Sitting of 4 February 1858

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—for Ashton under Lyne, Right Hon. Thomas Milner Gibson; for Scarborough, John Dent Dent, esq.; Buckingham County, William George Cavendish, esq.; Whitehaven, George Lyall, esq.; Elgin District of Burghs, Mountstuart Grant Duff, esq.
NEW WRIT for Limerick v. James O'Brien, esq., one of the Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland.
1° Heirs (Scotland); Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act Amendment; London Corporation.

EAST INDIA (TRANSPORT OF TROOPS).

  MOTION FOR SELECT COMMITTEE.
  SIR DE LACY EVANS SIR DE LACY EVANS, who had given notice of his intention "To move for a Select Committee to inquire concerning the measures resorted to or which were available, and as to the lines of communication adopted for reinforcing our army during the pending revolt in India, and to report thereon to this House, with a view to ascertaining the arrangements which should be made towards meeting any future important emergencies involving the security of our Eastern dominions," said, that as the Government had acceded to his Motion he was saved the necessity of trespassing at any length on the attention of the House. At the close of the last sitting an hon. Member opposite (Mr. S. FitzGerald) had asserted that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) had misled him into
  716
  postponing this Motion; but he could assure the House that the right hon. Gentleman had had no share in that postponement. It was entirely his own doing, and he alone was responsible. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had expressed an opinion that this Motion was, in fact, a vote of censure on the Government, but with that he had nothing whatever to do. The result of the Committee might be a censure on the Government, or it might be a matter of praise and congratulation for them. That he did not regard. All he meant and wished for, in case the inquiry was determined on, was that it should be of the most searching and judicial nature, and that hon. Members should approach it free from all party influences. With regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for London, that this was a question for a Committee of the whole House, and not for a Select Committee, he had looked into the precedents, and he did not think that they were in favour of that course. The inquiries into the charges against the Duke of York and the Walcheren Expedition were the last which had been conducted by a Committee of the whole House, and great inconvenience was then felt from the adoption of that course. Looking, moreover, at the mass of business which had to be got through this Session, it was not possible that the House could spare the time requisite for such an inquiry. Since putting his notice on the paper he had found it desirable to vary the terms of his Motion, and, therefore, he would now, if he were permitted to do so by the forms of the House, propose That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the measures recently adopted by Her Majesty's Government for the transmission of Troops and Stores to India and to report thereon to this House.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Measures recently adopted by Her Majesty's Government for the transmission of troops and stores to India, and to report thereon to this House."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could only repeat what he had said before, that the Government could have no possible objection to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, and would be happy to afford all the information in their power.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the Motion, as put from the Chair, appeared to be very different from the terms in which it stood on the paper. He wished, therefore, to know if it was the intention of the hon. and gallant Member to follow up the inquiry into all the matters which were referred to in the Motion of which he had given notice?
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he should be the last man to wish to restrict the inquiry. It was his full intention to inquire into all the matters contained in the scope of his original notice,—into the proposition for sending reinforcements from Canada for instance; the measures taken by the local authorities at the Cape; and, in fact, into all the points connected with the subject which were discussed before the adjournment.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he rose to a point of order. He thought that, as there seemed to be grave doubts as to what the hon. and gallant General did mean, and as the Motion which he had made differed greatly from that which stood on the paper, it would be convenient to the House if in his place he would state explicitly the Motion which he intended to make.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that he had altered the terms of the Motion because he understood that some hon. Gentlemen objected to the last sentence of it, as it stood in its original form; but if the right hon. Gentleman saw anything very attractive in the Motion as it stood upon the paper, he would willingly re-introduce it.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he must again appeal to the Speaker on the point of order. A general notice had been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman before the adjournment. It was a very important notice, and he was not surprised that his right hon. Friend near him (Sir J. Pakington) should have expressed an opinion that it might be looked upon as a vote of censure on the Government. When notice was given of a Motion of that description, it certainly did imply prima facie that there was some conduct on the part of the Government which ought to be censured. The House would agree that there should be a clear understanding upon such a subject; and he put it therefore to the Speaker, whether it was in the power of any Member first to give a general notice upon a subject of great importance a long time before it could be brought under consideration, and then, at the last moment
  718
  (after giving a formal and precise notice in the meantime), so to alter the terms of the Motion in such a way as to obtain the assent of the Government, and thus to place an obstacle in the way of a fair and candid discussion of it? He was anxious to have the opinion of the Chair as to whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not bound either to give a new and formal notice of the Motion in the altered terms in which he intended to bring it forward, or failing to do so to submit for the consideration and decision of the House the Motion as at that time it appeared on the paper?
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he was quite prepared to submit to any alteration that would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Motion he now moved was in point of fact the same as he had put upon the paper for the 17th December, to which, except as regarded the omission of the last sentence, the Government had, before the House adjourned, intimated that they were prepared to accede. He should have brought it forward on that day but he was unable to do so. The Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the one he gave notice of on the 4th December, but that was not precisely the one to which the Government had acceded, and therefore he had moved the one in which the Government had acquiesced.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONremarked, that he could only say that so far as the Government are concerned, they are perfectly willing to adopt either the form of words moved by his hon. and gallant Friend, or the form of words as it stood in the Votes.
  MR. HORSMANsuggested, that a simple way of getting over the difficulty would be for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to move as an Amendment the form of words upon the Notice Paper.
  MR. DISRAELIobserved, that he did not think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opportune. It by no means followed that because he (Mr. Disraeli) objected to the Motion as proposed by the hon. and gallant Officer, he was bound to move the substitution of the words as they stood upon the paper. He must again appeal to the Speaker whether, due notice not having been given of this particular Motion, it could then be put? He must, with all due deference, press his question on the right hon. Gentleman, because having repeatedly done so, he had only

