Sitting of 1 April 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Private.—2o. Winwick Rectory; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Port; Newcastle-upon-Tyne and North Shields Railway (Tynemouth Extension, &c.); Nottingham Inclosure; Greenwich Colliery Railway.
3o. and passed:—Birkenhead (Commissioners') Docks.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. G. Hamilton, and Mr. Lefroy, from several places, for Encouragement to Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Mr. Disraeli, Col. T. Wood, and Mr. M. Gore, from several places, for better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Colonel Acton, Dr. Bowring, Mr. Brotherton, Sir J. Y. Buller, Mr. Disraeli, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Loch, Mr. George Palmer, Mr. Strutt, Colonel T. Wood, and Mr. S. Wortley, from a great number of places, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from the Dean and Chapter of St. Peter, Exeter, against Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from the Torquay Anti-Slavery Society, against the Importation of Hill Coolies into the Colonies.—By Mr. Loch, from Justices of the Peace of the County of Sutherland, against the Duty on Auctioneers' Licenses.—By Mr. W. Patten, from Warrington, against Reduction of Duty on Leather.—By Mr. T. Egerton, from Handforth, against, and Mr.
1316
T. Duncombe, from several places, in favour of the Calico Print Works Bill.—By Mr. H. Berkeley, from Llansant-Ffraid yn Mechain, in favour of the County Courts Bill.—By Mr. Cowper, from Alford, in favour of the Field Gardens Bill.—By Mr. Strutt, from Guardians of the Derby Union, for Sanatory Regulations.—By Mr. W. Ellis, from Leicester, and Sir John Johnston, from Scarborough, in favour of Museums of Art Bill.—By Mr. G. Palmer, and Mr. E. Yorke, from Guardians of the Epping Union, and Cambridge, against, and by Sir J. Lowther, and Mr. Strutt, from Guardians of the York, and Derby Unions, for Alteration of Parochial Settlement Bill.—By Visct. Duncan, from Bath, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Mr. Bellew, from several places, against Alteration of Poor Relief (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Tancred, and Mr. M. Gore, from a great number of places, for Diminishing the number of Public Houses.—By Mr. M. Gore, from the Somersetshire Coal Navigation Company, for Regulating Railway Charges.—By Lord Hallyburton, Mr. C. Hope, and Mr. Loch, from several places, for Ameliorating the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Mr. Kemble, from Christchurch and Kennington, for Redemption of Tolls on Waterloo and other Bridges.

QUARANTINE LAWS
Dr. Bowringsaid, it was in the recollection of the House, that during last Session it was resolved that measures should be taken to modify the quarantine system, and that such steps should be adopted as would lessen the grievances which the commercial world laboured under, both at home and abroad. Now, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet what had been done to carry out the wish of the House on that subject?
Sir George Clerksaid, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, he should beg leave to refer him to the statement made by his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade at the time the subject was formerly before the House. His right hon. Friend had at that time informed the House that Her Majesty's Government had entered into negotiations both with the Governments of France and of Austria for the purpose of inducing them to make such relaxations in their quarantine laws as would be most advantageous to the commercial interests of their respective countries. On the part of France he believed no objection had been offered; but the Government of Austria wished in the first instance to have a Report on the subject from medical officers appointed by themselves. So reasonable a proposition could not be objected to; but as yet no final reply had been received from the Austrian Government on the subject.

KENTISH COAST RAILWAY—BOARD OF TRADE.
Viscount Howickwished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the

1317
Vice President of the Board of Trade, to an advertisement which appeared in several of the papers a few days past, as follows:—
"Kentish Coast Railway.—The promoters of this undertaking beg to inform the shareholders and all parties interested in the line, that the Report of the Board of Trade, published in last night's Gazette, has come upon them with the greatest surprise, inasmuch as they were awaiting an appointment (according to an arrangement with that Board) for a personal interview by deputation, for the purpose of presenting and explaining certain essential documents, and without which appointment, and in the absence of which documents, the Board have decided.
"The promoters do not for a moment desire to cast the slightest imputation on the Board of Trade, the oversight on whose part in omitting to make the expected appointment, they believe to have arisen in the great pressure of business, and the lamented indisposition of a Member of the Board, with whom communication had previously been held.
"The promoters have, however, the satisfaction to state that they have to-day had an interview at the Board of Trade, and they have the pleasure to announce that the line, with the full information of the documents referred to, will be forthwith submitted to the fullest consideration of the Earl of Dalhousie and the Board of Trade, not with a view to any further notice in the Gazette, but to a Report to Parliament.
"The promoters beg to acknowledge at the same time the polite consideration shown them at the Board at their interview to-day, and in the expression of regret which they received at the unfortunate occurrence referred to.
"EDWARD RICHARD,
Secretary.
"New Broad-street, Tuesday afternoon,"
From this statement it would seem that the Board of Trade had decided upon this railway without having had before them all the documents prepared by the promoters of the Bill, and without that interview by deputation which they had been led to expect. What he wanted to know was, whether that statement was true, and whether the Board of Trade had so decided? and were they now about to reconsider their decision?
Sir G. Clerksaid, the terms of the advertisement to which the noble Lord had referred, did not contain a correct account of the circumstances connected with this railway. If any mistake had arisen with regard to the announcement of the decision of the Board of Trade on the subject of that particular railroad, it must have arisen entirely on the part of the railway
1318
company. It was not the practice of the Board of Trade to request personal interviews with the promoters of railways; but the system pursued had been this: The Board required the parties promoting a railway to send in the fullest documentary evidence, detailing the advantages to be derived from the scheme of which they were the promoters. In a great many instances these parties had requested to be allowed to have a personal conference with the Board of Trade, for the purpose of elucidating many points which documentary evidence could not fully and clearly explain. The Board of Trade had always expressed themselves ready to receive all parties; and he believed the promoters of this railway applied for a personal interview on the 6th of January last. They were, however, informed, that upon that particular day it was not convenient for the Board of Trade to have a conference with them; and a subsequent day, he believed the 22d of January, was accordingly named. On the 21st of that month, however, the solicitor for the promoters of this scheme called at the Board of Trade, and stated that it was impossible for the parties to attend on the 22nd; but that gentleman did not, at the time, make any request to have any further day named, or the Board of Trade would have been perfectly ready to receive them. The Board of Trade waited till the last moment before giving its decision, but no subsequent application for an interview was made by the promoters of this line. It would be remembered that the Board of Trade had intimated to the House and the public that they should be prepared to give their decision upon the majority of railway schemes before them by a particular day. The House would recollect that the Board of Trade had all the documentary evidence which the promoters of this scheme considered essential to their case before it; but it appeared from the advertisement that they had some further documentary evidence, which the solicitor had not presented to the Board of Trade, thinking that it would be asked for by the Board before they agreed to their Report. The Board of Trade, however, had had sufficient facts before it to enable it to come to a decision upon the question; and the result of its decision was announced in the Gazette of last Friday. Subsequently, the solicitor called at the Board of Trade, and expressed his regret and

1319
surprise that the Board had not had an opportunity of considering certain documents. There was no doubt the solicitor was informed that the fullest consideration would be given to these documents if he deposited them with the Board; and he had not the least doubt that if these documents contained important information upon the question—which, however, was not very likely, or they would not have been held back—his noble Friend at the head of the Railway Department, and the Board itself, would not only give them the fullest consideration, but, if they contained sufficient grounds to induce the Board to alter its decision, the Board would not have the slightest hesitation in doing so. But he must candidly tell the House that he did not think these documents would disclose such information as to induce the Board of Trade to come to a different decision to that which had already been announced. If any misapprehension had arisen, it was on the part of the promoters of the railway, and not on the part of that Department of the Board of Trade. Nor could they complain that no intimation had been given to them that further evidence was required; because it was left to them to request an interview, which they had neglected. It was clear, therefore, that no blame could be attached to the Board of Trade. The Report, detailing the reasons upon which the Board of Trade had come to a decision in the case of this railway, would be laid upon the Table of the House in the course of the present week; and it would be for the House or the Committee to judge whether that Report contained sufficient reason to justify the decision of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Duncombebegged leave to ask a question upon this subject. It was this: He would wish to know if the decisions of the Board of Trade were the decisions that were gazetted? and if they were, were those decisions final? The reason he asked the question was this—if any new information should be acquired upon any line so announced as decided upon, and that the Board of Trade should find that information of such a character as to induce it to alter their opinion, would there then be a new announcement in the Gazette?
Sir George Clerkhad not the least idea that the Board would make any alteration in its decisions; but, at the same time,
1320
he could say that the Board of Trade would, as an act of justice, alter the whole bearing of the announcement made in the Gazette, if the additional information were of such a nature as to demand that course.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, the impression surely could not be intended to be conveyed by the right hon. Baronet, that it was the practice of the Members of the Board of Trade to announce their decisions in the Gazette before their minds were finally made up on the subject before them.
Sir George Clerksaid, certainly not. The Board of Trade did not come to any decision until it had given the fullest consideration to the subject. It was not possible to conceive that parties would have kept back back material documents for two months, without giving the Board any intimation of their existence.

CEYLON.
Mr. Tufnellwished to ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. W. Hope), whether an Order had not been issued from the Colonial Department to the Governor of Ceylon, prohibiting officers in the Civil Service in that island from engaging in agricultural or commercial pursuits; and if so, what time was allowed them to dispose of their property? He also wished to know if the Governor, and the clergy of the Established Church, were included in that Order?
Mr. G. W. Hopesaid, the Order extended only to the officers in the Civil Service, and not to the clergy, or to the Governor. The instructions to which the hon. Gentleman referred, were part of a general scheme for remodelling, and, as he trusted, for improving the Civil Service in Ceylon. He had heard it stated, that, concurrent with the Order for the prohibition of the civil officers from engaging in agricultural and commercial pursuits, a proposal had been made by the noble Lord for an increase of salary in some cases, and for a further provision in the shape of retiring pensions. These pensions did exist up to a certain period; and since they had ceased, many complaints had been made of the absence of civil officers from their duties, in consequence of the private pursuits in which they were embarked. The noble Lord had not fixed the particular period before which the properties should be disposed of; but he had merely notified to the

1321
Governor that within a reasonable time the officers should make their election between retaining their public situations, or giving up their plantations and commercial speculations.

