Lords Sitting of 2 July 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Medway Regulation Act Continuance * (199); University Elections (Voting Papers) * (201); Curragh of Kildnre * (195); Bank of Bombay * (196); New Zealand (Legislative Council) * (197); Consular Marriages * (198): Bank Holidays and Bills of Exchange * (200); Local Government Supplemental (No. 3) * (194); Prisons(Scotland) Administration Acts (Lanarkshire) Amendment * (202).
Committee—Boundary (170); Judgments Extension *(160).
Report—Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) * (203); Judgments Extension * (160).
Third Reading—Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation* (158); Inclosure (No. 2) * (159); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) * (165); Local Government Supplemental (No. 5) * (160), and passed.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION—VOTE OF THANKS TO HER MAJESTY'S FORCES.
Moved, That the Vote of Thanks to the Army of Abyssinia take Precedence of the Orders of the Day: Agreed to.—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, if on the one hand I feel both pride and pleasure at finding it my duty to make to your Lordships a proposition so honourable alike to your Lordships' House and to those to whom it is addressed, on the other hand I know that the task has fallen into hands hardly worthy of the great occasion, and that it ought to have fallen to some other of your Lordships more competent to deal with it as it deserves. Therefore I must ask your indulgence while I shortly put before you the great events to which this Motion refers, and ask your Lordships to consider how fair and just it is to do honour to the Array of England and also to the Navy who have been employed by Her Majesty's Government on this occasion. My Lords, Sir Robert Napier himself says at the end of his despatch that "it is difficult to find words that can do justice to every arm of the service which has been employed;" and if he finds it hard to do so, far more difficult must it be for me—who have not been present during the operations, and can only judge of them by what I read in his despatches—to do full justice to the forces on this occasion. And here in passing I may remark that the despatches of Sir Robert shew that the use of the pen is as inseparable from the name of Napier as the use of the sword. My
474
Lords, it is now five years since I was one of the first—if not the first—to direct your Lordships' attention to what was passing in Abyssinia. That is a long period for Englishmen to suffer under the cruelties of a barbarous savage; but, if anyone is ready to find fault with our forbearance during that long time, he must recollect that it is always the duty of the strong man to bear patiently with the weak, and, until his insolence becomes intolerable, to refrain from any violent measures. But, my Lords, at last this conduct on the part of King Theodore did become intolerable—intolerable to the feelings of humanity, and intolerable to our feelings of honour as an independent country; and in the year 1867 my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), being then Premier, determined to chastise this half-educated savage. My Lords, in this he was supported by public opinion; and although no doubt there were some hesitation and some apprehension entertained both in Parliament and out of Parliament as to the difficulties that would have to be encountered, and as to the success of the Expedition; yet on the whole the country received with indulgence all that the Government intended to do, and displayed the same spirit and confidence in British energy which it has always shown on like occasions. And, my Lords, no confidence of that sort was ever justified more completely and rapidly than by the results of this Expedition. Sir Robert Napier, if he had within him—which he has not—the epigrammatic bombast of Italian conquerors, might quote the three Latin words which Caesar used to describe his own victory "Veni, vidi, vici." He might have done so had his nature been the same; but I need only allude to his despatches to show how modest and how simple that nature is. Well, my Lords, it is remarkable that this Expedition was crowned with a rapidity of success of which I think there is hardly another instance. Lord Stanley's despatch to the Emperor Theodore informing him that war would be declared against him was written on the 16th of April, 1867, and on the 13th of April, 1868, Magdala was taken and the Emperor was no more. Exactly one year passed between the despatch of the Foreign Secretary of State, threatening Theodore with the vengeance of England, and the execution of that vengeance. Sir Robert Napier landed on the 3rd of January at Zoulla, and in exactly 100 days finished the war. My Lords, I need hardly say

475
more in favour of the Commander-in-Chief than by putting that simple fact before your Lordships. When this Expedition was determined upon by Her Majesty's: Government your Lordships are aware that the Bombay Government was intrusted with the management of the whole matter; and, taking it in the historical order of affairs, I must say that great credit is due to Sir Seymour Fitzgerald, who, under the advice of Sir Robert Napier, organized the Expedition in Bombay. Nothing could have been done with more sagacity, with more promptitude, or with greater judgment than the whole arrangement and organization of this Expedition under these two able men. Many of your Lordships have known Sir Seymour Fitzgerald in this country, and I for one can testify to his ability and industry when he was under me in the Foreign Office. I am, therefore, not at all surprised at the credit he has gained by the management of the arrangements and the organization of the Expedition. My Lords, Her Majesty's Government gave full powers to Sir Robert Napier to act in every respect as he thought fit, to determine as he pleased, and to act entirely upon his own judgment; and, my Lords. I think the event has proved how very important it is on such occasions, when you find a competent man, that you should give him as much liberty of action as possible. My Lords, the composition of the army was very remarkable. It consisted of men of different nations and of different creeds. There were Mahomedan and there were Christian troops; there were Christian Sepoys, there were Beloochees and Hindoostanees; but this army, though of such different materials, was bound together by so solid a chain of discipline that throughout the whole campaign the utmost cordiality prevailed in every part of the force. Doubtless, my Lords, we owe much of this cordiality and good feeling to the character of Sir Robert Napier, who commanded them. It may not be out of place to mention some general facts respecting the organization of the Expedition, independently of the troops. There were 23,600 animals, exclusively of forty-two elephants, employed. The ships of various sorts numbered 231, with a tonnage that amounted altogether to 209,600 tons. And when we speak of the forty-two elephants that were employed, we cannot help observing that no such use has been made of those intelligent and magnificent animals since the days of Hannibal. In India they are
476
used in a champagne country, and more for draught than carriage; but in this instance, when mortars and artillery of 18cwt. were put upon their backs, they showed an activity in climbing those dangerous and slippery paths over the mountains that astonished even the Indian officers who had seen them at work in their own country.
My Lords, I now come to the Resolulutions which I have to move, and I think it better to read them at once. My Lords, I propose to your Lordships to resolve—
"That the Thanks of this House be given to Lieut.-General Sir Robert Napier, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., for the exemplary Skill with which he planned and the distinguished Energy, Courage, and Perseverance with which he conducted the recent Expedition into Abyssinia, resulting in the Defeat by Her Majesty's Forces of the Army of King Theodore and the Vindication of the Honour of the Country by the Rescue from Captivity of Her Majesty's Envoy und other British Subjects, and by the Capture and Destruction of the strong Fortress of Magdala.
"That the Thanks of this House be given to Commodore Heath, R.N., C.B., for the indefatigable Zeal and great Ability with which he conducted the Naval Operations connected with the Transport of the Troops and Stores upon which the Success of the Expedition materially depended.
"That the Thanks of this House be given to Major-General Sir Charles Staveley, K.C.B., Major-General G. Malcolm, C.B., Major-General E. L. Russell, Brigadier-General W. Merewether, C.B., and the other Officers of the Navy and Army for the Energy, Gallantry, and Ability with which they have executed the various Services which they have been called on to perform throughout these arduous Operations.
"That this House doth highly acknowledge and approve the Discipline, Gallantry, and Endurance displayed by the Petty Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and Men of the Navy and Army, both European and Native, during these Operations; and that the same be signified to them by their respective Commanding Officers."
My Lords, I think no further tribute of praise need be paid by me to Sir Robert Napier than is embodied in these Resolutions; but, passing for a moment the other officers engaged, I will ask your Lordships to recollect that General Slaveley was the officer who first arranged a base of operations at Zoulla, and being afterwards sent to the front, commanded the troops that fought the battle in front of Magdala, and was present at its capture. Let me also remind your Lordships that General, Malcolm had command of the chain of communication between Zoulla and the most advanced posts of the army, and though he and the officers under him were not present at the taking of Magdala, yet their services were equally im-

