Sitting of 3 December 1857

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS.—For Oldham, v. James Platt, Esq., deceased; for Harwich, v. Major George Drought Warburton, deceased; for Paisley, v. Archibald Hastie, Esq., deceased; for Kent (Eastern Division) v. Sir Edward Cholmeley Dering, Baronet, Manor of North -stead; for Northampton County (Northern Division) v. Augustus Stafford O'Brien Stafford, Esq., deceased; for Thetford, v. Hon. Francis Baring, Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Middlesex, Hon. George Henry Charles Byng; for Oldham, William Johnson Fox, Esq.
PUBLIC BILL.—1° Outlawries.
The House met,—at half after One o'clock.
Message to attend HER MAJESTY.
The House went;—and being returned;—
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House, that he had issued a Warrant for a New Writ for Oldham, in the room of James Platt, Esq., deceased.
Outlawries Bill—"for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read 1°.

HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
MR. SPEAKER reported, That the House had, this day, attended Her Majesty in the House of Peers, when Her Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, of which Mr. Speaker said he had, for greater accuracy, obtained a copy, which he read to the House.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE SPEECH.
MR. C. W. MARTYN: Sir, in rising to move an Address in answer to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, I feel that although I have been for some years a Member of this House, I have nevertheless been so little in the habit of addressing it that I need almost as great a measure of its indulgence as those who address it for the first time. We have been told in general terms by Her Majesty, in the Speech which has been just read from the chair, the reason that Parliament

87
has been assembled at an unusual period of the year,—that distrust of the most aggravated character has arisen in a large portion of the mercantile community, and that but for the measures that Her Majesty's Ministers have thought it right to adopt wide-spread disasters would, in their opinion, have ensued. We have also been informed in the Speech from the Throne, that it is the intention of the Government to submit an Act of indemnity for themselves for having recommended that the law should be violated, and to the Directors of the Bank of England for having violated the law. I believe it will be found that in strictness the Act of indemnity need only apply to those who have been guilty of a violation of the law—viz., the Directors of the Bank of England; but Her Majesty's Ministers have felt that as they have authorised the act of the Directors they ought in candour to bear the consequences of their advice, and to submit themselves, as well as the Directors of the Bank, as it were to a trial before Parliament and the country. I think that in so doing they have taken a wise and manly course, and that no Minister of this country will ever have to regret the error, if so it can be called, of being over-scrupulous in observing the forms of the constitution of this country, and guarding against the slightest appearance of having violated it without adequate cause. It is well known to those whom I am addressing that the particular law which has been violated is the Act of 1844, introduced by the late Sir Robert Peel for the regulation of the currency of this country. The main object of that law was to put the currency on a sound basis, so as to insure the convertibility at all times of the notes of the Bank of England into the coin which they promise to pay. It had a further object, namely, to assimilate, as far as possible, the action of a joint currency of gold and paper to that of a currency of gold alone. These two objects have been accomplished by restricting the issues of the Bank on credit to £14,500,000 which sum has been selected because it very nearly represents the minimum amount of notes that ever remained in circulation after a call had arisen for gold. It was therefore presumed that at no future time would it be possible, or at all events likely, that gold would be demanded for that amount of notes. The remainder of the note circulation of the Bank was only to be issued in exchange for bullion actually lodged and bonâ fide deposited in the
88
coffers of the Bank, and it was therefore concluded that the ebbing and flowing of the notes which represented that bullion would be such as would occur if there was nothing but bullion, and no issue of notes in excess of the £14,500,000 had at all existed. The system has been in action for some years, and seems to have operated in such a manner as to give very general satisfaction to the mercantile world. It is true that there are some eminent dissentients from the policy of the Act, but when we look to the evidence which has recently been given before the Select Committee of this House by my hem. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Weguelin), by Mr. Norman, and by Mr. Hubbard, who represented that the Act commanded the cordial concurrence of the Directors of the Bank of England as a body, and when, added to their evidence, we have the testimony of so able a financier and distinguished an authority as Lord Overstone I am, I think, justified in saying that, in its main provisions and practical working, the Act has been satisfactory to the most eminent and leading members of the mercantile community. Nevertheless it is true that in the course of its career the operation of the Act has twice been suspended. The first suspension took place in 1847. It appears that previous to that time there had been a considerable amount of speculation. There had also been a considerable investment of the capital of the country in railway undertakings, and, in addition to those two causes, which were very powerful in themselves in relation to the reserve of the Bank, came the failure of our own harvest and the failure of the Irish potato crop, which necessitated the importation of food for the use of the population, requiring no less a sum of money than £33,000,000 to pay for it. Even those enormous drains would, in all human probability, have been surmounted if, concurrently with them, a panic had not arisen in the money-market. The panic in the money-market in 1847 appears capable of being assigned to the fact that the mercantile community were not aware of the usual action of the reserve of the Bank—that they did not perceive that it was reduced to an unusually low point by the payment of the dividends, and that just before the famous letter of 1847 was issued a turn had taken place, and that the funds of the Bank had again begun to accumulate. Whatever might be the truth in that particular—and such was the view main-

89
tained by Mr. Hubbard—it was certain that the very issue of the celebrated letter of the Government in 1847 allayed the panic. Although the Government of that day, as the Government of this day, authorised the Bank Directors to exceed the limits imposed on them by Act of Parliament, and to make such further issues as they might think necessary on securities as well as bullion, not a single note in excess of the amount allowed by the Act of 1844 was issued in 1847, and, if I may use the expression, the money-market righted itself by its own inherent elasticity. What was done at that time had the cordial concurrence of the late Sir Robert Peel, the author of the principles embodied in the Act of 1844. Although not usually supporting the Government then in power, Sir Robert Peel very honourably rose in his place in Parliament and gave his complete sanction to the course which had been taken, saying that panic was not to be legislated for or reasoned with, but met from time to time by special and exceptional means, and that he thought the Government justified in the precise means which they had adopted on that occasion to relieve the pressure. From 1847 to the present time, notwithstanding that the war with Russia entailed a heavy cost on this country to maintain troops in the Crimea and required remittances of bullion to the extent of not less than sixty millions, the Act has been continued to be maintained, and no inconvenience has been felt by the country which is fairly traceable to its operation. But in the present year a state of things has occurred very similar to that which occurred in 1847. An enormous drain of bullion to the East Indies and China went on for months, and then came one of the greatest commercial disasters which had ever visited a commercial country, the crisis in the United States of America—a disaster so great that its effects are not limited to this country, but as I saw by the papers of that morning, are more severely felt in Hamburg than in London or Liverpool. The drain of 1857, also, would in all human probability have been surmounted without any violation of the law or abrogation for the time of the system of 1844, if it had not been that a panic among the mercantile community supervened; for, as I am informed upon the best authority, late in October the position of the Bank was satisfactory. There were then four millions of reserve
90
against three millions of deposits, and the exchanges had turned in favour of this country, when disasters began to occur in the north of England—first by the failure of the Liverpool Borough Bank, and then by the failure of Messrs. Dennistoun and Co. Those failures were followed by the failure of a large bank in Glasgow, not only having a large amount of deposits, but a right of issuing its own notes to the extent of no less than £500,000. Other failures of a similar character continued to occur to such an extent that mercantile confidence was shaken. Every bank, every discount house, and almost every trader, felt it necessary to strengthen their resources, and to put themselves in a safe position, by which means the immense amount of capital usually employed in the discount of mercantile bills was suddenly reduced to a most inconvenient extent, and a pressure occasioned unequalled perhaps in the history of the mercantile affairs of this country. When we reflect that the amount of the floating fund which is usually invested in discounts has been estimated at £200,000,000, and by more moderate calculations of those who place it at the lowest amount at £120,000,000 or £130,000,000, we shall at once perceive that a derangement or curtailment of that gigantic fund to the amount of five or ten per cent, would withdraw from the mercantile community capital equal to £6,000,000—more probably amounting to £12,000,000. The four millions of reserve which the Bank possessed against their deposits having been reduced to £2,000,000, and the mercantile pressure continuing to such a degree that the discount houses could not go on discounting without the assistance of the Bank; and the Bank being so exhausted it could no assist the discount houses, the Bank of England, I believe, applied to the Government, and under those aggravated circumstances Her Majesty's Ministers felt imperatively called on to sanction an infringement of the existing law. A letter was addressed to the Bank, authorising the issue of notes to such an amount as the Directors thought expedient on their general resources, and on securities, and without regard to the restriction as to the amount of bullion which the law required. Under that letter, an issue of notes immediately took place, amounting to £2,000,000, and the Bank discounts were augmented in one week by no less a sum than

91
£6,000,000. If we compare one crisis with the other, it will at once he manifest, that the crisis of 1857 was far superior in intensity to the crisis of 1847, and that if, in the estimation of all mercantile authorities, the Government of 1847 were justified in the course they took, à fortiori the Government of the noble Lord was justified in issuing the letter to which he has referred. I therefore feel no doubt that the Act of indemnity sought by the Government and the Bank will be cheerfully accorded and passed, without a division, by both Houses of Parliament. Her Majesty, in the next passage of the Speech, has called our attention to the distress which has been suffered and is still being suffered by a large portion of the labouring and industrial population of the country. Her Majesty has expressed her cordial sympathy with them, and I am sure the House will not be behindhand in testifying its concurrence with Her Majesty in that expression of her sympathy. We have often of late seen privations arising from similar causes, submitted to by the labouring classes, with a patience so exemplary as to excite the admiration of the community and even of the whole of Europe. I have no doubt that the same patience will be exhibited by them now. They seem conscious that relief can only come with the revival of mercantile prosperity and mercantile enterprise, and I also hope they are aware that, if anything can be done for their relief in the way of legislation, neither that nor the other House of Parliament will be remiss in supporting Her Majesty's Ministers in any proposal which may be made with that object. Our attention was next called to the topic of the late occurrences in India. Her Majesty has expressed her sympathy with those, alas! too numerous persons who had suffered bereavements by the recent calamitous events in that country, and I am here again certain that House would not be slow to testify their sympathy together with the sympathy of Her Majesty, for the victims of the Indian mutiny. This is no common disaster. It is painful enough when soldiers fall in battle, or relatives are removed by the ordinary operations of disease. But when we regard the aggravated circumstances under which our fellow-countrymen and fellow-countrywomen have come to their ends at the hands of miscreants, who, with a degree of cruelty unappreciable in its full atrocity, exhausted all the inventions of
92
malice to increase the sufferings of their victims by every form of bodily and mental torture, I think we have such an incentive as was never given by any former calamity, to join most heartily in the feelings, so graciously expressed by Her Majesty, of commiseration and sympathy. The next topic to which Her Majesty has directed the attention of Parliament—the successes of our troops in India—is of a more cheering character. If the unparalleled difficulties with which those troops have had to contend are taken into consideration—when we see a handful of men scattered over an immense territory, in a moment of fancied security, without warning or suspicion of what was going to happen, suddenly called upon to take up arms throughout the length and breadth of the land, against what appeared to be an overwhelming foe, and when we find those troops exhibiting the superiority and indomitable courage of the English race, and making head against the overpowering numbers of their enemies, I for one can set no bounds to the admiration with which this country ought to view the achievements of her victorious soldiers. I am sure there is no necessity for me to point out to this House the names of those who have, in leading those troops, deserved well of their country during this struggle. Nothing could be more admirable than the patient calmness with which Sir Archdale Wilson had maintained himself before Delhi—the besieged rather than the be-sieger—for so many long weeks, until he received reinforcements which, though slender in themselves, yet made success possible to a handful of daring and undaunted men. Nothing could be finer than his final assault, in which, after a loss almost unparalleled in the annals of warfare, he was ultimately successful in driving the enemy from their stronghold. Need I point to the gallantry with which, in another part of the country, Sir Henry Havelock, alternately advancing and retreating with daring only equalled by his judgment, until he had attained his desired object of throwing relief into beleaguered Lucknow, had gained unperishable laurels? Who has not admired the self-devotion and chivalrous feeling with which Sir James Outram, though the senior commanding officer, consented, or rather offered to accompany General Havelock in his civil capacity until he perfected this great achievement? The House does not need to be reminded of the per-

93
sonal acts of self-devotion of such men as Lieutenant Willoughby, Home, and Salkeld; or, coming to the humbler grades of the service, of Sergeants Carmichael and Smith; and of Corporal Burgess. The House will agree with Her Majesty, in admiration for the zeal and courage displayed by the Civil Service in India, by such men as the Lawrences and Colvil, whose names have already become household words among us, and by those who acted under their orders. There is nothing in history more touching than the story of Lieutenant Osborne, the political agent at Rewah, related in the papers of yesterday,—living in his tent alone 100 miles from any European, in such a state of illness from liver complaint that he was unable to he down on his bed, surrounded by mutineers who daily threatened to put him to death by torture, and nevertheless enabled, by his energy and the strength of civilized intellect acting on barbarians, to hold his own, defended alone by the threat—which he would undoubtedly have realized—to take six lives before his own, and in that position having still influence enough to induce those who had no communication with the mutineers to do his bidding and carry his messages so long as they were not prevented by physical force. The names of these men are received with a thrill of admiration and gratitude wherever they are heard throughout the country. This country has nothing to fear from any enemy so long as it can boast of heroes such as these, and I cannot better sum up my own feelings with regard to the great qualities which had been displayed by Englishmen in the East than by quoting the words used by the Roman poet in reference to his own countrymen:—
"Felix prole virum: qualis Berecynthia mater
"Invehitur curru Phrygias turrita per urbes,
"Læta Deum partu, centum complexa nepotes,
"Omnes cœlicolas, omnes super alta tenentes."
Her Majesty has assured us that on account of the strong and powerful reinforcements which have been sent out from this country the Indian authorities will be enabled to ultimately suppress this rebellion and trample out the last sparks of this great conflagration. When that chastisement, which was due to such misdeeds as those of the rebels of India—a chastisement called for by the voice of humanity, when rightly understood, as much as by that of justice—has been signally inflicted, and tranquillity has been restored to India, Parliament will be called on, according to
94
a promise in Her Majesty's Speech, to turn its attention to the management of that great country and the amelioration of its Government. Papers connected with this subject will be laid before this House, and I am sure that when the proper time arrives, this House will apply itself to that task in no spirit of faction. It will remember that it is legislating for the destinies of 150,000,000 of fellow subjects, and that consideration alone will induce it to enter upon that important duty calmly and deliberately, with an honest desire to devise such reforms as should be for the lasting welfare and happiness of the inhabitants of that great empire, which has been committed to our charge. The hand of an overruling Providence has been plainly conspicuous in all these events. It has been plainly shown, I cannot help thinking, that India has been committed to our charge for no ordinary purpose, and it will be the duty of this country to conduct itself with Christian energy but with Christian discretion, so as not to impede or mar that course of events which seems to shape itself as though directed by an invisible hand, to the ultimate fulfilment of a great and happy destiny, the consummation of which, I confidently believe, will be at some time though we may not live to see it, the spread of our own blessed religion throughout the length and breadth of that land. I cannot quit this part of the subject without noticing the further allusions made in Her Majesty's gracious Speech to the loyalty of the great bulk of the population, and the obligations under which we he to those native Potentates who still hold the rank of independent Sovereigns. The friendly and cordial spirit with which these Princes have acted towards us merits the gratitude of this country, and has been of material service to us in holding out against this extended revolt. Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to inform Her Parliament that the whole of Europe was in a state of peace, and that the most satisfactory assurances were received from all foreign Powers. To this information was added the assurance that the only point of importance which remained to be settled was the question of the Danubian Principalities. That question is now in train for settlement, and it is to be hoped that the arrangement arrived at will be such as, while respecting the rights of the Sultan, will confer on the population of those Principalities the privileges best fitted for

95
the existing state of things among them and most conducive to their ultimate happiness and prosperity. Her Majesty next informed Parliament that the Shah of Persia has loyally and faithfully carried out the treaty which had been entered into with this country, and that his troops have been withdrawn from the territory of Herat. On our side, Mohammerah and Bushire have been evacuated, and Karrack, I. believe, will not remain much longer in our occupation. The next subject to which Her Majesty's Speech alludes was the Estimates for the ensuing year. In this part of the Speech the House will notice that there is a slight difference from the ordinary language. Owing to the early period at which Parliament has been summoned together these Estimates are not yet complete, and they are spoken of in the Speech in the future tense. Her Majesty, however, has given us the satisfactory assurance that they will be constructed with a view to the exigencies of the country—a right view in my opinion to he taken in forming the Estimates, because it seems to indicate that, while there will be no extravagance, there would at the same time be no shrinking from the legitimate expenditure which is really wanted for the purposes of the country. Her Majesty's Government have also announced that it was their intention in the ensuing Session of Parliament to take into their consideration that great and important subject—the representation of the people of this country. I congratulate the House and the country upon the energy with which the noble Lord at the head of the Government has made an opportunity, in spite of the many arduous duties which have pressed so heavily on his time, for taking into his consideration this complicated and important question, thus fulfilling the pledge which he has given to the public, that he would in the ensuing Session bring forward a measure on the subject. I have such confidence in the prudence and discretion of the noble Lord, and I have so often witnessed the happy tact with which he catches even the wishes as well as the interests of the people that I confidently expect when this measure shall be brought before us that it will prove satisfactory to the great majority of the people. Of course, at the present moment it would be premature to speculate even upon what that measure might contain, and it would not be in accordance with usage for the Government to reveal piecemeal, portions
96
of a plan which they are maturing; but I for one am content to wait until it shall be brought whole and entire before the House, and I repeat with unhesitating confidence my belief that when produced it will be found to be a satisfactory measure and one highly conducive to the interests of the people. We are further assured that measures are in contemplation for improving the law of real property, more particularly, I believe, with respect to the transfer of land. The transfer of land has been hitherto encumbered with difficult and expensive forms which press most onerously both upon the buyers and sellers of property, and I am sure that a great portion of the community would hail with real satisfaction any important change which it may be in the power of the Government to introduce upon the subject. Furthermore, a consolidation is promised of several important branches of the criminal code, which I believe it is proposed to effect by referring the Bills which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament last year to a Select Committee with a view of seeing where the law is imperfect and what has been already done before coming to a conclusion. Finally, Her Majesty has made an appeal to them which I am certain would be responded to in a becoming manner. She invites us to implore the blessing of Divine Providence upon our deliberations. That is a most legitimate ending to any Royal Speech., but more particularly to one which embraces such important topics as the present, and I am perfectly certain that it is an invitation to which we all shall most cordially respond. In conclusion, I thank the House most heartily and sincerely for the kind indulgence with which they have received my observations in introducing the Royal Speech to their notice, the Address in reply to which I beg leave now to propose. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey to Her Majesty the thanks of this House for the gracious Speech which Her Majesty has made to both Houses of Parliament:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us of the causes which have induced Her Majesty to call Parliament together before the usual time; for informing us that the failure of certain Joint Stock Banks, and

97
of some Mercantile Firms, has produced such an extent of distrust as to lead Her Majesty to authorise Her Ministers to recommend to the Directors of the Bank of England the adoption of a course of proceeding which appeared necessary for allaying the prevalent alarm: and to thank Her Majesty for intimating to us that, as that course has involved a departure from the existing law, a Bill for indemnifying those who advised and those who adopted it will be submitted for our consideration:
"To assure Her Majesty that we sympathize in Her regret that the disturbed state of commercial transactions in general has occasioned a diminution of employment in the manufacturing districts, which cannot fail to be attended with much local distress; and that we partake in Her trust that this evil may not be of long duration, and that the abundant harvest with which it has graciously pleased Divine Providence to bless this land, will in some degree mitigate the sufferings which this state of things must unavoidably produce:
"To assure Her Majesty that while we join with Her in deploring the severe suffering to which many of Her subjects in India have been exposed, and in lamenting the extensive bereavements and sorrow which have been caused, we share in the satisfaction which She has derived from the distinguished successes which have attended the heroic exertions of the comparatively small forces which have been opposed to greatly superior numbers, without the aid of the powerful reinforcements despatched from this country to their assistance; and that we trust, in common with Her Majesty, that the arrival of those reinforcements will speedily complete the suppression of this widely-spread revolt:
"To assure Her Majesty that we share in the warm admiration which Her Majesty evinces for the gallantry of the troops employed against the mutineers; their courage in action; their endurance under privation, fatigue, and the effects of climate; the high spirit and self-devotion of the of-
98
ficers; the ability, skill, and persevering energy of the commanders; and also in the gratification which She expresses that many civilians, placed in extreme difficulty and danger, have displayed the highest qualities, including, in some instances, those that would do honour to veteran soldiers:
"That we rejoice to learn that the general mass of the population of India have taken no part in the rebellion; while the most considerable of the Native Princes have acted in the most friendly manner, and have rendered important services:
"To thank Her Majesty for directing that papers relating to these matters shall be laid before us, and humbly to assure Her Majesty that we will give our earnest attention to the affairs of Her East Indian Dominions:
"That we rejoice to learn that the Nations of Europe are in the enjoyment of the blessings of peace, which nothing seems likely to disturb; that the stipulations of the treaty which Her Majesty has concluded with the Shah of Persia have been faithfully carried into execution, and the Persian forces have evacuated the territory of Herat:
"To thank Her Majesty for having given directions that the Estimates for the next year shall be prepared for the purpose of being laid before us, and for informing us that they will be framed with a careful regard to the exigencies of the public service:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty, that we will direct our earnest attention to the laws which regulate the representation of the people in Parliament, with a view to consider what amendments may be safely and beneficially made therein; and to the measures for simplifying and amending the laws relating to real property, and also for consolidating and amending several important branches of the Criminal Law:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty, for being pleased to assure us, that She confidently commits to our wisdom the great

99
interests of Her Empire, and humbly to assure Her Majesty that, in common with Her Majesty, we fervently pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend our Counsels, and may guide our deliberations to the objects of Her Majesty's constant solicitude, the welfare and happiness of Her Majesty's loyal and faithful people.
MR. AKROYDrose to second the Address. The hon. Gentleman said, that in endeavouring to discharge the honourable duty which had been intrusted to him, he must claim the indulgence of the House, feeling deeply conscious of the responsibility of his position, and diffident of his abilities adequately to discharge that responsibility. In the speech from the Throne, Her Majesty's Government had brought before the consideration of the House three important questions—the first relating to the suspension of the Bank Charter Act, by which the commercial prosperity of this country was more or less affected; the second, respecting the maintenance of the vast empire of India; and the third, with reference to a Reform Bill, and a proposition for enlarging the basis of our constitution. On the first of these questions, as a manufacturer himself, and the representative of a manufacturing town, perhaps he might be permitted to extend his observations to a greater length than he should otherwise have presumed to do; and probably the House might find some difference between the views which he was disposed to take on that question, and those which had been advanced by the hon. Mover of the Address. That difference might perhaps be accounted for by the fact that his hon. Friend, happy, as he was sure he must be, in his country retreat, took a cool calm view of the question, while he (Mr. Akroyd) stood in the midst of the excitement and had a fellow feeling with those who suffered. Now, he would not consider the subject in that narrow light in which most of the writers of the present day did—as if it merely affected the money-market or the dealers in Lombard-street, or as if it simply enabled the lenders of money to obtain an usurious rate of interest at the expense of the needy borrower; nor would he admit that all borrowers were speculators; for it was impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that many an honest trader might be brought to the necessity of becoming a borrower. On looking at some of
100
the money articles which he had seen in the newspapers he could not but admire the ability of the writers; but it struck him that they often took a professional view of the question—they dealt with it pretty much like a skilful surgeon who looked upon the disease of a patient as it might tend more or less to illustrate his own particular theory: or where he got hold of a subject, and had put him on the dissecting-board, he endeavoured to illustrate his professional views of the nature of the disease by a post-mortem examination. So the writers of some of the money articles got hold of a Bankrupt commercially defunct, and endeavoured to sustain their own system by dissection. He (Mr. Akroyd) took a strong interest in this subject, and if he had the power he would relieve the sufferings of the one patient and would try to restore the suspended animation of the other. He would ask the House to take a broad view of the question, to consider its bearing upon our national prosperity and upon the interests of the working class in this country, and to bear in mind that our ability to sustain the burdens of war depended upon the productiveness of the country. He was glad that the agricultural labourers were comparatively well off, and long might prosperity shine upon them, whatever might be the troubles by which the people of his own district might be affected. He felt that it was unnecessary for him to attempt to enlist the sympathy of the House on behalf of the people of the working classes. He was quite sure that every Member of the House had a deep regard for them. If it were necessary to enlist the sympathy of the House on their behalf, he would remind the House that those classes furnished the soldiers who fought our battles, that they in their turn had to bear the heavy burdens of war, and that no less fortitude might be required to meet a starving wife and family than to fight battles upon the cold heights of Sebastopol or the burning plains of India. What was the state of things when the monetary crisis first occurred? There was no alarm of the coming danger. The newspapers did not point to any occasion for alarm in any quarter of the globe. The only drawback to the prosperity of the country arose from an increase in the price of the raw material. He came from the manufacturing districts and could therefore speak from his own personal observation of the state of things there immedi-

101
tely before the crisis. The first symptom of danger was the raising by the Bank of England of the rate of discount to 5½ per cent on the 2nd of October. By successive advances the rate was within the same month raised to 8, 9, and 10 per cent. But the warning came too late. Each successive rise only served to aggravate the panic. The storm came in full force. There was no time for the manufacturers to prepare themselves against it. Since the panic arose many a goodly vessel had been stranded, and many a goodly vessel had foundered. He himself knew in his own neighbourhood many who had sunk in commercial relations, and whom he should probably know no more. Country gentlemen might, perhaps, look upon the panic among the commercial classes with somewhat of the feeling with which landsmen looked upon a storm at sea; but sure he was that their commiseration would be extended to the sufferers. On the 11th of November the storm was at its height, and on the 12th the Government letter came out, informing the Bank of England that they might during the present emergency exceed the limits prescribed by the Act of 1844. Those limits had since been exceeded, and no one could deny that there was a necessity for that excess, and that the indemnity sought by the Government ought to be granted. If the letter of the Government to the Bank of England had not been issued, the consequences within 24 hours would have been most serious. The trade and commerce of the country would have been brought to a deadlock, and general confusion, and a vast amount of ruin would have ensued. He was not one who blamed the Bank of England, for he believed they had made every possible effort to relieve the manufacturing classes. They were tied down by the Act of Parliament, and they went to the very verge of prudence in order to relieve the commercial classes. The position of the Bank in 1857 was much more critical than in 1847, and the pressure more severe. Hence there was greater necessity in 1857 for exceeding the limits prescribed by the Bank Charter Act. Let us then pause to consider the relative position of matters in those years. In the year 1847 the amount of bullion in the Bank was £8,313,000 and in 1857 it was £7,171,000. The reserve in 1857 was £957,710, but in 1847 it was £1,547,000; so that the position of the Bank of England in 1857 was
102
much more unfavourable than it was in 1847. The panics of 1847 and 1857 were similar at least in one respect; that in both cases the Government found it necessary to suspend the Bank Charter Act. The panic of 1847, directly, and the panic of 1857, indirectly, had been occasioned by railway speculations. The Lords Committee came to the conclusion that the panic of 1847 was aggravated by the operation of the Bank Charter Act and by the proceedings of the Bank. The hon. Member for Kendal had given very able evidence before that Committee, and he (Mr. Akroyd) was glad to shelter himself behind such high authority. The hon. Member was of opinion that the pres sure in April arose from the large importation of foreign corn; but that the pressure in the following October arose "from an apprehension on the part of mercantile men that the reserve in the Bank had become very small, and that, in point of fact, people possessed of property would not be able to convert it into Bank of England notes." The hon. Member further added "that the Government letter stopped the crisis and abrogated the Act." The House of Commons in the subsequent session had arrived at the conclusion that the Government, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, was justified in suspending the Bank Charter Act. In 1847 the Government interfered when discount was at 8 per cent, and in his opinion the Government would have done well if it had interfered in the present crisis when discount had reached that amount. Looking however, to the present financial difficulty, there seemed to be no natural cause to account for it. Harvests were abundant both in Europe and America; and if it should be proved to the House that any portion of our legislation had had the effect of producing this commercial disturbance, throwing tens of thousands of people out of employment, he trusted hon. Members would not hesitate to alter any enactment which might appear to them to have brought about that evil. It was said that things were greatly improved; but he confessed that until discount was reduced to 8 per cent, he had no expectation that trade would improve, or that failures would cease. It was a strange fact that, notwithstanding the recent discoveries of gold and the large importations of it into this country, it had slipped from our fingers in a marvellous manner, and the country at large was no richer by

