Lords Sitting of 21 February 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Law and Equity; Plea on Indictments. 2a Companies (1860).
LAW AND EQUITY BILL.

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR presented a Bill for the further Amendment of the Process, Practice and Mode of Pleading in and enlarging the Jurisdiction of the Superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster. The noble and learned Lord said the Bill had been drawn in compliance with the recommendation contained in Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne that some attempt should be made for such further fusion of law and equity as might be necessary to insure that in every suit the rights of the parties might be satisfactorily determined by the Court in which the suit was commenced.
  Bill read 1a

PLEA ON INDICTMENTS BILL.

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD BROUGHAMin presenting a Bill for removing Doubts on the Plea of Persons indicted, said, he quite agreed that the Bill of the Lord Chancellor, just laid upon the table, would be an excellent measure; for it was absolutely necessary to give additional powers to the admirable common law courts of this country, and he could call to mind numerous instances in which such an extension of power would have saved enormous expense and delay to suitors. He begged to lay upon the table a Bill rendering it unnecessary for prisoners to plead "guilty" or "not guilty" at their trials. Some such measure had long been earnestly desired by numerous visiting magistrates and chaplains of gaols, who had petitioned their Lordships on the subject. By the construction of the English law the
  1450
  plea of "not guilty" simply meant that the person pleading it wished to be tried; but it appeared by the number of petitions that had been presented by magistrates, chaplains of goals and others, that it very frequently happened that in the interval between commitment and trial the prisoner, either from the internal conviction of conscience, or through the exhortations of worthy and reverend men conceived that he would only be adding to the crime by pleading "not guilty;" the consequence of which was that many prisoners pleaded "guilty" to indictments upon which no conviction could have been had, rather than tell what they conceived to be a falsehood in the presence of the Court. To obviate this he had introduced the present Bill, which would enable prisoners to be put on their trial without calling upon them to say anything to which a conscientious objection could be raised. The question he proposed to substitute for the question at present put by the officer of the Court, whether the prisoner says he is guilty or not guilty was the question, whether he desires to be tried or pleads guilty; and in case the prisoner answers that he desires to be tried, that answer should be taken to be a plea of not guilty to all intents and purposes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that one of the Bills which he laid upon the table on a former occasion contained similar provisions to those proposed to be inserted in the Bill of the noble and learned Lord; but he failed to carry the measure. He hoped that better success would attend the present measure.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he had looked through the various law Bills of the last few Sessions, and had failed to discover any provision of the kind; but he should be very happy if the noble and learned Lord would adopt this Bill as his own child, and carry it through.
  Bill read 1a.

ITALY—SIGNOR BONCOMPAGNI AND THE BRITISH CHARGE D'AFFAIRES AT FLORENCE.

  EXPLANATION.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, be wished to state to the House that Her Majesty's Government had received a letter from Mr. Corbett, Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Florence, with reference to his alleged attendance at the official reception of Signor Boncompagni on New Year's Day. Mr. Corbett denied that he had attended

  1451
  any official reception on that or any other occasion; but that he had attended a ball given by His Excellency on the evening of that day; that he was invited in his private capacity, and that as he had known Signor Boncompagni since his first arrival at Florence, he did not conceive that there was any impropriety in so doing.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that the explanation of Mr. Corbett was perfectly satisfactory, and no one hoard it with greater pleasure than he did. If there had been any error he must have been led into it by the language which had been held by the Provisional Government at Florence.
  Afterwards,
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he wished clearly to understand the meaning of Mr. Corbett's letter. He understood the phraseology of that letter to draw a distinction between attending at an official reception and accepting an invitation to a ball. In point of fact, the ball given on that occasion was the sequel of an official reception, and was part of the official reception. The only explanation that was at all satisfactory to his own mind was that Mr. Corbett did not attend in his official capacity. He was only anxious to guard against admitting that this was a private affair, for the real fact was that it was an official reception.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had better read the words of Mr. Corbett's letter:—
  "I was not present at any official reception of Signor Boncompagni on the 1st of January or any other day. I did indeed receive an invitation as 'Mr. Corbett,' not as Her Majesty's 'Charge d' Affaires' to a ball given by his Excellency on the 1st January, which I did attend, and as I had known Signor Boncompagni since my first arrival in Florence, I did not conceive that there could be any impropriety in being present on that occasion."

CONSTITUTION OF TASMANIA.—THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.-STATE AID TO RELIGION.

  PETITIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON presented a petition from the citizens of Hobart Town and Electors of the Parliament of Tasmania, praying for the Disallowance of the Act amending the Constitution of the Legislative Council in that Colony. The petitioners stated that there were two objections to the amended Act sent home—that it extended the period during which
  1452
  in certain cases Members of the Legislalative Council enjoyed a seat in that Assembly, and indirectly it limited the franchise by excluding from a seat in the Legislative Council persons who, under the Constitutional Act of the Colony, had a right to it. The Constitutional Act of the Colony passed in 1854 contained a clause giving a seat to every one not disqualified by other special provisions, and who was twenty-one years of age. This amending Act excluded the Judges of the Supreme Court from the Council. Now, the petition stated that, two years after the Constitutional Act passed, the Judge of the Supreme Court was elected, by a greater number of votes than had been given for a candidate before or since, to a seat in the Legislative Council. Upon his return to the Legislative Council, he was elected Speaker of that Chamber, and by the admission of all parties he appeared for two years to have discharged the duty of Speaker with dignity and credit. The effect of the present Act was, however, to disqualify him and exclude him from a seat in the Legislative Council. The Act was passed by a bare majority in a very thin House, and the petitioners prayed that their Lordships would interpose, and by recommending its disallowance afford an opportunity for a further reconsideration of the question. These appeared to be the general facts of the case; but he was bound to say that the disallowance by the Crown of Acts passed by Colonial Legislature was a step to be very carefully weighed. Readily admitting that it was necessary and right in certain cases where Imperial interests were compromised, where great principles of natural justice, in which the dignity and faith of the Crown were involved, were at issue, that the Secretary of State should have recourse to this extreme measure, he came on the whole to the conclusion, that though the proceeding was anomalous, it was one scarcely so foreign to the practical working of a representative Government, that under the circumstances it was a case in which the House ought to proceed so far as to Address the Crown to withhold its assent from an Act which had passed through both Houses of the Colonial Legislature. He believed that the exercise of self-government by that and other colonies had been and would be productive of practical good; and it was better, if such occasional excesses occurred in the exercise of their privileges, that the colonists should learn by experience the

  1453
  difficulties and inconveniences to which such excesses would be sure to lead.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he should not think it necessary to go much into the question, especially as his noble Friend had himself expressed the same opinion as he (the Duke of Newcastle) thought it his duty to do in regard to the prayer of the petitioners. The Act to which the petitioners referred was intended to amend the constitution of Tasmania in two respects. The Act of the year 1857 which conferred representative Government on that Colony, provided that it should have two Houses of Legislature of which the lower one, known as the House of Assembly, was to consist of thirty Members, and the upper House, or Legislative Council, was to be composed of fifteen, of whom a certain number—five— should go out annually by rotation. It was found, however, that Members sometimes resigned their seats, and this had the effect of causing those below them to go out before their time in the usual course of rotation had arrived. In this way it might possibly happen that through a direct party manœuvre— of course he was putting an extreme case—the whole Council would cease to exist. In the Act then under their Lordships' consideration a provision was inserted which would prevent the possibility of such a contingency by enacting that the Members should not possess the power of resigning, but should retain their seats for the period for which they were elected. But the main objection of the petitioners was directed against another provision of the measure, by which judges were disqualified from holding seats in the Legislative Council. The petitioners had elected as their representative an eminent judge, and they naturally wished to retain his services in that character. The question thus raised was one which had been discussed in this country; and none who had heard it could fail to remember the celebrated speech in which the late Lord Macaulay had advocated the policy of leaving the English Master of the Rolls eligible to a seat in the House of Commons. But whatever opinion might be held upon that point in this country, he believed that every one who was at all acquainted with the condition of Tasmania must feel that the provision in the Act in question was a very wholesome one. The population of that colony was very limited; the legislative body itself consisted of only a few
  1454
  members, and the Judges had actually, upon some occasions, to decide upon the powers and privileges of the assembly of which they had hitherto been allowed to be members. It was further stated by the petitioners that the Act had been passed through the Tasmanian Legislature with undue haste. Now he admitted that measures appeared to be sometimes adopted by our Colonial Legislatures with too much rapidity, but he thought at the same time that it would be a very strong proceeding on the part of the Crown to refuse its sanction to Acts which had received the approval of free assemblies merely because the Standing Orders had been suspended upon the occasion of their passing. On the whole, he saw no reason why the Crown should withhold its assent to the Act. He had not thought proper to advise Her Majesty to give it Her sanction while a notice upon the subject stood upon their Lordships' books; but, as the question had been introduced, he begged leave to inform his noble Friend and the House that it was now his intention, without any further delay, to recommend Her Majesty to assent to the Act.
  THE EARL OF DERBYhad also a petition to present from Tasmania, though relating to a point somewhat different from that embraced in the petition presented by his noble Friend, and not from so numerous a body. The persons from whom his petition emanated were the Clergy of Tasmania, on behalf of themselves and all other Colonial Chaplains of the Church of England whose interests are endangered, and they prayed their Lordships to advise Her Majesty to withhold Her assent to the Colonial Act to provide for the Abolition upon certain terms of State Aid to Religion in the colony. He had no hesitation in expressing his belief that the case he had to state on behalf of the petitioners was one which would justify the Colonial Secretary in advising Her Majesty to withhold her assent to the measure which had been passed by the Tasmaninn Legislation. From the first formation of the colony there was set apart a large amount of reserves in land for the maintenance of the clergy of the Established Church. These were subsequently to a great extent reserved by the Crown, and in 1837 a measure was introduced enacting that wherever a church was erected on certain conditions a clergyman should be appointed under the authority of the Crown, at the yearly stipend of £200 for life, or during good beha-

