- OR -

Select Another  View Scanned Text


On Monday the House re-assembled after the Easter recess. Several petitions against the grant to Mayuooth were presented.


Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice, on Monday, that on Friday next, on the motion that the House go into com-mittee of supply, he should call the attention of the House to that part of the recent message of the Presi-dent of the United States which related to the to ritory of Oregon. (Hear.)


Lord DUNCAN, on Monday, asked whether her Ma. jeesatry'; Government meant to alter the law of last y Sir J. GRAHAM was not aware that the measure of last year had worked ill, and he was far from thinking it advisable to retrace their steps as to this question. Her Majesty's Government had the subject of the frauds committed by debtors under their consideration, and would, as soon as possible, take means for remedying that great social evil.

Mr. DIVETT asked whether the attention of Govern-ment had been called to certain clauses in a small debts bill recently introduced, which would altogther contr a• vene the provisions of the act of last year ?

Sir J. GRAHAM said be had seen the clause in the bill referred to—a private bill—and as it went to re-enact imprisonment for debts under 201., the Gove. 1-ment would of course refuse to sanction it. In reply CO Colonel Reardon, he said he could not say whether I he bill would be extended to Ireland, until it was seen 11 no the experiment answered here.


On Monday, upon the order of the day for the Com-mittee of Supply being read, the Speaker called on Mr.

Wakley and Sir C. Napier, who had each given notice of theirintention to move amendments upon it, but neither gentleman responded to the call; and the House accordingly resolved itself into committee with-out any previous discussion to the great amusement of the members who were present, and to the no small annoyance, as afterwards appeared, of the two gentle-men who chanced to be absent.

In the committee Mr. CORRY brought forward the Navy Estimates, briefly stating the causes for the in-crease or decrease of each particular grant. Among other matters be explained the reasons why he di-mended an increase of 4,000 men for the naval service of the present year. That increase was rendered requi-site by the necessity of having squadrons on the coast of China, on the coast of Africa, and in the Pacific Oa n. A vote of 40,000 men for the service of the present year was a less vote than that which was required for the service of the year 1841-1842, for at that time we bad no considerable squadrons in those seas, and at present 5,000 men were wanted to man the ships of the three additional squadrons to which he had just referred. De then moved a resolution fixing at 40,000 the number of men to be employed in the naval service for the ye sr ending the 31st of March, 1846.

Mr. WAKLEY immediately rose, and moved that tl, chairman do report progress. He had been pressed by his constituents to bring forward a motion respecting the Post Office. They were most anxious that he should move for a copy of the warrant, if any existed, autho-rising the Postmaster-General to open the letters of his colleague, Mr. Duncombe. That motion he must bring forward, and whenever he did so, he would take the sense of the House upon it. He had been absent from the House only five minutes, and when he returned to It he found it in a committee of supply, It was a sad pity that Government should have lent itself to such sharp practice, especially as it was not then five o'clock, the hour at which public business generally corn • menced.

Sir R. PEEL disclaimed all intention of taking advan-tage of Mr. Wakley's absence. After the notices of motion were read, the Speaker waited five minutes ; and it Was not till then that Mr. Corry proposed to proceed with the public business.

Sir C. NAPIER observed, that if Mr. Wakley felt that he had a right to complain of sharp practice, he had a glib. stronger reason to urge the same complaint, for his notice of motion stood lower down on the orders of the day.

After a short discussion, Mr. Wakley withdrew his amendment.

Sir C. NAPIER then proceeded to address the com-mittee upon the state of the navy, and more particularly that of the steam navy. Before the House granted more money for the repair and construction of ships and steamers, it ought to have before it the various re-turns for which he had moved, but which he had been unable to obtain from Ministers respecting the state in which the navy was at present. He then repeated the objections which he has urged on many recent occasions against the present system of naval construction, insist-ing that though we bad at present nominally a large fleet, we should find it impossible in case of war to man and send fifty ships of the line to sea within twelve months. Before another farthing was voted for the con-struction of steam-boats, we ought to have a commis-sion of scientific men appointed to examine the prin-ciples on which they should be built. He pointed out in detail the defects in our steam-frigates, and observed that in our twenty-four steam-sloops there was not one where all the machinery might not be destroyed by the effect of a single shot. He had intended to have moved for the appointment of a commission to inquire into this subject. but for the present be had been defeated by the adroit management of the Government.

