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

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRITARY 10, 1858.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at 5 o'clock.
The Earl of VERULAM presented a petition in
favour of an extension of the acts for securing ieli-
gious worship.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented a similar
petition
Lord BROUGHAM called attention to the state of
the law with respect to debtor and creditor, and urged
the house to take into consideration measures for the
improvement of the law.
Lord CAMPBELL also made a few remarks on the
subject, but they were totally inaudible in the gallery.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the subject alluded
to by the two noble lords was one of extreme difficulty.
The law had, in his opinion, been sufficiently relaxed,
as far as the debtor was concerned. On the other hand
he was beset with difficulties, and his noble friend had
he believed gone so far as to lay on the table a bill
totally abolishing imprisonment for debt. The great
difficulty was, how to deal with the debtor—it wasclear
he could not be transported. What was wanted was a
measure between letting a debtor get off scot free or
putting him in prison. If his noble friend could intro-
duce such a bill he would be doing a public service.
Lord CAMPBELL thought that the machinery for
examining the debtor in order to ascertain how hie debts
had been contraeted ought to be improved.
Alter a few words from Lord WENSLEYDALE,
the siibjeot dropped.
SANATORY STATE OF THE ARMY. •

Lord PAN VI.I.TRE wished to correct an error he had
made fast evening. He had stated that Captain Peel
was in command of the Naval Brigade before Sebas-
topol—the gallentj officer was second in com-
maud. He now Maid on the table the report of
the commission appointed to ingaire - fato the
sanatory state of the army. The report was very volu•
*nous, and would amply repay perit,al; it also reflected
great credit on the hon. gentleman who presided over
the commission.

band. The Emperor bad but one pistol, which he
never fired 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 SW
shouting "Vivo l'Emperenr." (Laughter.) The only
men who were killed were two of the Emperor's
followers, who were shot by gendarmee. He thought
a lame excuse had been put forward for amounting
for the publication of the addresses of the " fire
eating Colonels," published in the Monzteur.
Mr. WARREN said if the hon, member for Finsbury
imagined that he was one of those who would enter into
topics of that declamatory character to which he had
allnderi in discussing a question of such magnitude as
this, he could sincerely assure bias 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 to be unduly 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 ho delivered on the previous evening, by
speaking in the strongest possible terms of the Emperor
of the French. The few words which he should 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 the measure
that had been proposed with all there4ponsibility of the
Queen's Government. The observations which he was

about to make were his own. He actiClii;;;;;;;tWith
no one, and he therefore hoped that 174 should have the
credit of acting at least independently tea this question.
It he could possibly have supported het Majesty's Mini;-
ters in bringing forward this bill be would have done so ;
but en the best consideration that be had been able to
give to it he felt it absolutely imposeible-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 bad been called upon to
act at a.' crisis of very great—is might almost say, of
transcentlant delicacy and difficulty: Bat be had taken
his line a'= a member of that hou-e, and he believed that
the bill which they had been aaked to sanction would
prove utterly ineffectual, that it was derogatory to the
national epirit—(bear, hear) —and that it was founded
on a libel upon the laws of England as they now stood,
not intentionally, but because of a milapprehension of
the existing condition of those laws. And even
if that were otherwise, he should venture, with very
great respect, to doubt whether this was the exact
time at which an independent legislators should
be called upon to alter its laws. Every schoolboy knew
that our ancestors had said AV olumus leges A nglice muturi,
when an attempt was made to force foreign !aws upon
them, and the house ought to pause before it assented on
accoant of a menace from a great neighbouring potentate,
to the passing of a bill which would alter a law already
deemed by the Legislature to be sufficient. (Cheer.: ) Ile
begged to call the attention of Government and of the
hoese to two passages in oar history. In the year 1708
a certein Rus'ian ambassador was arrested in his carriage
thec°a;ni°gn h;. Sir Wiliiarrt
in London, at the suit of a creditor in London, to whom
he,,
where
he edso,l:a,s lockedconveyedandu p
fotora m Imging-house,
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

