The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-28 00:00:00

TBE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY_EVENING, FEBRUARY 28, 1845.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 27.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack shortly after Five o'clock.
The Duke of BUCCLEUGH presented a petition
from the schoolmasters of Langham, praying for pro-
tection.

to Parliament was much more constitutional than
their present step, and for this reason. The Queen
could, if she were advised to do so by Parliament, take
a course which would really settle this business on a con-
stitutional principle, At the meeting held in Exeter_this
learned gentleman said the Queen, through her . supre-
macy, had power to alter and settle the rubric. The
learned gentleman told the meeting that this early supre-
macy came from the Pope. The learned gentleman con-
tended, that because the Pope was the supreme head of
the Church during his usurpation of power in this
country, and had the privilegee4 settling the rubric, the
Queen pOssessed the same jarisdiction by the statute law.
Now he (the Itight Rev. Prelate) would venture to say
that no such jurisdiction was given to Henry VIII. by
Parliament. No spiritual jurisdiction whatever was
given to the Crown, and the power of altering the rubric
was left entirely to the Church. No ancient law what-
ever gave the Crown power to impose upon the Church
any change,or alteration in the rubric. But this learned
gentleman hid the Queen had the power of doing this
and acting alone in the Privy Council. The learned
gentleman added that the Archbishops and Bishops
were members of this Council, and of course they would
be her Majesty's advisers in this matter.- Now, he was
not aware of this before, but the learned gentleman
said they were called " Right Rev. Prelates," by virtue
of their office of Privy Councillors. He believed that
that gentleman was a man of high respectability. He
was certainly a man of very considerable property, and
he (the Bishop of Exeter) knew that he administered it
with great advantage to the people around him. He be-
lieved also that he fulfilled the duties of Judge over the
Court over which he presided with very great ability.
But perhaps his ignorance of the subject on which he
had now entered gave him more time to attend to the
Court of Bankruptcy. He had now done with South-
molton. The next point he had to take up was the pe-
tition of Dr. Carwithen, which he believed had occa-
sioned great excitement. He (the Bishop of Exeter)
believed that Dr. Carwithen was a very strict observer
of the rubrics. Indeed, he had an impression that there
enl
eftvoet the ectahrrarutybirtiocuhs
ta in England
vbelye
been
othnee
more.c
ofar
wis rrt i.hc
et
en o.
ab
rs
weHri
tev
he
believed
twpractice
of the rubrics. How, then, could the Noble
Earl say that these practices were utterly obsolete?
He believed his last pastoral letter had taken from Dr.
Carwithen the distinction of observing all the rubrics.
Ele did not mean to say That Dr. Carwithen would feel
this as a grievance ; but it appeared that he was placed
in a state of great excitement by those frightful statutes
of 2d and 3d of Edward VI, and the Ist of Elizabeth.
Now if the Noble Lord would bring in a Bill to repeal
those statutes, and thus free the Rev. petitioner from the
tremendous penalties which those statutes imposed, he
would be one of the first to support that Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) Knowing the excitement which had been raised
by a petition presented in' another place, he had felt it
his duty, under the fear of falling into any misapprehen-
sion, to consult two very learned friends, whose opinion
their Lordships were accustomed very much to rely on.
They confirmed distinctly the construction he had put
on the Act. That Act did not apply, except there was a
resolute and obstinate refusal to obey the rubric. The
phrase was, that if any obstinate person should refuse,
&c., he would be liable to the penalties. What became,
then, of the anxiety of the Noble Earl for the bishops?