477
portant; for the communication here was like the chain attached to the anchor of a ship—if one link were broken, the army, like the ship, would be destroyed or at least be in the greatest danger. This communication was maintained with the utmost possible energy and intelligence, and was of the greatest importance in securing the safety of the advance. And now I would also mention the name of Major General Russell. Sir Robert Napier was most anxious that he should receive by name the Thanks of Parliament for his services, and Her Majesty's Government have thought proper to yield to that desire. Major General Russell was taken from his post at Aden at the request of Sir Robert Napier, who speaks of his services in maintaining the base of operations at Zoulla as of the greatest value. The name of Brigadier General Merewether is more familiar to your Lordships. From the very beginning, and, indeed, before the Expedition landed, he showed the greatest intelligence in maintaining what are called "political relations" with the various tribes and chiefs, first upon the coast and afterwards inland; and Sir Robert Napier speaks of his services also in the highest terms. Nor ought we to omit the great services of the navy on this occasion. The services of Commodore Heath and the other officers employed are spoken of by Sir Robert Napier in these words—
"I am very happy in this opportunity of saying how cordially Commodore Heath has conducted the naval duties of the Expedition in connection with the army. The spirit of their commander has been emulated by the officers and men of the Royal Navy under his orders. The labour under a hot sun of landing supplies and water, and re-embarking troops, followers, and cattle has never, for a single day, ceased since the arrival of the first transport in Annesley Bay.…Greatly, too, are we indebted to Captain Tryon, R.N., the able Director of Transports,"
I may also mention the name of Captain Edye, of Her Majesty's ship Satellite, who rendered most useful assistance in superintending the distillation of water for the army. In that country it is impossible in the dry season to find a sufficient quantity of water for the troops, and the distillation of water, therefore, became a point of vast importance. Not the least agreeable part of my task is to ask your Lordships to acknowledge the discipline and gallantry of the Petty Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and Men of the Army and Navy. No campaign ever showed more conspicuously the energy of British
478
troops, and their constancy in enduring the privations and overcoming the natural difficulties of the country. Their labours were immense. Sir Robert Napier in his despatch describes them as all working with the spade, every regiment being furnished with tools; and I think we shall never again hear, as we have so often heard before, that the English soldier can only fight, but cannot dig, and is incapable of throwing up intrenchments like the soldiers of other armies. Again, the march of the 45th Regiment is one of the most extraordinary on record. Having been detained in the rear, and being anxious to come as soon as possible to the front, they marched 300 miles in twenty-four days, and accomplished seventy miles in four days over a pass 10,500 feet high. The exploits of the cavalry appear to be equally admirable. We can easily understand what a difficult country Abyssinia is for horses; and yet Sir Robert Napier described the manner in which the cavalry behaved as most extraordinary considering the obstacles they had to encounter in such a mountainous country. I have mentioned the names of the gallant Generals who have led our troops to victory; and I should now like to mention two names of another class in our force—the names of Drummer M'Guire, and Private Bergin of the 33rd Regiment, who were the first two men at the storming of Magdala. Nor was the humanity and good conduct of the troops throughout the Expedition inferior to their courage and endurance. Sir Robert Napier says—
"Not a single complaint has been made against a soldier of having injured or wilfully molested either property or person."
My Lords, I do not believe that of any army in Europe or in any other part of the world could the same be said. As your Lordships are aware, Magdala was taken, and finding himself in a desperate condition—believing, perhaps, that the same cruelty which he had inflicted on others would be exercised towards him—this savage King put an end to his life with his own hand. The atrocities he had perpetrated were such that I think there cannot be a single person who would extend to him the slightest compassion. The cruelties he committed within three days of his death are too horrible to be repeated; but, if anybody doubts that the monster was unfit to live, he has only to study the first part of the Papers laid on your Lordships' Table, and

479
I would refer more particularly to page 693 for a description of horrors almost incredible. I believe that, here and there, it has been objected that, when once King Theodore had given up the captives, an attack on Magdala was unnecessary. It has been suggested, no doubt from kindly motives of humanity, that Sir Robert Napier might have accepted the submission of Theodore instead of deciding to storm his fortress, and in this way put an end to his existence. But there can be no greater mistake than to suppose that such a course would have been pursued without risk of very great misfortune. In the first place, it is almost certain that if he had been left there with the whole or with any considerable part of his army still under his command, when we had begun our retreat in that very difficult country—a retreat almost as arduous as the advance, except that we then had to make no roads—the King, with the little faith to be found in barbarian rulers, would have attacked or have harrassed our troops as long as he could have done so. There was another reason why Sir Robert Napier could not adopt such a course—namely, that in his advance he had obtained the support of the chiefs of the country on the understanding, and a thorough confidence on their side, that he would put an end to the tyranny of King Theodore, who was as hateful to them as he was to ourselves. We should, therefore, have broken faith with those chiefs who supported us in our advance to Magdala if we had not destroyed the power of Theodore. One more criticism has been made very often during the progress of the Expedition by amateur soldiers, and that is that it was extravagantly large. Now, I think, that even if you had not received the statement of Sir Robert Napier himself to the effect that he had not one man too many, it would still have been evident that, looking at the long chain of communication, extending over 400 miles through that difficult country, from the coast to Magdala, it would have been impossible to have employed a smaller force with a fair prospect of success, or to listen to suggestions made that the prisoners might have been rescued with a couple of flying squadrons of cavalry. That has now been shown to have been wholly impracticable. I will allude to one point more, and that is the very small loss of life which has occurred during these operations. In other wars, we know how heavy has been
480
what is called "the butcher's bill," and we know what numbers have generally perished by the sword and. by disease. But there seems to have been a special Providence over this army, and it is not unbecoming to say that the justice of our cause and the crimes which called for punishment from us may have brought upon our army the Divine blessing, without which no science and no gallantry will avail. The army feels, and justly feels, that a debt of gratitude is due to the illustrious Duke who sits upon the cross-Benches. All are aware of the assistance he rendered, and the zeal he showed in prosecuting this Expedition to a successful end; and I have myself heard the strongest expressions of the value of his co-operation. It is with pride and pleasure I hand these Resolutions to the Lord Chancellor; and I am assured they will be accepted by your Lordships with the same readiness and satisfaction that I feel in proposing them.
The Resolutions having been read by The LORD CHANCELLOR,
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to second the Motion which the noble Earl has proposed, and to express my concurrence in all the remarks he has made. The noble Earl has stated that on the 16th of April, 1867, the Expedition was resolved upon, and that on the 13th of April last Magdala was taken; and I may odd that on the 2nd of July we have the Expedition wholly completed, and we have welcomed on his return the gallant General by whom it was so ably commanded and have now only to vote our thanks to our officers and troops for their successful conduct of the enterprize. My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Earl that it was right to show forbearance before we resorted to the dreadful issue of war and the uncertainty of military operations in an unknown and inhospitable country. I, therefore, think it was right to postpone until the time when the Resolution was taken the determination to undertake this Expedition: and I also think that determination was come to exactly at the right time, when forbearance had reached its utmost limits, and there was nothing left for us to do but to vindicate the honour of the country. We can all rejoice now that that honour has been vindicated in so triumphant manner. The noble Earl referred, in the next place, to the preparations that were made for the Expedition;

481
and I think that to all the Departments of the Government that were concerned—to the Foreign Office, which carried on the communications with the Emperor Theodore; to the Indian Department, which was charged with the necessary preparations; to the War Department, and to the Department of the Commander-in-Chief—the Thanks of this House and of the whole country are due for the manner in which they performed the duties that devolved upon them. Then, again, when the Commander-in Chief was to be named, the Government acted at once with prudence and justice; for, having ascertained from authentic sources the character of Sir Robert Napier, they selected him and confided to his discretion the details of the manner in which the Expedition was to be carried out. Next we have to admire, through the period over which the Expedition has extended, the harmony that has prevailed among all the Departments of the Army concerned in carrying on the operations. The infantry, the cavalry, the artillery, the transport corps, and the pioneers all acted in harmony, and performed their duties in such a manner as to contribute to the achievement of the great result. And what is it which brought to bear upon bodies of men of this kind of many different nations, and trained in very different schools, distributed over a long tract of country—some of them Natives of it—makes them all act in harmony, and with that common purpose which conduces to success? It is due to the influence of the single mind which commands; and in this case it was the character of the man at the head of the Expedition which produced harmony, inspired confidence in all who followed him, and made them confide at once in his decisions, and do all in their power to carry out his purposes. I need not enter into any of the details of the Expedition, because Sir Robert Napier has narrated in the most simple, the most modest, and, at the same time, in the clearest language all the operations which he directed. I will only say that to all the brilliant achievements of the British Army in times past, I am glad that we have in our times added one other not less brilliant; that we have added another to the roll of those names which carry our military fame over the world. There might have been greater difficulties to overcome; there might have been greater obstacles to be surmounted; there may be some gallant officers and some
482
brave men who may lament that the resistance was not greater, that there were not more military exploits to be performed, and that there was no long siege to be undertaken; but, for my own part, when I consider the purpose for which this Expedition was undertaken, I think it a merciful interposition of Providence that no cruel act was committed against the prisoners to induce us to prolong the campaign, which was undertaken with the desire to carry it no further than was necessary to effect their release. I feel quite sure—and every man in this country feels quite sure—that, whatever number of assailants had come against the British Army, whatever difficulties of marching they had had to surmount, their courage and their endurance would have overcome them all. I must say we ought to be most thankful that this Army, without having had such obstacles to surmount, has succeeded in rescuing the unfortunate men and women who had been so long kept in captivity, and that it has returned to this country without great loss of life by climate or by war. With regard to the last catastrophe of the war, it is a happy thing the Emperor Theodore did not attempt any further retreat; and, as for the loss of his life, I must say it is a benefit to mankind that such an odious monster should be removed from the world. I therefore beg permission most cordially and heartily to second the Motion of the noble Earl. This Motion concerns only the military and naval authorities, who were engaged in the war, all of whom deserve the Thanks proposed to be given to them; and although it does not come within the scope of the Vote of Thanks, I may add that I think the Government—for the determination they took, for the time at which they took it, and for the preparations they made for the Expedition, deserve the acknowledgments of the House and the country.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, your Lordships may naturally and reasonably expect that I should address some observations to the House on this subject, and I do to with a satisfaction which is rarely experienced, because I believe I may say, without fear of contradiction, that in the whole course of this Expedition there has not been a single military step taken, which may not be considered a success and a triumph. I admit that these are strong terms, which may be thought to have a more appro-

