The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-15 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TIMES.—Few persons will, we think, consider
the renewed mention in the House of Commons of
the matter in which the names of M. Mazzini and
Mr. Stansfeld are implicated to be superfluous. On
the contrary, when the incident was first brought
before the House, a short time back, there was a
general feeling that it required an explanation from
the parties concerned, and that a very indifferent
explanation was given. We propose to recall to the
minds of our readers the circumstances of the case,
and leave them to judge whether a high-strained
tone of indignation, such as hers been adopted by
Messrs. Stansfeld and Layard, is the most fitting
on this occasion. At the trial of Greco and his
companions the Procureur-General said—" Greco
was to write to that address in London if he was in
want of money. It is as follows :—' M. Flower,
35, Thurloe-square, Brompton.' I searched the
' London Directory.' At page 670 I found what I
was looking for, and it was not without badness
that I recognised the name of a member of Parlia-
ment of England, who already had been in 1857
appointed to be the banker of the Tebildi conspi-
racy against the Emperor's life " These expres-
sions of the Procureur-General, of course, attracted
no little notice in France. Much indignation was
expressed, not only in Imperialist circles, but also
by the public at large, for it was pot difficult to
ascertain that at 35, Thurloe-square, resided Mr.
Stansfeld, a member of the present Government.
The matter was alluded to in the French press, and
was made the occasion of an attack on England by
that zealous Imperialist savant, M. Leverrier. Na-
turally enough, curiosity was excited on this side
the Channel, and the other night the attention of
Mr. Stansfeld was called to the speech of the Pro-
cureur-General in a very temperate manner by Mr.
Cox. That anybody insinuated or believed that
Mr. Stansfeld was engaged in a plot to murder
Napoleon 111. was, of course, out of the question ;
but it undoubtedly was the fact that in the posses-
sion of one of the conspirators was found a letter
bidding him, if in want of money, to write to a
certain Mr. Flower, at the address of the member
for Halifax. Who, then, was Mr. Flower ? Was
there such a person ? Was the name used by
Mazzini or any other person as an alias 7 Could
Mr. Stansfeld, by making inquiry of Mazzini, or
any on© else, throw any light on the subject ?
In short, had Mr. Stansfeld the power to clear up
this mystery, which had caused so much specula-
tion both in Paris and London P Mr. Stansfeld rose
and at once ascended the height of moral indigna-
tion. "The astonishment with which he had read
the speech was mingled with somewhat of a
stronger feeling." He trusts it is unnecessary
that he should plead to such an indictment as this,
or declare that he shares the feelings of all decent
men with regard to attempts of ttlis kind, about
which there can be but one opinion. So far, good.
Mr. Stansfeld told the House plainly that he dis-
approves assassination and was not an accomplice
of Greco. Still we want to hear something about
Mr. Flower. But this curiosity. Mr. Stansfeld
will not satisfy. He improves the occasion for a
eulogy on his friend Mazzini. It is a satisfac
tion to him from that place to bear his testimony
to the character of a man whom he has known

for some 18 years. "I say," he continues, " that
M. Mazzini, whose name has been associated with
this attempt—l pledge my personal knowledge of
him for the conviction that he is personally inca-
pable of being concerned in it." Still no informa-
tion about Mr. Flower. At last we have all that
Mr. Stansfield permits himself to say—" I have
made inquiries, and I am satisfied in my own mind.
I will not anticipate declarations which it is the
right of others to make in this case. But I have
satisfied my own mind that if the case should come
to be tried the answer to it will he complete and
satisfactory in every respect." When questioned
again, he merely says that he " has no knowledge"
of the letters addressed to Mr. Flower ; that he
" has not the slightest knowledge of proceedings
of this character," meaning, apparently, assassina-
tion ; and that he " has not been the medium which
some hon. gentlemen seem to imagine." That is
all that Mr. Stansfeld says on the subject. Who,
then, is M. Mazzini, to whose innocence this gentle-
man and Mr. William Forster pledge themselves ?
Let any one read the passages quoted by Mr. Hen-
nessy last night and say whether the friends of M.
Mazzini have any right to indulge in high-flown
indignation when it is alleged that he might pos-
sibly be engaged in a conspiracy against a Poten-
tate's life. There may be those who will de-

fend M. Mazzini's character on the ground which
he himself takes—that when nations are op-
pressed they must be excused for resorting even to
the dagger to rid themselves of their oppressors.
It is legitimate to justify the Italian Republican
by justifying his doctrines, but to deny that M.
Mazzini has held such doctrines is simply to pre•
sume on the forgetfulness of those who have lived
through the last 20 years. We believe him to be

innocent of the Greco plot, but it is most unreason-
able for any one to rise and repudiate the suspicion
as one totally absurd and inconsistent with his cha-
racter. Let us refer to the trial and see what was

the evidence adduced, recollecteng that even though
France have an Imperial master there are still open
Courts and a formal procedure quite worthy of our
confidence. That Mazzit.i was connected with Greco

is not denied. He wrote to this journal on the 14th
of January last, " Greco is an enthusiastic patriot,
who has taken an active part in the expeditions of
1860 and 1861 in the South of Italy, and, as such,
was in relation with me." This " enthusiastic pa-
triot" declares that Mazzini was the prime mover
in the plot. In the aete d'accusation it is stated,
among many other incidents, "It was decided in a
correspondence between Greco and Mazzini that
the attempt should be postponed." Again, " Eight
days before Mazzini quitted Lugano he left 1,300 f.
with Greco. He next sent him I,ooof. from Lon-
don, and again 2,00ef. in bank notes. At the
same time he collected arms. Greco received