103
those importations. He could not but feel that we should not be able to retain that gold in this country until gold was sold at its market value. We were the only nation who had a fixed standard price of gold, and it was clear that unless we gave the market price for gold the only other means we had of getting it to this country was a sacrifice in the price of our commodities. The commercial classes in France, where speculation had been carried to a much greater extent than in this country, had passed comparatively unscathed through the present trial, while in this country they had suffered most severely. The difference, he believed, was attributable to our having a standard price for gold. Again, owing to our laws, we had discounts running to from 2 to 10 per cent. The value of money did not depend on gold. If at any time the owner of the £100 got only £2 for it, and that in commodities at a high price, whereas at another time he got £10 for his £100, to spend upon commodities at a low price, of course the value of his money was more than quintupled. There was no commodity, not even hops, which was so varying and fluctuating as the price of money. It had been the practice of the Bank of England at an early period to maintain the rate of discount at an equable rate, and from 1704 to 1844 it had never been higher than 5 per cent, or less than 4 per cent, except during six months of the year 1839, when it had risen to 6 per cent. The limit of £14,000,000 fixed under the Act of 1844 was clearly not sufficient. For the information of hon. gentlemen not so practically acquainted with mercantile pursuits as himself he would mention to the House that business transactions were generally carried on through the medium of bills of exchange, and therefore it was for the general interest of commerce that sufficient facilities should be afforded for discount. While that, however, was the case, it was at the same time necessary that no facility should be afforded for discounting accommodation bills. It would be well for trade if all that sort of spurious paper money, like base coinage, was weeded out of the market. He himself, although he saw the necessity of a paper currency, was an advocate for its ready convertibility. Manufacturers were not mere speculators in paper, but what they wanted was a solid currency. He knew that he had already trespassed largely on the patience of the
104
House on this branch of the subjects referred to in Her Majesty's gracious Speech. In reference to the condition of the working classes, it was a fortunate and Providential circumstance that cheap food enabled them better to bear the sufferings to which the state of commerce had exposed them, and he was sure that as long as those classes believed in the disposition of the Government to relieve their sufferings by wise legislation, they would endure them with fortitude. He would trespass very shortly upon the time of the House in reference to the state of affairs in India. He had observed with great satisfaction, from what had taken place in that country, that the commercial spirit of the nation had not weakened its martial vigour, and he would add that among no portion of the population of this country did there exist more sympathy for the deeds, the sufferings and privations of our gallant soldiers than was to be found in the manufacturing districts. The working classes had relatives and friends of their own in the British army, and they were proud of the gallant bearing of their friends, and sympathised deeply with their sufferings. As an instance of the extent to which that feeling prevailed, he might state that in the town which he had the honour to represent there had been raised for the sufferers by the Indian mutinies nearly £2,000; and he believed that the working classes generally were willing to bear their share of the taxation which those unfortunate occurrences made necessary. With respect to the Government of India, it ought to be a single and supreme Government—a Government which, while it possessed ample power to vindicate its authority, would, at the same time, exert itself to develope the resources of the country by encouraging the growth of cotton, by the construction of railways and canals, and by promoting internal improvement. He now came to the subject of Parliamentary reform. He rejoiced that on that subject the Government had redeemed their pledge. He, for his own part, hoped that the coming measure would be a large measure, and that it would, without giving predominance to any particular class, include an infusion of the honest working men of the country. He would revert to the old principle of the constitution, which admitted scot and lot voters; and he was sure that the best of the working class would compare advantageously with the small tradesmen as re-

105
garded not only discernment, but also devotion to the interests of the country. He was glad also to see that the Government had determined to carry on the work of law reform, and, although no mention had been made in the Speech from the Throne of any reform in that branch of the law which chiefly had reference to commercial interests—namely, the bankruptcy and insolvency laws—he hoped that if measures relating to them were ever brought forward by the Chambers of Commerce, they would obtain general concurrence and would receive at the hands of Her Majesty's Government a favourable consideration and support. Upon the subject of the Danubian Principalities, to which his hon. Friend had alluded, he would not enter further than to say, that the free navigation of the Danube would be a great benefit to commerce. He would now conclude his remarks. He had not been accustomed to address the House, and having, as a manufacturer, been more used to act than to speak, he might find it difficult to adapt himself to the particular tone of the House, and to express himself in strict Parliamentary fashion. But this he knew, that whatever thoughts he had expressed they were his own conscientious convictions; and that, whatever opinions he might have uttered, he had never failed, to the best of his ability, to act up to those opinions. And although, perhaps, he might not altogether obtain the ear of the House, sure he was that he should be sustained by those in his own neighbourhood whom he represented in that House, and with whom he had been connected all his life. In conclusion, he would join devoutly in the prayer which had been offered by Her Majesty at the close of Her most Gracious Speech, that the blessing of Almighty God might attend their counsels, and guide their deliberations to the happiness and prosperity of a loyal and faithful people. He begged to second the motion.
The Address having been read from the Chair,
MR. DISRAELIrose and said;—I think, Sir, that the surprise at this autumnal meeting of Parliament which has been expressed by the hon. Member who has just addressed you, is not limited to the people generally, or even to the independent Members of this House, but that it must in some degree be shared in by Her Majesty's Ministers
106
themselves. It appears that upon the 4th of November a Privy Council was held, the result of which was that Her Majesty was recommended to prorogue Parliament to the 18th of December (then not to meet for the despatch of business), while eight days later the Government found themselves under the necessity of violating a most important statute and consequently of advising Her Majesty to call Parliament together. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address is, I am sure, under no necessity to apologize for his speech. The subject which he treated is one of which he has had much practice, and is of great interest to the House at this moment, more especially to those hon. Gentlemen connected with commerce. Well, Sir, that hon. Gentleman, in his reply—and, I think, his able reply—to the speech of the Mover of the Address, has informed us that on the 4th of October the difficulty had commenced, and that in the middle of that month there was actual danger; and yet at the beginning of November Her Majesty's Ministers recommended the prorogation of Parliament to the 18th of December, even then not for the despatch of business, and then find, a few days later, that it is absolutely necessary to rescind their resolution and not only to rescind it and seek the advice of Parliament in the emergency in which the country finds itself, but themselves to perform an act of a very extraordinary character. Now, what one very naturally wishes to know is, what was the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers in the months of October and November respecting the condition of the commerce of the country? I apprehend that that would be a subject which would almost primarily occupy the attention and consideration of the Minister of the greatest commercial country in the world. No doubt there are other subjects of vast importance demanding anxious consideration by Her Majesty's Ministers. They might have been maturing their Reform Bill, though they have had so considerable a space for that effort that I should have thought their attempts would have been considerably advanced at that period, or they might have been continuing their energetic efforts, which unfortunately have not been successful, to add to the forces of the gallant Wilson and the daring Havelock: but, even under those circumstances, I should have thought Her Majesty's Ministers would have given some

107
inquiry to the condition of the commerce of the country. There is a Member of the Cabinet whose peculiar duty it is at all times, and under all circumstances, to study our commercial condition. The President of the Board of Trade is a Member of the Cabinet, and, I apprehend, was present at the deliberations of the Cabinet when the prorogation of Parliament was decided upon, and I take it for granted that he communicated to Her Majesty's Ministers the conclusions he had arrived at, no doubt by painful investigation and by deep thought. I take it for granted the President of the Board of Trade said to the Prime Minister, and his colleagues,—"Be quite easy so far as the commerce of the country is concerned; count on that domestic tranquillity which results from the full employment of the working classes. The commerce of the country is established on a sound basis. We have now no old-fashioned protective restrictions to thwart its development, we have established it on that principle of unrestricted competition which you have all agreed to maintain. It is not only proved by its immense extent, by the increase of our exports and imports, that the principles of our commercial system are sound; but I can tell you not only that our trade is extensive, but that it was never in so healthy a condition as it is at present." That must have been the recommendation on which Her Majesty's Ministers acted, notwithstanding all that was occurring in the country, notwithstanding that, according to what a practical man has just told us, early in October serious difficulties had commenced in the commercial world, that in the middle of that month danger had accrued, and that at the time when the Council which fixed the prorogation was sitting occurrences were taking place tending to shake to its very centre the whole of our commercial system. I say Her Majesty's Ministers must have acted on conclusions quite the reverse before they could have taken the course that they have done. But, Sir, under what circumstances do we meet now? Her Majesty's Ministers have thought proper to violate an existing law, and that one of the highest importance. I do not want to enter to-night into the question as to whether the temporary or permanent suspension of that law is expedient. I think I rightly interpret the feeling of the House when I conclude that a currency debate is not one which they wish
108
this night to pursue, and that on an occasion when we are considering the response we ought to make to a Speech from the Throne, of so varied a character, it would be highly inconvenient that we should take the opportunity of incidentally discussing a subject of so much importance, which demands a precise treatment and a concentration of attention. There are topics enough to discuss without entering into any controversy on the principles on which the monetary circulation of this country ought to be conducted. We are asked tonight, or rather we have notice given that we shall be asked to grant a Bill of indemnity to Her Majesty's Ministers for departing from an existing law with regard to that important subject. I know it is too often the habit of this House when a Bill of indemnity is the question before us to treat it as a very light matter. It is generally supposed that when such a Bill is asked for it will be conceded as a matter of course, and that no opposition to it will be attempted, and therefore it is a matter which is treated lightly; but the fact is, that a Bill of indemnity is of so grave a character that it should never be so treated. On the contrary, when accorded, it should be accorded liberally, and even generously, but it should never be accorded lightly. This House should never agree to a Bill of indemnity, especially upon such a subject as is referred to in the gracious Speech from the Throne, without well weighing the circumstances under which the infraction of the law has taken place. Ten years ago,—to which reference has been made by the hon. Gentlemen the Mover and Seconder of the Address,—there was a similar though technically not an identical state of affairs with the present. There was not then an actual violation of the law, but virtually there was one, for Her Majesty's Ministers had adopted the responsibility of recommending its infraction. I ask any hon. Gentleman whether he has a clear idea of the circumstances under which the Government then recommended the suspension of an important Act, and were obliged to come to Parliament, not absolutely to obtain a Bill of Indemnity, but its sanction to the advice they had given? We were then told that that interference saved the Bank of England from breaking. We were then told that immense calamities would have occurred had not the Bank of England appealed, and not unsuccessfully, to the interference of the Government. But by

109
the evidence taken only last Session upon this very subject, ten years after the event—evidence given by some of the most considerable commercial witnesses, men who have held the high office of Governor of the Bank—we find that in 1847 the Bank of England made no appeal to Her Majesty's Ministers, that they never asked for their interference, that they even protested against that interference, that they did not require protection, and that they were prepared in 1847 not only to maintain the convertibility of the bank-notes which they had issued, but even to protect the deposits which had been entrusted to their custody. Now, what evidence have we that the same circumstances have not occurred at the present moment? So far as the language of Her Majesty's gracious Speech would guide us, I should be induced to believe that the Bank have not appealed for assistance to the Government. There we learn that "the failure of certain joint-stock banks and of some mercantile firms produced such an extent of distrust as led Her Majesty to authorise Her Ministers to recommend to the Directors of the Bank of England the adoption of a course of proceeding which appeared necessary for allaying the prevalent alarm." It is therefore evident that it is the Government which has again recommended the Bank to suspend the law and to pass the limit fixed by the existing Statute; and therefore when Her Majesty's Ministers come forward and ask for a Bill of indemnity I think I am only recommending a prudent and a proper course when I say that we ought, as the condition of granting such a Bill, to require a frank declaration from the Government of the circumstances which induced them to recommend this policy, and of the reasons which they believe sufficient to render the pursuance of this policy necessary. Now, Sir, from recent discussions, and from the investigations of a Committee of this House which sat for some time on the subject, the House is so familiar with the whole scheme of the Bank Charter Act of 1844 that it would be a waste of time to enter upon its details—in fact I need only allude to its existence. The House is also aware that among those who are resolved to support the practical convertibility of the bank-note—a principle which I trust a majority of this House will always support, though, from the language of the hon. Seconder of the Address, if he represents the opinions of the Government, I won't at all
110
answer for the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers in this respect—but the House is aware that among those who are in perfect accordance of opinion on that great principle there are still many men of the highest authority, not inferior to any of those statesmen or literary economists who have obtained such celebrity from their connection with the Act of 1844, who dispute the very principle on which that Act is founded, and to the fallacy of that principle attribute the occurrence, or the aggravation rather, of those evils which have been referred to, and who have given to a Committee of this House ample evidence in support of their opinions. For myself, I offer none of my own on the subject on this occasion, when by common consent we are not to be considered as engaged in a currency debate; but it is, in my opinion, the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers, or of men who aspire to be Ministers, or have any following in this House, to have on these points of controversy a distinct and definite judgment. I learn with great regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice that to-morrow he will move to introduce this Bill of indemnity in Committee of the whole House, and also that he will move for a Committee to consider the operation of the Bank Charter Act of 1844. Now we shall be doing exactly what we did in 1847. In 1847 the country was panic-struck and half ruined. Parliament was called together, and the country looked to it for the expression of some distinct opinion. A Committee was appointed. Ten years have elapsed. The same occurrence take place. Parliament is again called together; and what is Parliament, and what are Ministers—the most influential Members of Parliament, about to do to meet the difficulty? Again they are going to evade doing that which is the duty of every statesman in this country—to lay down in this House the opinion which they have formed on this subject and to call on the House to maintain that opinion. Instead of that—and I deeply regret it—we are to have another Committee on the Bank Charter Act of 1844; and I suppose that in 1867, after a repetition of the same mischances and the same miseries, the same fruitless and bootless process will be adopted of appointing a Committee on that subject in this House. Why, Sir, just consider the previous Committees which have been appointed by this House with reference to this subject. Before the

111
Bank Charter Act was passed you had a Committee on the subject of the issue of bank-notes. It was a Committee appointed to prepare the public mind, to inform Parliament on the question, and lead to the adoption of that project. You had the most eminent men called and examined before that Committee. A great body of evidence was offered, mainly by the supporters of those views which were afterwards embodied in the Act of 1844. You had that body of evidence placed before you. In consequence of the report of that Committee you passed the Act of 1844; but only three years elapsed when you were obliged indirectly to suspend the Act, and then in 1848 you appointed a Committee of Inquiry. You again collected evidence, and evidence of the highest class, from all quarters, from the representatives of all schools and the professors of all doctrines upon the subject. At the beginning of the present year, again another Committee was appointed. Thus you have had three Committees. A crash comes, and now we are to enquire again. And this too at a time when there is a great programme before us, for although we are called here suddenly merely to consider the violation of an Act of Parliament from a sense of duty on the part of Government, it is a very important programme of policy that is placed in our hands. These are no mean subjects that are placed on this paper. This is not a Queen's Speech like some documents of the kind that it has been my fate to criticise from this table, embodying a pompous enumeration of petty questions. You may have it expressed in somewhat mystical phrase, but, according to the expositions of the authorities of the evening, we are called together to consult about the form of government of the greatest of our dependencies; we are to consider how we can reconstruct the constitution of this House; and we are also to consider the principle on which the currency of this country ought to be established. Now, I say without any hesitation that of these three important subjects the one that is bound up in the discussion of this Act of indemnity is the most important. You may regain an empire you have lost, you may alter and not improve the constituent body of this House; but a currency established upon just principles exercises the most general influence that can affect society. It touches all classes, and men who are dull and insensible to imperial
112
grandeur or even to political rights have a very nice and near interest in the decision we may come to on this transcendent point. Well, then, I say this is a subject on which Her Majesty's Ministers ought to have made up their minds. Are Her Majesty's Ministers going to stand by the Bank Charter Act of 1844, or are they not? That is really the question which the country wishes them to answer. If they are going to stand by the Bank Charter Act of 1844, I shall myself hesitate before I can agree to the Bill of indemnity, because I do not think they were then justified in departing from the letter of the law. If, on the other hand, they are not going to stand by the Bank Charter Act—if they have a policy—if they come forward and tell us they are prepared to make amendments and mitigatory arrangements with respect to that Act, and that because they are convinced they are necessary they did not hesitate at a moment of suffering and emergency to recommend the suspension of the law—then, I say, we must not be scrupulous about this Bill of indemnity, but grant it without reserve or reluctance, and wait with respect and interest for the propositions which Her Majesty's Ministers are going to make. But, if, after all the country has gone through, we are to do exactly that which we were doing before these difficulties and dangers and all this dislocation occurred, it appears to me that we should forfeit the confidence and respect of the country. And if indeed the noble Lord wants to lay a good ground for an extensive measure of Parliamentary Reform, I think he could have no better than to be able to say that the representatives of the people met in consequence of the summons of the Sovereign to consider a great emergency, and that they could do nothing but follow the same fruitless, bootless ceremony that we were pursuing before these sad events occurred. I make no doubt that hon. Gentlemen have during the recess given some attention to the labours of their Committee on the Bank Charter Act. I make no doubt there are many gentlemen in this House whose studies and researches on the subject have not been limited to the inquiries of that Committee. I have no doubt from the interest they have taken in the subject, that they have gone back to the report of the Committee of 1847 and to that of 1840, and have also made themselves acquainted, as the Seconder of the Address announces he has done, with the

113
labours of the Committee of the House of Lords on the same subject. Now, I ask those who have taken this pains—including, I have no doubt, the majority of those I address—whether in the report of the Committee of last session, though it contains a great body of evidence, distinguished by the knowledge which it brings to bear upon the question, by the thought it displays, and the commanding and sufficient information which it gives as the bases of legislation—they have found a single new fact or a single new principle? Not one; and I defy any man to bring more information, or to imagine more theories than were submitted to the scrutiny and sagacious criticism of that committee. You have Lord Overstone before you, a man of commanding intellect, and who is singularly happy in the expression of abstract ideas; you have him conveying, in masterly language, the conclusions at which he has arrived with his peculiar powers of investigation. But are we to have the evidence of Lord Overstone in 1857 repeated in 1858 before this projected Committee, which I trust the House will not grant? What would it be but a repetition of those admirable pamphlets which we all of us have in our libraries? Then you have Mr. Tooke or his pupils, who ably represent his opinions. Nothing can be more extensive than their researches, nothing more painstaking or instructive than their investigations. I do not think that in the literature of any country there is to be found a mass of economical knowledge arranged with greater carefulness, or compiled with greater accuracy, or the results of which are placed with more lucidity, than Mr. Tooke has exhibited in his great work on "Prices." But we have his great work on "Prices." These are library works, let us study them there, and not seek these results by fresh vivâ voce investigations before a Committee. On the Treasury bench I see experienced statesmen, who have sat in this House for a long period of years, who have been Members of all the Committees to which I have referred, and taken part in all the great debates on the currency, and on the principles on which the circulation of the country should be established—men thoroughly competent to understand any subject, and to enlighten and guide this House; and am I to be told that the moment when of all others it is important that this subject should no longer be left in uncertainty, in that state in which
114
it has remained for ten years, all of us are to give up any attempt at its solution in despair, and that we are to allow it to drift on and drift on till fresh calamities and renewed disasters occur, and we are forced to adopt measures which we may afterwards have cause to deplore? Under these circumstances I must express my hope that Her Majesty's Ministers will reconsider the notice that they have given us this evening through the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that Ministers will frankly answer the question whether they intend to stand by the Bank Charter Act or not. If they do intend to stand by the Bank Charter Act without amendment and without mitigation, I hope they will communicate frankly and fully to the House the circumstances under which they thought themselves justified in recommending the suspension of an Act which, if they stand by it, they must consider one of vital benefit to the country. I do not see how they can justify the advice they then gave if they now tell us "that Act we are prepared to uphold." If, on the other hand, they announce that while they ask for a Bill of indemnity for adopting a step which, in a great emergency, they thought was for the public good, they have not shut their eyes to what has occurred; that they have been learning the lessons of experience, and that they are now prepared to recommend a measure for the adoption of Parliament which will be be a remedy for acknowledged grievances, which will prevent the aggravation of a similar pressure, which a staunch adherence to the Bank Charter Act under all circumstances will occasion—a measure which in their opinion is a just, fair, and scientific settlement of the difficulty—then it will be the duty of Parliament to accord them that Bill of indemnity without delay, and to assist the Government in the solution of the difficulty. But against the course which has been intimated to-night I humbly and earnestly protest, and if hon. Gentlemen who are anxious that the Bank Charter Act shall remain untouched and uncriticised support the Government in this course, I think they are taking a course perilous to those principles of currency which they wish to see upheld. I would say, indeed, that nothing can be more injurious to the policy they uphold, than to allow a law to exist which in moments of emergency and difficulty is always suspended, and which in moments of tranquillity is always submitted for in-

115
vestigation to Committees of the House of Commons. That is a monstrous state of affairs to exist with regard to any law, and much more with regard to a law regulating the currency, and therefore I do hope that before these discussions are finished, conducting them, as I trust we shall do, with the utmost temperateness, we may induce the Government to take that course which will be for their own honour and for the benefit of the country. Sir, there are several other subjects which I shall feel it my duty to touch upon to-night. It must be a source of the greatest satisfaction if my interpretation of one of the paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne be correct—I mean that which declares that our relations with our neighbours are of an amicable character. I qualify my remarks by assuming that my interpretation, is right, for I am bound to say that the passage has led some minds to a very different conclusion. The paragraph is as follows:—
"The nations of Europe are in the enjoyment of the blessings of peace, which nothing seems likely to disturb."
Now, several of my hon. Friends have put upon this passage an interpretation that may be correct, but which I, taking a more hopeful view, can scarcely suppose to be accurate. They seem to think that something like an expression of regret is conveyed in that paragraph—as if the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had said "I have done all I could to get up a difficulty with the European Powers, but, I am sorry to say, I have not succeeded. We are still at peace; and I am able to bring before you nothing, really nothing, that promises to disturb the universal tranquillity;" as though in that bold language which renders the noble Lord at all times popular, he said, "I have done my best, but for this once the turbulent and aggressive policy has failed. I cannot help it, but we are in for it; we are at present all at peace." [Loud laughter.] That, however, is not my interpretation of the words, though I perceive that it is accepted by the House. I presume the paragraph to mean that there is a considerable chance of tranquillity in our foreign relations, and I enter the more willingly into that belief because about a month ago, when Parliament had been prorogued to the Greek Kalends, and just when Her Majesty's Ministers were going to violate an Act of Parliament, there occurred a great anniversary, which in this country is not only of social but
116
political importance, and as such is appreciated by all parties. The occasion is one when all the head men of the country attend, and which during the absence of Parliament affords an opportunity for the Minister of the Crown to give that information on weighty affairs which in a free land like this ought to be imparted to the people. The right hon. Gentleman who is at the head of the magistracy of the city is a Member of this House, and fortunately sits on this side of it, and he will correct me if I am inaccurate as to what occurred when the noble Lord attended that anniversary. Judging from the speech which the noble Lord is reported to have made on that occasion, I own I shared the pervading alarm that we were about to be involved again in those difficulties, in which we have generally found ourselves under him, and from which he is so proud to extricate us. An appeal was then made by the noble Lord to all the belligerent passions of the country with that eloquence and emphasis which the noble Lord always employs. Since that memorable speech of old Harry Dundas, delivered during the revolutionary war, when he declared that one Englishman could beat three Frenchmen, and which was recorded afterwards as a statistical fact, I hardly know any speech which has produced so great an effect, and which was more calculated to animate the heart of a country on the eve of being tried by exigencies of the most perilous character. It was quite clear from the expression of the noble Lord that it was a Sovereign, and one apparently of no mean order, who must have meditated war, and some thought even the invasion of the country. That it was a Sovereign of no mean order there could be no doubt. It was clear there had been an Emperor who had threatened us, and the people of England, seeing no further than their noses, could not make out who it could be. The Emperor of Russia, they supposed, might have had enough of it, and so they thought it must be the Emperor of the French. But the speeches of to-night have dissipated that belief. If there be a King who is going to make war upon England, it must be the noble Lord's old friend the King of Naples; and if an Emperor is going to invade our territory, it must be the other old friend of the noble Lord, the Emperor of China. I will not stop a moment here, when we have so many subjects of importance be-

117
fore us, to remark upon the situation in which our plenipotentiary in the Chinese waters is now placed. Still, one naturally regrets that that "deep and eternal stain upon the honour of the flag of England" about which we heard so much at the beginning of the year has not been washed out. A "ruffian and miscreant" still presides over the city of [Canton—notwithstanding the invectives of the noble Lord from the hustings of Tiverton, and it is not difficult to perceive that the quarrel in China has served Commissioner Yeh as well as some one else. But, as we have graver matters before us, I will leave that once all-important subject to be amply discussed on the report upon the Address. Her Majesty in Her Gracious Speech today has adverted to that subject which, apart from the sufferings of the commercial world, has commanded and absorbed all the thought and feeling of the country. There are none of us here or in any part of Her kingdom who will not, I am confident, sympathize with Her Majesty in Her admiration of the heroic efforts of our gallant troops in India. Sir, it was said in 1848, when the very foundations of society in France seemed shaken, that "France was saved by the army." I am sure it may be said with more truth that our Empire in India has been saved by the Army—saved, too, by an Army which we must never forget owes nothing to Cabinets in London or to Councils in Calcutta. "Alone they did it;" and long will the memory of those startling acts live in the recollection of the proud nation which inhabits these isles. Mr. Canning once said, in a speech in this House, speaking of India, "that it was a land fertile in heroes." Mr. Canning, when he used that glowing expression, must have spoken as much from prescience as from memory, for if we look through the long list of heroic men who have illustrated the history of this country since that great land was under our dominion it is doubtful whether in civil prudence, military skill, or soldierlike valour there are any who excel those names which are now in the mouths of the people of England. Many of them remain; many of them will receive from their Sovereign and a grateful country those acknowledgments of their great and gallant qualities which every Englishman is proud to express. I hope we shall be appealed to in this house to show that we are not wanting as the representatives of the people in
118
the expression of those feelings which such achievements deserve, because, depend upon it, however splendid may be orders of chivalry, however proud a man may feel of obtaining by his sword a glorious independence, still we know it, from the frank confession of some of the most eminent men this country has ever produced, that the thanks of Parliament have a charm with them which few recompenses can equal, and that often in the hour of battle they have felt they were doing that which might entitle them to the sympathy of the House of Commons. Some may receive that sympathy. Some unfortunately are gone. But when we remember the name of Wilson—when we remember the name of Havelock—and others who have distinguished themselves, let us never forget the intrepid Nicholson—let us spare a tear to the fiery Neill. What these men have done cannot be calculated until some time has elapsed. What has been neglected to be done by others can only be estimated when some months also have passed away. What strikes one throughout these extraordinary transactions is the total un-preparedness of those who were responsible for the government and the condition of this great Empire. I had occasion before Parliament was prorogued to make some observarions on the state of our Indian Empire, and while I took the liberty of stating some of what I conceived to be the causes which had led to a chronic state of discontent among the most powerful classes in that country, I said then there was a primary and proximate cause for the insurrection, which is now acknowledged in Her Majesty's Speech to be a widely-spread revolt, and I said that was the annexation of Oude. What happened on that occasion? Why, Her Majesty's Government treated that allusion to Oude as the cause of this widely-spread revolt with derisive amazement. They said nothing had ever occurred which could in any way connect Oude with the melancholy intelligence which we were then just receiving. They said of all imaginable causes of discontent the annexation of Oude was the last to be referred to. No doubt, speaking with the authority of men who ought to have been masters of the subject, this greatly influenced the opinion of the House. But I ask the House now, are they of opinion that the annexation of Oude had nothing to do with this widely-spread revolt? However multifarious the controversies as to the various causes, is there any point on