It was very true that there were instances of indictments
being preferred at an early period in the reign of
James 1., when certainly ao case of obstinacy was
proved against the defendant, but their Lordships would
bear in mind that at that time the non-observance of the
statute was the exception, and in those times there would
be sufficient reason for a conviction; but he had been in-
formed by the learned person to whom he had referred
that now an indictment could not possibly be sustained
under similar circumstanees. Dr. Carwithen stated that
the Marriage Act had set aside a portion of the rubric,
inasmuch as it provided that in certain cases banns might
be published in the afternoon. The rubric provided for
this, and therefore Dr. Carwithen was mistaken in his
allegation. The Marriage Act, so far from altering the
rubric, carefully avoided dealing with it. The_rubric
recognised the right of the Crown to require anything
that could be lawfully published in the church to be pub
fished, because it directed that nothing should be pub-
lished in the church except by.the order of the Crown or
the ordinary. He earnestly entreated their Lordships to
remember what would be the effect of the course they
were now called upon to pursuse. In the year 1643
their Lordships' predecessors formed themselves into a
Committee of religion. Their Lordships' House at that
time consisted of men of great talent; they were warm
supporters of the Church, and when some alterations
were made in the Liturgy, they required that common
prayer should be used according to the laws of the land
with respect to common prayer. In three years the
same House that began by inquiry agreed to abolish the
common law with respect to prayer. He trusted their
Lordships would not enter into a question of that sort,
if they found it was not their duty to do so. For his
own part he did not think the House had the power to
do so, but that it lay in the Crown. The principle had
ever been recognised by Parliament that in matters re-
lating to the Church, those who were appointed instruc-
tors by the Divine bead of the Church were to propose
the laws which guided them, and that the lay members
of it were to signify their assent or dissent,
as it might be, to what was so proposed.
lie did hope that if at any time any proceeding
of that kind should be deemed necessary, it would
emanate from 'the Crown, and not, as in this case, to
bring by petition the subject before their Lordships'
House. He thought at the present time it was very de-
sirable to adopt that course, in order to let the excite-
ment which had astonished no one more than himself to
die away. If before that time it was thought necessary
to act otherwise, he would venture to predict that the
practices of 1645 would be again but too fearfully ap-
parent.
Lord BROUGHAM deprecated all Parliamentary in-
terference in the controversy which was at present di-
viding the Church ; and he might, perhaps, be allowed
to congratulate the House and the country that there
was no more important matter to divide the Church
than this mere matter of discipline—a question merely
involving the propriety of whether a sermon should be
delivered in a surplice or a black gown.—(Laughter.)
Many persons conscientiously advocated the use of sur-
plices, and it was not for him, God forbid ! to say that
a matter affecting men's consciences should be in any
way trifled with. Undoubtedly a difference of opinion
did prevail, and it had happened that certain things,
laid down 170 years ago, or more, matters of form which
were deemed fit and proper to be exacted from clergy-
men, should, since they had fallen into other hands—
(Laughter)—and upon other views, be so changed that
they were no longer a matter of moment; and he (Lord
Brougham) thought, therefore, that it would have been
a matter of common sense to have allowed things to go
on as they were, whether they were trifling or important,
as the revival of them only gave rise to discontent and
anarchy, and scandalous dissensions between the pastors
and the flocks, of all things that which should most care•
fully have been avoided. He (Lord Brougham) agreed
in the general recommendation issued by the
Right Reverend Prelate to his spiritual children; he
agreed in the humanity, the wisdom, and the cha-
rity of that recommendation, and at the time
when he first saw the pastoral letter he admired the
to ee of wisdom, humanity, and charity exhibited in it.
On no account whatever would he wish the subject
brought before Parliament, for he was quite sure that
the very worst thing they could do was to call for Parlia-
mentary interference. He agreed with the Right Rev.
Prelate in some things he had advocated, but he dis-
agreed with him in others. As a son of the Church he
certainly agreed to the rule that the laws of the Church
should be made by her fathers, and he certainly did not
think that that was the place for discussion upon this
subject.
The Bishop of EXETER, in reference to a remark of
the Noble Lord, did not believe that in any one of the
' churches in his diocese the rubric had got into univesral
disuse. But in one parish one practice prevailed, and in,
another another prevailed ; and his object, in promul-,
gating his letter, was to reduce their various practices to
something like regularity.
Earl FORTESCUE, while giving credit to the Bishop
of Exeter for the zeal and conscientiousness with which
. he had performed his duties, could not help wishing that
he had left things as they were; and in that case the
petitions which he had that night presented might have
been spared to the House.
