HC Deb 14 March 1864 vol 173 cc1931-9
SIR LAWRENCE PALK

said, he desired to make an inquiry on a matter of great importance to the honour of this country. He could perfectly understand any hon. Member occupying a high and distinguished position in Her Majesty's Government treating with contempt any scurrilous abuse of him that might appear in newspapers of this or any other country; but when a grave charge had been made against the honour of England, or the honour of Her Majesty's Government, by a high official of a friendly nation, it could not be supposed that a communication had not been instantly made to the Government of that nation, that the assertion had not been at once met by an official contradiction, and that proof of a convincing nature as to the falsity of the charge had not accompanied the communication. He therefore could not believe for one moment but that communications had passed between the Government of the Queen and the Government of the Emperor of the French as to the statement made on the occasion of the late State trials in France by the Procureur Général. In hip opinion, no charge so repugnant to the feelings of the English nation could be brought against any member of our community as that an Englishman—he cared not of what political opinions—had directly or indirectly, by word or deed, by writing or expression, instigated or promoted assassination. He was sure Her Majesty's Government had availed themselves of the opportunity afforded them by the public statement to which he had referred to vindicate the honour of the country, and to show that the assertion made by the Procureur General was utterly and entirely devoid of all truth. He hoped Her Majesty's Government had gone even further, and had shown that there could not have been any possible ground for a suspicion that the charge had any foundation, and that they had likewise assured the French Government that no accusation could be more abhorrent to and more worthy of the contempt of all Englishmen, than that any one of them could, directly or indirectly, be guilty of employing people to become assassins. He wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any Correspondence had passed between Her Majesty's Government and that of the Emperor of the French with reference to the statement made on the occasion of the late trials in Paris by the Procureur Général; and whether there was any objection to lay such Correspondence (if any) upon the table?

MR. LAYARD

The hon. Baronet says it is necessary that the honour of the country should be vindicated in a matter of this nature. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think that the dignified way of vindicating the honour of this country in a matter of the kind is to treat such an accusation against a Member of this House and of the Government, coming from the public prosecutor, with the contempt it deserves. I am sure there is no man in England, and no man in France acquainted with England—and there is no one better acquainted with her than the exalted personage who now reigns in France—who is not convinced that the charge made against his hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) must of itself be utterly false. It would be unworthy of Her Majesty's Government to take notice of such a charge, and the course we have pursued is to take no notice of it. Therefore no communication has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Emperor of the French, nor is intended to be made, on the subject.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

Has any communication on the subject been made by the French Government to the English Government?

MR. LAYARD

None whatever.

