HC Deb 07 May 1845 vol 80 cc234-9
Mr. Bouverie

said, that five or six weeks ago the right hon. Member for Dungarvon had brought on a Motion expressive of the regret of the House at the letters of foreigners having been opened in the Post Office of this country. In the debate which then ensued, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had rested the defence of Government for having so opened the letters of Mr. Mazzini on the character of that person; and the right hon. Baronet had made a charge against Mr. Mazzini which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to substantiate at the time, and which he had not yet withdrawn. A charge of the kind was one which should, under no circumstances, be made against any man, anywhere except in a court of law, for the purpose of furthering the ends of justice. But in this place, especially, where the privileges of the House protected a Member from that responsibility to the law which making such a charge in another place would subject him to, he did think that no possible condition of circumstances could justify a private Member of the House, much less a Member holding the station and wielding the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, in bringing forward an accusation of the sort in question against any individual whatever. By a mere constitutional action it was supposed that such charges so made were not published, yet the very morning afterwards many thousand copies of newpapers scattered the slander over every part of the country, and every part of the world—slander, too, stamped in this case with the authority of a Secretary of State and a Minister of the Crown. He looked upon the case in question totally irrespective of the evidence by which the charge was sought to be substantiated; for he thought that no hon. Member was authorized, either in fairness or in justice, to bring such a charge, in such a place, against any individual whatever. But so far as the evidence was concerned, the only testimony which the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to adduce was an anonymous statement in a French newspaper. The right hon. Baronet promised to substantiate that statement by certain documents, copies of which were to be placed in the hands of Members of the House; but the only documents of the kind yet received were those which he now held in his hand> and in which there was contained not one iota of evidence to substantiate the charge. Under these circumstances, he thought that the right hon. Baronet opposite would be willing handsomely and fairly to withdraw the charge which the right hon. Gentleman had made against Mr. Mazzini. He had no acquaintance personally with that gentleman—he never saw him; but he felt that there were great principles of justice and fairness which every man, however exalted in rank, should apply to any individual, however, humble. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman only reflected for a moment upon the horrible nature of the imputation thrown upon Mr. Mazzini, and the suspicions raised with respect to him, the right hon. Gentleman would own that he had been hardly justified by the facts in making the charge. He might state with respect to Mr. Mazzini, that a Foreign Government had communicated to a friend of that Gentleman, a Member of the House, the fact that they had carefully investigated the charge in question, and found not a shadow of evidence to support it. He, therefore, put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, under all the circumstances of the case, he would not be acting most fairly and justly in retracting the accusation which he had brought forward.