Sir G. COCKBURN admitted that our steam navy was commenced at a period when the construction of steam-boats for maritime warfare was not well understood. He asserted, however, that the steam navy which we had now at sea was in an effective state, and was not, as Sir C. Napier represented it, perfectly useless. The Admi-ralty was listening every day to proposals for im- proving it, and was busily engaged in considering how those proposals could be carried into effect. They were now trying to place the machinery of steam-vessels under water, and to make it as safe from external acci-dents as a ship's magazine was at present. He would not enter into particulars; but, as regarded the com- parison between our steam navy and that of our neigh-bours, would confine himself to saying that our steam navy was to theirs as three to two. We had 30,000 horse-power, they had but 20,000. He then entered into a refutation of some, and into an explanation of other, parts of Sir C. Napier's statements, and concluded by expressing a hope that the committee would then allow the navy estimates to go forward.

Captain BERKELEY showed that Great Britain was as superior to every other nation in her steam-vessels of war as she bad hitherto been in her sailing vessels. He made some comments upon the pamphlet of the Prince de Joinville, and said that as that illustrious individual had pointed out the places in which he thought us most vulnerable, the Admiralty would be guilty of the most culpable folly, if it did not take precautions to render them unassailable by all the power of France.

Captain Roos pointed out to the committee the large sums which had already been expended in constructing inefficient vessels of war, and maintained that before it voted any addition to those sums, it ought to know scimething more than it did at present respecting the condition of the navy. The Prench Minister of Marine knew everything about it : why was the House of Com-mons to be left in the dark? A committee had been appointed in 1806 to inquire into the state of the navy.

• No objection was made to it at the time, though we were ,then engaged in a war of extermination with France. -.What valid objection could be urged to it now, when we ,were at peace with all the world ? He then went into several details respecting the p.resent condition of the inavy, and recommended that instead of having 5,000 i
▪ men employed in manning ten ships of the line n the Channel, we should place them in frigates, corvettes, and brigs, and keep them cruising up and down the
• "'" narrow seas, where both officers and men would learn how to manoeuvre ships together, and where they could easily be transferred to ships of the line, in case any emergency should suddenly arise requiring the aid of their services.

After some conversation on this subject, in which Admiral Bowles, Captain Pechell, and Captain Carnegie joined, Mr. HUME recalled the attention of the committee to the question really before it—namely, the number of men to be voted for the service of the year. Last year Sir R. Peel had promised the House that the number of men wanted for the navy should be reduced; and he had, therefore, expected that he would have been pre-pared to state why the estimate for the navy was this year increased. Why was it larger now than it was ten years ago? The peace of Europe was better consoli-
•lated now than it was then, and there was no reason for
• eeping up a force either in the Pacific or on the coast ofAfrica, where our exertions to repress the slave-trade ad done more harm than good, according to the confes-eion of Sir T. Buxton himself. If we continued to keep our navy in its present state of preparation we should create jealousy, not peace, in foreign nations. By reducing our establishments to the scale of 1835, we should save no less than 6,000,0004 a ear;y and such a saving would enable us to get rid of the Income-tax, which cost the country 5,000,0001., and some other taxes of a less onerous character. He should object to the proposed increase of 4,000 men, if some explanation w re not given of the reasons which required it; and for .1 e purpose of eliciting that explanation he would now n ove that 36,000 men, not 40,000 men, should be the amber voted for the service of the ensuing year.

Mr. S. HERBERT observed, that if Mr. Hume had for-otten, the country still remembered, the explanation which Sir R. Peel had given in introducing his budget, id the reasons which induced him to increase the mili-tary establishments of the country during the present year. The reasons for increasing our naval force were to be found in the extent of our military and commer-cial establishments, in the necessity of repressing the slave-trade in Africa, in the necessity of suppressing piracy in the Indian seas, and in the blockade which he had established on some part of the coast of South America, in order to obtain compensation for property, wrongfully taken from British merchants. In reply to Sir C. Napier's assertion that we should find it impos-sible to man and send to sea 50 sail of the line, he reminded the gallant officer that at the close of the last war we had 100 sail of the line at sea and fully and gal-lantly manned.