119
which men are more agreed than this—that among the chief and certain causes of that widely-spread revolt was the annexation of Oude? I am not mentioning this with the view of entrapping the House into a discussion of our Indian position at this moment, but to illustrate a point of very great importance, and to show the fatal consequences of a neglect of the principle which I then endeavoured to force on the adoption of the Government and the attention of the House of Commons-I said then that it was absolutely necessary to begin by ascertaining the cause of this revolt, because unless you ascertained the cause it was impossible to apply an adequate remedy. "No!" said a great authority, "that is quite unnecessary. All that we have to do is to put down the revolt, and we will inquire into the cause afterwards." Now, look in what a position you have placed the country by neglecting that important principle I endeavoured to impress upon you—of endeavouring to ascertain the cause of this widely-spread revolt. Very early in the year there was intimation of the great disasters which have since occurred. On the 8th of February there was a mutiny, and not an inconsiderable mutiny. It may be said, "There have been mutinies before, and we had no right to suppose that the mutiny would become a widely-spread revolt." Such may be the language of mere Members of Parliament, or of people in the streets, but it is not the language of statesmen who are responsible for the safety of an Empire—because, I say, the mutiny of a regiment or of four regiments of Sepoys must have been to a Minister always meditating on these things an incident of some significance. That was known in England on the 10th of April, but was not enough to make men think. One month afterwards there was another considerable mutiny, and in a different part of India. That showed concert. There was evidence, as I pointed out in July, at least popular evidence, of great concert throughout the country. Was that not enough to make men think? If Her Majesty's Government—I care not whether in Downing-street or in Calcutta, for we can only look to the Government who are responsible to the people—if Her Majesty's Government had only given their minds to the subject as wise and prudent men, instead of allowing it to come upon them with the surprise of children—if they had been awake and alive to what was passing, would they
120
have left a recently-annexed kingdom, with all the elements of danger in a discontented nobility and a disbanded army, uncared for? Would they not have felt that their eye must be on that kingdom, that they must have resources sufficient, that they must be provided and prepared? Would they not under such circumstances have put their finger upon Oude, and thought, and reflected, and acted? What did they do? Oude was left without a soldier. I am not going into the general neglect of Indian administration and the cause of your disasters. I am not asking whether, when you heard of mutiny, you ought to have left a place like Delhi with a Sepoy garrison. I am discarding the whole of the general question, and confining myself to the proof of the validity of the principle which in July I endeavoured to enforce upon the Government of the Queen. Oude was left without a soldier. Not the slightest attempt was made either to send up forces from Calcutta or to bring them down to Lucknow. Oude was totally neglected, and for a very sufficient reason—the reason confessed by the Minister who followed me in that debate, that in the opinion of the Government Oude had nothing to do with this question of mutiny, and there was not a symptom of disorganization or insubordination prevailing in that kingdom. What have been the consequences of not ascertaining the cause of the revolt before you attempted to put it down? After your long unpreparedness, after the strange manner in which you involuntarily imbibed at last a conviction that your empire was in danger, after a loss of weeks and months in fruitless questioning in this House, in desperate efforts to attract your thoughts to the dangerous position in India, at last, when Parliament is about to be prorogued, at the very last hour almost, your eyes are opened to the greatest emergency which ever occurred in the history of this country, and you take those steps which the public force you no longer to neglect—you command your resources to be sent to Calcutta. What was your position? You had the North-western Provinces in insurrection, and the whole of your communications were cut off between Calcutta and those provinces. And why? Because you had not thought of Oude. An insurrection raged in Oude and the provinces connected with it, and the massacre at Cawnpore and the siege and extreme peril which even now beset Lucknow are totally owing to

121
that unfortunate misconception of the cause of the mutiny. But is that all? There is another grievance arising from the same source. You have, I will assume, an immense army at Calcutta and the neighbourhood. How are you to advance that army into the interior? What are your means? No doubt you suppose that if you import the strength of the country there will be no difficulty in obtaining commissariat and transport supplies in India itself. But Bengal cannot furnish such supplies. A country of sultry plains, consisting of nothing but rice fields, does not produce means of transport. You must have arable land, and agriculture in various forms, and then you have carts, bullocks, camels, and elephants. You do not arrive at this kind of country until you get to Oude and the provinces contiguous to it. You have now no means of moving up your troops, because you counted upon obtaining them, as you did in the old days of Indian warfare, from this very Oude. When you invaded Affghanistan you wanted means of transport, and you went to Oude for them. Even the war elephants of the King of Oude were presented to you for that expedition. It was from Oude that you always obtained your means of transport, and those means are not now at your command. If you had known of the condition of Oude—if you had foreseen that which has occurred—you might have got transport elsewhere. You might have got 20,000 bullocks from Madras, which would have moved your army, but not a single provision has been made, because you counted upon your usual sources of supply, and you have at this moment only 700 miserable bullocks, the common Parcel's Delivery Company of the country, which will not move more than a single battery of artillery. All these consequences—your communications cut off with the principal scenes of action and the total deficiency of the means of moving your army—have arisen from your neglecting to ascertain the cause of the revolt before you devised a remedy to put it down. There is a paragraph upon this subject of India in the Queen's Speech upon which I must solicit the interpretation of the Government Her Majesty says:—
"The affairs of my East Indian Dominions will require your serious consideration, and I recommend them to your earnest attention."
I think the Government are bound, and I cannot think that they will refuse, frankly to explain what this paragraph means.
122
Under ordinary circumstances I certainly should have supposed that Her Majesty's Ministers, having measures of great importance of a legislative character to introduce to Parliament on the subject of India, had felt it their duty in the most solemn and formal manner at the commencement of the session to call the attention of Parliament to the purpose which they entertained. But we live in such a remarkable age, an age of confidence and semi-confidence, of communications which are official, and communications which, though anonymous, are thought to be more authoritative in some instances than communications which are official, that there is great ambiguity as to their intentions, which is extremely inconvenient, and which should be explicitly removed at the earliest possible period. It is quite impossible that the Government can intend to treat India in the same way as the Bank Charter—refer it to a Select Committee. If that he the case, the only Act which will be passed this Session will be the Reform Bill. I am sure that cannot be the intention of Ministers, and I hope they will feel that if it were necessary to introduce into the Speech a paragraph of this character, it is also necessary that it should be accompanied by a frank interpretation. I think I could describe this paragraph myself, if the Ministers have no better explanation of their own to give. I should say that it was "a compromise paragraph." It gives one the idea that somebody has wanted to do something about India, but that somebody else has not been of the same mind, and it has been decided, therefore, that there shall be something introduced into the Speech which shall give the country and the House of Commons to understand that Her Majesty's Government are deeply sensible of the gravity of affairs, and of the weight of responsibility, but at the same time are not prepared to do anything to vindicate the one, or to remedy the other. This is no trifling matter. Is it the intention of the Government to legislate for India? Is it their intention to propose a new form of administration for that country? We have heard a great deal about the double Government and its evils. In 1853, a noble Friend of mine made a Motion, not asking you to condemn the double Government, but asking the Ministers not to establish that double Government without previous enquiry. That was resisted, and I can hardly believe, therefore, that,

123
having established the double Government without inquiry, Her Majesty's Ministers in 1857, after all these great events, are only going to do that which my noble Friend recommended in 1853. Everybody knows the evils of a double Government. Its weakness is contained in the very phrase itself, but the faults of the double Government have not been particularly displayed in the recent transactions. I am not aware that any one has alleged that that form of Government has been the cause of the recent events in India. What has occurred in India has been produced by policy—by the conduct of those who had the government of India. It has not been an affair of administration, it has not arisen from the mode of taxation, nor from the way in which justice has been administered, at least not primarily and particularly; but in the first instance by policy, aggravated by the great neglect of those who are responsible for the Government. I am not at all aware that the double Government is particularly responsible for these great calamities (though I trust we shall find out at some time who is responsible for them), but really, if the double Government is to be abolished, I, for one, should hesitate before I agreed to commit the powers which it still possesses to the hands of those who in the exercise of their present amount of power have shown neither discretion, sagacity, knowledge of what was going to happen, nor readiness at devising remedies for evils after they had happened. Nevertheless, if such a measure is brought forward, I have no doubt the House will give it a candid consideration, but at this stage of the business it is but due to the country and to Parliament that Ministers should be frank upon the subject. As they have thought fit to introduce ambiguous sentences on this important subject into the Speech, they should in debate explain to the House what their intentions are, and whether they mean that they are prepared to recommend to Parliament to legislate for India, and to devise a new form of Government for that country, and if such be their intention to say when that proposal will be laid in detail before the House. There is one subject on which it is unnecessary to trespass on the House for more than a moment, but which I cannot pass over without notice. Her Majesty in Her gracious Speech says:—
"Your attention will be called to the laws which regulate the representation of the people
124
in Parliament, with a view to consider what amendments may be safely and beneficially made therein."
It is not for us to be captious on the conduct of a Government which thinks itself able to deal at the same time with varied and important subjects. Heretofore it has rather been our habit to say of our Governments that they do nothing. At the end of a session it has come to be a sort of constitutional custom to prove satisfactorily to the country that the Government have really passed no measures, and ultimately there has been a want of confidence in an Administration if you could show that it was an Administration which did nothing. But if we have a Government which goes upon a different tack, and which, instead of being a Government which does nothing, is to he a Government which does everything, it does not become us to be captious and critical before the time. I am therefore perfectly ready to believe that Ministers have their measures matured upon all these great questions—the currency, the government of India, and the reconstruction of the representative body, and that in due time, more particularly as the Session has commenced at so early a period, we shall have them all before us. With regard to this particular measure of Parliamentary Reform, I trust that whenever it is introduced to our notice we shall find that it has been devised fairly for the public weal, and not to increase the political following of any particular party. I will do more than express my hope—I will express my belief that it is no longer on this subject in the power of any political combination to force such a measure through Parliament. We are all of us, all sides and all sections, much more learned upon this subject of Parliamentary Reform than we were in 1832. The brazen bellowings for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," have proved a very fruitful and salutary lesson to the people of this country. All the people who hallooed most loudly in that manner have since done penance in public, and have expressed their sincere regret at having so deluded themselves. I took the liberty at the early part of the last Session of moving for certain returns with regard to the taxation and population of the country which I thought would assist hon. Members in their consideration of this subject. Probably many hon. Members, not so sanguine as to think that the Reform Bill would be referred to in the

125
Queen's Speech, have not studied those returns; but I would humbly recommend them to the earnest attention of every one. They will find them full of accurate information; they have been drawn up by official men, totally incapable of personal prejudice or party feeling, and they offer such a mass of information on the subject that I am sure, if well digested and acted on in a wise and comprehensive spirit, the consequences will not be hostile or injurious to those ancient institutions which I trust we—on this side of the House at all events—shall always be prepared to uphold. But there is one observation which I would make on this somewhat curious matter. The subject is not one of novel invention; it is not one with respect to which the Government have been called upon to legislate hastily; but it is one which has for a considerable time been under the notice of Parliament. For the last five or six years there have been Ministers who have either introduced, or have promised to introduce, Bills with respect to it, and there have been several such Bills, though they have not been further advanced, laid upon the table. The subject, therefore, is perfectly matured. Certainly it must be matured by the Cabinet of the noble Lord, because on the very first day that he took office we were assured that there were great facilities for the formation of his Government owing to the complete understanding that existed throughout all the Liberal party on the question of Parliamentary Reform. In fact, the noble Lord intended to bring forward a Bill last year. Under these circumstances I think I am only making a fair request of the noble Lord—and it is one which I trust the House will by its sympathies enforce—if I ask him to lose no time in introducing that Bill. I do not expect that he should solicit the immediate and precipitate decision of Parliament upon it; but I say, let us have it introduced at once, and let us have the advantage of the Christmas recess and during the holidays of becoming acquainted with its provisions; because nothing is more unwise, and nothing can keep public feeling in a more fretful state, than the constant idea of a Parliamentary Reform Bill being held over the heads of the people of this country. We want to know, if there are to be changes in the most important of all our institutions, what those changes are to be. That is a feeling which is not confined to this side of
126
the House, or to what is called the Conservative party in the country; but I should think that all men must be of the same opinion, and that all must feel the great importance, now that we have a Reform Ministry, a Reform Minister, and a Reform Bill, that we should have the Bill at once. The House will see, if the course which I recommend be not adopted, the extraordinary inconvenience which will accrue. No person can bring forward a Bill which affects the distribution and disposition of political power in a country like England, and expect that such a Bill is to be passed like a Bill of indemnity for violating a Currency Act. Of course the country will expect, and the House will insist upon, ample time for study and consideration after the noble Lord shall have introduced his measure and made an exposition of his policy. But if this Bill is to be brought in in the spring, and if great delay takes place before the second reading, the result will be that we shall either have a Bill which will be ultimately hurried through Parliament, or we shall have the question again postponed, and, it may be, considerable agitation with respect to it. Parliament and the country, then, being now in a good temper on the subject, and the time being not unfavourable to the calm and candid consideration of any measure brought in upon the responsibility of a Minister on such a topic, if the noble Lord will only take an early opportunity—perhaps he will name the day to-night—of introducing his measure, we shall be perfectly prepared, on the reassembling of Parliament at the end of January or beginning of February, at once to enter upon the debate. It may be a warm debate, it may be animated, it may be even acrimonious; but it will pass, it will be forgotten, and the thing will end. But if that course be not adopted, the result will be great public dissatisfaction and much Parliamentary inconvenience. I trust that the noble Lord, therefore, will think very favourably of this suggestion. It is clear, if the noble Lord gets his Indemnity Bill as a matter of course,—which he will do if he makes a frank statement of the changes to be proposed in the Bank Charter Act, and which I am sure will be consistent with the perfect and practical convertibility of bank-notes—that there will be very little business before us during this short session. We have nearly a month to Christmas-eve, and, after passing the Indemnity Act, nothing could be more

127
profitable or agreeable than to hear from the noble Lord a complete exposition of the scheme of Parliamentary Reform which is now introduced into Her Majesty's Speech. I must apologise to the House for having detained it so long; but on an occasion of this sort one's observations must necessarily be desultory. The topics which we are invited to consider are, however, very important, and in treating them I think that we can do nothing better than agree with Her Majesty in "fervently praying that the blessing of Almighty God may attend our counsels."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is certainly quite natural that the right hon. Gentleman, who is of course more at home and at ease in this House, leading as he does a great party, than he can be at any other time and place, should be in the height of good-humour at finding an unexpected opportunity of actively displaying the ability which distinguishes him; and no doubt his speech is one of which it is impossible to say otherwise than that it is marked by that good-humour and that plenitude of wit which usually characterize the right hon. Gentleman's performances. The right hon. Gentleman began by criticizing the course which Her Majesty's Government pursued in regard to the prorogation of Parliament on the 4th of November, and the calling it together again on the 3rd of December, and the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there were circumstances connected with the condition of the country in the end of October and beginning of November which ought to have led to some different course being adopted from that which the Government did adopt. He did not exactly state that, but he left it to be inferred. There was, however, nothing on the 4th of Nov. which appealed to Her Majesty's Government to call for that course which we afterwards found to be necessary, and we therefore pursued the ordinary mode of proceeding, and prorogued Parliament to the usual period to which from time to time Parliament is prorogued. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to argue as if we had in some way or other, by having prorogued Parliament from the 4th of November to the 17th of December, precluded ourselves from calling it together at an earlier period, even if unforeseen events should arise to make it necessary. The proof that that was not so is the fact of our being assembled here to-day. We knew perfectly well, if any unforeseen event
128
should render an earlier meeting necessary, that the constitution afforded the means of calling us together sooner; and therefore there was nothing in the course which we pursued which could have prevented us meeting at an earlier period, if an earlier period were desirable. The circumstances which led us to recommend to the Bank the step which has been adopted were circumstances which fell suddenly upon us. It became evident to my colleagues and myself that the state of public credit, the state of the different banks and of commercial transactions generally, did require that measure, and if it had not been adopted I believe that great evil and disaster would have resulted. To recommend to the Bank or to any public body to overstep the law is not a matter to be done lightly and without due consideration, and we were unwilling to adopt that course until we found that its necessity was urgently pressed upon us. I believe we did not delay it too long; I am quite sure that we did not do it too soon; and I am satisfied that those who are best acquainted with the state of matters at that moment will do us the justice to think that the occasion required us to do that which I admit no Government ought to do without real, grave, and urgent necessity. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, in moving to-morrow the preliminary stage of a Bill of indemnity, will state to the House more in. detail than is expedient at the present moment the various circumstances which made us think that step necessary. In referring to that paragraph, which the right hon. Gentleman treated in his usual gay manner, respecting the perfect peace which fortunately prevails all over Europe, the right hon. Gentleman made some allusion to what fell from me on that festive occasion to which he referred, and he seemed to consider that I had announced to the country that we were in danger of some great invasion, not from the Emperor of China or the King of Naples, but from some other Government from whom aggression was to be apprehended. Sir, I made no such intimation, and I felt no such apprehension. On the contrary, all the Governments of Europe had expressed the most friendly disposition towards us; and with respect to France, I am sure that it is impossible to speak too highly of the friendly communications which we had received from the Government of that country. Not only did the Emperor of the

129
French say that if we were desirous of sending our troops across Egypt to the succour of our East Indian possessions, he would use any influence which he might be supposed to possess over the Government of Egypt for that purpose, hut he even said that if we thought it desirable to send our troops through the territory of France, he would be happy to afford us all the facilities in his power. It would be most ungrateful and most unfounded, indeed, if we were to entertain the slightest notion that there was any unfriendly feeling towards us on the part of a country which had done everything in its power to show the sincerity of the friendship which they felt to this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that the few words which I spoke on that occasion were calculated to animate the hearts of this country. Why, Sir, that was my intention, and not without grounds, for I think that the events in India of which we were then receiving accounts from time to time were calculated to animate the heart of every Englishman. I think that the contemplation of the heroic deeds of our countrymen, scattered as they were throughout every part of India, fighting sometimes as single men, and at others in very small numbers, and resisting the surprises and attacks of superior numbers, were calculated to animate the heart of this country; and the language which I used on that occasion only spoke the sentiments of my fellow-countrymen, and I believe that it was re-echoed from one end of the land to the other. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the gallant deeds of our countrymen and the gratitude which every man ought to feel towards those brave men who showed themselves worthy of their country in every part of India, I am sure every man in this House must have gone to the full extent of those sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman with so much eloquence, and in a manner so worthy of himself, expressed. I think there is nothing that anybody could say in addition to the high praises which the right hon. Gentleman has passed upon those distinguished men to which this country would not cheerfully assent. It will be my duty on the earliest day which the forms of the House will admit, to bring down a message from the Crown recommending that a provision should be made for Sir Henry Havelock, in addition to the rewards which have been already bestowed upon him. I am
130
sure that the House will feel pleasure in associating itself with the Sovereign in marking the distinguished services of that gallant officer. General Wilson, who has also been created a baronet, is, as is well known, in the service of the East India Company—or, at least, the East India Company claim to have the privilege of doing for him an act similar to that which the Crown will do for Sir Henry Havelock, who is one of the Queen's officers. The right hon. Gentleman wishes that we should now explain to the House what course we mean to recommend with regard to the Government of India and Parliamentary Reform. He would, no doubt, be glad to have these measures to con them over during the Christmas holydays. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may have the means during that recess of occupying himself in a manner more agreeable and more suited to his genius than in considering the dry details of a Bill about India, or the more complicated details of a Bill about Parliamentary Reform. But, however much he may wish for this sort of Christmas occupation, I am afraid that I cannot indulge him, because it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to enter upon these subjects during the short period which will elapse between the present time and that at which we shall adjourn for the Christmas recess. It will be our duty when Parliament meets after that recess to state our views upon these important matters, and I am afraid that till that time the right hon. Gentleman must amuse himself by his own speculations. I cannot but rejoice that upon an occasion on which the heart of the country is fixed upon events which are passing in the other hemisphere—at a moment when the minds of all Englishmen must be dwelling upon the brave actions of our countrymen in India, and upon the mighty events which are dependent upon the exertions of our troops, it has not been thought expedient by the right hon. Gentleman to move any alteration in the Address which this House is desirous of presenting to the Throne. I trust that we shall to night unanimously concur in the Address which my two hon. Friends have with so much ability and good feeling proposed. I trust that we shall exhibit to the country and to the world a spectacle worthy of this great representative assembly at a moment of so much anxious interest, when such great con-

131
cerns are hanging in the balance as the reassertion of our authority over the vast dominion of India—and that this House, feeling the magnitude of the interests at stake, and anxious to show that in moments of danger and difficulty this House and the nation are unanimous in supporting the national interests and in affording every possible assistance to the Crown—I trust, I say, that the party of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree with the rest of the House—and that this House will unanimously concur in the Address.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Mr. WYKEHAM MARTIN, Mr. AKROYD, Viscount PALMERSTON, The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. Secretary LABOU-CHERE, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Mr. VERNON SMITH, Mr. BAINES, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. HENRY HERBERT, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the JUDGE ADVOCATE, Mr. HAYTER, and Mr. FITZROY, or any Five of them:—To withdraw immediately:—
Queen's Speech referred.
House adjourned at a quarter to Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths—Several Lords. 1a Select Vestries; Religious Worship Act Amendment.

MEETING OF THE PARLIAMENT.
THE PARLIAMENT which had been prorogued successively to the 6th November and 17th December, was summoned to meet this day by the following Proclamation:—
VICTORIA R.
Whereas Our Parliament stands prorogued to Thursday the Seventeenth Day of December next: And whereas, for divers weighty and urgent Reasons, it seems to Us expedient that Our said Parliament shall assemble and be holden sooner than the said Day; We do, by and with the Advice of Our Privy Council, hereby proclaim and give Notice of Our Royal Intention and Pleasure that our said Parliament, notwithstanding the same now stands prorogued as herein-before mentioned to the said Seventeenth Day of December next, shall assemble and be holden, for the Despatch of divers urgent and important Affairs, on Thursday, the Third day of December next: And the
2
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, and the Commissioners for Shires and Burghs of the House of Commons, are hereby required and commanded to give their Attendance accordingly at Westminster, on the said Third Day of December next.
Given at Our Court at Windsor, this Sixteenth Day of November, in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, and in the Twenty-first Year of Our Reign.
God save the QUEEN.
The Session of PARLIAMENT was opened by the QUEEN in Person.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
The QUEEN, being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar, with their Speaker, HER MAJESTY was pleased to make a most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"CIRCUMSTANCES have recently arisen connected with the Commercial Interests of the Country which have induced Me to call Parliament together before the usual time.
"The failure of certain Joint Stock Banks and of some Mercantile Firms produced such an Extent of Distrust as led Me to authorise my Ministers to recommend to the Directors of the Bank of England the Adoption of a Course of Proceeding which appeared necessary for allaying the prevalent Alarm. As that Course has involved a Departure from the existing Law, a Bill for indemnifying those who advised and those who adopted it will be submitted for your consideration.
"I have observed with great Regret that the disturbed State of Commercial Transactions in general has occasioned a Diminution of Employment in the Manufacturing Districts, which, I fear, cannot fail to be attended with much local distress. I trust, however, that this Evil may not be of long Duration; and the abundant Harvest with which it has graciously pleased Divine Providence to bless this Land will, I hope, in some degree mitigate the Sufferings which this State of things must unavoidably produce.
"While I deeply deplore the severe Suffering to which many of My Subjects in India have been exposed, and while I grieve for the extensive Bereavements and Sorrow which it has caused, I have derived the greatest Satisfaction from the distinguished Successes which have attended the heroic Exertions of the comparatively small Forces which have been opposed to greatly superior Numbers, without the Aid of the powerful Reinforcements despatched from this Country to their Assistance. The Arrival of those Reinforcements will, I trust, speedily complete the Suppression of this widely-spread Revolt.
"The Gallantry of the Troops employed against the Mutineers, their Courage in Action, their Endurance
4
under Privation, Fatigue, and the Effects of Climate,—the high Spirit and Self-devotion of the Officers,—the Ability, Skill, and persevering Energy of the Commanders,—have excited My warmest Admiration; and I have observed with equal Gratification that many Civilians placed in extreme Difficulty and Danger have displayed the highest Qualities, including, in some Instances, those that would do Honour to veteran Soldiers.
"It is satisfactory to know that the general Mass of the Population of India have taken no Part in the Rebellion, while the most considerable of the Native Princes have acted in the most friendly Manner, and have rendered important Services.
"I have given Directions that Papers relating to these Matters shall be laid before you.
"The affairs of My East Indian Dominions will require your serious Consideration; and I recommend them to your earnest Attention.
"The Nations of Europe are in the Enjoyment of the Blessings of Peace, which nothing seems likely to disturb.
"The Stipulations of the Treaty which I concluded with The Shah of Persia have been faithfully carried into execution, and the Persian Forces have evacuated the Territory of Herat.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"I have given Directions that the Estimates for the next Year shall be prepared for the Purpose of being laid before you.
"They will be framed with a careful Regard to the Exigencies of the Public Service.
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"Your Attention will be called to