COLONIAL ACCOUNTS.
Dr. Bowringsaid, he rose to propose the nomination of a Committee to examine and report on the state of the Colonial Accounts. It was not a new subject, for in 1837 a Committee had been appointed—had collected together much valuable evidence—but in consequence of the Session closing, that evidence had not been completed, and there was no possibility of making a Report suggesting measures of reform. The consquence was that the evidence only was laid in an unfinished state on the Table of the House. He wished that the work begun in 1837 should be terminated 1845,—that the points which were then neglected should be now investigated, and that the arrangements necessary for giving order, uniformity, and lucidity to the Colonial accountancy, should have the weight which attached to the recommendations of a Parliamentary Committee. On the importance of the Colonies it was scarcely necessary for him to dwell. Whatever views hon. Members might take of the general subject, no one could doubt that it was a question of consummate gravity. He could not conceive that any honest person could desire that the accounts of the Colonies should be kept in a confused, irregular, or unintelligible shape. Any honest interest must desire accuracy and good faith; and the slightest consideration would show how great the interests involved. A Return lately moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, exhibited no less than forty-one Colonies dependent upon this great Empire—containing a population of 5,000,000 of human beings. To the United Kingdom, these Colonies sent for the value of 10,500,000 l., while to these we export to the value of 17,000,000 l. sterling, of which nearly one-half consists of British produce and manufactures. This trade employs 3,000 ships, comprising 900,000 tons. No one, therefore, could contend for a moment that the subject-matter was one of a trifling character, or that the accounts which represent the revenues and expenditure of so vast and so varied an interest should be kept in any but a satisfactory state.
Yet nothing could be less satisfactory than the present condition of the Colo-
1322
nial Accounts which were presented to Parliament. Accounts, indeed, was a word he ought not to have employed. Accounts properly so called, there were none. There were abstracts from Blue Books—there were approximative statements,—but there was nothing that a merchant or a banker would call an account. And even such as they were they were heavily in arrear. The abstracts presented to the House, only came down to the year 1842; for 1843 there is not a single abstract; the Newfoundland Account is given no later than for 1841; and for several of the Colonies there is no account—no abstract—no statement whatever. None for Tortola—none for Anguilla, none for Fernando Po—none for Cape Coast—none for the Falkland Islands. To take the last for an example. Various Parliamentary grants had been made to the Falkland Islands. We voted 9,812 l. in the year 1844; many votes had preceded this, to an amount not probably less than 20,000 l. more. Of its application we know nothing—of the revenue of the Island we know nothing. It has been stated that the whole population in 1843 consisted of 111 individuals; of whom fifty-two were permanent settlers—of whom only thirty-one were British subjects. Now, when vole after vote was granted to such a Colony as this, surely Parliament ought to receive some statement as to their application.
Of the accounts presented nothing could be more irregular or less uniform than their character. No period appears to be fixed when the financial year is to begin or terminate. The 30th of September is the day most generally adopted, but the 31st of December is fixed on by many. Gibraltar has one date, Malta has another; Nova Scotia and New Brunswick choose to differ; and the difference runs through the whole list. Some of the Colonies report the amount of their public debts,—others pass this most important matter by in silence. The various departments in the Colonies keep their accounts in various manners. The Custom-house has one system—the Crown Lands Administration another—the Post Office a third; and as to stores, which ought to be reported on in every good system of bookkeeping, no reference whatever is made to them, whether the property of the Colony or of the Mother Country.
Some of the Colonies present their accounts in a tolerably satisfactory shape. Those of Jamaica, for example, are given in some detail; the amount of debt is stated at 600,000 l. Barbadoes also reports her

1323
public debts, and it appears that a Committee of Public Accounts has been sitting, with a view to introduce the improvements which are allowed to be necessary. But in the case of St. Kitt's, the whole statement of the revenue is given in seven lines, and the whole details of expenditure in ten lines. In Nevis one single line disposes of the income of 8,834 l. 1s.; one single line records the expenditure as 8,678 l. 16 s. 1½d. recorded to a halfpenny as to the amount, but not an iota of information as to how that amount is made up. It would appear from the fractions reported in some cases, that the accounts must be copied from books in the Colonies, and really represent the facts of receipt and payment—but in other cases the accounts are only estimates or guesses, and represent nothing but a supposed approximation to facts. In a word, there is no unity of plan or purpose—no general model—no system pervading the whole—no two, indeed, adopting the same plan. In some the revenues are divided into fixed and incidental—in others they are wholly blended—what is called fixed in some, is denominated incidental in another. In some Colonies, as in the case of Honduras, the revenues are reported in the minutest detail—in others they are given in a lump, without an attempt at classification. In the receipts from the Customs, the returns are sometimes made instructive by giving the particulars under various heads, and showing the amounts levied on the sundry articles of importation—in other cases not only the Customs, but all the receipts, are brought into a general head, with some such a phrase as "revenues collected under Acts of Parliament." In the accounts of the Cape of Good Hope, the revenues and expenditure are recorded on a plan peculiar to that Colony. They have two columns, one representing amounts paid and received—another representing arrears both of receipt and payment—one recording what has been done, another what ought to have been done.
In these accounts it is for the most part impossible to decide whether the statements represent gross or net revenue—whether the amounts are the receipts after or before the charges of collection are deducted. In some of the Colonies there is a debit for the cost of collection and for the expenses of protecting the revenues—in others there is no reference to any deductions. Now, according to his (Dr. Bowring's) view, there can be no really efficient control,
1324
either in the Colonies or elsewhere, unless the gross revenues are paid without any deductions whatever into the Public Treasury.
Were the accounts what they ought to be, they would exactly harmonise with the corresponding accounts in this country. Take for example the accounts of the Customs. As these are under the immediate influence of the London Board of Commissioners, there ought to be some means of checking the accuracy of the accounts by a reference to the central books in London. Now it appears by the evidence of Mr. Wodehouse, as given to the Committee in 1837, that the gross receipts for Customs in the Colonies was 555,137 l., of which 401,142 l. was paid into the Colonial chest, and the remainder was exhausted in salaries, costs of collection, &c.—but the corresponding returns of Customs, Colonial Revenue, gave only 142,000 l. as receipts, and 105,000 l. as cost of collection, which would seem to leave a balance of 37,000 l. as paid into the Colonial chest; while it appears not only that there was no balance on the general Custom-house receipts of the Colonies, but that 14,832 l. beyond the amount of Colonial Customs was contributed from the Custom-house revenues of the mother country.
Equally irregular are the records of Colonial outlay. Ordinary and extraordinary expenditure are in some Colonies distinguished—in others confounded. For some the expenses of the Civil Service are given in detail—in others in a mass—some Colonies go into the minutiae of farthings—record the salaries and duties of every functionary—others dispose of the whole affair in a single line, and with the words "all civil officers," and a round sum at the end thereof, with the whole question of outlay under this particular head. The details of the expenditure of New South Wales, for example, being above 800,000 l. occupy nine folio pages—that of Canada, which is 476,000 l., is despatched in less than a page and a half—or in less space than is occupied to account for the 20,000 l. which is disposed of in Prince Edward's Island, or the 13,500 l. spent in Honduras.
The mode of making payments in the Colonies does not appear to be regulated by any general principle. Whether they are effected under the authority of a warrant from the Governor, or by order of an official specially appointed, is not clear; nor does there seem to be any periodical examination of the cash balances in the Colo-

1325
nial checks to ascertain their conformity with the books. It is notorious that there have been frequent defalcations, and that proper investigations into the moneys actually in the hands of cashiers would have checked many frauds in their progress; but there is no reason to believe that the simple plan of comparing the balances in the cash books with the amounts in the treasurer's or cashier's hands, has been generally or even partially adopted.
And then, again, as to the auditing the accounts in the Colonies. For this important matter there is no provision; neither the duties of auditors, nor the manner in which those duties shall be discharged, are provided for. Auditors in many of the Colonies undoubtedly there are, if a charge for the service of such functionaries is evidence of their existence. In Malta, the charge for auditors is 980 l. per annum. In Gibraltar, 317 l.; and in Ceylon, Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and other Colonies, they appear among the regular Colonial functionaries. But the accounts bear no proof's of their having exercised their authority; they bear no auditors' signature—no sign of auditors' examination or approval. It may be supposed that the audit—uncertain and irregular abroad—is complete and perfect at home. We have here an Audit Board which costs the country some 50,000 l. a year. Are its functions fitly exercised? Is it, what it ought to be, a tribunal of revision and control, giving security to the public against the irregularities and frauds of those who handle the public money? Far from it. Accounts to the amount of millions sterling have been passed without proper vouchers. In 1833, 150 accounts were allowed to slip through unaudited and unapproved—and the amounts involved were 5,000,000 l sterling. It has been impossible for this office to wade through the accumulated mass of arrears; and hence from time to time accounts have been shelved with all their errors, and permitted to be flung into the realms of oblivion, from the alleged impossibility of establishing a proper examination. Applications have sometimes been made to the Treasury for additional assistance; but whether granted or refused, the Board has been wholly unable to cope with the mass of business referred to it. Nor are the functions and powers of the Audit Office very clearly defined. If they detect an error—if they track a defaulter, so as to substantiate his offence—if they obtain substantial evidence
1326
of fraud, they have no power to enforce a payment or a penalty. The Cour des Comptes in France is a tribunal to which every fiscal or financial functionary is amenable, before which he is regularly cited, and can be discharged from his responsibility only after the elaborate examination and formal approval of his accounts by their judicial declaration. Every voucher is sent to that tribunal to prove the facts of receipt and payment. Every receipt is examined to ascertain its being authorized by Parliamentary authority—every disbursement is compared with Parliamentary grants—the regularity of every issue is sifted—and the accounts, when audited, are presented to the Chambers in exactly the same form, and under the same heads, as the Votes of the Budget. This identity of classification is an admirable security for order. First, the Estimates, which precede the receipts and payments as sanctioned by the Legislature. Then, secondly, the accounts as representing the facts of receipt and payment, according to the sanction so given, but preserving the same classification as that of the Estimates. And, thirdly, the final audit, corresponding in form with the original Estimates, and the current yearly account of Income and Expenditure, so that any public grant may be traced through its stages in the Budget, anticipated in the accounts as realized, and in the audit as approved; and all this is accomplished without any accounts being allowed to fall into arrear.
Compare this with the state of things in an Audit Office. In 1837, according to the evidence given by Mr. Hamilton, the Colonial Accounts of 1831 had not been audited; and the audit itself, always in arrears, appears to be of a most unsatisfactory character. The same witness states, that of the cash accounts of the Colonies, the auditors have no cognizance; and that the detailed entries (by which only a satisfactory examination can be established) are not even transmitted to the Audit Office. According to a statement made in conformity with an Order of the House of Commons in 1843, it appeared that the accounts of St. Helena and Van Diemen's Land had not been audited at all; that the accounts of Ceylon were eleven years in arrear at the Audit Office; those of the Cape of Good Hope eight years; of the Mauritius, and Southern Australia, seven years; of Malta and Upper Canada, six years; of Western Australia, five years; of Lower

