The Sun. — London, England, 1845-04-02 00:00:00

COLONIA L ACCOUNTS. the solicitor was inforree,l that the fullest consideration would be given td these doeements if he deoo,„io,d them with the Board, 'lid he (Sir Geon.lt Chris) had not the least d , ,tibt that if these d , euments contained important information neon this q:Testion, his Noble Friend at the head of the Rail wsy D .pirt tnent and the Board itself would not only give it ;he fullest consideration ; and if it contained sufficient grounds to induce them to alter their dechion, they would not have the slightest hesi'at ion in ,loing so. But he must candidly tell the House that he did not think these documents would disclose such information as to induce the Board of Trade to come to a different decision to that, which had already been announced. If any mis apprehension had r'sen,. it was on the :-art of th . ., pro moters of the railway, and net .:n the part of that de partment of the Board of, Trade. Not could they com plain that no intimation bad been given to them that further evidence was required, because it was left to them to request an interview, which they had negl- cteri to do. It was clear, therefore, that no blame could be attached to the Board of Trade. 'rho renort detailing the reasons upon which the B:itrd of Trade had come ti a decision in the case of this railway would be laid upon the table of the House in the course of the present week, and it would be for the House or a Comtnittez to judge whether that report contained sufficient reason to justify the decision of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. _ Mr. MINCOMBE begged leave to ask a question upon this snbjcct. It was this—ho would wish to know if the decisions of the Board of Trade were the decisions that were Gazette('? and if they were. Here those de cisions final? The reason he asked this question was this—if any new information should be acluired upon any line so announced as decided upon, and that the Board of Trade should find that information of such a character as to induce them to alter their opinion, would there then be a new announcement in the Gazette? Sir GEORGE CLERK said he had not the least idea that the Boatel would make any alt. ration in their decisions ; but at the same time he could say, that the Board of Trade would, as an act of justice, alter the whole bearing of the announcement made in the Gazette, if the additional information u ere of such a nature as to demand that course. Mr. LABOUCHERE underst-od that the practice of the Board of Tr::de was to announce their decisions in the Gazette; now he wished to know if the Board made any announcements in the Gaulle before they had made up their minds ?—(Laughter.) Sir G. CLERK beggt.d to say that the Board of Trade were always ready and anxious to give their fullest con sideration to every information sent them on this sub ject ; and when the parties giving this information should state to the Board the nature of the information they were alwa}s told that such information would be sure to receive the fullest and most careful consideration Lord HOWICK conceived that his question had not been quite answered yet. What he wanted to know was, was this a decision of the Board of Trade, or was it no t ?—(dear, hear.) If it were not a decision why was it Gazitted? And if it were, why should the announce- ment be made in the advertisement in the papers that be had already read ?—(Hear. hear.) Sir G. CLERK said that all documents sent in to the Board of Trade, conveying information that the Board bad not had when making the announcements in the Gazette, would be embodied in a report, and the whole then laid before the House for its consideration. Mr. HAWES wished to know if he understood the Hon. Baronet to say that those announcements might appear in the Gaulle. sat oct to such alter •tions and modifications as stiosequent information might indite , i the House to make. when the report niention , rl by the Hon. Baronet should he laid before Parlisment Sir G. CLERK—The Board of Trade might be taken by surprise by the receipt of such information a> had been alluded to, and theref •re those docionents would receive the attenth n they (I, served. NEW ZEALAND. Mr. AGLIONBY begged leave, on Iv.half of Mr. Charles Buller, who wf!s absent, to give notice of a mo tion relative to New Z.-aland. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN moved for leave of ab sence for Mr. William Miles and Mr. Philip Miles fur six weeks.—Granted. NEW ZEALAND. In answer to a question from Mr. AGLIONITY. Mr. G. W. HOPE said that the papers the Govern ment had received from New Zealand would be laid On the table on an early day. CEYLON. I)re BOWRIN t hen rest: to 11101/e that a Select Com mittee be appointed to inquire into the state of the colo nial a counts and the means of improving them. It would be needless fir him to urge on the House the im prance of the subject, which mils., be apparent to any noes A paper bad been laid on the table of the House a few days ago a hieh showtd that this country had forty-oee colenies, with a pepuletion of 5,000,000, ef people; the imports 11 em them to the United Kingdom amounted annually to between 10,000,000/. and 11.000,000/. sterling, and the exports represented 17,000.000/. sterling, of which nearly half was of Bri tish pro lute and British manufactures. These colonies empleyel 3,000 vessels, and 900,000 tons of shipping. wlftn.:ver colonial questions were introduced, the ]louse must be surprised that no accounts could be hail or at least very imperfect ones. The two latest ac counts came drown to the 2cl of August, 1844, and the Bth of August of the same year. There were no accounts of many of the colonies later than 1843, and of others none later than 1842, whilst from the important colony of Newfound land there were no accounts at all. Neither were there any accounts from Fernando Po or the Faikiand Islands later than 1840, though a sum of 20,0001. had been granted t the Falkland Islands at various times by this House. There was no uniformity, no general plan or purpose. They all stood on an independent basis, and each returned accounts as the functionaries pleased. Many of them rave no account whatever. In some of the colonies a ery few lines were sufficient to dispose of the receipts and expenditure. In St. Christopher's seven lines dis posed of the receipts, but ten lines were devoted to the expenditure. In some co'onies there was no distinction made between fixed and incidental revenue. In others what was elsewhere called fixed revenue got the name of inci dental; in others the application of the terms was reversed. In the Cape of Good Hope the accounts were kept in a manner different from that adopted in all the other colonies. There was one column for abso lute receipts—another column for arrears and debts— In some cases they had charged for the collecting of the revenue ; in others they had not ; and in others that charge was under a different head. The Hon. and Learned Member then entered into a statement of the accounts furnished by the different colonies. He thought they should know how the sums advanced to the colonies had been disposed of. He would also draw attention to the mode of auditing accounts for these places. When Sir George Murray was Colonial Secretary he had pro mised that the colonial budget should be regularly brought before Parliament. That had not been done. It appeared from. the evidence given before the Com mittee, that in 1837 the colonial accounts of 1831 had not been audited. The accounts of all the colonies were in arrears. The accounts of Ceylon had not been audited for eleven years ; those of South Australia had net been audited for seven years ; those of Mauritius for seven years ; those of the Cape of Good Hope for ilea years ; those of Malta for six years ; those of Upper Canada for six yeais ; and those of Wes tern Australia for five years. The most extra ordinary reasons were given for the non-exa minetion of these accounts. They said they ead not clerks enough to get through the work. That the persons whose duty it was to examine them were ill. The arrears were continually accumulat ing ----after a few years the accumulation was sent to the audit office, and there they declared that it was impossible for any human being to examine the account., and then an order was issued from the Treaetiry to allow all theso accounts to pass with - .ut audit.—(Marks of dissent from Sir Robert Pis 1.) the Rieht Horea,reble Baronet expressed his dissent fre an teed stan ment, but if he would inquire he would find that it had been done again and again. He was quite willing to de justice to the efforts of successive “evernments to accomplish this object. One great &lee' had been accereplished—the s. paration of the military from the civil acceunts. If a proper system were not adopted in keeping the colonial accounts, irre gularities must necessarily take place. He trusted that this would not be treated as a party question. It was a que. , tion of great national importance. and he trusted that both Fides of the House would co-operate in endeavouring to improve the present system. The system of double entry had again and again been recommends d by the commissioners of public ac counts. There ought, no doubt, to be some general system of control exercised as to the way money was to be drawn from the public chest. Some system ought to be universally adopted. He did not suggest that there should be any interference with the expenditure or receipt in the colonies, but the ex penditure and receipt should be honeitly and clearly acknowledged by some general uniform system. In this country there should be some means of ascertaining with regard to the colonial expenditure—at present the pe cuniary state of the colonises was represented in a very un satisfactory state. The House of Commons should re ceive from year to year a colonial budget, containing the estimate of the receipts and expenditure in the colonies. The Hon. Gentleman then read the resolutions he wished the House to adopt:— " 1. That in the opinion of this House, a uniform sys tem of accountancy should be adopted in all the depart ments of Government, the plan of double entry, as re commended by the Commissioners of Public Accounts, being the basis thereof. _ troops with hostile views against the country from which he had been exil'.d. —(Hear, hear.) Now, I contend for it that this was the case of Mr. Joseph Mazzini, and that the case of Mr. Joseph Mazzini was therefore entirely apart from that of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.