to conspiracies to murder, wherever intended. "I cannot but think," he said, in conclusion, "that the provisions of the 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. Kinglake proposed, as an amendment, that it was inexpedient to legislate in compliance with the demand made in Count Walewski's despatch, until the correspondence between the two governments subsequent to that despatch had been produced. A long debate ensued, in which Mr. Disraeli took part. From the remarks of the leader of the Opposition, we see how high was his estimate of the late emperor, and how important he considered the necessity of maintaining the alliance between England and France. “I would remind the House," he began (February 9, 1858), "that it is not unusual in the history of this country, and in the practice of parliament when some desperate crime has been committed, or when there has been an unusual repetition of some crime known to the law, that parliament should take those circumstances into consideration, and, upon the circumstance of the moment, proceed to legislate. Why, throughout the debate of this night there have been frequent allusions to the difference of the law on this very subject in Ireland and in England. How came that difference to be established? It was owing to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. It was the prevalence of conspiracies to murder in Ireland that led the attention of parliament to the subject; and without offering at this moment any opinion upon the expediency of the course which was adopted, still it is a fact, that special circumstances of that country induced parliament to legislate upon that subject. Well, sir, there have been other cases which, I am sure, will be fresh in the memory of all who are present, in which legislation has been induced by special circumstances of this character. There is a case of great notoriety, which is part of the history of this country, and which intimately interests honourable members of this House, for honourable members of this House were concerned in it. There is a case where a foreigner stabbed, and attempted to assassinate, a minister of state at the council table. I allude to the case of Guiscard and Mr. Harley. Guiscard, a French agent, stabbed Mr. Harley, who at the time, as chancellor of the exchequer, was sitting at the Cockpit, at a meeting of the privy council. That was an attempt at assassination, which, though it failed, excited the greatest excitement in the country. Guiscard was a Frenchman. He was denounced as a Popish spy. The attempt was taken as evidence of a Popish plot, and great agitation prevailed in the public mind. What was the conduct of parliament under the circumstances? Were they silent? Did they take no steps to express their opinion or endeavour to prevent the repetition of such attempts by legislation? On the contrary, the House of Commons met and addressed the throne. The ministers introduced, and the House passed unanimously, a bill which rendered the crime of attempting to assassinate a privy councillor a felony." With that precedent before them, continued Mr. Disraeli, should they regard the person of one of their most powerful and faithful allies as a matter of less interest than when the person of an English minister was in question? All the circumstances connected with the attack upon the Emperor of the French must arouse the sympathy and command the good feeling of the country and of parliament. During the last five years they had found in the ruler of France a tried ally-one who had proved in the most trying fortunes that England could depend upon his constancy. The attempt to assassinate the emperor had been organized and matured in this country, and it behoved parliament fully to sympathize with the position of that monarch, and remove all obstacles which embarrassed his rule. He frankly admitted that the de- | a statement of their fancied grievances, an spatch of Count Walewski was not written English minister should, in some immortal with that tact, good temper, and good sense which generally characterized the French minister's lucubrations, and that the observations of the French colonels were impertinent. But apologies had been tendered for the publicity afforded to such observations, and they should be accepted with a good grace. Besides, did the House not remember when cabinet ministers had denounced the Emperor of the French as a tyrant, a usurper, a perjurer, and had asked the people of England what protection they could have for their wives and daughters with such neighbours as the French, and such a ruler as the French emperor? Were the statesmen of England less offensive to France upon that occasion than the French colonels had now been to England? If the French emperor and the French nation could endure with impunity such insults from English cabinet ministers, he really thought the people of England could afford to pocket the impertinence of the French colonels. It was his intention, proceeded Mr. Disraeli, to support the bill, because he wished to maintain the alliance between England and France, which he believed to be the key and corner-stone of modern civilization; still, he far from approved of the manner in which the government had acted. He thought they had alarmed England without pleasing France; but he would not vote against the bill, because he was desirous of showing the ruler of France, at such a moment, that parliament genuinely and generously sympathized with the difficulties of the imperial position. He would reserve to himself, on the second reading of the bill, the power of considering the principle upon which it was founded. "I make a full and fair admission," he concluded, "that a proposition less satisfactory never appears to me to have been offered to the