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

•
of disquietude and tumult, and they rescued a portion of
her subjects from the merciless persecution of which they
were the objects.—(Hear, hear.) And if Eng'and—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-
nified 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 abettors of those who aspired to be the instru-
ments of foreign States ; and would they endea-
vour to rivet the chains of oppression on a country
for whose liberty no man who was himself in the pos-
session of freedom ought to be unconcerned?—(Hear,
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
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 collision might
involve a war between these two Powers, and that this
war might cause a European war, and in a European
war England might be involved—and this was the rea-
son why they opened Mr. Mazzini's latters.—( Laughter.)
That was their case. And for fear of a European war
they established a system of espionage—yes, espionage
—the word was hard, but 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
be espionage ; but what professor 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 Hon. 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 told
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 beard 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.— Hear, hear," 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
bad put forward in his resolution facts which were be-
yond doubt or disputation, and with those facts beyond
doubt or 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 I
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 lion. 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 tad 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 he 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 there could 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, Mazzini. 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 Tivtrton, 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 washeyvever effectually put
i
down, and the principal actors n 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,
insurrection
and stating the circumstances of the
Fadthe futility of the effort, " there are certain
individuals who were eonneeted with this movement who
are now residing at Marseilles ; and I am credibly in-
in-
formedd that there are still
plots in agitation among these
individuals, conducted by a party who was deeply
engaged in the late revolt Italy,. named Mazzini, and
who, with the others is nowm residing at Marseilles." He
then goes on to describel th ature. of a certain
.publica-
tiondrawiitn'hgichtohgeethsteartetshtehemtonhtive
States, and whose proceedings, helirnceived,.ought to
issued with a view. of
disaffected the several Italian
be attended to by Government.
Graham) did not pretend to say Now he (Sir James
hat
now to state with respect to Mr. Mazzini whe had
that precise kind, or founded on such. ind't awl" of
denco as that which ho had already adtruPlcte;l4,-b'euei
sv.l-s
would serve to explain, in a very satisfactory
manner
the whole of the proceedings of Mr. Mazzini and
hi,
associates, and in stating this evidence he did not desires
to press more hardly on Mr. Mazzini than was necessary.
Ile (Sir James Graham) held in his hand a copy of the.
Mon tour, 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 Moniteur
that the town of Rodez had just been alarmed by a
threefold assassination committed on the persons of setae
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-
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 sear them, not dead, but who had
received two severe wounds, and was only rescued from
complete destruction by the inhabitants. Though suf-
fering 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 country. Measures were consequently taken to
carry this order into effect. This information did not
rest solely on the declarations in the Monitmr, 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. Ile would give to the House
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 be punished for their con-
nivance Ns ith 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. Morier, 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, had joined with a
number of Italian refugees who were settled at Geneva,
and' 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 thse
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 had
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
H. Seymour in his dispatch to the Noble Lord the
Member for Tiverton; and he (sir J. 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
*nstance, to grant his request, but when they learned
let this individual, whose name was Desterre Buona-

parte, was in communication with Mr. Alazzini, 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 Jovian Ituliano at Marseilles, and that
the object of his coming to reside at Brussels was simply
to get into communication with Mr. Mazzini; and Sir
H. 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) bad 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 seid 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 Mr.
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. Ile (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 Mi!an 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 had, 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 fur 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 bad 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 Eight 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 ^ountermanding