5
the Laws which regulate the Representation of the People in Parliament, with a view to consider what Amendments may be safely and beneficially made therein.
"Measures will be submitted for your Consideration for simplifying and amending the Laws relating to Real Property, and also for consolidating and amending several important Branches of the Criminal Law.
"I confidently commit to your Wisdom the great Interests of My Empire; and I fervently pray that the Blessing of Almighty God may attend your Counsels, and may guide your Deliberations to those Ends which are dearest to My Heart—the Happiness and Prosperity of My loyal and faithful People."
HER MAJESTY then retired.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE SPEECH.
The QUEEN'S Speech having been reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR,
LORD PORTMAN: My Lords, in rising to move the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne, I must in the first place apologise for occupying the position which is usually filled by one of the younger members of your Lordships' House, who has thus the opportunity of manifesting those talents and abilities which would enable your Lordships to form an opinion how far he may be able, in the progress of his public life, to make himself useful in the deliberations of your Lordships' House. I can, however, assure your Lordships that I have occupied this place on this occasion, not in the capacity of a volunteer, but in obedience to the request of Her Majesty's Ministers, who thought it fit that under existing circumstances, one of the older members of your Lordships' House should call your attention to those important subjects to which Her Majesty has adverted in the Speech to which your Lordships have just listened; and I trust your Lordships will extend to me that indulgence which for 35 years I have invariably received, and I on my part will promise in return to act in accordance with the rule by which my Parliamentary conduct has hitherto
6
been guided; for I have never been in the habit of occupying your attention one moment longer than was necessary, and have never obtruded myself in long discussions on those matters which are better left to men better qualified to deal with them; and I hope that if in the course of the observations I have to offer to your Lordships' consideration I should say one word inadvertently, certainly unintentionally, which would provoke irritation or difference of opinion, it will be attributed to my inadvertence, and may in no way militate against that unanimity and good feeling which it has been the anxious wish of those who have prepared Her Majesty's Speech to secure. My Lords, having said thus much upon my own behalf, I shall proceed briefly to call the attention of your Lordships to the various subjects which are alluded to in the Speech from the Throne. My Lords, the first of these subjects is one intimately connected with our internal commerce, and is that which has led to the meeting of the Legislature at so unusual a period of the year—it was the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to call Parliament together, for no one can doubt that if they were justified in violating the provisions of an Act of Parliament, it was equally incumbent upon them to afford as soon as possible to Parliament an opportunity of signifying either its condemnation or its approval of such an infraction of the law. For my own part, my Lords, I believe it to have been absolutely necessary that Government should have authorised that step, which, at a moment of commercial panic, had the effect of enabling men of business, as it were, to breathe anew, and of arresting by the mere issue of that letter addressed to the Directors of the Bank of England that panic which had been so rapidly gaining ground. Your Lordships are all probably much better than I am, aware that the position of the money-market in the United States had led to the prevalence of the utmost anxiety throughout that vast country, and that in the Southern States the respective Governors had issued orders not only sanctioning the suspension of payments in specie, but stopping the collection of the taxes, that specie might not be withdrawn from those persons who possessed it, and the extent of the panic, as a consequence, is thereby increased. They had stated in so many words that the safety of the Southern States depended upon the

7
suspension of payments in specie, in order to prevent the removal of specie into the Northern States; such a state of things in America could not fail to re-act on Europe. Whether the panic which has prevailed in America was brought about by an excessive expenditure, or a high rate of interest, or by an extravagant mode of living, I will not pretend to say, but to each of these causes I may observe its existence has been attributed. Be that as it may, however, so great a disturbance in the commercial affairs of the United States could not fail to exert an influence upon the business transactions of this country and of Europe. The result was that the Directors of the Bank of England came to the resolution—as I think, wisely—to raise the rate of discount, and by that means to place a check upon the exportation of gold from the kingdom. That measure was not, however, found sufficient to allay the feeling of anxiety which pervaded the whole commercial community. Something more was wanting to check the hoarding of specie, which could not fail to produce a bad effect. It was not like a chronic disease which could await the careful and deliberate attention of the physician, but it was a case which required the active hand of a skilful surgeon; yet it was necessary to deal with it on the moment in no speculative spirit, but with a care and a judgment guided by experience. Now, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government had the benefit of experience in this matter. In 1847, on occasion of the panic which then took place, the same step was taken by the Ministry of that day. Both Houses of Parliament then appointed Committees to inquire into the subject. The Committee of your Lordships' House entered into a most minute and elaborate inquiry, and examined all the men most competent to give advice; but though they made various recommendations, they proposed no enactment. The Committee of the other House also not only resolved not to suggest the passing of an Act of Parliament, but distinctly recommended that when any emergency arose, the responsible Ministers of the Crown should apply such a remedy as appeared to them most likely to prove efficacious, and then appeal to Parliament for an indemnity. My Lords, in the present instance Her Majesty's Government have adopted the course recommended by the Committee of the House of Commons, and the effect of
8
the course they have taken has been as nearly as possible the same as was described by my noble Friend (Lord Over-stone) when examined as a witness on this matter, to have taken place in 1847. My noble Friend on that occasion said, the Ministerial Letter of 1847 did not create money, but it gave confidence; it told the whole community that money might be had; hoarding immediately ceased; and the pressure from all the country Banks and mercantile houses was speedily removed. Under such circumstances, my Lords, I think it was not unnatural that the Government should anticipate that Parliament would be disposed to indemnify them for the course they have taken. It is not, however, sufficient that we should merely consent to pass an Act of indemnity. Your Lordships will probably feel, as the Committee of the other House felt last year, namely, that they had not sufficiently investigated the subject to justify them in coming to a conclusion; and the Committee therefore desired to be reconstituted during the present session for the purpose of further inquiry. If Parliament is to be called upon again to examine this subject (a point, however, upon which I know nothing), we must look at it with great care and caution; and, above all things, I hope you will unanimously be of opinion to maintain the convertibility of the bank note; and thus not to run the risk of again subjecting the country, after so many years of prosperity, to the danger of that suffering which I am old enough to remember to have followed the depreciation of the paper currency when it was necessary to return to specie payments, a change estimated at 3 per cent, which, however, cost all debtors more nearly 33 per cent. I trust that, remembering those sufferings, we shall maintain our present position, and not again consent to the issue of an inconvertible paper. It may be that the limit upon the issue fixed by the Act of 1844 is too narrow a one. I am not prepared to say deliberately that it is; but it seems impossible not to allow that the difference in the range of prices and in the number of commercial transactions between 1844 and 1857 may have rendered the restrictions enforced by Sir Robert Peel's Act too narrow for carrying on properly the largely-increased business of the country. That is a subject well worthy of consideration, and if it be found that the panic has been increased by the narrow limit in question,

9
it might be wise to consider whether it may not be more extended, and instead of that being taken as the measure which was thought sufficient in 1844, it may not be expedient to take another more suited to the extended character of our commercial transactions. I am not, my Lords, bold enough to venture upon a discussion of the causes which have led to the present state of commercial depression; but it is impossible to deny that among some of the great commercial establishments which have recently closed their doors there is a semblance either of fraud or of extreme mismanagement which calls for serious consideration. As yet, I believe, none of these cases have been brought under the cognizance of courts of justice, and therefore it would be wrong to assume that that which on the face of it looks like fraud really is so. There may have been merely errors of judgment, such as in all large concerns of this kind are perhaps inevitable; but if it turns out that the management of these establishments has been characterized by something worse, I hope Parliament will carefully consider whether some means cannot be adopted to check such a state of things. Of one thing there seems no doubt—that the money of the depositors and of the shareholders have in many cases been lent upon insufficient security. If, however, on viewing the causes of the crisis generally, it shall be found that as a nation we have been indulging too much, that we have been too luxurious, and that the day of reckoning has now come, I hope we shall look it boldly in the face and deal with it as honest men. It is, my Lords, impossible not to know that as a necessary consequence of commercial depression, there must needs exist considerable distress among the operative classes. I believe we may safely conclude that such distress is at present but local; that there are parts of the country in which no pressing distress exists, and other parts in which there is considerable prosperity. But distress is not a matter which admits of averages; it is an individual question, pressing upon the man who suffers, and to such a man it affords no consolation to know that other operatives in other places are not suffering like himself. The distressed workman, then, must receive! every assistance which it is possible to give him; and I am sure that no one engaged in manufactures will continue the "short time" system one moment longer than is
10
absolutely necessary, and thus aggravate the sufferings of those who in prosperous days helped so largely to increase the manufacturer's wealth. But, my Lords, in all the distress now prevalent or hereafter to be apprehended, we have at least this great consolation—that we are not likely to witness such scenes of disorder as characterized the younger days of those whom I now address. It must be a matter of great satisfaction to your Lordships that the working classes of the present day are not likely to be led away by violent and intemperate men, such as those who a few years since exercised so great and injurious a sway over those who were then comparatively an ignorant class; at the present day the operatives well know that no man can carry on business unless he makes a fair profit, and that the factory doors are only closed because the hands cannot be profitably employed. I trust the body of the people are satisfied that it is not a question of price, but a question of profit which determines these matters. Men may do exceedingly well with low prices, provided the profit be reasonable and substantial. For instance—and it is a great subject for congratulation—it has pleased Providence to bless this country with an abundant harvest, and thus, though the prices are low, there remains a fair margin of profit to the cultivator; and I am sure that the holders of land are not as a class desirous of high prices—all they desire is such a steady and moderate price as will enable them to carry on their business with advantage to themselves arid to the consumers, for we all know that those who live on fixed incomes as well as those who live on small wages, and generally to the consumer, it is of consequence that price should be as low as possible so far as is consistent with the expenses of the producer. I cannot, my Lords, leave this part of the subject without pointing to another great cause of satisfaction at the present moment—that we have not now upon our statute-book any enactment which can be interpreted as enhancing the prices of any commodity for the benefit of a certain class. In the midst of all his distress the operative cannot now say that, in consequence of any law now in force he pays a farthing more for his food than the price as fairly regulated by supply and demand. My Lords, I have no doubt that when you come to consider matters which arise out of these commercial disasters you will adhere to good

11
and sound principles and will attend with the greatest care to all details which have an important bearing on the subject, for well-arranged minute details tend much more than large measures ill-concerted in detail to make a people happy and contented. In touching upon domestic concerns I may congratulate your Lordships and the lauded interest of the country on the probability that a measure for simplifying the transfer of real property is likely now to be enacted. More than twenty years ago some noble Lords now present took an active part in endeavouring to procure some simplification of this branch of the law; but all they were able to accomplish was that which is known as Lord Tenterden's Act, which, simple as it appears to be, has, I believe, proved of very little use except to the holders of very small plots of land. Another subject of domestic interest which is referred to in Her Majesty's Speech is the consolidation of the criminal law. As far as this House is concerned, your Lordships will recollect that during the last session of Parliament your Lordships agreed to measures with this object, and sent them down to the other House, where time could not be found for considering and passing them into law. I trust, however, that during the present session a consolidation of the criminal law will be effected, for those whose duty it is to carry out the law in the various districts of the country will appreciate as a great been the consolidation of the multitude of statutes relating to criminal offences. There remains, my Lords, only one subject on this part of Her Majesty's Address to which I need refer—namely, the allusion made in Her Majesty's Speech to the laws which regulate the representation of the people in Parliament. I am happy to say that that paragraph is worded in such a manner that I do not doubt that your Lordships will agree unanimously to the form of the Address to Her Majesty, merely admitting as it does, that it is desirable to examine into the statute in the same spirit and with the same degree of care that your Lordships would examine any other statute in the statute book. My noble Friend opposite, now looking so steadfastly at me (Lord Derby), will remember that we had long and exciting discussions at the time the statute was passed on the subject of popular representation, and that we then fought side by side to carry the Bill, obliged as we were to set aside minor defects: though we foresaw they would
12
require to be amended, yet we hoped the time would come to correct them, and at this time I trust that such excitement having now ceased, it will be easy to remedy the blots and errors which were committed when Parliament previously legislated upon this important question. My noble Friends opposite were aware that at that time many suggestions which have not worked well were accepted because it was not thought desirable by the supporters of the measure to insist upon minor details; but in these calmer days I believe that Parliament will readily endeavour to correct any mistakes which may have been found from experience to have been committed. I am ready to allow, however, that topics of great importance may arise in the discussion of this subject, and all I ask your Lordships to do at present, is to admit the fact that there are errors in the statute which they are prepared to consider and amend. I know nothing of the scheme of the Government. I reserve to myself to examine it in due time, and however much I may wish for an extension of the franchise, on this occasion I ask only its consideration, and beg to express my hope that no one will attempt to raise the alarms of 1831, or to distrust the people of England. And now I may be allowed to trouble your Lordships for a moment or two upon another point referred to in the Royal Speech, although it is scarcely a legitimate subject of discussion in your Lordships' House. It is a subject usually left to the House of Commons; but this House has an undoubted right to enter into discussion and to make what comments we may think fit. I allude to the paragraph which informed the other House that the Estimates for the next year will be framed with a careful regard to the exigencies of the public service. I am sure that no man will grudge whatever expenditure may be necessary for the public service; but I think no one can for the last few years have looked at one branch of the Estimates called the "Miscellaneous Estimates," without feeling that they are augmenting at a fearful rate. I cannot but think it is the duty of those who control the expenditure not to require from the taxation of the country one farthing more than is absolutely necessary for miscellaneous purposes, at a time when such heavy outlay is required for the maintenance of the army and navy; and I believe that a searching inquiry into the

13
Miscellaneous Estimates would show that, without inconvenience, a more economical system might be adopted. It now only remains for me, my Lords, to bring under your Lordships' notice that overwhelming topic which has engrossed the attention of nearly every man, not only in this country, but I believe I may say throughout the civilized world. How can I describe the state of India? How can I picture the anxiety of heart of every man who has a relative or friend in India? The subject, my Lords, is almost too much for any one to grapple—it certainly is more than I can hope adequately to deal with; for, although I feel deeply upon it, I am to a great extent unacquainted with details which are necessary to its full consideration. In approaching this subject we have to apply great and general principles to a country with which very few of us, probably, have any personal acquaintance—indeed, the great majority of us have to take the little we know upon the credit of those amongst us who have visited that great territory. We are obliged therefore to proceed somewhat in the dark, but for that very reason I am induced to hope that we shall proceed with the greater caution. My Lords, there can be no doubt that it is absolutely necessary to inquire accurately as to the best mode of administering the government of that extensive country, and the subjects which will claim our attention will be manifold. We have to consider how we can improve the civil and military establishments of the country—how we can best regulate and modify the collection of the revenue so as to be as little injurious to the people as possible—we have to look to the commerce of that immense empire, and the requisite securities to be given to its trade—we have to consider the best means for securing the happiness of the Natives; and we have to consider in what manner and to what extent the management of that portion of the Queen's dominions can affect the interests of the United Kingdom. These are important topics, with which it will be necessary to deal when we apply ourselves to legislate for the British possessions in India. They have been before Parliament in former times, but they now require to be carefully and calmly considered. I am satisfied that, whatever may be the result of your Lordships' deliberation, you will be prepared to make every sacrifice for the advantage of the empire and the welfare of the Natives of our distant dominions. To show how injudicious
14
it is to argue absolutely upon a subject of this nature, I may read to your Lordships an extract from a speech delivered by Mr. Wilkes in 1783, which proves the danger of prophecies as to the best mode of dealing with such an empire as India by men who were themselves unacquainted with that country. Mr. Wilkes said,—
"One only resource will remain in the great revolution of human events, which the womb of time may bring forth, a circumstance not to be regretted—perhaps to be wished—by the real friends of humanity. It is an event possibly not very distant, that the English may be entirely swept away from the countries in the East. The peaceful natives will then be at rest, happy under the mild government of their own princes. Commerce will then no longer be fettered by a monopoly, but spread its swelling sails as freely over the Gulf of Bengal and the Indian seas as on the coast of China and Japan, on the Atlantic, or the Mediterranean."
Now, my Lords, we are in a position to judge of the wisdom of such a prediction. If the result had been such as Mr. Wilkes contemplated where would have been the rest of the peaceful Natives?—what would have been the mild government of their own princes? A very different state of things from that anticipated by Mr. Wilkes has arisen, and the peaceful Natives, so far as could be judged, were most averse from the government of Native princes and of a Sepoy army, and desired to enjoy the protection of the British Government and European troops. There is another matter, my Lords, which we must not omit to bear in mind. It is impossible to govern so great a country as India without a very expensive establishment, and it is impossible to frame any establishment for India, unless, in framing it the necessity is kept in view of maintaining not only the connection, but the distinction also, between the territory and the commerce of that part of the empire. Looking at this matter, your Lordships have to deal at one and the same time with the Army and with the Civil Service. I will here trouble your Lordships with another extract, which I have taken from the magnificent Despatches of the late Duke of Wellington, and with which I was struck while reading those despatches last autumn. [The noble Lord here read an extract from one of the Duke of Wellington's Despatches in which the noble Duke, on the 27th December 1804, pointed out the necessity, for the future, of doubling or trebling the system of reliefs.] These were the words of Arthur Wellesley in India in 1804, and I believe that the late Duke of Welling-

15
ton, were he among us now, would address us in these, or in terms entirely to the same effect. With regard to the Civil Service of India, I trust, that when that important subject comes under discussion it will not be hastily disposed of, and that attention will be paid to another hint of Arthur Wellesley, in a letter dated 18th April 1804. Many specious theories have been started by persons who pretend to know a great deal about it, and write fine letters to the newspapers; possibly, if those persons were submitted to a cross-examination before Parliamentary Committees, and their statements sifted, they might be able to give useful information; but he trusted that neither their Lordships nor those who read those articles would hastily make up their minds on the subject, far less would come to the House with minds prepossessed by schemes put forth by such persons. Many things require to be temperately examined before any change is made—if any change at all should be made—for I am not assuming that there is to be a change; hut what I wish is, to impress on your Lordships the necessity of not making any change except after the most calm, deliberate, and full examination. No theoretical perfection can be obtained; we must select our measures as well as we can, and their value must be tried by the event. Connected with this matter there is another which it is impossible in a Christian country for a member of a Christian Legislature to hesitate about adverting to. I refer to our duty as Christians. In our belief there is no other religion which ought to be preferred to Christianity; yet I believe that Europeans have not been allowed to manifest their religion unreservedly in India, and that converts to Christianity have been inclined to hide their religion. We know that Hindoos and Mahomedans have been preferred for appointments to the Christian converts, and I do not think that that ought to be so whenever the Christian holds an equally good position with the Hindoo or the Mahomedan. At the same time I am by no means prepared to go the length of saying that you ought to prefer the Christian to the Hindoo or the Mahomedan if he is not equally fitted for the public service, but all I say is, that cœteris paribus, the Christian ought to be taken rather than the others for the public service of the Government. For the effect of our course on that subject hitherto, both in the Civil Service and
16
the Army, has been to throw, at least, the imputation of inferiority on the Christian as compared with the Hindoo and the Mahomedan. For when the punishment of flogging was abolished as regards these latter named men, it was continued to be used on the Christian converts. I think, however, that a change ought to be entered upon with the greatest possible care, for if we attempt to precipitate the conversion of the Hindoo and the Mahomedan, we shall not be doing what is right or politic; but I think we ought to do all that we can with safety and justice to maintain and extend the Christian religion, but not by the authority or direct influence of the Government. I deprecate, however, any antagonism in India on matters of religion, such as we have in this country, and the squabbles and sectarianism that divide us, and that in every effort we make to convert the heathen we shall take the Bible as our guide, and that we shall proceed with judgment, and great care, and without flinching. My Lords, having said these few words relative to the expressions in the Speech from the Throne respecting India, I cannot sit down without directing your Lordships' notice to other parts of the Speech, in which Her Majesty expresses her great gratitude for the services performed by her troops, and for the high qualities displayed by those civil servants who assisted in carrying on the government of India under great disadvantages during this crisis. My Lords, I cannot find expressions adequate to convey my admiration of the glorious and distinguished deeds of our soldiers in India—they have covered themselves with renown. When we see the multitude of good men, many of them risen almost from the ranks, who have shown what they could do in a season of danger and emergency, we must feel proud that the country possesses individuals capable of performing such services. I will not presume to mention many names, for it would be injustice to prefer one to another; but I may be permitted to observe that amongst the most distinguished men now carrying on the operations in the war, Havelock and Greathed are remarkable. Both of them are men of Christian principle, and know that not in man, but in the Lord of Hosts lies their strength and the hope of their country. But what shall I say of the sufferings which the people of this country who have relatives in India have endured? One case may illustrate many. I am ac-

17
quainted with one who is a widowed mother, who had to grieve over the loss of one of her sons in the last war. Three other sons—the only other sons that she had—were before Delhi. One was shot down before the Cashmere-gate, but still lives; another fell a victim to his anxiety in the discharge of his duty, and was carried away by the cholera; the third is one of the most distinguished of our generals, and the leader of a column. Cases like that are rife among us. She is able to bear her anxiety with patient submission to the will of God. How many poor women, wives, mothers, sisters, less educated have but little consolation that can lessen their sorrow. But while I look with horror at the many atrocities which have been perpetrated in India, and though I will not harrow your Lordships' feelings by any appeals to your pity, I will yet apply the words of the poet in speaking of them—
"Ausi omnes immane nefas, ausoque potiti.
"Non, mihi si linguæ centum sint, oraque centum,
"Ferrea vox omnes scelerum comprendere formas,
"Omnia pœnarum percurrere nomina possim."
My Lords, it is matter of sincere congratulation that, as stated by Her Majesty, the people of India generally, have taken no part in this rebellion. I wish I could believe that their abstention is to be attributed rather to their love for our rule than to their fear of our power; but I am afraid, that many years must yet elapse before we can look for any affection on their part towards us. The conduct of the Native princes has been described by Her Majesty in far better terms than any I could use. My Lords, I cannot sit down without saying one word in deprecation of the condemnation which has been attempted to be passed on the Governor-General of India. I can never admit that it is fair to condemn a man in his absence, in ignorance of all the facts and circumstances, when no one here can know the difficulties in which he has been placed, the anxieties to which he has been subjected, or can honestly say what his own conduct would be in similar circumstances. I believe Lord Canning has done his best, has made the best use of the small forces at his command, has, on the whole, exercised a sound discretion. I believe that those around Lord Canning have found him calm and considerate, earnestly endeavouring to use the abilities which God had given him for the advantage of his country. When Lord Canning was sent to India,
18
who could have looked forward to the outburst of a rebellion like this, or who could have been prepared to meet such a state of things? Lord Canning, doubtless, imagined that his chief duty would be to conduct the government of a peaceful empire, and to carry out and complete those great measures of improvement originated by his predecessor for the benefit of India; but, notwithstanding, I believe it will be found, when we come to the end of this rebellion, that the Governor General, instead of our censures, will deserve our warmest thanks. At the same time, I am bound to say, that to bestow indiscriminate praises upon Lord Canning at the present juncture, and in his absence, would be as unwise and unfair as to pass upon him a wholesale condemnation. Many persons have stated that they know the causes of all these difficulties in India, but, for my own part, I am inclined to think that those causes cannot be discovered so easily as some people seem to imagine. I recollect a very sudden and painful outbreak in the western districts of this country. All kinds of reasons were assigned for that disturbance; but I remember that a friend of mine, a Member of the House of Commons, asked me when I returned from my county, where I had been actively employed in suppressing the riots, what was the cause of that outbreak. I told him that I did not know the exact cause; but I did know that there existed an impression on the part of the people, that, to use their own expression, "their time was come." Might not the military revolt in India have arisen in like manner, from an opinion among the Sepoys that we were much occupied elsewhere, that our army was small, that, in short, "their time was come?" But I would suggest to your Lordships, that the endeavour to search too deeply into the causes of this insurrection is "well illustrated by an observation of the same distinguished Member of the House of Commons (Sir James Macintosh) to whom I have referred. "People," he said, "are too apt to do that which a philosopher once did, when he saw a labourer sharpening his axe upon a grindstone. He desired to know how the axe was sharpened, and for that purpose wished to break the grindstone, that he might see what was inside. Upon that the man who was sharpening the axe said, 'The causes are on the surface; pray don't break the grindstone.'" The fact is, we are in the habit of looking

19
too deeply for causes, and in most instances would succeed much better if we examined more carefully the surface of things. My Lords, there is only one other topic in Her Majesty's Speech to which I need refer, and happily, it is one of consolation—namely, that we are at peace with all the European Powers, and that there is nothing likely to disturb the tranquillity which prevails. After all we have gone through of late years, and all we are even now undergoing, it is highly satisfactory to know that we are on the most amicable and friendly terms with our allies. I trust that peace will long endure, and that especially nothing will occur to interrupt the good feeling which exists between the Emperor of the French and this country. I hope, also, that the alliance which is so soon to be formed with the Royal Family of Prussia may tend still further to cement and consolidate the peace of Europe. The noble Lord concluded by thanking the House for their kind attention, and moved an humble Address to Her Majesty in answer to Her gracious Speech from the Throne.
The following is a copy of the Address agreed to.
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble Thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament.
"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us of the Causes which have induced Your Majesty to call this Parliament together at the present Time; for informing us that the Failure of certain Joint Stock Banks and of some Mercantile Firms has produced such an Extent of Distrust as led Your Majesty to authorize Your Ministers to advise the Directors of the Bank of England to adopt a Course of Proceeding which appeared necessary for allaying the prevalent Alarm; and for intimating to us that a Bill for indemnifying those who advised and those who adopted that Course of Proceeding, involving as it did a Departure from the
20
existing Law, will be submitted to our Consideration.
"WE assure Your Majesty that we participate in Your Majesty's Regret that the disturbed State of Commercial Transactions in general has occasioned a Diminution of Employment in the Manufacturing Districts, which, Your Majesty fears, cannot fail to be attended with much local Distress; and at the same Time we assure Your Majesty of our Concurrence in the Hope which Your Majesty has expressed that this Evil may not be of long Duration, and that the abundant Harvest with which it has graciously pleased Divine Providence to bless this Land will in some degree mitigate the Sufferings unavoidably produced.
"WE assure Your Majesty that while we join with Your Majesty in deploring the severe Suffering to which many of Your Majesty's Subjects in India have been exposed, and in lamenting the extensive Bereavements and Sorrow that have been caused, we share the Feeling of Satisfaction which Your Majesty has derived from the distinguished Successes that have attended the heroic Exertions of the comparatively small Forces which have been opposed to greatly superior Numbers, without the Aid of the powerful Reinforcements despatched from this Country to their Assistance; and, with Your Majesty, we trust that the Arrival of those Reinforcements will speedily complete the Suppression of this widely-spread Revolt.
"We humbly express to Your Majesty our cordial Concurrence in Your Majesty's Admiration of the Gallantry displayed by the Troops employed against the Mutineers, their Courage in Action, their Endurance under Privation, Fatigue, and the Effects of Climate, the high Spirit and Self-devotion of the Officers, and the Ability, Skill, and persevering Energy of the Commanders; and we also humbly express our cordial Concurrence in the equal Gratification with which Your Majesty has observed that many Civilians

21
placed in extreme Difficulty and Danger have displayed the highest Qualities, including, in some Instances, those that would do Honour to veteran Soldiers.
"WE humbly assure Your Majesty that we partake in the Satisfaction with which Your Majesty remarks that the general Mass of the population of India have taken no Part in the Rebellion, while the most considerable of the Native Princes have acted in the most friendly Manner, and have rendered important Services.
"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for having directed that Papers relating to these Matters shall be laid before us.
"WE humbly assure Your Majesty that we will give our earnest Attention to the Affairs of Your Majesty's East Indian Dominions.
"WE humbly express to Your Majesty our Gratification that the Nations of Europe are in the Enjoyment of the Blessings of Peace, which nothing seems likely to disturb.
"WE humbly express our Gratification that the Stipulations of the Treaty which Your Majesty has concluded with The Shah of Persia have been faithfully carried into execution.
"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that our Attention will be called to the Laws which regulate the Representation of the People in Parliament, with a view to consider what Amendments may be safely and beneficially made therein; and that Measures for simplifying and amending the Laws relating to Real Property, and also for consolidating and amending several important Branches of the Criminal Law, will be submitted to our Consideration.
"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for assuring us, that Your Majesty confidently commits to us the great Interests of Your Empire; and, in common with Your Majesty, we fervently pray that the Blessings of Almighty God may attend our Counsels, and may guide our Deliberations to those Ends which are dearest to Your Majesty's
22
Heart, the Happiness and Prosperity of Your loyal and faithful People."
LORD CAREW: My Lords, in rising to second the address which has just been proposed to your Lordships, I must beg to claim that indulgence which your Lordships always extend to a peer who addresses you for the first time; more especially as I follow a noble Friend who has so much larger an experience than myself, and who is frequently in the habit of addressing your Lordships' House. My Lords, I think that, perhaps throughout the whole period of our Parliament history no greater necessity for the immediate superintendence of the Legislature has occurred than has arisen within the last few weeks. The Speech from the Throne, among other matters of great interest and importance, has presented four principal subjects for the particular attention of your Lordships. These are, first, the condition of the country in regard to its mercantile and monetary affairs; secondly, the state of our Indian Empire; thirdly, the state of our foreign relations; and lastly, the proposed measures of domestic legislature and the consideration of the laws which regulate the representation of the people in Parliament. My Lords, I am happy to find that the second of these subjects is not the one on account of which Her Majesty has found it necessary to summon Parliament together, and that the latest news from India authorises the hope that a satisfactory state of things has been already re-established in that country, in lieu of the more complicated distresses which prevailed a few weeks since. It is on account of the first subject referred to in the Speech that Parliament has now met. My Lords, it cannot be denied that an unusual depression in the money market and a most threatening aspect of affairs in the commercial world have arisen. This derangement of commercial affairs is, no doubt, much to be deplored; but the same thing has frequently occurred before, and your Lordships have reason to hope that as on all occasions before, the pressure will prove but temporary. I am happy to be able to inform your Lordships that in the country with which I am more particularly connected, the disasters which have unfortunately taken place here, have not been felt to any considerable extent—a fact which I believe is chiefly to be a ttri-

