THE FRENCH REFUGEE QUESTION. (From the London Examiner, February 5th.)

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XV, Issue 1137, 21 May 1858, Page 3

THE FRENCH REFUGEE QUESTION. (From the London Examiner, February sth.)

The genuine manly fsaling of the country will entirely concur in Lovd Granville's observation, that it would be unwoithy of a great nation like this, on Account of intemperate expressions,, such as those contained in the addresses from the French Army to the Emperor Louis Napoleon, to refrain from doing whatever may be right to do on the subject of the laws affecting strangers enjoying and abusing its protection and hospitality. A truly brave man is neither to be bullied into doing wrong, nor deterred from doing right by the fear of being supposed to do it under the influence of hectoring and bluster. He attends to no considerations but those of duty. The big words of the Bobadil or Pistol pass him by like " the idle wind he heeds nit." There are two descriptions of poltroonerj. It is no less cowardly to refuse a proper concession through the fear of reflection on a man's courage, th.m under ths influence of intimidation to yield a poinc that ought to be inflexibly maintained. There is no question, therefore, but that if the state of our criminal law, with respect to aliens, be such as to require amendment, or if the parties who demand its alteration have reason on their side, it would be clearly unbecoming of the Biitish Parliament to hesiute about improving it, upon any such ground as the insolence of aDeMoiny, or the clamour of a score of De Castagnys. If there is a people in the world who can well affoid to despise bluster from any point of the compass t it is tho people of England. Have we not in our time heard lions roar? Have we not heard the sea, puffed up with wiudi, Rage like an angry boar, chafed with sweat? And do you tell us of a colonel's tongue, That gives not half so great a blow to the ear, As will a chesnut in a farmer's fire? The question, therefore, and ths only question is, whether there is a case for new legislation. The Government appears to have concluded that there is, since th« Prime Minister has given notice of his intention to move on Monday next for leave to bring in a Bill to amend th« laws in relation to conspiracies to commit murder. We are bound, of course, to wait for the particulars of the change to be proposed, a? well as for the reasons which Lord Palmerston will, no doubt, be prepared to give, why any change at all is called for. In the mean time, however, it is impossible to refrain from asking where the proof is that the laws have failed, whick the Minister is about to ask Parliament to alter. If there is a flaw, where is it, and by whom has it been detected? A blot, according to the tritest of maxims, is not a blot until it is hit. Who has hit the blot in our criminal legislation? Hda Count De Moray hit it? Has Count Persigny? Has General Bazaine, or Colonel De Castagny ? There is but one way, of which we can form a notion, in which the deficiency of the laws in question is capable of proof, namely, by putting their efficiency to the test of trial, by the experiment of a prosecution under them. Has this method been taken ? Oar courts are open to the French authorities. Have they once availed themselves of their processes? Are they entitled to say, we have tried your laws, and we have found them wanting? And we are the more justified in pres e ing this point against the present government of France, inasmuch as former Freuch governments did what the present has^not attempted; they tried the resources ot our law instead of contenting themselves with reviling it ; they prosecuted, ai d they prosecuted with success ; they prosecuted to conviction. It has never, to our knowledge, been the usage of thij country to increase the stringency of any p»rt of its criminal law, except after experience and proof of its inadequacy to deal with the lawless acts forming its subjectmatter. A constitutional English Minister proposing to Parliament the adoption of new and more rigorous modes of proceeding, to punish treason, curb sedition, or suppress any other public disorder "has always felt himself bound to shew a miscarriage of the law as it existed. The Horn* of Commons, especially, has invariably insisted upon such a case being made out, as an indispensable condition of it* consent to sharpen the sword of justice. If this is With us a fixed principle in our domestic concerns, ahall we lightly depart from it at the urgency of a foreign government ? The bare fact that we are urged to deviate from our rule proves that something more is aimed at than appears on the face of the complaint. Your laws, it is said, fail to prevent treasonable and murderous conspiracies against a foreign potentate, your friend and ally. We answer, that they pannot be said to have failed before they have been tried. Try before you condemn them. They are not tried, we are forced to conclude, because a conviction under them would go but a short way to accomplish what is really sought. Pens and tongues, much more than hands, are the objects of imperial apprehension. \V c may see what the French Government strikes at abroad by what it strikes at at home. Let us read its remonsti ances by the light cast upon them by the- military addresses, the suppression of journal after journal, and the new Loi det Sutpectt. Demagogues are expressly named in tbe addreet of the 22>.d Begiment <5f the Line.

