TH

HE nefarious plot against the life of the Emperor of the French, to which Lord Derby had made so much reference in his speech of the 4th of February, involved consequences which at one time appeared likely to endanger the amicable relations between this country and France. A strong feeling prevailed among certain classes in France that the law of England afforded an improper degree of shelter and countenance to foreign refugees and incendiaries, and that in neglecting to take means for preventing such conspiracies as that which had nearly proved fatal to the Emperor's life, England had not acted the part of a sincere and faithful ally. Some strong expressions of this feeling appeared about this time in the French newspapers, and still more unfriendly comments on the character and policy of the English people were contained in congratulatory addresses presented to the Emperor after his escape from peril by certain colonels in the French army, additional force and publicity being given to such language by the insertion of these addresses in the official columns of the Moniteur. Such attacks on the English people provoked considerable irritation in return on this side the Channel, and the sympathy which had been really felt in England on the occasion of the Emperor's narrow escape from destruction seemed likely to be converted, by the adverse

criticisms of our neighbours, into hostility and resentment. The idea that France should assume to dictate to us the duty of altering our laws and restricting the liberty of our soil for the protection of foreign Sovereigns, was repudiated with indignation, and the prevalence of this sentiment, which was warmly expressed at public meetings, in the columns of the press as well as within the walls of Parliament, led to political consequences at home of no slight importance, as will appear from the course of events about to be narrated.

On the day after the reassembling of the House of Commons, Mr. Roebuck took occasion of a formal motion for the adjournment of the House, to call attention to the attacks upon the English people which, he observed, had appeared in the pages of the Moniteur, published by the French Emperor, and were therefore the expression of his opinion, and which stigmatized this country as a den of conspirators. Accusations of England had likewise been made by M. de Morny in the Legislative Chamber of France, and even by M. de Persigny, the French Ambassador in England, who, having dared to make such an accusation, had not been answered. He asked whether there had been any correspondence with France or the Ministers of France on the subject of any alteration in our Criminal Code.

Lord Palmerston replied, that

there had been a despatch addressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Paris to our Ambassador, bearing upon the transaction referred to, urging this Government to take measures with reference thereto, but not pointing out any particular measure. That despatch he was ready to lay before the House. He denied that Count de Persigny had accused the British nation of sympathising with or giving protection to assassins. He (Lord Palmerston) protested against the grounds taken by Mr. Roebuck, who had alluded, he said, to violent and intemperate speeches uttered in France, whereas he (Mr. Roebuck) was not always temperate in the comments in which he indulged. It would, in his opinion, be a most undignified course for the people of this country, on account of some intemperate expressions, to allow themselves to be swayed or influenced in their conduct.

After a few remarks from Mr. Horsman, who regretted the manner in which Lord Palmerston had met the question by an undeserved attack upon Mr. Roebuck, and a caustic reply from that gentleman himself, the subject dropped.

It has been mentioned in the preceding chapter that, on one of the earliest nights of the Session, Lord Palmerston gave notice that he should ask the leave of the House to bring in a Bill to amend the law with relation to the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. Expectation was keenly alive with respect to the nature of the measure thus contemplated by the Government. In many quarters a good deal of jealousy as to the MinisVOL. C.

terial intentions prevailed, and suspicions were expressed that the Government were about to compromise the dignity of this country by making undue concessions to the demands of France, veiling their scheme under the disguise of a measure of law reform. The feelings, however, with which the subject in question, and our relations with France, were regarded by the public at this time, will sufficiently appear from the speeches delivered on the occasion of introducing the Ministerial Bill, and the results that followed from that measure.

On the 8th of February the Prime Minister introduced his Bill, and a very important debate ensued, which was continued for two successive nights. Lord Palmerston began by observing that circumstances arise from time to time which point to the necessity, "or the expediency at all events," of revising particular laws. An event of that kind has recently happened. A conspiracy was formed, partly in this country, to commit an atrocious crime. The natural consequence has been, that foreign nations, ignorant of our laws, have thought that we are indifferent to crimes of this nature, and rather disposed to look upon them with favour. A disposition prevails on the Continent to think that Parliament should take some steps to remove aliens on mere suspicion: but it is not the intention of Government to propose any measure of that kind. Such a power in the hands of Government would lead to abuse; to grant it is out of the question. But the Government, having strong reason to believe that a conspiracy to [D]

murder had been partially concocted in this country, are anxious to consider the state of the law as regards that offence.

Here Lord Palmerston paused to meet the objection, that, because great irritation has been expressed in foreign nations, and certain military addresses have been published in an official paper, we are precluded from taking, on its own merits, a step becoming the character and interests of the country. That objection he could not understand. If our law is defective, we should not abstain from altering it because other nations have given way to impulses of passion, perhaps of fear. If the people of France are ignorant of the spirit of our constitution, we in like manner are ill-informed respecting their practices. He had only learnt within the last few days that for sixty years it has been the practice for military bodies of all descriptions to send up addresses to the head of the existing Government on all occasions of public interest. There was not in the fact of these addresses from the French army being permitted and published, any departure from the ordinary and uniform practice which prevails in France. But there were in those addresses passages "at which, were it not a pity that we should examine too narrowly what passes in France, persons in this country might justly take offence." Well, Her Majesty's Government had informed the French Government of the unfortunate effect those passages had produced; and Count Walewski had ordered the Ambassador here to say, "that although the practice was a universal practice, if in two or

three addresses out of many hundreds some passages were allowed to be printed to which objections had been taken in England, that circumstance must have arisen from the inadvertence of those who had the charge of publishing those addresses-(Cries of Oh!' and Hear!')—and that he was ordered upon the part of the Emperor to state that he regretted such publication. (Loud cheers.) As far, then, as any objection to the revision of our laws is founded upon these recent occurrences, I think such objection ought to cease, after the handsome manner in which an explanation has been made."