— (Hear, hear.) New, what is the case of Mr. Mazzini? He is en exile in this country, having been compelled to quit his own, for reasons already well known. But now let, me call attention to a peculiar period of the history of Italy. In the year 1814, England called upon Italy to rise and defend herself. The Geneveve, the Vene, tian, the Tuscan, the Roman, the Calabrian, were all called upon by England to arise and combine for the defence of the liberty of Italy. A proclamation was then issued, calling upon these people to do what? That proclamation contains sentiments similar to those for which Mazzini had been exiled, and the Bandieri died. —(hear, hear.)—And even Bota himself then unfurled a banner on which language calling for men to rise in defence of Italy was plainly inscribed--(Hear, hear.) — and that banner was raised in the very cause in which England then encouraged the people of Italy ; and for espousing which, at a later period, England had caused occurrences which now involved her eery seriously.—(Hear, hear.) Yes, the Italians were salted upon, encouraged by England to raise the cry of justice and of patriotism, to defend their country, and to snatch from the brow of Napoleon the Crown of Rome, in order that it should be transferred to Austria.— (Hear, hear.) That cause was 1 eng dormant, but it was not dead; and after the revolution in France of 1830, asd the reformation in England of 1831 ; that spirit ar.,sain arose—ltaly demanded the rest ration of that feeerlean from England, that England in 1814 called on her to defend, and it was refused, and the consequence was, that Mazzini was obliged to quit his country, carrying with him that load of misery the cause of his exile had forced upon his heart.—(Hear, hear.) A very vivid and succinct account of this may be found in Louis Blanc's "History of the Ten Years." The Right Hon. Gentleman then read at some length the documents to which he referred ; and also the cor respondence of Sir Hamilton Seymour, for the purpose of showing that the course pursued by the Government was inconsistent with true policy. Now, I.e thought that document reflected the highest credit on the sa gacity of his Noble Friend ; and it showed to the House, in the clearest point of view, the causes of discontent of the Roman population, and it suggested the true and real remedy to be applied. The antici pations of Sir Hamilton Seymour were fulfilled, from that time to the present. The Committee which had been appointed by that House had made its report containing much information.—(Hear, hear.) The Committee does not state whence that information came ; the Committee states that it came from a high quarter. Why is everything connected with this tran saction thus enveloped in mystery ? Why are we not informed from what high quarter that intelligence came? Did it come from the Papal Government ? For every body knows that we have a kind of a body at Rome— everybody knows that Mr. Peter acts in a capacity under this Government. Was it from the Austrian Go vernment ? Why are all these things hidden from the public ? This information conveyed to the English Go vernment is thus made a most remarkable circumstance. If I thought that the Right Hon. Secretary fur the Home Department had issued the warrant on this occa sion merely as a matter of form, I would not have no ticed it, or thought it remarkable ; but I find that such is not the case, and this is a circumstance in the issuing of the warrants which requires peculiar notice, it having been declared in the most emphatic manner by Lord Aberdeen, that he had not issued the warrant ; and he was not content with that information, but he also says that he never wished the war rant to be issued. (Here the Hon. and Learned Gentleman quoted part of Lord Aberdeen's speech to that effect.) It is a most remarkable fact, that the war rant related ostensibly at least to the foreign depart ment, and to nothing else—mark, to nothing else—the matter fell within the exclusive cognizance of Lord Aber deen, and why is it that he did not issue the warrant? He is a Secrstary of State, the power is vested in him by Act of Parliament. But perhaps the document had not come before him, and that by accident he did not put his name to it, but Lord Aberdeen takes care to inform the public on the subject, a subject in which the public were intensely interested, and where he felt that his character was involved—on that occasion he makes the most solemn adjuration that it was not issued at his de sire. The House is not to understand that I am cen suring the issuing of the warrant. I am quite prepared to divide the responsibility with the other Members of the Government. Let each of us have his share. But Lord Aberdeen took care not to appropriate to himself the responsibility of a matter relating to his own particular department.—(Hear, hear.) He says— " I am quite prepared as well as other members of the Government to share the responsibility of the proceeding ;" but he went on to say " I only wish this fact to be accurately stated "—and that is the car dinal and essential fact—" that it was not issued by me;" and still more, " it was not issued at my desire."— (Hear, hear.) Might I venture to suggest that though the temporal dominions of the Pope are within the ex • elusive cognisance of Lord Aberdeen, there is an exceed ingly interesting portion of his power—his spiritual dominion—with which the Home-office is not entirely unconnected.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot help indulging in a conjecture of that kind, especially as the Committee left so much to the imagination. I have a curiosity— the Noble Lord opposite, the Chairman of the Committee, may call it a " prurient " one—(Laughter)—there is a curiosa felicitls about the expression of the Noble Lord —(Hear, hear)—but I certainly have a " prurient curi. osity " to know at whose desire the warrant was issued. We know by whom it was issued—we know it was issued by the Minister of the interior— by the domestic Minister of the • country, but we do not know at whose desire it was issued. Sir, the Committee was composed of men of great worth, high honour, and great intelligence; but there were no cross-examiners amongst them.—(Laughter.) It was not a Committee of Inquisitors—there was not a single gentleman upon that Committee who was fit to be a Commissioner under the income tax—(Laughter)—and it was strange that all lawyers were excluded from a Committee who were appointed to inquire into the law upon the subject.—(Hear, hear.) But so much has been already said on that point that I will content myself with briefly alluding to it. The Committee being com posed of men of high worth and honour, but not of lawyers, they did not institute a very severe scrutiny, and their report was to a certain extent favourable to the Government upon a matter which is deserving of their consideration and the reflection of the House. The Committee having stated that information from high quarters had been given to them, proceeded to state that the letters of Mr. Mazzini had been opened, and that the information deduced from them was communicated to a foreign Power, not specif)ing what Power, and they added that the information so communicated was not of a nature calculated to implicate any individual within the reach of that foreign Power. It had been stated that information was communicated to no foreign Power which referred to any individual within its reach. But the information might be conveyed to a foreign Power within whose grasp the individual was not ; yet that Power might transmit it to another, and so the individual might suffer. He might ask, why was the information com municated at all ?—(Hear, hear.) It might have been to a certain extent of a very explicit kind, though the names were not given. Austria and Rome were aware of the existence of a p'ot. They wanted details. Was nothing said on the subject ? The Committee said in formation had not been given which would implicate in dividuals. How could the Committee say so ?—(Hear, hear.) Were not the place and time mentioned ; no name was given, but there was a local habitation. The inference was obvious. If the slightest hint was given to a Bow-street officer he would follow up the vestiges to the malefactors; if they put the blood-hound upon the right track, did they not think but, with sanguinary sa gacity, he would scent out his victim to the death.— (Hear.) The Committee, for the purpose of shielding the Government, had told them what had not been communicated. They said the Government had coin promised no man, but what they really did communicate nobody knew. Of two extraordinary facts he was, how ever, aware. It was most remarkable that in the Milan Gazette of the 20th of April these words appeared:— " The English Cabinet has addressed a letter to the Austrian Government, not only protesting against all suspicion of sympathy with seditious movements, but going still further, expressing its anxiety to put an end to the agitation and excitement." Contrast this with the proclamation of Sir H. Seymour. But the Gazette goes on to say, after some other observations:—" Mazzini is a person not unknown to the London police."— (Hear, hear.) This appeared on the 20th of April— the warrant was issued on the first of the same month. —(Hear, hear.) There was a statement made by the organ of the Austrian Government, with a specification of the very individual.—(Hear, hear.) If a member of the Government stood up in his place in Parliament and declared that the name of Mazzini had never been com municated, he was bound to believe him, and he would believe him; but when he, said that, he must likewise protest that he was at a loss to account for the ap pearance of that article. Though British Ministers might have given the information they had done from different motives from those assigned, and not with a view of such results taking place as had occurred; still the effects, as regarded the unfortunate sufferers, was the same. The Secretary of State' for Foreign Af fairs declared that as ho hoped for mercy himself—in short, in language as solemn as ever fell from the lips of man, that he was innocent of their blood. But their blood has been shed. On the 6th of May, six persons were put to death for political offences ; and on the 15th of June further executions took place.