11 We should not express our entire sentiments li vyer c wore to omit to e»y that it appears to us monstrous that dor agogues of the worst kind should find anywhere in tljje world « refnge where they are permitted peaceably to contrive the assassination of sovereigns and the overthrow (boukvefsement) of peoples." Anfl if, we want a definition of a demagoeue in the imperial vocabulary, we find it in M. di Cassagnac's denunciation of the ' Debats,' " All who cherish hopes inconsisIcnt with the d\iration of the Empire." It would certainly be rash to promise the French authorities* success in a prosecution for " cherished hopes of any description, either Ui'der our laws as they are, or under any conceivable alteration or modification of them. Lord Palmerston is not to be suspected of intending to go any such absurd kngth to gratify the French Emperor. How far he means to go, we are ignorant, but we have it upon the highest legal and constitutional authorities that to take any step at »H would be superfluous, the existing law requiring no reinforcement. The Lord Chief Justice s«id upon Thursday nigfit : "He thought he was called on to make a few observations on this very important subject. For his part, he did most -sincerely and earnestly deprecate any change in the criminal law which would extend the power of the Government over refugees who sought an asylum in this country. Bv the law as it now stood the Government had &\\ the power they ought to have. If persons belonging to the cldfs of refugees committed offences while in this country, let them be punished; but until they were proved gniltv let them enjoy the hosp'tal : ty and protection afforded bj the Knglish law s. (Cheers.) There could be no doubt that as fie law now stood a conspiracy in this coun'rv, between British subjects as well as between aliens, to assassinate a foreign sovereign, or to commit mm der, or to disturb the pe.iue between th ; s countiy and any other v.ith which we might he in amity, would be a midemeannur liab'e te sp\cic punishnvnt. There could be no doubt that words might amount for that pnrpose to a misdemeanour. If there was an exhortation to commit a murder " or a'burglnry, or to raise a riot, that would be in England a misdemeanour, and the moment the speaker had finished his speech he might be arrrsted and tried. Where was the ground for changing the existing law unless they vrercr to say the Government were to have the power, immediately upon the requisition of a foreign State, without any proof of« culpability whatever, to expel nn alien from the British territory? In this country, aliens as well as nativeborn subjects, were always to be considered ihe subjects of her Majesty, and while they were in this country and obeyed the law they were to be protected as much as if they were borne in the metropolis of England. He hoped that would continue to be the principle on which all our legislation on that subject proceeded. It was the ground on which England had hitherto been the assy] urn of foreigners of all nations, and he hoped thatassjlum would never be taken away." In this opinion of Lord Campbell Lord Brougham concurred, an oracle of constitutional law, if there is one in England. '.' In saying this he adverted to the requisitions he had seen desiring that things should be done, which in this country it was impossible could be done under the law, and that other things also should be done which the state of the law rendered superfluous to be done. When he found tbat publications were complained of, not only extenuating, top* justifying assassination, and actually going so far as to lament the failure of plots for that purpose—publications previous to the late execrable attempt, and refenin? to former attempts of a similar nature— when he heard these publications complained of, and a clamour raised abroad for new laws in this country, his answer was sufficient , that it was unlawful by the established law of the land for any man to publish provocations to murder and assassination, or a defence of murder and assassination, and that he would be punishable, he fLord Brougham) apprehended, as for a misdemeanour for so doing, aad would be most seriously dealt with by the Court which tried the offeree. Again, if instead of a general panegyric of those eno-mous offences a man should limit his approval to a particular attack on a foreign Prince, there is not the least doubt but that he would be severely dealt with by the English Courts. He remembered that a libel against the first Emperor, then Consul, was prosecuted in this country. He thought that in that libel assassination was recommended. However, a prosecution took place, and n conviction was had. He had often discussed the matter in pm.ile with Lord Sidmouth, and had always expressed to him his belief that if the man had been brought up tor judgment he would have been punished. There were, no doubt, c.rcumstancss of extenuation, and these would have been urged with ability before the Court by his counsel ; but, notwithstanding all the efforts of counsel, he had no doubt that punishment would have been inflicted." Lord Brougham went on to support his position by the authority of another remarkable case. "Their lot dships would no doubt recollect Ihe case of " Gilbert and another/ which was tried in 1812. One of the parties in that case had given the other £100 on condition of receiving a guinea a-day as long 'as Napoleon Bonaparte lived. They payment was claimed, and the case ultimately came before the Court which was so ably presided over by Lord Ellenborough. The Court decided in the most unequivocal manner that it was an immoral, and therefore un illegal, debt, because it led to an encouragement of the crime of assassination. One argument in favour of the claim was that it could only lead to the assassination of an enemy, for Napoleon was at that time at open war with this couutry, and it was contended that could be no offence, because we had a right to put an enemy to death. " Yes," said Lord Ellenborough, " you have ft right to put an enemy to death, but only in a legal way by force of arms ; you have no right to assassinate him, and no one has a right to make a bargain that might by probability lead to such an outrage on all law." The decision in this case was given on the broad principle that any act which could encourage, or had a tendency to encourage assassination, was illegal in this country. He was sorry to hear from his noble friend that there were refugees in this country who combined and conspired together in a way that had a tendency to encouiage attempts on the life of foreign princes. He believed that the law was sufficient to put a stop to any such proceedings, but if it was not sufficient to prevent such cabals, then the law ought to be amended. He begged to repeat, however, thdt there was no doubt that if any persons met together eitiier in public or private meetings, or employed publications and set forth doctrines that led not merely to a general ani abstract defence of murder and assassination, but to the most mischievous act of attempting assassination, then the parties so offending were liable to prosecution, and, if convicted, to punishment/ Nothing could be more timely than to recal the principle of the decision in the Gilbert case, ■with the saying of a judge so eminent as Lord Ellenborough, containing in itself a sufficient reply to the foul charges lately brought against us in France. This is the country that shelters assassins, these are the laws that have no penalties for conspiracy and murder 1 The nation, whose judges have held and solemnly laid down that ,the law had no mercy for assassination, even when the object of the crime was a monarch with whom we were at open war, is accused of conniving at it, and indirectly -sanctioning it, in the instance of a prince, with whom we arc not only at peace, but connected by the bonds of the closest and most popular alliance ! Lord Brougham has done extremely well to revive this little •passage of history. Yet of what avail is it to produce this or any other fact or truth, for the purpose of removing erroneous impressions on the French mind to the disadvantage of our institutions or national character? The channels are stopped by which alone the truth can find its way to •the mass of the French people. How many Frenchmen will have an opportunity of reading Lord Brougham's speech, or hearing the words of Lord Ellenborough, there so seasonably quoted ? We have really just cause of quarrel with the French Government for silencing every tongue and paralysing every pen, save those ■that libel and defame us. But great as the value is which we attach to the gooJ opinion and good -will of France, we must beware of paying or bidding too dear for it. as it might be inferred from parts of Lord Derby's speech, otherwise excellent in spirit and substance, that he is too much disposed to do. Lord Derby does •not distinctly affirm that our law, as it stands, is une qnal to grapple with the crimes that are the subject of c mtroversy, yet he pronouni eB in favour of some new legislation,— of doing something or another,— chiefly, it would seem, for the purpose of setting ourselves right in French estimation. " I think it is of the utmost importance that we *honld hear from her Majesty's Ministers, without delay, whether they intend to take any steps in consequence of the atrocious attempt which has just been made upon the "life of the French Emperor— any steps which, even though they should afford no effectual security for the protection of the lives of foreign sovereigns, may serve at least to indicate the good-will towards France which exists upon the part of the English people, and which may show that we are prepared to do everything which may be fairly expected at our hands." And, again, his lordship said — " I do not presume to express any opinion as to the ■specific measures which may be introduced with the view of striking somewhat more of terror into the minds of the persons hy whom sneh crimes are contemplated, and for the purpose of making manifest to the sensitive people of France the sincerity of our expression of goodwill in their regard." Now we trust that if our laws are to be altered, or ■strengthened, in consequence of the late atrocity, which all "England deplores and exenates, the alteration will atlen«t not be proposed or made for any such slight purpose, or any such unheard-of ground, as that on which Lord Derby seems here to intimate his willingttess to alter them Ltt ;hera be changed on the ground

