RESIGNATION OF MR. STANSFELD. (Hansard, 4 April 1864)

§ MR. STANSFELD

(who sat on the second bench below the gangway on the Ministerial side of the House) said, Sir, I crave the indulgence of the House while I offer some explanations of a personal character; and in order to admit of discussion, if discussion be desired, on the subject with which I have to deal, I shall conclude by moving the adjournment of the House. Since the House last sat I have taken a step which the place from which I speak will have already sufficiently indicated to the House. I have felt it to be my duty to send in my resignation to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. The House will recollect that upon a former occasion I tendered that resignation, and that the noble Lord refused to accept it. I thank the noble Lord for the implicit credence which he gave to the statements that I made to him and to the House, and I thank him likewise for the courage he showed upon a former occasion in standing by me. But, Sir, there are occasions on which, I think, it becomes a man to consult his own conscience and his own sense of right as to the course which he should adopt, and the present appears to me to have been one of those occasions. I have become convinced, from what I have seen, heard, and read, that I have ceased to be—if I could ever believe myself to have been—any accession to the strength of Her Majesty's Government, and that I have become—or, at any rate, I have reason to fear I may have become—a source of difficulty and a cause of embarrassment to them^*. Under those cir- 397 cumstances, I felt—as I am sure every honourable man would feel—that it was for me, and not for others, to take upon myself the responsibility of saying that I could not, by any possibility, consent to be an enduring cause of embarrassment to a Government which I desired to support. There is another reason which has induced me to resign my appointment, and which the House will perhaps allow mo to state. The House will remember that on the first occasion, when the subject (which I need not name) was discussed here, fault was found with me for dealing too seriously, or, as it was said, in a tone of too much indignation, with a speech of the late Procureur Général of France. Now, Sir, after what has happened—after the speech of the successor of that late Procureur—I do not think any person will repeat that blame. I think the House will agree with me that I was fully justified in the inter prctation which I put upon the animus of that discourse. The attack having been renewed, I have to say to the Government and to the House, with all respect, that I prefer to meet it here alone rather than on that bench sheltered beneath the protecting aegis of the noble Lord. I desire to say a few words on the present occasion, because the House will understand that nothing can be more important to one of its Members than his relations with the general body. It has been said that I slid not originally deal candidly with the House. Nothing could by possibility be — I mean in the sense of being mistaken—more unjust. I do not wish to say it by way of boast, but I do think that among my faults a want of courage to avow my own opinions, or to accept the responsibility of any act of mine past or present, is not one which any Member of this House could seriously lay to my charge. The explanation of that which may have appeared at first to be want of candour—for on occasions like the present almost any misunderstanding is possible — must be extremely simple to those who believe what I say. I felt, with respect to the speech of the Procureur, as I have already stated to the House. I then defended a personal friend of mine from an accusation of which I believed—of which I still believe—him to be unjustly the object. Some questions were then put to me by hon. Members. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) explained afterwards, the House evidently had a disinclination that those questions should be addressed to 398 me; I think there was a feeling that, though it might not be so intended, it might bear the aspect of something like a Parliamentary cross-examination for the purpose of eliciting evidence for a criminal trial in a foreign court. I assure the House it was solely because such seemed to me to be the general feeling that at the moment I did not offer the distinct and explicit explanation which I submitted on a subsequent occasion. Now, I wish to look hack and consider honestly what were my motives at the time I spoke. I think there was another motive. I felt it to be due to M. Mazzini, and I may say that I also felt it was due to myself, that from him first should come public statements and explanations as to the use to which he, and not I, had put my house, which had been more or less at his disposal as an address. That was another reason for my not then having made the statement which I subsequently made: and I think it will be an answer to the imputation which I have heard—I think in this House—that that explanation was dragged from me by the letter of Bignor Mazzini published in The Times newspaper. Now, I wish to offer a word in reference to what I said about M, Mazzini. I said that from long and intimate personal relationship with him I believed him, in fact I knew him to be, incapable, of this kind of low and odious criminality which is laid to bis charge, and I now repeat that statement. And I would ask the House at least to allow me to say that I refuse to abandon the hope that in some calmer moments of the future to which I look, some perhaps of those who now hear me may cast their thoughts back to this night, and say that that man's testimony could not have been worthless, who gave the pledges which I have given of the sincerity of his convictions. Now let me state to the House, not at too great length, but with the greatest frankness, the nature of my relations with Signer Mazzini, and with the cause with which his name is connected, and to which his life has been