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
not ?—(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 (Lord Granville
Somerset)
in his place. he wished to ask him 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 burdens 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
Committee, and a, he underw.o,l that the 0,0.4 conve-
nient
nt time, for doing %culla he when the House was
going into 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 have been
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 Calabria the ground of 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 unconcerned?—(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 in a European
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 mildest 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 Mr. Mazzini was in London, but
that he was carrying on a very extensive correspond-
ence with parties deeply engaged in insurrectionary
movements in the South of Europe, and he thought
that it was his duty to ascertain somewhat of the
character and past proceedings
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 trying circumstances
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 British 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 circumstances of the insurrection
and the futility of the effort,
still plots in agitation among these
let: ; and I am credibly in-
" there are certain
individuals who were connected with this movement who
a
residingn
autcte Marseilles
by a party who was deeply
individuals,
now in-
formed edt
h at
othcered are ti
with a view of
issued of a certain engaged in the late revolt in Italy, named Mazzini, and
who, with the others, is now residing at Marseilles." He
publica-
tiont en
whichg o cs o
he to
drawing together the disaffected in the several Italian
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
, comments on the atrocity of the deed, but 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 the
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 refugees
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 the interest of
those who paid the high 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 the 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
jh(econutelawdrsluhlpply a foreign
ewaor.r)thHtehemnats-t
that certain
this info r
terPeFteiaeotinwtohifethnthe House. Why should they favour these
little despotic States ? They were, in his opinion, a dis-
grace to civilised Europe, and he
hoped one day to see
swept away. But 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 Government 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.)