23
buted to the thrifty and industrious habits of the Irish mercantile community and to the absence of that system of over-speculation which has been found to exist on this side of the channel. Surely he might be permitted to dwell with satisfaction on this one bright spot in the aspect of our affairs. This, however, appears to be the reason why Parliament has been called together at this unusual season. Her Majesty takes occasion further to express her regret that this mercantile depression should have occasioned a diminution of employment. It is, no doubt, a matter of deep regret that the operatives in the manufacturing districts should be even partially unemployed, and no doubt your Lordships will join with Her Majesty in the hope that such a state of things will not long continue.
The next subject referred to in Her Majesty's Speech, was that which had already been so much before the public—the state of India. It is not my intention to enter minutely into the subject of the Indian mutiny, the details of which have been so graphically described by the press and in letters which have been received by many of your Lordships from relatives and friends in India. The harrowing particulars of the enormities which have been perpetrated at Cawnpore and Delhi, and the brilliant victories which have signalised our arms are alike familiar to your Lordships and the country; and it is to be hoped that for some years at least we shall maintain in India such a force as will render the recurrence of such events almost, if not altogether, impossible. Her Majesty's Government, I think, deserve great credit for the rapidity with which troops have been despatched to India and for the large numbers in which they have been sent thither. It is also matter for congratulation that the treaty with Persia has been fully carried out, and that we may now hope to find in that country, instead of a foe, an ally, who will purchase our manufactures, and probably afford us other valuable assistance. After the scenes which we have witnessed during many years we have cause to rejoice "that the nations of Europe are in the enjoyment of the blessings of peace, which nothing seems likely to disturb;" and it is to be hoped that this state of things will long continue. Your Lordships, as the heads of your respective families, know that nothing so much promotes the interests of all mem-
24
bers of their houses as concord; and this position was equally applicable to the several nations of the European family. Her Majesty had next called their attention to the laws which regulated the representation of the people in Parliament, with a view to the consideration of changes which may he deemed necessary therein. As the world is constituted nothing can always remain the same. Times change, and it is frequently necessary to alter laws so as to make them meet the exigencies of the country. The Government, I think, deserve great credit for the course which they have adopted with respect to this subject. They might have urged that the state of India and the necessary legislation upon commercial and monetary matters would fully absorb the attention and occupy the time of Parliament. But no such plea has been put forward. This shows that there is energy and activity in high places, and proves that we can not only show a bold front to our enemy in the distant fields of India, but can at the same time energetically and honestly deal with the domestic economy of our national affairs. What changes in our representative system will be proposed it is impossible for me to say. They will at the proper time be presented to your Lordships by those who were responsible for them. In seconding the address which has just been addressed to your Lordships by my noble Friend I will conclude by saying with confidence that Her Majesty may be assured that no assembly of her subjects has more at heart the prosperity of this country and its vast possessions, and the individual happiness of the Royal Family and of the people, than have your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have now had an experience of Parliamentary life of upwards of thirty-six years, and in that time I have witnessed many periods of great political excitement, many of great national anxiety, and some of even great national alarm; but it never occurred to me at any period to enter upon a Session of Parliament under circumstances of such varied anxiety and of such almost unvaried gloom as those which surrounded the meeting of the Parliament which has been thus suddenly and prematurely called together. My Lords, upon most previous occasions the attention of Parliament has been absorbed by some one great and overwhelming subject, which has attracted to itself all the solicitude of

25
the country. In 1825 it was commercial, and in 1847 agricultural distress; in 1829 the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; in 1830 and in 1848 the state of affairs upon the Continent, and that revolutionary spirit which during those years upset many of the thrones of Europe, but which in this country, thanks to our constitution, to its safer and more modified forms, and to the infusion of a considerable democratic element into the Legislature, served to bring out in signal and glorious relief the reliance of the people and the Crown upon their liberties and prerogatives; in 1841 the change of Government which took place when the late Sir Robert Peel succeeded to office; in 1846 the great change in the commercial legislation of this country which was effected by the repeal of the corn laws; in the same and subsequent year the overwhelming calamity of the Irish famine. In almost every one of the periods of excitement and anxiety which I can remember there has been some single cause which has monopolized and fixed upon itself the attention of Parliament and the country. But now, my Lords, we have a complication of misfortunes—now we have a variety of anxieties, such as I never witnessed upon any previous occasion. We have deep and overwhelming commercial distress and disturbance at home. We have an Indian empire shaken to the very foundations abroad. It is under these circumstances that Parliament has been called together, and I am therefore not surprised that the greater portion of Her Majesty's Speech should be devoted to these two overwhelming and calamitous topics. But before I follow previous speakers into the discussion of these subjects, let me say one word upon that which my noble Friend who moved the Address has with great felicity of expression called the only happy part of Her Majesty's Speech. I refer to that very short and simple part of the Speech, to that singularly curt and abrupt paragraph in which we are informed that—
"The nations of Europe are in the enjoyment of the blessings of peace, which nothing seems likely to disturb."
I must say that looking to the state of this country I think that this fact might have been expected to have called forth some fuller expression of satisfaction on the part of the Ministers and of the Crown than is to be found in the simple announce-
26
ment of this paragraph. My Lords, although I have the greatest confidence in the resolution, in the resources, in the firmness, and in the spirit of this country, I do not hesitate to say that nothing could have tried that spirit and those resources so deeply and almost so fatally as the addition to the calamities of commercial distress at home, and a war of fearful magnitude in India, which compels us to strain to the utmost our military resources—of the still further calamity of a War in Europe, in which, almost of necessity, we should have taken part. Having that feeling—and it is no discredit to the country to admit that under such circumstances our energies would have been taxed to the utmost—I think that Her Majesty's Government might, at all events, have expressed their satisfaction that they were relieved from such a calamity as an European war, and that the countries of Europe were enjoying the blessings of profound peace. But, my Lords, the paragraph, as it is worded, bears a tone of disappointment and mortification. It almost breathes the spirit of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government. It would almost appear as if it was a calamity to Her Majesty's Ministers that there is no quarrel in Europe in which they might take part. The nations of Europe are at peace, which nothing seems likely to disturb. My Lords, I believe that if the noble Viscount at the head of the Government cannot disturb the peace of Europe no one else can. But if Her Majesty's Government are desirous of maintaining the great blessing of peace—if they are anxious to keep upon good terms with those nations with whom we are now happily at amity, I think it would be wise to forbear on public occasions from taunting expressions with regard to the supposed military habits of other countries, and from adopting—when, as we are told, we are friendly with all—a tone of defiance against any Power which might take advantage of our present difficulties and take up arms against us. That lone is, I say, unworthy of a Prime Minister. It was a bravado wholly uncalled for by the circumstances, and could have no effect upon any nation in the world except to give personal offence, unless indeed it were to excite a suspicion that such unnecessary bluster was perhaps resorted to in order to cover an inherent sense of weakness. But this is, however, the only paragraph in Her Majesty's

27
Speech in which foreign affairs are in the slightest degree adverted to. Rather hard is it, my Lords, on my noble Friend Lord Elgin, for instance, who is placed in a position at once the most ridiculous that could be imagined, if it be not also the most painful—that the affair in which my noble Friend is engaged should find no mention in this document. This is the third Queen's Speech that we have had in the course of the present year, and in that brief period, unless my memory fails me, there have been discussions on subjects which led to the dissolution of Parliament and the formation of the present Government—discussions in which it was said that the honour of the British flag was imperilled—that a single moment's hesitation, even so far as to write home for orders before signal and summary vengeance was inflicted, was a discredit and disgrace to this country. Well, how does the matter now stand? There is not a single word about China in the Speech, not a syllable about Sir John Bowring, and the attack upon Canton—not a hint about the signal chastisement to be visited upon the unhappy barbarians who from that time to this have been laughing at the threats and at the impotence of England. No reparation has been exacted for the outrage offered to the British flag, and all that we have done in this urgent contest that would not bear a moment's delay, but for which we had not made the slightest preparation, is to blockade the Canton river and put the most serious and formidable obstacle in the way of our own commerce. Our force was indeed diverted from the China expedition, but Her Majesty's Government did not know at the time of its diversion, which was due to the resolution and firmness of Lord Elgin, who took it upon himself to depart from his instructions, and thereby to incur a great amount of personal responsibility. Lord Elgin deserves great praise for the course he adopted in diverting the force from the special object for which it was designed; but Her Majesty's Government, as they took no share of his responsibility, are entitled to no part of the credit for the assistance afforded to India by this proceeding. Indeed, when a question was put in the other House by a right hon. Friend of mine (Sir J. Pakington), on the 10th of July, whether instructions bad been sent to Lord Canning to stop the China expedition at Ceylon, and transfer it to India, the First Lord of the Admiralty said he
28
believed that no such instructions had been sent out; that a letter had certainly been written by Lord Canning to Lord Elgin to ask whether the latter had any objection to divert the force destined for China, but Her Majesty's Government themselves had not the slightest notion of any such thing. Now, my Lords, when we are assured that we are at peace with all the nations of Europe, and that all those nations are at peace among themselves, I should like to hear, as we possibly may hear, from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that some grave questions in Europe are making satisfactory progress—that the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, which have been long delayed, are on the point of being carried into execution; that the Powers of Europe, upon whom the fate of Wallachia and Moldavia depends, are at this moment agreed in their policy, and that there is some hope of seeing a speedy and satisfactory settlement of this matter. That there has been no actual settlement of it as yet is quite clear, otherwise the noble Lord at the head of the Government, would, I am sure, have been happy to introduce it into Her Majesty's Speech.
Having briefly noticed what I think a light mode of treating that serious subject—the general peace of Europe—I proceed, to the two most important questions which occupy the principal portion of the Speech. The noble Lord who seconded the Address, who seems to be one of those happy spirits that in early youth can draw consolation from what fails to cheer maturer and more experienced minds like that of the noble Lord who preceded him, says it is matter for congratulation that Indian affairs were not in so serious a state as to render it necessary, on their account, to call Parliament together. That is certainly a very slight and infinitesimal subject for congratulation. But we are told that we are summoned at this early period simply to pass a Bill of Indemnity for Her Majesty's Government for the violation in 1857 of the law of 1844, which it was found necessary, under somewhat similar circumstances, to violate in 1847; and we are reminded, in confirmation of this assertion,, that only a short time previous to the issue of the notice which summoned us to meet this day, the Legislature was prorogued to the 17th instant. If, therefore, I rightly construe the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, it is their wish and intention that no business should be transacted by

29
Parliament at this extraordinary Session with the single exception of giving them a Bill of Indemnity. My Lords, I do not mean to say that under the circumstances the Government were not justified in taking the step they did, or that therefore they have not a fair claim to the Act of Indemnity which they seek. But before pronouncing any opinion whether or not they were so justified, I should like to hear from themselves the grounds upon which they acted, and the persons whom they consulted previously to taking that step. I should like to hear that it was taken, not on the sole responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, but with the concurrence and full consent of the Governor and Directors of the Bank of England. I should like to know, in point of fact, whether they received any application from the Bank of England, calling upon them to suspend the existing Act, and also whether any such application came from any of the leading bankers and commercial firms of London. Before granting an Act of Indemnity for the violation of the existing law we ought to have an explanation on this point from Her Majesty's Government, and likewise an explanation whether the particular step they took was calculated to meet the difficulties under which the country was at the time labouring. My belief, with that of the Committee which your Lordships appointed in 1848, undoubtedly is, that though certainly the Act of 1844 had no share in producing the calamities to which we are now, and were in 1847, subjected, yet that that Act has a very strong and important influence in aggravating such difficulties when they do occur. I believe the case to be this, that whatever may, in other respects, be the merits or demerits of the Act of 1844, there can be no doubt that when the country sees the publication of the Bank accounts, and that the Bank is approaching the period at which it will be necessary for them to contract their circulation in consequence of the drain of bullion, all other parties, all other bankers, and all other commercial firms, deem it needful to take precautions for their own interest in order to secure themselves against the dangers they foresee, and accordingly they begin to hoard a portion of the notes and bullion they receive. The effect of that, of course, is, that a large part of the circulating medium of the country, whether in gold or in notes, ceases to be in actual circulation. And though
30
there is the same amount of issue from the Bank there is not the same amount of circulation or the same activity given to commerce. In consequence, therefore, of the panic, which leads to hoarding, and still further increases the difficulty and restriction upon the circulation, that restriction still further augments the pressure upon the Bank, and still further augments the necessity on the part of that establishment of adopting measures yet more stringent. Thus panic and restriction act and re-act on each other until the country is brought, with abundance of money of all descriptions, to the verge of bankruptcy and insolvency. That, I believe, is a correct statement of the operation of the Act of 1844, and of how it works in times of commercial panic. If that be so, then I think an Act that does away for a time with that restriction on the Bank has a natural tendency to diminish the panic, to encourage the pouring forth of hidden stores of money into active circulation, and, thereby, as in 1847, without any violation of the law, to enable the Bank to resume the ordinary course of proceeding and replenish its coffers with bullion. Supposing for the moment that the restrictions of the Act of 1844 are judicious under ordinary circumstances, I think when the state of things that I have described arises it is absolutely necessary that those restrictions should not be enforced on the Bank. And this, I presume, was the motive which led Her Majesty's Government in 1857, as in 1847, to take on their own responsibility the important step of setting aside the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Let me ask, however, whether the conditions are the same in 1857 as in 1847. In the latter year the foreign exchanges were eminently favourable to us—bullion was rapidly flowing into the Bank vaults, and therefore, although at that time the bullion in the Bank had fallen below the amount which the Act required to be kept, yet there was the reassuring circumstance that events were in progress by which in a short time the equilibrium would be restored. Therefore the suspension of the Act of 1844 was not actually carried into effect in 1847, and the late Mr. Gurney stated before the Committee which sat afterwards, "What we wanted was not money, but to know that we should have money if we wanted it." The result upon that occasion was that the panic and hoarding ceased at once. But at the present

31
time, when Her Majesty's Ministers have taken this step, the foreign exchanges were still unfavourable to us, the drain of bullion was still continuing. I will not decide whether to that cause alone is to be attributed the fact that the same step which in 1847 produced immediate relief has not been attended with the like happy results in the year 1857.
I now come to another question. If it be the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers that in times of commercial difficulty and pressure the Act of 1844 has the effect, I will not say of creating these dangerous symptoms, but of aggravating them when they do occur, then I ask Her Majesty's Government to give upon this subject a clear and categorical answer to this question, whether when they bring forward a Bill of Indemnity they intend to adhere to the letter of the Act of 1844? I can perfectly understand the Government asking for a Bill of Indemnity for a violation of an Act which they felt necessary at the moment; but I do not understand their asking for the second time within ten years for an Act of Indemnity on account of the violation of an Act which, when a strain comes, is found to be unequal to bear it; but I do not understand how, while asking Parliament to grant an indemnity for violating that Act, they can ask us to continue the permanent operation of that very Act which they themselves have found it necessary to suspend. I say, if that Act be perfectly sound, but that at certain times and under certain circumstances it be necessary to dispense with the pressure of its too stringent provisions, then that power should be contained in the Act itself. There should be a relaxing and dispensing power vested somewhere, and that power should be vested in the Act itself. I believe that was the intention of the Committee of 1848, which, although it has been said to have made many recommendations, yet proposed no legislation, the duty of a Committee being in my judgment to make recommendations. It was a most able, painstaking, and valuable Committee. It made a most useful Report, but its recommendations have been completely neglected. I hope the Government will make a frank and explicit statement upon that point, and I do trust they will do so without any further reference to Parliamentary Committees. We have had before us all the materials for our consideration ad nauseam. Last year
32
a most extraordinary step was taken by Her Majesty's Government. In this House your Lordships did not think it necessary, with reference to the renewal of the Bank Charter Act, to appoint any Committee; but in the other House the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it was advisable to appoint a Committee, but at the same time to take away from that Committee the slightest utility of which it could be capable, except the production of a vast blue-book which no one would read. The Chancellor of the Exchequer protested, on behalf of the Government, seriatim, against every possible alteration in the law which could be suggested, and declared that the Government was prepared to stand by the existing law. I think under these circumstances we have a right to ask the Government that they shall take an open and candid course without any further inquiry or reference to Committees, and tell us frankly and plainly—for they must have made up their minds whether, after all that has passed, they are still prepared to adhere to their position of last year, and to maintain inviolate and in its integrity the Act of 1844? I make this reasonable request without any desire—as I am sure it is not desired on this side of the House—to throw any impediment in the way of passing a Bill of indemnity or to offer any vexatious opposition to Her Majesty's Government.
The Queen's Speech then proceeds to state that Her Majesty has observed "with great regret that the disturbed state of commercial transactions in general has occasioned a diminution of employment in the manufacturing districts, which she feared could not fail to be attended with much local distress." I regret to say, my Lords, being connected with the manufacturing districts myself, and I shall be borne out I am sure by other noble Lords similarly connected, that this phrase in the Royal Speech but feebly depicts the amount of difficulty and suffering which prevails at the present time. I hope that the good sense of the operatives will preserve them from senseless and unnecessary outbreaks, but I do assure the Government that not only the operatives but the manufacturers are at this moment placed in circumstances of most painful anxiety and difficulty. I have had to-day a return from Manchester, which has been published in the journals, from which I find that there are in that city

33
233 mills and other large establishments employing large masses of men under one roof, giving occupation in ordinary times to 45,391 operatives. If it be remembered that the majority of those operatives are married men with wives and children dependent upon them, that number may be doubled, or perhaps trebled, in order to arrive at a correct statement of the individuals who are interested in the welfare of those manufacturing establishments. Now, my Lords, of these 233 mills, only seventy-three are working full time—the remaining 160 either working short time, three or four days a-week, or are wholly closed. The number of operatives in those mills now in full work is 16,861, while those partially or wholly unemployed number 28,530. That is as far as Manchester alone is concerned; but I believe I could bring similar statements from Bradford, from Preston, from Bury, from Macclesfield, and other places. But that is a state of things to which justice is not done by the paragraph in the Royal Speech, which states that "diminution of employment in the manufacturing districts cannot fail to be attended with much local distress." If under these circumstances, as I take it they will, the operatives have the good sense and judgment to abstain from conduct which can do them no good, but must inflict upon them and their employers immense mischief—if they maintain a peaceful and respectful demeanour under the difficult circumstances of the time, then I say, all honour to them, to their good sense, and to their loyalty. But, my Lords, I think Her Majesty's Government might have gone further and told us the causes—the real source of this disturbance of our commercial transactions. For years past we have heard continual laudations of the enormous extension of our commercial transactions. We have been told that if we only ceased to clip the wings of commerce and to leave it free as the winds of Heaven there would be no limit to its expansion and our prosperity. I remember seeing an article in an important newspaper—The Times—no longer ago than last April or May, in which it was said, that to speak of the commerce of England was only to repeat the cry of "Prosperity! prosperity! prosperity!" I remember it was said in that paper and in other places over and over again that the magnitude of our exports was the surest of all possible tests of our commercial prosperity. I have also heard it said
34
again and again, "Take care of your exports and your imports will take care of themselves." Now, in ten months of 1855 our exports amounted to £78,087,431. That was an enormous, perhaps an unnatural amount of commercial business; but in 1857, during the same space of time—ten months—your exports, that unvarying test of national prosperity by which we are to measure the happiness and welfare of the manufacturing community, have increased to £106,000,000, being an increase of £28,000,000 within two years in the single item of exports. Now, my Lords, has there been a corresponding increase in the happiness and comfort of the operatives, in the wealth of the manufacturers, in the wellbeing of all persons engaged in those branches? Why, we are told that with this increasing amount of exports there has been a constantly increasing and almost overwhelming amount of commercial distress. Large as our exports have been yet they have not kept pace with our imports. In the course of three years our exports have been £308,000,000, while our imports have been no less than £468,000,000, showing a balance of £160,000,000 against us in those three years. Well, if your imports have exceeded your exports you must have been driving a very profitable trade, and must have the advantage of having about £160,000,000 in your pockets. But the trade has not been so profitable as you seem to imagine. Let me, in the first place, ask you whether all your imports have been paid for? We have in the course of the period to which I have referred, in consequence of the inequality which prevailed between the amount of our exports and our imports, sent out of the country something like £84,000,000 in the shape of bullion, and if we happen at this moment to be in a state of indebtedness it is not solely because the amount of our exports has been so large but because our imports are encouraged by the Legislature in a degree which is out of all proportion to our exports. Well, my Lords, if this be not the cause of the commercial distress existing amongst us at this moment I shall feel obliged if Her Majesty's Government will be good enough to tell us what the cause is. We are told that there has been no overtrading—that commerce has been upon a sound basis—that we must look for the prosperity of the people in the prosperity of commerce. Now, I want to know from Her Majesty's Go-

35
vernment what is the reason that, with large exports and greatly-increased imports, we have all this commercial disturbance which has rendered the immediate interference of Parliament necessary. Now, my Lords, I approach another subject, and one even more serious still than that to which I have just adverted; one too, to the magnitude of the danger connected with which I should—were it not for the melancholy experience of the last few months—hardly deem Her Majesty's Ministers were sufficiently alive. In the Speech which has this day been read from the Throne Her Majesty is made to say—
"While I deeply deplore the severe suffering to which many of my subjects in India have been exposed, and while I grieve for the extensive bereavements and sorrow which it has caused, I have derived the greatest satisfaction from the distinguished successes which have attended the heroic exertions of the comparatively small forces which have been opposed to greatly superior numbers, without the aid of the powerful reinforcements despatched from this country to their assistance. The arrival of those reinforcements will, I trust, speedily complete the suppression of this widely-spread revolt."
Now, my Lords, far be it from me to give utterance to a single word which could lead you to suppose that I thought lightly of those private sorrows and bereavements which have cast a gloom over so many hearths in England. But although I feel that the expression of Her sympathy with such sorrows and such afflictions cannot but fall gracefully from the lips of the Sovereign, yet I must express my surprise that the advisers of Her Majesty have not thought proper to make some mention in the Royal Message of that political ruin and that public danger by which the British rule in India has been imperilled. Individuals may suffer—as many have done—from an inundation, an earthquake, or any other calamity. Men are born to die on the battle-field as well as upon the bed of sickness. Such events are matters of constant occurrence, but the mutiny of your Indian army is an event of a different order. The whole framework of your empire in that country has been rudely shaken—nay, for the moment your empire has been lost and remains to be restored; yet the expression of the Sovereign's regret for a public calamity so great finds no place in the Message from the Throne. I should be sorry indeed, my Lords, from the style of composition which the latter part of the paragraph in the Royal Speech, to which I have just drawn your attention, presents,
36
to suppose that it could have been written by Her Majesty herself. I should be sorry to suppose for a moment that Her most gracious Majesty wrote such bad English as is contained in this most ungraceful paragraph and I shall not further dwell upon it, but shall proceed to the next paragraph, in which the Sovereign gives utterance to her warm approbation
"of the gallantry of the troops employed against the mutineers, their courage in action, their endurance under privation, fatigue, and the effects of climate; the high spirit and self-devotion of the officers, and the ability, skill, and persevering energy of the commanders."
That paragraph, my Lords, is one, which I am glad to know has fallen from the lips, as I am proud to believe it has come from the heart of the Sovereign. No words which I could use could do justice to the gallantry, the perseverance, the intrepidity, the Herculean labours of that small but devoted band, to whose hands, the salvation of our Indian empire has. been confided. They have contended—surprised as they have been and having but too much reason to fear that they were abandoned by their country—not only against overwhelming numbers, but against the difficulties which the climate of India presents at a period of the year when all former experience would lead as to suppose that all operations in the open field in that country were impossible. They were, moreover scattered here and there in small bodies throughout a vast extent of hostile territory; yet under all those disadvantages they have struggled, they have dared, and they have triumphed in a manner which reflects immortal honour upon themselves. and which I trust will ultimately lead to the salvation of our Indian empire. For men who have done such deeds no praise can be too high, no language of eulogy can be too eloquent, no reward which a grateful country can bestow too great. My Lords, I am loth to single out even an individual name for special mention from that bright band to whom England owes so much, lest in doing so I might seem to do injustice to some gallant spirit who, placed in similar circumstances, would have earned for himself a similar immortality. But I can scarcely refrain from pronouncing the names in the record of those who have fallen in their country's service of such men as Neill, Nicholson, Lawrence, Bankes, the young Willoughby, the devoted Salkeld, and the gallant Home. They all died the soldier's death; and they have not died in