Lord INGESTRE considered the reasons just given for increasing the efficiency of the navy perfectly satisfac-tory. He then reverted to the question raised by Sir C. Napier as to the scienntific construction of our steamers of war. He complained that we had gone on for years groping in the dark, and had put the country to an enormous expense by crude experiments in ship build-ing. He condemned the system on which our armed steamboats were built, and asserted that it was a great failure accompanied by enormous expense. A board of construction ought to be appointed. There was a col-lege of engineers for the army—why was there not a similar college for the navy also ?

Afer a speech from Mr. Williams, Mr. HUME said, that he did not consider it expedient to give the House the trouble of dividing upon his amendment, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw it.

The amendment was in consequence withdrawn.


Lord PALMERSTON, in the same debate (of Monday), rose, and, admitting the vast importance of an efficient navy to such a country as this, declared his opinion that the discussion of that evening showed we had come to this pass—that science should now be called into the aid of practice in the construction of our ships. The argu-ment of Sir George Cockburn, that our ships, during the late war, enabled us to compete with those of other na-tions, proved the superiority of our sailors, not of our men of war. It was undoubtedly difficult to calculate, with the accuracy of mathematical science, the precise precise proportions which should constitute an effective ship of war : but then it was as undoubtedly the business of the Admiralty to call in the aid of every improvement which science could suggest. It was stated that our steam marine, in the amount of horse power, stood in relation to that of France, as two to three. But this was unsatisfactory, without a statement of the comparative number of vessels. He would cheerfully agree to what-ever augmentation of our naval force was requisite for the effectual suppression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa; but the present Government, which scrupled to admit slave-grown sugar, has voluntarily abandoned that mutual right of search with France and the United States, which was so essential to the suppression of the traffic. He was not the sole individual who attached im-portance to the right of search. Lord Castlereagh, in 1814, and in subsequent years, the Duke of Wellington and others, had urged the importance of the right of search in their negociations with the Allied Powers. He would not object to the convention agreed on between this country and France by the present Government, if in the meantime the system which they found existing had been left in operation till a better system were found for it. But he regretted to see such distinguished individuals as the appointed commissioners engaging in an inquiry which was preceded by an abandonment of the question in dispute. The Government, either from weakness or acquiescence, were giving up all those prin-ciples hitherto held sacred by this country, and exposing the inhabitants of Africa to a revival of all those atroci-ties which marked the slave trade in its vigour.