consideration of this house of parliament. When the French nation, through their ministers and rulers, had placed before us state paper breathing the fire and logical eloquence of a Canning, have answered that despatch. He should have placed upon the table a manifesto of our rights and privileges, and at the same time, have combined with it a glowing expression of sympathy with a powerful and faithful ally. This is what I expected; and the minister who missed that opportunity, missed, as I think, a great occasion. If we had had the despatch of Count Walewski placed on the table, and at the same time the answer of the British minister worthy of the opportunity, in my opinion Her Majesty's government would have been placed in a position of no difficulty, and the feelings between the two nations would have been maintained in that amicable condition which we all so much desire. Such a despatch would have been the key-note of the country. The minister might have come down under those circumstances and have given to the French emperor what he wanted, what he naturally, reasonably, and properly desired. What the emperor really required, I apprehend, was a plain demonstration on the part of this country, which would have dissipated those apprehensions which have unfortunately proved so considerable in France; but I cannot believe that the bill which the noble lord has proposed will at all tend to that most desirable consummation. So far as I am concerned, I consider it the most unfortunate part of the position in which we are placed that this opportunity has been so mismanaged by Her Majesty's ministers as to have alarmed England without pleasing France. Still, I cannot but think that we ought not to take a course which might lead to prolonged and mischievous misconceptions, because we disapprove of the clumsy and feeble manner in which the government has attempted to deal with this difficulty. We must not seize this opportunity because we wish to inflict a check upon the government, nor do that which might be miscon strued into an insult to that prince who, I think, deserves well of this country; and therefore it is my intention to vote for the bringing in of this bill, though I am not prepared, as at present advised, to take any further part in its defence." Thanks to this negative sort of support from the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Kinglake withdrew his amendment, and permission was accorded to Lord Palmerton to bring in his bill. and afterwards supporting the amendment, for the political situation had changed. It was not a question now between England and France, but between the House of Commons and the prime minister. In his first speech he had stated how advisable it would have been to have had the answer to the despatch laid before the House; and yet nearly a fortnight had elapsed, and still no reply had been forwarded to Paris. "Ten days ago," Mr. Disraeli said (February 19, 1858), "many hon. gentlemen acceded to the proposal of the government in the most guarded manner, because they reserved to themselves the right on a future occasion of expressing their opinions on the conduct of the government, and the upon the character of England and the general course of events; but because they did then accede to the introduction of the bill, does that stop them from opposing its further progress through this House? Why, if it was ten days ago a question between the parliament of England and the government and the people of France, that is not the position in which it stands upon the present occasion; and in coming to a vote to-night we have the great advantage that on the previous occasion, by the manner in which the Commons of England agreed to the introduction of the bill, we proved our sincere sympathy with the French nation, and we displayed a decorous respect for the Emperor of the French. That very circumstance, I think, allows us now to offer our opinions, because now they cannot be misinterpreted, upon the conduct of the British minister." During the interval, however, between the first and second reading of this measure, the feeling of the country against French interference had deepened into a sullen and mutinous spirit. It was said that the bill was a servile compliance with French demands, and should not be passed under injurious influence which it has exercised the present circumstances. The prime minister was accused of being the préfet of the emperor, and of meanly yielding the independent authority he ought to exercise as an English minister. Then also, it was sternly asked, why had no answer been returned to the despatch of Count Walewski? The mood of the nation was clearly interpreted by the House of Commons when the second reading of the Conspiracy Bill came on. No sooner had Lord Palmerston sat down, after briefly alluding to his measure, than Mr. Milner Gibson, amid loud and repeated cheers, moved as an amendment, “That this House cannot but regret that Her Majesty's government, previously to inviting the House to amend the law of conspiracy at the present time, have not felt it to be their duty to reply to the important despatch received from the French government, dated Paris, January 20, 1858, which has been laid before parliament." The opportunity was not lost upon the generalship of Mr. Disraeli. It was one of those occasions when genius sees the course that is precisely to be pursued, adroitly presses its advantage home, and taking the tide at the flood, is borne on to victory. The leader of the Opposition saw that there was no inconsistency in voting for the introduction of the bill, It was now, he argued, a question between parliament and the prime minister. If it was the fault of the government that ten days ago the despatch of Count Walewski was not