterly altered
its opinions. (Oh, oh.) If by some unknown influences, by
some extraordinary process of reasoning, an accidental majo-
rity should now be obtained against the bill, it cannot be
placed in comparison with that majority which, in no acciden-
tal manner, but, after calm reflection and sober reasoning,
was come to in favour of a bill which, without infringing at
all upon the principles of the constitution, is calculated to be
of essential service with regard to the alliance between this
country and our great neighbours and allies. (Cheers.)
The house then divided—
For the amendment 234
Against it 215

lf tj ority
Loud and long cheering and waving of hats followed this
announcement, and indeed preceded it ; fir the result was
known from the relative position ill which the tellers ap-
proached the table.
The amendment was then put as a substantive motiod, and
agreed to without a division. When its terms were solemnly
read out by the Speaker, for the second time, every eye was
directed on Lord Palmerston, "but never a word spake he."
He wistfully looked, for a moment, on a paper containing
the numbers of the division, which some one had cruelly
thrust into hiS hands, and then indignantly cast it on the
floor.

The orders of the day, including " Supply—conimittee,"
were then called over, and postponed till Monday, amidst
some laughter.

CHELSEA BRIDGE.
Sir J. SHELLEY moved forNEWave to le bring in a bill for re-
pealing the act autkorising a toll to be taken for foot passen-
gers on this bridge.
Mr. AYRTON opposed the bill, on the ground that a select
committee was sitting on the question of tolls iu the metro-
polis,

Lord C. HAMILTON expected that some member of the
Government would have replied to the question of the hon.
member. As no member of the Government seemed anxious
to reply, he hoped the discussion would be adjourned.
Sir J. SHELLEY sal I that when the subject was inquired
into he believed it would be found there was much to be said
in favour of the view he took; but after the debate which
had taken place, and at that hour of the night he wou'd, with
the permission of the house, renew the discussion another
night. (Hear, hear.)
The subject was then postponed, and the house adjourned
at half•past one.