  1455
  viour. The Colonial Government from time to time made additions and allowances that raised the income of each clergyman to £310 per annum. He might state that the revenue of the colony had nearly doubled what it was in 1837. When the Constitutional Act was passed it was made a sine quâ non that £15,000 a year should be set aside and made one of the items of a civil list guaranteed to the Crown, and should be appropriated to the support of ministers of religion and to the maintenance of public worship. He was not certain whether that £15,000 a year was in addition to or in lieu of the previous provision which had been made for the colonial chaplains. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: It was not in addition.] The noble Duke said it was not in addition. The case therefore which they had to lay before their Lordships was all the stronger from that circumstance. In 1859 a Bill was introduced into the Legislature of Tasmania for the purpose of abrogating the whole of that reserve of £15,000 a year—of which £9,000 had been given to the clergy of the Established Church, and 6,000 to those of other religious denominations—and substituting for the annual payment of £15,000 debentures to the amount of £100,000. The immediate effect of that arrangement, which was to take effect from January 1861, was to reduce the sum receivable by the Established Church from £9,000' to £3,000. An extraordinary part of the arrangement was that the Bishop was to be paid in full, the result of which was to diminish still further the £3,000 to be divided among the general body of the clergy. The substitution in question had placed the clergy in a position which they had no reason to anticipate. Their incomes had been reduced from about £310 a year to less than one-third of that amount. Although a clergyman might have been in possession for thirty years of a guaranteed income of £310 a year, and although a provision for the clergy was made a sine quâ, non of the constitution, the maximum allowance which he would henceforth receive would be only £80 a year. He (the Earl of Derby) re-gretted to hear the noble Duke state that he did not consider that in itself the circumstance of a Bill having been passed with great haste in a thin House was a sufficient reason for the Secretary of State to recommend the Crown to disallow it. In a case where a Bill in itself was unobjectionable the fact of its having been passed in a thin House would not have been a suf-
  1456
  ficient reason for the withholding from it the sanction of the Crown; but if the measure was one which seriously invaded, as he thought this did, the principles of justice, and set aside one of the main provisions of the Constitutional Act, then, he thought, the circumstance of its having been carried in a thin House, and with great rapidity, and without notice to the persons whose interests it would immediately affect, did form a sufficient ground to justify the Secretary of State advising Her Majesty not to give Her assent to an Act passed, he might almost say, with indecent haste. He would state the circumstances under which the Bill had been passed. The Bill, after having been debated in the House of Assembly, was brought up to the Legislative Council on the 20th of September, when it was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for the following day. On the 21st of September the Standing Orders were all suspended; the Bill was read a second time, committed, and received the Governor's assent, so far as he was able to give it, and Parliament was prorogued on the 22nd. It was not passed with the full knowledge of the Members of the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council consisted of fifteen members; but at that time six out of the fifteen seats were actually vacant, and one member was absent in England. Of seven members who were present, exclusive of the President—there being a division—four voted in favour of the Bill and three against it; so that a measure setting aside one of the main provisions of the Constitution was carried in one day by a majority of one in a House consisting of only seven members. He thought, allowing the Colonial Legislature the fullest latitude to deal with their own affairs, he had made out a case—having regard to the importance of the object of the measure, the haste with which it was passed, and the infinitesimally small majority by which it was carried—to justify him in calling on the Government not to sanction the Act in question; at all events, to afford the Colonial Legislature an opportunity of reconsidering the position of so valuable a body of men charged with important public duties in the performance of which some of them had spent thirty years of their lives. If it was to be determined that in future no aid should be given by the State for the service of religion in the colony—a conclusion which he (the Earl of Derby) should deeply deplore—he held that it was the bounden duty of the Secretary