From this digression Lord Palmerston returned to a consideration of the present state of the law. England treats conspiracy to murder as a misdemeanor, and punishes it with fine and imprisonment. In Ireland it is treated as a capital crime. Now he proposed to make conspiracy to murder a felony, punishable with penal servitude, and to apply it to all persons with respect to conspiracies to murder wherever intended.

The noble Lord then stated the provisions of his proposed Bill. The first clause went to make the conspiracy to commit murder within the United Kingdom a felony, punishable with penal servitude for five years or imprisonment with labour for three years.

The second extended the same penalties to all who should "incite, instigate, or solicit" any other person. In Ireland, conspiracy to commit murder had been a crime of higher denomination, punishable with more severe penalties. The Bill proposed to make the law

uniform in this respect throughout the United Kingdom.

Lord Palmerston held that to be an improvement of the law. It goes as far as we can go without violence to the constitution;" and a great crime having been attempted, it is becoming that we should show our feeling so far as to enter upon a review of the law.

"It may possibly be said, that as yet the present law has not been found ineffectual, because no proceeding has taken place under it: but permit me to ask, whether, the object of laws being to deter from the commission of offence by increasing the penalty of any offence, we do not add to those causes which operate to prevent offences being committed? And even though this crime has been scarcely known in this country, and therefore there has been no case in which the law has been applied, can it be said that we are not adding to the security against the crime by increasing the penalty to be inflicted in case it shall be committed? I cannot but think that the provisions of this Bill will have a decisive effect in deterring those who may wish to make this country a place where they may hatch and concoct crimes of a disgraceful character; and, at all events, they will learn that they cannot do so without liability to punishment.”

Mr. A. W. Kinglake moved an amendment in the following

terms:

"That this House, while sympathising with the French nation in its indignation and abhorrence at the late atrocious attempt made against the life of the Emperor, and anxious on a proper

occasion to consider the defects of the criminal law of England, the effect of which may be to render such attempts vain, deems it inexpedient to legislate in compliance with the demand made in Count Walewski's despatch of January 20, until further information be obtained, and until after the production of the correspondence between the two Governments subsequent to this despatch."

Mr. Kinglake warmly concurred in the abhorrence of assassination expressed by Lord Palmerston. If it were possible to prevent the repetition of these attempts-if the law-officer of the Crown, speaking with a regard to the science of law, and not bending under political pressure from abroad-had said that the law required altering, Mr. Kinglake would have given his best attention to the measure. But that was not the case. In a despatch, to which, strange to say, Lord Palmerston made no allusion, the French Government urgently called upon us to alter our law. Now he was so oldfashioned as to decline to concur in altering the municipal laws of England at the suggestion of any foreign potentate.

Either the measure proposed by the noble Lord is merely a piece of law reform, or it is a political action suggested from abroad. If it were a piece of law reform, he should have expected it to have been proposed by the very able law-officers of the Crown, and could not believe that in that case the noble Lord would have made himself the organ of the Government. But if it were, as he conceived, a concession to the pressure put

upon the noble Lord by the despatch to which he had referred, he must decline to concur in the proposed legislation. It so happened, that at that very moment honourable Members had in their hands notices of motion for revising that very branch of the law which the noble Lord was now submitting to their consideration. The Solicitor-General, only so lately as Thursday last, gave notice of his intention to introduce several Bills for the consolidation, improvement, and amendment of our criminal law. Of these notices one was

Mr. Solicitor-General-Offences against the Person. Bill to consolidate and amend the Statutelaw of England relating to of fences against the person. An early day"-(a laugh). The other was "Mr. Solicitor-General-Indictable Offences. Bill to consolidate the Statute-law of England and Ireland relating to accessories to or abettors of indictable ofences." Therefore, if it were not intended that this proposed legislation should be absolutely exceptional, it might be most aptly, conveniently, and properly comprised in the notices which the SolicitorGeneral had placed in their hands. But perhaps that would hardly satisfy the exigency under which the noble Lord was acting. They had been told that Count Walewski's despatch of the 20th January had not been answered. He proposed to the House to answer it there and then. No human ingenuity could devise a better answer than a simple vote of that House.

Mr. Horsman seconded the amendment. Mr. Hadfield, Mr. W. J. Fox, and Mr. Gilpin denounced the Bill. They argued

that it was unnecessary, and that it would prove to be a dead letter, unless it provided for detection by means of French espionage. If we should oblige France today, something may be done to oblige Austria to-morrow, and after that perhaps something to oblige the King of Naples. If England gives way, what can we expect Belgium to do? what Switzerland? what Sardinia? Persons who wade through slaughter to a throne have no right to ask their neighbours to watch over their safety. Assassination is not a plant of English growth. They come into England from countries administered by governments which make assassins by their despotic policy.

Mr. Bowyer and Sir John Walsh defended the Bill. The former stated the case to be this

that an ally had in an amicable and inoffensive manner, pointed out a defect in our law. If the House refused to amend that defect, they would give colour to the unjust and absurd imputations of the French colonels. Mr. Bowyer quoted Vattel in support of his proposition, that the Bill of the Government was in accordance with international law. Sir John Walsh contended that we should not be yielding to the dictation of a power by simply enforcing our own laws at the request of a tried and proved ally. He eulogised the public conduct of the French Emperor.

Lord Elcho could vote for neither motion. Two things, he observed, were to be considered

first, the state of the law; secondly, the time at which it was proposed to make this alteration. The House would act hastily if