Sir James Graham

The hon. Member who has just sat down gave me notice, in a private note, yesterday, that he meant to put the question to me with which he has just concluded. I am sorry that the hon. Member has not confined himself to merely putting that question; but it does so happen, that even had it not been put at all, it would have been my duty this night to have made a statement to the House upon the subject. I think that it was upon Monday last, that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and the hon. Member for Finsbury communicated with me in private in reference to this matter and I stated to them, what was then strictly true, that I was not at that time in a condition to make a statement which would be satisfactory either to them or to Mr. Mazzini himself. In consequence of a question put to me by the hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring), however, I did think it my duty, in regard to truth and justice, to institute—through my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—an inquiry in a quarter from which I thought I would be most likely to obtain correct information upon the subject. That inquiry I did institute; and, until yesterday, the information which I received, so far from shaking my impression as to Mr. Mazzini's guilt, tended rather to confirm it. Not yet satisfied, however, with the quarter from which these inquiries were directed, I was particularly anxious that the Judge who presided at the trial of Gavioli before the Cour d'Assizes of Avignon, in 1833, and the public prosecutor who officiated upon that occasion, should be consulted, and at my request these individuals have been written to. Now, I did not until two o'clock yesterday afternoon receive the answer of these gentlemen; and, if there had been a House yesterday, it, was my intention to have made voluntarily the statement which it is now my duty to enter into in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman has referred to what occurred when I made the original statement in my place; and those hon. Members who may now be present, and who then did me the honour of listening to what fell from me, will remember that when I came to that part of my statement as to the conduct of Mr. Mazzini now under question, I observed, with reference to the newspaper which I then referred to, that the information I was quoting rested not upon official authority, and was not, therefore, so well entitled to implicit confidence as would be a statement of a nature better authenticated; and to this point I especially begged the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, who replied to me, did mention a circumstance, which, until he stated it, was entirely unknown to me, namely, that Mr. Mazzini, in the year 1840, had brought an action against M. Gisquèt, a French ex-prefect of police, for having in a then recent publication repeated the slander; and to a certain extent he succeeded in that action. Now, I do not on the present occasion seek to open any other ground of accusation, or to refer to any matter other than the particular transaction to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock has referred. He has stated that in the Papers which I have caused to be presented to the House, there exists no recognition or corroboration whatever of the statement which I quoted in the charge resting on the authority of the Moniteur. I think that the hon. Gentleman has not looked very attentively over the Papers referred to, or he would have observed the letter from Sir Augustus Foster, the Minister at Turin, to the noble Lord the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in which there is a distinct recognition of the statement in question. But I will not dwell on these points. I will at once proceed to state, as I am bound to do, that the account which I received yesterday, setting forth the statement of the Judge who tried Gavioli, and of the public prosecutor at that trial, in answer to inquiries put to them—an account which is explicit, full, and direct—expressly declares that in that trial no evidence whatever was adduced which inculpated Mr. Mazzini in the matter. I am bound, therefore, to state the fact, that if I had been aware when I made the original statement of the trial of I Gisquèt, mentioned by the hon. Member I for Finsbury—much more, if I had known I at that time what were the impressions of the Judge and the public prosecutor—undoubtedly the best authorities in the matter with respect to the trial of Gavioli, so far from making the statement which I did make, I would most religiously have abstained from noticing the matter. The statement, however, was made by me; and (going forth to the public) it has been injurious to the character of Mr. Mazzini. Knowing, then, the facts which I have stated to the House—facts which were unknown to me until yesterday — I have thought it due to Mr. Mazzini to make to him the only reparation in my power, namely, to take care that the retractation of the charge should be made as publicly as was the accusation. I hope, Sir, that what I have said will be considered satisfactory.

Mr. T. Duncombe

was sure that no Gentleman would wish an hon. Member, to make a apology or retract an accusation unless that hon. Member were satisfied in his own mind that the individual injured deserved to have that apology or retractation made to them. He, therefore, thought that the right hon. Gentleman was right not to have apologised until he had been so satisfied. He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had had reason to complain of the persons who had placed in his hand the newspaper, the Moniteur, from which he had quoted, knowing, as those persons must have done, that the statement in question was a gross fabrication. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had received the Moniteur from persons connected with the French embassy here, who could not but have known that there had been a public refutation of the calumny contained in it. The opinion of the Judge who had presided at the trial in 1841 might have been received from Paris a week after the accusation had been made. Nothing could be clearer than the total acquittal of Mr. Mazzini from any participation in the crime in question. As to the assassination at Rodez, Gavioli was alone found guilty, and sentenced to travaux forces, and he understood that Gavioli had afterwards murdered his gaoler. He was, however, the only person concerned in the first crime, for which he was condemned. The statement which they had just heard would be most satisfactory, not only to Mr. Mazzini; but to all his countrymen, exiles in England, and he would also add, on his own behalf, that had he not been in his own mind perfectly satisfied of Mr. Mazzini's innocence, he would never have introduced his name to the House; for Mr. Mazzini would not only, in such a case, have been unworthy of the consideration of the House, but most unworthy of that friendship and hospitality which it was now his happiness and honour to enjoy.

Sir James Graham

observed that the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his explanation came rather late. Now, he was most anxious that the House should do him the justice to believe that it was made at the very first moment at which he could by any possibility bring it forward. He was in possession of a letter from Lord Cowley, the British Ambassador at Paris, dated May 2, containing the answer of the Judge who tried Gavioli, and which answer had been sent by the Minister of the Interior to Lord Cowley, by whom it had not been received until the 1st of May. Lord Cowley's letter was dated the next day, the 2nd of May. He also held in his hand a note from his noble Friend the Secretary for the Foreign Department, observing that the Papers received yesterday from Lord Cowley, copies of which he enclosed to him, were of a different tendency from those formerly communicated to the embassy at Paris, by the prefect of police. Had the House sat yesterday, he assured them that he would have lost not a moment in bringing the matter under their notice.

Mr. T. Duncombe

had not intended to impute any unnecessary delay to the right hon. Gentleman.

Subject at an end.