The principle of such a law, supported as it was by the precedent of Ireland, could hardly be resisted.  And Mr. Walpole, who had been Home-secretary in Lord Derby’s ministry, avowed his determination to support the bill, “as being right in principle.”  But even he limited his promise of support by a condition “that the honor of England should be previously vindicated;” arguing that the French despatch bore the character of a demand, based upon allegations which were contrary to truth, and which, therefore, the ministers were bound to repudiate; and that to pass such a bill without putting on record a formal denial of those allegations would, in the general view of Europe, imply a confession that to them we had no answer to give.  And it was this consideration which eventually determined the decision of the House, Mr. Disraeli, who closed the debate on his side, condemning the conduct of the ministers as “perplexed, timid, confused, wanting in dignity and self-respect.  In not replying to the despatch, they had lost a great opportunity of asserting the principles of public law.”  The House, taking his view of their conduct, threw out the bill by a majority of nineteen;[309] and the ministry resigned, and was succeeded by one under the presidency of Lord Derby.

Many of those who on this occasion combined to form the majority had denounced the bill, as an infringement of the principles of our constitution.  It is, however, evident that, had it passed, it would not have deserved such a description.  It would in no degree whatever have deprived a foreign resident of safety and the protection of English law, so long as he should obey that law; and that is all the indulgence that the constitution ever gave or ought to give.  Foreigners had always been amenable to our courts of justice for any violation of the law.  And Lord Palmerston’s bill not only went no farther than removing a certain class of offences from the category of misdemeanors to that of felonies, but it also imposed no liability in that respect on foreigners which it did not at the same time impose on all the Queen’s subjects.  Indeed, the bill was so moderate, and the improvement it proposed so desirable, that, in a subsequent discussion in the House of Lords, Lord Campbell, the Chief-justice, expressed a hope that Lord Derby’s government would take it up; though Lord Derby, in view of the existing feeling of the country on the subject, prudently forbore to act on that suggestion.  But, as one of Orsini’s most guilty accomplices, a man named Bernard, was still in London, he caused him to be indicted for murder, as having incurred that guilt as accessary to the death of some whom the explosion had killed.  The excitement on the question had, however, not died away when the trial came on; and, though it will, probably, be generally admitted that the evidence was sufficiently clear, Bernard was acquitted.