devoted. I have long been personally and intimately associated with him. I have long had a very deep general sympathy with that which has been the object of his life—the unity and independence of Italy. If I am asked whether I have always agreed with the methods which have seemed to him wisest from time to time to achieve or progress towards that end, why, Sir, I should have to give the answer which may easily be anticipated— 399 that I have sometimes agreed with them, and that at other times I may have thought his views, his practical views, were less wise than they were sanguine and giving evidence of a great and strong hope. But that is not the question which has been raised in this ease. The speeches of the two French Procureurs point distinctly, not only to his implication, but—let there be no mistake about the matter—they suggest my implication—at least as far as some kind of knowledge is concerned—in plots against the life of the French Emperor. Now, statements of that kind are to be met in two ways—general and specific. I will deal with those statements first generally, hut completely, in the most explicit manner; and I would desire to use the plainest language which the forms of this House permit me to use. I say, then, that every insinuation of that nature is untrue; and I put it to the House, to those who may care to consider it, to look into the evidence upon which those speeches have been based, and to say whether, in their opinion, any honest man could upon that evidence have ventured to come to the conclusion that such insinuations could be put forth with any show or any pretence of truth. I come next to specific matters. Without detaining the House too long, I will deal with certain names, because, after all, the question seems to be what I have known of certain persons implicated in those French criminal proceedings. Now, the first name is that of Greco. I think I have already stated to the House that I never heard his name, that I neither knew of his existence, nor of the names or the existence of any of his supposed accomplices, until I saw in the newspapers, as every other Member of this House saw, the account of their arrest. Can anything be more explicit than that? I will go back to the year 1857—to the Tibaldi case. I cannot venture to say that I never saw Tibaldi, but I am utterly unconscious of ever having seen him. I have seen too many Italian refugees to be able to say that I have never seen this man or that man, or to pretend to remember the names of all the men I have ever seen; but I can say this, that I never saw any man, call him Tibaldi or call him by any other name, who in 1857 ventured to come near me to suggest the notion of plots like this. Two other names have been mentioned in connection with the affair of 1857—one of them is the name of Massarenti. I knew him very well. He was famous in re- 400 lation to the small commerce carried on by Italians in this city. He lived in the neighbourhood of Hatton Garden, and dealt in maccaroni and Italian pastes. He has certainly received money from me, but only in the shape of very moderate payments for the goods in which he dealt. The second name is Campanella, who, I believe, was condemned at the trial in 1857. I knew him well. He was a gentleman and a scholar, a student, almost a recluse. He was a man utterly incapable of soiling his fingers in dirt of this kind. And I know as a fact—because the House is perfectly aware that these things have been the subject of talk in France, Italy, and England—I pledge my knowledge of that man to the House, and I do him this act of justice to-night, when I say that he was one who expressed his utter contempt for plots of this description. Two extracts have been given of alleged letters, of which the House will understand that if they be genuine I am prepared to take the whole responsibility that may attach to them. I do not know—it is impossible for me, or for any one connected with me, to say—whether those extracts are genuine or not; but I will say this, that there is nothing in them that I have the slightest desire to deny. As far as I can judge, they may be genuine extracts of letters, which, by means to which I will not further refer, came into the possession of the French authorities. What do these extracts prove? The extract from the first letter proves nothing except the relation of friendship which I have admitted, and which it is perfectly well known has long subsisted between Signer Mazzini and myself. What is the purport of the second extract? It states that a remittance has been received, and will be applied according to instructions. Now, it is said that this House is not a court of justice, but, at least, it is a court of honour; and we speak here upon our honour. The House will believe me when I say that I am utterly unable, and those with whom I am connected by family tics are utterly unable, to imagine or recollect to what that passage—if it be a veritable passage—refers, But this I am enabled to assert, that it did not refer, because it could not refer—for that would imply knowledge—it did not refer to anything that would not bear' the test of the closest examination; and that, as far as I can judge, upon my honour and upon my conscience, I believe it must have referred either to some mere private transaction or 401 to the distribution of some probably moderate or trifling sum for a charitable purpose. Sir, I trust that I have now made an explanation which will not he unsatisfactory to the House. I have only to add that if any doubts remain upon the minds of any hon. Members, I not only am ready but I invite them to give expression to those doubts, and to enable me at once completely to satisfy them and to answer any questions which they may have to put to me. Meanwhile I leave this subject, and I throw myself upon the House, and I may add upon my countrymen, with reference to a question in which is involved that which is every man's clearest inheritance — an unblemished character and a fair name.