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

troops with hostile views against the country from which
he had been exiled.—(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 he Hon. Member for Finsbury.7:
(Hear, hear.) Now, what is the case of Mr. Mazzini
He is an 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 very
seriously.—(Hear, hear.) Yes, the Italians were called
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 long dormant, but it was
not dead; and after the revolution in France of 1830,
and the reformation in England of 1831 ; that spirit
again arose—ltaly demanded the restoration of that
freedom 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, he 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 for 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 Secretary 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. lam 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 anexceed-
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 felicitas 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 specifying 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 plot. They wanted details. Was
nothing said on the subject ? The Committee said in-
formation had not been given which would implicate in-
dividuals. Bow 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 com•
pramised 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
Anstrian 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 11. Seymour. But the Gazette
s 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
doneinisters
might have given the information they h
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 he 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, but
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. lie
positively dented 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 Don 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 of orig,inality. 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 the
time of the Commonwealth. Could they find nothing
in the history of the Commonwealth more worthy of
'"mitation?—(llear, 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

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 Hoa. Member for Ponte-
fract. He said that insurrectionary movements bad 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 letters.—( Laughter.)
That was their case. And for fear of a European war
they established a system of espionage—yes, espionage
—the word was hard, bat 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.—(Sear, 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.—(" 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
had 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
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 bad 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
ao 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 had 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 farther 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. Mazziui was in London, but
that be 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 (lid 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 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
andthe futility of the effort, " there are certain
individuals who were connected with this movement who
are now residing at Marseilles
individuals, conducted'
formed that there are st'll
engaged in the late revolt in a
; and I am credibly in-
formed in agitation among these
who, with the others, is now residing
then goes on to describe the nature who was deeply
Italy, named Mazzini, and
issued with a view of
goaftalclearrstaeiinlles.lie
publica-
tion which he states them to have '
drawing together the disaffected in the several Italian
States, and whose proceedings, he conceived, ought to
tendeddidtonboyt
pGroetveenrndmtoent sayNothwathewlTir James
be
Graham)
now to state with respect to Mr. Mazzinai het
wus had
that precise kind, or founded on such indisputable of
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
Moniteur, 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 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-
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 itaiian ~L.ro found dead in tlie
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-
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 Moniteur, 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 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 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 selves 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 On
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 ego 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 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 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 11. 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 rant his request, but when they learned
that 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 Italiano 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) had asked to whom
the contents (4' 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 Ambassader 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. lie 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 night 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 ho 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 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 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
erethe
a tivt thee ridsy ;Ps
eoaawnr ledi re
nwt
a
ss tie
self-evident,
fy. d
et ov been issuedt,
that
an every
singleease, letter for
could
tpheisricaodu. course
hhaethwadarrhat pwreacseadeont tnefreoems.
put in execution, his warrant was
s to the movements o f Ivieavaenybeien-
n
formation a
parties unless
as connected with other letters. The Right Hon. Ba-
it
ronet then read several warrants,
msneoutstg
and among others,
one issued by Charies James Fox, in April, 1798,
" authorising from time to time, until d' counterman mg

orders, the inspection of letters directed to or
sent to any Foreign Minister of what rank
soever residing at this C,mrt," and he ordered thqt
copies of those letters ,houid be seric to " this oalce.-
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.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE 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 should 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 bad 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 Westminster 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 Gazelle de Tribunal,
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 Tar from
this being the case, Mr. Mazzini did bring his action, and
it was tried before the Tribunal Correctional at Paris.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Not against the Moniteur.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—No, but against a paper that
copied the paragraph from the Moniteur. 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 com-
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 did 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.) Hehad got the letters of Mr. Mazzini which they
opened, and could at any moment produce them. He
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,
which was in the neighbourhood,
but from Bologna,
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 Bandioras 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 lie 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, bad 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,
for 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
wasat
igoing e
there
rwwearred
to
on
bt he e a continent.n
insurrection
io
twerehe toldpa p 1
were justified
was going forward on the continent. They were told
th
States, Austria would immediately march 70,000 men
commotions
joectitonwselolf a
into those States, and upon this ground the Government
residing in this country.- Now he should like to know
in opening, the letters of a foreign exile
thought ooufg ltiht
e this
House.ss•as
upon what principle they interfered with the internal
worthyforeign
Now, by what he knew of the Constitution, he did not
think they had any right to interfere with the internal
commotions of other • indeed he had always
3s'iderliateio
countries
understood thatthceouenotnr
England repudiated any such steps. It
was resisted in mere than one instance by Mr.
Canning.
s It was resisted by him in the case of
Spain, when France tried to dictate to Spain on the subject
of its civil institutions. B
that A • be told
But now England was to
ustria bad threatened to march 70,000 men into
the Papal States, and
that the British G prevent this, it was necessary
to
foreign
Power should supply a foreign
Power with • certaus information.—(Hear, hear.) He must
repeat, then, that this was a subject well worth the at-
tention of the 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
them totally swept
British
away, But not so the Go-
vernment. 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.) Th •
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.—(Hear, 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
he would do all he could •to wipe 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 upon Mr. Mazzini in the recent Com-
mittee, in so far as the Rodez transaction was con-
cerned.—(Rear, hear.)

The House then divided, when there appeared
For the motion
Against it
,<gslost
EXCIE ACTS.
On the order of the day being put for going into Com-
mittee on these Acts,
Mr. F. 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 gallons of spirits at a titre, and this restriction 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 was
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 selling spirits in small quantities without a
special licence, and those who opposed such a step. He
hal, therefore, had some difficulty to encounter in the
matter ; but however forcible some of the arguments
might be in favour of the Hon. 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
gm at 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 int( rest of
those who paid the high duty for permission to sell in
small quantities. At the same time, it was his disposi-
tion to reconcile both interests as well as he could; and
if he should determine to propose any 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 J. GRAHAM said that he would not object to
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.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
a resolution for the remission of the Excise duties upon
glass.
Mr. HAWES said that, in the absence of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Pattison), it hod been his intention 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 would be as liberal as it could.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sa'd 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 in 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. HAwEs and the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the resolution was
agreed to.
The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported
progress, and leave was given to bring in a Bill to repeal
,he glass duty.
The other orders of the day having been disposed of,
the House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'Clock.

-