MR. HENNESSY

acquiesced in the assertion just made by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that no gentleman in this country, no Member of the Government, and no Member of that House, would be guilty of the charge made against a certain person by the Procureur General; but as the doctrines of M. Mazzini had been made the subject of comment in Parliament on more than one occasion, he thought the House might pause to inquire what really was the policy of M. Mazzini on the subject of assassination, and whether that policy had been promulgated in England. He held in his hand a work published by Holyoake and Co., of Fleet Street, entitled, Mazzini's Letters to Daniel Manin. The latter was President of the Republic of Venetia in 1848, and in a letter which had been published in The Times, he had accused the Mazzini party of encouraging assassination. In a letter, entitled On the Theory of the Dagger, Mazzini, replying to him, said— And as if to substantiate beforehand such an accusation, and allow others to suppose a powerful secret organization for murder to exist—you speak repeatedly of the courage needed to write your letter. Courage! You well knew that by declaiming against the dagger you will obtain, without the smallest shadow of risk, the name of the most moral among all the leaders of Italy, from all those who, secure beneath the shelter of their national flag, secure in the exercise of their rights, secure in a well organized national justice, coldly judge the irregular and convulsive efforts of an uneducated and oppressed people, who have no hope left save in a bloody struggle, and no tribunal to establish the balance of justice between them and those who tyrannize over them. Again, he observed— If your oppressors have disarmed you, create arms to combat them; make weapons of the iron of your crosses, the nails of your workshops, the stones of your streets, the daggers you can shape from your workmen's files. Snatch by artifice and by surprise those arms by which the foreigner takes from you your honour, your property, your rights, and your life. From the dagger of the Vespers, to the stone of Balilla and the knife of Palafox, blessed be in your hands every weapon that can destroy the enemy and set you free. This language is mine, and it should be yours. The weapon that slew Mincovich in your arsenal initiated that insurrection of which you accepted the direction in Venice. It was a weapon of irregular warfare, like that which three months before the Republic destroyed the Minister Rossi in Rome. But if, by the theory of the dagger, you mean the language of those who would say to our fellow-citizens 'Strike—not to initiate the insurrection, but merely to wound; and, because you cannot or will not arise, strike in the dark isolated individuals whose life or death forms no obstacle to the salvation of their country; substitute the revenge which degrades for the conspiracy which emancipates; make of yourselves a tribunal before you are even citizens, and without giving your victims time for repentance or exculpation.' Who utters such language—who has disseminated in Italy this atrocious theory? It is your duty to declare this, or retract the accusation. He closed another paragraph in these words— In the culpable indifference of governmental Europe to an idea of country and an immense aspiration nourished by a people, and forcibly restrained for more than half' a century—in this state of things is the true source of the theory of the dagger. Then he went on to give his idea of the true source of the theory of the dagger— The Government of France, by shutting up the path of progress in Rome—that the Protestant English Government, by declaring in its despatches its desire for the return of the Pope-that all the European Governments, by forbidding Italy to become a nation—are responsible before God and man for the daggers that glitter amid the darkness in our land. Then he went on to say— To the men who are suffering under the knife of the executioner, 'Use not the knife in your turn,' is the same thing as to say to a man dying in an atmosphere of pestilence, 'Let your blood flow calmly through your veins—cure yourself.' It is a similar error to that of the worthy men who would refrain from initiating Republican institutions until those born and educated under a Monarchical despotism have acquired the virtues of Republicans. Then he dwelt on the fact of the dagger— The fact of the dagger will disappear whenever Italy shall have a life of her own, her rights recognized, and justice done to her. A little further he went on to say— I abhor the shedding of a single drop of blood when not absolutely necessary to the triumph or consecration of a holy principle. There are exceptional moments in the life and history of nations, not to be judged by the normal rules of human justice, and in which the actors can only receive inspiration from their conscience and from God. This was the last passage he would quote— Sacred in the hand of Judith is the sword that took the life of Holofernes; sacred was the dagger which Harmodius encircled with roses; sacred was the dagger of Brutus; sacred the stiletto of the Sicilian who began the Vespers; sacred the arrow of Tell. Whenever justice is extinct, and a single tyrant cancels through terror, and denies the conscience of a people, and the God who willed them free—if a man, pure from hatred and every baser passion, arises, in the religion of country, and in the name of the eternal right incarnate within him, and says to him, 'Thou torturest millions of my brothers; thou withholdest from them that which God has decreed theirs; thou destroyest their bodies, and corruptest their souls; through thee my country dies a lingering death; thou art the keystone of an entire edifice of slavery, dishonour, and wrong; I overthrow that edifice by destroying thee;'—I recognize in that manifestation of tremendous equality between the tyrant of millions and a single individual the finger of God. Most men feel in their hearts as I do. I express it. Such was Mazzini's description of his own opinions, and certainly it was clear enough. The English public were indebted to a Minister of the Crown for a description of the character of Mazzini, which he would read to the House. A late Prime Minister of the King of Sardinia—Farini— had written a book entitled The Roman States, which had been translated by a Member of the present Cabinet, and in it was this passage— For the sect of Mazzini, which incessantly rails at diplomatic finesse, has itself too its own artifices, its own political tricks, and this is one of them, to exasperate the temper of men, and communicate to them the impulse which desperation and the fear of punishment impart, in their phrase to compromise as many as possible, and then 'once done is well done;' but in our time there are few who are disposed to play desperate games, and the satellites of Mazzini, aware of this, threw themselves into the midst of a class habituated to faction, and make common cause with assassins. The English public were indebted to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer for that description of the character of Mazzini. That these were the real opinions of Mazzini had never been disavowed, and it was therefore with some surprise that the country had heard the speeches recently made by two Ministers of the Crown. One of them in that House almost praised Mazzini, and affirmed his belief that he had never countenanced assassination; and the other, in the other House, though he did not go so far, said that he had done nothing in this country which could lead the Government to believe that he entertained such principles. He (Mr. Hennessy) thought it was important to remember that this pamphlet was published in London just before the first attack on the Emperor of the French. He wished to divest what be had said from the least semblance of an attack on the hon. Member for Halifax, and still more anxious not to renew the unpleasant personal question which had occupied the House on a former evening. He felt convinced that the hon. Member was not only personally convinced of the accuracy of all he had stated; but, looking to the great effect which a man of Mazzini's genius must exercise upon those with whom he came in contact, he believed the hon. Member had been made his dupe in this instance.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not think the observations and speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) would be considered by the public as adding to the dignity of the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward a charge against an absent man, who, whatever his faults, was a man of high character, and against whom a charge had been made by a foreign Government, which the hon. and learned Member himself did not say that he believed to be well founded, and which in the opinion of men of all parties was not well founded. He believed it was the General opinion that Mazzini was not implicated in any plot for the purpose of assassinating the Emperor of the French, and that if there was any plot in the matter it was got up to implicate him. The effect of the hon. and learned Member's speech would be, that whenever there was a prosecution the fact of such a charge having been made would be quoted in the House of Commons, and it would be said that Mazzini was guilty, because, in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, he was capable of assassination. It was not making a right use of that House, to read from a pamphlet published some years ago to found a charge against Mazzini, and from which it would be supposed that he countenanced the crime of assassination. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really believed Mazzini to be guilty, let him call upon the Government openly to prosecute him: if he did not, he ought not to make such charges out of a pamphlet written a long time ago, which might contain some foolish things which none of them would approve, but of which they could not judge unless they had the whole of it before them. He hoped that the licence of discussion enjoyed within those walls would not be made use of to help charges made by a foreign Government against any man, however enthusiastic or however mistaken he might be in some matters.