Sir R. PEEL concurred in the opinion that science ought to be called in to the aid of practical experience in order to improve naval architecture. He could not, however, concur in the opinion that a commission, should be appointed to conduct the necessary experi-ments, to determine upon the expenditure to be incurred, and of erwards to decide whether those experi-ments were successful or not. That was rather the pro-vince of the Board of Admiralty, and he could not consent to suspend its authority for the purpose of giving it even for a time to a scientific commission. It was all very well for Lord Palmerston to say that the defences of the dockyards had been neglected; but by whom had this been done ? The noble lord had called for a commission upon that subject. Now, there had been a commission upon it, consisting of the most com-petent persons; but he did not expect that Lord Palmerston would ask him to lay its report on the table of the House. He then adverted to Lord Palmerston's remarks on the foreign policy of the country, and more particularly with respect to the right of search. He wished the noble lord would bring that subject to the test of a public declaration of the opinions of the House of Commons; but so far from doing that, he would not even place on record his own opinion respect- Lord J. RUSSELL observed, that Lord Palmerston was perfectly justified in introducing the subject of the right of search into this debate, inasmuch as it was closely connected with the observations which had been made by Mr. Corry in defence of the increase of our naval force. Lord Palmerston had shown that it had always been considered by Lord Castlereagh and other Ministers of the Crown most important to gain from France the concession of the right of search. After much negotia-tion that concession had at last been granted by France ; and now the committee were told that it was to be im-mediately given up : and yet, in the face of that declara-tion, the country was aaked for an increased sum of money to suppress the slave-trade. He did not think that Sir R. Peel had reason to pride himself on the re-sult of the debate on the Ashburton capitulation. It was true that the vote ofthe House approved that capitu-lation; but there were many votes to which the House had given its approbation, and from which the country had withheld its concurrence; and he believed that the vote on the Ashburton capitulation was one of them. He thought that if you made concessions on every point demanded, you would be driven to resist sooner than you would be by showing greater firmness at first on points of minor consideration. With respect to the Commission now sitting in London, and consisting of the Duke de Broglie on the part of France, and of Dr. Lushington on the part of England, he had only to say that both of them had always been of opinion that the right of search was the most efficacious mode of re-pressing the slave-trade. What, then, was the reason that they were both sitting together in order to dis-cover whether any other mode of repressing it could be devised equally efficacious? It was alleged that such a feeling against the right of search existed in France that it could not be maintained without rendering the under-standing between the two countries less cordial than it ought to be. He intimated his disbelief in the validity of this reason. Count Mole and M. Thiers were not op-posed to the sight of search, and it appeared to him that M. Guizot was the only person who attached any im-portance to the abandonment of it. If, however, the reason were as valid as it was now pretended to be, it was a great political question, which ought to be settled, not between two gentlemen sitting as Commissioners, but between the two Governments of France and Eng-land. In conclusion, he stated that he was heartily glad to see that the Government was convinced of the necessity of increasing our naval force.

After some conversation, in which Mr. Hindley and Captain Pechell took part, the vote was agreed to.

The Chairman was then directed to report progress, and the House resumed.


Dr. HOWRING moved, on Tuesday, for the appoint-ment of a select committee to inquire into the state of colonial accounts, and the means of improving them. We had forty-one colonies, with a population of nearly 5,000,000, with imports into the United Kingdom amounting to between 10,000,0001. and 11,000,0001. per annum, and exports to them representing 17,000,0001., of which nearly half were British produce and manu-factures, employing 3,000 vessels and 900,000 tons of shipping, yet no colonial accounts whatever were pre-sented to the House ; they had nothing from which to acquire information but abstracts inserted in the annual blue-books. In what were called colonial accounts there was no uniformity of system; and from many of the colonies they had no accounts whatever. In some the fixed and incidental revenues were given separate, and in others they were blended. In some the minutest details were given, in others they were given in the gross. In some the Customs' receipts were given under a separate head for every article of importation; in others, only the general results were given. Sometimes the gross revenue was given without deduction, some-times after deducting the expense of collection. Nor was there any uniformity in the manner of keeping the accounts of expenditure. They did not know how payments were made in the colonies. When Sir G. Murray was Colonial Secretary he promised that there should be a colonial budget; and in that case the pro-gress of the expenditure could be watched. (Hear.) At the Audit-office at present the accounts of Ceylon were 11 years in arrear ; of Australia, 7; of the Mauritius, 7; Cape of Good Hope, 8; Malta, 6; Upper Canada, d; Western Australia, 5. The accumulation became so great that it was impossible to get through it ; and then came an order from the Treasury to allow the accounts to pass without anything like examination. The mili-tary and civil accounts should be kept separate; they would then be much more intelligible. This was really not a party question, but on great national interest; and he asked only that the woof 183' should be com-pleted. Every commission that had gone into the colo-nies had recommended the adoption of a better system of stating the accounts ; and it must be desired by all honest legislatures, all honest governors, and all honest men. Why not pay in the gross revenue, without first deducting the expense of collection? Why not keep separate the departments of receipt and payment? He would not suggest any interference with the local colo-nial authorities, but only claimed that the expenditure and receipt should be honestly and clearly recorded on some general, intelligible, uniform system, and that there should be some mode of ascertaining in this country the state of the accounts. He thought he had made out a case for a committee to investigate the sub-ject, and concluded by moving that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the colonial POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.