The Bishop of EXETER said the way in which he,
was alluded to lay the-Noble Earl called upon him for an
explanation. He requested the House to remark the
animus which pervaded his letter. His sole object in
effecting a change, was' to prevent the necessity for
future change.
The Bishop of NORWICH had no wish to interfere
in the discussion on a subject relating to one peculiar
diocese, but he could not avoid sayin4 that the general
feeling of his own diocese was opposed to the re-
vival of any fOrm that approximated in a dis-
tant degree to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church.
and he rejoiced that this feeling was so universal, and
that therefore those petitions had been presented. It
showed at least that the laity were alive to the subject,
and the temperate and calm, and dispassionate address
which they had presented would he hoped animate the
misses of the people of Engl • and They could never
return to the rubrical forms, which were imprac-
ticable in the present state of society. The Right Rev.
Prelate said that they were under stringent obligations
to abide by the rubric. He (the Bishop of Norwich)
said they were not so stringently bound, because they
in t could not be so. He did not see by what right
any Right Rev. Bishop could say " This part of the
rubric I will order in my diocese, and that I will dis-
pense with," sad so forth. He felt that that was utterly
impracticable, and therefore he rejoiced that they at-
tempted to remove some of the difficulties which beset
the question.
The Bishop of LONDON was understood to say, that
where the rubric could be enforced it was incumbent en
them to do so.
The petit:ons were ordered to be printed.
ITALIAN EXILES.
Lord BEAUMONT proceeded to fulfil tho notice
which he had given on the previous day, of putting a
question to the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, relative to an expedition which sailed
last year from Corfu to the coast of Italy. He felt that
considerable importance attached to this question, in-
, asmuch as upon the answer he should receive would
depend the truth or falsehood of a charge which
had been made against her Majesty's Govern-
ment of having participated in one of the most violent
acts that had ever been perpetrated by any country.—
(Hear, hear.) In putting this question it would be ne-
cessary for him briefly to relate the events which formed
the history of this tragical event. In so doing, he should
only refer to those statements which were before the pub.
lie. Theversion he should give then would be the version
of the public, as collected from detached accounts which
had gone forth to the public. If, therefore, he should
during his statement fall into an error of fact, it would be
for the Noble Earl to correct him, in the answer he should
make to the question he was about to put, as well as
to set hint right should he make any false conclusions or

deductions. The history of the case appeared to be
this, as far as he could collect it from the information
now before their Lordships. In the year 1843 informa-
tion was received by this Government that the exiles and
refugees from the States of Italy, who at the time re-
sided in the British possessions in the Mediterranean,
including the lonian Islands, were then plotting or con-
cocting a conspiracy, which had for its object to make a
descent upon the Papal States, and spread the same
spirit_ through Italy which had existed in the year 1834.
He understood, moreover, that a remonstrance was ad-
dressed by the Government of Austria, complaining of
the British Government allowing the lonian Islands to
be made a shelter for those persons who had fled from
Italy. This remonstrance was accompanied by a threat
that if any revolution or commotion took place in the Papal
States, the Austrian Government would send forth an
army. to overrun those States. This led to the
exercise of a power in this country which he
would not then stop to inquire if it were wise or not. But
the fact was, the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment issued a warrant for opening the letters in the
Post-office of a certain individual named Signor
Mazzini, an Italian, residing in this country,
who was supposed to be corresponding with
those refugees who were at the time in the British pos-
sessions of the Mediterranean. According to this autho-
rity, the letters and correspondence of this gentleman
were opened, and from them it was ascertained that a
conspiracy was forming among these refugees, and that
a general descent upon the Papal States was contem-
plated. Austria was put in possession of this informa-
tion ; but it would appear from the report of the Secret
Committee appointed to inquire into the opening of
these letters, that the information was communicated in
such a manner as not to compromise the safety of any
individual in the power of that Government. From
subsequent letters it turned out that, by the advice of
Signor Mazzini, this plot was abandoned ; and would
that the scene had closed here—would that the curtain
had fallen, and no other act been added. But it was not
so ; and to this part of the subject he invited
the particular attention of their Lordships. The
same emissaries of the Neapolitan Government
were instructed —no doubt upon information re-
ceived from Austria with regard to the disposition of
these refugees who had once contemplated a descent
upon the Papal States, but afterwards abandoned the
idea to proceed to Corfu, where two sons of General
Bandiera had taken refuge. Under the disguise of be-
ing fellow-conspirators they induced these refugees to
favour a new plot against the Neapolitan Government.