1327
Canada, four years, and so on; while the same Return gave most extraordinary reasons for the delay. In one case (Southern Australia) it is stated that the accounts previous to 1839 had not been delivered to the Audit Office; and those for 1840 had not been delivered complete. Incomplete accounts are, as everybody knows, nearly equivalent to no accounts at all. From the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope we learn, that the accounts were always in arrear; in arrear at the Audit Office—in arrear from the Colony; that illness and death had impeded the examination from being continued. Is this a tolerable thing for a public officer to avow—the service undone, and no arrangements made for doing it? Again, it is stated, in the Ceylon accounts, that there had been delays and arrears which are most unsatisfactorily explained — no answers to inquiries on accounts of 1834, and the inquiries as to the accounts of 1833 not received till the year 1840. In the Gambia accounts, illness and absence of the examiners pleaded as a reason for the delay; and the same causes stated as an excuse for the non-auditing the accounts of Sierra Leone and the Mauritius. A long list of the Colonial accounts are stated to have been neglected in consequence of the examiner being called away to "the examination of the accounts of the late service in Syria."
But, bad as matters are, they were formerly much worse. The Colonial accounts previously to 1814 appear never to have been audited at all; but the establishment of the Colonial Audit did lead to some useful suggestions, which, however, have been very imperfectly carried out; and which, indeed, have nothing of a complete or comprehensive character, and have proved wholly inadequate to remove the mass of irregularity and abuse. One point appears to have been tolerably well accomplished—namely, the separation of the military from the civil expenditure—which, though so obvious a necessity for distinguishing what charge should fall on the Colony, and what on the mother country, was formerly neglected. It would be wearying the House to exhibit in how many Reports an improvement in the manner of keeping the Colonial accounts has been insisted on. The Commission which in 1830 visited several of the Colonies, urgently recommend that a better mode of stating the accounts be adopted, and a system of uniformity introduced
1328
Nor did he (Dr. Bowring) conceive that the difficulties or the resistance would be great or immovable. In the Crown Colonies, it is clear, the Executive could at once and peremptorily interfere, and require the accounts to be presented in the form that is most satisfactory to the Government; and there is every reason to believe, from the evidence given before the Committee in 1837, that the Colonies having Representative Assemblies would very cheerfully concur in any suggestions having for their object the improvement of the public accounts. Some of them, as he had before remarked, have already begun the good work; and all must be really interested in a sound and satisfactory system of book-keeping. The Committee for which he was asking could not propose to interfere with the authority possessed by the popular Assemblies of the Representative Colonies. It could only suggest models and plans for the improvement of their public accounts; but as every honest and intelligent person must desire that accounts should be kept in the best shape—since no one profits by irregularity, except the careless and the fraudulent—he (Dr. Bowring) was persuaded that the Colonies in general would lend a hearty co-operation. And he would state some of the objects which he proposed to accomplish. And, first, a general scheme of improvements. Let the best plan be adopted—let its introduction be insisted on in the Crown Colonies, and recommended to the approval of the Representative Colonies. Let the system of double entry be universally recommended—of its value no unprejudiced person could entertain a doubt. The evidence of the Accountant General of the Navy (Mr. Briggs) is irresistible on this subject. He gives the strongest testimony as to the security it affords for accuracy, for despatch, and for economy—and its universal use among merchants—and its introduction by all Governments that have had their attention directed to the subject, leaves no room for doubt or hesitation. Then, again, it is a principle scarcely less important, that the gross revenues should, in all cases, be paid into the Colonial chest—that no deductions, under any plea whatever, should be made in their progress. This fundamental principle of all sound and satisfactory public accountancy, has been recommended by the Audit Board itself—has been approved by the Treasury, and laid down in the strongest terms by the Commissioners of Public Accounts.

1329
The same principle requires that all proceeds of stores—all moneys of every sort which may be raised by the sales of public property, in or by any department of public expenditure, should not be applied by that department, but be paid into the public Treasury, to be drawn out only as any other public money is drawn. This, of course, implies that the departments of Receipt and Expenditure should be kept wholly distinct and apart; and the one be never allowed to interfere with the functions of the other. The gross revenue being thus conveyed to the public chest, some uniform system should be adopted for their appropriation; the authority under which they are to be drawn on should be accurately and clearly defined, whether under a Governor's warrant, or by authorities specially appointed. Some security analogous to that which the Exchequer exercises upon the issue of the public money in this country, ought to be established in all the Colonies. The mode in which all entries should be made, and all books kept in the Colonies, should be also prescribed; so that the progress of receipt and payment might correspond with the authorities granted by the estimates.
These estimates, in the shape of Budgets, should in all cases be the groundwork of the whole system. They should be regularly prepared, in all of the Colonies, previous to the commencement of the financial year; and after being submitted to the Colonial Office, be regularly laid before Parliament, not for the purpose of Parliamentary interference with the disposal of the revenues, but for the communication of all the important information to which the Imperial Parliament is entitled, and which it has always been in the habit of receiving, though in a very incomplete and unsatisfactory form. Years ago, when Sir George Murray was Secretary to the Colonies, he pledged himself that a Colonial Budget should be laid before Parliament. That promise seems to have been wholly forgotten; but if effect had been given to it, much embarrassment might have been prevented, and many abuses would have been eradicated. The control of the Colonial Office at the Treasury would have been strengthened, and we might have had at head-quarters, at the Treasury, a set of Colonial books, exhibiting the Colonial finances with the same regularity and accuracy as those of the mother country. At present all was uncertainty and anar-
1330
chy; and with a view to put an end to this state of things, he had to propose, in the words of the Resolution of 1837,—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the Accounts of Colonial Receipt and Expenditure, laid on the Table of this House, and to report as to the mode in which it may be desirable to frame the same for the future, in order to introduce uniformity, regularity, correctness, and completeness."
Mr. G. W. Hopedid not rise to object to the Committee, but wished the House to consider to what extent it was likely their labours would be valuable. As he understood, the proposal was to take such Members of the former Committee as were now in the House, to complete the inquiry they began, with a view partly to an improved mode of collection, and partly to a Colonial Budget, of course with estimates to be laid on the Table, without which a Budget would be useless. Now, as regarded the Crown Colonies, the Government assumed responsibility over the Revenue, and had been for years occupied in introducing improvements; but, as regarded Colonies having popular forms of Government, that House and Her Majesty's Ministers had no responsibility; but left the matter in the control of the local Assemblies; if the House made a recommendation it rested with those Colonies to adopt it or not, as they pleased. As far as the Government had power over its own officers, it was already endeavouring to enforce regularity; but variety must be expected from a number of Colonial Assemblies.
Mr. Humethought that even a suggestion to those Assemblies would be useful, though it might not be authoritative. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) wanted money, here was a department in which large sums might be saved. An enormous expense for collection was allowed in order to keep up patronage; and in the mode of levying many of the products of this country were unfairly dealt with. The Colonies ought to be no expense to the mother country; whereas we were paying large sums for Australia and other of our possessions. In France there were no complaints of mismanagement; but then there was a board comprising a delegate from each Colony, to whom the Minister of Marine resorted for a Report on any question that might arise. He

1331
thought the Government acted wisely in complying with the Motion of his hon. Friend.

OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST OFFICE.
Mr. Sheil: I have risen in order to move the Resolution of which I gave notice before the Easter recess. I submit it in the following terms:—
"Resolved—that This House has learned with regret that, with a view to the prevention of a political movement in Italy, and more especially in the Papal States, Letters addressed to a Foreigner, which had no relation to the internal tranquillity of the United Kingdom, should have been opened under a warrant bearing date the 1st day of March, and cancelled on the 3rd day of June, 1844, and that the information obtained by such means should have been communicated to a Foreign Power."
Let me be permitted in the first instance to correct a misconception. It is not my purpose to make the fatalities which happened in Calabria the grounds of imputation. I believe every word which has been stated by Lord Aberdeen. In this country—this veracious country, in which the spirit of truth is pre-eminent, if a Minister of the Crown, no matter to what party he may appertain, rises in his place in either House of Parliament, and either with respect to what he has done, or what he has not done, makes a solemn asseveration, with an instinctive promptitude, he is instantaneously believed; and if in the case of every man who is in the enjoyment of the official confidence of his Sovereign, this remark holds good, how much more applicable it is to a statesman, with honour so unimpeached, with honour so unimpeachable, as the Earl of Aberdeen. I will not deny that it has been to me the occasion of some surprise, that with the letters of Emilio and of Attillo Bandiero before his eyes, letters written at Corfu, and relating to the intended descent upon the Calabrian coast—with such means of knowledge—with so much light about him, Lord Aberdeen should have been in ignorance so complete; but his statement—the simple statement of a man of such indisputable truthfulness—outweighs every other consideration, and to any conjecture injurious to Lord Aberdeen I will not give myself leave to give way; but the actual descent upon Calabria, and the prospective movement in the Papal States, are distinct. The scaffolds of Cosenza and of Bologna are unconnected. Lord Aberdeen has cleared
1332
himself with regard to any perfidy being practised towards the Bandieras; but the Post Office intervention with regard to the movement in the Ecclesiastical Territories has with the Calabrian catastrophe little to do. This distinction has been lost sight of in the course of the Post Office discussions. Indeed, the public attention was a good deal engrossed by the Parliamentary encounter between the Secretary for the Home Department and his old and valuable Friend. By a singular combination of bravery and of ability, the Member for Finsbury has obtained a series of successes of the most signal kind. I cannot help thinking, however, that more plausibilities may be pleaded for the opening of the letters of a Member of Parliament than for breaking the seals of letters written to a foreigner, who had no English confederates, who had raised no money in England, who had not made any shipment of arms, who had not enrolled any auxiliary legion, and whose letters related to transactions with which the internal tranquillity of England is wholly unconnected. The Duncombe is not so strong as the Mazzini case. What is the case of Joseph Mazzini? He is an exile in a cause once deemed to be a most noble one. In 1814 England called on Italy to rise. The English Government (it then suited their purpose) invoked the Venetian, and the Genoese, and the Tuscan, and the Roman, and the Calabrian to combine for the liberation of their country. Proclamations (I have one of them before me) were issued, in which sentiments were expressed for which Mazzini is an exile, and for which the Bandieras died. Botta, the Italian historian, tells us that Lord William Bentinck and Sir Robert Wilson, acting by the authority of the English Government, caused a banner to be unfurled, on which was inscribed "The Independence of Italy," and two hands were represented clasped together, as a symbol of the union in which all Italians were invited by the English Government to combine. How badly have we acted towards Italy! When our purpose had been served, after having administered these provocatives—after having drugged Italy with provocatives, we turned suddenly round—we surrendered Italy to a domination worse than that of Napoleon, and transferred to Austria the iron crown. But the spirit of nationality did not expire; it remained, and a long time, dormant; but it was not dead. After the Revolution in France of 1830, and the Revolution in