that there are offences which they do not punish, criminals whom they do not terrify, cases which, they do not meet, but we trust both Houses of Parliament will con. cur in scouting the proposal to make the smallest addition to the black catalogue of our penal laws, merely to conciliate a good-will we have not forfeited, or heal a sensibility we have done nothing to wound. That the Emperor of the French himself has no cause for doubting, not merely the good feeling, but even the anxious friendship of our Government for his personal welfare and safety, Lord Derby acknowledges, 11 1 will moreover venture to express it as my positive conviction that the Emperor o||ghe French has upon more than one occasion been mainly indebted for his safety to the friendly intimation which has been conveyed to him from England, of the dangerous designs of persons such as those whom we are now charged with harbouring for the purpose of instigating them to the ommission of the most heinous crimes." Is the demonstration of our friendship still imperfect ? If so. are we certain that any tampering with our laws would complete it ? We may possibly have dwelt too much on phrases used by Lord Derby, out of the strength of his laudable anxiety to preserve unbroken our harmonious relations with our nearest neighbour and most valued ally. THis | speech, as we have said, wa* admirable in tone and | mutter ; statesmanlike and patriotic ; such a vindication of the conduct of the government and people of England towards France as would be highly gratifying and highly important to see copied into every French ]our- ' n<il yet un^uppressed, and disseminated through the ', length aud breadth of the empire.

