The Sun. — 1864-03-19 (London, England)

HENLEY—I must say the statement my bon. friend has just made has placed the matter to me, if possible, in a more disagreeable and painful position than it was before, because, if there was one point which rankled more than another in the feeling of the country out of doors, it was the way and the manner in which this question had been treated inside. lam one of those who think that, if either the noble viscount—who, it seems, was cognisant of the whole matter—or if the hon. member for Halifax had, when the member for Finsbury addressed this house on the first occasion, made that avowal which was now hcnestly made by him, instead of having it, as it were, dragged out of him by the protracted inquiry in this matter—if the question had been frankly answered, and the hon. member had said, " It is true I gave leave for letters to be sent to my house; I am sorry for it; I was not aware how it would be used'—if that answer had been given, this matter would have stood in a very different light—(hear, hear)—because, if 1 may use the phrase, it was almost studiously kept from being acknowledged. No man could even guess, from the answer of the hon. member for Halifax or the Under-Secretary of State, on the first nights this subject was under discussion—no one could have dreamt that it was perfectly plain and true that the house of the hon. gentleman the member for Halifax was at the disposal of a man who has been sufficiently designated in this house without me saying one word about him, as a cover for his correspondence. One is almost tempted to ask whether the letter bags of the Foreign Office are at the disposal of this gentleman. lam glad to see the hon. gentleman (Mr. Layard) shakes his head ; but I say this question might be asked, because both one and the other of the hon. gentlemen (Mr. Stansfeld and Mr.Layard) expressed nearly similar opinions. [Mr.LAYARD No, no.) The real truth, the real gist of the matter is  this—Was this house of the hon. member for Halifax so at the disposal of Mazzini, for letters to come to him ? No one attempted to think the hon. member for Halifax was mixed up with any conspiracy for murder ; no one dreamt of that—(hear, hear)—but it was only throwing dust in the eyes of the house to deny the whole matter. Will anybody believe a man can be scot-free from imputation if he allows letters which he knows nothing about, and probably takes care to know nothing about, to pass through his house ? If the matter had been frankly owned at the first moment, and there had been no attempt at concealment, no attempt to keep anything back, I think the matter would have been in a different position. lam sorry to say the noble viscount would have stood in a much higher position, because he stems to me to have been a party to keeping it back. The noble lord has told us that this matter was brought fully to his notice, and I regret the statements made b' him and the hon. member for Halifax were not properly made. There ought to have been a disclaimer to the country and the world, and it should have been avowed that an indiscretion had been committed. The whole question wcul4 then have passed away, and we should have heard nothing more of it. If a man commits an indiscretion and frankly owns it, I believe there is no one in this house but who would say, " You have been a foolish fellow, and there's an end of it." (Laughter.) But if you attempt to hide it, and have not the manliness to acknowledge you have committed a fault, every one will be sure there is something behind which they have not got hold of, and that you have not told the affair properly from beginning to end. Mr.