1333
England in 1831, a reform of abuses—of proved abuses — was demanded in the Ecclesiastical States. It was denied, and an insurrection was the consequence. It was suppressed, and Mazzini, who was engaged in it, was compelled to fly from Italy, bearing the love of Italy, the malady of exile, in his heart. Louis Blanc, in his history of the ten years, gives an account of the incidents which took place in the struggle between the Papal Government and its subjects, to which I will not minutely refer, because he may not be regarded as an impartial writer; but in the appendix to the third volume of his work, a document is to be found of a most remarkable kind. Lord Palmerston had directed Sir Hamilton Seymour, who belonged to the Legation at Florence, to proceed to Rome with, a view, in concert with the Representatives of the four Great Powers, to induce the Papal Government to adopt such reforms as would prevent any popular outbreak, from which consequences prejudicial to the peace of Italy might be apprehended. The utmost efforts were made by Lord Palmerston not to crush the just efforts made by Italians for the reform of great abuses, but to induce the Government, by a timely concession, to prevent any popular commotion. Sir Hamilton Seymour was employed by Lord Palmerston for this purpose. He writes the following letter to the Delegates of the Four Powers, which is, I think, most deserving of attention:—
"Rome, September 7.
"The undersigned has the honour to inform your Excellency that he has received orders from his Court to quit Rome, and to return to his post at Florence. The undersigned is also instructed briefly to express to your Excellency the motives which have induced the English Government to send him to Rome, and also the reasons for which he is about to quit that city. The English Government has no direct interest in the concerns of the Roman States, and has never thought of interfering in them. It was invited by the Cabinets of France and of Austria to take part in the negotiations at Rome, and it yielded to the entreaties of both those Cabinets, in the hope that their good offices, when combined, would lead to the amicable solution of the discussions between the Pope and his subjects, and thus avoid the danger of war in Europe. The Ambassadors of Prussia and of Russia at Rome, having subsequently taken part in these negotiations, the Ambassadors of the Five Powers were not long in discovering the chief vices of the Roman Administration, and the remedies which they required. In May,
1334
1831, they laid before the Papal Government a memoir suggesting reforms, which they unanimously declared to be indispensable for the permanent tranquillity of the Roman States, and which the English Government considered to be founded in justice and in reason. More than fourteen months have elapsed, and not one of their recommendations has been adopted or executed by the Papal Government. The edicts, even, which have been prepared or published, and which announce that some of these recommendations are about to be carried into effect, differ essentially from the measures specified in the memoir. The consequence of this state of things has been such as might be expected. The Papal Government not having done anything to allay the popular discontent, it has augmented, and has been increased by the disappointment of the hopes which had been awakened by the negotiations at Rome. Thus the efforts made for more than a year by the Five Powers to re-establish tranquillity in the Roman States have been made in vain. The hope of seeing the population voluntarily submitting to the sovereign power is not stronger than it was at the commencement of these negotiations. The Court of Rome appears to rely upon the temporary presence of foreign troops, and upon the co-operation which it expects from a corps of Swiss, for the maintenance of order. But foreign occupation cannot be indefinitely prolonged; and it does not appear that a corps of Swiss, such as the Papal finances could support, would be sufficient to control a discontented population. Even if tranquillity could be restored by these means, it could not be expected that it would be durable, and would besides never accomplish the objects entertained by the English Government in taking part in the negotiations. Under these circumstances, the undersigned has received orders from his Government to declare that his Government no longer entertains any hope of success; and that the presence of the undersigned at Rome no longer having any object, he has been instructed to resume his post at Florence. The undersigned is besides directed to express the regret which he profoundly feels at not having been able for a year and a half to do anything for the re-establishment of tranquillity in Italy. The English Government foresees that if there be a perseverance in the present course new troubles will break out in the Roman States of a still more serious nature, and of which the consequences will at last become dangerous to the peace of Europe. If these anticipations shall be unhappily fulfilled, England will at all events be free from all responsibility for the calamities which will be occasioned by the resistance offered to the wise and urgent councils given by the English Cabinet.
"G. H. SEYMOUR."
Now, Sir, I think this document reflects great honour upon Lord Palmerston; but

1335
the merit is not undivided; it belongs in part to the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, who was a Member of the Reform Cabinet, under whose sanction no doubt this course was adopted. When the Secretary for the Home Department signed a warrant for the opening of Mazzini's letters, did he revert to that document, and did he suggest to the Austrian or the Roman Court the adoption of the salutary ameliorations by which alone the tranquillity of Italy can be secured? The prediction of Sir Hamilton Seymour was fulfilled. The Romagna was in a state of almost perpetual disturbance; all redress of grievances was refused, and at length, in 1844, a conjuration for an insurrectionary movement was formed. The Austrian and Roman Governments were apprised of it, and a communication was made from what the Committee call a high quarter to the English Ministry. The Secretary for the Home Department signed a warrant on the 1st of March for the opening of Mazzini's letters. The following words of Lord Aberdeen are remarkable. He said on the 28th of February—"Your Lordships are already aware that that warrant was not issued by me or at my desire." This statement is most singular. Lord Aberdeen, the Foreign Minister, upon a question so grave as the exercise of such a prerogative, expressed no wish "that it should be resorted to." The matter, apparently at least, fell within his exclusive cognizance. He was to determine how far the peace of Europe was affected. Lord Aberdeen goes on and says,—
"In saying this, however, the House must not understand that I am the least prepared to censure the issue of that warrant. I am quite prepared, as well as every other Member of the Government, to share the full responsibility of that proceeding; I only wish the fact to be accurately stated."
Now, Sir, this is clearly the language of indirect repudiation. It is true that Lord Aberdeen became an accessory after the fact, but he did not take the initiative. We all know what sharing responsibility means. Each Member of the Cabinet takes his quota, and in the division the burden is supposed to be lightened. But wherefore did Lord Aberdeen state that it was not at his desire that this proceeding was adopted? What had the domestic Minister, the Minister of the Interior, to do with the subject? I have a curiosity—the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee will pro-
1336
bably call it prurient—in an eminent degree the "curiosa felicitas" is possessed by him; but I have a curiosity to know, why the Secretary for the Home Department took on himself this very painful office? Is it that, although the temporal dominions of the Pope are connected exclusively with Lord Aberdeen's department, an exceedingly interesting and agitated portion of the spiritual dominions of His Holiness is within the more immediate surveillance of the Home Secretary? But whatever was the cause regarding which the Committee, who leave a good deal to the imagination, say nothing, it is certain that for three months Mazzini's letters were opened, and folded again, and resealed, and delivered to him just as if nothing at all had happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury brought the case before the House of Commons; at first he was received with all the authoritativeness of office; he was surveyed by the Home Secretary with a lofty taciturnity. But the Prime Minister soon saw that public opinion ran with my hon. Friend, and granted a Committee. I pass over all that has been said about the constitution of the Committee; there was not a lawyer amongst them, although they were charged to inquire into the state of the law. They were not a jury of inquisitors. No, not one of them was fit to act as a Commissioner on the Income Tax; but it must be acknowledged that they are men of great intelligence, and of the highest worth and honour. I cannot, however, conceive why they have involved Mazzini's case in so much mystery. They tell us that they cannot tell us all. Why not? We are informed that a communication came from a "high quarter." Was it from Mr. Peter, at Rome? We are told that a communication was made to a Foreign Power. What Foreign Power? The Committee state, that the information deduced from the letters—strange expression! deduced from the letters, was communicated to a Foreign Power, but did not implicate any person within the reach of that Foreign Power. But it might have implicated some person within the reach of another Foreign Power, to whom the information might be given at second hand. The conspirators at Bologna were not within the reach of Austria, but they were within the reach of Rome. But suppose that I abandon that suggestion, give me leave to ask bow could the Committee know that the information would not indirectly tend to criminate in-

1337
dividuals? Some details must have been given; no name, but a place, a time, will suggest a name. Give a hint to a Bow-street officer, put him on the scent, and how much will be traced out by him! But what are the ablest attachés of the Home Office—what are the most skilful among the retinue of the right hon. Gentleman, to the Bologna police? Put an Italian bloodhound on the track; let him but smell the vestige of a Liberal, and with a sanguinary instinct he will scent his victim to the death. But, whatever be the opinion of the Committee, there are two facts beyond doubt; first, that the Italian newspapers boasted that Mazzini was under the peculiar surveillance of the English police; and, secondly, that six weeks after the letters were opened six men were put to death for political offences at Bologna. Of the blood shed in Calabria you are wholly innocent; and I trust that with the blood shed at Bologna the hands of no British Minister are aspersed. Sir, this proceeding is without a precedent. The First Minister of the Crown stated that the Government had only done what their predecessors had done. Which of your predecessors communicated to a Foreign Government the information deduced from letters? My noble Friend never did so. He did, indeed, interfere in the affairs of Portugal and of Spain, but never by these means. He never got information from a Miguellite or a Carlist letter, and transmitted it to Lisbon or Madrid. He sent Sir De Lacy Evans to St. Sebastian, who arrested the career of Carlist victory. He did interfere, but it was against despotism that he interposed. He interfered at Rome, but it was not with a view to the maintenance of the Conservative institutions which you have taken under your protection. Yours is the praise (the merit of originality is all your own) of having been the first to stretch the Statute of Anne, founded on a Statute passed during the Commonwealth, into an instrumentality of this kind. You might have found in the history of the Commonwealth something with regard to Italy more deserving of your imitation. At the hazard of exposing the peace of Europe, your republican forefathers made Sardinia quail, and rescued a portion of her subjects from the persecution of which they were the victims; and if all England was animated by the sentiment to which the greatest writer in your language has given an immortal expression—if 200 years ago your republican predecessors were fired by
1338
the fearless passion for religious freedom, is it fitting that their descendants should not only be insensible to the cause of civil liberty, but that they should become the auxiliaries of despotism, that they should lend an aid so sinister to crush the men who have aspired to be as you are, and that, by an instrumentality so deplorable, they should do their utmost to aid in the oppression of a country in whose freedom those who are in the enjoyment of true liberty can never be unconcerned? You think, perhaps, that I have in a moment of excitement into which I have permitted myself to be betrayed forgotten the facts of my case. I have not. I go back to the Post Office and to the Home Department, and I ask what is the palliation for this proceeding? I will give it from the answer given by the Prime Minister to a question put by the Member for Pontefract. Your extenuation is this—not that the inhabitants of Romagna have not monstrous grievances to complain of—no such thing; but this,—if there be an outbreak in Romagna, the Austrian army will march into the Papal States — if the Austrian army march into the Papal States the French will send troops to Ancona—if the French send troops to Ancona there may be a collision—if there be a collision there may be a war between Austria and France—if there be a war between Austria and France there may be a general Continental war—if there be a Continental war England may be involved in it; and therefore, but not at the desire of Lord Aberdeen, you opened Mazzini's letters, and acted on the most approved principles of continental espionage. The word is strong—is it inappropriate? If you had employed a spy in the house of Mazzini, and had every word uttered in his convivial hours, at his table, or even at his bedside, reported to you, that would be espionage. Between that case of hypothetical debasement and what has actually befallen, the best casuist in an Italian university could never distinguish. Are we, in order to avoide the hazards of war, to do that which is in the last degree discreditable? You would not, in order to avoid the certainty of war, submit to dishonour. When an Englishman was wronged in a remote island in the Pacific, you announced that the insult should be repaired, or else—; and if you were prepared in that instance to incur the certainty of war, and to rush into an encounter, the shock of which would have