483
priate application to those stirring and brilliant military exploits which have often illustrated our history; but the triumph which has been achieved in the case of this Expedition is the result of sustained energy and unremitting endurance, as well as of courage; and may, therefore, claim its own special distinction. From the gallant General, who commanded, down to the youngest drummer, there has not been one man in the Army, who, from the day he landed to the day he re-embarked, did not devote his whole energies, physical and mental, to the service of his country. Success has been achieved in a most remarkable degree; and that success has been achieved by overcoming difficulties, and by contending with dangers, which nobody foresaw to the extent which were afterwards encountered. I have observed it has been occasionally said that the General might have been more rapid in his movements, and more pressing in his attack; but, so far from that being a charge against him, it is a proof of his talent and capacity, that he did not listen to advice—the very natural advice—of those who were not so cognizant as he was of the nature of what he had to do; and that he was not to be so far carried away as to attempt that which he was not assured he could accomplish, but would wait until the moment arrived when he knew he could attain his object, and then strike a blow with vigour. It is to the exercise of this discretion we owe the happy result of the Expedition. Such, in few words, are the qualities that have given distinction to the General who carried on these operations, whose anxiety of mind must have been great. At various stages of his advance he found himself called upon to diminish the comforts of the troops, to diminish their rations, to dispense with camp followers, and to leave behind various stores and necessaries ordinarily carried by an Army; and these sacrifices were made in order to attain the object in view; and I hope your Lordships will think he has attained it with no more bloodshed than in the performance of strict duty be was called upon to incur. I know it has been said he ought not to have done more than rescue the prisoners, and that having obtained them, he ought to have retired, without making any further demand. But I venture to think your Lordships will agree with me in saying that as a General, he could not have done that. As it was, even after the death of Theodore,
484
and the destruction of Magdala, and the dispersion of the followers of Theodore, there was considerable difficulty in protecting the return of the Army from the dangerous and wild tribes of the country through which it had to pass. If therefore, Sir Robert Napier had not struck the blow home—if I may use the expression—if he had not entirely broken up the nest of robbers who had recognized the authority of Theodore, it is to be supposed that the forces might have been exposed to very serious dangers, which might have resulted in the General returning with a shattered, instead of a perfect army. It was, therefore, necessary that Sir Robert Napier should do what he did before he retraced his steps. It has been commented upon as singular that the force sent to Abyssinia was not under the immediate control of the Government Departments of this country, but was placed under the Indian Government. When Her Majesty's Government did me the honour to consult me as to how the war should be conducted, and asked me for my opinion on the subject, I could not for a moment hesitate to say that one thing was quite clear—namely, that the Government must allow the Expedition to be planned by one authority and one authority only. The question then arose as to what that authority should be—whether it should be at home or in India. My Lords, I ventured to suggest that it should be in India, and for the simple reason that an expedition of that kind could not be undertaken without employing a very large proportion of Indian troops. It was, therefore, much more reasonable and wise that the whole conduct of this war should be in the hands of an Indian authority, instead of being confided to anyone at home. Moreover—and perhaps this is the most important point of all—it had been decided by Her Majesty's Government that Sir Robert Napier was to have the supreme command of the Expedition; and it therefore appeared to me that there could be no doubt that the General officer who was to command the Expedition was the proper person to have the sole and undivided responsibility of making all the requisite arrangements. I think the result of this experiment—if I may so term it—should be a lesson to us. It is quite evident that when any great operation of war is being planned you must place the greatest reliance in the officer upon whom you intend to confer the honour of commanding the troops. Of

485
course, it is natural, and, indeed, essential, that he should act in cordial co-operation with the authorities; but it is above all essential that he should be the ruling and directing spirit of the operations—that they should take their impress from him, and he will be stimulated to the exercise of his best energies by the knowledge that in the event of failure the responsibility will be his, Depend upon it that is the proper way to conduct such a military operation, and I do hope that the lesson which we have learnt upon this occasion will not be lost upon us should it hereafter become necessary to undertake an expedition of a similar kind. I wish also to point out that the Expedition has shown us how necessary it is to keep in a state of efficiency certain establishments, without which the Army cannot act. It is a very remarkable circumstance that at the beginning of this contest we were all of us—including, I believe, Her Majesty's Government, and certainly myself—considerably alarmed that the delay consequent upon our want of transport would render it doubtful whether the Expedition could be brought to a close with safety. There was no transport corps in India at all, and therefore everything had to be improvised. I may, perhaps, be allowed to mention that at a more distant period I experienced the same inconvenience; and it is evident that if we do not keep up at least the nucleus of a transport establishment in time of peace we shall find it very difficult suddenly to improvise one in time of war. The zeal, however, with which the officers of the Indian Army worked in order to form an efficient transport corps was quite remarkable. Sir Robert Napier told me this morning, when I had the pleasure of shaking hands with him, how zealously the officers of the transport corps, brought together from every part of India, worked to produce those results on which we are now able to congratulate ourselves. He told me of one officer, whom he met at Zoulla, wearing a "wide-awake," and looking extremely tattered and shattered, but whose only object was to get his forty or fifty mules to the proper place. Any officer of the British Army would, I am sure, be willing, in order to promote the success of an expedition, to enter into services which were somewhat different from the duties of the special corps to which they may happen to belong. I am certain that every officer, from the highest to the lowest, has worked very hard in this
486
Abyssinian Expedition. To add anything to what has been already said of the conduct of Sir Robert Napier would be quite superfluous on my part; but I cannot refrain from saying that this distinguished man, who has shown himself so competent to command and to express in suitable terms the exploits of the force under his orders, is at the same time one of the most simple, modest, and unassuming men I ever met. After seeing him this morning, the impression left on my mind is that he is an officer who thought nothing of himself, and everything of the troops under his command. I hope I may be also permitted to say that while I share in the feeling of your Lordships with regard to the ability of Sir Robert Napier, and the high merits of Commodore Heath, Major General Sir Charles Staveley, Major General Malcolm, Major General Russell, Brigadier General Merewether, and the other Officers, I cannot but express my admiration of the extraordinary determination, endurance, and vigour displayed by the Non-commissioned Officers and Men, many of whom were Natives. It should be borne in mind that these Native troops really vied with the European troops in the performance of their duty. They performed their duty as conscientiously and as well as the Europeans, and I am sure that both Natives and Europeans richly deserve their share of that praise and commendation which your Lordships, the House of Commons and the country have bestowed upon the Officers. In reference to the very slight assistance which I may have given to the Expedition, I can only say that I certainly did my best to give it every support in my power, and that in doing so I received the cordial support and assistance of all the Departments with which I had occasion to communicate.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, though this Expedition was planned and the troops were supplied by the authorities in India, yet there were certain supplementary services which were rendered by the Departments under the control of the War Office, and which have been recognized by Sir Robert Napier in his despatches. For instance, there was the Topographical Department, which has constructed from very scanty materials an excellent map of the country. The Royal Engineers also sent out a body of instructed men—telegraphers, signallers, photographers, and well sinkers, whose services were of the utmost value, while the Arsenal at Wool-

487
wich designed and constructed two small batteries of artillery. An order was likewise received at Woolwich to provide 8,000 baggage animals for delivery at Suez in the short space of three months. From our experience in the Crimea it was at least doubtful whether they could be supplied in the specified time but, nevertheless, the task was undertaken, and in consequence of the zeal of the various officers, successfully accomplished. I regret to say, however, that one valuable life was lost. Colonel Clark Kennedy, who was sent to Egypt to superintend the arrangements, died of a disease which was caused, or, at any rate, greatly aggravated by the anxiety consequent upon the duties which he had to perform. He was an officer of high reputation, and had served with distinction in India and China, and was as much distinguished by his energy and activity in peace as in war, and was doubtless known to many of your Lordships on account of the active part he had taken in the Volunteer movement. As the representative in this House of the Department with which I am connected, I beg to add my cordial congratulations to the gallant General and to the forces under his orders, and I will add the expression of my sympathy for the relations of those—fortunately few in number—who have lost their lives in the Expedition. In India, when it was reported that the troops would be furnished from one Presidency, the troops in the other Presidencies also at once remonstrated and claimed to have a share in the glory and the danger of the undertaking. In this country also, the moment the Expedition was announced, the public Departments were besieged by eager applicants who wished to join the Expedition in different capacities. A force animated with such a spirit could hardly fail to succeed. To ourselves—the Members of Parliament—it has been suggested that such an occasion as this has also its moral. The incidents of a military campaign, the calculation of forces, the preparation for attack and defence, the sagacity of the leader who foresees success, and the endurance of the rank and file, which enable him to retrieve a disaster are re-produced in the circumstances of political life—namely, in the discussion and the conduct of public affairs in a powerful and free State; and when we assemble here to pay such honour as we can pay to those who have been mighty in war, and to offer the
488
thanks of Parliament to the General and those under his command who have successfully conducted a difficult enterprize, we may bear in mind that men will follow us who will inquire with a keen scrutiny how we have conducted ourselves in the campaign of the national life.
THE EARL OF ELLEN BOROUGH: My Lords. I beg leave to say a few words on this Motion. I desire to be allowed to offer the tribute of my congratulations to the Commander of this Expedition, the English troops acting under him, and also—the more particularly because of the interest I have always taken in the Indian Army—to the soldiers of the Indian Army who took so prominent a part in this achievement. My Lords, you will recollect that I expressed an opinion that this Expedition ought not to have been undertaken. I did so because I thought the risks greatly exceeded the chances of success. I pointed out that the troops engaged in the Expedition would have to maintain a line of communication nearly 400 miles in length, between the point of basis on the coast from which their, supplies were to be received and the point of actual attack; and that there would be great difficulties arising from the character of the population and the nature of the country generally. Every danger that I anticipated has been encountered by our troops. Indeed, my Lords, the country has proved to be more difficult, the obstacles to the advance of our troops have been more serious, the embarrassments in respect of transport have been greater, and the supply of water has been more scanty than I had ventured to suggest. In fact, no one can read the despatches without seeing that sometimes—even up to almost the last moment—the Array was in the greatest peril. It is because I was more keenly alive to the difficulties of the campaign, that I can now regard the result of the Expedition with feelings of perhaps greater satisfaction than those entertained by your Lordships who did not share in my apprehensions; and that I feel, and am entitled to feel, greater pride and satisfaction at the triumphant success achieved by our arms. I think, my Lords, this Abyssinian Expedition has no parallel in. history. In all previous campaigns the contest was between man and man; with, perhaps, frequent difficulties arising from the nature of the country, but difficulties which had to be surmounted by both parties. But this was a contest, not with