37
vain. The laurel with which their brows would have been encircled had they lived will twine its branches round their graves But, my Lords, among those who have achieved such glorious exploits in India there are some still living, and from the number, even at the risk of seeming to take upon myself an invidious task, I may be allowed to select for especial notice two names—that of General Havelock and that of Colonel Greathed. Those two gallant officers have, as your Lordships are aware, performed two wonderful marches under the greatest difficulties. Greathed was a young officer in a subordinate situation, and from the specimen of military ability which he has displayed I draw the highest augury of the skill and talent which the young officers in the army will be found to exhibit whenever the opportunity for the display of those qualities is afforded. Of General Havelock it is needless to speak. His achievements are too well known to your Lordships and to the country to require any mention of mine. I can only express a hope that he and the gallant Outram will reap the reward of their glorious efforts, and that they, as well as the garrison for whose succour they so nobly struggled, together with its gallant commander, are now enjoying that repose which their labours and their patient endurance so well deserve. I trust that no mischance has befallen them. The country looks out with the utmost anxiety for the next mail from India, which, we hope, will bring us the account that they are at length placed in safety. Our army there has been left in a state of extreme peril. For some time the communications between different portions of it have been altogether broken off. They have been surrounded, and there is no means of communication between the portion which is at Allahabad and the portion which is at Lucknow. They are not only separated, but they are surrounded by an overwhelming force, and I earnestly trust that the forces which have been despatched to their relief may not arrive too late to affect that object. If India has been saved the work has been wrought by means of the gallantry and perseverance of her military force. With their own brave hearts, their own strong right hands, and their trusty swords they have won their way and acted well their part. With all my heart I wish that the praise to which they are entitled may not be grudgingly bestowed upon them, and that they may receive at the
38
hands of their country the rewards which they so justly merit.
But to pass to another topic, I may first first observe that my noble Friend (Lord Portman) who moved the Address in answer to the Royal Speech has deprecated any attack being made upon the conduct of the Governor General of India, or any charge being brought against him in connection with the recent proceedings in that country. Now, as my noble Friend has adverted to Lord Canning, I may state that of that nobleman I should be disposed to speak with all tenderness and all consideration, not only on account of the sincere regard which I entertain for him personally and the respect which I have for his talents, but also because he has been placed in circumstances of such unparalleled difficulty that if he has not been found to be in all points equal to his post it is because of that difficulty, and because not one man in ten thousand would be found likely to cope with it with success. It was, I think, about the close of 1855 that Lord Canning entered upon the administration of the affairs of our Indian empire, and it now appears that long before he set foot in that country—nay, for months before that time—certain secret negotiations had been going on for the purpose of tampering with the Bengal army. My noble Friend the mover of the Address, adverting to certain circumstances which had taken place in his own county, drew from them an argument to show that the Sepoys were influenced by certain superstitions, and that they believed the time had arrived when the dominion of England might be shaken off. I believe that supposition to be correct. I believe that various prophecies and old sayings were circulated throughout India, the purport of which was that at the expiration of a period of one hundred years of British rule the Sepoys would be enabled to drive them from the country and to regain their ancient supremacy. But if it be true, as my noble friend says, that that belief prevailed generally throughout India and that the circumstance was known, does not that fact furnish the strongest possible additional reason why every precaution should be taken to prevent a rising f the Sepoys, and why the Government, as well as every officer and civilian throughout the land, should have their eyes wide awake to the slightest symptom of incipient disaffection? Now, the papers before us prove that no such precautions were taken.
LORD PORTMANsaid he must deny having stated that the belief in question had really prevailed amongst the Sepoys, for he knew nothing about the fact. He had only suggested that as there had been such a popular feeling on the occasion he had referred to, there might have been a similar notion amongst the native troops.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not know whether it may have been known to the Government or not, but the printed papers show that for two or three years past old prophecies have been circulated among the population of India that the British rule would come to an end one hundred years after it had begun to exist, and, as 1857 was the centenary of the battle of Plassy this was the period fixed on by the superstitious among the population of India (who comprise, I imagine, no small part of it) for carrying out the conspiracy. Now, my Lords, what happened? Let us look calmly and deliberately at the events which occurred. I will make charges against no man, but let us see whether the authorities in India have been sufficiently alive at any time since disaffection began to show itself to the danger which existed. On the 23rd of January, 1857, General Hearsey reported the existence of great jealousy among the men of Dumdum on the subject of these greased cartridges. On the following day the Telegraph-office at Barrackpore was burnt down. Several other incendiary fires took place, and of their incendiary character there could be no doubt, because in some cases lighted arrows were found in the thatch of the bungalows. On the 8th of February General Hearsey again reports to the Government that the Sepoys are being tampered with. He had ascertained that emissaries of the deposed King of Oude and sowars of the King of Delhi were endeavouring to shake the fidelity of the troops. He reports this on the 8th. On the 9th he paraded the men, explained to them the circumstances connected with the greased cartridges, and had, as he hoped, undeceived their minds for the time; but he writes to the Government on the 11th—"We have at Barrackpore been dwelling upon a mine ready for explosion." At the same time he reports the existence of formidable symptoms of mutiny in the 34th Regiment. Again, on the 24th of February the 19th Infantry at Burhampore were visited by the 34th, and two days afterwards they broke out into open mutiny to
40
such an extent that Colonel Mitchell (whether discreetly or not I will not stay to inquire), doubtful of his own force, felt himself compelled to temporize with these men, and consented to move away the artillery and cavalry marched against them if they would return to their lines. This outbreak seems in the first instance rather to have alarmed the Government of Calcutta, and on the 6th of March they sent off to Rangoon for the 84th Regiment, which arrived on the 20th. Throughout the whole of this period, from the beginning of February to the 20th of March, no single step, as far as I can find, was taken on the part of the Government other to disabuse the minds of the Sepoys on the subject of these greased cartridges, or to ascertain their probable intentions and the extent of the disaffection prevailing among them. No additional precautions were taken, and during the whole of that time the Government never dreamed of the gross folly of leaving the important city of Delhi with its stores of ammunition and artillery without one single European soldier in it, and guarded by native troops alone, although then they had notice from one of their most intelligent officers that foreign emissaries were at work spreading danger in the camp. I hope your Lordships will excuse me for entering into these details, but I want to show that we have reason for saying that the Indian government did not exert themselves early enough to put a stop to these incipient symptoms. On. the 28th of February broke out the mutiny of the 34th. An officer in front of his ranks was cut down by a Sepoy half maddened by drink. This man kept walking backwards and forwards before the ranks, no one attempting to arrest him, until the news was brought to General Hearsey. General Hearsey felt that there was not a single moment to be lost. He mounted his horse, rode to the spot, ordered the guard to seize the Sepoy; the guard hesitated and refused. What did General Hearsey do? Temporize? No. Like a true-hearted British officer and gentleman, he rode in at the man himself; with his own hand he seized him and dragged him before the ranks, whereupon the man shot himself. These facts were reported by General Hearsey, who begged that an immediate reward might be conferred on a certain Sepoy (whom he took the responsibility of promoting on the spot), and asked at the

41
same time that the names of two officers might be inserted in general orders. What was the reply to his letter? Certainly he received thanks for what he had done; these could not be with held; but he actually got a reprimand for having taken upon himself to promote the Sepoy without reference to the authorities at Calcutta, who also refused to insert in general orders the names of the officers he had recommended for that honour. Now, my Lords, what followed? The Government seemed to have taken courage from the conduct of General Hearsey. The 10th Regiment having on the 27th of February broken into open mutiny, the Government on the 30th of March—five weeks afterwards—determined to inflict a signal punishment. They accordingly assembled the regiment; and what was the signal punishment? The only penalty for an act of the grossest mutiny was that they were paid their wages and disbanded. At that very moment the emissaries of the Court of Oude had promised them increased pay if they would leave the British service, yet the Government merely give the men what is due to them and disband them, and conceive that that is a punishment which will put an. end to the mutiny for the future! Why, my Lords, it was an act of madness. When that general order reached Sir Henry Lawrence at Lucknow, he felt so strongly its impolicy and the encouragement it would give to the disaffected, that he refused to read it. All this time the 34th Regiment, a soldier of which had shot his officer—an act in which the whole regiment had passively shared, some of the men also having actually struck two European officers with the butts of their muskets—was still supposed by the Government at Calcutta, in its insanity, to be perfectly faithful and trustworthy, and they permitted it to do duty to the end of April. Nay, such was their infatuation that they actually meditated, and the order, I believe, was issued, the sending back the 84th to Rangoon, leaving themselves under the sole protection of native troops. Fortunately for them there broke out, or would have broken out but for the energy and foresight of Sir Henry Lawrence, the mutiny at Lucknow. Sir Henry Lawrence, like General Hearsey, was equal to the occasion. He anticipated the mutineers, surrounded them with an imposing force, excited a panic among them in the midst of their treasonable conspiracy, and although his force was
42
composed in a great part of men treasonably inclined he completely overpowered and overawed them. But not one of the men who knocked down their officers with the butt-end of their muskets was brought to punishment. The 34th were simply disbanded and sent to swell the ranks of the mutineers. Now, I ask whether in the whole course of these proceedings Lord Canning's advisers—and Lord Canning must to a great degree have been in the hands of his advisers—exhibited foresight, vigour, or any of those qualifications which it was most important should be shown by men who were to conduct the Government of India at such a moment? Now, my Lords, I come to Her Majesty's Government at home, and I must confess I do not think they have exhibited much more foresight, promptitude, or vigilance than their colleagues in India. They refused from first to last to believe in the serious character of the mutiny. My noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) whose knowledge of India and the deep interest he has taken in its welfare qualify him better than any man to speak on this subject, and who appears throughout to have had an intuitive perception of what was going to be done and what ought to be done, never ceased during the whole course of the last Session to press upon the Ministry the necessity of taking the earliest and the most prompt and vigorous measures for repressing that which he represented as a dangerous conspiracy. But my noble friend was the Cassandra of the House. His prophecies were disregarded, and that disregard has cost many a valuable British life and has well nigh lost India. On the 19th of May Lord Ellen-borough called the attention of the Government to the subject, and urged the necessity of immediate reinforcements. He was told by the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary for War, that the intelligence was not such as to create any apprehension for the safety of India, but that as the Chinese expedition would comprise four regiments which would otherwise have gone to India, four other regiments would be ordered to proceed to that country in the course of the next five weeks. On the 9th of June my noble Friend again called attention to the state of India, and especially to the religious aspect of the question, which has been referred to by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Portman), and upon which I shall have to say a few words. On the 11th of June the President of the

43
Board of Control (Mr. Vernon Smith) expressed his hope that no alarm was felt by the public with regard to Indian affairs, and stated that owing to the promptitude and vigour displayed by the authorities in India the disaffection which had existed among the troops in that country had been suppressed, and that any future manifestation of such a feeling would be met by similar decisive measures. On the 23rd of June the President of the Board of Control stated that the 19th Regiment of Native Infantry had been disbanded, and that it was the intention of the Government to disband any other regiments which manifested a mutinous disposition. Well, my Lords, on the 29th of June my noble friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), after some intelligence had been received of the calamities which had occurred in India, again pressed upon the Government the necessity of sending out with the utmost speed other and larger reinforcements to the army, and he suggested, as it would be necessary to despatch all our available military force in this country to India, that their place should be supplied by the immediate embodiment of the militia. Your Lordships will probably recollect with what cool indifference these suggestions were received. The noble President of the Council assured us that the disaffection was not so extensive as was supposed; that the native princes were most cordially co-operating with the British authorities; that Lord Canning expected that General Anson would shortly be before Delhi; that four more regiments had been ordered out; and that the calling out of the militia would appear to indicate difficulties and would lower this country in the eyes of the world. Your Lordships may likewise remember that an Order in Council had been issued on the 25th of June directing that the militia should not be called out, and on the 16th of July the noble Lord at the head of the Government being asked whether, under the altered circumstances, and considering the state of affairs in India, the Government would not revoke that Order, replied "Oh, no; the Indian affair is a mere nothing; it does not in the slightest degree alter the views of the Government, and the militia will not be called out." Within a very short time afterwards, however, the suggestions of my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) were adopted; and I cannot help thinking that then, as on some former occasions, it would have been as well had
44
they been adopted a little sooner. If the reinforcements which were ultimately sent out had been despatched—as my noble Friend urged that they should be—in the mouth of June, and if they had been sent by the shortest route, I venture to say that not one tenth of the disasters and difficulties which have occurred would have been experienced by those gallant men who were unnecessarily left to struggle on without sufficient support, and from whom I have seen letters expressing the bitterness of their hearts at the delay of succour, although their spirits and energies remained unconquered and indomitable.
On the 29th of June the President of the Board of Control delivered a speech which showed such an utter and hopeless ignorance of the whole question with which he had to deal, and of the arrangements of his department, as I not only never saw equalled, but as I believe never could be equalled; still, after all the disastrous intelligence received by the Government, treating the condition of India as a matter of no pressing importance—
"I hope," said Mr. Vernon Smith, "that in the course of a very short time 14.000 European troops, partly reliefs, partly recruits, and partly additional troops will be on their way from these shores to India. I hope that the House will not be carried away by any notion that we exaggerate the danger because we have determined upon sending out these troops. It is as a measure of security alone that these troops are sent out. * * * Our Indian empire is not imperilled, and I hope that in a short time the disaster, dismal as it undoubtedly is, will be effectually suppressed by the force already in that country." [3 Hansard, cxlvi. 541.]
Referring to the outbreak which had taken place at Delhi, the President of the Board of Control stated, in reply to a question from Mr. Disraeli, that
"Everything that can be done is being done in India, and troops have been already marched up to surround what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) calls the ancient capital of the Moguls, the city of Delhi."
Then Mr. Vernon Smith went on to show his intimate knowledge with the city of Delhi by saying,—"Luckily the outrage has taken place there, because it is notorious that Delhi may be easily sur-surrounded." Surrounded!
"I have no doubt," continued the President of the Board of Control, "that it will be reduced by force immediately that a man of the well-known vigour of action of my gallant friend General Anson, who now commands the army of the North, appears before the walls of Delhi."
Why, the large force which General

45
Anson was able to take with him was somewhere about 2,000 men, if they had all arrived.
"It is notorious," said the President of the Board of Control, "that Delhi may be easily surrounded, so that if we could not reduce the place by force we could by famine."
Was there ever such an instance of utter ignorance? Mr. Vernon Smith went on to say,—and if my noble Friends opposite have the slightest idea that I am misrepresenting him, I beg to refer them to the debate in the House of Commons on the 29th of June last Session:—
"Unfortunately, the mail left on the 18th ultimo, and I cannot therefore apprize the House that the fort of Delhi has been razed to the ground; but I hope that by the next mail we shall receive intelligence that"—General Anson acting with promptitude and vigour—"ample retribution has by this time been inflicted on the mutineers who occupy that city." [3 Hansard, cxlvi. 541–2.]
Such was the eminent foresight displayed by the Minister intrusted with the conduct of Indian affairs! The news of the fearful calamities which had occurred in India, and of the occupation of Delhi by the Mogul, did, however, elicit the warmest sympathy on the part of almost every European State. Early in July the Sultan, without hesitation, upon the application of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, granted his firman for the passage of British troops across the Isthmus of Suez. The Pasha of Egypt voluntarily, and without any application being made to him, wrote to the agent of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, stating that if the British Government wished, through their agency, to send troops across his territory to the Red Sea, he would afford such troops every facility of transit, whether they were in or out of uniform, by hundreds or by thousands, and that they should have the use of his horses, carriages, and the same means of conveyance as if they were his own troops. It is not I believe very generally known—though it is right it should be, as it is the highest compliment that could be paid to this country, and shows how wide and general was the sympathy entertained towards us by one of the most powerful monarchs in Europe—that the Emperor of the French of his own accord informed the British Government that if it would be any convenience to them to send the greater body of troops they were despatching to India across France, they had his full and free leave to traverse his territory, and that every facility should be
46
afforded for their conveyance. Now, wilt it be believed that the firman of the Sultan, the offer of the Pasha, the promise of the Emperor of the French, were alike disregarded and declined, and that from that time up to the 1st of October no single soldier ever took advantage of the route across the Isthmus? It was said, when it was determined that troops should be sent round by the Cape of Good Hope, and when a considerable number were despatched by sailing vessels in preference to steamers, that there would be difficulty with regard to transport by the overland route when the troops arrived on the other side the Isthmus upon the shores of the Bed Sea. It has been stated—I don't know whether truly or not, but I have not seen it contradicted—that Lord Elphinstone, whose exertions deserve the warmest acknowledgments—made an offer by telegraph to Lord Canning to send out a rapid steamer to catch the mail with the news of the mutiny, and that Lord Canning's reply, was that such a step was unnecessary and there was no hurry. It is said, also, that Lord Elphinstone volunteered, if Lord Canning thought fit, to send steamers from Bombay to the Red Sea for the purpose of meeting any troops which the British Government might despatch by that route. But more than this,—the Peninsular and Oriental Company, I understand, offered to the Government in July to make arrangements for the passage of troops from Alexandria across the Isthmus, by which they could have been transported from ship to ship within twenty-four hours, and they offered the use of their steamers which, they stated, were capable of carrying 500 men at each trip. If troops had been conveyed by that route across the Isthmus, they would have arrived at Bombay or Point de Galle in six or seven weeks; and, consequently, troops despatched from this country at the end of June or the beginning of July would have reached India by the middle of August. The Government, however, declined all these propositions. They refused to avail themselves of the offers of the Sultan, of the Pasha, of the Emperor of the French, and of the Peninsular and Oriental Company; they relied upon their own means and resources, and what happened? After a time matters became more serious, and towards the latter end of August application was made by the Government to the East India Directors, who had from the first been anxious to forward troops by the overland route, to

47
arrange with the Peninsular and Oriental Company the very bargain which a month before Her Majesty's Government had declined. The East India Directors, in concert with the War Office and the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge), who I am sure was from the first anxious to provide for the despatch of reinforcements, undertook the arrangement. Really, my Lords, what I am going to say sounds so incredible that it is difficult to believe it, and I ask to be contradicted by the Government if they are able to contradict me, but should they do so I promise to bring forward incontrovertible evidence to prove it. Some considerable time after the arrangements to which I have referred the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Control somewhat surprised the agent of the Peninsular and Oriental Company by a letter, in which he asked him if some plan could not be arranged by which troops could be sent overland to India by means of the steamers of the company. Well, my Lords, the gentleman to whom the letter was addressed read it over, and then examined the seal and scrutinized the signature to see if it could possibly be a hoax, but finding that it was a genuine bonâ fide production, he wrote back to say, "You ask if it can be done; why, it is being done and has been done for a considerable time, under the authority of the Government." I ask your lordships if it is not inconceivable that the President of the Board of Control, himself a Member of the Cabinet, should write and ask if it was possible to organize a scheme when that scheme had been in full operation for a considerable period under the sanction of the Government, and the East India Company. [Laughter.] You may well laugh, but I ask you if, with such instances, the country may not reasonably distrust the vigour, the intelligence, and the energies of those by whom the efforts of her gallant army in the East are directed?
Now my Lords, if the advice of my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) had been adopted, the offer of the Pacha of Egypt accepted, and troops sent through Egypt in the beginning of June, they might have arrived in Calcutta towards the middle of August; while, as it was, the first reinforcement which did arrive in India, with the exception of the troops diverted from the Chinese expedition and a small number of men from the Mauritius, was part of a regiment which was sent out in the Golden Fleece, a remarkably quick ship,
48
and which made the passage in the extraordinary short space of sixty-eight days, but which did not arrive until the latter end of October. Now, my Lords, look to the circumstances of that garrison upon which the interest of all is painfully fixed; look at the position of Lucknow and the position of the relieving force, and tell me what would have been the effect if those troops which arrived in October had arrived at the beginning, the middle, or even the latter end of September. If they had so arrived the movements of Sir Henry Havelock would have been perfectly safe and secure, and not the slighest risk would have been run by the garrison of Lucknow, with all its helpless women and children, of falling into the hands of their brutal and barbarous enemies; but if, from the delays of the Government in sending out troops that town should fall, upon them will rest the guilt and the shame of such a fearful calamity.
I trust that the Government will not think, because I consider it my duty as a peer of Parliament to criticize their conduct and to point out their oversight, that I am not disposed, or that any of the party with which I have the honour of being connected is not disposed, to assist the Government in restoring the state of affairs. We are all as well disposed to aid the Government as far as we can, and to the best of our abilities, with no greater diminution of energy and assiduity than if we were perfectly satisfied of their discretion and capacity, whatever we may think of their qualifications. In a great crisis like the present the men who are happy enough to enjoy the confidence of their Sovereign and the country and are responsible for the administration of affairs ought to be, and must be, supported by every man who has the interest of his country at heart; and every such man will act as if he approved their whole proceedings. At present, my Lords, the task before us is to reconquer an empire, and to that end our whole attention and energy must be directed. We must first re-establish our power, and then we may take into consideration that most important subject, a better organization of our Indian empire. There is one grave circumstance to which I must allude. We have all read, my Lords, in this country details of those fearful crimes and inhuman butcheries, of barbarities the narration of. which, even at this distance, caused the: blood of every man to curdle in his veins, and his very flesh to quiver with

49
righteous indignation and abhorrence at the miscreants who could have been guilty of such enormities, and therefore we can well believe, if we at this distance were thus moved, that the effect in India would be great indeed—
"Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures
"Quam quæ sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus et quæ
"Ipse sibi tradit spectator."
I can well imagine that a man who had witnessed those scenes of butchery, who had perhaps among the victims one of those dearest and nearest to him—I can well imagine that a man who had witnessed the scenes which occurred in the shambles-house, Cawnpore, or who saw there the mangled corpses of women and children, mutilated remains, hair torn off and scattered about—I can well imagine, I say, that a man who has witnessed such scenes may be aroused to a pitch of frenzy almost demoniac in its nature, and that there may be some deeds perpetrated by persons coming fresh from scenes so horrible, from witnessing the wounded and dishonoured bodies of their country-women and of their children, which would seem to be inspired by a fiend-like thirst for blood. I can imagine that the feelings so produced may exceed all possibility of control, and that men may become almost as savage in purpose as those whom we are bound to punish; but we, my Lords, must be actuated by no such feeling. It is, however, necessary for the vindication of all justice, for our own security for the future, for the preponderance of our own power, that we should deal out stern justice. For those wretched men who through fear, or upon actual compulsion, or some such motive sided against us, I think there may be some vindication; but for. every one who has treacherously joined the ranks of the rebels, or who is taken with arms in his hands, there can be, and there ought to be, but one penalty, and that penalty is death. With regard, however, to those miscreants who have murdered women and children, and perpetrated atrocities and horrors which nature and decency compel us to shroud in a veil, what punishment should be inflicted upon them? It is clear that when a man from the mouth of the cannon from which he is to be blown boasts that he has killed three or four Europeans, death by a sudden blow has no terrors for him, and that he is most probably looked upon rather as a hero than a criminal by his vile associates. For such men death is no punishment. I, my Lords, would inflict
50
upon these men a doom far worse than death—I mean a protracted life, with the brand of Cain upon their brows, denoting their offence lest any man slay them. A life embittered by severe, by degrading, and by painful labour would be a far heavier punishment than death. They should live a life of hopeless constant slavery, condemned to the most degrading occupations; a Brahmin of the highest caste should be the slave of the lowest pariah, and without chance of escape from his condition, he should drag out an existence from which death would be considered a relief. I hope, my Lords, that in what I have said I have shown no desire for vengeance, for vengeance' sake. All I desire is, that a stern punishment should be administered which will satisfy the justice of the case, and will afford some security against similar atrocities for the future. There is, however, my Lords, one thing that I would strongly deprecate, and that is, anything like the impression that a feeling of hostility towards the Native population exists among the European population. It may have happened at the capture of Delhi that in the heat of assault, and maddened by the atrocities which had been committed, some of our troops killed persons not in arms. Now, that, however much to be deplored, may from the peculiar circumstances of the case be at least extenuated; but what I deprecate is, that the white man should consider every man with a black skin his enemy, and should consider it justifiable to shoot him down without mercy—that, my Lords, is a spirit which must be restrained, if not upon principles of Christianity, at least upon principles of sound policy, for if such a state of things continues our power and authority will soon come to a termination. Whatever may arise, we must strenuously maintain the principle of convincing the native, more than he has as yet ever been convinced, of our unconquerable superiority and supremacy. There must be no half measures. You must make him feel that England is his master; but, having done that, make him also feel that the mastery will be exercised, notwithstanding all that has happened—notwithstanding his ingratitude and the provocation he has given—for his own benefit. He must be your servant, but you must be his benefactor; and though you will have to govern the whole of India by the dominion of the sword and by force, you must not hope to govern it by the sword

51
alone, unaccompanied by measures of amelioration.
One word more, and I will quit this most important subject, into which I have been led at greater length than I anticipated. My noble Friend (Lord Portman) adverted to the paragraph in the Speech which, in mysterious terms, states that "the affairs of my East Indian dominions will require your serious consideration, and I recommend them to your earnest attention." This paragraph may mean a great deal or nothing at all; and, having listened to the speech of my noble Friend, I have not been able to inform myself of the views of the Government on this subject. No doubt some one of Her Majesty's Ministers will address the House in the course of this debate, and I shall have the opportunity of receiving from him a distinct explanation of the meaning of that passage in the Queen's Speech, and of learning whether we are to infer that the Ministers contemplate bringing forward in this Session any measure whatever with respect to the Indian Government—I mean any measure with respect to the constitution and form of government; or whether it is intended simply to call attention by way of Committees of inquiry to the state of affairs in India. I hope, if the Government mean legislation at all, they mean to legislate on their own responsibility. In 1853 I moved for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of affairs in India, preliminary to the renewal of the East India Company's Charter. That Committee continued its labours during the short Session of 1852; but in 1853 its deliberations were cut short by the Act of the succeeding Government, and that I thought an unfortunate exercise of their power. The Government then proceeded to legislate for India notwithstanding the remonstrances which were made, and notwithstanding a noble relative of mine in the other House begged them to bring in only an annual Bill, continuing the Indian Government until Parliament should be in possession of full information on the subject. The Act, however, was passed, and after the passing of the Act Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary to continue the inquiry, though the natural course seemed to be to allow the inquiry to go on in the first instance uninterruptedly, and to pass the Act afterwards. They did, nevertheless, continue the inquiry, and the result was a considerable amount of in-
52
formation on all the heads submitted by this House to the consideration of the Committee of 1852. Information, as in the case of the Bank Charter, so in the case of India, is to the fullest extent already before the Government—information which, at all events, may lead them to decide whether the present double Government should continue, or whether any alteration should be made in the form of that government; and I trust, if it is intended that this subject should form matter of deliberation in Parliament, the Government will, upon their own responsibility, submit a measure for consideration. It has been intimated that the affairs of India will occupy the attention of the present Session, but I will venture to say that the affairs of India—if by that expression is meant the whole legislation for and organization of that empire—will occupy our attention not only for the present Session, but from this day forward will occupy the attention of Parliament for the life of the youngest man among us. It must form a matter of the most serious and deepest interest—a subject of constant and increasing anxiety—to which public attention will unremittingly be turned.
There is only one other subject adverted to by my noble Friend in his speech on which I feel it necessary to say a few words, and I hope I shall not be misunderstood. He says it is the duty of the Government by all means in their power to promote the spread of Christianity in India. No man can be more desirous than myself that the blessings of Christianity should be diffused as widely as possible; and I believe its doctrines would exercise a wholesome influence on minds so ignorant, so depraved, and so debased as the minds of the population of India. But the more that is my wish, the more I deprecate the intervention of the Government in the matter. If you wish to place an insuperable bar against the spread of Christianity in India, put the governing body in the position of intervention. You have seen in the case of the greased cartridges with what inflammatory materials you have to deal; and if you mean to render the maintenance of the conquest of India impossible you will endeavonr to convert the natives by the influence and authority of the Government. I do not mean to say that you should put the slightest check or impediment in the way of the missionaries. I doubt whether they are likely to be very successful; but, as private missionaries,