  1457
  of State to see that the persons who had gone out in the capacity of ministers of the Gospel, and many of whom had exercised their important public functions for, as he had said, thirty years, should be treated with something like justice and equity. He had a strong sense of the merits of the case of the petitioners, and did trust that he should receive from the noble Duke a more favourable answer than that given to his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon).
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEagreed with the noble Earl that the Secretary for the Colonies was bound under all circumstances to see that in the Acts of the Colonial Legislature private and individual rights were protected. The noble Earl had no need to press that point upon him or upon the House, because he trusted before he sat down to satisfy their Lordships that he had not neglected that portion of his duty. But the matter was not so simple as the noble Earl appeared to regard it—chiefly because the noble Earl laboured under some slight mistake as to the real facts of the case. If, indeed, the Colonial Act to which the noble Earl referred had made it a sine quâ non that the £15,000 a year should in all time coming be devoted to religious purposes in the colony, then, indeed, the case would be simple, and he (the Duke of Newcastle) would be free from all responsibility in the matter, as well as from the great anxiety he had felt in arriving at the conclusion to which he had come.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I did not say that the Act made it a sine quâ non, but that the Secretary of State, in authorizing the Colonial Legislature to deal with this matter, made it a sine qua non that they should reserve in the Act a fund for religious worship.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that practically the result was the same either way, but his noble Friend had not repeated quite accurately the words used by the Secretary of State. In reality, Lord John Russell's despatch in 1839 would rather tell against the petitioners than in their favour. His Lordship said that the exemplary persons who were now devoting themselves to the cause of religious instruction in these remote colonies must
  "Look for future support to the community among whom they are preparing to spread those inestimable advantages rather than to any pledge from the mother-country. It is, therefore, of
  1458
  great importance that all clergymen and schoolmasters at New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, and especially all who may hereafter resort thither, should most distinctly understand that the continuance of their stipends cannot he absolutely guaranteed to them by Her Majesty's Government, who can be responsible only for the exercise of the legitimate authority and influence of the Crown with the local Legislatures for preventing any departure from the principles already sanctioned by those Legislatures on this subject."
  The despatch, therefore, it would be seen, bore a different construction from that put upon it by the petitioners. But he would not lay any great stress upon this despatch, because subsequent instructions had been sent out by Colonial Secretaries, and it did not tell materially one way or the other. But the Act did not prevent the local Legislature from dealing with this £15,000 a year. It was expressly so stated in a despatch of his noble Friend (Earl Grey). The enclosure contained in that despatch, being a copy of one addressed by him to the Governor of the neighbouring colony of New South Wales, was to this effect:—
  "All other salaries except those of the Governors and Judges are placed by Parliament under the ordinary control of the Legislature. With regard to the mode of exercising this control you will, however, observe that reductions of fixed establishments, or of any expenditure provided for by permanent laws, can only be effected by Acts of the Legislature, which, of course, require the assent of the Crown, signified by yourself, and confirmed by Her Majesty; but I wish you distinctly to understand that there is no desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to prevent prospective reductions of charges which, in the opinion of the colonists, will safely admit of being diminished. The interests of existing office-holders must he protected, because they accepted those offices with expectations which cannot be justly disappointed. But, subject to these interests, there is no objection to the Legislature fixing whatever scale of emoluments they may think fit for public servants to be hereafter appointed."
  Now, what was the state of feeling in the colony with regard to the Church of England and the whole question of State endowments? The petitioners stated that the majority of the colonists had no desire to change the present system, and that the existing Legislature did not represent the opinions of the body of the people; but he had the authority, not only of the Governor, but the Bishop of the colony, for the exact reverse of this statement. From the facts which had been submitted to him, it would appear that in Tasmania the hostility to all State endowments was both strong and progressive. In 1858 a Bill precisely similar to that now complained of was intro-