I Lablachc— lt is with deep regret that we have to ' announce the death of Lablache. He died on Jan. 23rd at Naples. Aftev his last return from Russia his health I f Ailed, and he gave up his engagements here and elseI where that he might enjoy repose and breathe his native ' air. For many months his condition was so precarious . that reports of his death more than once became current^ but more recently he rallied greatly, sanguine hopes of his recovery were entertained by his family, and much benefit "was expected both by himself and them from a visit to Torre del Greco, which was contemplated, in April next.. But these hopes have proved fallacious. About a month ago he had a violent attack of his malady, under which he sank, after suffering excruciating agony with great fortitude and calmness. In his last illness he was affectionately tended by his daughter, Madame Thalberg. He had lost his wife about a year and a half ago. He was in his 62nd year, having been born at Naples in 1896. He was of French extraction (as his name imports), but was himself a thorough Neapolitan. His career, uncheqnered by remarkable events, was, from an early age, a course of uninterrupted succees. After having risen to the highest eminence in Italy, he came to England for the first time in 1830, and made his debut at our Italian Opera (then the King's Theatre), in the character of Geronimo in Cimarosa's comic Opera "II Matrimonio Segreto. 1 ' From that night his position on our Italian stage was at once established as the richest and most legitimate comedian, and the most maguificent bass singer of the age. From successive appearances it was discovered that his genius was as versatile as it was great, ranging from the lightest comedy, and even farce, to the most lofty tragedy — from Oeronimo, and Bartholo, and Don Pasquale, to the majestic Otoveso and the terrible Duke of Ferrara. But the tianscendant merits of Lablache are familiar to every musical reader. Lablache was possessed of much intelligence and general attainments. His character was manly, generous, and straightfoi ward, his manners were genial and pleasant; and he was not less respected and beloved as a man than he was admired as an artist. His loss is irreparable. We shall never see another Lablache. Captain John Soy,— This gentleman, late commander of the Peninsular Company's steamer Pera, died at his residence at Portswood, Southampton, on the 26th of January. In his capacity of commander in the Peninsular Compauy's service, few men have gained more respect than Captain Soy, and his loss will be severely felt by the numerous persons travelling by the Overland route to India aiid Australia.

Several serious, and some fatal, accidents occurred on the 25th of January on account of the crowds collected about the neighbourhood of St. James's Palace during the marriage of the Princess Royal. Persons were knocked down and trampled on in the crush. A melancholy boat accident occurred the other day on the Mersey. A gig with, four men, was making for a vessel lying in the river, when a fierce gust caught the sail, the boat capsised, and the men were precipitated into the water. Two of them sank immediately , the remaining two clung to the boat's keel. The crew of a ferry-boat heard the alarm and threw lifebuoys to them, but'a heavy sea struck their boat and they were washed off. The men of the steani-ship Indian heard their crisis and were loweiing a boat, when the boatswain fell oveiboaid and was drowned. The greatest difficulty with respect to the safety lamp is that the workmen will not use it when they have it. An accident was caused a few days ago in a colliery in North Wales by this neglect. After the blasting of some of the coal, the men went into the workings with naked candles, although the company had provided them with lamps. Eleven men were severely burnt or otherwise injured.