53
they do not provoke any hostility against the Government, nor have they in the slightest degree alienated the minds of the natives on the present occasion. By all means give to the missionaries, engaged in what I own seems the somewhat hopeless task of Christianizing India, all protection; but, whatever you do in the administration of the Government show that the governing body stands aloof between the two religions, and will exercise neither force nor influence to procure the conversion of one single Hindoo. We may not be able in future to trust the Mahomedans or Hindoos to the degree to which we have trusted them, and to which I desire we might still trust them; but though we are bound not to do homage to their slavish superstitions, nor to conceal our own personal profession of Christianity—though we are bound to show by our conduct that our religion is superior to their religion, we are yet bound to abstain in the most careful manner from any, the slightest interference by force or authority with their religion or superstitions, however debased and revolting they may be to our feelings. May God prosper the good work of the missionaries; but, if it were to prosper, it must do so under the entire indifference of the Government. Any Government encouragement of missionary labours in India would be a most certain impediment to the advancement of Christianity in that empire. I mean now to relieve your Lordships from what I must call my somewhat protracted address. There is only another subject to which I need advert—I mean, of course, the long-delayed subject of Parliamentary reform, which is introduced in Her Majesty's Speech in terms of great moderation, and which was touched on with still greater moderation by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Portman). Indeed, on this subject he "roared like a sucking dove." The new measure of reform is, according to my noble Friend, merely to correct some trifling defects or blemishes in the Reform Act, to which that, like all other human laws, is subject. If the new measure is to do anything more than that, my noble Friend knows nothing of it and is not answerable for it; but, as an old Parliamentary tactician, he had been asked to make this explanation. Be the proposed alterations of the Reform Act large or small, I say for myself, and for those with whom I have the honour of acting, we are ready, if in the judgment of the Govern-
54
ment this is a convenient and suitable time for introducing a measure of reform, to give it the most deliberate, impartial, and dispassionate consideration. If it will remove blemishes so much the better—we are far from maintaining that the Reform Act is free from blemishes; and if it should contain improvements, we by all means are prepared to consider those improvements. But what I wish to impress upon the Government is, the advisability of introducing their Bill at the earliest possible period. A Bill was announced two or three years ago, and but for extraordinary circumstances it would have been brought forward last Session. I have not the least doubt, therefore, that the Government are prepared at once to redeem the promise held out in the Speech from the Throne. None of your Lordships can imagine for a moment that the Government have been dealing so unfairly with Parliament and the country, as for two years to have been dangling before our eyes the prospect of a Bill which is not in existence. I am sure the Bill is ready, and when it comes before us we shall have to deal with it as the calm and deliberate expression of the opinion of Ministers. Being the work of a united Cabinet, and, as I have said, ready to be laid before Parliament, I do hope the Government will lose no time in producing it. Independently of the particular business for which we have been called together at the present time, some advantage will have been gained by this short Session before Christmas, if the Government take the opportunity which it affords of laying before us—not with the view of proceeding at once to its discussion—the measure of Parliamentary Reform which they have announced, so that all parties may see how far the views of Ministers coincide with their own, and may be able during the recess to consider what course they ought to pursue when Parliament re-assembles in February. We shall then be in a condition to take the Bill into consideration early in the Session, and to express our opinions upon it. I hope, therefore, that if the Government do really mean to bring forward a measure of the kind indicated in the Speech from the Throne they will give such notice as will enable Parliament to come deliberately to the discussion of a question which is of much or little importance according to the manner in which they propose to deal with it. Although, my Lords, I have thought it my duty, I

55
fear at unusual length, to offer some comments upon the Speech from the Throne, and to ask some questions relative to two or three of the points with which it deals, yet I am happy to say that I do not find in the language of it anything which calls for the proposition of an amendment on our part. The Speech does not require us to express any opinion upon the important questions to which it adverts; it merely indicates some of the topics which must come under the consideration of Parliament in the present Session, and the language in which it is couched does not seem to render it necessary for us to offer any opposition to the Government upon this occasion. One word more and I have done. As I understand it, the Government wish that we should confine ourselves in the meantime to the special subject which has led to the present meeting of Parliament, and in these circumstances I have no hesitation in saying, not only for myself, but also for those who act with me, that we shall be ready to give every facility for the despatch of public business, so as to enable the Government to adjourn Parliament at the earliest possible period.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the able and judicious speech of my noble Friend who moved the Address, referring, as it did to all the points embraced in the speech from the throne, relieves me from the necessity of troubling your Lordships with many observations. I shall therefore confine myself to noticing as briefly as possible some of the remarks which have fallen from the noble Earl opposite. The noble Earl began his speech by passing in review all the important events which have occurred during his parliamentary career, and the conclusion he arrived at was that he had never known an occasion on which Parliament assembled under such gloomy circumstances as those in which it now finds itself placed. But, ray Lords, there have been undoubtedly within our own recollection, times of great alarm, of great suffering, of great danger, and every one of you must feel great consolation in remembering that after surmounting each of these trials the country rose again more powerful than ever, uninjured by the struggle through which it had passed. And though I agree with the noble Earl as to the gravity of the circumstances by which we are surrounded, I cannot but think that through each one of these circumstances there are gleams of sunshine which give us every reason to hope that England
56
will once more be able to overcome the temporary difficulties in her path. It has been my good fortune to hear the noble Earl make many speeches upon occasions similar to the present, and to listen to the mode in which he criticised the addresses prepared by the Ministry for Her Majesty; but as far as my recollection serves me, this is the first time he has confined his criticism to faults of omission, and, notwithstanding his singular dexterity and power of analysis, has been unable to discover faults of commission in the Speech from the Throne. The noble Earl laments that more has not been said in the Royal Speech concerning our relations with Foreign Powers, and expresses what I can assure him is a mistaken belief, that the Government feel regret at the peaceable state of the world. Now, my Lords, the fact is that the Government have no reason to regard our relations with Foreign Powers other than with great satisfaction and pleasure; for at no period have our relations with the European Powers or with the United States of America been more perfectly satisfactory. I am glad to say that the only question to which he has alluded as likely to throw disunion among us—I refer to the Principalities—is not to the point, for I have the pleasure to inform your Lordships that the Congress will reassemble at Paris with every prospect, having ascertained the opinion of the Principalities themselves, and the opinion also of that Power, which is more interested than any other in the question, of coming to a satisfactory decision, in which, if France and England unite together, I have no doubt all the European Powers will concur, and which I trust will be such as to secure the happiness and contentment of those whose destinies it will affect. I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl was not sincere when he complained of the absence of China from Her Majesty's gracious Speech. The reason why nothing has been done in China is so notorious, and was so clearly explained by the noble Earl himself, that it would be really childish in me to offer any explanation upon the point. What we have ascertained is, that if that force, so wisely and judiciously diverted by Lord Canning, and so cordially and discreetly acquiesced in by Lord Elgin, had been allowed to proceed at once to China, it would have been more than sufficient to accomplish every object which Lord Elgin was instructed to obtain; and that, where-

57
as at that time there was some doubt how far the whole Chinese Empire would have been engaged in conflict with us, it is now pretty clear that Commissioner Yeh is left to fight his own battles. There never was a time when our intercourse with the rest of the empire was so satisfactory, and I believe that as soon as we are able to send some of our troops to China, even though it should be a smaller number than was originally intended, we shall speedily arrive at a successful issue in the Chinese question. The noble Earl then very naturally referred at some length to the real point for which Parliament has been called together—viz., to consider the necessity which the Government felt itself under of advising the Directors of the Bank of England to overstep the provisions of their charter; and he asked me a question who were the parties we consulted, and by whom we were pressed to authorise the suspension of the Act? Now that is a question, I maintain, which I am not bound to answer. The Government alone are responsible for that step, and if it is wrong, upon them alone the responsibility must rest. But it may be right to state what are the real facts of the case. They are these—that the Government acted upon their own opinions; that they did not ask for advice, but merely for the information requisite to enable them to take action; and it was the knowledge so acquired which led them to believe that if they did not interpose, very serious consequences to our commercial community, and, indeed, to the country at large, must have ensued. That is the ground upon which they are prepared to take their stand. But the noble Earl went further, for he said, "after stating your reasons for suspending the Bank Charter Act, tell me why you do not agree with me that the Act ought to be entirely changed;" because the noble Earl is of opinion that, although the existing law may not do harm in ordinary times, in periods of distress it increases the very panic which it is the object of all to allay. I do not think that at the present moment, when we are engaged in a general discussion, I need go into the merits of the Bank Charter Act. At the same time I am ready to say thus much—that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any change in that Act; as at present advised, they do not think any such change desirable; but they are anxious that the Committee of the House of Commons which sat upon the
58
subject last year, and which recommended that it should be reappointed in the present session, should be permitted to consider carefully all the additional circumstances which have occurred. They do not mean to preclude themselves, should they deem such a step advisable, from making any alterations in the Bank Charter Act which upon further information may appear to them either prudent or necessary: but they are not prepared to do so at present. The noble Earl then went on to say—and I am sorry that my own private information confirms his statement—that our working population are likely to have a very severe winter to pass. I was particularly struck with the manner in which my noble Friend who moved the Address (Lord Portman) alluded to the consolation we must derive from the improved demeanour of the labouring classes in such emergencies. From their clear insight into the real state of matters, from their knowledge that in such cases the Government can do little for their relief, that it is dependent upon causes over which the Government have no control, and, above all, from their knowledge of the fact that there are no laws which artificially aggravate the difficulties of their position, they appear to be ready to co-operate with their employers in trying to mitigate as far as possible the hardships incident to periods of commercial depression. The abundance of the harvest which Providence has bestowed upon us affords some consolation, because it will be a great alleviation of sufferings which in former times were doubled by the high price of food. The noble Earl then referred to India—the subject which occupies the mind of every member of this community who can think or who can feel. He complained that Her Majesty bad not been advised to allude in sufficiently explicit terms to the sufferings of individuals, and expressed his opinion that the Speech ought to have gone more fully into the public disaster. I can only say that as I recollect the terms suggested by the noble Earl, and as I believe we shall all read them to-morrow, if Ministers had advised Her Majesty to give such a definition of the state of things in India as Her opinion and that entertained by the Government, they would have been guilty of the grossest exaggeration. That the state of affairs in that country is most serious; that it requires the most careful consideration and is full of anxiety for the future, I cannot

59
deny; but that our Indian empire is now in peril I do not believe, and, although it is impossible to state at what time the Government may be fully re-established in the disturbed districts, I entertain a confident hope that if common prudence and common judgment are exercised, that result will be attained. The noble Earl spoke of the conduct of our soldiers, as touchingly referred to by Her Majesty, and there, my Lords, I cannot accuse him of the slightest exaggeration. I really believe that in this case exaggeration is impossible. I do not wish to weaken by words of mine the singularly eloquent and vivid description which the noble Earl gave of their conduct in circumstances of unparalleled difficulty, but I must say that if anything can contribute to the re-establishment and maintenance of our power in India, if anything can be worthy of the notice of history, if anything can advance our character in the eyes of the world, it is the conduct of these wonderful men, with whom I, unlike the noble Earl, must couple the great majority of the civilians scattered over the country—who have covered themselves with glory, and who are certainly well worthy of the name of Englishmen which they bear. The noble Earl then remarked upon a phrase used by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Portman), and I am inclined to say that that was the only sentence in the speech of my noble Friend with which I did not concur. I do not think that it is wrong to criticise the acts of public men who are absent. I think that the acts of public men are public property; we have a right to discuss them, and it would be fatal both to them and to ourselves if those acts were not to be discussed. The only reservation I wish to make is, that we should be acquainted with all the facts; that we should not view those facts by the light which subsequent events may have thrown upon them, but should to a certain extent throw ourselves into the position of those who had at the time to deal with very extraordinary circumstances—and above all,, that we should not create a prejudice against either individuals or classes upon alleged facts which in reality have no existence whatever. The noble Earl said, and I quite believe him, that his inclination is to treat Lord Canning with tenderness. I claim no tenderness for Lord Canning. I ask that Lord Canning may stand or fall by his own merit, after a calm and impartial considera-
60
tion of all his acts from the beginning to the end; and on that ground alone should I wish that noble Lord to be judged. But after that declaration, the noble Earl went into a number of facts all more or less bearing against Lord Canning. Now, I know no one who, notwithstanding his brilliant talents, has greater industry and patience than has the noble Earl in searching through blue-books and picking out the kernel of what may suit his purpose, but in this instance I cannot help thinking that he has referred more to a certain red pamphlet than to the blue-books published by the Government. For example, the reprimanding of General Hearsey. I do not know what authority the noble Earl has for asserting that such a thing occurred. The red pamphlet says it did. Neither do I know what authority he has for saying that Lord Canning did nothing to stop the issue of the greased cartridges. To my knowledge he sent a telegraphic despatch discouraging the issue, and ordering that the Native troops should use their own ammunition. Then the noble Earl says that all this ought to have been foreseen by Lord Canning. It is remarkable that on the 9th of June the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellen-borough), whose knowledge I have no wish to undervalue, began a speech in this House by saying that it was painful to him, and what he did not expect, to have to recur in Parliament to these matters, but that recent and more serious events rendered it necessary. Therefore, it appears that, at that time, the noble Earl opposite as well as Lord Canning thought that these events were at an end. General Hearsey certainly thought so; and, so far from that being an unnatural belief, I think that the disbandment of two regiments in the presence of other Native troops, coupled with the assurances from the officers of the latter regiments, formed a very fair reason for the supposition entertained by the Government at Calcutta that the evil was only temporary. Even judging by the light of past events, I am not sure that the noble Earl is justified in the censure which he has cast upon Lord Canning for showing some moderation in dealing with troops who had certainly grossly misbehaved. It has been a most fortunate thing, and one which has been more useful than any other, that these mutinies occurred at different times and not simultaneously, when it would have been almost impossible to deal with them. It is very well for the noble

61
Earl to say that if Lord Canning had taken such a course the mutiny would not have broken out at all; but it may also fairly be argued that if any thing like great severity had been used in the first instance the flame would have spread more rapidly and the whole army might have mutinied at the same moment. The noble Earl talks about not acting with sufficient energy; but he should remember that it is no joke disbanding a large Native army when you have at command only the small European force which was at the disposal of Lord Canning. With regard to the part which Her Majesty's Government have played, the noble Earl—I admit with perfect fairness—went more into detail than I expected he would have done on this occasion. As to the somewhat personal attack upon the President of the Board of Control, Mr. Vernon Smith, I was relieved to find that the principal charge against him—with the exception of the question asked after the thing was done, because that will be cleared up, and, as I am at present informed, the noble Earl has, no doubt un-intentionally, misled your Lordships—was, that if the noble Earl correctly reported what fell from the right hon. Gentleman, he was not perfectly acquainted with the geography of the town of Delhi. Now, nobody will pretend to deny the knowledge of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough). He has not only been in India, but he has personally seen the town in question; yet your Lordships must remember the sensation which he produced by stating that the only means of dealing with Delhi was to cut off the water in the canal.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I said that that ought to be done in the three weeks preceding the rains, and that at that time, and that time alone, it would be useful.
EARL GRANVILLE: It would, in point of fact, have been of no use at all, because there was plenty of water in the wells in the town as well as in the river Jumna, which, as the noble Earl will remember, is not a distant stream. I cannot admit the truth of the charge that Her Majesty's Government has shown negligence in not following the advice of the noble Earl opposite as to the sending of troops to India. I believe that what has been done is quite extraordinary, and that there is on record no instance of 36,000 men, or rather more, being sent such a journey, to such a climate, and arriving there in such per-
62
fect health as, so far as we are informed, is enjoyed by the force which we have despatched. The noble Earl says that we ought at once to have called out all the militia and to have sent off troops at an earlier date and by the overland route. The militia was called out at the time and in the manner most convenient to the country, and all has been done by that force that could be required of it. As to sending the troops by the overland route, notwithstanding the details given by the noble Earl—and on some future occasion I shall be happy to go into still further details with him—I deny the principal points on which his case must rest. I assert that at the early period to which he refers it was impossible to rely upon there being vessels to transport the troops down the Red Sea, that you could not be sure that you had provisions for such a voyage, that it was a passage which troops could not make in a crowded state without the greatest injury to their health, and that on the whole the wise and sensible course was that which was adopted by sending a small number of troops by the overland route at a later period, when all proper preparations had been made, and when it was possible to convey them with safety. The noble Earl then asked him another question—Whether Her Majesty had any measures to propose with regard to India, and he offered the Government some advice on the subject. At the end of his speech he said that he was aware that it was the wish of Her Majesty's Government at present to proceed only with the business upon which they had really called Parliament together at this early and somewhat inconvenient period; and he said that he was ready—which I acknowledge with thanks—to assist us in passing that Bill of indemnity which the action of the Government has rendered necessary. But I think it must be obvious to your Lordships that no public good could arise from following that advice. I think it must be obvious, that meeting as we do a fortnight or so before Christmas, when it will be necessary for us to separate again for a time, it would be a most unwise and inconvenient mode of proceeding for us during these short sittings to open up the whole business of the session. I can assure the noble Earl, therefore, that it is not our intention to do so during this sitting of Parliament, and that we shall reserve it till the meeting of Parliament after Christmas to enter into

63
the whole question of India, and that we shall then do so fully and I hope satisfactorily.
THE EARL OF DERBY: What I asked for was not an explanation of any measure which the Government intended to bring in relation to India, but whether they mean to propose any, measure to Parliament on a subject which they themselves say requires our serious consideration.
EARL GRANVILLE: I think what I have said is a perfectly fair reply on the part of the Government—viz., that while they thought it right that the Queen should allude in Her Speech to this most important subject, which must engage the serious attention of Parliament, at the same time they would reserve the statement of their views on that question till February next, when they will not be wanting in the fullest and frankest explanations. The noble Earl touched on one or two subjects connected with India, and if I rightly understand what he said relative to Christianity. I quite agree with much that fell from him. When a noble Earl, a distinguished member of this House, expressed alarm that Lord Canning should have subscribed to a missionary society in India, I immediately wrote to my noble Friend, the Governor General, for information on the facts of the case. The answer I received was, that my noble Friend had certainly subscribed to certain institutions—one of which was a Bible Society in Calcutta, the object of which was to translate the Scriptures into the different Native languages; and that in this he only followed the example of Lord Wellesley and other most eminent Governors General. He also subscribed to a college which had been supported by his predecessor; while the third institution to which he subscribed was Dr. Duff's school in Calcutta, the very best school, Lord Canning remarked, in the whole of India, and one that was conducted on the most tolerant principles. My noble Friend summed up his letter with what seemed to me the real gist of the matter—viz., that he perfectly admitted that a Governor General had no business whatever to exercise power, authority, or even persuasion for purposes of proselytism; but if you went further and said that he was not to assist one of the best schools in India, because connected with it there appeared to be the name of an eminent missionary, who conducted the institution on the broadest and most liberal principle, there he joined issue
64
with you and would maintain his right to continue his subscription. That, my Lords, is the sound course to adopt. Nothing could, I think, be more injurious to the Christian religion itself than for the Government to use anything like compulsion or interference to make converts. But if it be true that of late years Christianity has been dishonoured in India, it is impossible that such a state of things should be suffered to continue. It is perfectly monstrous, and must tend to lower us and our religion in the eyes of the Natives. It is admitted, I believe, on all hands, that the missionaries were not the cause of the mutiny, and it is clear that while the Government ought not to interfere with the creeds of the people, it must, as a Christian Government, cause the Christian religion to be respected, and make universal toleration the rule throughout its dominions. Another important subject to which the noble Earl alluded which has much occupied the national mind, is the punishment to be inflicted on those who have mutinied and who have committed the most frightful outrages which it is possible for the human mind to conceive. It is impossible that anybody can imagine that punishment should not be dealt out to criminals of the very deepest dye. But then—and here I must join issue with the noble Earl—I also hold it to be most important that in the administration of punishment, we should remember our Christian character as well as our position as a civilized nation, and that we should take the greatest possible care to prevent any charge being fairly brought against us that we have imitated the cruelty of the miserable heathens and that we should never have recourse to anything approaching to torture. Let the punishment be severe—let it also be swift and open,—but, for God's sake, let us carefully consider its spirit and character. As to the assurance given by the noble Earl, that he would support the Government in a great emergency like this, although disapproving of many of their acts, I can only say that I do not doubt it. It is a happy characteristic of our institutions, that though party differences often divide us in ordinary times, yet when any great peril assails the empire all parties unite in a common effort to ward off the danger. I have therefore to thank the noble Earl for the observations he has made on this point, and I will only add that the Government are equally obliged to him for giving them notice of the course

65
he intends to pursue during the short meeting of Parliament.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, although I have derived some satisfaction from hearing the noble Earl's speech, I am sorry he has not given us information on a point with regard to which I feel the greatest interest—namely, as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government relative to the introduction of any measure respecting the government of India in the course of the present Session. Her Majesty, in the Speech that had just been delivered expressed her conviction that that question will require our earnest attention. Surely it was not meant by these words to put into the mouth of the Sovereign a barren common-place remark. I think it must be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward some measure on this subject during the present Session; and I therefore ask the noble Earl distinctly, is or is not that their intention?
EARL GRANVILLE: What I said may not be satisfactory to the noble Earl, but I stated very clearly that it is not our intention to go on with that particular question before Christmas.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I protest, my Lords, against the doctrine that Ministers should insert a paragraph in the Royal Speech, and when asked for an explanation of that paragraph should answer that they don't mean to give it. It would be better, I assert, to omit the paragraph altogether. As it stands it is a bare truism. We ask whether it is meant to be a bare truism or the announcement of an intended measure. That is a fair question; but the Minister answers that he will not say. That is a mode of treating the House of Lords which I never before witnessed.
The EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: Under the circumstances, my Lords, it is not for me to make any lengthened observations on any possible measure on which Her Majesty's Government may or may not have made up their minds, and which they may or may not intend at some future period to bring before this House. But this I will venture to say, notwithstanding that I am not supposed to be particularly favourable to the general government of India, as established by law, or to entertain any special favour for that part of the administration of that Empire which is conducted by the Court of Directors, I must frankly own that although I have looked closely at all that
66
that body has done, I am not aware of the Court of Directors having, since the commencement of these mutinies, or in the transaction of public affairs with respect to them, offered any obstruction, or that the general system of the Government of India has presented any obstruction which makes it necessary to proceed to early legislation respecting it. ["Hear, hear," from Earl GREY.] I must say further, that it appears to me a most inopportune and inconvenient time to proceed to discuss the general question of the future government of a great empire while we are struggling with all our means for the preservation or rather for its re-conquest. My Lords, I have little more to add except that if I understood the noble Earl (Earl Granville) correctly, he intimated that it was not until a somewhat late period that I entertained serious apprehensions for the safety of India. I can assure Noble Lords—and those with whom I was in private communication will confirm what I now state—that for many weeks I durst not express the apprehensions which filled my mind. It was on the 19th of May, only eight days after the insurrection at Meerut, when I addressed your Lordships, and, therefore, what I said then was founded upon previous transactions, having no reference to that particular outbreak. I then remarked that I thought it would be satisfactory if, considering the information recently received from India, the Government would state what measures they intended to adopt for the purpose of reinforcing the army there. I apprehend that I could not have more delicately expressed the fears I then entertained The noble Lord at the head of the War Department replied, that although the Ministers entertained no apprehension for the safety of our Indian Empire, in the course of four or five weeks troops would be sent out. He said that there would be 4,000 recruits for Her Majesty's service and four regiments, that it would not be prudent to despatch the men before the second week in June on account of the unhealthy season of the year at which they would otherwise arrive. I inferred from that that at least 8,000 men would be sent out from this country between the second week in June and the 23d of that month; and I thought, under the circumstances, that it was not necessary for me to press for any further assurance then on the subject. But I will ask how many of the 8,000 men sailed for

67
India by the 23rd of June? We were promised the whole. Now, my Lords, not one man left the shores of England in those five weeks, and they only left the shores of this country in the following five weeks. Not a man went before the 1st of July, and in the first three days of July only between 000 and 700 sailed. The remainder sailed by the 28th. I therefore repeat, that there was a loss of five weeks. I was so constantly thinking on the subject that having left London for the country immediately after the 19th of May, I actually from the country wrote a private note to the noble Lord the Sectary for the War Department, in which I suggested that the vessels carrying the last troops to China should stop at Point de Galle and be there placed at the disposal of the Governor General if he thought them necessary. That I did on the 21st of May, and if my advice had been taken and those troops had gone to Point de Galle, how totally different would have been our position in India! Again, when they were sent, five weeks too late, how were they sent? Why, in the old ships which had been trading to India fifteen years ago. And what assistance was given to them on passing the Line? None at all. They were all sailing ships, and yet you have ten or twelve steamers employed on the West Coast of Africa, every one of which might have been made available in towing them through the calms by which they would be certain to be detained in crossing the Line. The difference of five weeks is the difference of the safety or the fall of Lucknow. That is the difference, and I say distinctly that due diligence was not used. The faith of the Government, pledged on the 19th of May, was not kept; the troops were not sent as they should have been; proper care was not taken, and if Luck-now now falls, for all the loss of honour to this country, which that event will entail, and for all the horrors that will be perpetrated, Her Majesty's Government will be responsible.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he believed the noble Earl who had last addressed them, had spoken under some undue excitement, and had overrated the apprehensions which he himself attached at the time to the events which took place, before the mutiny at Meerut. Now, he did not wish to conceal the undoubted significance of the events which took place prior to the mutiny at Meerut,
68
but those events did not raise in the minds of the Government in India, or of the Government at home, those feelings of immediate alarm, which, if they could have been looked at by the light of subsequent events, they would have undoubtedly produced. The first occasion on which the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) directed the attention of the House to events which had occurred in India, alluding to those at Barrackpore and Burhampore, was on the 19th of May; and what was the form in which he brought the question before the House? The noble Earl simply asked his (the Duke of Argyll's) noble Friend, the Secretary for War, what were the steps which the Government proposed to take, without one word of comment in reference to the reinforcement of the army in India; and the noble Earl appeared to be satisfied with the answer of the Secretary for War, which was that.
"The intelligence recently received from India had not been such as to create any apprehensions in the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers for the safety of our Indian empire. But at the same time, as it was intended that the Expedition to China should consist of troops that had originally been destined for India, four other regiments would be ordered to proceed to the latter country in the course of the next five weeks."—[3 Hansard, cxlv. 480.]
He (the Duke of Argyll) did not understand that any special promise was given by his noble Friend the Secretary for War that they should be sent out instanter. His noble Friend on that occasion added:—
"The reason why they were not to be sent out at an earlier period was, that if they were to leave England before the second week in June, they would reach their destination at a peculiarly unhealthy season of the year."—[3 Hansard, cxlv. 481.]
But he (the Duke of Argyll) begged the House to observe the very different terms in which the noble Earl (Ellenborough) addressed the House on the 9th of June last. On that occasion the noble Earl said:—
"I was in hopes that it would not be necessary to draw your Lordships' attention, even for a single moment, to the lamentable events which have recently taken place in India; but more recent accounts, which I only perused last night, have given so grave a character to the mutinies which have occurred in that country that I cannot consistently with my duty abstain from asking a question of the noble Earl who represents the Government in this House."—[3Hansard, cxlv. 1393.]
He thought that speech of the noble Earl showed that it was not until then