  1459
  duced into the Colonial Legislature, but was successfully opposed. Next year it was again introduced, and was supported, and many who had opposed it in the first instance, having in the meantime consulted their constituents, changed their votes, and the Bill was thus carried by the support of those who had formerly opposed it. Under these circumstances it was felt by those most interested in the present state of things that some compromise was necessary. Two plans were proposed—the first, which was that adopted, being the substitution of a capital sum of £100,000 for the £15,000 a year heretofore given; the other plan being that all State endowments, whether in the shape of a capital sum, or an annual grant, should cense; with a due regard, however, to vested interests. It was felt that more benefit would result to the permanent interests of religion by the grant of a capital sum, than by a grant ceasing with the lives of the present holders; and this, therefore, was the compromise adopted. He could assure the noble Earl that there was not that unanimity even among the members of the Church of England to reject this measure that he supposed. He had received a letter from the Bishop, which undoubtedly, in its general purport, was opposed to the measure; but added, that if the time had really come for compromise, he did not object to that now suggested; believing that such a compromise would be best for the Church and for the interests of religion. Again, he (the Duke of Newcastle) had a petition in favour of the measure from a Church Synod, consisting of clergy and laymen, which had been recently formed in these colonies—that petition being signed by an archdeacon with several lay and clerical members, who did not indeed believe that £100,000 was a full and satisfactory equivalent for £15,000 a year, but who, knowing the state of feeling in the colony, and the powers conferred on the local Legislature, were anxious that the offer now made should be closed with, as the only means by which the Church was likely to save something out of the fire. And he must say that the clergy who had signed the petition presented by the noble Earl were supported by some very strange allies—by the Anti-State Church party both in the colony and in this country—the former of whom had petitioned against this measure, and the latter had lately applied to have an interview with him on this subject. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he should have
  1460
  been prepared to recommend to Her Majesty to signify her assent to this measure, if it were not for the entire neglect evinced by it for vested interests. If the clergy affected by the measure had viewed the matter in the light in which the archdeacon and others, to whom he had already referred, viewed it, and had given their consent to the measure, that would be a totally different thing; but they had petitioned against it; and it did not appear that the provision made was an adequate compensation for their stipends. In the case of civil servants such treatment would not be fair and just; but the case of the clergy was not entirely analogous to that of civil servants. The latter, on quitting office, might follow some other profession; but these clergymen, who had been long separated from all friends in England, when suddenly turned adrift on a most inadequate compensation, would be unable to find any other profession in the colony. Under these circumstances, it was his intention to recommend to Her Majesty to disallow this Act. He did not hesitate to say that he took this course not without reluctance; but, nevertheless, he considered the advice he proposed to give to the Crown was based on principles of justice; and it would in the end be found to be wise and expedient. At the same time, he did not close his eyes to the fact that, in that peculiar colony, where the moral feeling was not so high as Englishmen would wish to see it, great indignation might be felt at the course he intended to pursue, and the consequence might be that the cause, not of the Church of England alone, but of the other denominations that were interested in this endowment, might possibly suffer. Yet, agreeing with the noble Earl that it is the duty of the Secretary of State to support vested interests, he had come to the determination he had just stated to their Lordships. He trusted that the colony would view the decision in the spirit in which it was given, and that it would not take the course of which he had expressed apprehension, but that another Bill would be passed with an additional clause, cither giving ample compensation to the petitioners, or continuing their salaries.
  EARL GREYsaid, he saw no other course that the Colonial Secretary could have adopted. It was his duty, when Colonial Secretary, to bring in a Bill, under which the Colonial Secretary of Van Die-men's Land was to act; and in preparing that Bill the greatest care was taken that,