ten bombs, revolvers, and poniards through
various Mazzinian agents, and particularly
through a person named Mostet, of Genoa.
Finally, Greco selected, with the approbation of
Mazzini, the comrades who were to accompany him
to France." These are definite charges, and not to
be set aside by one or two members of Parliament
getting up and "pledging themselves" that Mazzini
is totally incapable of doing anything of the kind.
We repeat that it is very probable M. Mazzini may
not have been concerned in the plot to assassinate
the Emperor Napoleon, but he himself admits that
he was closely connected with a man who purposed
assassination, and his only defence is that this per-
son, whom so late as two months since he called an
"enthusiastic patriot," is one of the most infamous
of mankind. Now, can it be for the credit of the
British Government and the nation that when a
matter of this kind is very properly noticed in Par-
liament official people should adopt a cavalier tone,
and talk of repelling such accusations with con-
tempt ? Mr. Layard was asked last night whe-
ther any correspondence had passed between
the French Government and our own. In answer,
he declared that " the most prompt and dignified
way of the country vindicating its honour in a mat-
ter of the kind was to treat such an accusation with
the contempt it deserved." "It would be unworthy
of her Majesty's Government to take notice of
such a charge." This is, we must submit, not
at all the spirit in which this very unpleasant
matter ought to be treated. If we must speak
plainly, it seems to us that if Mr. Stansfeld's house
was used by these people as they describe, it is a
circumstance very much to be deplored, and even if
it were done without his knowledge it demands an
expression of regret, and not a swagger of defiance.
The Government of France has happily shown none
of that irritability which marked its conduct six
years ago ; the English people will also judge the
question calmly, and their decision will be that it
is the duty of Government to show the utmost cour-
tesy to the French in an affair of this kind. France
is our nearest neighbour, and the whole tendency
of recent legislation and enterprise has been to bring
the two nations together. Express and tidal trains,
submarine telegraphs,and cheapened correspondence
are all employed with the single object of making
the leaders of the European world one people. The
Commercial Treaty of the present Government,
theoretically a departure from pare free-trade prin-
ciples, was defended and carried through on these
especial grounds. Are we, then, to see the object
of so much genius and perseverance. endangered
merely because Ministers think it dignified to affect

indignation when asked a question ? In our opin-
ion, the manner in which this subject has been
treated is as little respectful to the House of Com-
mons as it is courteous to the French Emperor and
the French people.

HERALD.—Mr. Roebuck expressed last night, in
a few very significant words, the almost universal
feeling with which her Majesty's present Govern-
ment has contrived to inspire the people of England.
Without endorsing Mr. Roebuck's " personal affec-
tion" for the Premier, we may admit that the coun-
try believes that he has at heart the honour of the
country, that he shares the national views of foreign
policy, and that be desires to maintain an honest
and impartial neutrality in the American quarrel.
And yet there is a growing discontent with the pro-
ceedings of his Government, and, above all, a total
distrust of its foreign policy, especially in regard to
America. The Government has announced, by the
mouth of a gentleman who was lately legal adviser
to the Federal embassy, its intention to remonstrate
with the Confederate States on their alleged viola-
tion of our laws in purchasing vessels in our ports.
Is it also their intention to remonstrate with the
Federal Government on its tis?torious violation of
the some laws in enlisting Ith,;2men for theirt
armies within her Majesty's domit:lmis
is well known that large numbers of men .'re i,ex;
ported from Ireland, month after month, not, as a.:`
Bright pretends, attracted by the rumours of MO
wages on the other side of the Atlantic, but regtfr
I,rly canvassed, bribed, collected, and provided
with a passage by Federal agents—exported, not to
make railways in Michigan, or work on the farms
of Illinois, but to burn Southern plantations in the
Mississippi Valley, or to manure the fields of Vir-
ginia. The Ministry consider that they are justi-
fied in protesting against an alleged breach of our
laws by one party; can they justify themselves in
rot remonstrating against an undoubted breach of
those laws by the other ? It is very dolibtful in-
deed whether there be any legal offence involved ill
the purchase of ships by a belligerent power. IG
is pretty well agreed that such purchases are per-
mitted by international law; and at least half the
best lawyers in England hold that they are net
prohibited by the Foreign Enlistment Act. But
there is no doubt that that act forbids the enlist.-
men of men. Nevertheless, the Government re'
monstrate against that which the Lord Chief
Baron and Sir H. Cairns deny to be violation of
the law ; they do not remonstrate against that
which is admitted on all hands to be so. Their
excuse is that the facts in the case are more
easily proved than in the other; a good
reason for a distinction in legal proceedings, but
one which will hardly be satisfactory in interna-
tional controversy. Diplomacy should be equitable.
When the Confederate Government says is You
should deal impartially; if you quarrel with us for
buying ships, you must quarrel with our enemies
for enlisting men," it will not do for Lord Russell
to answer that he has no legal proof of the enlist-
ment ; till he can put a stop to the illegal pro-
ceedings of the Federals he has no right to make a
didlomatic complaint against the illegal pro-
ceedings of the Confederates. Lord R. Cecil pet
the case very clearly. The Confederates buy un-
armed ships, and arm them beyond our jurisdiction;
the Federals carry off recruits, and enrol them be'
yond our jurisdiction. If the one be a legal act, 00
is the other; if the first be an evasion of the let
and a ground of diplomatic action, so is the second.
If we have no technical proof against the Federal!,
a court of law has declared that we have no evi-
deuce against the Confederates. Both cases stand
on exactly the same footing, with this single dif-
ference, that the law which the Federals hairs
broken is perfectly clear ; that infringed by the
Confederates is extremely doubtful and uncertain.