"In the meantime the 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 could inflict no
punishment upon any, the meanest, of her subjects, unless
warrant.: d by the law of the laud: aud therefore was persuaded
that he would not insist upon impossibilities: To satisfy,
however, 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 insolence for
the future. And with a copy of this act, elegantly engrossed
and illuminated, accompanied by a letter from the Queen, an
Ambassador Extraordinary was commissioned to appear at
Moscow, who declared that, though her Majesty c °mid not
inflict such a punishment as was 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 passed, to serve as a
' • '

law for the future.' This hutuiliating step was accepted as a
full sati,faction by the Czar, and the offenders, at his request,'
were discharg, d from all further 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 hutnil'ation from the whole
nation, the ambassador making excuses in a sele-nn ora-
tion on prorentiug a copy of it to the Czar. kilear.)
Now, he should apprehend that the noble lord had no
great desire to follow such a precedent, but yet let the
noble lord consider that in some point that case touched
upon the present. The object cf the bi 1 thus denunced
was to dispense with trial by j tirjr,,4 mitt. to enable per.
tonal pains and penalties to be inflicted upon British
subjects at the will of two out of three judges; hut even
that atrocious violation of, the constitution was not ac-
eomparded by one of the ckaracteristica of the present
bill, for it did not constitute the offeatio which it defined
a felony. Coming to a later period, the year 1802, there
had been a case much more analogous to the present
during the short peace with France, and some pasmages
which occurred is a despatch of Le-,rd HawkeAury at the
that time upon both ~ides of the Channel the
period. were very applicable to the present case. At
teemed with articles of a most insulting; and offensive
nature, and in this country appeared someh of a most
violent character, professing t.) be emanations of
Frenchmen. AtthatNapoleon public press
time made a repre-
sentation to the British Government and what said
Lord Hawkesbury 1 He said :--L

~ It cannot be denied that some very improper paragraphs
have lately appeared in some of the English newspapers
ag dust the Government of France ; it cannot be denied, like-
wise, that publications of a still more improper and indecent
nature have made 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
nation themselves, or et least to authorise it
ordinary course, they have thought fit to resort to recrimi.
in others,
they could have no right to complain if their subsequent
appeal to his Majesty had failed to
produce the effect that
otherwise would have a tended it. Whatev, r may have been
the nature of the prior injury, they h,,ve, in fait, taken the
law into their owu Imids ; 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 aro dis-
avowed and disap, roved of by them ; but the
paragraph in
the Moniteur has appeared in a paper avowedly official, for
which the Government are, therefore,
considered as respon.
siblo as his 'Majesty's Governni nt is responsible for the con-
tents of the London Gazette. And this retort is not confined
to the unauthorised English newspapers or to the other pub-
lications of wldch complaint is now made, 10-4 is converted
into and made a pretence for a direct a tack upon the Govern-
ment of his Majesty. 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 which the government
of his dominions is conducted, or call for a change in those
laws with which his people are perfectly satisfied."
(old cries
(Hear, hear.) That was a pre„ lent which ought to
have been borne in mind by the noble lord. t
of st Hear, hear.") The noble lord had stated that the
existing law was incapable of dealing with these matters
—that conspiracy to commit murder was simply a mis.
demeanour whioh rendered the offender liable only to fine
and to a short period of imprisonment ; but 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
personal attack which was made upon the
cap. 51, was rendered necessary in conse-
ocipieureVsnocincetooofrfitaha'e Queen, and by that Act it was enacted that
ffweintshivie to injure the ntent
" Whoevever shall wilfully discharge firearms, whether
with or without explosive or destructive materials, at the
person of the Queen, or discharge explosive materials at her,
o
weapon, or throw any
substance
per-
son of the Queen, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanour, and,
shall be liable to transportation for seven years, or imprison-
, Imenti_g
for three yeara, hard labour, and whipping n thrice, if
asttr o strike e
on herth we i
Queen,tli an
o
ordered by a judgi."
1 wilfully