  1461
  while full powers were given to the Colonial Legislature to manage their own affairs, the Crown, on the other hand, should be armed with ample power to protect those who had accepted employment under a different regime, and the strongest instructions were given to Governors in no case to allow injustice to be committed on those who had sacrificed all their prospects in life for the purpose of accepting either civil or clerical employment in that distant colony. He thought the colonists had committed a grave error in thus sacrificing these religious endowments; hut it was an error they were free to commit. But when the rights of individuals were interfered with, the Crown had no alternative but to disallow the Act.
  After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR to the same effect, the subject dropped.
  Petition to lie on the Table.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES (1806) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it consolidated all the Acts relating to joint-stock companies, both in their formation and winding-up. These subjects were under the peculiar control of the Board of Trade, and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) brought in a Bill last Session which received their Lordships' approbation, but did not obtain the sanction of the other Mouse in consequence of the dissolution which took place. The subject had been again revived under the present Board of Trade, and their Lordships were asked to agree to the present measure, which was substantially the same as that of last Session. No disapprobation of the measure had been expressed in the other House, and he trusted that the Bill would now pass.
  Bill lead 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  CHINA—EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved an Address for Copies or Extracts of certain Letters connected with the Earl of Elgin's Mission to China, and not contained in the Correspondence hitherto presented.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I do not rise to object to the Motion; but as the papers for which the noble Lord has moved, relate to a matter affecting myself,
  1462
  not in the position I now hold as a member of Her Majesty's Government, but in the position I occupied in China, I trust I may be permitted to address to your Lordships a very few words by way of personal explanation. I am not in the habit of trespassing on your Lordships' attention; and therefore I hope that when I proffer this request, as I do most reluctantly, and only from the conviction that an explanation is essential to vindicate my character and conduct, I shall meet with your Lordships' indulgence. I am aware of the great inconvenience, and, as a general rule, of the great impropriety of referring in this House to what passes "in another place." At the same time I cannot help thinking that my position as ex-Minister to China, more especially in the present critical state of our relations with that country, is one of a somewhat peculiar and anomalous character, and this may perhaps justify me in the expectation of receiving something more than an ordinary measure of indulgence from your Lordships. It does so happen that both Administrations —the one from which I received my first official instructions, and the other under which my important duties were performed—have passed from their political state of existence. At the present moment, therefore, there is no person in office who is personally cognizant of many of the transactions which occurred during the greater part of my mission in China, or who is able from his own knowledge to answer any inquiry that may be made, or to remove, by an explanation of facts, any erroneous impression that those transactions may have produced. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention, in illustration of what I mean, that a few days ago, when it was asked in the House of Commons, with something like a taunt, which elicited a cheer, why the noble Lord who negotiated the treaty of Tien-tsin, did not himself proceed to Pekin to exchange the ratifications, if there had been in the other House any official person qualified as I have described, the answer might have been given that, in point of fact, I was never charged with the duty of exchanging the ratifications of the treaty, that the treaty was never placed in my possession; that I never had the option of going to Pekin. I do not mean in making that statement, to cast the slightest reflection upon my noble Friends opposite for the course they adopted in regard to the treaty of Tien-tsin. On the contrary, I think they acted properly and naturally in charging the Minister who was to remain permanently in China with the duty of ex-

  1463
  changing the ratifications of the treaty; but I venture to say that, if the question to which I have alluded implied any insinuation—if it implied—as I suspect from the manner in which it was put it did imply —any doubt as to my willingness and readiness to discharge a difficult and disagreeable portion of my mission, the sting of the implied accusation would have been removed by such an answer. Upon another occasion, when some very severe reflections were cast upon me by an hon. Gentleman whom I do not consider to be quite responsible for those reflections, because I read them, as well as the greater part of the rest of his speech, in an American review some days before he addressed the House of Commons—when I was charged, almost in the words of an article, of which I think I am capable of saying who the author was, with having shown undue harshness to the Chinese, and with having pressed demands upon them, which some of the representatives of other nations did not venture to put forward, my accuser might have been reminded that I did not go to China without instructions; that it was not altogether a matter of choice to me whether I should make this or that demand upon the Chinese Government; and, above all, that I should have assumed a serious responsibility if I had abstained from pressing the demand for a resident Minister in Pekin, in the face of the positive and peremptory instruction from my Government, that if I were forced to have recourse to coercive measures, I was not to make a permanent arrangement with the Government of China—by which was meant, I presume, because we always use euphemisms in speaking of China, that I was not to make peace with China—except after having obtained that concession. Here again, I do not mean to rest the justification of my demand for a resident Minister in Pekin upon the fact that such was my instruction. I am ready to justify that demand upon its merits; for I am confident that if we intend to maintain permanent pacific relations with some 400,000,000 of the human race, scattered over a country some 1,500 miles long by as many broad; if we intend that our merchants shall conduct their trade and commerce with that vast population in peace, in some shape or other, under some modification or another, we must establish direct diplomatic relations with the Imperial Government of Pekin. It is not because I doubt the propriety of the demand that I should have wished an explanation to be given in the House of Commons, but
  1464
  because I think the answer which I have suggested would at least have relieved me from the imputation of having been unduly harsh and severe in my conduct towards the Chinese, and from the still graver imputation that the spirit indicated by the tone of my despatches was totally different from that by which my acts were characterized. These inconveniences were very little felt by me last year, because at that time a certain halo which surrounded all the results of my mission— although, no doubt, many of the proceedings to which I was a party were fairly open to inquiry—indisposed persons to raise objections or to indulge in criticism. But the circumstances of the present time are very different. A great calamity has occurred, and it is perfectly natural and right that the acts of the diplomatic agents who have been employed in China for some time past should, so far as they have a bearing upon the present state of affairs, be open to investigation and censure. I do not complain of that. All I ask is, that when I am attacked where I have not the means of defending myself, and where there is no Member of the Government personally conversant with the facts and capable of answering for me, I may be excused if I take the liberty of making my defence in my place in this House, and if I appeal to your Lordships for permission to do so. With respect to the particular subject referred to in the despatches which have been moved for by my noble Friend opposite, I shall only say that it has given me more pain and distress than all the other circumstances which occurred in connection with my mission put together. I gather from the usual sources of information that a gallant Admiral with whom I was associated in the discharge of very important duties in China, took advantage—and it was very natural that he should do so—of an opportunity afforded to him by a discussion upon Chinese affairs some short time ago in the House of Commons, to enter into a review of all the transactions in which he had been engaged in China, from the commencement of the unfortunate affair of the lorcha Arrow down to the last transaction with which he was connected in that country, the capture of Canton; and in the course of that review he gave his own version of the circumstances which prevented him from supplying me in the north of China in April, 1858, with that particular description of force—namely, gun-