—(Hear, hear.) They were innocent of the blood shed in Calabria, bat were they innocent of the blood spilled at Bologna ? (The latter part of this sentence was inaudible). In the course of this discussion it had been said that the present Government had only done what their predecessors had done ; and the First Lord of the Treasury said, " We have only done what has been done before us." He (Mr. Sheil)denied that. It was a mistake. He denied that such information was ever communicated by the late Govern ment to foreign Powers.—(lronical cries of " Hear," from the Tory benches.) He repeated the denial. He positively denied that information had ever been commu nicated to foreign Powers obtained from the opening of letters. If he were wrong let them show him his error. —(Hear, hear) His Noble Friend did interfere with respect to Rome, and with respect to other foreign States. He did interfere against lion Miguel and against Don Carlos ; but the letters of Don Miguel and of Don Carlos were never opened by him ; at all events their contents were never forwarded to Madrid and Lisbon. —(hear, hear.) The present Government had at least the merit oforieinality. The Act of Parliament conferring the power of opening letters was, it was said, passed in the reign of Anne, but its principle was founded at tier time of kie Commonwealth. Could they find nctl'ihts, in the history of the Commonwealth more worthy of imitation?—(Hear, hear.) At the time of the Common wealth, their Republican predecessors did interpose in the affairs of the Italian States, and at the hazard of pro voking a European war. They found Sardinia in a state Mr. TUFNELL asked whether there wes any truth in the report which Lad appeared in the Ceylon papers, to the effect that Lord Stanley had sent out ord-rs to the Governer of that island to dismiss from her Ma jesty's service all officers, civil or military, who were engaged in mercantile transactions ? Mr; G. W. HOPE said Oat it had formerly been the custom to permit officers in the island to increase their income by engaging in mercantile transactions. The Noble Lord at the head of the Celenial Department had been very unwilling to interfere with what had been so long an established practice, but finding that some of those officers neglected the public business in order to attend to those private affairs, he had sent out a dispatch to the Governor, desiring him to give those officers the option of either resigning their official situations, or of devoting themselv-s wholly to their official &ales. But, to those who chose the latter aereative, ample time would be given to wind up their mercantile transactions. Mr. TUFNELL thought the information of the Hon. Gentleman was hardli precise enough. What he wanted to know was, whether the parties to vrlom he re ferred would be subject to any compu'sory pr weed;nt.Y,s? Mr. G. W. HOPE said that to what extent the direc tions of Lord Stan'ey would go he could not say, and whether or not Lord Stanley wenld wish t .e Governor to carry out his instructions within any specific period he could not say, and what his decision would be with respect to those who might not be able readily to get rid'' of their property within such period, if it were fixed, he was equally ignorant. BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. HAWES said that, seeing the Noble Lord, the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster (L or d G ranv ill e Somerset) in his place. he wished to a s k hi m when the House eight expect another report from the Board with which he was connected ? He was led to hope that this report would be shortly forthcoming, from the long time which had elapsed since the date of the last report Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that he could not at the present moment say when the next report would be ready, for from the amount of business which the Board had to transact there had not at present been an opportunity of preparing it. Mr. HAWES said he thought that it was time an other report was prepared, and that the question was a sufficiently reasonable one when he rec tllected that the date of the last was December, and there was, in Hs opinion, sufficient ground to expect another by this time. REPEAL OF DUTIES. Mr. E. BULLER, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in his place, begged to ask him when the deferred discussion on the ri peal of the duties on tallow and other articles of commerce could be brought on without in convenience to the Governim nt. He was anxious consult the convenience of the Government ; but it was necessary that the country should know when these duties would cease. Sir H. PEEL said that he could not, at the present moment, say when the business could be taken up by the House, but he would take the very earF•est oppor tunity of naming a day. In the course of the week he would be able to see the progress of the business in the House, and when he knew what position it steod in. he should be able to tix a day. He believed the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had a notice on the books which stood fur Tuesday, and if not before, he believed he should bo able to state on Moi4- day what day could be taken for the purpose. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Government busi ness was usually taken on the Wednesday. Sir R. PEEL said that whenever Government mo tions were taken on the Wednesday, it was by the courtesy of the House, and not as a matter cf right or according to rule ; but he had no objection to take the business on Wednesday, and, in the course of the week, or on Monday at latest, he would name a day. SANATORY REGULATIONS OF LARGE TOWNS Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN begged to call the atten tion of the Noble Lord at the head of the office of Woods and Forests (the Earl of Lincoln) to an extremely important petition which he had presented the other evening from Limerick, and to ask the Noble Lord whether it was the intention of her M.josty's Govern ment to extend the provisions of any Bill which they might introduce upon the sanatory regulations of large towns to Ireland ? The Earl of LINCOLN said that the report of the Commissioners had only been presented to her Majesty in January last, and he could not, therefore, say what the provisions of the Bill might be ; but, without pledging the Government to any particular course of proceeding, he might say that he anticipated the power of the Bill would be extended both to Scotland and Ireland. AUCTION DUTY. — - --- Captain PECRELL wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was his intention to go into Committee upon the auction duty, and he also wished to know at what period the duty would cease atter the passing of the resolu tion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he should be happy to bring the question forward at the earliest possible moment; and it was only because he understood that it was to be opposed that he was not enabled to bring it forward heretofore. The time when be would be able to bring it forward would depend on the army vote. The moment that vote was eb;ained he would name the day on which he would bring forward the question of the auction duty. The reduction of the duty would be effected at the earliest possible period after the passing of the resolution. Captain PECHELL wished to know from the Hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Dor&etshire (Mr. Bankes), whether it was his intention to oppose the re duction of the auction duty, and whether he would divide the House upon it ? Mr. BANKES said it was his intenti9n to follow up the motion of which he gave notice at an early period of the session ; and he would take the sense of the Reuse on the question of the auction duty. and the propriety of applying the auction duty to a certain particular pur pose ?—(Laughter.) Mr. WARD said he would postpone his motiou rela tive to the b ur d ens on land till the House was in pus session of the Hon. Gentleman's statement. MR. AGLIONBY AND NIR. CARRINGTON. Mr. AGLIONBY said, that as he felt called upon to bring under the notice of the H , use a letter of Mr. Car rington's, reflecting upon his conduct as a nienit:er of a Com mittee, and a, h e underw.o,l that the 0 , 0.4 conve nient nt time, f o r doing %culla he when the House was going i nto a Committee of Supply on Friday. be bto give notice that he wont(' eall the attontion of the /douse to the subject on that day. He was anxious that a member of the Committee should not rest under such an imputation. " 2. 1 hat, for the protection of the public revenue, and the exercise of an efficient Parliamentary control, the gross revenues should be paid without deduction into her Majesty's F,xehequer, and all issues therefrom be autho riser] by a Parliamentary vote. " 3. That no department of expenditure be allowed to be a department of receipt other than by credits on her Majestv's Exchequer." Mr. HUME seconded the motion. On the qu , >stion being put, Mr. HOPE said that, if he understood the Hon. and Learned Member aright, his proposal simply was to ap - point such Members (as were in the House) upon this Committee, in order to make a report from the printed evidence already before the House. He understood also that the estimates of the colonies were to be laid before the House in detail, in order to receive the sanction of the House. Dr. BOWRING—Oh ! no no. Mr. HOPE was at a loss to understand what the Hon. Member meant by his motion. As regarded the, Crown colonies, her Majesty's Ministers did assume a responsibility, and they had for years been endeavouring to improve their condition, and he trusted that in some measure they had done so. But it had been the habit to leave the colonies to transact their own affairs—(Hear)—as they themselves were best acquainted with them. They had the choosing of their own officers—of their own constabulary— and they were at liberty to adopt those laws most convenient to themselves, without in every case requiring the sanction of that House. He dd not, however, wish to object to the appointment of the Committee sought for by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. Mr. lIUME said the most lamentable ignorance pre vailed in this country on the condition of the colonies. He would not interf re with the local administration of colonial affairs ; but what he co.uplained of was, a total want of