The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette. — 1858-02-16 (Dorchester, Dorset, England)

HOUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY.  The adjourned debate on the motion for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to conspiracy to murder was resumed by Mr. T. DONCOMBE, who confined himself to matters of explanation, and was followed by Mr. WARREN in opposition to the motion, who said the whole question, even in France, was sub judice, so that the case was not ripe for our legislation, which ought to be free from the dictation of any foreign monarch. Sir G. GREY defended the Bill, and in conclusion, Sir George read a despatch from Count Walewski to Count Persigny, dated February the 6th, wherein the former, referring to the paragraphs in the military addresses which had appeared in the Moniteur, the publication of which he said was an inadvertent act, stated that the Emperor had enjoined him,to say to Lord Clarendon how much he regretted them. Mr. HOPE likewise opposed the Bill, which he believed would remain a dead letter on the Statute Book, because it was inconsistent with the spirit of that wise system of legislation which was willing that the guilty should escape, rather then that the innocent should be placed in jeopardy. It was objectionable even upon the ground of political expediency, since it would tend to weaken, not to strengthen our alliance with France. Looking at the measure as one of legal reform, it would be inoperative, and as one of SG& policy it was unfriendly to the liberty-loving spirit which ought to actuate the Parliament of England. Mr. COLLIER supported the Bill, Mr. Howe opposed the Bill, which he believed would place a formidable engine in the hands of the foreign police, and lead us into questions connected with foreign jurisdictions in order to convict conspirators in England.  Hr. WHITBREAD defended the Bill, which, he maid, did not assail the bulwarks of our liberty. English liberty was founded upon the principles of justice, and he warned the House not to confound the liberty of subjects with license to assassins.  Mr. DENT remarked upon the effect which the passing of this law would have upon foreign nations; it would be regarded, he thought, as a conceagion to the feelings of the French Emperor. Mr. BENTINCK spoke in favour of the Bill. Mr. MILNEB said he could not enter into the question of the advisability of this Bill upon its merits, because it did not meet the case. Did any man believe that if this law had been in existence the crime in question would have been prevented? He could not therefore vote for the Bill except upon the ground that it was politic and wise to make some demonstration that would satisfy the French people. It was, however, a grave thing to alter the law of England upon such a plea, and he believed that it would in no degree satisfy the French people—that it would only chow our own weakness and lead to further demands.  Mr. NAPIER said lie should vote in favour of the Bill, believing it to be a wise amendment of the law. Lord J. Russem,, after noticing the disadvantages of this discussion, expressed a doubt, assuming that the Bill was introduced as an amendment of the law, whether it was really an amendment. He looked, he said, not only to the principle of the proposed change, but to the nature of the crime, which was exceedingly difficult to prove, and juries would hesitate to convict if the penalty were rendered more severe. The spirit of the proposed enactment was contrary to the whole course of our modern enlightened legislation. But the proposed change was not likely to defeat the political conspiracies against which it was directed, because the conspirators were men who were ready to expose their lives, which would be sacrificed whether they succeeded or failed in their attempt. The object should be not the punishment, but the detecting the crime, and the Bill would serve no purpose of detection. The Bill seemed to be a cunning artifice, by which it was expected that neither the people of England nor the Emperor of the French would be displeased. But, as the "den of assasains" was to remain as it was, the French Government would say, " We have been deluded." In his opinion, it would have been far better to have told at once the plain truth, that the asylum which they called a "den of assaaains" must remain  and that we did not mean to change our law. The duty of that House, however, was not to give up, even to gratify the Frrnch Government, the right of uyluni, or to alter the established law of England. The