Mr. SHELL rose on Tuesday, according to notice given before the Easter holidays, to move a resolution " ex- pressing the regret of the House that letters addressed to a foreigner residing in this country should have been opened without his knowledge, and that information in reference to disturbances in the Papal States obtained by such means should have been communicated to a foreign power." He observed that it was not his in- tention to make the fatalities in Calabria the ground of hia motion. In this country of truth, when a Mi-nister of the Crown in his place in Parliament made a solemn asseveration respecting what he had either done or not done, that asseveration obtained credit, and was instantly believed. if this proposition were true when applied to every Minister, it was still more true when applied to a nobleman of such unimpeachable honour and integrity as the Earl of Aberdeen. He would not deny that, when he considered that copies of the letters sent by Emilio Bandiera and by Attilio Bandiera from Corfu had been placed before the Earl of Aberdeen, he had been surprised that the noble earl had no recollec-tion of them ; but he would not on that aebount make any surmise injurious to the character of that accom-plished nobleman. After noticing the victory which Mr. T. Duncombe had gained over his old friend Sir J. Graham in the late Parliamentary encounter, he pro-ceeded to show that more plausible reasons ought to be urged for opening the letters of a member of Parliament than for opening the letters of a foreigner, relating to transactions in which the peace of England was not con-cerned. He considered the case which Mr. Mazzini had to urge against the Government to be a very strong one. That gentleman was an exile in a cause which England had once deemed a noble one, and for which in 1814 she had implored the Tuscan, the Genoese, the Calabrian, and the Venetian to combine—he meant the liberation and independence of Italy. The spirit which we raised in 1814 under the auspices of Lord W. Bentinck and Sir R. Wilson, though long dormant under the degrading despotism to which we afterwards surrendered Italy, was not even yet dead; and after the revolution, which took place in France in 1830, and after the events which occurred in England in 1831, the Italians demanded a reform in their Government and a redress of their griev-ances. The insurrection which burst forth after that re-form was denied to them was speedily put down, and Mr. Mazzini was obliged to fly from his native country. To prove that that insurrection was not entirely without cause he read a letter which Sir Hamilton Seymour, our Minister at Florence, had written whilst at Rome to the foreign ambassadors in that capital, on receiving orders from the English Ministry to return to his post. In that letter our Minister complained, and though a re-form-of abuses had been declared necessary in the Ad-ministration of the Roman States, nothing had been done by the Papal Government to ease the discontent of its subjects; and stated that the English Govern-ment anticipated more serious troubles, if the same course of proceeding were further continued. The an-ticipations of Sir Hamilton Seymour had since been ful-filled ; and in the year 1844 the people of Italy, despair-ing of redress, entered into that conspiracy or plot which the English Government bad endeavoured to repress by the singular means which it had recently adopted. The committee appointed by the House to examine into the conduct of the Post Office had made a report, affording some information, but not all the information which was required, on that subject. It was stated that intel-ligence of that plot had been given to our Government, but it was not explained from what quarter that intelligence came. The information having been con-veyed to the English Government, a singular circum-stance occurred. Had the warrant for opening Mr. Mazzini's letters been issued as a mere matter of form, he would not have adverted further to it. But the Earl of Aberdeen had stated that he had not issued the war-rant himself, and, further, that the warrant had not been issued at his desireiThat was a remarkable circumstance, as the matter to which it referred fell within the exclu-sive province of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The question then arose, at whose desire was it issued ? Though the dominions in which the Pope exercised temporal authority fell to a certain degree under the superintendence of the noble earl, it was notorious that a certain country in which the Pope exercised a spiri-tual authority was under the superintendence of another Secretary of State. He had, therefore, "a prurient de-sire " to know at whose request this warrant was issued; and, fortunately, the report of the committee stated that it was issued by the Home Secretary. It was said that there was a finding in the report of that committee favourable to the Government; and that finding was, that though Mazzini's letters had been opened in conse-quence of intelligence furnished from a high but name-less quarter, the information deduced from them, when communicated to a foreign Power, implicated no indi-vidual within the reach of that foreign Power. Now, he did not consider that finding very satisfactory, for the information might have been communicated to another foreign Power by that to which it was originally sent, and hence much mischief might have arisen. He wished to know whether the details of that information were ever given to the Pope or to any other Italian poten-tate. It had been stated that time and place had been given in that information, but not the names of any individuals. Did they imagine that if they put an Italian bloodhound in this manner on the track, he would not soon be able to hunt his victim to the death? What the Go-vernment communicated to the Austrian Govern-ment he did not know; but this he did know, that the warrant to open Mazzini's letters having been issued on the 1st of March, a specification was made in the Mi-lan papers of the 20th of April " that Mr. Mazzini would soon cease to be a person unknown to the London po-lice." If he were told that Mr. Mazzini's name had never been given up to the knowledge of the Austrian Government by the Earl of Aberdeen, he would say at once that he believed the assertion; ut, without giving up his name, enough might have been stated to desig-nate the individual as clearly as if his name had been communicated. The Earl of Aberdeen declared, as he hoped for mercy, that he was perfectly innocent of the blood shed in Calabria on the 6th of May, when fifteen individuals were put to death. He firmly believed that assertion, but he recollected that in the month of June Italian blood was shed on the scaffold at Bologna, and he trusted that it was not shed by the hand or through the agency of any British Minister. It had been said that Ministers, in acting as they had done, had done no more than had been previously done by their predeces-sors. Now, he denies" that information obtained by opening the letters of foreign refugees had ever been communicated by any preceding British Minister to any foreign power. If he were wrong upon that point, let Ministers declare which of their predecessors had been guilty of such an act, and as soon as they did so, he would own himself convinced and acknowledge his error.