mam4g,ment, regularity, and uniformity. It was impossible for any Colonial Secretary, in such a state of things, to administer colo:•ial affairs in a satisfactory man ner—thu3 colonial accounts were in entire confusion. kith regard to the mode of lovyirg colonial taxes he did not agree with it, because it dealt unfairly with the products of this country. There was no uniform system by which the import duties were regulated in the colonies, and he very much re gretted this, for if there was some uniform system established, it would not only make the ac counts more clear, but tend materiaily to reduce the public expenditure of the country. His opinion had always been that the colonies ought not to be of any expense to the country, but so far from this being the case now, they were paying annually enormous sums for their maintenance. After a few words from Dr. BOWRING in explana tion the motion was agreed to. POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE. Mr. SHEIL rose and said—l rise for the purpose of moving a resolution, the purport of which I have already stated. That resolution will be found to be in the following words:—" That this House expresses its regret that letters addressed to a foreigner residing in this country should have been opened without his knowledge, and that information in reference to disturbances in the Papal States, obtained by such means, should h ave b e e n communicated to a foreign Power." Sir, I think it right, in the first instance, to state, to remove a misapprehen sion, that it is not my purpose—although it has been imagined to be my intention—to make the fatalities which have taken place in Calab r i a th e groun d o f my complaint. Sir, in this country—in which the spirit of truth pre-eminently prevails—when a Minister of the Crown, no matter to which party he appertains, rises in his place in Parliament, and in respect to what be has dene,'or what he has not done, makes a solemn asseveration, he is, with an instinct, honourable alike to himself and to those who hear him, instanta neously belkved.—(Hear, hear.) And if this holds good with regard to every statesman honoured with the confidence of his Sovereign, it is peculiarly so with respect to a statesman of honour so unimpeached and unimpeachable as Lord Aberdeen.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I will not at this time discuss the circumstances connected with the opening of the letters of Amelio and Antonio Bandiera. These letters were before Lord Aberdeen ; they were written from Corfu, and they re lated to the projected descent upon Italy. Sir, I will not deny that when I consider that these documents were b?.fore Lord Aberdeen, it is still a matter of surprise to me that he should have remained in ignorance of these young men's designs. At the same time I must say there are other circumstances attending this transaction —at least they appear by the statement of Lord Aber deen, and I would be sorry indeed to utter any surmise in regard to that Noble Lord, at least, any surmise in the least degree injurious to him—but I do say that there are circumstances in this transaction which lead the to conclude that a distinction appears . to have been taken between the acts that bad been going on in Calabria, and the movements taking place in the Papal S'ates. Ido say, Sir, that sight has been lost of this ,iistinction in the present case, though it was well re garded in former transactions. But it is true that that may he excused by the fact that public attention had then been too much engrossed by the Parliamentary dee bates, in which the Right lion Baronet the Secretary of State fOr the Home Departm •nt was so deeply engaged at home. And my Sal. and Learned Friend the Member for Finsbury, by a rare combinatian of bravery and ability, seldom found concentrated in one individual, has won for himself, by the manner in which he has brought this question before the country, the most signal suc cess; hut I hope he will forgive me for saying that T do think that even the opening of the letters of a Member of the British Parliament was an act which did not call so loudly for full explanation, as the same act committed towards a foreigner, who had been compelled to become an exile from his own country, to take refuge in this, where he was confined without any confederates or. re sources, or the means of levying money or raising THE srw, LONDON, Tif_RDNPSDAY MORNING, APRIL 2, 1845. I of disquietude and tumult, and they rescued a portion of her subjects from the merciless persecution of which they were the objec's.-'-( Hear, hear.) And if England—all England—was then animated by that noble feeling which the greatest writer in our language had given immortal expression to, in phrases too familiar to need quotation —if their democratic forefathers thus glowed with dig ' pilled passion—if they were so forward in the defence of ' civil liberty, would their descendants not only be insen sible to these feelings, but become auxiliary to oppres sion—the abetters of those who aspir. d to be the instru ments of foreign States ; and would they endea i your to rivet the chains of oppression on a country , for whose liberty no man who was himself in the pos session of &colon' ought to be unc oncerned?—(Hear, i hear.) What was their language ? It was to be found in the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury to a question put to him by the Hon. Member for Ponte fract. He said that insurrectionary movements had taken place in the Papal States, that the Austrian army might I have marched there—that the French army, too, might have gone there—and that, at Ancona or elsewhere, a collision might have taken place, which colli .ien might involve a war between these two Powers, and that this war might cane a European war, and i n a Euro p ean war England might he involved—and this was the rea son why they opened Mr. Mazzini's letters. —(Laughter.) That was their case. And for fear of a European war they established a system of espionage—yes, espionage —the word was hal d, hut appropriate. If they had sent an officer to Mazzini in the disguise of a servant, who would report every word that fell from him, that would he espionage ; but what prefsssor of dialectics, in any Italian university, could distinguish between this hypo thetical debasement and what had actually occurred ? Hitherto we would not avoid the certainty of war for the hazard of' dishonour. When an Englishman had been affronted in a remote island in the Pacific, the Go vernment of England boldly demanded satisfaction ; and the Right lion. Baronet declared that he was ready to go to war rather than submit to the dishonour.— (Hear, hear.) He applauded that resolution, but now the Government preferred avoiding the hazard of war, and submit to that which certainly was a most discredit able proceeding. If they had sent for Mazzini, and toll him that he was suspected, and that they intended to open his letters, it would not have been half so bad ; but these letters had been privately opened, read, and, with an ignominious dexterity, resealed—every drop of that wax being stained in falsehood.—(Hear, hear.) He had heard an argument attempting to show that a separate warrant should have been issued for the open ing of every letter ; but whatever the law might be in that case, there was certainly no law authorising leger demain.—'l/4" Hear, bear," and laughter.) He would not enter into the legal discussion—his resolution had re spect to the line of policy adopted and pursued in this proceeding. The Committee had reported in favour of the Government it was said, and that Commit tee, it was further alleged, was composed of men of worth and honour. He admitted that the Members of the Committee were such as they were 'described to be, but denied that they reported in favour of the Go vernment.—(Hear, hear.) The Committee avoided the expression of any very decided opinion ; they said that a difference of opinion might exist as to the conduct of the Government, but they gave them credit for good in tentions, and they reported in favour of the Government because of their good intentions. There was an apho rism regarding " good intentions," which he would not in deference to propriety quote—(Laughter)--but what had good intentions to do with the matter? Had not the House to consider the facts? Was the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite supported because of his good in tentions. It was not whether their intentions were good or bad, but whether they had acted a part becoming a British Ministry, worthy of the Queen's servants, and as became the representatives of the great English nation. He thought they had not, and because he thought so, he had put forward in his resolution facts which were be yond doubt or disputation, and with those facts beyond doubt nr dispute, he had associated an expression not of censure, but of lamentation, in which he trusted the ma jority of the house would coincide.—(Great cheering.) Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE seconded the motion. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that in replying to the Right Hon. Gentleman he would not attempt to imitate the brilliant peroration of his speech. The subject had now for the sixth time been brought under the notice of the House. The Right Hon. Gentleman had attached much weight to the declarations of Lord Aberdeen. He thought the deliberate declaration of the Noble Lord, made in his place in Parliament in the most solemn manner, was well entitled to entire confidence, and was entirely satisfactory. His Noble Friend had stated that no letters dated from Corfu, from the Bandieras, were ever seen by him, or even intercepted. He thought the allusion of the Right Hon. Gentleman to the proclama tion of 1814 did not bear upon the present case, and should not, after treaties of such long duration ' and which had been so religiously observed, and which were of an entirely contrary tendency, be at all entertained by that House. But the Right Hon. Gentleman said that after all that had been stated the principal part of the matter yet remained in mystery. As far as in him lay he would remove every shadow of doubt which yet remained. He would now state to the House, as well as he-was able, all the facts in connexion with this case. In October, 1843, he happened to be the only one of three Secretaries of State who was in London, and the duty of the three departments was, for the time, thrown upon him. During that period he had received communications from foreign Powers, and, amongst others, some to the effect that serious disturbances tael taken place at Bologna; in fact, that an insurrection of a formidable character had broken out there. This was at the end of August, 1843. He received dispatches from Lord Holland, our Minister at Florence, giving information with respect to those disturbances; and it was the opinion of that Noble Lord that they were very serious, and of a widely-spread nature. Lord Holland further stated that great appre hensions had been excited in the Austrian Government, and that they complained of certain publications of an in flammatory and exciting character, which emanated from the press at Malta. Lord Holland endeavoured to persuade the Government to suppress these publications , but he (Sir J. Graham) declined doing so, on the ground that the liberty of the press formed a part of the institutions of the island, and was a part of the British institutions. Soon after Baron Nieumann, the Austrian Minister, had an interview with him, in which he stated that he had reason to believe that a person well known in the ante cedent history of Italian revolutionary movements was then in London, and that he was the person really con nected with the Maltese publication before mentioned by Lord Holland. Baron Nieumann specified him as Mazzini, and this was the first time he (Sir J. Graham) had been aware of the existence of such an individual. The newspapers were produced by the Baron at the time, and it was impossible not to perceive that the language in them was of a highly exciting and inflammatory cha racter, to use the very m ild es t terms. From the end of October until the January following, he heard no more on the subject. His Noble Friend returned and resumed his official duties. In the month of January a commu nication took place between himself and his Noble Friend (Lord Aberdeen) with respect to the progress of a revo lutionary spirit in Italy, and the Austrian Ambassador assured the Noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs that neither Corfu, Bologna, nor Malta, were the centre from which these movements were directed, but that London was that centre—(Cries of " Hear, hear ")_. and that the peace of Europe was thereby endangered. He had not indeed, up to that time, known anything at all of Mr. Mazzini, and ho did not then attach any very great importance to the information, nor think it worth while to take any steps which would at all further the views of the Austrian ambassador. But towards the end of February he re ceived several communications which fully proved to him, that not only M r . M az zini was in London , but that he was car r yi ng on a ver y extensive correspond ence with parties d ee ply en gaged in insurrectionary movements in the South of Europe , a nd he thou g h t that it was his duty to as certain somewhat of the character and past pro cee dings of that gentleman. He did not wish to speak with any undue harshness of that individual—he was not there present to defend himself, and he (Sir J. Graham) therefore conceived, that it was only right that he should press as little upon him as was possible. Of his talents therecould be no question. In a variety of ways, and in very try in g cir cumstanc es he had evinced abilities of a very high order; but as he was not there present to answer the allegations against him, and to reply to the assertions which must be made respecting him, he (Sir J. Graham) thought that it was just that he should put upon himself some restraint in the statements that his duty compelled him to make re specting Mr. Mazziui. Yet, at the same time, he felt that this question had now assumed such a shape that it was due to the House and the country that something should be made known by authority, with regard to the past character and proceedings of that individual. The first communication which had been made to the British Government respecting Mr. Mazzini, was addressed to the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, when he'(Sir James Graham) had the honour of being the col league of the Noble Lord, and the object of which was to draw the attention of Lord Grey's Government to the proceedings of certain Italian refugees, who, Sir Hamilton Seymour, the Br itish Ambassador, asserted to be contriving in London some movements likely to be dangerous to the peace of Europe. In 1831 there had been an insurrection, which was however effectually put down, and the principal actors in it were permitted to depart from Italy, and were allowed by the French Go vernment to take up their abode at Marseilles. The character and conduct of these individuals are estimated by Sir Hamilton Seymour, in a dispatch received from him at the time. Writing in March, 1833, he says, after stating the circum stances of the insurrection and the futility of the effort, still plots in agitation am ong th ese let: ; and I am cre dibl y in " there ar e cer t a i n individuals who were connected with this movement who a residingn autcte Marseilles by a party wh o was d eep l y individuals, now in formed edt h at othcered are ti with a view of issued of a certain engaged in the late revolt in Ital y , named Mazzini, and who, with the others , is no w residin g at Marseilles." He publica tiont en whichg o cs o he to drawing together the disaffected i n th e severa l I ta li an States, and whose proceedings, he e states describe conceived, ought to be attended to by Government. Now he (Sir James them have Graham) did not pretend to say that what he had now to state with respect to Mr. Mazzini was of that precise kind, or founded on such indisputable evi dence as that which he had already adduced, but it would serve to explain, in a very satisfactory manner, the whole of the proceedings of Mr. Mazzini and his associates, and in stating this evidence he did not desire to press more hardly on Mr. Mazzini than was necessary. He (Sir James Graham) held in his hand a copy of the Mon; t ear, of the 17th June, 1833, which related a cir cumstance which had lately occurred at Rodez, a small town in the south of France. It is said in the Montleur that the town of Rodez had just been alarmed by threefold assassination committed on the persons of some of the Italian refugees by others who had been engaged in the same political movement. The paper makes no , commen ts on the at roc i ty o f the d ee d , b u t con - I tents itself with a simple statement Of the facts which, it afterwards came out, were ascertained on the judicial inquiry which was instituted under the direction of the French Government. It appeared, that about nine o'clock on the evening of the 20th of October, that two of the Italian refugees were found dead in th e streets, evidently just assassinated. A third was also found lying beside or near them, not dead, but who had received two severe wounds, and was only rescued from complete destruction by the inhabitants. Though suf ferites severely, he survived the wounds. A prosecution was instituted at the instance of the procureur du Roi in January, and the necessary authority having been re ceived at Rodez, the whole of the evidence was transmitted to Paris, and the sentence of ex pulsion against the Italian refugees was issued from the superior tribunal It appeared that these assassinations had been committed at the instigation of a society of which Mr. Mazzini was the president, and which delegated a tribunal for the secret trial of individuals whom the society supposed to be hostile to their political interests. It was not to be sup posed that the French Government would permit a tribunal of this nature to exist within its precincts, and an order consequently came down to expel the re f ugees from the ceuntry. Measures were consequently taken to carry this order into effect. This information did not rest solely on the declarations in the Mennleur, for it was evident from the proceedings of the prosecution, and it was in consequence of that prosecution that the expul sion was persisted in. He would give to the Ilouse the sentence which had been decided on, which had issued from the secret tribunal. By that sentence it was decided that four individuals should be punished for cer tain defaults of good faith committed against the in. terests of this society. The sentence required that on the 15th of December, at ten o'clock at night, four indi viduals of the society should he punished for their con nivance with the Court of Rome. It accused the indi viduals named Emiliani, Schuyrotti, Landiana, and Lazzoruchi, in the first place, of disseminating opinions hostile to their principles ; and, in the second, of being partizans of the Papal States. It goes on to condemn Schuyrotti and Emiliani to death, as being unworthy any longer to live. Landiana and Lazzoruchi were conceived to be less guilty, and they were only condemned to be severely flogged. It goes on further to require that all persons should concur in the execution of the sentence, at the risk of being them elves subject to the same sentence—namely, that of death ; and it required that the parties commis sioned to carry the sentence into execution within ten days, and concludes in these terms :—" Given at mid night, the President and twenty members of the Council of the said tribunal being present, according to the rules of the present society," and is signed " Mazzini, President." As soon as information was received by the French Government of those transactions, the re fugees were ordered immediately to be expelled the country. Information of those proceedings at Rodez was received in London in February following, and it would be his (Sir J. Graham's) duty to show that this was no isolated case, but that the conduct which had been pursued at Marseilles by Mr. Mazzini and his associates was followed also in the next asylum which they obtained after quitting France. He held in his hand a dispatch of Mr. Nlorier, the British Minister in Switzerland, in which, after describing these modern transactions, he goes on to say that the suspicions of the French Government had been greatly excited with respect to the proceed ings of the Italian refugees ; and that they had refused to Mazzini the continuance of that asylum which he had so grossly abused ; and that not content with the breach of hospitality which he committed in France, he had re. peated the same offence at Geneva. At