He must diverge here for a moment to state that neither
the Papal nor the Austrian consul made any remon-
strance on the subject to Lord Seaton. They took no
notice of this new plot. On the 12th of June, 22 per-
sons, including these emigrants, sailed from Corfu,
and then, and not till then, did the Papal Consul and
the Neapolitan consul apply for as istance to Lord
Seaton. Lord Seaton, however, declined to follow their
suggestion of sending an armed power to capture this
expedition. On the 13th, the succeeding intimating
day, informa-
tion was forwarded to the two Powers, that
the expedition had sailed. On the 16th the expedition
landed on the coast of Calabria; on the 17th they pro-
ceeded onwards to Otranto, and on the following day
they were met by some armed police, just sufficient to
master the expedition. One of them was shot in the
encounter, and the rest were made prisoners. On the
25th nine of them were put to death, and amongst them
were the two sons of Admiral Bandieri, and seven
others of the misguided men whom Signor Mazzini
had before prevented from putting their design
into execution. Now, if the Government had supplied the
information which led to these sad results, he must say
a more disgraceful proceeding was hardly to be met
with in the annals of this country. He hoped, there-
fore, the Noble Earl was prepared for the question he
was about to put, in order that this matter might be set
at rest. Now he wished to know if the British Govern-
ment had supplied any foreign Power with information
calculated to compromise the rights of individuals, and
whether they were aware of this information having
been communicated to another Government? And also,
whether the British Government had any knowledge of
the intended expedition from Corfu ; and if they had,
whether they had taken any, and what measures, to
prevent it ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN said their Lordships would
probably remember that, for the last two years, great
political excitement had prevailed in Italy. Insurrec-
tions had been made in the Papal States, which had
created great alarm, and led to the Austrian Govern-
ment determining upon sending an armed force into the
States, in the event of any further outbreak. He need
not point out to their Lordships what would be the pro-
bable consequences of such an attack. It was not im-
probable that, if it had been attempted, the peace of
Europe could not have been maintained. Their Lord-
ships were aware that this conspiracy and these projects
were planned, not in the lonian Islands, or in the Bri-
tish possessions of the Mediterranean, but in London.
It was, on that account, thought necessary to detain and
open the letters to Signor Mazzini. He need not remind
their Lordships that the warrant was not issued by him,
or under his direction. Saying this, however, the House
must not understand that he was in the least prepared to
censure the issuing of that warrant. On the contrary,
he was prepared, as well he believed as every other
Member of her Majesty's Goverament, to defend and
sustain the full responsibilities of that act. Those letters
when detained were sent from him to the Home• office,
and, acting upon his discretion, it appeared to him to be
consistent with his duties to communicate the informa-
tion which they contained to a foreign Power. The
course he adopted was this—he determined that no
agent of a foreign Government should see a single
syllable of these letters ; nor, indeed, did he intend that
any foreign Government should know that any letters
existed. In addition to this, he determined to keep in
view a necessary regard to the personal safety of
all individuals who might be compromised by
any information on the subject. With this de-
termination and with these precautions he com-
municated, from time to time, such information
as he thought was necessary for the safety of a foreign
State. Acting on this principle, he felt entitled to make
a communication to the Neapolitan Minister. But he did
not state that any letters had been submitted to the in-
spection of the Government. Their Lordships would re-
member that complaints were made last year that the
lodgings of a Polish gentleman had been entered, that
his writing-desk had been broken open, and his papers
taken and delivered to the Russian Government. This,
however, was denied at the time ; and in answer to a
question put to him by a Noble Marquis, he positively
contradicted an assertion that Mr. Mazzini's letters had
been submitted to the inspection of a foreign Govern-
ment. He was happy to say that these precautions
had proved successful, and he believed not a syl-
lable of these letters was made known to the Govern-
ments alluded to. He would now approach the immediate
question
nosf thesage inNNoble
hle
report Lord.