What was the palliation offered for this extraordinary proceeding Sir R. Peel had told them, when he said, " If an insurrectionary movement takes place in the Pa- pal States, an Austrian army will march into them ; if an Austrian army marches into the Papal States, a French army will occupy Ancona ; if a French army occupies Ancona, a collision may arise between the Aus-trian and the French troops; if that collision takes place, an European war may. arise ; if that European war arises, we may take a share in it ; and, therefore, to prevent so untoward a circumstance, we opened Mr. Mazzini's let-ters." Now, to prevent a war England would not bear dishonour. To prevent the chance of a war ought Eng-land to defend so discreditable a proceeding? He in-sisted at some length that Mr. Mazzini's letters had been opened, copied, and resealed, and contended that by the wax of that seal the honour of England had been stamped with an untruth. His resolution was pointed against the policy of this proceeding. The question involved in it was, whether Ministers had acted a part worthy of English Ministers. He thought that they had not, and, because he thought so, he had inserted in his resolution an expression not of censure, but of lamentation, in which he trusted that a majority of that house would cordially join.

Sir J. GRAHAM said, that in addressing himself to a matter which had been brought before the house not for a first nor a second nor a sixth time, he should not as-pire to any rivalry with the splendid declamation of Mr. Shell. Mr. Sheil had stated that this transaction was enveloped in mystery. That mystery should be removed by the statement which he was then about to make. In the month of October, 1843, he happened to be the only Secretary of State at that time in London. As such, he was bound to perform the duties of his absent colleagues and to receive all communications made to this Govern-ment by foreign powers. In the September of that year serious disturbances had broken forth at Bologna, which, according to the representations of Lord Holland, our Minister in that country, were not of an insulated, but of a general character, pervading all the Italian states. Towards the close of October Baron Nieumann, the Austrian Minister, had waited upon him in London, had represented to him that the commotions at Bologna were of a threatening aspect, and had complained of the inflammatory pamphlets on the state of Italy which were daily issuing from the press at Malta. The Baron had desired him to suppress those publications ; but, as theli-bertyof the press was established in Malta, he told the Baron that the law of England prevented him from ac-ceding to his request. The Baron replied that these in-flammatory pamphlets did not proceed merely from Malta and the other British colonies in the Mediterra-nean, but that they were concocted in London and were written in London by one individual, whom he then specified to be Mr. Mazzini, and of whom, till that mo-ment, he (Sir J. Graham) had no knowledge whatever. His communication with Baron Nieumann terminated with that conversation, as his colleagues returned to London, and, of course, resumed the management of their respective departments. Till the ensuing January he heard nothing more on the subject of Mazzini. In that month a communication took place between Lord Aberdeen and himself respecting the progress of the revolutionary spirit in Italy. It was then admitted that the representations of Baron Nieumann were perfectly correct, and that it was from London that all the orders proceeded which were likely to disturb the peace of Europe. At the end of February communications reached him and his colleagues that Mazzini was in Lon-don, and that he was carrying on a very extensive cor-respondence with foreign refugees. It therefore became his duty to obtain some knowledge of the proceedings of that individual; and, though it was not his intention to press hardly on an individual who was not present to defend himself, truth compelled him to state some facts as to the past character and conduct of Mr. Mazzini. He then read a despatch of Sir Hamilton Seymour to Lord Palmerston, in 1833, calling the attention of the Govern-ment of Earl Grey to the conduct and proceedings of Mazzini. In 1831 Italy was convulsed, and an insurrec-tion was attempted, but utterly failed. The lenders of it fled into France and were allowed to reside at Mar-seilles. There they founded the Society of Young Italy, over which Mazzini presided. Sir Hamilton Sey-mour complained of the formation of that society, and declared it to be the source of great disturbances in Italy. His next information as to Mazzini was not so precise, and was founded on an article inserted in the Moniteur of the 7th of June, 1833. He then read an ar-ticle, in which it was stated that a threefold assassination had alarmed the town of Rodez, and that an Italian re-fugee had fallen by the hands of his countrymen. It was stated in the same article that a sentence of death against four individuals had been discovered, and that that sentence of death was signed by Mazzini, as Presi-dent. Orders were