answered, what excuse could now be made that it had not been replied to? Parliament had generously supported the first reading of the bill, with a clear intimation of the view with which it regarded the laches of the government in not replying to that missive of the minister of France, the introduction of this bill to plainly and yet even now no answer had been indicate that Lord Palmerston had been sent! No valid reason, no satisfactory losing ground. In the recent elections he excuse, had been advanced for the conduct was the hero of the hour, the patriotic of the government. The despatch of Count minister of England, and his policy had Walewski had been published in the Moni- been stamped with the warm approval of teur, it had appeared in every accredited the nation. On the conclusion of the organ in Europe, it was the talk of all mutiny the war with China had been diplomacy, and still no reply had been resumed, and Canton had been taken. vouchsafed to so important a document. The vote of thanks to the civil and It was perfectly inexplicable to him, said military officers of India, in spite of the Mr. Disraeli, how the government could be efforts of the Opposition to exclude the guilty of the indiscretion of laying that name of Lord Canning, had been passed. unanswered despatch upon the table of the The Oaths Bill, introduced by Lord John House of Commons, and of making it the Russell, to effect the admission of the very basis of the legislation which they now Jews into parliament, and which empowered proposed. The question they had to decide either house of parliament, by resolution, to-night was solely confined to the respon- to omit the words, "upon the true faith of sibility which the government had incurred a Christian," from the oath of abjuration, to those who represented the people of had encountered no hostility. The measure England in that House. The whole cir- to abolish the double government in cumstance of that despatch was cloaked in mystery, and no explanation had been afforded why it had not been answered. The government had behaved in a perplexed, a timid, a confused and unsatisfactory manner. If ministers had acted with promptitude and firmness-with a spirit ready to assert the dignity of the country, but at the same time calculated to conciliate the feelings of a faithful ally-no misconception would have occurred. The issue before them had been narrowed to a very small limit. It was a question between parliament and the servants of the crown. Had ministers, or had they not, done their duty? On a division, the House of Commons decided that the servants of the crown had not done their duty, and Lord Palmerston found himself in a minority-Ayes, 215; Noes, 234. The majority was a mixed one; it was composed of 146 Conservatives, eighty-four Liberals, and four PeelitesGladstone, Graham, Cardwell, and Sidney Herbert. The defeat of the government took the country by surprise. There had been nothing in the events which had preceded India had met with approval. Reform, First Lord of the Treasury,. Earl of Derby. Lord Chelmsford. Lord Stanley. Colonel Peel. Lord Ellenborough. Lord Colchester. Earl of Malmesbury. | given-the assurance that nothing could have been further from his intention than to convey an imputation injurious alike to the morality and the honour of the British nation." A few days after the transmission of this despatch, a reply was received which enabled Mr. Disraeli to announce to the House of Commons (March 12, 1858), that the unfortunate misunderstanding which had recently existed between the two countries had now entirely terminated in a manner alike friendly and honourable, and which would be as satisfactory to the feelings as it was conducive to the interests of the two countries. First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir J. Pakington. Chief Secretary for Ireland, Lord Naas. Lord J. Manners. The overthrow of the late cabinet rendered it necessary for the Conservative government to deal with the India bill which Lord Palmerston had introduced, but owing to party defeat, had been prevented from carrying through. On During the remainder of the session, several measures of great importance not only became law, but the monotony of legislation was frequently enlivened by contests between those who had been expelled from, and those who had recently acceded to office. One of the first duties of the new cabinet was to repair the omission of its predecessor, and return an answer to the despatch of Count Walewski. "Your lordship will remark to Count Walewski," the conclusion of the severe struggles of wrote Lord Malmesbury to Lord Cowley, our ambassador at Paris, "that his Excellency, in stating that the attempt which has just providentially failed, like others which have preceded, was devised in England; in speaking with reference to the adeptes de la démagogie established in England, of 'assassination elevated to doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated attempts;' and in asking 'whether the right of asylum should protect such a state of things or contribute to favour their designs and their plans,' has not unnaturally been understood to imply imputations, not only that the offences enumerated are not recognized as such by the English law, and may be committed with impunity, but that the spirit of English legislation is such as designedly to shelter and screen the offender from punishment. Her Majesty's government are persuaded that had Count Walewski known, when his Excellency held with your lordship the conversation to which I have adverted above, that such construction was put upon certain portions of his despatch of January 20, he would have had no difficulty in adding to the assurance then VOL. I. the mutiny, it became very evident that the 52 |