489
man, but with Nature—a contest waged for 400 miles. I know nothing in history to be compared with the difficulties which the troops in this campaign overcame with such spirit and determination. I believe that this campaign entitles those engaged in it to the highest praise which can be given to soldiers. My Lords, I remember the Duke of Wellington telling me on one occasion that the British Indian Army when he knew it came nearer to his idea of what the Roman Legion was than any army he had ever seen. I am glad that on this occasion the British Indian Army has maintained its reputation of those days. I recollect that in one of those accounts which from time to time were furnished by private hands and published in the newspapers this fact particularly struck me—that in the attack on Magdala the Belochees behaved so well that they received loud cheers from the British Army. My Lords, in those cheers I hear the death knell of the memory of the Indian mutiny; because I believe that henceforth in the recollection of common services and common efforts the British soldier and the Indian soldier will once more feel for each other those feelings of brotherhood which made the two armies, when formerly thus united, invincible. I trust, my Lords, that everything will be done to improve the organization of the Native Army, and that they will not be left to want the means of transport, with out which an army is useless. I trust the greatest care will be taken to establish an esprit de corps, so that the soldiers and the officers may know one another and grow old together. I hope, also, that in the treatment of the Native troops every consideration will be given to their religious feelings and their laws of caste. We ought, I think, to still act on the principles which guided us in the early days of our connection with India. I remember reading the opinion of a philosophic historian, that it is easy to rule our Empire by the means through which it was acquired. I trust that principle will influence us hereafter in our legislation for British India; that we shall endeavour on all occasions to conciliate the Natives and to obtain their confidence; and that, above all, our rule shall be characterized by that which produces the greatest effect in an Eastern country—the principles of justice. If we follow these principles, I believe the British Empire in India will be secure, that for centuries we may extend the
490
blessings of our rule to a constantly increasing population, and that British India may last, endure, and be eternal.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not apprehend that in your Lordships' House there will be any probability of a difference of opinion on this occasion; and though I am conscious that I am not entitled to speak on military matters with the authority of the illustrious Duke on the cross Benches, or with that of my noble Friend who has just sat down, yet I trust that, considering the post I had the honour to hold when this Expedition, was determined upon, I may be permitted to add my voice to the chorus of approbation which has been raised in Parliament and throughout the country to greet the victorious General and Army who have just completed an Expedition that will ever be memorable in the annals of our country. My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed also to congratulate my noble Friends in the Government on the success of an Expedition which I can assure your Lordships was, at the time we resolved upon it, a matter of deep anxiety to all the Members of the Administration. When entering upon this Expedition in a distant and unknown country, at a period of the year—and it could not have been undertaken sooner—which left only scanty time for preparation—we had to encounter all the difficulties alluded to by my noble Friend—difficulties some of which were exaggerated, others the anticipation of which fell short of the reality, and others which were not anticipated at all. We had also to encounter the doubts and obstacles of those who objected to the Expedition altogether, of those who thought the preparations too large, and of those who thought them too small. Some persons thought that the work to be done was absolutely insignificant as compared with the amount of power which we proposed to employ in its accomplishment. My noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Carnarvon) for instance, believed that the Expedition was on a scale of too great magnitude. He thought that the proper mode of action would be to make a dash with 1,000 men I over a distance of 400 miles.
The EARL OF CARNARVON: I beg pardon. I never made any such suggestion.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Then I must have lost my sense of hearing. I had indulged in the hope that my noble Friend, seeing how fallacious were his original apprehensions, would have come forward

491
and joined willingly and heartily in the general congratulations on the success of the Expedition. [The Earl of CARNARVON: Hear, hear!] On the other hand, my noble Friend who has just sat down (the Earl of Ellenborough) stated, and I admit most frankly, that he thought our provisions for the. Expedition were insufficient. He pointed out with the greatest force the difficulties in our path—the difficulties of landing, the difficulties which might arise from the want of a sufficient supply of water, and the difficulty of keeping up in a possibly hostile, and, at all events, in an unknown country, communications extending a length of 400 miles. But my noble Friend has now come forward in the handsomest manner and acknowledged that the difficulties he had anticipated have been overcome, and that the strength of the Expedition was sufficient, though not more than sufficient, to enable General Napier to bring the operations to a completely successful termination. My Lords, what was the inducement to us to enter on an undertaking so fraught with peril and uncertainty to our Army, and so fraught with danger to ourselves—I mean to our personal and political reputation—if by chance it had ended in signal failure? I will venture to say that never was a war undertaken more unwillingly by any Government, more with a sense of its inevitable necessity, or with purer motives—motives more entirely devoid of all feeling of ambition and all desire of political or military aggrandizement. The object for which we undertook the Expedition was, in the first place, to vindicate the honour of the country, which would have been sullied forever if we had not adopted such a course. In the second place we undertook it because of that feeling of humanity which was naturally excited by the sufferings of our countrymen and other Europeans who were kept in prison by the Emperor of Abyssinia. No men can be more ready than the Government, which has just been crowned with success in this Expedition, to acknowledge that there are some circumstances attending it for which special thanks are due to a superintending Providence. It is obvious that the population of the country might have fallen upon our force, have continually plundered and interrupted it, cut off the supplies, and in various ways have offered opposition, annoying to a stronger force, but which would have been destruction to a weak one. No one, again, could have failed to remark the special direction
492
which was given by Almighty God to the mind of Theodore at the very last moment, leading that capricious tyrant to abstain from exercising his brutality in putting to death the men we were anxious to deliver. The country, certainly, would have been deeply disappointed, and heavy blame would have fallen upon the organizers of the Expedition, if, instead of being able to rescue the captives from that imprisonment in which they had languished so long, the result of the Expedition had failed to accomplish the great object in view, and had only exposed them to a cruel death. I must say that whatever the merits of Sir Robert Napier—signally great as all your Lordships will admit them to be—I know of no point in the conduct of this Expedition that reflects more honour on his moral courage than the trial to which it was subjected at the very close of the Expedition, when he had to refuse the final offer of Theodore and to return to captivity those who had just been sent to his camp as envoys—being well aware, moreover, that his reply might lead to the destruction of those whom he desired to save. But the gallant officer exhibited the moral courage which was necessary to encounter so fearful a responsibility, and judged sagaciously of the demoralization of the enemy and of the effect which the previous success of our arms had produced on the mind of Theodore. Happily, his expectations were verified by the event, and the two officers who returned, as it appeared at the time, certainly to captivity, and possibly to death, had the satisfaction of meeting the whole of their fellow-prisoners on their way back, and of returning with them, in triumph to the camp. With regard to the Expedition itself, the only merit to which the Government can lay claim is that of having, by the advice of the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, selected the officer the most experienced and the best qualified for the service that his Royal Highness could point out, and intrusted to that General the absolute command and responsibility of the Expedition, merely saying to him—"What supplies you require that can be obtained from India you had better obtain them, and what cannot be had there shall be sent out from this country. Remember that you have only to ask and have; we tell you the object which we have in view, and we leave you entire control of the means by which, it is to be effected." I