1339
shaken the world, should you, to avoid the hazards of war, founded on a series of suppositions, perpetrate an act of self-degradation? There are incidents to this case which afford a warrant for that strong expression. If you had sent for Mazzini—if you had told him that you knew what he was about—if you had informed him that you were reading his letters — the offence would not have been so grievous; but his letters were closed again—with an ignominious dexterity they were refolded, and they were resealed; and it is not an exaggeration to say that the honour of this country was tarnished by every drop of that molten wax with which an untruth was impressed upon them. Is there any clause in the Statutes of Anne, and of William, and of Victoria, by which this fraud is warranted? There have been questions raised as to whether a separate warrant is requisite for every separate letter. But there is no proviso in the Act legalizing this sleight-of-hand, this worse than thimble-rig proceeding. I have not entered, and I will not enter, into any legal disquisitions; it is to the policy, the dignity, the truthfulness of this transaction that my Resolution is directed. It will no doubt be said that the Committee—men of great worth and high integrity, and singular discrimination—have reported in favour of the Government. I admit their worth, their integrity, and their discrimination; but I deny that they have reported in your favour. They avoid, cautiously avoid, finding a justification, giving an approval of your conduct. They say that they see no reason to doubt the goodness of your motives. Your motives! There is an aphorism touching good intentions, to which it were a deviation from good breeding too distinctly to refer; but it is not for your good intentions that you were made a Minister by the Queen, or that you are retained as a Minister by the House of Commons. The question is not whether your intentions are good or bad; but whether you have acted as became the great position of an English Minister, named by an English Sovereign, and administering a great trust for the high-minded English people. I think that you have not; and it is because I think so, that I propose a Resolution in which I have set down facts beyond doubt and beyond dispute; and with facts beyond doubt and dispute I have associated an expression of sorrow in which I trust this House will participate.
Sir James Graham: Sir, it becomes my
1340
duty to follow immediately the right hon. Gentleman; and I assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that it is not my intention to aspire to any rivalry with the brilliant declamation which characterised the speech which he has just concluded; and probably if I attempted it I should find my ability inadequate to the task. I shall therefore proceed at once to address myself to the matter now brought, not for the first time, the second time, nor even for the sixth time, under the consideration of the House; and, in the first place, I will address myself to the topic to which the right hon. Gentleman especially referred at the beginning of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman stated—and in that statement I am happy to say that I most cordially agree—that the honour of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs places every declaration made by him in his place in Parliament beyond the reach of doubt or question. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has stated in his place in Parliament, that no letter dated at Corfu, coming from the Bandieras, was ever seen by him or by any person at the Foreign Office. That declaration is broad and unequivocal, and meets the presumption raised by the right hon. Gentleman, even after the declaration he made that the assertion of my noble Friend is to be believed; it perfectly meets, I will not say the suspicion which has been excited—but it meets that part of the subject which the right, hon. Gentleman said was unexplained, with respect to the letter which he states was written on the 1st of May at Corfu, by one of the Bandieras, to Mr. Mazzini, containing detailed information of an intended descent on the coast of Calabria. My noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, not resting on his own knowledge, but confirmed by persons at the Foreign Office equally cognizant of these transactions, in the most solemn manner denies that any such matter was seen by him; and I am authorised by him to state that no letter written by the Bandieras at Corfu to Mr. Mazzini was ever intercepted or seen by him. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to refer to certain proclamations issued at an early period by the English Government, recommending or rather exciting a spirit of independence and union among the Italian people, which he characterised as inconsistent with the course which the Government, in pursuance of what they considered their duty, had now thought proper to pursue. The

1341
right hon. Gentleman has referred to the proclamation of Lord William Bentinck, in 1814. It happens that I am cognizant of all those transactions; for I shall never cease to consider it as one of the most fortunate circumstances of ray life, that at the commencement of my career I had the high honour of serving on the staff of Lord William Bentinck. But these proclamations were issued before the general peace of Europe, and before the general arrangements made at the Congress of Vienna; and I cannot admit that proclamations issued under such circumstances have the slightest bearing on the policy to be pursued by the British Government at a period when it was bound by Treaties solemnly entered into and religiously observed for upwards of a quarter of a century, and on which the peace of Europe mainly depends. The right hon. Gentleman states that after all the discussions which have taken place on this question, it still remains involved in mystery. Now, as far as depends on me, any shadow of doubt that still hangs over the transaction shall be removed by my statement. I am most anxious, as far as I am concerned, that no mystery shall hang over it. I will therefore state to this House that in the month, I think, of October, 1843, I happened to be the only one of the three Secretaries of State then in London. My two noble Colleagues were absent, and I being the only Secretary of State on the spot was bound to perform the duties of the various departments connected with the absent Secretaries. Among other things, I had to receive communications from Foreign Ministers; and, if I mistake not, about the end of August, or beginning of September, 1843, movements of a formidable character (and not for the first time, as the right hon. Gentleman observed) took place at Bologna. I then received (which I have here) a despatch from Lord Holland, our Minister at Florence, giving information with respect to these disturbances, and representing them to be of a formidable, and not of an isolated character, but connected with a general movement throughout several Italian States. Towards the end of October the Austrian Minister, Baron Nieumann, waited on me in reference to those disturbances. He represented to me that these commotions at Bologna had assumed a very threatening aspect—that they were exciting great apprehension on the part of the Austrian Government; and he complained to me of certain pub-
1342
lications of an inflammatory character emanating from the press at Malta. He endeavoured to persuade me that it was the duty of the English Government to take some steps for the suppression of such publications. I told him that the freedom of the press being established there, the question of whether it were politic or not could not be discussed between us; but that the freedom of the press being once established there, British law and rights must be respected; and I also told him, that there was no power vested in the Government which could enable it to suppress such publications. Baron Nieumann went on to state, that encouragement to insurrection was given by these publications, and that they were by no means confined to Malta or the Mediterranean; but that he had reason to know that a person then in London, who was well known in Italian antecedent revolutionary movements, was nearly connected with these publications of which he complained, and he specified Mr. Mazzini as that person. Until that time it so happened that I had never heard of that person. Having stated that person's name, Baron Nieumann placed in my hand a certain newspaper, called Giovanena Italia, which contained an article, the tendency of which was to encourage a simultaneous rising; it was written with all the eloquence for which Mr. Mazzini's writings are famed, and it was impossible for any one who read that publication not to see that it was of a very exciting character, to use the mildest term which could be applied to it. My communication with Baron Nieumann terminated with that conversation. It is right to state that from the end of October until the month of January, I heard no more on this subject. My noble Friend returned to the Foreign Office, and resumed his communications with the Austrian Ambassador, and until January I heard no more with reference to Mr. Mazzini. In January, a communication did take place between me and my noble Friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs with respect to the progress of the revolutionary spirit in Italy; and it was stated by my noble Friend that the communication made by Baron Nieumann was correct, and that not Malta nor Corfu, but London, was the centre whence all the movements in Italy were directed, which movements not only caused Foreign Powers to apprehend danger to the peace of Europe, but were on that account viewed with anxiety by the British Government. When it was made known

1343
that Mr. Mazzini was in London, I did not attach any particular importance to the fact at the moment; but towards the end of February a communication reached me and my Colleagues which left no doubt, not only as to the fact that Mr. Mazzini was residing in London, but that he was carrying on an extensive correspondence, and that many foreigners from different parts of Europe had also repaired to London, and were in communication with Mr. Mazzini. It then became my duty, as well as that of my Colleagues, to ascertain something of the character and the past proceedings of Mr. Mazzini. It is very far from my wish to dwell with unnecessary or undue harshness on the character of a gentleman whose talents are undoubted; whose efforts in a cause he believes to be a patriotic one have been unsuccessful; and who is not here to answer any reproaches which may be cast upon him. I feel therefore all the restraint arising from the circumstances to which I have referred. At the same time, this question has now assumed such a shape, that truth compels me to state some facts to the House and the country with respect to the past character and proceedings of Mr. Mazzini. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) has mentioned the name of Sir Hamilton Seymour; and I have before me a despatch addressed by that gentleman to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston), in 1832, when I had the honour of being a Colleague of that noble Lord, and when the attention of Earl Grey's Government was called by Sir Hamilton Seymour to the conduct and proceedings of this very gentleman. In the year 1831, various parts of Italy had been convulsed by insurrectionary movements. Those movements had failed; the leaders of them had been allowed to depart from Italy; the French Government had permitted them to take up their abode in Marseilles. There they established a society under the name of La Giovanina Italia, and over that society Mr. Mazzini presided. Sir Hamilton Seymour, writing, I think, in the month of March, 1833, to the Home Government, says,—
"I some time since intended to mention a paper called Giovanina Italia, which is published in Marseilles, by a Mr. Mazzini, and being introduced into the Italian States, forms a kind of catechism for those in Italy who hold ultra-liberal opinions."
Sir H. Seymour went on in the subsequent portion of his despatch to describe
1344
that paper as a great encouragement to the disturbances which were going on in Italy. Now, Sir, I am bound to state, that the next information I received with respect to the proceedings of Mr. Mazzini was not so precise; still it related to a transaction of so serious a character, and one yet remaining unexplained in a satisfactory manner, that I think I ought not to pass it over altogether unnoticed. I hold in my hand the French Moniteur of the 7th of June, 1833, containing a passage which relates to proceedings that took place at Rodez, a town in the south of France, of a dark and suspicious character. The Moniteur says,—
"A threefold assassination has just alarmed the town of Rodez. Three Italian refugees have fallen under the dagger of one of their countrymen. We will limit ourselves in the first instance to giving a simple statement of the facts which have preceded and accompanied this event. The judicial inquiry will clear up all the circumstances of the catastrophe. … But the excitement was renewed in October. At 9 o'clock in the evening of the 20th, M. Emiliani, one of the refugees, whose name had been more than once put forward in the threats of the disorderly, was attacked by several of them, and received two rather severe wounds; and his recovery was owing solely to the assistance which was afforded to him by the inhabitants of Rodez. The assassins were arrested. Proceedings were instituted against them. Things were in this state, and the prosecution was taking its course, when the Procureur du Roi received, in the middle of January, 1833, a copy of a sentence issued on the 15th December by the Superior Tribunal of Marseilles, pronouncing sentence of death against the persons named Emiliani and Scuriatti, and inflicting other punishments upon the persons named Lazzoreschi and Andreani, which sentence was signed by Mazzini, the very same person who, in November, had denied the existence of a tribunal and of sentences of this nature, and who has since been expelled the country by order of the Minister of the Interior. Measures were ordered to be taken by the authorities in order to examine into the authenticity of this document."
I am bound to say, that this information does not rest exclusively on report, but is given to the House on the authority of the French Moniteur. I should state to the House, that Mr. Mazzini threatened a prosecution of this newspaper for having reflected on his character, and making a charge which be declared to be false; but I am bound to add, that this prosecution was never proceeded with. Having prefaced my statements with that declaration,