konintheaeffic:scpYiracy to
mnderitthiaotneadctinw
wltofi felony,etl,r oao
rkr egfuthe
without nt crimeolnt
g l
hardets hs eo
thanperpetratorf
labour 6 e f , . r any
Offencesolengl
iyei t
made
~isneo
aoa :air oiasondi oe
indignante a.a sti
ot huro s those
people
years or to
servitudel)mr mitpopr
i°Bms
oueri
nd noweef
on
rta
not exceeding three years. Did the noble liril know the
distinction between a felony and a misdemeanour when
he introduced a measure to convert that which was at
present a misdemeanour into a felony I
Di.: the noble
lord not know what were the pains and penalties which
by the common law were attached to miedemeanours I
The house would recollect that in the year 1844 occurred
the memorable case against Mr. O'Connell and his nom-
able of dealing effec-
larinotinhceaspitate to ask for greater
ent to tread in the '
which were
introducePwal liwnog r' tahnyndet inhw e thata t legislation,t
enetiaos n° S
ofi rau ntßtye'rGePdoeve7lr n in a n t . $e snot,
the livhb of the
"I am resolved to walk in the light of the constitution.
ould call upon
; consb
,uo twr dPilt
shi
when
nabs cieplyo therta beotc
praised
es
pecwweldcoenin
trartadaeoi
dissatisfaction, hatred and
tluf
all 1
yfind i
tthh et lhaewcaosfe tlh ew
will
Government and his companions
of the
tphoewhoornfrsoointtohecLomegpisell tttuhree.G" (gear.) He w
constitution.fcooocatsmt eopns l on fw ,Sai
sr() i
Tißl.t
I.rPert Peel,
eci,
va
reliedon O'Connell
nwiulapl
t and the
ecwxoencriteteeprlf;rpoetstieecarugatal undereidnstb er
discontentan
and ind
Majestyieit,FiteGtl
o4t,
constitution as by law established, to excite discontent
and dissatisfaction in the army, to intimidate the Govern
went so as to Bever the union between Great Britain and
Ireland, to excite hatred and distrust of the tribunals of
justice, and usurp the prerogative of the Crown. This
was the indictment aimed in that case against a treason-
able conspiracy, and when the noble viscount spoke
sligb,ingly of liqa and iroprialnme
nt be seen-ied to forget
..,iii.t'i eiht.,:e .:1i,:,, inEttuu)ent rf ji3,iieial w.ftriare had been
applied it had produced aconviction before the tr b _lna' s
of trelai,J, which tunteuced the ti.ecosed to 11 fine of
2,0U0/., turd an imprisonment of 12 calendar month?.
Here was an instance of the efficacy of our common law
in dealing with cases of great magnitude affecting the
vital intaeAs of this Kingdom. Why, then, did the noble

viscount represent an indictmentfor misdemeanour under
the common !aw as totally inadequate to cope with a
great exigency, and contend that we must therefore devise
a new law to meet a state of things which bad not been
discovered independently upon our own perception of auy
actual emergency, but after our attention had been very
peremptorily called to it by a foreign potentate. There
was one more passage nearer to our own times to which
he invited the serious c insideration of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, and particularly of the Home Secretary,
because he was about to quote certain weighty words of
the right hon. baronet (Sir G. Groy) which are exactly
applicable to present circumstances, and which entirely
cat from under the noble viscount the ground on which he
based this measure. In 1851 the revolutionary excitement
of 1848-9 had not subsided, and the most dangerous ele-
ments were then collected in this country. The attention
of the Government was earnestly called to the menacing
aspect of affairs by that veteran statesman and lawyer,
Lord Lyndhurst, in the upper chamber, ilnd by his
right hon. friend the then Recorder for Lundon (\lr.
J. S. Wortley) in that house. I, was then
disclosed that at that very moment a body was sitting
in full conclave in London, calling itsel " The Commit-
tee of Central European Democracy," and which issued
manifestoes for the subversion of the Governments of
Central Europe, recommending insurrection against and
the extermination of the existing Sovereigns. Thera was
also a "Central National Italian Committee," whose
professed object was to keep up a spirit of insurrection
in Italy, and who opened loans here, publicly advertising
them and issuing shares accompanied by cireulars, which
stated their intention to be to purchase arms and ammu-
nition of war in order to promote their revoletionary
designs. There was also a " Central Democratic,
European Committee," which issued proclamations, and
of which Mazzini and Lodru Rollin were members ;
together with a "Central Hungarian Committee," of
which General Blapka was the mainspring, and which,
like-ill the other confederacies he bad named, put forth
inflammatory proclamations. On that occasion Lord
Lyndhurst expressed himself thus
_