  1465
  boats drawing little water—for which I had applied, which I certainly understood him to have promised, and which I considered to be essential to enable me to carry out the policy which I was endeavouring to pursue in that quarter. I cannot, of course, he expected to acquiesce altogether in the view which the gallant Admiral takes of the transaction in question; but that view was so temperately expressed, and it was so natural that he should desire to place before the public his own version of the affair, that if his statement had stood alone, I should not have thought it necessary to take any notice of it whatever. But I must say I read with some feeling of surprise the observations which fell from a right hon. Baronet, the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), who referred to a verdict which he stated had been pronounced upon the unfortunate misunderstanding which has arisen between the gallant Admiral and myself—a verdict which I have never seen, and the grounds of which I do not know. It does seem to me to be a most unusual proceeding, when differences have occurred between two persons in any position of life, that a verdict should be given in favour of one of the parties without the other being informed either of the result which has been arrived at or of the grounds upon which it is based. I presume I shall know with the rest of your Lordships what the verdict is when the papers now moved for have been placed in your hands. Of course I do not intend to enter into the question now. I shall only say that I think when those papers are laid on the table, your Lordships will see that I was placed in a position of very great difficulty at the commencement of 1858, after the capture of Canton, with the forces at my disposal reduced by the demands of India and the requirements of the Canton garrison, with instructions directing me to obtain from the Chinese Government concessions which amounted to an entire subversion of the traditional policy of that great empire, and with orders to prosecute my mission in combination not only with the representative of France, with whom I was associated, and with whom I acted in the most friendly concert throughout, but also with the representatives of two other Powers, Russia and America, who were still in the position of neutrals, and from whom, if we were forced into acts of hostility, we must entirely have broken off. My Lords, I think you will gather from
  1466
  these papers that I had some good reason for believing that prompt, direct, and energetic action in the shape of a demonstration in the neighbourhood of the Court of Pekin was the only expedient which seemed to afford any hope of our being able to bring to an early close, and without bloodshed, the hostilities in which we were then engaged with China upon conditions consistent both with my instructions and with what I believed to be required by the honour and interests of this country. I can assure your Lordships that when I proceeded to the north I went in the firm belief that the gallant Admiral was entirely cognizant of the policy I intended to pursue in that quarter, that he thoroughly sympathized with that policy, and that I might count upon his ready and energetic support. I do not refer to private communications which passed between us, and of which no record is kept, but I had in my possession at the time a despatch, to which I may now refer, because it is before your Lordships—a despatch written by the gallant Admiral in answer to my applications for gun-boats, not stating that he did not know the object for which I wanted them, or that the monsoon or any other difficulty would prevent him from supplying them, but, on the contrary, stating most distinctly that the subject had been under his consideration for a long time—this despatch was written on the 2nd March—-that one of the gun-boats had already started, and that arrangements were in progress for others to follow. The most conclusive proof I can give of how thoroughly I supposed I was acting in full concurrence with the gallant Admiral is the fact that I went to the north at all; because it would have been an act of absolute insanity to do so had I not felt assured of the gallant Admiral's support when I arrived there. The Admiral arrived on the 24th of April, and informed me, that so far from the gunboats being at hand, very few of them had been ordered to leave Hong Kong, and that those few would not leave until a period long after that at which I had been led to understand they were to arrive in the north. I confess that information filled me with the greatest possible disappointment, and it is very probable that the despatches which I wrote at that time bore the reflex of my feelings. My disappointment arose from the fear which I entertained, not only that the policy I was engaged in carrying out in that quarter would be compromised by the non-arrival of the