of the
ead been presumed,
Secret
coniniitte
e
appointed to inquire into the opening of letters, that in-
formation had been supplied to a foreign Government
which had endangered the personal safety of persons
under its power. But this was incorrect. The fact
stated in the report was the result of an answer made to
him, by a question put by the Committee, as to whether
any person in the power of the Austrian Government
was in danger from the information which had been
given to it? He replied, certainly not. It did not
follow, therefore, that they had given information to one
Power, knowing that it would be transferred to another,
where it would endanger the safety of individuals. Now,
with respect to the question of the Noble Lord, he
begged to say that lie never had any conception of en
attempt being about to be made to recover the Papal
States by the refugees of Corfu. He knew that a certain
number of Italian refugees resided in Corfu, but he had
not the remotest knowledge of their intentions. He was
' aware also that one of the sons of General Bandiera had
been at Corfu, because the Austrian Minister complained
to him of his being suffered to remain the're. He be-
lieved, if he recollected rightly, that when this person
deserted from Venice, the newspapers announced that
he had gone to Corfu. He was quite aware of his being
there ; he knew also that another of the song of General
Bandiera was at Malta, because a captain of an Austrian
ship had made a demand upon the Government to have
him surrendered as a deserter. Sir P. Stewart, in answer
to that application, said he had no power to surrender him,
and in his (Lord Aberdeen's) opinion, very properly so.
But still this was not sufficif nt to make him aware
of the practical projects intended by the Bandiera family.
Their Lordships must recollect that the desertion of
these persons from the Austrian navy had created
great alarm, because it was impossible to say
how far this example might extend, and this
probably would account for the precautions taken
by the Papal and Neapolitan Governments.
The whole of the preparation for the expedition and the
putting it into execution occupied only one week. ' Had
Lord Seaton received any instructions, he would doubtless
have taken measures to prevent the insurrection. In a
letter which had been received at the Foreign-office, Lord
Seatoh says that the younger Bandiera arrived in Corfu
in February, and not finding his brother there, he left
by the Austrian packet for Malta ; having proceeded to
that island in search of his brother. In this, however,
he was not successful, and not meeting with his brother
tie re, he went to Greece, and the brothers did not meet
in Corfu till the month of June. Colonel Rieciotti ar-
rived in Corfu on the sth June, in the hope of getting
into Italy by some unknown and unexpected means.
These persons did-not arrive in Corfu until the sth of
• June, and the expedition took place on the 12th. It was
therefore impossible for him (Lord Aberdeen) to have
received any notice of this expedition. The whole of the
time which elapsed between the planning of the expedi-
' tion or, at least between the meetings of the parties who
were to carry it into effect, was one week, so that it was
utterly impossible for him (Lord Aberdeen) to have re-
ceived any notice of this expedition before-it was carried
into effect. If any notice had been given to him, unques-
, tienably instructions would have been . sent to
Lord Seaton to - prevent it. When, then, it
was asserted that the Government were acquainted with
this expedition, and refused any measure to prevent it,
he could only say that the Government had no informa-
tion whatever of the intended descent on the coast of
Calabria. Th. expedition was planned on the sth, and
was put into effect on the 12th. Had there beers any
such notice, certainly he should have felt it a -duty to
prevent these unfortunate men from undertaking such a
perilous enterprise, and he did think that he should be
able to prove to their Lordships that neither he nor
Lord Seaton had any knowledge of its probability, and
that the Austrian and Neapolitan Governments acted no
treacherous part in the course of this transaction. When
it was ascertained by the Austrian and Neapolitan con-
suls at Corfu, on the morning of the 13th of June, that
these men had sailed the evening before, they imme-
diately went to Lord Seaton, and requested him to take
measures to prevent the expedition, and arrest thein
before their arrival in Italy. Was that the conduct of
persons wishing to entrap? The consuls of Austria,
Naples, and the Pontifical States, waited upon Lord
Seaton at ten o'clock in the morning of the-13th June,
and requested him to take measures for the arresting of
the refugees. His Lordship replied that he could not at