MR. GRANT DUFF

said, it did not lie in his mouth to defend M. Mazzini, much less to defend assassination, but he rose to say that he regretted to see the House of Commons made involuntarily to act a part in a gigantic hypocrisy. The hon. and learned Gentleman naturally detested Mazzini, because, in spite of his many faults and shortcomings, he more than any other man had kept alive in evil times the great idea of Italian unity. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, who came down to attack Mazzini, was himself the principal advocate of a movement which had relied more upon assassination than any other movement in the history of the world. The Polish movement, with which to a certain extent he sympathized, had disgraced itself by relying on assassination. General Mouravieff personally informed him on the 1st of January last that up to that time 804 persons in his district had been murdered by the insurrectionary Government—that, of course, had no reference to those who had been killed in skirmishes—and on the 4th of January General Berg told him, that in his district 940 persons had been murdered in the same way. He knew that the names of Mouravieff and Berg were justly unpopular in this country, but notwithstanding this he offered the personal word of these two men—men of high position in Europe—as to these facts, and he would place that in opposition to anything which might be brought forward on the other side. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman really dislike assassination, or was it merely all assassination except that in the good old cause in which Ravaillae and Balthasar Gerard acted?

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I think the observations of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) ought not to pass altogether unnoticed. He has drawn the attention of the House away from the question before it, and the position which he has laid down is one which the House of Commons ought not to recognize. It is the right of the House of Commons, and it ought to be its duty when necessary, to observe on the conduct of absent men. It certainly is not necessary that M. Mazzini should be a Member of this House to give us a right to comment on his conduct. I thought that the remark made the other night by the Prime Minister went nearly to the root of all Parliamentary criticism, when he described comments made on a Minister of the Crown who happens to have a seat in the other House of Parliament as an attack upon an absent man. We are now advancing in that theory, and, according to the doctrine of the hon. Member for Bradford, there is not a foreign Potentate or a Foreign Minister whose conduct we can call in question—because he has not a seat in this House. But it is too absurd to notice, and it is not for that purpose I rose. What I want to call the attention of the House to is the real point under consideration. They seem to have forgotten the case which called upon my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) to make some observations. What did occur was this. Some nights ago, when this question was brought before the House, and the conduct of a gentleman, a Member of the Administration, was impugned for his supposed intimacy with M. Mazzini and his possible connection with assassins, that Gentleman, sitting next to the Prime Minister, rose, and announcing himself as a Minister of the Crown, and thereby giving due solemnity to any statement which he might make to the House, repudiated in most indignant language that he could be connected with assassins; and, avowing at the same time long intimacy and perfect friendship with Mazzini, also declared that M. Mazzini was incapable of such advice, conduct, or suggestion. Well, Sir, the affair at the moment terminated. But it certainly was in the power of my hon. and learned Friend to show to the House that the statement of this Minister of the Crown was unfounded. His statement was based upon an avowed intimacy of seventeen years, and the Minister of the Crown declared that M. Mazzini was one who would not tolerate principles which sanctioned assassination. My hon. and learned Friend was conscious that there were public documents which show that M. Mazzini, on political and philosophic principles, is not only the votary and advocate, but the great promoter of assassination. After the statement which my hon. and learned Friend made to the House the other night, I think he only does that which is due to the House when he vindicates that statement, and shows—as he has shown in a complete manner—that he was justified in the observations which he then made. And I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk) should have addressed a question to the Government, which has been answered in so unsatisfactory a manner. These are grave matters. Here is a plot to assassinate a neighbouring Sovereign, who still, we believe, is an intimate ally of this country. A Member of the Government—a Minister of the Crown—who by his own admission is at least the friend of Mazzini, if not the correspondent of Greco, rises and gives a character to M. Mazzini which it is in the power, as has been shown to-night, of any one who obtains authentic information to prove has no foundation whatever in fact. He acknowledges his long intimacy with M. Mazzini, and he says at the same time, from his personal observation of M. Mazzini's character, he is convinced M. Mazzini is incapable of entertaining those odious opinions. Well! it speaks very little for the knowledge of human nature possessed by a Minister of the Crown, and very little for his power of observation, if, having for seventeen years been intimate with this well-known character, he believes him to be incapable of opinions which he has so elaborately and consistently vindicated, and on every occasion circulated and defended. I think these are very grave circumstances. We have the admission that a Member of the Administration is the intimate friend of one who professes this organized system of assassination, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire was perfectly justified in making the inquiry of Her Majesty's Government, and that the House, the country, and other countries, will deem the answer of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs most unsatisfactory.