  1467
  gun-boats, but that the honour of our country, our commercial interests, and even the lives of Europeans in the different open ports of China would be placed in jeopardy; because I apprehended that if we made an abortive attempt of that kind in the north, the Emperor would be very likely to send down word to the authorities in the different provinces to attack the Europeans in the open ports. Our apprehensions on that head are entirely borne out by what has actually occurred. The Emperor did send down such a message as I anticipated to the Provinces, but it took effect only at Canton; there the war was revived; and in consequence such urgent representations were made to us to send back from the north the forces we had collected there on our advance to Tien-tsin, that we were obliged, as soon as the treaty of Tien-tsin was signed, to give up the intention I had always had of proceeding direct to Pekin, there to carry out the policy which I believed to be absolutely essential to the perfect execution of the treaty, and to return to Canton. I believe that to that unfortunate omission the whole of our present disasters are due; because I believe that if I had been able to deliver that letter of credence to the Emperor at Pekin, I should have been able to have made such arrangements with the Imperial Court as would have disposed of that delicate question of the personal reception of the British Minister, and then none of the difficulties we are now involved in would have occurred. There is another point I must refer to, because the misconstruction repeatedly put on it in various quarters has created, very naturally, a strong prejudice against me. It has been observed that the despatches to which I have referred, which were written home at the time, were not shown by me to the gallant Admiral. That is perfectly true. I have been for seventeen years employed in the public service, and I do not think I ever showed to any one a despatch which I had thought it my duty to write to the Secretary of State; and I am quite sure I never saw any despatch written to the head of a Department in which my own conduct was commented upon. I have always understood that despatches addressed to Secretaries of State by public servants are private and confidential, and that the Secretary of State alone was at liberty to relieve them from the condition of secrecy. At the same time I must solemnly say that when Admiral Seymour made to me the communica-
  1468
  tion I have referred to, I stated to the gallant Admiral that it was absolutely necessary, not only for my own vindication, but also in order that Her Majesty's Government might be in possession of the facts of the case, that I should report in the fullest manner to the Government the extent to which, in my opinion, the prospects of our mission in the north were compromised by the failure on his part to furnish me with the armament on which I had relied. I added that if he had any counter statement to make, if he thought anything in my conduct, either in the way of omission or commission, was the cause of this failure, I begged of him to make a corresponding report to the Admiralty, in order that the whole case might be laid before Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I state this on my honour as a Peer, and am quite ready to repeat it in any other more solemn form in which an asseveration can be made. I ought to add, and it is the only sentence in the whole of this address which I have any satisfaction in uttering, that, apart from the unfortunate misunderstanding I have alluded to, and which the looseness and forget fulness pertaining to verbal communications may, perhaps, explain, nothing could be more loyal, more cordial, more generous, or more gallant than the support which I received throughout the whole of these transactions from all the officers commanding Her Majesty's forces. I must say I think there were some performances of the British navy during that period of a most remarkable character. I think the manner in which we visited many parts of the coast of Japan and the expedition for 600 miles up an unknown river, without pilot or chart, accomplished both in going and returning with perfect safety and good order, were transactions reflecting the highest credit on the gallant officers who were engaged in them. In alluding more particularly to these circumstances, I wish to say at the same time that an equal degree of gallantry and skill was shown by the whole of the fleet in all the operations which occurred, whether belligerent or otherwise; and I have only to repeat what I have more than once said in private and official communications, that to the happy audacity of my gallant Friend Captain Osborne, on board of whose ship I was for sixteen months, I was much indebted for the success of my mission.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that an imputation of the utmost gravity had been cast upon the conduct of the gallant

  1469
  Admiral who commanded in China at the time the events referred to by the noble Earl took place. He would not then go into the question which had been raised; but he begged their Lordships to suspend their judgment on the matter until all the papers bearing upon it were before them.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.