The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-08 00:00:00

sermon on the Sunday previous to the day ordered for '
execution. Acting on the authority he possessed, he
(Sir James Graham) had ordered a prison inspector to
proceed,to Newgate and to inquire into the circumstances
connected with the lust execution. The inspector had
received instructions to examine into the transactions
both of the Sunday and of the Monday morning. As
soon as he should have received that report he should
be prepared to lay it on the table, and to express his
opinion on the whole matter.
Alderman COPELAND was glad to hear the course
the Right lion. Baronet intended pursuing, and fully ad-
mitted the necessity ler an inquiry. A morbid appetite
was abroad on this subject. The curiosity of the public
upon occasions such as these exceeded anything the
House could conceive. This curiosity pervaded all classes,
and the desire of persons, not only to get seats at the
trial, but to be present at the condemned sermon, was
beyond all conception. Having been the sitting magis-
trate at Guildhall on Easter Monday, cases
had come before him, that led him to the
conclusion that the time had arrived, when the
authorities ought to consider whether it was not ad-.
visable to dispense with these public exhibitions. On
Easter Monday he sent some fur trial, and convicted
three in a gang for picking pockets under the gallows,
and this had led him to the conclusion that it would
be better to adopt some means of putting an end to

these executions altogether.
Mr. BROTHERTQN rose to express his concur-
rence in the remarks of the Hon. Alderman, but he
was called to order by the Speaker, who put the ques-
tion, that the returns he laid on the table, which was
agreed to.
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE moved the substitution of
Lord Frederick Hallyhurton and Mr. David Morris for
Mr. Patrick Stewart and Mr. Bickham Escott, on Select
Committee on Prisons (Scotland.)
Mr. PRINGLE opposed the motion, and said he
would divide the House.—(Great laughter.)
The gallery was then cleared, and the House divided,
when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it .
Majority fur the motion —sB
MR. MAZZINI.
Mr. BOUVERIR said that it would be recollected
that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State
for the Home Department had, upon the debate
with regard to the opening of letters in the Post-
office, made a charge of a very grave and heinous
character against Mr. Mazzini, which had never yet been
withdrawn. A charge of such a nature as that made
against Mr. Mazzini was one which, under no circutn-
stances, could be justified, unless there was the strongest
grounds for believing it to be true. That charge was
aggravated, coming, as it did, from one in the position of
the Right Hon. Baronet, whose Parliamentary privi-
leges prevented Mr. Mazzini from taking those steps
which he could do if the charge had not been wade by
a Member of that House within the walls of Parliament.
That charge was spread abroad next morning, not only
through the country, but through the world, stamped
with the authority of the Secretary of State. The Right
Hon. Baronet derived the ground of his charge from an
anonymous statement in a French newspaper, and he
promised to substantiate it by papers which he would de-
liver to Members of the House. The only papers delivered
were papers which he (Mr. Bouverie) held in his hand,
but they did not contain one iota of evidence to substan-
tiate the charge.—(Hear, hear.)
.He therefore hoped
that the Right Hon. Baronet, reflecting upon the hor-
rible nature of the charge, would think that he ought
to withdraw it. He might mention that the French Go-
vernment communicated to a friend of his, a Member of
that House, that they carefully investigated the matter,
and that they found there was not one tittle of evidence
to support the charge.
Sir J. GRAHAM stated that the Hon. Gentleman
who had sat down gave him notice yesterday, by a note,
of his intention to put this question. If there had been
a House yesterday, it was his (Sir J. Graham's) inten-
tion to make voluntarily the statement to the House,
which it was now his duty to make. On Mon
day last the Honourable Member for Kilmar-
nock, and another Honourable Member, communicated
with him on the subject, and he stated to them what was
then strictly true, that he was not in a position to make
a statement satisfactory to them or to Mr. Mazzini. In
consequence of the question put to him by the Honour-
able Member for Bolton, he thought it his duty to insti-
tute inquiries through his Noble Friend the Foreign
Secretary in those quarters where he would be likely
to obtain the most correct information on the subject ;
and, till yesterday, the information which he had re-
ceived, so far from shaking his impressions, only tended
to confirm them. But, not satisfied with the question to
which the inquiries were directed, he was particularly
anxious that the judge who presided at the trial of Ribiero
and Caprioli, in 1833, and also the public prosecutor, should
be consulted, and at his request those persons were con-
sulted. He did not, till two o'clock yesterday, receive
an answer to the inquiries made, and if there had been
a House yesterday it was his intention voluntarily to
have made the statement ; it was now his duty to make
it, in answer to the question"put to him. The Hon. Gen-
tleman referred to the statement which he (Sir James
Graham) made originally. He stated that the informa-
tion being derived from a newspaper, and not from an
official source, was not entitled to implicit confidence.
And he was not aware, till the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury afterwards stated it, that Mr. Mazzini had, in 1840,
brought an action against a newspaper for repeating a
statement which first appeared in the litoniteur. The
Hon. Gentleman said that in the papers which he pre-
sented to the House there was no recognition of the
statement which he quoted from the Moniteur. If
the Honourable Gentleman looked attentively at
the papers he would see a letter from Mr.
Foster, their agent at Turin, to the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, and that there was a distinct
recognition of the statement to which reference was
made. He was bound to state that the accounts he re-
ceived yesterday rested on the statements of the judge
who tried Ribiero, and of the public prosecutor, and
their answers to the inquiries made were full, explicit,
and direct; and they stated that no evidence was pro-
duced at the trial which inculpated Mr. Mazzini in the
least.—(Hear, hear.) Had he known at the time he
made the original statement the fact that Mr. Mazzini
brought an action against a newspaper for repeating the
charge, and much more, if he had known what the im-
pression of the judge who tried Ribiero, and that of the
public prosecutor were, he would never have made the
statement he did.—(Hear, hear.) He now thought it
due to Mr. Mazzini to make the only and the best repa-
ration in his power—namely, that the retraction should
be as public as the accusation.—(Hear, and cheers.)
Mr. DUNCOMBE said he thought that no Member
had any right to press or wish another Member to make
an apology to another individual unless he was persuaded
that that individual deserved to have an apology or a re-
traction made to him. He thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman was right in abstaining from making an
apology till he made :himself acquainted with the facts.
But he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had reason
to complain of the individual who put the Moniteur
into his hands—(Hear)—who must have known that the
statement against Mr. Mazzini was fabricated and false,
at the time, for it was publicly known. It was the duty
of the person who gave the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Moniteur, to give him also the judement of the judge of
the Tribunal Correctionnel, pronounced on the 23d of
April,lB4l, which iu itself was a refutation of the charge.
The retraction came late, but certainly the Right Hon.
Gentleman was right not to make it till he inquired into
it. Now that it was fully made, it would be satisfactory
to Mr. Mazzini, and the other exiles who were in the
country; and he (Mr. Duncombe) would say, if lie did
not believe Mr. Mazzini to have been innocent, he would
not have introduced his name in that House, because
he would the: emsider him not only to be unworthy the
consideration of that House, but unworthy of the friend-
ship of many high men in this country, wh ch it was his
happiness and his privilege to enjoy.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said thct the Hon. Gentleman
stated that the explanation came late. He would state
the facts to the House. He had a letter from Lord
Cowley, dated the 2d of May, enclosing the answers of
the Judge who tried the case and the Pr.cureur du Roi,
which were not received by Lord Cowley till the Ist of
May. He received a note from his Noble Friend the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated yesterday,
and stating " the enclosed papers were received yester-
day (on the sth of May) from Lord Cowley, and the
statements are of a different tendency from those pre-
viously given by the Prefect of Police and the Minister
of the Interior. He received the papers yesterday at
two o'clock, and he could only repeat his assurance that
if there had been a House yesterday he would have
made the statement he now made.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DUNCOMBE did net mean to attribute any un-
necessary delay to the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear.)
SLAVE TRADE.