1345
I shall now proceed to read to the House the sentence said to have been issued by the secret tribunal of the society at Marseilles, La Giovane Italia; it was a sentence of death against Emiliani, which was carried into execution, and if it was not done in consequence of that sentence, it was at least a remarkable coincidence. The sentence is this,—
"The 15th of December inst., at ten o'clock at night, the chief of the society and the members composing it being assembled, the secretary was requested to make known a letter containing a sentence emanating from the tribunal of Marseilles against the accused Emiliani, Scuriatti, Lazzoreschi, and Andreani, whose proceedings have been referred to the President at Rodez, and from which results their guilt—firstly, as disseminators of infamous writings against our holy society; secondly, as partisans of the infamous Papal Government, with which they are in correspondence, and which only tends to paralyse our projects in favour of the sacred cause of liberty. After a mature examination of the charges which result from the trial, applying the Article 22, unanimously condemn Emiliani and Scuriatti to death.
"With regard to Lazzoreschi and Andreani, the charges brought against them being less strong, they are only condemned to be flogged with a rod, subject, however, to undergo a fresh judgment upon their return to their country, by which they may be sent to the galleys for life as noted traitors and brigands.
"The President at Rodez will make choice of four persons to execute the present sentence, who will be charged to carry it out within the space of twenty days. Any one refusing this duty incurs thereby the pain of death.
"Done at Marseilles, by the Supreme Tribunal, at the hour of midnight, the year and day as above. MAZZINI, President."
I have stated to the House that, towards the end of February, I received information of the presence of Mr. Mazzini in London, of the extensive correspondence he was carrying on, and of the number of foreigners who had congregated here; it then became my duty to make some inquiries with respect to this person. I have mentioned two branches of my former inquiries and their results—first, the information received from Sir H. Seymour as to the residence of Mr. Mazzini at Marseilles in 1832, and the attempts then made to disturb the peace of Italy; and next, as to the suspicious, dark, and lamentable transaction at Rodez, from being connected with which Mr. Mazzini has not yet cleared himself. But I am now about to quote to the House a despatch from Mr. Morier, the British Minister in Switzer-
1346
land. Shortly after this Rodez transaction, such was the suspicion entertained with respect to it, resting on the facts already referred to, that the Government of France refused to Mr. Mazzini the asylum he had so much abused, and ordered him peremptorily to quit the dominions of the French King. In consequence of that expulsion from France, Mr. Mazzini took up his abode at Geneva; and as he had made Marseilles the centre of plots against the peace of Italy, so from the first period of his residence at Geneva he commenced a series of intrigues, and organised measures against the peace of the kingdom of Savoy. Mr. Morier, the British Minister in Switzerland, residing at Berne, writing on the 28th of January, 1834, says:—
"A body of Poles and of Italian refugees left the quarters assigned to them at Porentrici and Brienne, and being joined by others from Geneva, entered the territory of Savoy at the village of St. Julien. They were under the command of General Romarino, a Sardinian refugee, who had held a command in the Polish insurrectionary war, and had, together with his division, laid down their arms to an Austrian corps in Galicia. The expedition was, however, under the direction of Mazzini, who appeared, to have been residing at Geneva. A simultaneous movement was likewise made by another body of adventurers from France by the points of Seyssell and Les Eschelles."
Mr. Morier also mentions other movements made by another body of adventurers from France, and describes the failure of the first expedition into Savoy. This failure he attributes "to the precipitation of Mr. Mazzini, who anticipated by two or three days the time of operation, by issuing a proclamation purporting to be from the provisional Government of Savoy." Mr. Morier also states,—
"The conduct of the chief actors in this enterprise is represented as having been, in point of talent, courage, and good faith among each other, as disgraceful as the issue has been to them disastrous. They are accused of having, after their return to Geneva, several times broken their word of honour pledged to the Government that they would remain quiet. It is said they were detected only two nights ago endeavouring to re-engage men at Cacouge for the renewal of the aggression against Savoy."
I will not refer to other authorities for anything with respect to the conduct of Mr. Mazzini in the interval between 1834 and the period more immediately connected with the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. But there is one other document to which it

1347
will be my duty to call the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Sir H. Seymour; to the wishes and feelings of Lord Grey's Administration with respect to the Papal Government; and has read an extract from a despatch of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to Sir H. Seymour. I have also called the attention of the House to a communication made about the same time by Sir H. Seymour, then charged with the duties of British Minister at Florence, in which he called the attention of the noble Lord to the proceedings of Mr. Mazzini at Marseilles; which he thought were not consistent with the preservation of the peace of this country. The date of the warrant I issued was the 1st of March, 1844; and by an odd coincidence I am going to read an extract from a letter of Sir Hamilton Seymour, addressed to my noble Friend the Earl of Aberdeen, also bearing date the 1st of March, 1844. [An hon. Member: Where from?] The letter was written from Brussels; and in it Sir Hamilton Seymour says,—
"Prince Pierre Bonaparte, who has resided for some time past in the Ardennes, applied some time since for permission to take up his abode at Brussels."
First, let me observe that the Belgian Government is one of recent origin, owing its existence to a revolutionary movement; but still, even in that country, let me beg the House to observe the power which that Government—owing its origin to such circumstances — thought it its interest to exercise with respect to the residence of foreigners. The Belgian Government was asked to give permission for Prince Pierre Bonaparte to reside in Brussels; and Sir H. Seymour further states,—
"This request the Government were on the point of complying with, when their resolution was changed by representations made by the French Ambassador. His Excellency, who has spoken to me on the subject, believes Prince Pierre Bonaparte to be concerned in the manifestation of discontent at present to be observed in the Roman States, and in still more serious disturbances which he understands to be in preparation in the same quarter. He is informed that Mr. Mazzini, the head of the 'Giovane Italia' Association, who is now an exile in England, is one of the most active promoters of these seditious movements; and that this person wishes to make some communication to Prince Pierre through —. It so happened that I was the first person who had called the attention of the Government to Mazzini [referring to the despatch of 1833, which I have already read to
1348
the House], and never doubted that he and his associates were a set of dangerous adventurers, whose movements should be closely observed."
Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has truly stated that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, in reference to the warrant in Mr. Mazzini's case, that though he was willing to share the responsibility of issuing it, still it was not issued at his desire. I most frankly and decidedly confirm the statement of my noble Friend; I am responsible for the issuing of that warrant. The original communication with respect to Mr. Mazzini was made to me in consequence of the casual absence of my noble Friend the Earl of Aberdeen from London. I received from time to time other information with respect to the proceedings of Mr. Mazzini. Towards the end of February I had informed myself of the past conduct of that individual, and in consequence I was quite satisfied of the truth of what my noble Friend stated, that London was the centre, under the direction of Mr. Mazzini, of the great movement against the Italian Government which he conscientiously believed endangered the peace of Europe. From these original communications, and from the results of subsequent inquiries, I did not think it consistent with my duty to shrink from the responsibility of issuing that warrant. Whatever the offence may be, I am responsible for that act. The right hon. Gentleman asks at whose desire this was done? I give my most solemn assurance to this House, that that warrant was not issued by me at the instance of any person whatever, least of all at the instance of any Foreign Minister or Foreign personage. It was issued solely with a view to British interests, because to the best of my judgment I thought the time had arrived when, possessing by law the power of issuing such a warrant, I was bound for the good of the British public to exercise it. And thinking it a painful, an invidious, I may even say, an odious duty, to issue such a warrant, still I did not shrink from it. Having said this, I am sure the House will feel that what I am now about to state is not unduly put forward by me. The House will remember what is stated by the Committee,—that having issued the warrant, all I subsequently did was merely ministerial. I intercepted certain letters; a copy of every letter received at the Home Office after the first week in March was forwarded by me, unread,

1349
to the Foreign Secretary; and the Foreign Secretary made that use of the correspondence which he considered necessary to the service of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman states the truth when he says any declaration of my noble Friend the Earl of Aberdeen is entitled to implicit belief. I am not directly and personally cognizant, except through the declaration of my noble Friend, of the use made of this correspondence; the House, therefore, under present circumstances, will perhaps allow me to read—though it may not be strictly regular—what fell from the Earl of Aberdeen with respect to the use made of this correspondence. Did he communicate any one of these letters to a Foreign Minister? He gives to this charge his solemn and deliberate denial. Did he expose any person to danger by revealing his name? He gives an unequivocal denial to this charge also. He says,—"It is but too probable that the peace of Europe would not have been of long continuance had such an event taken place." That event was the advance of the Austrian troops. My noble Friend stated, on a former occasion, the British Government was fully aware of the disturbances beyond the Po, and said, if they became serious the Austrian troops had peremptory orders (without reference to Vienna) to advance at once from Milan. I have no hesitation in stating, on my own responsibility, that those proceedings were not only calculated to endanger the peace of Europe, but to be fatal to it. Lord Aberdeen goes on:—
"My Lords, the centre of these conspiracies and these projects was believed to be, not in the Ionian Islands, or in the Mediterranean, but in London."
The really important question, however, is what was the use made by Lord Aberdeen of the information he obtained? Hear what he says on this point,—
"The course I adopted was this—I determined that no agent of any Foreign Government should see a single syllable of these letters; further, that no agent of any Foreign Government should know that any such letters existed, and of course that the name of no writer should transpire; in addition to this, I determined to keep in view the necessary regard to the personal safety of all individuals who might be compromised by any information given. With this care, and with these precautions, from time to time I communicated such information as I thought I could consistently with those restrictions and with my duty, to the Austrian Government."
But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman made
1350
a remark—he made it in such a manner certainly that I cannot complain of it, yet that such a suspicion should have even for a moment crossed his mind was very painful to me—he expressed his conviction that the British Government was clear from the blood shed on the coast of Calabria; but he referred also to the blood shed on the scaffold at Bologna, and hoped our conscience was equally clear. He asked whether any of the letters or the copies of them, or the information obtained through Mr. Mazzini's correspondence, was communicated to any other Government. Now, I most unequivocally, decidedly, and solemnly state, that no communication was made by Lord Aberdeen, with reference even to any portion of this correspondence, to any other Minister except the Austrian. I have that assurance from my noble Friend; and the right hon. Gentleman himself says that any assertion of my noble Friend is quite satisfactory to him. The right hon. Gentleman has with perfect fairness kept out of view in his Motion every legal question as to the validity of these warrants or as to the policy of issuing them. The hon. Member for Finsbury has given notice of a Motion to bring that subject under the notice of the House, intending to propose either that the Statutes may be repealed, or that they should be materially altered. When that Motion comes on the proper time will arrive to enter on those questions. Therefore I will not do more than merely glance at one topic which is incidental to this branch of the question. The right hon. Gentleman said that the honour of England was tarnished by the practice of Ministers opening letters, making copies, and then forwarding them to the parties, without letting them know that they had been opened. Now, in a matter of this kind, I do not wish to rely more than ought fairly to be done on usage and precedent; but at the same time I feel bound to say, that the form of the warrant issued for this purpose has not been varied for many years. To show this, I will read two of them to the House. I would observe, however, that where the warrant directs a copy of a letter to be sent to the Secretary of State the irresistible inference is, that the letter was meant to be forwarded. Whatever, however, be the interpretation put on the warrant, it is certain that the practice from the earliest period has been to stop the original letter, to copy it, and afterwards to forward it.