" It has always been the principle and the practice among
us to afford a ready asylum to persons driven from their
own country in consoqueace of their religious or political
opinions or conduct. I do not wish in the slightest degree
to trench upon this principle. It appears to me to be in
perfect accordance with the character of an enlightened, a
generous, and a powerful people. But it must always ba
remembered that this protection imposes on those who
take advantage of it a corresponding duty of a grave cha-
racter—to live among us peaceably, and not make this
country the focus of intrigues against foreign States ; above
al!, not to carry on any proceedings of a hostile character
directed against countries with which we are connected by
treaties of friendship and alliance.. These arc principles se

just, so universally recognised, that it isunnecessary
for me to dilate upon them."

What said the right hon. baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey)
than, as now, filling the important office of Secretary
of State for the Home Department—and speaking in
answer to the late Recorder of London I His words,
which were very remarkable, were as follows :
" I shall net be contradicted by any legal authority in this
house when I say that foreigners entering into conspiracies in
this country, living under the laws of this country, and en-
joying their security, and adopting any measure with the
view of levying war against any foreign country with which
this country is at amity are guilty of as offence at common
law, and punishable on conviction by fine and imprisonment.
We shall not hesitate legally and constitutionally to mo,t any
violation of the law. I believe that the powers we possess
are amply sufficient to punish by penalties the violation of
the law by foreigners, after we have been satisfied that they
have really committed themselves iu any case iu which it gal
proceedings can be instituted."
(Cheers.) If such was the deliberate opinion of the right
hon. baronet in April, 1851, with what face could he
stand before the country now and say that the law on
which he relied then as upon a firm staff was now but a
bruised reel, which could no longer yield him any sup-
port ! (Hear, bear.) No case, therefore, had been
made out for the introduction of this bill. (Cheers.)
The despatch communicated by Count Pareigny, the
more it was looked at, appeared to him to be only the
more unsatisfactory ; and when the noble viscount last
eight informed the house that another communication
had been made to our Government by the French
Ambassador, to the effect that whatever bad been done
in France was viewed with regret by the Emperor, it
would have been more gratifying if he bad also placed
that despatch on the table in answer to the challenge of
the hon. and learned member for Sheffield. (Hear,hear.)
Before that debate proceeded much further it was to be

hoped that the noble viscount would favour the house
with some account of the terms of that document. He
for one, was curious to know its date. (Hear.)

Certain cemtnunications might have passed along that
rapid and misty medium of communication the electric
telegraph, which might infinitely enhance or detract
from the value of that second despatch. As an English-
man, he would like to know whether what had ap-
pearedln the Moniteur had been disavowed by the French
Government from a sincere feeling of regret that offence
should have been given, or whether it had been merely
disavowed, after it had served its purpose, in consequence
of some adroit commueicathns that hal been very
recently made. No case had been made out for altering
the law of England. Not a scintilla of legal evidence had
been openly adduced before our competent tribunals to
prove that there had been any conspiracy in tbia coun-
try. For-all we knew to the contrary, although one of
the accused parties had been here and bad left England
with a weapon of an infernal description, it might yet
turn out on due inquiry bef ,re our judicial authorities
that it was all a mistake, and that no such conspiracy as
was alleged bad been carried on in this country. But how
stood the case in France I Toe first paragraph in Count
Walewski's despatch of Jan. 20 might well have made
the uob'n viscount and hie legal advisers pause. It was
to this effect
The legal proecedii.g which has been commenced iu ro-
g rd to the criminal attempt recently made on the person of
the Emperor is taking its course, and we shall shortly aseer•
tain its definite result ; but there is a point upon which even
now we cannot entertain any doubt. This fresh attempt, like
those which preceded it, has been devised in England."
That was not the way in which we proceed in England,
We did not alter the law a priori simply because some-
body thought he could point out an evil of which
nobody el-e had ever dreamt, and which had had no
existence ir. practice. But the moment the evil came