Marseilles his endeavour had been to disturb the States of the Church. His object at Geneva was to interfere with the Government of Savoy. The date of his dispatch from the British Ambassador at Berne was the 28th of January, 1834. He states that a body of Poles who had been en gaged in the insurrection against the Government of Russia. and who when they laid down their arms were permitted to retire from the country, bad joined with a number of Italian refugees who were settled at Geneva, andj under the command of General Romarino were prepared to make an insurrectionary movement in the territory of Savoy. He describes the character of Mr. Mazzini, refers to the transactions at Rodez, and speaks of Mr. Mazzini, one of the leading men in these transactions, as being at that time residing in Geneva. It is now twelve years ago since the British Minister in Switzerland made this known, so that the character of Mr. Mazzini was not by any means a novelty. In two or three days this incursion came to an end, and the Ambassador states that the exhibition of courage, talent, and good faith, :amongst each other, in carrying out this enterprise, was as lamentably deficient as the result of it was to them disastrous. They had re peatedly broken their solemnly-pledged engagements to refrain from any political movement whatever, that was likely to jeopardise the peace of the country in which they resided, and the mutual good understanding of the different countries of Europe which might be endan gered by their proceedings. These engagements bad been broken, and had been again renewed, till at length, after this attempt to disturb the kingdom of Savoy, they were driven from the asylum which they had so grossly abused. This dispatch refers to circumstances which took place in the year 1834. The attention of the British Government had first been drawn to Mr. Mazzini by Sir IL Seymour in his dispatch to the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton; and he (Flirj. Graham) must now beg the attention of the House to a singular coincidence in the strange combination of circumstances which had subjected Mr. Mazzini to the surveillance of the British Government. The first time Mr. Mazzini was made known to him was on the first of March, 1841; and now he held in his hand a letter from Sir H. Seymour, now residing, on behalf of the British Government, at Brussels, addressed to his Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Aberdeen) on the Ist of March, 1844. In that letter Sir H. Seymour states that an individual who had been residing for some time in the Ardennes had wished to take up his abode at Brussels. The Belgian Government had no objection, in the first instance, to grant his request, but when they learned that this individual, whose name was Desterre Buona parte, was in communication with Mr. Mazzini, they were induced, by the representations of the French Am bassador, to withdraw the permission which they had al ready all but granted. They found that this Desterre Buonaparte had, along with Mr. Mazzini, been engaged in conducting the Jordan Italian° at Marseilles, and that the object of his coming to reside at Brussels was simply to get into communication with Mr. Mazzini; and Sir li. Seymour thought it necessary to draw the attention of his own Government to Mr. Mazzini, for he con ceived that the results of such communication must be some adventures dangerous to the peace of Europe. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) had asked to whom the contents of these letters had been communicated ? His Noble Friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had sufficiently answered that question in another place. He had said that he was ready to take his share of the responsibility for these transactions, but he (Sir J. Graham) must say that he himself, and himself alone, was responsible for the issuing of the warrant by which Mr. Mazzini's letters were opened. The communica tion of the Austrian Ambassador with respect to Mi.. Mazzini had, in consequence of the absence of his Noble Friend from the Foreign-office, in the first place been made to him, but as soon as he (Sir J. Graham) learned that his Noble Friend was again able to attend to the duties of the office, he immediately forwarded all the letters he received unopened, and of course unread. But when he had informed himself of the character and proceedings of the previous life of Mr. Mazzini, he felt that it was necessary for the preservation of the interests of this country, and for the peace of Europe, that some check should be put on the conduct of men who made London the theatre of their intrigues for revolutionary movements, and he did not think it was consistent with his duty to re frain from exercising that power, which had always been used by those who filled the office he had the honour to hold, and he did not shrink from issuing the warrant by which those letters were opened and copied. He alone was responsible ; whatever blame might be imputed for the act was imputable to him alone, and to no one else in existence. The Right Hon. Gentleman asked at whose desire this warrant was issued. He (Sir J. Graham) would give his solemn assurance that it was at the de sire of no living being that that warrant had been issued. It was a sense of the deep importance of the proceedings of these men to British interests, and the probability that the peace of the world would be en dangered, that he was induced to exercise the power with which, from his office, he was invested, and to fulfil the duty, the odious duty, of issuing the warrant upon which this debate had arisen. After he had informed himself of the nature of the proceedings of Mr. Mazzini and his correspondents, his whole conduct had been purely ministerial. He had issued the warrant, and he had received the letters, but he had forwarded them unread to the Secre tary for Foreign Affairs, for the service of the coun try. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman mean to say that the peace of Europe was not likely to be endangered ? He would reply in the language of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He was aware that it was not accord ing to the rules of the House to cite the observations made by a Minister in the other House, but he might give them as a part of his own speech. His Noble Friend had stated to the House of which he was a mem ber, that he did most solemnly declare that he had never communicated the contents of those letters to any person whatsoever, but in order to show his own sense of the effect which the proceedings of Mr. Mazzini, and his correspondence, was likely to have on the peace of Europe. He stated the fact, that the Austrian general at Milan had positive orders, in the event of any insur rectionary or hostile movements in the Italian States bor dering on the Austrian dominions, to march at once, with out any reference to Vienna, into the States of the Church. His Noble Friend said that " the centre of this con spiracy was in London," and what was the mode adopted by Lord Aberdeen with reference to this con spiracy ? He said that he adopted such regulations as were consistent with the liberty of the subject and with his duty. The Right Hon. Gentleman bad, he thought, with great fairness, kept out of the present discussion the great question as to the legality or illegality of the warrants issued by him, The Hon. Member for Fins bury had a motion on this subject, to bring under the consideration of the House their legality, and when the proper time came he should also be prepared for the dis cussion. But the Right Hon. Gentleman had, toward the close of his speech, said that the honour of England had been tarnished by the Ministry keeping copies of the cor respondence, and intercepting letters, in order to forward their contents to those parties who were inimically interested in them. In a matter of this kind, he would not deny the conclusion at which the Right Hon. Gen tleman had arrived ; but he was bound to state, that ere this power was put in execution, his warrant was granted ; and in this course he had had precedent from the very earliest period. That warrant was not neces sary to be issued in every case, for it must have been self-evident, that a single letter could not give any in formation as to the movements of these parties unless as connected with other letters. The Right Hon. Ba ronet then read several warrants, and among others, one issued by Charies James Fox, in April, 1798, " authorising from time to time, until countermanding orders, • the inspection of letters..directed to or 'sent to any Foreign Minister of what rank soever residing at this Court," and he ordered that copies of those letters should be sent to " this office." That was the warrant of Charles James Fox, and he found that during the whole time that he was at the Home-office he used this power. His successor, the Mar quis of Carmarthen, also issued similar warrants, and the last he would read to the House was one signed by the Marquis of Carmarthen, and issued for a similar purpose with the former ones. The Right Hon. Baronet then read the warrant. He would not weary the House by entering at length upon topics on which he would re quire to address them on a future day ; but considering all the circumstances of the times in which his (Sir J. Graham's) warrants had been issued, the important exigencies they were intended to meet, he thought that the House must be satisfied, as he himself was, that these warrants had not been issued illegally. It was a hard matter to judge of the circumstances under which these warrants were issued, by comparing them with other circumstances entirely different ; and he would be dis charging his public duty in a manner unsatisfactory to himself and to his country, if he had hesitated to issue those warrants in the peculiar circumstances which had called them forth. He must say that, as far as circum stances had gone, he was perfectly satisfied up to this time, and he felt that, as the question stood before the country, he would rather be the person accused than the man who brought the accusation. , The llotsd theii di#ided, when the: c,. appearei— For the" motion Against it Majority against it...,. EXCISE ACTS. 52 -14 On the order of the day being put for going into Com mittee on these Acts, Mr. P. BARING wished to call the attention of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a point of some importance connected with these laws. At present a wine merchant could not sell more 'than two galkrs of spirits at a time, and this metric:Hue was attended with great inconvenience to the public. Now he wished to know whether some change could not be made in the present system. He believed a change 11163 advocated by the Commissioners of Excise. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was afraid the question which the Hon. Gentleman had put to him, was one which it was not in his power to answer satisfactorily. He had been assailed in strong language by parties who entertained different views on the subject—by those who wished to obtain the privilege of sellinc , spirits in small quantities without a special licence, and' those who opposed such a step. lie hail, therefore, had some difficulty to encounter is the matter ; but however forcible some of the arguments might be in favour of the lion. Gentleman's proposal. he could not conceal from himself that the change would not only result in a loss to the revenue, but. tend to give great dissatisfaction to a large number of parties who had provided themselves with special licences for selling wine or liquors in less quantities than two gallons. He thought it would be only fair to consider th e i n t eres t o f those who paid th e hi g h duty for permission to sell in small quantifies. At the same time, it was his disposi tion to reconcile both interests as well as ho could; and if he should determine to propose nny measure on the subject, he would give all parties sufficient notice. In answer to a question from Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, Which was not clearly heard in the gallery, Sir .I. GRAHAM said that he would not object in lay before the House the dispatches of Sir Hamilton Seymour, referred to in the course of the evening. EXCISE—THE GLASS DUTIES. The House then went into Committee upon the Excise duties. Mr. T. DUNC OMBE said that having been the person who had presented, on two different occasions, the peti tions which had given rise to the discussions on this question, he thought it was but right that he shoul 1 rise in his place to say that a more foul, unmerited, and undeserved calumny was never cast by any Member of any Government than that sought to be cast by the Right Hon. Baronet on the character of the gentleman from whom those petitions had emanated. He would say, and say it with confidence, that he had it in his power to crush the foul calumny sought to be thrown on that gentleman's character ; and he would ask what was the effect of this accusation ? It appeared to him that every step they took—every time they stirred in this painful subject, the aspersions were darker—the calumny was deeper, and the worse the Government came out of the struggle. When he moved for a Committee, he was told that the truth, and the whole truth, would be submitted to it. But they had got more that day than they had got in the whole proceedings. It was a proof positive of the necessity for further in quiry—it was a proof that the report which had ema nated from that Committee ought not to make the mat ter stop here—it was a proof that his demand for an open Committee was a just and fair one. The subject demanded a full, a fair, and open investigation, and he would leave it to the judgment of the House, whether it had ever seen a more unsatisfactory report than that which had been given by the Secret Committee. One of his principal reasons for asking that inquiry was, that Mr. Mazzini understood that gross calumnies had been advanCed against him in that Committee, and that he had had no opportunity of replying. In reference to the point which had been argued by the Right Hon. Baronet—that of assassination—he (Mr. Duncombe) did not know whether that point came be fore the Secret Committee or not ; but if it did, they surely were bound in honour and in fairness to have Mr. Mazzini or some of his friends before them. What was the charge before them ? Why this ; it was said that while Mr. Mazzini was living at Marseilles, he, as presi dent of a secret society, had ordered the assassination of two of his countrymen. The Right Hon. Baronet had read an extract from a newspaper to support this state• ment. But without looking to the Moniteur, he might have found the facts of the case in the Westmilater Re view, and before going further he should wish to ask him if he had seen that publication ?—(The Hon. Mem ber seemed to wait for an answer, but received none.) There was an article in that Review, upon the Report of the Secret Committee, and he should quote from it. The Hon. Member then read the extract in question, which stated that the Secret Committee had investi gated the alleged murder of two of Mr. Mazzini's coun trymen in the year 1832; and, though that might not have been believed by the members of the Committee, still they ought to have given an opportunity to Mr. Mazzini or his friends to rebut that report. So he said— they ought to have given him or his friends the oppor tunity of doing away with that report. On the 31st of May, 1833, there had appeared in the Moniteur a forged document, which the Right Hon. Baronet had read. He repeated it—it was a forged document.—(Hear, hear.) That document purported to be signed by Mr. Mazzini, as president, and by the secretary, dooming their country men to death. But that document bore internal evidenec of its fictitious character. It was full of grammatical errors, such as a man of Mr. Mazzini's education could not possibly have committed. But Mr. Mazzini after wards denounced the forgery in the Gazette de Tribuna4 The Right Hon. Baronet had said that Mazzini had often threatened to prosecute the Moniteur, but he had never attempted to put his threat in force. Now, so far from this being the case, Mr. Mazzini did bring his action, and it was tried before the Tribunal Correctional at Paris. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moktki a resolution for the remission of the Excise duties upon Mr. HAWES said that, in the absence cf his Mon. Friend (Mr. Pattison), it had been his ihtention to move " that drawbacks be allowed on the stocks of the London bottle merchants, the same being certified to be new bot tles only, and also on all new bottles in transit from the manufactories, the same being shipped previous to the sth day of April, and being provided with certificates from the manufacturers of their having paid duty ; and drawbacks to be made, on the same principle, as to the other manufacturers and dealers in glass." But he was disposed to leave the matter in the hands of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, in the hope that the Govern ment wFarreii - s - libeial as it could. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it would be impossible to comply with the demands made for drawbacks upon bottles without opening the way for great frauds, several parties having already made large purchases of old bottles is the hope that they would be able to cheat the Government out of the drawback. Mr. BOUVERIE thought there could be no fraud connived at by the Government paying back the duty which had already been received. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that all parties had had sufficient notice, and that the duty upon glass manufactured since the announcement of the Government's intention, would not be demanded if the bottles were packed before the sth of April. Mr. SPOONER would propose that the time should be extended to the sth of April, 1846. The- CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the remission of the Excise duty, and the continu ance of the protection, was a sufficient compensation to the manufacturers. Sir R. PEEL hoped the House would not press the Government to go further in meeting the demands of the glass manufacturers than they had done. The extension of the protection of 100 per cent. for eighteen months was required, to enable the manufacturers, who had been long oppressed by the Excise duties, to compete with foreign countries. Lord J. RUSSELL thought that there were no fair grounds of public feeling for acceding to the present demand. After some observations from Mr. IhwEs and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the resolution was agreed to. - The House then resumed, the CRAIR3ILN reported progress, and leave was given to bring in 2 Bill to repeal the glass duty. . The other ()Hers of the day having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a quarter !nod Nine o'Clock. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Not against the Moniteur. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—No, but against a paper that copied the paragraph from the Monitenr. Well, the action was tried in April, 1841, and what was the character of the defence? Why, that there was more than one Mr. Mazzini in the world, and as Mr. Mazzini, the plainant, was a man whom all admitted to be possessed of high moral integrity, he could not possibly be the Mazzini mentioned in the paragraph quoted from the Moniteur. Where, then, was the pretence of the Government for opening his letters? The defence, however, set up now was quite different to that which they heard the other day. It was now declared that Lord Aberdeen had never seen any letter or letters which came from Corfu, nor was any letter or letters coming from Corfu ever received at the Foreign-office. Well, now, if it was necessary, he could prove that the Government 441 open letters coming from Corfu. Let the House give him an :opportunity, and he would bring the matter home to the Government.—(Hear, hear.) Did the Government shrink from that?—(Hear, hear.) He had got the letters of Mr. Mazzini which they opened, and could at any moment produce them. lie did not know whether the man who copied these letters, forged the seals, and went through all the other dirty work, gave the address correctly or not ; but he had ex tracts from letters coming, certainly not from Corfu, but from Bologna, which was in the neighbourhood, which had been opened and detained at the Post-office. —(Hear, hear.) Yet, on the former occasion when this matter was before the House, it was stated that the Go vernment never knew that the Bandieri were at Corfu until after they had sailed. The Bandieri sailed from Corfu on the 12th of June,: and landed at Calabra on the 19th, but, according to the statement of the Right Hon. Ba ronet, it was totally impossible the Government could have been aware of the existence of their plot. Now one of the Bandieras arrived at Corfu on the 28th of March, and the other on the 21st of April, and from that period up to the time of their sailing, on the 12th of June, they never moved from Corfu, so that the Government must have been aware of their presence there.