sent to the authorities to examine into the authenticity of that document. Mazzini threat-ened to prosecute the Mcmiteur for this defamation of hie character ; but he never instituted the prosecution which he threatened. Soon after this transaction the French Government ordered Mazzini to quit Mgrseilles, and Mazzini took up his abode at Geneva, and com-menced a series of intrigues to disturb the peace of Savoy. To show the character of the man, Sir James Graham read a despatch from Mr. Morier, our Minister in Switzerland, dated January, 1834, giving an account of the entrance of an armed band of insurgents into Savoy, under the com-mand of General Romarino, stating that the expe-dition had been prepared under the direction of Mazzini —who appeared, since the murder at Rodez, to have been residing at Geneva—and ascribing the failure of it to the impatience of that individual. Mr. Morier like-wise stated, that after the return to Geneva, the insur-gents attempted another expedition into Savoy, and thereby violated the solemn pledges which they had given to the Governor of Geneva, not to create any further disturbances in that country. He did not think it necessary to follow Mazzini from place to place from the year 1834 to the present time. The date of the warrant issued by him for the opening of his letters was the 1st of March, 1844, and he received a despatch, dated that same day, from Sir Hamilton Seymour, now our Minister at Brussels, stating that the Belgian ' Government had refused one of the Bonapartes permis-sion to reside in Brussels, because the French Govern-ment had connected him with the disturbances in the Papal States. " We understand," added Sir Hamilton, " that Mazzini, the head of these disturbances, is in England. I think that he and his associates are danger-ous adventurers, whose proceedings should be closely watched." His noble friend the Earl of Aberdeen had stated, that the warrant to open Mazzini's letters had not been issued at his desire. He (Sir James Graham) confirmed that statement. The information which he received from time to time convinced him that London, under Mazzini, was made the centre of a great move-ment in Italy, which was likely to endanger the peace of Europe ; therefore it was that he did not shrink from issuing his warrant to open Mazzini's correspondence. If any fault were thus committed, it was his fault, and his alone. He gave the house his most solemn assur-ance that that warrant was not issued by him at the in-stance of any one, much less at the instance of any foreign Minister, but that it was issued in defence of British interests, and of British interests alone. Having issued the warrant he was then merely ministerial. He forwarded to the Earl of Aberdeen a copy of every letter that was opened, and his lordship made such use of the copy as he deemed consistent with his public duty. Adverting to Mr. Shell's question, whether any communication of Mazzini's letters had been made to any other Government than that of Austria, he gave a solemn reply to it in the negative, and then proceeded ing it. He taunted Lord Palmerston with the issue of his motion on the Ashburton "capitulation." and re-minded him that the House had declared that " capitu-lation" not to be inconsistent with the honour and in-terests of Great Britain. With regard to France, he thought it more becoming the rank and character of this country to maintain a temperate tone, than to bluster and storm in an useless and unbecoming manner. If Lord Palmerston thought the conduct of Ministers blameable with respect to either Morocco or Tahiti, why did he not make it the subject of a distinct motion ? Adverting to the right of search, which was rather incon-veniently introduced on the discussion of the navy esti-mates, he observed that it was much to be lamented that a public feeling respecting it had risen up in France, which paralysed all past efforts of both countries to sup-press the slave-trade. If both cordially united in enforcing the treaty conceding the right of search, it would, undoubtedly, be the most efficacious measure for suppressing that trade; but its efficacy must always de-pend upon the cordiality with which the right of search was exercised. There was a disinclination on the part of France to exercise that right. When did it arise? Immediately after the Syrian campaign of 1840, when Lord Palmerston was Minister of Foreign Affairs. After dwelling for some time upon this topic, he proceeded to give a peremptory denial to the assertion that Go-vernment had sacrificed any interest of England in ac-ceding to Lord Ashburton's treaty for settling the North-Western boundary. Government had been at-tacked in this country, and Mr. Webster in the United States, for acceding to that treaty; and if public men were not to be supported by their respective countries in making mutual concessions for the purpose of pro-ducing mutual conciliation, there would be no security for the maintenance of peace. By past moderation the Government would not be prevented from acting with energy whenever the honour of the Crown should render it necessary that energy should be displayed.