493
will not attempt to occupy the time of your Lordships with details, but I will ask whether, from first to last, it was not evident that over the Expedition presided a master-mind who was not to be diverted by any remarks to the detriment of his judgment, or by the pressure of unwise advisers, from the well-considered course to which he had addressed his energies, and by means of which he anticipated—and, as the event proved, correctly anticipated—that at the right time he should accomplish his purpose. There are some circumstances which rendered this Expedition one of a very peculiar character. The force under the command of Sir Robert Napier consisted, as has been already pointed out, both of British and Indian troops, the whole of which vied with each other as to the manner in which they should best perform the duties devolving upon them. And it is no light matter that troops raised in the centre of Asia should, under the conduct of a British General, obtain a triumphal success in the heart of Africa, in a region which the boldest travellers had hardly ever penetrated. Then, with regard to discipline, it is, I believe, unheard of that an Expedition over such a country should have been conducted not only without breach of discipline among, but with almost entire friendliness towards, the barbarous tribes with whom they were brought into frequent contact. From the time of disembarkation till the re-embarkation of the Expedition there was not, I believe, a single complaint that any injury had been gratuitously inflicted by any soldier upon the inhabitants of the country through which they moved. Everything was paid for, and not a single instance of injustice or oppression occurred during the march. Hardly a soldier, in fact, was sentenced to any punishment during the Expedition. The difficulties which had to be encountered—not, indeed, from the enemy, but from the nature of the country—were enormous, and might hive appalled men less eager and determined to do their duty; but they were faced with excellent spirit. I refer especially to the extraordinary march of the 45th Regiment, accomplishing a distance of seventy miles in four days, over a pass 10,500 feet high, and across a country which justified the forcible, if somewhat homely description of the soldier who, being told that they were marching over the tableland of Abyssinia, observed that "the
494
table must have been turned upside down, and that they were now marching over the legs." Although the march was aggravated by thirst, and laborious in the extreme, not a single murmur or falling off from duty was heard; on the contrary, it was the earnest desire of everybody to press forward to the front. And upon the last day, when the troops, exhausted by their weary march, and almost fainting from thirst, found themselves in the presence of the enemy, and heard that he really meant to fight, those fatigued and way-worn men went with loud cheers into the conflict, which terminated with such glorious results. It has been said that the British soldier is very good at fighting, but knows nothing of the other business of war. All I can say is, that not only did Sir Robert Napier show entire oblivion of himself in his regard for others, but his despatches bear emphatic testimony on this point—that the different portions of the Army, while performing their own duties thoroughly, were, at the same time, ready to assist their comrades in the discharge of duties specially belonging to them. My Lords, I must not forget the services of the Naval Brigade. We are not accustomed to consider sailors particularly at home in managing animals of draught; but among the various subjects of praise distinct mention is made of the fact that the Naval Brigade, with regard to the handling and breaking of mules, proved themselves superior to the rest of the army: there were no persons by whom those animals were more carefully tended, or, owing probably to the kindly nature of seamen, by whom they were more successfully and prudently handled. I ought, perhaps, to apologize for having ventured to say anything upon a subject of this extraordinary character. But, at the same time, knowing the difficulties which had to be encountered in the first instance in preparing for the Expedition, and the difficulties, likewise, which had to be surmounted by the General, and those under his command, in conducting the Expedition to a triumphant success, I could not resist allowing myself the pleasure of bearing my testimony, however humble and unimportant, to the great services rendered by General Sir Robert Napier. And I am perfectly satisfied that he will receive every mark of approval, not only from Her Majesty's Government, but also the grateful thanks of the country, for the deeds which he has performed.

495
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente. That the Thanks of this House be given to Lieut.-General Sir Robert. Napier, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., for the exemplary Skill with which he planned and the distinguished Energy, Courage, and Perseverance with which he conducted the recent Expedition into Abyssinia, resulting in the Defeat by Her Majesty's Forces of the Army of King Theodore and the Vindication of the Honour of the Country by the Rescue from Captivity of Her Majesty's Envoy and other British Subjects, and by the Capture and Destruction of the strong Fortress of Mngdala:
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente, That the Thanks of this House be given to Commodore Heath, R.N., C.B., for the indefatigable Zeal and great Ability with which he conducted the Naval Operations connected with the Transport of the Troops find Stoics upon which the Success of the Expedition materially depended:
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente, That the Thanks of this House be given to Major-General Sir Charles Staveley, K.C.B., Major-General G. Malcolm, C.B., Major-General E. L. Russell, Brigadier-General W. Merewether. C.B., and the other Officers of the Navy and Army for the Energy, Gallantry, and Ability with which they have executed the various Services which they have been called on to perform throughout these arduous Operations:
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente, That this House doth highly acknowledge and approve the Discipline, Gallantry, and Endurance displayed by the Petty Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and Men of the Navy and Army, both European and Native, during these Operations; and that the same be signified to them by their respective Commanding Officers.
Ordered, That the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said Resolutions to Lieut.-General Sir Robert Napier: and that he be requested by the Lord Chancellor to signify the same to Commodore Heath, Major-General Sir Charles Staveley, Major-General G. Malcolm, Major-General E. L. Russell, Brigadier-General W. Merewether, and to the several Officers of the Navy and Army referred to therein.

BOUNDARY BILL.—(No. 170.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
BOUNDARY BILL.—(No. 170.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Alteration of Boundaries of old Boroughs).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that, in moving an Amendment to the clause, he desired to submit some suggestions for their Lordships' consideration. It was within the Committee's recollection that a Royal Commission had been appointed to arrange the boundaries of certain counties and boroughs in England and Wales; and he believed he gave expression to a unanimous feeling when he said that the ability
  496
  and impartiality of those who formed the Commission were unquestionable. They were men of sound judgment and great political experience Two of them were Members of the House of Commons, two had formerly been Members of that House; and the Chairman, though he now adorned their Lordships' House, presided for a long time over the other House, his eminent impartiality being but one of the many qualifications which recommended him for that position. Such Gentlemen might be expected to bring a great amount of ability and impartiality to their task, and he believed their voluminous Report had amply justified their selection for it. Now, their Instructions were to inquire into the boundaries of certain boroughs with a view to ascertain whether they should be enlarged so as to include within their limits districts which, due regard being had to situation and other local circumstances, ought to be included, for the purpose of conferring on the people residing therein the Parliamentary franchise. Those Instructions had been criticized as imperfect but from that opinion he differed, for he thought it was a wise course to lay down a broad principle and leave the Commissioners unfettered to act according to the best of their judgment. It might, perhaps, be an obvious arrangement that the Parliamentary should, in all cases, be made conterminous with the municipal boundary; but last year Parliament decided against that idea, but when the Report of the Commission came before the House of Commons it did not give satisfaction. In a large number of cases the Commissioners recommended no change, and in a large number they recommended changes which had been adopted without opposition. Twenty nine cases were referred by the House of Commons to a Select Committee, and that Committee approved the recommendations of the Commissioners with regard to fourteen of them. Now, he (Earl Beauchamp) thought that the other House, having appointed a Committee to revise the decisions of the Commissioners, it would be competent for their Lordships to revise the decisions of the Committee. He did not think, indeed, it would be respectful to send down to the House of Commons the whole of the proposals which they had already negatived, and he proposed to distinguish between some of the cases. The metropolitan boroughs of Marylebone and Lambeth were so exceptional, and so much might be said on both sides with, regard to

  497
  them, that he did not ask their Lordships to revert to the recommendations of the Commissioners, although personally he agreed with them. Warwick and Portsmouth were also peculiarly circumstanced, The Commissioners proposed to unite Leamington with Warwick; but this would practically swamp Warwick and; convert it into a suburb of Leamington. they also proposed to unite Gosport to Portsmouth. Now, the boundary of Portsmouth, through mere accident, was at present the high-water mark, not of the Portsmouth but of the Gosport side of the harbour. But the population of Gosport was so large that it would be a measure of grouping rather than a revision of boundaries if that place was added to Portsmouth; and as the House of Commons last year decided against the principle of grouping, he did not propose to interfere with the decision of the Committee in those cases. Reading he would also pass by, on the principle de minimis non curat lex. The other cases were very different, and raised an important question. Among these boroughs were the important towns of Birkenhead, Birmingham, Bristol, Gates-head, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, and South Shields. The only objection to the Commissioners' recommendations appeared to be the fear entertained by the inhabitants of the outlying districts that they would hereafter be obliged to share the municipal burdens, while the people within the present boundaries thought the importance of their boroughs would be diminished, and their splendour tarnished by the enlargement proposed. If, however, the wishes of the people concerned were to be conclusive, the principle was capable of a much wider application, and would be attended with such difficulties that he was sure it could never be adopted by Parliament. Since he had given Notice of his Amendments he had had the advantage of studying the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners, who seemed to him to have done their work with great fairness and impartiality. In every case they visited the localities, they gave ample notice to all parties concerned, they heard all who went before them, and entered fully info all the circumstances of each case. But the Select Committee of the House of Commons, though they examined the Assistant Commissioners and the Members for the boroughs and counties affected, were unable to make such minute inquiries. The Assistant Commissioners
  498
  were instructed to take into consideration the nearness of the borough to the districts proposed to be added to it; how many of the houses had been built since 1832, and whether the inhabitants of the new districts had any community of interest with those in the boroughs. These, it appeared to him, were considerations dictated by common sense, and they could only be arrived at by a knowledge of local details. The Commissioners acted upon these principles, and they did not recommend extension unless there was a mass of houses and not a mere fringe joining the existing boundaries. He saw no reason to doubt their ability and impartiality, or the general wisdom of their recommendations. He would briefly refer to a few of the cases in which the Select Committee had departed from those recommendations. The first on the list was the borough of Birmingham, which happened to be one with which he had some little acquaintance. That borough was in the county of Warwick, and abutted on the counties of Worcester and Stafford. One of the recommendations of the Commission was that the manor of Aston and the district of Balsall Heath should be taken within the Parliamentary boundary, one of which was in Worcestershire and the other in Stafford. It was impossible for anyone who was not well acquainted with the town to say where Birmingham ended or began; and there was no reason whatever, if they were making an alteration of boundaries, why an exception should be made in the case of Birmingham. It was said, indeed, that the constituency would be made too large; but it was determined last year to augment very considerably the constituencies of the country, and therefore it would not now be proper to leave their handiwork undone. He believed it would be impossible for any person to come to any oilier conclusion than this—that if any borough was to have its boundaries altered it would be the greatest injustice to omit Aston Manor and the district of Balsall Heath from the borough of Birmingham. The case of Birkenhead was also one in which they ought not lightly to pass over the recommendations of the Commissioners. They recommended the addition of Wallaby Pool to Birkenhead; and it was beyond doubt that that district was an essential part of the town. If the Commissioners had in any way misconstrued their Instructions that would be a reason, for setting their recommendations aside; but if they had