1351
The House will see that the power would not be of any use for public purposes were any other interpretation put on it. The chances are, that in stopping a single letter you stop an unimportant one. For instance, take the case of the interception of letters before the attempt of Prince Louis Bonaparte to make a descent on the coast of France. If in such a case you were tied down to a single letter, that letter might be most insignificant, containing no intelligence of importance, while the stoppage of it would notify to Louis Bonaparte the frustration of any measures adopted by him. Under such circumstances, to deprive the Government of the means of obtaining information might be attended with the most disastrous consequences to the public peace. The power, then, would be useless if confined to a single letter. I have already stated that the form of the warrant has always been similar. I will read to the House a warrant issued by the Duke of Newcastle on the 11th of December, 1741. It is as follows:—
"Whitehall, Dec. 11,1744.
"My Lord and Sir;—I am to desire, and do hereby authorize you to open all letters that shall be brought to your office directed to Eneas Macdonald, Banquier, Rue Aubry le Boucher, Paris; as also all letters directed to Mr. William Cockburn, at the Plantation Coffee-house, London, or to William Cockburn, without mentioning any particular place; and you will also open all packets addressed to any other persons in which you shall have reason to apprehend that there may be enclosed letters to either of the two persons above mentioned, and transmit to me copies of all such letters as you shall find directed to or wrote by either of them. For doing which this shall be your warrant.
"I am, &c.,
"HOLLES NEWCASTLE.
"The Postmaster General."
But perhaps this authority may be considered by some to be open to a constitutional objection. I will now read a warrant, the original of which was produced by me before the Committee—one to which I suppose no objection will be made on the other side. It was issued by Mr. Fox, on April the 26th, 1782, and I contend that its clear meaning is, that the letter should be forwarded after a copy has been taken. This is the warrant:—
"Those are in His Majesty's name to authorize and direct you from time to time, and until you shall receive orders to the contrary, to inspect or cause to be inspected all letters or packets which shall come into your custody,
1352
directed to, or sent by, any Foreign Minister of what rank soever, residing at this Court, as also all letters and packets directed to, or sent by, any other person of whom you shall, from time to time, have special notice for that purpose from me, or some other His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State; and you are to cause such letters and packets to be copied, which copies you are immediately to transmit to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. And for so doing this shall be your warrant. Given at St. James's, the 26th day of April, 1782.
"C. J. Fox.
"The Earl of Tankerville and the Right Hon. H.
F. Carteret, His Majesty's Postmaster General."
It happens that that warrant remained in force the whole time Mr. Fox was in office. The Marquess of Carmarthen, on the overthrow of the Administration of Mr. Fox, succeeded to his office, and on the day of his accession he signed another warrant, which was in terms identical with that which I have read. Sir, I will not weary the House with any remarks upon the painful nature of the duty enjoined by those warrants. I do not wish to shelter myself. I have frankly avowed the entire share I have had in the transaction. As I have already said, my judgment may have been wrong; but at the time I had made myself master of the conduct of Mr. Mazzini, I had found that dangerous intrigues were in progress conducted by him and by persons in conjunction with him, some of whom paid the forfeit of their lives, one of them having left this country with a false passport, obtained from Lord Aberdeen by false statements of his name and destination. I satisfied myself that what had been done by Mr. Mazzini was dangerous—and the Executive Government has no power of excluding foreigners, or of removing them from our shores, when they abuse our hospitality;—and, in passing, let me observe that this state of affairs may be really serious and dangerous; if you do not take care, the most serious results may follow from the want of such a power of control over the presence of foreigners in this country, for in the absence of such a power this country becomes a common sink for the outcasts of Europe; they do not come voluntarily only, but Foreign Governments, knowing that we have no power to prevent their coming, send them here; — in the absence then of any power of removal, the Secretary of State being authorized to inspect the correspondence of such parties, exercising my judgment honestly and fairly, I did believe, as I still do believe, that in the course I took I did not

1353
violate, but on the contrary I consulted, the public interests. Wisdom after the event is not very valuable. It is not right to judge any act by circumstances different from those which existed when the act was performed. The House will, no doubt, make the just allowance. They will, I trust, regard the case according to the circumstances which existed when I came to the decision. And I confidently believe, also, that had any Member on the opposite bench been placed in a situation to which the same responsibility was attached, he would have come to the same decision. I am bound to add, Sir, that I am at all times very sensible of the importance of the displeasure of this House. To receive the condemnation of this House, even in the very modified shape embodied in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, would be the most painful event of my life. But, at the same time, I must say that, on the whole, considering all the circumstances of the case—considering the knowledge possessed by my political opponents, both of the usage of the office I fill, which they also have filled, and of the responsibility which the tenure of that office involves—bearing in mini also the facts which I have now brought under the notice of the House, I would infinitely rather be the victim of the attack on this occasion than the assailant.
Mr. Duncombesaid, that having presented petitions from Mr. Mazzini on two occasions, he should have risen to address the House with anxiety in this instance, had he not been prepared to state in his place that a more foul calumny had never been cast upon any individual than the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit on that occasion to utter upon the character of Mr. Mazzini. If that were any defence of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct, he did not think this was the time for blackening the character of Mr. Mazzini, when the right hon. Gentleman's own character and that of the Government were on trial; but he was happy to have it in his power completely, and, he believed, for ever, to set at rest the calumnies and the aspersions which the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to cast upon this individual in his absence. What were the facts of the case? It appeared to him that at every step they took—every time they stirred this painful subject, the darker, deeper, and more disgraceful did these transactions appear, and the worse did the Government
1354
come out of them. When he moved for the Committee, the right hon. Baronet said, "You shall know from me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Why, the House had got much more out of him to-day, and they would still get more if there was a further inquiry. And this only proved the necessity of further inquiry, and that the Report of the Committee could not and would not stop there, and would not satisfy the public. His Motion had been to refer it to a Committee, and to have a full Report from a public Committee, by which the matter should be fully investigated. He had said, and he repeated, that the Report was unsatisfactory and evasive, and every step proved its evasion. One of his principal reasons for asking for the inquiry was, that in the subsequent petition presented by Mr. Mazzini, he said that gross calumnies had been uttered upon his character before the Committee, and he wanted an opportunity to set himself right with the Committee and with the world generally, and to defend himself against the vile and foul aspersions which had been cast upon him both in and out of doors, particularly with respect to the alleged diabolical attempt at assassination to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. Of course he could not tell whether that circumstance had come under the cognizance of the Committee; but if it had, they were bound as honourable men to call Mr. Mazzini, and let him be heard when his character was aspersed, and particularly after his petition to that effect. The charge was neither more nor less than that Mr. Mazzini, while living at Marseilles, in conjunction with another man, La Cecilia, the secretary to this dark society, issued the order which the right hon. Gentleman had read. That appeared in a newspaper. The right hon. Baronet had been very active in raking up aspersions, and libels, and calumnies upon Mr. Mazzini; but if, instead of going to the Moniteur, he had taken the trouble of reading the Westminster Review, he would have found the whole matter explained. He (Mr. Duncombe) would read the article to which he referred, and which if not written by Mr. Mazzini, was corrected by him before it appeared in print. This was the article respecting the Committee:—
"We have already observed that England

1355
is under no moral obligation to protect an escaped criminal; but a criminal in one country ought not to be punished by the laws of another. Wherever any man is condemned he should first be fairly tried. Suppose the case of a foreigner arriving in England, whom it would really be right to treat as an outlaw; one in no respect to be trusted, not even with pens, ink, and paper; and to be refused the privileges of the penny post. Before such a sentence of outlawry should be passed by an English tribunal, would it not be right that the man should be heard in his own defence? No, say the two Committees: let the tribunal be secret, the evidence be secret, the sentence itself be secret, and let it be secretly executed. In other words, let the Spanish inquisition be established in Downing-street. The two Committees were even willing to share in the responsibilities of such a court. What imputations will the reader suppose were circulated in high quarters against the character of Mazzini, and brought privately to the ears of the Committee, to make it appear that against such a man extraordinary precautions were really required? (They were now brought publicly before the House of Commons.) No less a charge than that of having instigated the murder of two of his own countrymen, in the year 1832! This infamous calumny may have made little impression upon the minds of the Members; but we know that both Committees were acquainted with the report, and that they refused to give Mazzini, or his friends, an opportunity of rebutting it; on the ground, we presume, that the facts were irrelevant to the inquiry. No facts, however, were deemed irrelevant that had a tendency to clear from injurious aspersions the characters of Sir James Graham and Lord Aberdeen. The origin of this calumny furnishes another argument against the policy of a system of espionage, in any form. Knaves cannot be kept from knavery. Spies, when they cannot detect a plot, will create one in order to betray it; and the kind of evidence they know to be desired, if it do not exist, they will take care to invent. On the 31st May, 1833, two spies of the Duke of Modena, Lazzoreschi and Emiliani, who had been sent to mix among political exiles, and worm out their secrets, were killed in a quarrel at Rodez (Aveyron), in the public road, in open day, by an Italian named Gavioli. The deed, although unpremeditated, as appeared from the verdict of the jury, naturally brought much odium upon the whole of the Italian exiles, and to damage them still further, advantage was taken of it by a secret enemy, to connect it with the name of Mazzini. The next week (June 8th) there appeared in the non-official part of the Moniteur (without any introductory preface or explanation) a forged document (which the right hon. Gentleman had given as a real document) purporting to be the decree of a secret revolutionary tribunal, pronouncing sentence of death upon Emiliani and others, and
1356
signed Mazzini, president, and La Cecilia, as secretary. As Mazzini was then lying concealed at Marseilles, this was looked upon by his friends as a ruse of the French police to induce all honest French citizens to assist in discovering his retreat. The badness of the style and composition, the half-French expressions, and numerous grammatical errors of the pretended document, proved that it could not have been written by any educated Italian, much less by a man of high literary reputation like Mazzini; who, however, at once denounced the forgery in the columns of the Gazette des Tribunaux. The subsequent trial of Gavioli, November 30, 1833 (before the Cour d'Assizes of Aveyron) satisfied the public that no such secret tribunal existed." (But hear something further on the matter) "The document was not produced in evidence, and the jury, convinced that Gavioli had no accomplices, and that the crime committed did not amount to murder with intent, returned a verdict of 'homicide sans préméditation.' Gavioli was sentenced to 'Les Travaux Forcés;' and further to show that the French Government perfectly well understood all the facts of the case, we may add, that the Italian (La Cecilia), whose name was coupled with Mazzini in the forged document, was at the time openly living in France, where he still remains, supported by the grants of the French Chamber for exiles, and was neither arrested nor once interrogated on the subject."
This, then, was the accomplice of Mazzini—this the man in whose crimes Mazzini was said to have participated. In 1840, the story was revived by Guisquèt, the ex-prefect of police, in his published memoirs, afterwards translated into English. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Mazzini threatened to bring a prosecution, but that he had never brought one. [Sir J. Graham: Not against the Moniteur.] No; but he took it against one paper, if not against another. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Mazzini threatened to bring an action against the libeller, but that he never did bring such an action. The right hon. Gentleman's words were, that a prosecution was never instituted. Now, he (Mr. Duncombe) did say that Mazzini brought an action. The action was brought, and the action was tried before the Tribunal Correctionel de Paris, and what did the House think was the charge met?
"Owing to the impudent but ingenious character of the defence set up, a verdict was given for the defendant. Guisquèt met the charge by asserting that there was more than one Mazzini in the world, and that Mazzini the prosecutor, being a man, as all admitted,