them for the future.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion.

After a few words from Mr. Hope, the motion was agreed to.

to notice another of Mr. Shell's observations—that the honour of England was tarnished by intercepting his letters and forwarding them to him re-sealed. He showed that the form of these warrants had remained unchanged for many years, and that, ever since they had been issued, the letters were not stopped, but were forwarded to their address, after copies of them were taken in the Post-office. In confirmation of his riser-, tions on this point, he read the warrants issued by the Duke of Newcastle in 1744, by Mr. Fox in 1782, and by the Marquis of Carmarthen in the same year. He.then contended that in the absence of any power to refuse ad-mission to foreigners, or to remove them in case they; abused the hospitality of this country, he had not be-. trayed, but promoted the public interests, by opening the letters of Mazzini. He was sensitive at all times of the favour and the censure of the house. To receive the' censure of the house, even in the modified form now pro-posed, would be one of the most painful events in his life; but, considering the knowledge which his political op-ponents had of the forms of office, he would rather be the victim of attack in this case than the assailant.

Mr. T. BUNCOMBE declared that a more foul and un-deserved calumny had never been uttered than that which had just been cast upon Mr. Mazzini. Having presented several petitions from him, he was delighted to have an opportunity of setting at rest that foul calumny for ever. He then read an extract from the Westminster Review, containing a refutation of the charge that Mr. Mazzini was connected with the murder at Rodez, and a declaration that the sentence of death against four individuals, said to have been signed by Mazzini, was an impudent forgery, ill-written and ill-spelt, and betraying an ignorance of the Italian language of which so accomplished a writer as Mr. Mazzini could not have been guilty. He showed that Mr. Mazzini had brought an action against an individual at Paris, for publishing this libellous document, which was tried be-fore the Tribunal Correctionnel at Paris, and that that individual met the charge by stating that there were more Mazzinis than one in the world, and that this Mazzini, being a man of high character, could not be the man mentioned in the Moniteur. After complaining that the character of Mr. Mazzini had been whispered away by a noble Lord before the committee, he con-tended that every time this transaction was stirred, the more dark the character of the Government appeared. He had called the report of the committee evasive and unsatisfactory; and what had occurred that evening proved that it was so After pointing out the new de-fence which had that night been set up for the Govern-ment, and after challenging it to grant the inquiry which was demanded, he concluded by stating that he should give his cordial support to the motion.

Mr. WARBURTON asserted that no attack on Mazzini's character relative to the Rodez affair had ever been made before the committee.

The house then divided, when there appeared for the motion :—Ayes, 28; Noes, 52; majority 14. So it passed in the negative.

Select Another