Glasgow Courier. — 1858-03-06 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

MINISTERIAL RE-ELECTIONS.  DROIT,  At the election for the borough of Droitwich on Wednesday, Mayor J. H. Bradley, Esq., presided.  _ The Right Hon. Sir J. S. Pakington, after some introductory remarks, said Parliament met in December with the prospect before it of having to deal with the state of India, the bank laws, and with the subject of reform in Parliament; and he went up to Parliament with a deep sense of the importance ot the great questions to be discussed. If he thought one thing less probable than another, it was that there would be an early change of administration, or that the government of Lord Palmerston would fall. But in the interval between December and the present time there had occurred that disgraceful and wicked attempt to murder the Emperor and Empress of France. By an interposition of Providence, it would be mockery to attribute it to any other cause, that blow did not strike where it we; intended it should do. Blood was shed, and innocent lives were lost, but he thanked God that that great man who ruled the destinies of France escaped. He regretted to say that the foul plot had been planned, and he might say carried on, in England. One of the conspirators, Pierri, was an Italian, who had resided in Birmingham as a teacher of languages, and was considered a quiet inoffensive man as long as he remained there. Orsini also resided in England, and he was ashamed to say some Englishmen were also mixed up in the foul and disgraceful attempt. Referring  to Lord Derby's speech in the House of Lords on Monday night, be said—ln order to judge of the feelings of the people of France, they must exchange positions with them, and imagine a nest of Englishmen coming over from Franee and attempting to blow up our Queen at the door of the Opera House. The French were a warm and impulsive people ; they considered they had been on the brink of a great misfortune ; and it would not only have been a great misfortune for France, but for Europe, had the attempt succeeded ; and we 'should not be too ready in taking offence at any language which they in a time of excitement may have made use of. The question was, how were wet° deal with the matter ? and he must say he thought the government of Lord Palmerston had not Mit wisely with the critical event. On the re-aseembling of Parliament government introduced a bill to amend the law of conspiracy. Did they introduce the bill with that caution which was necessary ? The government was placed in a position which required the greatest caution. It was a double question. First, how far the offence of foreigners conspiring in England to commit a murder abroad came within the English view of the crime of conspiracy; and secondly, how far the same offence came within the law of England when the offence was a conspiracy by a foreign person to committ the murder abroad of a person who was a sovereign and an ally of England. These were questions on which the most eminent lawyers of England differed, and he thought the government would have been wise to have said—' before we introduce this law we will ascertain carefully what the law is.' But instead of that they proceed immediately to legislate. But that was not all; there was the despatch of Count Walewski. That despatch had been the cause of more offence than it ought. In the first place, it had not been well translated, and he (Sir John) felt convinced that the French government intended no offence by it. But our government never answered it, but on the receipt of it went to Parliament with a bill; and ahether they intended it or not, they held out to the British and the French people the appearance that they were legislating under foreign dictation. Nothing could have been more unseemly and unwise in our government than to have so introduced the bill as to give it the appearance of resulting from foreign dictation. It may be asked, then, why did he (Sir John) vote for the introduction of the bill, and how it was that there was a large majority of the House of Commons favourable to the first reading? But that division did not really take place on the first reading, but on the question of leave being given to introduce it. When the government came down and told the House of Commons that the law of England on the subject of conspiracy required to be corrected, under such circumstances to say, 'You shall not even . .