to light in a legitimate and judicial manner we did not
hesitate to act. In this case no necessity had been
shown for such a measure. Upon the mere supposition
that a ca,e might occur in which the existing law
would not be sufficient the noble lord rushed pell-tne'l
into the arena with a proposition to increase the punish.
ment for the common law offence of conspiracy. The
bill which he had intr Aimed was, in point of fact, based
upon two Irish acts. In the year 1796 there was
passed an act, the 30th Geo. 111., chap. 27, which, after
reciting that it had become necessary in order to deter
men from entering into conspiracies to commit murder
to increase the punishment for such crimes, coasted
the "a I persons convicted of conspiring, confederat-
ing, or agreeing to murder any p.rson sl:a2l be a4jlzpd
felons and suffer death." That act was fount to be
ineffectual, aHd in 1798 the Irish Legislature passed
another,—the 30th George 111., c. 57, which extended
the punishment of death to any person proposing, soli-
citing, persuading, or endeavouring to do any of the
acts against which that penalty had been denounced in
the former statute. The bill of the noble viscount
contained five sections, the last of which repealed these
two acts. The first section provided—
, " That any person who shall, within the united kingdom of
Gre Britain and Ireland, or the islands of Jersey, Guernsey,
' Alderney Sark, and Man, conspire with any other person or
ersons being, either within or without the said united king-
dom and said Wands, to t ommit murder either within or
without the dominions of her Majesty, shall bo guilty of
felony, and upon being convicted shall be liable to be sen-
tenced to penal servitude for life, or for any term not less
than five years, or to imprisonment, with or without hard
labour, for any term not exceeding three years."

The second clause extended the same penalties to the
offences included in the second Irish act. Now let the
house observe—we had just abandoned transportation
as a punishment, and substituted for it penal servitude,
vesting in the Secretary of State power to direct where
the sentence should be carried into effect, either at
home or abroad. The first fruit of this application made
by the Government of the Emperor of the Preach would
be to transform our old common law misdemeanour of
conspiracy to murder into a felony punishable by trans-
portation for life. It was possible that we might after-
wards receive an intimation from the same quarter that
if we had no place to which we could transport crimi-
nals, especially political ones, the Emperor had certain
dominions in South America—Cayenne, for instance,
—where he could accommodate them. He objected to
vesting such powers for such reasons even in our own
Government, and preferred to take his stand upon our
old common law. By that law the punishment of a mis-
demeanour was fine and imprisonment at the discretion
of the judge who tried the case ; but iu this bill there
was an indication that while greatly extending the guilt
and the punishment applicable to it, the Government
were anxious to have two strings to their bow. Before
concluding he must express his conviction that legisla-
tion, to be useful, effectual, and a precedent for future
times, must be free. He entirely repudiated the inter-
vention of any foreign Power with regard to it. He bad
always thought that England was talus tow argue ro•
tundus; an island completely and entirely independent.
Suppose the King of Naples bad sent us a vapouring
application of this sort. He could imagine how the noble
viscount, full of his ancient martial ardour, would have
received such a communication in a towering pasmion,
and would have replied with " Pooh pooh we are not
to be dictated to or coerced by anybody abroad." Why,
then should we yield to such a demand when made by
one who, in the language applied by Mr. O'Connell to
Ireland, was "a gigantic supplicant thundering at the
gates of the constitution." No I
]aeon t se with
more calmness
and dignity tell him that no peopab-
horred the crime of assassination than did we ; that if
our institutions were at fault we should be the firat vo-
lentarily to amend them ; but that as this matter was
according to his own account, sub judice, it would, in
our opinion, be premature to legislate upon it. There
were pas3ages towards the ciao of Count Walewski's
despatch which were of a very grave cbarectcr, and he
seas greatly ielieved when the noble lord told them on
the previous day that Count Waleweki had since, in the
most unequivocal manner, disclaimed any intention to
interfere with the asylum which we offered to distress
from all parts of the world, The despatch did contain