—(Hear, hear.) Another reason given by the Government was that they could not by any means know where the Bandieri were going to, or they could perhaps have prevented their massacre. Could this be so ? Information was certainly given to Lord Seymour that a party had gone out with arms, ammunition, and 22 men, and he was asked by the foreign Powers to send a steamer after them. But what did Lord Seymour do ? Why, he said the accounts were dreadfully exaggerated; and twenty-four hours after he received the information he sent a sailing vessel after them. Lord Seymour, however, in his opinion, ought to have sent to Madrid ; but if he had sent even a steam-boat after these people, who, he still said, had been murdered by a foreign Power, aided by the British Government, the honour of this country would have been saved. Then they were told that there were no troops to put them down, and the peasantry rose against them. Now was that so? No, it was not; for these people were met by the regular troops. They were met by the 11th Chasseurs, by whom they were charged, and they proved that it was not the peasantry who put these unfortunate people down, and afterwards took them prisoners. The King of Naples, a short time subsequently, thanked no less than 170 individuals, who were chiefly connected with the army, for services they had performed in suppressing this insurrectionary movement, and conferred an order upon the Neapolitan consul at Corfu, for services he had performed in this most horrible transaction. Then the Right Hon. Baronet said, if they had not taken the course they did, Austria would have marched 70,000 men into the Papal States. Now, with this declaration before them, he thought the House was much indebted to the Hon. Member for Waterford, fur bringing the question of the foreign relations of the country before them. In his opinion, they had completely lost sight of this part of the subject. Their personal altercations had made them overlook what was going forward on the continent. They were told that if there were to be an insurrection in the Papal States, Austria would immediately march 70,000 men into those States, and upon this ground the Government were justified in opening the letters of a foreign exile residing in this country. Now he should like to know upon what principle they interfered with the internal commotions of a foreign country ? Ho thought this was a subject well worthy the consideration of the House. Now, by what he knew of the Constitution, he did not internal commotions they had any right to interfere with the commotions of other countries ; indeed he had always understood that England repudiated any such steps. It was resisted in mere than one instance by Mr. Canning. It was resisted by him in th e ease of Spain, when France tried to dictate to Spain on the subject of its civil institutions. But now England was to be told that Austria had threatened to march 70,000 men into the Papal States, and to prevent this, it was necessary that the British Governattmstieaonizs j h (ec o n u te l aw d r s l u hl pply a foreign e w a o r. r ) th H t e he mn at s - t that certain this info r te rPe Ft e i ae o ti n wt o hi f ethn the House. Why should they favour these little despotic States ? They were, in his opinion, a dis grace to civilised E urope, and he hoped one day to see swept aw a y. B ut not so the British Go vtleirenm llymtnentat.They aided Austria who held out a threat to these States that they would send down upon them 70,000 men, in the event of an insurrection, and openly declared that England would assist them in every possible Way,and thus the British Go vernment involved themselves in every petty dispute in Europe.— (Hear, hear.) That, in his opinion, was what the conduct of the Government savoured with, through out the whole of this transaction, than which anything could hardly be more disgraceful.—(Bear, hear.) He thanked his Right Hon. Friend for having introduced that motion, and he could only say that, so far as the exertions of an individual Member of that House went, he would do all he could to wipo away the stain that remained upon this country, in consequence of the part taken in this transaction by the Government. He should give the motion his most cordial support. Mr. WARBURTON informed the House that no attack was made npon Mr. Mazzini in the recent Com mittee, in so far as the Rodez transaction was con cerned.--(Hear, hear.) RAILWAY COMMITTEES. The Sub-Committee No, 4, consisting of Sir Witham Heathcote, Chairman, Mr. Packe, Mr. Shirley, Mr. C. Legh, and Mr. Ackland, assembled yesterday morning.. LONDON, CHATHAM, AND NORTh KENT RAILWAY. This case was adjourned from before Easter. At the sitting of the Committee this morning judg ment was given in two cases that had been postpone& The allegation in these cases was, that in respect of the alleged places of abode of two shareholders who had subscribed the Parliamentary deed were wholly fictitious and fraudulent. The Committee decided this to be so, and declared that the standing order had not been complied with accoid ingly. RAILWAY BUSINESS IN PAR - LIAMENT. MONDAY, MAitcit 31. The ShelliMl'dnd Rotherham Railway Bill was preeents4 and read a first time. The following . Bills were read a second time and com. mitted, and referred to the Committee of Selection :•-•- London and South Western Railway (No. 2.) • Midland Railways (Ely to Lincoln). Midland Railways (Nottingham to Lincoln). Midland Railways (Swinton to Lincoln). Midland Railways (Svston to Peterborough). Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyre, and Manchester Railway. Brighton, Lewes, and Iltatings Railway (Keymer Branch). The following Bills were referred to the Select Committes on Petitions for Private Bills : Gloucester and Dean Forest Railway. Birmingham and Gloucester Railway (Worcester Branch and Cheltenham Extensions). Birmingham and Gloucester Railway (Worcester Deviation). Birmingham and Gloucester Railway (Wolverhampton Line). Birmingham and Gloucester Railway(Gloucester Extensions, Stoke Branch, and, Midland Railway J unct i on ) . East Dereham and Norwich Railway. London and Norwich Direct Railway. NOTICES G- .4IVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE. SATURDAY, MARCH 22. Waterford and Limerick Railway,—Committee on peti tion, Friday, April 4. Bristo land Gloucester Railway,—Committee on petition, Friday, April 4. Runcorn and Preston Brook Railway,—Committee on peti tion, Friday, April 4. London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire Railway (Dudley and Sedgley Branch),--Committee on petition, Friday, April 4. Diss, Beccles, and Yarmouth Railway,—Committee on petition, Friday, April 4. Lynn and East beret= Railway,—Committee on petition, Friday, April 4. Gravesend and Rochester Railway,—Committee on peti tion, Friday, April 4. St. Ives Junction Railway,—Committee on petition, Friday, April 4. Great Western Railway (Ireland) (Dublin to Mullinga: and. Athlone),—Committee on petition, Monday, April 7. Exeter and Crediton Railway,—Committee on petition, Tuesday, April 8. Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Acts Amendment, — Committee on petition, 'Wednesday, April 9. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26. London, Worcester, and South Staffordshire Railway,— (Dudley and Wolverhampton),—Committee on petition, Monday, April T. FRIDAY. MARCH 28. Guildford Junction Railway,—Committee on petition, Tuesday, April 8. Preston and Wyre Railway Branches,--Committee on peti tion, Tuesday, April B. BANK OF CEYLON. (From the Casette of last Evening.) Return of the Average Amount of Liabilities and Assets of I.,o t l h a n e ll i u s ß s a a o r n ry - k t , o: f 3 te l C s s e tl in circulation not bea r i ng T e n e . er l_; b ol e o r m , 1 1x) 84 , 4 d : Lring the pe r i o d f rom lit interest .. lot: other e i rbreeßtadaranitnki bearing in. . b t. z . r . i s. n i g . .. i. . 1 . i . t. . e. .. ................... 2611630N8 68016 0 00 : 0 Bills of exchange. in circulation, not bearing Bil i i n s te a r n e d st uatea ( Cil la aas s l l ail i nd d ce e iP p °s o ds si lt t ee e d d to. , bearing interest......... 56,952 0 0 Total average of Liabilities £91,587 0 0 Coin and Bullion X72,342 0 0 Land or other property of the Corporation 4,198 0 0 Government Securities Promissory N notes or bill s o f ot h er Banks Nil. Balances due from other Banks 54,602 Notes and bill s discounted, or other debts due 0 0 to the Corporation, not included under the foregoing heads, but exclusive of bias of exchange purchased for remittances to Eng land. and th e P res i dencies. • Total Average of Assets .£189t274 0 0 (Signed) F. W. STANTON, Manager. T. G. CRAIG, Accountant. By order of the Court of Directors, HUGH MACKAY, Secretary. London, March 27, 1845. -- EUGENE SUE'S HISTORICAL ROMANCE " DB Ro- HAN, OR, THE COURT CONSPIRATOR."—The Cows Journal pronounces this work " to be, perhaps, the best o . f Eugene Sue' s p ro d uct i ons. I t i s an histor i cal romance in the strictest sense of that phrase, yet rife with every one of those characteristics which make that species of composition so palatable to the merely popular taste of the day. There is no class of readers, even the highest and most cultivated, who may not derive both amusement and instruction from it as an illustration of historical truth ; while, on the other hand, its vivid painting, its wild and exciting incidents, the vigour and verisimilitude of its delineations of human character, and the rapid movement and bold simplicity of its style, give its peculiar charm for those who seek, in wo r k s of this nature, the mere excitement of the moment."—Gout Journal. SPoRIINO REMINISCENCE or TAWELL.--A Some' what singular fact occurred in 1827; Captain Roue Web ID Sydney, New South Wales, and had a horse taken aild4 oll Y iIY ; he went to the shop of Tawell to procure some medicine Tawell's horse and chaise was standing at the doer at.the moment, and he volunteered to drive the Gallant Captain back to his stable, and administer the remedy. Captain Rous consented, jumped into the gig, the 'medicine Wu given by Tawell, and the horse recovered.