  499
  acted up to their Instructions it was not right for anyone to come down with an ex post facto rule, and tell their Lordships that they ought to shrink from increasing the constituencies of the country. He begged to propose, therefore, in Clause 4, line 7, after the word "Bewdley," to insert "Birkenhead and Birmingham."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was perfectly satisfied that the Commission which had sat during the autumn had given very great and impartial consideration to the subject on which they were employed. But the Commissioners were fettered by the terms of their Instructions—and for that he blamed the Government; they had not sufficient power—and the result was that their Report had created great dissatisfaction both in the House of Commons and in the largo constituencies with which they had dealt. The question of accepting the recommendations of the Commissioners with respect to those constituencies was raised in the House of Commons, objections were made and divisions taken with very large majorities against the proposition. The Government themselves proposed to refer the question to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which made certain recommendations in which they were perfectly unanimous. On the 15th of June that great political General, of whose praises they had heard much that night—a little out of place he thought—who usually foresaw success when others despaired of it, and achieved the success which he had foreseen—he trusted, however, he would never resort to what, though fair in war, would not be fair in party politics, the free use of stratagems—that great political General had said with reference to the order and conduct of Business—
  "Now I adhere to the statement I originally made on the subject of Public Business—namely, that my first object was to carry the three supplementary Reform measures. Now, the Scotch Reform Bill and the Boundary Bill, though they have not yet left this House, may be considered as virtually settled; but we have still a third measure of Reform before us."
  Well, the Scotch Reform Bill was read a third time and passed on the 18th of June; and on the same day Mr. Disraeli, in answer to Mr. Milner Gibson, on the Business of the House, and referring to a former statement that they should proceed with the supplementary Reform Bills with as much despatch as possible, said—
  "And I must add that we have proceeded with considerable despatch, that we have made such
  500
  great advances with those Bills, and I do not anticipate that any great delay is now possible with respect to any of them."
  He did not intend to say that these words of the Prime Minister ought to bind their Lordships' House, but they ought to bind Her Majesty's Government. If the matter was virtually settled, how was it possible that they could re-open it by means of Amendments which had been placed in their hands only two days ago? They had heard a good deal the other day about that House being made the copy and the slave of the other House of Parliament. He entirely concurred in the justice of the observation; but he held it to be still worse that their Lordships should be made the copies and the slaves of small minorities of the other House. He could not conceive anything more injurious than that the Government should make use of their Lordships as instruments in carrying out the views of their minority in the other House; moreover nothing could be more injurious to the harmony of the two Houses than that the Government should make Use of their majority in that House to over-ride the decisions of the House of Commons in a matter that peculiarly belonged to them.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he was quite sure that none of his Colleagues "elsewhere," whatever their position, would think of pledging the House of Lords to follow the decision of the House of Commons. There was not the slightest ground for saying that any unfair advantage had been taken. The opinion of the Government was well-known, and it was notorious that their desire was to support the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, and he had never heard that the opinion of any one of his Colleagues had changed upon this point. The question was now before the House, and it was the duty of the Government to listen to the opinions of the House upon it. The sentiments of the Government had not altered in any way, and he did not believe that any one of his Colleagues in the other House had maintained that the decision of the House of Commons was final and could not be discussed or even upset in this House.
  EARL RUSSELL: This is altogether a new way of carrying on the administration of the country. The Boundary Commission, over which my noble Friend (Viscount Eversley) presided, made a very elaborate Report; and when this was

  501
  questioned in the House of Commons no difficulty was made in appointing a Committee, at the head of which was a person of the highest character—Mr. Walpole. They came to a unanimous decision, and Mr. Walpole gave excellent reasons for adopting the Report of the Committee. There was a division, and a very considerable majority decided in favour of the Report of the Committee. The Government might thereupon have said, "We differ from this decision, and we shall fight against it on every point." We might then have been prepared to find a similar opposition in this House; but instead of that the Prime Minister said, "the question is settled." When, after this, the Government in this House dispute the decision so arrived at, we have a right to say that such a course is inconsistent with good faith; it is impossible to feel any confidence in any of the promises of the Government. In my opinion, if the Members of the Government mean to agree at all with the First Lord of the Treasury and to maintain his pledges, they must vote in favour of the decision of the Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the energy of the noble Earl is somewhat misplaced, and that upon considering what has passed your Lordships will be fur from adopting his opinion. The facts of the case are as simple as possible, and there can be no dispute about them. A Commission was issued for the purpose of inquiring into the Parliamentary boundaries of boroughs in England. That Commission was the Commission of Parliament, because the names of the Commissioners were inserted in the Act, which also specified the duty which they were to perform. They were directed to inquire into the boundaries of boroughs—
  "With a view to ascertain whether the boundaries should be enlarged so as to include within the limits of the borough all premises which ought—due regard being had to situation or other local circumstances—to be included therein, for the purpose of conferring upon the occupiers thereof the Parliamentary franchise for such borough."
  These Instructions, I repeat, were not issued by the Executive Government, but were imposed by Parliament, and, of course, concurred in by your Lordships, as a guide to the Commissioners in the execution of the duty intrusted to them. The Commissioners made their Report. I will not say a word now upon the merits of it; but it showed, at least, that the cases of
  502
  all these boroughs had received the greatest care and attention. What happened then? The Government introduced a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the Report of the Commissioners. The Government have always said that they were perfectly content with the recommendations of the Commissioners. But it was said that the principles which the House of Commons wished to adopt in fixing the boundaries of boroughs had not been sufficiently indicated by the House for the Instruction given to the Commissioners; and ultimately, in the course of conversation in the other House, a proposal was made, to which the Government assented, to refer, not the Boundary Bill, but the Report of the Commissioners, to a Select Committee. At the time of the appointment of the Select Committee—I am speaking off book, but I do not think I am mistaken—the question was asked whether the Report of the Committee was to be considered as final? and according to my recollection the Government would give no such pledge and no such undertaking. The Committee made their Report. It was a unanimous Report, I admit, and I speak with great respect of the Members of the Committee. So far, however, from that Report being acceded to by the Government, they proceeded with the Bill in the shape in which it was brought in. Thereupon a Resolution was proposed by a Member of the House of Commons to accept the Report of the Committee in cumulo, substituting the conclusions of the Committee with regard to fifteen boroughs, where they recommended that there should be no alteration, in lieu of the new and enlarged boundaries proposed in the Bill. Was that proposition assented to by the Government? Certainly not. The Government resisted it, maintaining strongly that the views of the Commissioners were right and those of the Committee were erroneous. The House divided on the question; the Report of the Committee was carried; but the proposition made was really one which took the House of Commons at a great disadvantage, because, instead of taking up the case of each borough, the Resolution embraced the whole fifteen boroughs; so that the House of Commons had no opportunity, as your Lordships might now have, of considering in each instance whether the Report of the Commission or of the Committee set forth the sounder view. The majority of the House of Commons having been in favour of the Report of the Select Committee, on

  503
  a subsequent day when the Business of the House of Commons and the prospects of the Business came under discussion, the Prime Minister said that those prospects might be considered with reference to that which had occurred—namely, that the House of Commons had at that time got rid of the question of the Boundary Bill. In that sense no doubt the Bill was settled. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) did not mean that the Government had entered into any compromise or had altered their opinion, but that the subject no longer occupied the time of the House, and therefore the House of Commons might proceed to consider the other Business on the Paper. I am sure that nothing was further from the mind of any Member of the Government in the House of Commons than to abandon their opinion. The case now comes before your Lordships, and the question is, are you satisfied with the Report of the Commission appointed by you in conjunction with the House of Commons, or will you affirm the Report of the Select Committee? As I understand the noble Lord who proposes the Amendment, (Earl Beauchamp) he says, "The Committee of the House of Commons made a Report differing from that of the Commission as to the boundaries of fifteen boroughs. I will be satisfied with the Report of the Commission as to all; but as to five a question is raised of a peculiar kind—that of grouping, and to this there may be objections which may very possibly have influenced a good many Members of the House of Commons while dealing with the matter en bloc, because unions were proposed which were not acceptable." This is a question upon which the Government is perfectly free to re-assert the opinion it asserted in the House of Commons, and it is one for your Lordships' determination. Bear in mind that no extension of the Parliamentary boundary of any borough to the municipal boundary will in the slightest degree interfere with any question of taxation or municipal government. Any alteration of a municipal boundary must be a subject of separate legislation, upon which those concerned will have every opportunity of being heard. The Committee of the House of Commons, in six cases, extended Parliamentary beyond municipal boundaries. [A noble LORD: Because nobody objected!] We do not know that. The Commission do not tell us whether it is so or not. They have made a Report in which they mention eleven different considerations that have a
  504
  material bearing upon the Parliamentary boundaries of boroughs; but they do not tell us which consideration or what considerations influenced their decision in any one case. As regards the wishes of the inhabitants, compare the course taken by the Commissioners with that taken by the Committee. The Commissioners sent Assistant Commissioners to hold local inquiries of the character of public meetings, where any one might be heard. The Committee of the House of Commons held private conferences and consulted with Members, who would sometimes represent sections of their constituencies, and with the Assistant Commissioners. If local wishes are to be studied it is much more likely the local inquiry would elicit them than that the private deliberations of the Committee would do so. If you consider the merits of the question it by no means follows that persons living outside a Parliamentary boundary are to object to its extension because they fear increased rates, if their inclusion is desirable on other grounds; and the proposal to adhere to the Report of the Commission involves the enfranchisement, as the Report of the Committee and the Bill involve the disfranchisement of 18,610 persons. On that ground I think your Lordships will pause before you say that the decision of the Commission was not wiser than that of the Committee.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that the noble and learned Lord had not answered the observation of his noble Friend (Earl Granville). No one denied the competency of the House to entertain the question or to reverse a decision of the other House upon it; but what his noble Friend said was that in the other House the Government said the question had been settled by the decision arrived at. He believed in the impartiality of the Commission and of the Committee; but the Committee had S before it documents which the Commission had not, and it heard Members from both sides of the House. As to the Commission not giving the grounds of its decision in each case, neither did the Committee. Their Lordships were now called upon to reverse not the decision of the Commission nor the decision of the Committee, but the solemn determination of the House of Commons, without the slightest grounds being assigned for doing so. He had understood that the Government accepted that decision, and it seemed to him something like a breach of faith for the Upper House to reverse that decision. Their