Lord PALMERSTON said he rose for the purpose of
putting the questions, of which he had given notice, to
the Right Hon. Baronet opposite. The first question he
wished to ask was founded on the 9th article of
the Treaty of Washington, dated August, 1842.
He wished also to know in reference to the 17th article
of the treaty of December 1840, for the suppression of
the slave trade, which was signed by the representatives
of England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, whether the
contracting parties had in pursuance of this article made
application to Belgium, Hanover, and Greece, to obtain
their exertions In favour of that treaty, which stated
that the parties to the treaty, namely, Great Britain and
America, would unite in all becoming representations
and remonstrances to Spain and Brazil, for the shutting
up of markets for the sale of slaves. He wished to
know whether, in pursuance of this article, the
Governments of the United States and Eng•
land had united in making those remonstrances?
Sir R. PEEL said that with regard to the first ques-
tion, several communications took place between the
Government and the American Minister, Mr. Everett,
on the subject, and it was considered whether more ad-
vantago would be likely to accrue from joint represents-
floes or from separate representations, and they came to
the conclusion that it was not necessary to make joint
representations, and they considered that, under the 9th
article of the treaty, they might, if they so thought fit,
make separate representations, though the word
" unite " was certainly in the treaty. Representations
had been made both to Spain and Brazil, and he under-
stood that the Minister of the United States at Brazil
had shown himself desirous to put an end to the
trade, and had co-operated with them in throwing
difficulties in the way of the prosecution of the trade.
With regard to the second question, the Noble Lord had
correctly stated that, in 1841, a treaty was signed by
Great Britain to suppress the slave trade, Austria,
Prussia, and Russia agreeing to uphold the right of
search. France also signed that treaty, but cl:d not
ratify it ; but the other groat Powers of Europe, not-
withstanding the non-ratification by France, waived any
point of form that they might have objected to, and the
treaty was still held inviolate by them. The question,
after the refusal of France to rst.ifv the freers% was,
whether it w Lau colfuntl-ICULlt)11 e01:-
ternplated by that treaty should be made to Belgium,
Hanover, and Greece. They had all combined against