The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS--Last Evening..

The LORD CHANCELLOR took 121 a seat on the woolsack
at the übual hour.

PRIVATE BUSINESS•

The Carnarvon and Llanberis Railway (No. 2) Bill was
read a third tine and passed.
THE M HOW COURT-MARTIAL.

Lord CHELMSFORD referred to a notice that he had
on the papers for to-morrow, for the purpose of calling the
attention of their lordships to the part alleged to have been
taken in the proceedings of the court-martial on Paymaster
Smales, by his Excellency Sir W. Mansfield, and said after
the discussion that had taken place he wished to withdraw
that notice.

Earl DE GREY and RIPON expressed his satisfaction
with the course adopted by the noble and learned lord.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY
NOTES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
MUTINY BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.
This bill was also read a third time and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILLS.

The Consolidated Fund (£.584,6.50) Bill and the Consoli-
dated Fund (45,)0,000) Bill were read a second time, and
afterwards the orders of their lordships' house were sus-
pended, and the bills were then read a third time and
passed,

in describing the proceedings in Chancery as being
a trial. He would have been happy to have corrected
himself, but he felt bound to adhere to every rticular of
his original statement,
Mr. SHERIDAN, who frequently is rrupted the
right hon. gentleman, repeated his pr.,: statements in
substance at length.
The adjourned debate on the Annuities 11 was resumed
by

Sir M. FARQUHAR, who moved that the measure be
referred to a select committee. The lion, baronet argued
that it was but fair that existing friendly societies, especi-
ally those which had been represented as fraudulent and
bankrupt, should be heard before a committee of the house
prior to the State undertaking to deprive them of the greater
portion of their business.
The amendment was seconded by Mr. HOUSFALL, who
observed that the bill did not propose to amend the Friendly
Societies Act, while it would take from them the best life
assurances, leaving them with nothing but the sick fund
and contributions from old members, from which little or
no profit was to be had.
Mr. 110DGKINSON and Mr. SALT supported the principle
of the bill as likely to confer a great boon upon the working
classes.

Sir F. GOLDSMID and MT. GREGSON likewise spoke in
its favour.
Mr. SOTHERON-ESTCOURT (whose re-appearance,
after his severe indisposition, was cordially welcomed by the
house) said that if he were to consult his own feelings he
would support the bill, but there were many portions of it
which he thought the mature judgment of the house could
not approve. Its operation would cease at that point where
life assurance became profitable, and he hoped the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would consent to refer it to a select com-
mittee, by whom the whole of the details might undergo the
fullest consideratim.
Mr. GOSCHEN approved of the bill, which he said
would not interfere with the liberty of the working classes,
who might accept it or not, just as it might plea,e them.
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER said he
could not on any account consent to have the bill referred
to a select committee, who would consider the whole ques-
tion of friendly societies, but he had no objection to see it
referred to a committee to consider the clauses in the usual
way.

Lord STANLEY approved of the compromise offered by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
The debate was then adjourned.
MR. STANSFELD AND SIGNOR MAZZINI.

Sir H. STRACEY moved " That the statement of the
Procureur• General on the trial of Greco, implicating a
member of this house and of her Majesty's Government in
the plot for the assassination of our ally the Emperor of the
French, deserved the serious consideration of this house."
The hon. baronet said that, in bringing the motion under
the notice of the house, he was not actuated by any animus
against the hon, member for Halifax, and he only did so as
an individual member, and because he felt that the dignity
of the house had been assailed, and that the Government
had not given the information which was due to the coun-
try upon so serious a question. But, to his surprise, on
looking along the Treasury Bench, he did not see that