69
that his fears were awakened with regard to events in India. Various complaints had been made of the conduct of the Directors of the East India Company with regard to reinforcing the army in India. Her Majesty's Ministers had no desire to draw off from the Court of Directors any part of the responsibility which fairly belonged to them in that respect; but those complaints had elicited in certain of the public journals of the day very accurate statements of the course that was taken in reference to the reinforcement of the army. There could be no doubt that in the first instance the reinforcements were taken out in the ordinary class of vessels, that is, previous to the arrival of the news from Meerut, without reference to the excessive speed which feelings of greater alarm would have necessitated; but he believed it would be found that immediately after the news reached this country of the mutiny at Meerut, and of the capture and occupation of Delhi, the Directors of the East India Company, with the concurrence of the Government, gave orders for the employment of screw steamers and a faster class of sailing vessels. He therefore thought after that period that no blame was chargeable on the Court of Directors in that respect. He might add that in almost all the comparisons which had been drawn during the last fortnight in the public journals as to the comparative speed of sailing vessels and screw steamers, those comparisons had been taken between the slower class of vessels which were engaged before the news of the mutiny at Meerut had arrived and the screw steamers taken up after that event. He was surprised, therefore, to hear the noble Earl blame the Government for not using screw steamers.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid he must beg to explain. What he spoke of was, the use of steam vessels to tow the sailing ships through the calms in the region of the line.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he believed that the noble Earl would find that no undue delay was chargeable against the Directors or the Government; and though the noble Earl had not to-night complained of the use of sailing vessels instead of screw steamers, such complaint was made by a noble Earl during the last session, when the noble Earl (Earl of Ellenborough) replied that there would not be great gain in using steamers.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that there had been great improvements in screw steamers since his time.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: A comparison was made between screw steamers and sailing vessels, but he should be very much surprised if they did not find that some of the sailing vessels made nearly as good a passage as the screw steamers. He admitted that when intelligence of the mutiny at Meerut arrived in this country the public mind was greatly alarmed; but he believed it would be found that there was no undue delay in forwarding reinforcements.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, what we on this side of the House submit is this, that from some cause or other—from what particular cause we do not say—the Government did not take the proper steps to quell this mutiny in the beginning. Now, my Lords, the noble Duke who has just sat down has misunderstood an observation of my noble Friend (Earl of Ellenborough). In alluding to the assistance which might have been given by steamers to sailing vessels crossing the line, my noble Friend referred to those steamers in connection, with our squadron on the coast of Africa. I think that the Government have not to at all a sufficient extent made use of the advantages which our navy affords in emergencies like the present. No doubt, in time of naval warfare, the advantages of our navy are such as must make themselves be felt; but in cases like the present—cases in which the rapid conveyance of troops is a matter of great moment—the services of the navy might, I conceive, be brought into play with very great effect, and yet they are not. I. shall take an instance of this—that in which a transport was employed for conveying the 94th Regiment from Plymouth to India. The Government took up this ship because they got her at a cheap rate, yet the troops were delayed for two days while alterations were being made in her. She put to sea, and was very near sacrificing the regiment. She was obliged to put back for repair, and all this time the St. Jean d'Arc was lying in the harbour quite ready for sea. Again, my Lords, I some time since made a suggestion that troops might be sent to India through France and across the Isthmus of Suez. That proposition, however, was ridiculed by Her Majesty's Government, but since then they have found that it is quite possible to send

71
troops by that route. Now I am certain that had 5000 men been sent out that way at the end of the month of June, they might have reached India before the end of the month of August. The noble Duke (Duke of Argyll) has told your Lordships, that you would find that there would be a very small difference between the time taken by sailing vessels and that taken by steamers in the voyage to India. Now I would advise Her Majesty's Government not to throw away the enormous power they have in steam power, for they may depend on it that sailing vessels have no chance against steam vessels. I have in my hand a calculation of the time occupied by fifteen different ships respectively—seven steam and eight sailing—in the voyage to India, and I shall give the noble Duke the result. The average time of the steam-ships to Calcutta was eighty-two days fifteen hours; and the average time of the sailing ships to the same port was 102 days. To Madras ninety-three days for the steamers, and 104 for the sailing vessels. To Point de Galle eighty days eighteen hours for the steamers, and eighty-five days eighteen hours for the sailing vessels.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: In the list of sailing ships referred to by the noble Earl are some of the slowest ships which were sent out with the first reinforcements, before we contracted for the swift ships.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Well, they were ships which conveyed troops, and the noble Duke admits that some of them were very bad ones. I trust that better ones may be employed in future I assure your Lordships that the subject of the employment of our naval resources is a very important one. You talk of the necessity of a Land transport service. Look at this empire and at this kingdom, and then tell me that you do not want a Sea transport service! I hold that the preservation of this Empire and its Colonies requires a Sea transport service. It is high time that this question should be taken up by the Government. The safety of the Colonies depends on your having good ships at all times for the ready conveyance of the troops. I consider that our naval service may at all times, and under all circumstances, be of great advantage to the country. The country pays for that service; but I cannot help thinking that its importance is very much lost sight of by the present Government.
EARL GREYwas anxious to make an observation or two on one point which had been brought under the notice of their Lordships. His noble Friend the President of the Council had informed them it was not the intention of the Government, as at present advised, to propose to Parliament any change in the Bank Act of 1844. He confessed that he had heard that announcement with great regret. He was not one of those who admired that Act, which, like many others, was only a half measure. It was based on sound principles, but its authors shrank from carrying them out to their legitimate conclusions. But whether the Act were wise or unwise in the first instance, inasmuch as twice within the thirteen years that it had been in existence it had, when it came to be tried, proved a failure, and two different Administrations had been compelled to suspend one of its most important provisions, its real authority was at an end, it could not remain with advantage on the statute-book as it now stood, and its amendment was a matter of pressing necessity. Like the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) he could understand why the Government should ask for a Bill of indemnity, if they were prepared to follow it up by proposing an alteration in the Act. But to propose for the second time a Bill of indemnity without asking Parliament to amend the Act was a course obviously wrong and indefensible. In 1847 much might be said in defence of a simple departure from the Act of 1844, for it had then been only a short time in operation. There were many, too, who believed that the necessity of departing from the Act in 1847 arose from the mismanagement of the Directors of the Bank of England. There was in his opinion, some ground for that belief, and it was therefore reasonable to say, "Let the Act of 1844 have another trial." That trial it had now had; and he believed that many persons well able to form a judgment on this point especially his noble Friend near him (Lord Overstone), had expressed an opinion that the necessity for the recent violation of the Act could not be attributed to any mismanagement on the part of the Bank Directors, and that they had discharged the duties imposed upon them by the Act of 1844 with discretion and firmness. But if under such circumstances, the Act had failed again, what advantage was there in retaining it on the statute-book? Now that two Governments had been compelled

73
to suspend it, the moral power of the Act was at an end. The mercantile world would never believe in future that it would he maintained, and whenever a pressure arose the Government would be expected to interfere, and that expectation would of itself create the necessity for the suspension of the Act. If the Act were to be retained, as the general rule for the guidance of the Bank, but deviations from it in certain circumstances to be authorised, let the manner in which it was to be departed from, and the conditions, be carefully considered and laid down by Parliament. Of all arrangements the present was the most unsatisfactory. If so great a subject as the standard of value were to be tampered with by discretionary acts on the part of any one, let Parliament be told by whom and under what circumstances so great an authority was to be exercised. At present there was a divided responsibility between the Government and the Bank. Let it not, however, for an instant be supposed that he shared the views of those who thought something ought to be done to interfere with a matter of such vital importance as the maintenance of the standard of value by which the mercantile transactions of the country were to be measured. No one was more entirely convinced that the standard of value ought to be maintained inviolate. His complaint against the Act was, that it was likely to place us in a situation in which some departure from the standard of value would be inevitable. What he feared was, not that the standard of value would be departed from by what he might call malice prepense on the part of the Bank or the Government, but that a state of things would arise under the operation of the Act in which the existing standard of value could be no longer maintained without incurring difficulties which neither Government nor Parliament nor the country would be prepared to encounter. He wished to see the currency reformed on a sound principle, and he believed that the only sound principle was that which was only partially adopted in the Act of 1844—namely, that it was the duty of the State to furnish money for the use of its subjects. That principle had been adopted by every State prior to the invention of paper money. Every Sovereign in Europe had always kept jealously in his own hand the right of coining money for the use of his subjects. The right of issuing paper money had been an exception to this rule,
74
yet it was a right infinitely more likely to be abused than the coining of gold and silver money. So long as a piece of gold was of a given weight and a given fineness no mistake could be made in issuing it; but the case of paper money was altogether different; and if persons were allowed to issue paper money at their own discretion, modern history was full of examples of the danger that would ensue. Holding, as he had done for many years, that the proper policy on this subject was this, that the issue of paper money should be distinctly taken by the State as its own duty, and that when it had been issued, the trade of dealing in that money should be, like all other trades, thrown open to free and unrestricted competition, he believed that the adoption of this principle would give considerable relief to commerce at the present moment, and he was sorry to hear that no attempt of the kind was to be made. He agreed with the noble Earl opposite, in thinking that they had had inquiry on this subject to satiety, and that Parliament was prepared to legislate on this subject without further inquiry; and not wishing that legislation should be posponed until inquiry had taken place, he held that the declaration of the Government, that as at present advised they were not prepared to amend the Act, but that they would go to a Select Committee to see whether any alteration ought to be made, was more unsatisfactory than if they had said plainly, "We stand by the Act of 1844, and mean to adhere to it." But while he did not desire further Parliamentary inquiry as to the currency, and thought that Parliament had ample information relative to the circulating medium, he was of opinion that an inquiry into another subject closely connected with it—namely, the causes of the present commercial distress—would be attended with great advantage. It appeared to him to be the greatest fallacy to attribute the present commercial distress to the mismanagement of the circulating medium, and that the circulating medium had in fact little or nothing to do with it. The real cause was to be found in a system of commerce which had gradually been established in this and other countries, which had already caused great disasters, and which, if it were not checked, would lead to financial confusion. The inquiry he desired was not into the system of currency, but an unflinching investigation as to who were the parties really to blame,

75
for having brought about a state of things which had been accompanied by such frightful sufferings to such multitudes of persons. He came from a part of the country which had suffered deeply from the recent commercial crisis, and it was due to those unfortunate persons who had been brought, as he feared, to irretrievable ruin, and to the whole body of the commercial world, that the causes of these events should be carefully inquired into. He trusted that such an inquiry would not be confined to a Committee of the other House, because he believed it could be still more efficiently conducted by their Lordships, who would not only have the invaluable assistance of his noble Friend (Lord Overstone) and of other noble Lords who understood this subject, and whose services would be of the utmost value, but who would enjoy the advantage of not being fettered and confined by some of the influences to which Members of the other House were exposed. A Committee of their Lordships' House would, consequently, he believed, be likely to probe this matter more deeply than a Committee of the other House, and he hoped the session would not pass over without the appointment of a Committee to consider the causes of the recent commercial convulsions.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he agreed with his noble Friend (Earl Grey) in thinking that the Bank Act deserved the most careful consideration. He also agreed with his noble Friend in the principle that everything connected with the issue of money should be effectually and distinctly separated from everything connected with the dealing in money. That principle he (Lord Overstone) had advocated in all discussions on the subject in which he had taken part; and it was on this principle the Act of 1844 was founded. But that Act stopped short of declaring that the money of the country should be regulated by the State; but in practice, under that Act, the management of the money of the country in its issue was entirely separated from the business of banking and the dealing in money. But unfortunately the manner in which the accounts were kept created misconception in the mind of the public, and gave rise to the important error that the issue of money and the dealing in it were entrusted to the same body. Even from minds of considerable intelligence those errors were not yet eradicated, and scarcely a debate took
76
place in which they did not appear. He was at one time unwilling to sanction a more complete separation between the creation of money and the dealing in money, on account of the inconvenience which might arise from the transference to the Government of the management; but the little he had seen convinced him that it would be better to carry the principle out to its fullest extent, and he was therefore for separating in account and in appearance, as was actually separated in practice, the creation from the dealing in money. He did not agree that it was the prerogative of the Crown to create the money of the country. He believed the quantity of money in circulation rested on sounder principles—the principles upon which the Act of 1844 was based. The two principles upon which that Act was founded were, first, that gold constitutes the money of England; and, secondly, that the quantity of gold which the country should have for its money should not be under the control of any Government, nor of any public body, nor of any private individual, but should be subject to the free competitive action of the whole community—that any man might bring any quantity of gold into the country for the purpose of having it made into money, and any man might take out of the country any quantity of money so made. Thus free trade was established in money, as in everything else, and they relied for a proper supply of money upon the same principle as that on which they relied for a proper supply of provisions. That was the principle of the Act of 1844, and it would have been still more effectually established if they had made a complete separation of the banking from the issue department. They left money free to the competitive action of the whole community, so that every man might supply himself with money as he supplied himself with provisions. But if the provisions of the people fell short and prices rose enormously, what would be thought of a Government who said, "You have been suffering great inconvenience from a shortness of provisions and paying higher prices than usual, and seeing your difficulties, and being convinced that we ought not to allow those difficulties to proceed too far, we have undertaken to store provision ourselves, and to supply all and every one to as great an extent as they choose, upon the condition of your paying the present price?" That was precisely what had been done by the issuing of the Govern-

77
ment letter. Circumstances arose in which persons went to the Government and said, "This principle of free trade in money will not apply. You (the Government) must give us an artificial supply at the present price." The Irish famine was an analogous case. When that great emergency came the Government did interfere in that anomalous and abnormal manner. Every one admitted that the emergency was one of peculiar difficulty; but even now many persons doubted whether their interference was beneficial, and ought to be repeated a second time. The late interference of the Government to enable the Bank of England to supply an unlimited quantity of notes to those who paid the present price for them was a step of the same kind, and they had to consider whether it could be reconciled with the general principles which had been adopted in 1844. They ought in the matter of the currency to carry out general principles; and how could Government interference, he asked, be reconciled with general principles? It was quite impossible not to acknowledge that the suspension of the Act on two occasions gave rise to the most grave consideration. He understood the noble Earl opposite (Earl Derby) to say, that he did not complain of the Act of 1844 as having anything to do with the creation of difficulties, but that in periods of difficulty and pressure it was not sufficient to meet those difficulties.
THE EARL OF DERBY: That then it aggravated the difficulties.
LORD OVERSTONE: But it should be remembered that the power of authorising the extension was derived from the operation of the Act itself, for unless the exchanges had been corrected, and unless there had been a large supply of bullion in the Bank, the Government could not have ventured to issue the letter. Without the Act, the public would not have permitted the Bank of England to raise its interest to anything like ten per cent; if the interest had not been raised to ten per cent the exchanges would not have been corrected, and the store of bullion would have sunk so low as to render the issue of the Government letter impossible. It was impossible to deny that the suspension of the Act twice repeated did create serious difficulty, and he thought the Government were entitled to say that the Committee which was in existence ought to direct its attention to the question whether, while maintaining the provisions
78
of the Act of 1844, which were essential to maintaining the solidity of the monetary system and placing the exchanges under proper control, they could not add, without relaxing those principles unsafely, an elastic power applicable to peculiar and exceptional circumstances. It was a very grave inquiry, and should only be entered upon with the greatest calmness and judgment, unaffected by the passions of debate. If they meant to treat this question in a really wise and statesmanlike manner they would not apply their attention to concocting palliatives, but seek a remedy by tracing these evils to their source. Unless the causes of these evils were remedied other panics would occur, and the recurrence of these panics would be dangerous to the monetary prosperity of the country. He would advise them to learn wisdom from the history of the present disturbance. It commenced in the United States, and no man doubted that the monetary crisis there had been fomented by the vicious system which prevailed there with regard to banking, currency, and credit. But whatever step they took with respect to the monetary system of this country, he warned them to do nothing that would tend to the state of things now existing in the United States. The condition of things in the United States was closely analogous to the condition of things in England previous to the passing of the Act of 1844. The object of Sir Robert Peel was to extricate this country from a system analogous in all its principles to the system of the United States, which twice in twenty years had produced the universal suspension of specie payments and of all commercial transactions and obligations. Therefore, whatever they did they should do nothing which tended to place the monetary system of England in the same condition as the monetary system. of the United States. The next point was this,—what was the circumstance which weakened the power of the monetary system under the Act of 1844 to meet this pressure? It was the abstraction of 3,000,000 sovereigns to meet the panic in Scotland and Ireland, with regard to the issues of local notes, and especially of £1. That he said, knowing the strong prejudice of the Scotch in favour of these notes. Supposing this country when menaced by foreign invasion on its southern shores was required to detach a large force to meet an insurrection in Scotland or Ireland, would not its power of defence

79
be weakened? That was precisely the case of the late disturbance in the monetary system. At the critical moment, when all its stores were required to maintain it against foreign pressure, there came a demand for £3,000,000 for no really useful purpose, but solely in consequence of these local issues of notes in Scotland and Ireland. The panic in the United States arose, extended to this country, and where did this monetary malaria first strike us? At our Anglo-American ports—at Liverpool and Glasgow, where the joint-stock banks soon showed the unsoundness of their position. The cause of the difficulties was to be found there, and unless some remedy could be devised for it any attempt to deal with our monetary laws would be utterly deceptive. There had grown up in this country and had been rapidly developed within the last ten or fifteen years a false system of credit and of holding deposits at call carrying interest; a system which had grown to an enormous extent, and which was still growing, and if that evil was not corrected it would certainly overturn our monetary system altogether. That was not an isolated opinion of his own, for there was scarcely a man of enlarged views and experience in the City of London who did not entertain the same conviction. It was indispensable that the attention of Parliament should be directed to that subject. Let them look at the difficulty in which the country was placed, notwithstanding the relief supposed to be afforded by an exceptional dealing with the Act of Parliament. He did not mean to say that the Government ought not to have taken the step which they had, but he did say that if the Act had been maintained only 24 hours longer the whole of the vicious system to which he had referred would have been got rid of by the crumbling to atoms of the institutions which fostered it. Irretrievable ruin would have followed, and the commercial atmosphere would have been cleared. But to prevent that it was deemed necessary to interfere, and to suspend the operation of the Bank Act. By so doing they had intercepted the natural action and legitimate remedy for this unwholesome system, and therefore had rendered it incumbent upon Parliament to find some other remedy for the future. What that remedy should be he could not tell, and he greatly feared that whatever it might be it would only have the effect of creating a new disorder, and his serious apprehension was that the very
80
next monetary disturbance would inevitably lead to a suspension of our specie payments altogether. The evil each time became greater. In 1847 the mere permission to issue additional notes was sufficient without that permission being made use of. The present was a crisis of greater magnitude; the evils were also greater, and the Bank had not only been compelled to avail itself of the permission accorded to it by the Government, but had actually exceeded its legitimate issue by some £6,000,000 or £7000,000. ["No!"] He knew exactly what he said, and he maintained its accuracy. The Bank had issued £2,000,000 beyond the fixed amount without leaving any supply in the Bank till. Now, the Bank of England was at this time in that peculiar condition that it ought to have a large banking reserve, because it had an unusually large amount of balances of an ephemeral and uncertain character. To place the Bank of England in a proper banking position in reference to the deposits it held would require an amount which justified him in saying that it had exceeded its proper limits of issue by £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. The next occasion of pressure upon the Bank would probably occur before the exchanges were rectified, and then the crisis would be greater than that which we had shrunk from meeting upon the present occasion. There were serious and formidable monetary difficulties hanging over this country, and in warning the House of them he desired to call their earnest attention to them. It was a subject of vast national importance, and should be considered in a candid spirit without regard to prejudices of any kind; but with a determination to contribute to the adoption of a plan which would best maintain the perseverance and safety of the monetary system of the country.
THE EARL OF EGLINTONobserved, that he found himself in the very singular position of supporting the Bank Charter Act against the noble Lord himself. He could not at all understand how a relaxing power, such as had been just exercised by the Government could be said to be incompatible with the Bank Charter Act; especially when the late Sir Robert Peel, in sketching out his plan for that Act expressly provided that there should be a power of relaxation vested in the Government. It seemed to him that nothing could be more easy than to give a permissive power to the Government to relax the

81
Act when the necessities of the case required it. He was not one of those who wished for free trade in banking and currency; but, as it appeared to him, the noble Lord's statement was one the most opposed to free trade that could be devised. The Bank Charter Act of 1844 in some respects, but in some only, was a good one—for instance, he thought it good, inasmuch as it tended to place a restriction upon the business of banking; still he thought the quantity of circulation allowed by the Act was not sufficient for the use of the population at the present time. There ought to be a permissive power given to the Government to relax the law, when called upon in times of emergency. No doubt he should horrify the noble Lord by saying, that he thought it would be a wise measure to assimilate the system of England to that of Scotland by enabling the Bank to issue 11. notes. The noble Lord said, that one cause of the pressure was the drain of the banks of Scotland and Ireland on the Bank of England. What was the fact? Why, that they did not ask the Bank of England for a single farthing assistance. All that they did, even when pressed, was that they sold out their stock, and asked of the Bank only for that gold which was their own. He could not think that it was fair of the Bank of England, or any person, to complain of such a proceeding as that. The noble Lord had spoken of the beneficial effects which would have arisen from the maintenance of the Bank Charter Act until all the unsound institutions had crumbled to pieces. But what would have been the effect? Why, that more than half the commercial establishments of the country, and nearly all the joint-stock banks would have failed. He begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to the unsatisfactory position in which the Bank Charter Act stood at present. They were called together for the purpose of passing an Act of indemnity to the Government for their relaxation of that Act, but they were not told for how long a period that Act was to be relaxed. Anything more unsatisfactory than the position in which they now stood could not be conceived. From the statement which they had just heard, there was no doubt whatever that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Overstone) would reduce them to a gold currency alone. In that case our power would have been restricted to the narrow limits of these seagirt shores, and
82
we should not be the great nation we now were. Last year he had invited the House to agree to a proposition for a Royal Commission to inquire into the laws which regulate the currency, but unfortunately the House did not adopt this motion; for he believed that if inquiry had taken place the existing evils might not have arisen. If the Bank Charter Act were altered in the way the noble Lord had sketched out, it would certainly in his (the Earl of Eglinton's) opinion, he altered for the worse; but for his part he hoped to see it altered in a manner that would make it more useful to the country; useful to prevent evil, useful to do good.
LORD MONTEAGLEwent further than the noble Lord who had just sat down, for he was prepared to give his unhesitating support to the proposed Act of indemnity; but he thought that if his noble Friend (Lord Overstone), having described the interposition of the Government as having been the "interruption of the natural action of events, and of the natural remedy for an unwholesome system," and then condemned, strongly condemned, the late act of the Government, was nevertheless prepared to give his approval to the indemnity, he had placed himself in a most extraordinary position. He (Lord Mont-eagle) differing from the restrictive Clause of the Act, was at liberty to indemnify the Government for its suspension. How his noble Friend could at once defend those restrictions, and yet sanction their violation by an act of prerogative, he knew not. His noble Friend admitted that the Act of 1844, in the only instances (those of 1847 and 1857) in which the restrictions had come into operation at all, was set aside by the Government, and that the Act of 1844, to which his noble Friend attached such importance, had by this exceptional course, not only been weakened, but had been weakened to an extent and in a manner most damaging to the best interests of the country. But his noble Friend, whilst disapproving of the Government remedy, had not left us without a specific of his own. He did not accept the Government remedy; but that other remedy, which he and which his noble Friend had suggested, and seemed to regret that the nation had not been left to enjoy, was the non-interference of the Government with the fatal consequences which his noble Friend had by such a striking metaphor described. What was his declaration?—"That if the Act had

83
been maintained for twenty-four hours longer, the whole of the vicious system to which he had referred would have been got rid of by the crumbling and crushing to atoms the constitution which fostered it. Irretrievable ruin would have followed, and the commercial atmosphere would have been clear." Such was the remedy the noble Lord suggested. But this was not all. His noble Friend knew full well, however, that if there had not been this interposition on the part of the Government, the results would have been these: we should have had a stoppage necessarily of the Bank of England itself, under the auspices of the restriction of that "blessed" Bill of 1844; and the failure of the first banking establishment amongst us would have been followed up by the ruin and destruction, not merely of the bad imitations of a bad original in America, but the overthrow and ruin of that which he (Lord Monteagle) and his noble Friend would alike condemn—namely, of many of the best-conducted and most respectable establishments in the country. His noble Friend had been pleased to refer to Ireland in the course of his speech as an aggravation of the late difficulties. This would indeed astonish his countrymen. So far as Ireland was concerned, she had gone through the panic without the failure of a single bank, or scarcely the suspension of payment by a single commercial house. It was true that Ireland had not required a very excessive supply of gold from home. But then she could only do as holders of Bank of England notes do; and was it to be said that those notes were not to be converted and paid because the holders were Irish? The idea was absurd. The Bank Act was defended on the ground that it enforced the principle of free-trade in money; but it appeared to him (Lord Monteagle), that the restriction which he complained of was practically a restraint upon all freedom. His (Lord Monteagle's, objection to that part of the Act of 1844 was, that it attempted to apply one invariable rule under circumstances totally opposite and totally distinct; and this he stated, not upon his own authority, but upon the authority of a man who was second to none in financial experience and wisdom—he meant Mr. Huskisson. He had stated this objection in the House in 1844. He bad induced their Lordships to repeat it in their Report on Commercial Distress in 1848. The late events had confirmed in his mind all the principles laid down in that report.
84
To establish a rule which would act with the same stringency when the exchanges were against us as when they were favourable was, as Mr. Huskisson said, to run the risk of seeing the Bank drained of its last sovereign. The rule, so far from being a remedy, was an aggravation of an external panic and drain. Another fallacy pervaded these debates. It was not the amount of the circulation only but its activity that was to be taken into consideration; but the present system committed the error of dealing with the circulation as if the same amount of money issued from the Bank would always have the same power. It was the same error as if, dealing with a question of mechanics, they were to omit from their calculation the velocity of a moving body and take account only of its weight. It was not thus that you could estimate truly the momentum or efficiency of the circulation. It was not to be disputed, that in the only two instances in which the Act had been brought into play it had failed the expectations of its framer and parent. On both occasions the Act had been abandoned. Some relaxing power must therefore not only be recognised, but provided for. Even the noble Lord, the parent of the Bill, seemed to admit this. He admitted that "the Committee ought to direct its attention to the question whether, keeping the provisions of the Act of 1844, they could not add, without relaxing those principles unsafely, an elastic power applicable to peculiar and exceptional circumstances." He hailed this admission. But this power should be created by law, and exercised legally. Was it not the duty of Parliament to provide for this case by some well-considered and clearly-defined legal enactment, and not to entrust as a mere arbitrium to the Government of the day, at its own will and pleasure, the power of departing from and setting aside the fundamental law upon which the rights of property depended throughout the country? He did not quite understand how it was that his noble Friend (Earl Grey) suggested that the issuing branch could safely be transferred to the Government, and made a department like the Mint. He should deprecate such a change as pregnant with danger. In conclusion, the noble Lord expressed a hope that the opportunity would soon occur when this whole matter might be fully discussed, and intimated a wish that the Correspondence which had taken place between the Government and the Bank

85
authorities respecting it, would be laid upon the table of the House.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he had already laid it on the table.
LORD CAMPBELL, referring to the paragraph in the Queen's Speech relating to the introduction of a measure respecting the transfer of land, said, that he understood that the Government contemplated proposing a measure under which the transfer of land would be as simple as the transfer of the Three per Cents. It was extremely desirable that the House should be made acquainted at the earliest possible moment how this most laudable object was to be attained; he should be glad to know, therefore, when the Bill would be brought in.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If there had been a passage in the Speech from the Throne to the effect that a measure would be proposed making the transfer of land as easy and simple as the transfer of the Three per cents, his noble and learned Friend might have fairly inferred that the measure had been actually in a state to lay upon the table; but he would find nothing of the sort. All that the Speech said was, that measures would be submitted for simplifying and amending the laws relating to real property. These measures were in course of preparation, but he could not undertake to say that they would be laid upon the table of the House before the ordinary period. At all events, though it was necessary to announce what measures were to be introduced in the course of the session, Government were not yet in a condition to lay them upon the table.
In answer to a question from the Earl of DERBY,
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the intention of the Government was to present to the House, without the least delay, the only measure which they thought it advisable to introduce at this period of the session—namely the Indemnity Bill. It would be introduced in the other House of Parliament first; its first reading would be moved to-morrow; and the other stages of the measure would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.
Motion agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente; and a Committee was appointed to prepare the Address: The Committee withdrew; and, after some time, report was made of an Address drawn by the Committee, which being read, was agreed to, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE LORD REDESDALEappointed, Nemine Dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
House adjourned at Eleven o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.