  505
  Lordships had only just received the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners, and had not time to peruse them. It was desired to expedite the dissolution of Parliament, with a view to which it was absolutely essential that this Bill should be passed without delay; and yet, in the teeth of declarations made by the First Lord of the Treasury, Members of the Government were now adopting a course which would defeat the object they professed to have in view. He trusted their Lordships would not go into the merits until they had ascertained on what footing the matter stood after the declarations which had been made by the Government. If the government of the country was to be carried on in that way very great evils must result.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that if your Lordships had to consider, as the noble Viscount states, a solemn decision of the other House of Parliament, your Lordships would not feel yourselves in any way fettered in coming to a conclusion. But that is not the point which we have under discussion. The noble Lords opposite have challenged the conduct of the Government and their good faith in dealing with this question. The noble Viscount seems to think that some statement has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in the other House of Parliament to the effect that your Lordships must consider this question as settled, and not re-open it again. Now, I do not believe that any such statement was ever made. I am not aware of the precise passage to which the noble Viscount referred, but I know that no such intention was ever entertained by Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, the whole of their conduct previously to the appointment of the Commission tends to disprove the accusation. If the right hon. Gentleman used the terra "settled" in any way whatever, he must have meant simply that the matter was concluded as far as the Business of the House of Commons was concerned; and he certainly did not intend to fetter the action of the Government or of this House on the subject. I will just state what was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, and of the right hon. Gentleman who conducts the Business of the other House of Parliament. When the subject was first brought before Parliament a question arose how far the recommendations of the Commissioners were to be accepted. Great
  506
  opposition was raised in the other House, and the final result was that one of the Commissioners moved that a Committee should be appointed. The Government accepted that proposal, and accordingly, on the Motion of the Home Secretary, a Committee was appointed to whom all the questions at issue were referred. The Government, however, at that time expressly precluded themselves by the words used by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Prime Minister from, being bound by the decision of that Committee. Now, what took place? The Committee finished their labours and reported to the House; and the very first day the Report came on for consideration a question arose as to how the Government proposed to deal with it. I trust that as the conduct and good faith of the Government have been called in question your Lordships will allow me to depart from, the ordinary rules of procedure, and to quote from the recognized channels of information the exact words made use of by the Prime Minister. According to the report in The Times he used the following words on the 9th of June, when the decision of the Committee was first brought under the notice of the House:—
  "The hon. Member for Birmingham made an appeal to me to announce the part which the Government would take, and argued that of course we could not oppose the Report of the Committee. That view is founded on an assumption which I think a most singular one—namely, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had announced to this House that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to receive the Report of the Committee as conclusive. Now, such an arrangement was never made by my right hon. Friend."
  The Prime Minister went on to state—
  "But I will tell the Committee what we are prepared to do. We are prepared to give to the Report of the Committee the same consideration and respect as we have given to the Report of the Commission."
  Having reminded the House that the Report of the Commission had been referred to a Select Committee, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say—
  "What I propose is indicated by the order of Business that has been prepared for this evening. The moment we concluded the Scotch Bill we proposed to go into Committee on the Boundary Bill. We shall have before us as we proceed the Schedule, with the conflicting recommendations of the Commission and the Committee, and the good sense of the House will come to a conclusion. I know no other mode by which we can arrive at a result more speedily or satisfactorily."
  Now, what was the course adopted by the House of Commons? The Committee re-

  507
  ported Progress that evening, and an hon. Member gave Notice of his intention to move that the whole Report of the Committee should be accepted in a lump. That was fairly objected to by the Government, who were, however, put in a minority. Now, I maintain that under these circumstances the Government have a right to raise the question again in your Lordships' House.
  EARL RUSSELL: I think the remarks of the noble Duke have entirely altered the question. It is said that the Home Secretary has been misunderstood, and that the First Lord of the Treasury was of opinion that the Government were not bound to accept the Report of the Committee. When the Report of the Committee was brought up the Government wished to deal with it in one way and the Opposition in another. As the noble Duke remarked, the Government were defeated on a division, and certain boroughs were, in accordance with the Report of the Committee, left out of the Boundary Bill. Well, after that, what happened? The right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Ministry, said on the 16th of June—
  "Now, the Scotch Reform Bill and the Boundary Bill, though they have not yet left this House, may be regarded as virtually settled."
  During the progress of the Reform Bill last year there were many points on which the Government were defeated, but in regard to which they accepted the decision of the House of Commons. Every one accordingly thought that the Government would accept the decision of the House of Commons in the present instance. The noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) now proposes to move an Amendment, the effect of which, if carried, would be to bring back the Bill into conformity with the Report of the Boundary Commissioners. Now, I confess that when I saw that Notice on the Paper I thought, indeed, that it was perfectly competent for any Member of your Lordships' House to disagree with the Bill, and to propose any alteration he might deem necessary; but, at the same time, I certainly was of opinion that the Government were pledged to abide by the decision of the House of Commons, and that, consequently, as the noble Earl would not receive the support of the Government, there would be a considerable majority against his proposal. All I can say now is that, as the Government have broken faith on this subject, I cannot be a party to admitting that any decision
  508
  which your Lordships may arrive at on this question is a fair decision. We have been taken by surprise and circumvented in this matter. All that I can say, therefore, is that I will be no party to such a breach of faith, and that I will leave rather than be a party to it.
  [The noble Earl then left the House, followed by Earl GRANVILLE, Viscount HALIFAX, the Earl of CLARENDON, and other noble Lords.]
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Unquestionably an intimation was given to the House that the Boundary Bill was virtually settled—
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I say no!
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I say yes! The Prime Minister said—
  "Now, the Scotch Reform Bill and the Boundary Bill, though they have not yet left this House, may be regarded as virtually settled."
  I would, however, venture to suggest to the House that the duty of the Government does not altogether depend upon the words of the Prime Minister. The present Government are in a peculiar position. They are the Government of a minority, and under these circumstances special obligations lie upon them; for had it not been understood by the majority of the House of Commons that the decisions come to by that House would be accepted by the Government, and that Ministers would not use their superior influence in the House of Lords to upset the decisions agreed to in the Commons, it is more than probable that that Vote of Want of Confidence of which we have heard would have been proposed long ago. I think it a breach of faith even if no promise had been given, that a Government in a minority should use its influence in the House of Lords in order to upset a decision to which they had assented in the House of Commons.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the obvious and only meaning to be extracted from the words of the Prime Minister, under the circumstances in which they were used, is that after the decision come to by the House of Commons, the Boundary Bill might be considered settled so far as that House was concerned, and that it had; been removed from the Business of the House requiring discussion. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) spoke as if what your Lordships do now in respect of this Bill will be conclusive as against the House of Commons; but I