1357
of the highest moral integrity, he could not possibly be the Mazzini referred to in the paragraph from the Moniteur."
Thus then they had found what had become of the paragraph quoted from the right hon. Gentleman's favourite, the Moniteur. Now he wanted to know where was there a portion of defence to be found for opening Mazzini's letters, if that was the only reason for doing so? If that was the paragraph relied upon, what is the answer given to Mazzini when he prosecutes the libel? That he could not be the man meant; that there was more than one Mazzini in the world; that he could not possibly be the Mazzini referred to, as all admitted that he was of the highest moral integrity. What was now the defence set up? It was quite a new defence from what they had heard the other day. It was one they had never heard from Lord Aberdeen—one he had never put forward until the right hon. Baronet was made his Lordship's mouthpiece. Until the right hon. Baronet was made the organ of Lord Aberdeen, they had a defence which they had never heard from Lord Aberdeen himself. It was now said, that no letter from Corfu had ever been received from Corfu, and had been opened at the Foreign Office. This, he said, was not correct. He went farther than that—he said, that this showed the necessity for further inquiry into this matter. Give him, he said, the opportunity, and he would prove that the Government did open letters from Corfu. Will you shrink from this? Letters were received from Corfu, which you opened. Extracts from these letters were in his possession. They bore the post-mark of Corfu; but they came from Corfu, and you opened them. He knew not whether the man who forged the seals, and who did the dirty work for you, gave you the dates and addresses or not. He then said these letters were dated, not from Corfu, but Autun. But what was the defence made before? That the Government here never knew that the Bandieras were at Corfu until after they had sailed from Corfu—that having been there only seven days, and then sailing for Calabria, it was quite impossible that this Government could have had anything to do with the incidents that led to their death. Hence the right hon. Gentleman said that those concerned in the plot intended to make a descent upon the Papal States
1358
and Calabria. The Bandieras were, one of them, at Corfu on the 28th of March, and the other arrived there on the 28th of April, and from that period until they sailed on the 12th of June, they never moved from Corfu or its vicinity. Another reason given why this Government had nothing to do with the trap that was laid for these unfortunate persons was, that they could not possibly have known where those parties were going to. Information had been given to Lord Seaton, of a boat having sailed with arms and ammunition—that there were twenty-two men armed. This account, it was said, was believed to be exaggerated. Lord Seaton was asked by the Consuls of other Powers to send after these men, and a representation was made to him of the mischief that was likely to occur. What did Lord Seaton do? He sent a sailing vessel twenty-four hours after they had departed. Had Lord Seaton sent a steam boat after them—the Medea — then these unfortunate men would not have been murdered, as they had been, by treachery, through the instrumentality of the British Government—all their lives would have been saved, and that stain which now rested upon the honour of this country would have been unknown. But then they were told that it was not by troops that these men were defeated. The story told was, that the whole of the peasantry of the country had risen in indignation against these detested invaders of their peaceful villages. Was that so? On the contrary, regular troops were employed against them. A portion of the 11th Chasseurs did meet and engage these persons; and as a proof that it was not the peasantry that opposed them, and that it was not by the peasantry that they were put down, they found the King of Naples, in the official Gazette, publicly thanking 120 persons, chiefly connected with the army, and principally military men in active service, as well as conferring orders upon some of them, and, amongst others, upon the Neapolitan Consul at Corfu, for the part that he had taken in this most horrible and lamentable transaction. But then, if the right hon. Baronet did not take the part he had done in this transaction, it was said that Austria would march 70,000 men into the Papal States. He thought they ought to feel very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this question. They were com-

1359
pletely losing sight of what was done abroad; and no matter what disgraceful acts were there committed, they were unattended to or overlooked by them, whilst they were occupied by personal quarrels, or solely engaged in some miserable squabble about the Tariff. While thus engaged they did not know what was doing on the Continent. Here Government acted on the information, that if the Papal States became disturbed, Austria would march 70,000 men; and so immediately the British Government set about opening the letters of foreigners and exiles to prevent it. Now he wanted to know upon what principle they interfered with the internal commotions of Foreign countries? He certainly knew that that was a principle of the Holy Alliance. They claimed the right of interfering with the internal concerns of other countries; but England refused to accede to any such principle. It had been resisted by Mr. Canning in more instances than one. It had been resisted by him in the case of Spain, when France tried to dictate to Spain as to its civil institutions. Mr. Canning would be no party to that interference—he protested against it. He went further, and in his place in Parliament he expressed a hope that Spain might come triumphant out of the struggle. It was not so now. England was told that Austria would march 70,000 men, and immediately the English Government began to interfere and to give information to Foreign countries. He said that this was a subject which was well worthy the attention of that House. Where was the chance of liberation to the Italian people if they proceeded in this manner? He said that every one of these Petty States of Italy was a petty tyranny, and that the whole of them ought to be swept away. The Governments were secure in their misdeeds. If an appeal were made to Austria—no matter how the people were tyrannised over, nor how grossly they were misgoverned—then Austria would reply, the Papal States and all the other Italian States are independent, and we cannot interfere; but if the subjects rose up against their tyrants, then Austria would declare her determination to interfere with 70,000 men, and England too would interfere. Why, he said, was England to become the police of every despot in Europe? Such had been their conduct in the whole of these matters and the further they examined
1360
into them, the more disgraceful must the transactions appear in the eyes of Europe. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward, and he could only say, that as far as his vote as an individual Member of that House could aid in wiping out a stain from the country that was the consequence of the transactions in which the Government had engaged itself—so far as that could be done by his vote for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, he should most cordially support it.
Mr. Warburtonobserved that no attack had ever been made on the character of Mr. Mazzini before the Committee.
The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 52: Majority 14.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Hawes, B.

Bannerman, A.

Heathcote, J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Howick, Visct.

Barnard, E. G.

Morison, Gen.

Bellew, R. M.

Osborne, R.

Bernal, R.

Palmerston, Visct.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Plumridge, Capt.

Busfeild, W.

Rawdon, Col.

Butler, hon. Col.

Russell, Lord J.

Butler, P. S.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Chapman, B.

Strutt, E.

Christie, W. D.

Stuart, W. V.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Tancred, H. W.

Collins, W.

Thornely, T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Walker, R.

Disraeli, B.

Warburton, H.

Duncan, Visct.

Ward, H. G.

Forster, M.

French, F.

TELLERS.

Granger, T. C.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Duncombe, T.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Acland, T. D.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Hampden, R.

Baillie, Col.

Harcourt, G. G.

Baird, W.

Hodgson, F.

Baring, rt. hn. W. B.

Hope, hon. C.

Benbow, J.

Knight, F. W.

Borthwick, P.

Mackenzie, T.

Browne, hon. W.

Masterman, J.

Cardwell, E.

McGeachy, F. A.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Mundy, E. M.

Compton, H. C.

Newdegate, C. N.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Darby, G.

O'Brien, A. S.

Escott, B.

Packe, C. W.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fuller, A. E.

Pringle, A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Round, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt

Sandon, Visct.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Smith, rt. hon. T. B. C.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Greenall, P.

Somes, J.

1361

Spooner, R.

Turner, E.

Stewart, J.

Wood, Col. T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Tennent, J. E.

TELLERS.

Thompson, Ald.

Baring, H.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Young, J.

EXCISE ACTS — SPIRITS — GLASS.
Upon the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, to go into Committee on the Excise Acts.
Mr. F. T. Baringwished to call the attention of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the case made on the part of the retailers of foreign spirits and liqueurs. They had no power now to sell under the amount of two gallons. In the Report of the Excise Committee, it was recommended that the amount should be reduced, and in consequence of that re commendation he had introduced a Bill some years ago, which would allow the sale of one bottle of foreign spirits and liqueurs. That Bill had passed the House of Commons, but was lost in the House of Lords, for what reason he did not then recollect. He was afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought this a small matter, but he could assure him it was no small matter when a considerable number of persons were in the habit of breaking the law. The habits of society were such, that consumers did not purchase to the amount of two gallons of these articles. It would be much more preferable that parties should be able to carry on their business in a legal manner, and not be subject to the attacks of informers; for at present they must either disoblige their customers or violate the law. He wished to know if any change was likely to be made in the present state of the law.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was not in his power to give a satisfactory answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He could assure him he had been assailed very strongly on both sides. One party was anxious to have the privilege of selling foreign spirits without a publican's license; and the other side, those who had taken out a publican's license, for which they paid very highly, objected to the privilege being granted to those not liable to the same expense as themselves. He had endeavoured to reconcile these conflicting interests, but without success. His wish was to make a satisfactory arrangement: but that wish had not yet been realized.
The House in Committee.
On the Question that the Chairman be directed to move the House that leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Duty on Glass,
Mr. Hawescalled the attention of the Government to the following Notice which had been given by the hon. Member for London (Mr. Pattison):—
"That drawbacks be allowed on the stocks of the London bottle merchants, the same being certified to be new bottles only, and also on all new bottles in transit from the manufactories, the same being shipped previous to the 5th day of April, and being provided with certificates from the manufacturers of their having paid duty; such drawbacks to be made on the same principle as to the other manufacturers and dealers in glass."
This was intended to have been brought under their consideration by his hon. Friend, who though he limited his Resolution to the city of London, had no objection that it should be extended throughout the country. It was not an appeal to the generosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it was proposed as a benefit to the Exchequer, and one that it would be for its interest to accede to. The bottle makers had a right to a drawback on bottles exported. Exporting them with that object might be injurious to traders here, and produce a glut abroad. What was desired was, to enter into a compromise.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that no one could better argue a question like this, than the hon. Gentleman; but he could not accede to the proposition. He could not tell what was the amount of duty to be remitted, but he could ascertain the amount of drawback on articles exported. Besides, it would be impossible to distinguish between old bottles and new. In his opinion, it would not be consistent with principle, nor for the advantage of the Revenue, to accede to the proposition.
Mr. Spoonerconsidered that some time should be allowed before the new scale of protective duties came into operation. He proposed on a future occasion to move that those duties have effect from and after the the 10th of April, 1846.
Sir Robert Peeldid not know whether or not it would be competent for the hon. Member to make such a Motion, after the passing of the Resolution now before the Committee; but he trusted the House would support the Government in relieving the glass trade from the restrictions to

1363
which it was now subject by an excise duty, amounting, in some cases, to 100 per cent.; and that they would insist at the same time, that the consumer should have the full advantage of the reduction of the duty at the earliest moment.
Lord John Russellquite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the present scale of duties should not continue in force for a longer period than the Government proposed; but with regard to the question of drawback, he thought it should be the policy to make the loss as easy to those who had paid the duty as possible. When, for the public advantage, useless offices were abolished, it was usual to make the charge as little burdensome as possible to the individuals; and he thought, with regard to persons engaged in trade, when changes were made for the general benefit in excise duties, which those persons could not foresee or expect, he thought the same principle should be adopted. It was hard when a benefit was conferred upon the public, that a loss of 1,200 l. or 1,500 l. should be entailed on a sudden upon individuals without any allowance being made to them. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer found the course suggested impracticable, it would be another thing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdenied that there was any analogy between the case of a person whose office was abolished, and that of a bottle merchant who had paid duty.
Resolution agreed to. House resumed.
Resolution reported. Bill ordered to be brought in.
House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.