member of the Administration who was chiefly concerned
in this question. It was far from his disposition to take any
one by surprise, but it was singular that the Government
had not sent to the hon• member, and that he was not pre-
sent. [Mr. Stansfeld at this moment entered the house,
and was cheered by the Ministerial side ; the hon. member
took his seat on the Treasury Bench next to Lord Pal-
merston ] The hon. baronet then traced the history of
the matter ; observing that on the first occasion when
the hon. member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) called Attention
to the extract from the speech of the Procureur-General,
the hon. gentleman entered into a considerable eulogy and
panegyric on M. Mazzini, which was certainly uncalled for.
The hon. gentleman on that occasion also said he felt
astonishment, mingled with indignation, that his name
should have been mentioned in the way it had been; and
declared his conviction that M. Mazzini was incapable of
assassination. The hon. baronet then read several passages
from the published writings of M. Mazzini, to show that if
he was incapable of assassination he was not incapable of
instigating to assassination. The hon. baronet next ad-
verted to the statement in the Times respecting the note of
an Italian revolutionary bank of which James Stansfeld, of
2, Sidney-place, Brompton, was the London agent. They
ought to be told whether the member for Halifax had ever
been connected with that No. 2, Sidney-place. The house
had never had a straightforward answer to the charges
made against the hon. member ; it had never been inquired
whether Mr. Flowers and M. Mazzini were identical, and
who was M. Fiori. It was not by a manifestation of indig-
nation that the members of that house were to be satisfied.
(Hear hear.) Had the hon. member expressed his regrets,
instead of displaying a confident and irritable manner, and
swaggering tone•—(hear, hear)—the house would have been
much more conciliated. It was due to the dignity of the
Government of this country either to have demanded that
the fullest information respecting the charges of the Pro-
cureur General, or at once openly to have repudiated them.
Tb.e conduct of the Government in the matter would be re-
garded as un-English, and it would add to the ignoble
humiliation under which the country was suffering. (Op-
position cheers.) In conclusion, the hon. baronet expressed
his regret that he had been compelled to bring forward a
motion which he felt might have the effect, at al events for
a time, of imperilling the career of advancement on which
the b‘,” (Cheers.)
Lord C. HAMILTON seconded the amendment.
Mr. STANSFELD, who, on rising, was received with
cheers from tele Ministerial benches, said—lt is not my in-
tention to say one word in reply to the criticism of the hon.
baronet upon the character of Mazzini. I have already ful-
filled that which I believed my duty in bearing testimony
in regard to a man whom 1 have known for many years. So
far, therefore, as I am concerned it is fitting that that discus-
sion should not be continued, and as far as I am concerned
it is now at an end. I address myself to the motion of the
hon. baronet, which appertains to me and my character.
The very terms of that motion appear to me to justify the
course which I pursued on the first night that the subject
was introduced to the notice of the house. The hon. baronet,
taking up the statement of theProcureur-General, moves—
(The hon. gentleman read the terms of the motion.) Now,
I put the same interpretation, right or wrong, upon the re-
marks of the Procureur• General which has been , ui by the
hon, baronet. I hold in my hand a copy of the 2 bees of
March 1, and I there find the statement of the Prooureur-
General given in these words. (The hon. member having
read the extract from the speech of the Procureur- General,
which has been so frequently before the public, continued :)
I must say it appeared to me that an imputation so odious,
so utterly unsupported by evidence, was one which could
only be met by a general denial ; but which, although
general, 1 believe has been complete; and which, if accom-
panied by some expression of contempt and indignation, was
yet no more so than what the House of Commons will have
thought natural. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, what is the evi-
dence of this crime. The hon. baronet has not read the evi-
dence, but he has supposed it was to the effect that Greco was
directed to apply to some person at my address for money for
the purpose of this plot. Why, sir, even supposing the letter
found in Groca's possession was the production of Mazzini,
that letter did not refer him to my address, but to another
address for money, Upon him was stated to have been found
a slip of paper, on which was written, it does not appear in
whose writing," Mr Flower, 57, T hurloe- square." [An HON.
MEMBER—" M. Flower."] That was the whole of the evi-
dence. The hon. baronet then refers to the '37 plot, and
hints that I had been constituted by Mazzini treasurer to
that plot. What is his evidence on that? There were two
supposed extracts in letters from Mazzini zeferring all per-
sons in vague terms to my address for money if they re •
quired it. That was the whole extent of the evidence as far
as the Tibeldi plot was concerned. Now, I am willing to
admit, with that evidence, he or any gentleman would have