  509
  must remind your Lordships'—and I should have thought it unnecessary to remind even the noble Duke—that the Bill must go down to the House of Commons again. The House of Commons did not consider the case of each of those boroughs, but considered the whole of them in a mass. They will, however, have an opportunity of considering each case. What occurred last year as to the lodger franchise was this—There had been two propositions in the House of Commons, one for fixing a higher and the other for fixing a lower figure; but an arrangement was made, in the way things are sometimes arranged in that House, in consequence of which a figure between the two originally proposed was actually introduced. In ignorance of the arrangement come to in the House of Commons, your Lordships altered that figure when the Bill came before you; but, subsequently, on learning how matters really stood, your Lordships restored the figure which had been agreed to by the Commons. But that is not the case here. There was no compromise and no arrangement. The views of the House were tested by a formal decision.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, the accusations made against the Government are very serious, and calculated to give rise to bitter feelings; and although my Parliamentary experience is not a very long one, I venture to think that the conduct of the noble Lords who made them in leaving the House after having done so is without precedent. A most erroneous interpretation has been put upon the words of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. Noble Lords opposite have referred to an extract from the remarks of my right hon. Friend without paying any regard to the context; but this should be borne in mind, for it has a most material effect upon the point at issue. The occasion on which those expressions were used was one on which questions were put as to the course of Public Business in the House of Commons. Questions were asked of the Prime Minister as to the arrangement of the days to be devoted to particular measures, and in replying to them he said, "The Scotch Reform Bill and the Boundary Bill, though they have not yet left this House, may be regarded as virtually settled." What did that mean but settled by this House—"the House of Commons?" The intention and meaning of these words are clear and apparent. They simply meant that neither of the
  510
  Bills to which he referred would occupy any more of the time of the House of Commons. No other meaning can properly be attached to his words, and that sought to be attached to them by noble Lords opposite is not warranted by the expressions themselves.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobserved that there never was a greater mare's nest than that discovered this evening by noble Lords on the Opposition side. One thing was clear—that the Premier spoke of the Scotch Reform Bill and the Boundary Bill in the same terms. Why, then, had not his supposed undertaking been set up when Amendments were being made on the former Bill on Tuesday evening?
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, the Amendments made by their Lordships in the Scotch Reform Bill were merely verbal Amendments.
  VISCOUNT EVERSLEY: My Lords, I think I may assume from what has fallen from both sides that your Lordships' House is altogether satisfied with the conduct of the Commission, ["Hear!"] You seem, to consider that its Reports were fully justified by the Instructions which they received from Parliament. It should not, my Lords, be forgotten that the Commission was one appointed by Parliament and instructed by Parliament. Therefore, we were as responsible to your Lordships' House as to the other House of Parliament. The way in which we proceeded was this—We obtained the services of the best scientific men and the best legal men we could find to act as Assistant Commissioners. We sent those gentlemen to different parts of the country. The greatest publicity attended their proceedings. Their coming to a borough or town was notified previously; they always sat in public, and invited information and suggestions from all sides. Having, as far as possible, made themselves masters of the case, they reported to the Commissioners in London. We read their Reports and their recommendations; but we did not confine ourselves to those Reports. Whenever we thought it advisable we sent for the Assistant Commissioner, and had the benefit of his assistance before coming to a decision with reference to the particular borough. It is well known to your Lordships that many of our decisions were challenged in the House of Commons, and that a Committee was appointed by that House. I think the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) was not quite correct when

  511
  he said that the Committee was appointed at the suggestion of the Commission. I remember being consulted by one of my brother Commissioners, and I said that I did not think we could object to the appointment of a Committee. Now, my Lords, nothing can be further from my intention than to wish to say anything in disparagement of the Gentlemen who composed that Committee; but I am bound to say that I differ altogether from the conclusions at which they have arrived. When their Report came out I was most anxious to see in what way the information we received from the Assistant Commissioners had been used; but I find nothing in the Report to show me that. I observed that the Committee conferred with the Members for the place, or, with more than one of the Members for the place, and memorials were presented to the Committee; but the book which contains the account of their proceedings does not appear to me to contain any evidence whatever. I believe that in ten out of fifteen of the boroughs referred to by the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) the Parliamentary and the municipal boundaries are conterminous. In fifty-three boroughs, exclusive of the Welsh boroughs, the municipal and the Parliamentary boundaries do not coincide. Several boroughs have had municipal privileges conferred upon them since the Reform Bill. What the particular objection may have been which governed the decision of the Committee we do not discover from their Report; but plainly this objection, that the municipal boundary and the Parliamentary boundary were not the same, vanishes the moment it is examined; for it has not been the practice of the country to make them conterminous. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) has very fairly stated the case of Birmingham. I this day presented a Petition upon the subject, which confirmed the view taken by the Commissioners, that the suburb of Aston was as much part of the town of Birmingham as Piccadilly was part of London. In the Petition which I had the honour to present it is stated that if the district of Aston were added to Birmingham, 5,000 or 6,000 persons would be added to the voters for that borough; whereas, if it continued to be excluded, and were left in the county, only 1,850 persons would obtain the franchise—being a difference of upwards of 3,000 votes. There is another borough in which the
  512
  case is still stronger, and that is Nottingham, one of the boroughs mentioned by the noble Earl. It happens, curiously enough, that in the year 1837, some time after the passing of the Reform Bill, I was appointed Chairman of the Municipal Boundary Commission. I told my noble Friend who made the proposition that I was very reluctant to undertake the duty, because I knew well that it was most difficult, except the Government of the day was a very strong Government, to carry any changes of the kind; they always excite opposition, and in some respects have to be carried against the wishes of friends of the Government itself. And what I predicted occurred. The Government then happened to be an exceedingly weak Government; pressure was put upon them, and they never attempted to carry out our recommendations. Our Report contained a passage with regard to the borough of Nottingham, with which I will trouble your Lordships—
  "The increasing population, unable to find room within the limits of the town, has resorted to the neighbouring parishes of Radford, Lenton, and Sneinton, and in these three parishes upwards of 20,000 people closely connected with the town of Nottingham are now congregated. Now Sneinton forms actually a portion of the town of Nottingham. New Radford may be said to form a portion of the town, although not quite so close as Sneinton. The extra-parochial district of Poole is nearly surrounded by the parish of Lenton."
  The House will scarcely credit it when I state that in the late Report of the Boundary Commission we hardly proposed any addition to the limits indicated in that Report of the Municipal Commissioners in 1837; yet this is one of the proposals which has been rejected and set aside. The case of Nottingham is less remarkable than the borough of East Retford, which occupies an entire hundred. For my part I have always been astonished that the Reform Bill of last Session, and, indeed, that any Reform Bill did not deal with those peculiar boroughs—East Retford, Cricklade, Shoreham, Much Wenlock, and Aylesbury—by reducing them to one Member each, and throwing them into the county. As matters stand, they sue nothing more nor less than electoral districts, and I am satisfied that their continued existence will ultimately have a tendency to lower the county franchise. For when you find what are absolutely elective districts, with persons on one side of the hedge having a borough qualifica-

  513
  tion, and persons on the other requiring a £12 rating, some day or other this will create great discontent and a desire for the reduction of the county franchise. Great alarm has been expressed as to the number of votes which will be lost by a transfer; to show that this alarm is not warranted by the facts I will take a case that I happen to be well acquainted with. In South Hampshire the total number of electors is 5.677, of whom 2,858, or just one-half, derive their qualification from the represented towns within the county. Therefore, it does not at all follow that by the suggested transfer of the population you reduce the number of votes for the county to the extent that has been anticipated. I mention this because it is a point which attracted considerable attention, and is believed to have had much influence both with the Committee and subsequently with the House. Speaking of my Colleagues in the Royal Commission, I can assure you that nothing could exceed the industry, the honesty of purpose, and the perfect absence of all party feeling which marked their conduct during the whole course of the inquiry committed to them. I am sure, therefore, that their finding merits the confidence of the country.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, a noble Lord opposite (Earl Russell) had said something about his Motion being a surprise, and he thought that a charge so put forward ought to be met, as it deserved, with a distinct denial. Complaint had been also made as to shortness of Notice of the Amendments. What were the facts? The Boundary Bill was brought up from the other House on the 23rd of June, but was not delivered to Members till the 25th of June. That was on Thursday. He had not time to read the Bill and consider what course he should take until Saturday, the 27th; and Notice of his present Motion was given upon Monday. On Wednesday their Lordships did not sit; but after the Notice had lain before them for two days he now brought it forward. Hence it would be seen that he had acted with all proper caution. Had he given Notice sooner he should have been charged with precipitancy. To remove, however, any excuse for complaint, he now proposed to move the adjournment of the debate. He regretted that noble Lords opposed to this matter should so far have forgotten themselves and the dignity of that House as to bring forward a groundless and nonsensical
  514
  charge, and then retire from the House without either supporting or discussing it.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought his noble Friend acted very wisely in the course which he proposed to take. He had certainly been surprised at the grave charges brought on the authority of a forced construction put upon the words of the Prime Minister. Noble Lords on the other side of the House have with great ingenuity mis-stated the tenour of the Prime Minister's remarks when simply alluding to the course of Business in. The House of Commons; it is perfectly impossible that the right hon. Gentleman could have intended to say anything with a view to fetter your Lordships; and I state positively from my own knowledge, in the most solemn manner, that the Government never meant at the time the Prime Minister spoke to regard the Scotch Reform Bill or the Boundary Bill as settled; it is monstrous to charge his words with so incongruous a meaning, because no one knows better than he that, whatever influence he may have with your Lordships from his position, he has no absolute control over the actions of this House. I am very glad my noble Friend has taken the course he has, because no one could be more annoyed than myself at the suspicion of surprise; and perhaps when the noble Lords who should be opposite have returned to their places they will be prepared to admit that the observations of the Prime Minister applied alone to the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDthought the only course open to their Lordships was to agree to an adjournment of the debate; for whatever had been done amiss, and whoever was blamable or free from blame, it would be most undesirable that the question should turn entirely upon an alleged breach of faith on the part of the Government. He could not help adding that if noble Lords on his side of the House had remained in their places, they would have better studied the dignity of the House than by running away.
  House resumed; to be again in Committee on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.