  719
  elicited answers from others when he would with so much more satisfaction have received an answer from the Speaker.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was greatly for the convenience of the House that the terms of the notice should be adhered to in proposing a Motion to the House, but it was certainly in the power of a Member to depart from the exact words of his notice, and sometimes inconvenience might arise from not allowing such departure. The hon. and gallant Member was not out of order in proposing the Motion in its altered form. It was equally true that the Committee, in pursuing their inquiry, would be limited to the altered terms of the Motion.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that he would move as an Amendment, to add to the Motion the concluding words of the Motion as it stood upon the paper, "with a view to ascertaining the arrangements which should be made towards meeting any future important emergencies involving the security of our Eastern dominions." These words were not such as he should himself use, for they did not very clearly state the objects of the inquiry; but as they were those which his hon. and gallant Friend originally intended to move, he would adopt them.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question to add the words, "with a view to ascertaining the arrangements which should be made towards meeting any future important emergencies involving the security of our Eastern Dominions."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it certainly was a surprise upon the House that the hon. and gallant Officer had not proposed the Motion in the form he had put it upon the paper, but as he had amended it, he (Lord John Russell) preferred it to the Motion as now proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, (Mr. Roebuck) because it appeared to him that the latter opened up the question to the more general inquiry of what the Committee would advise should be done in future to meet similar emergencies, and it was clear that unless the emergency was precisely the same and the means at the disposal of the Government the same, such advice would be but of little use. What they should inquire into was, what means the Government took to transport troops and reinforcements to India, and whether those means were sufficient under the circumstances or in-
  720
  sufficient—that was an important inquiry, bat as to what ought to be done in future cases, that was a matter that ought to be left open, for it was impossible to say that what it would have been right to do last June would be equally right in 1867 or 1877. He should, therefore, vote against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that, whatever might be the strict rule, he could not help thinking that it would be very inconvenient for hon. Gentlemen to give notice of Motions in a different shape from that in which they intended to submit them. He agreed with the noble Lord in his objection to the latter part of the Resolution, but he found that the hon. and gallant Officer had altered the early part of his Motion as well as the latter part. The hon. and gallant Officer had omitted the words, "or which were available," and he owned that it was the omission of those words which had first struck him (Sir John Pakington) and had made him direct attention to the subject, because if the inquiry were to be of any practical use at all they ought to go into the question, whether Government did avail themselves of all the means in their power in sending out troops to India. If the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield would let the Motion stand, as notice had been given, down to the word "House," and would omit the remainder of it, he apprehended that the Motion would then be agreed to without opposition.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he had no objection to withdraw the words from his Amendment, in fact, he did not care one farthing about it. He had moved his Amendment to get them out of the difficulty, and now, if they had no objection, he would withdraw it altogether.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that however he might have expressed himself he wished distinctly to state that it was his full intention that the inquiry should extend to all the available means at the disposal of the Government, and how far they had availed themselves of them.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsuggested that if the words "or which were available" were retained, there would be no objection to the Motion.
  MR. DRUMMONDobserved, that it seemed to him that the House was under some difficulty. He did not remember ever hearing of a Motion which was said to

  721
  condemn some part of the conduct of the Government being agreed to without their having some grounds laid before them for the assertion that the Government were to blame. They were asked to appoint a Committee without having any allegation whatever before them.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he considered that the House was discussing at some length a matter upon which substantially there could be no difference of opinion. In the course of the last Session great doubts were expressed as to whether Her Majesty's Government had availed themselves of all the means at their command in sending out troops and reinforcements to India, and many hon. Members expressed an opinion that instead of sending the forces round by the Cape of Good Hope, they ought to have been sent overland through Egypt. The Government maintained the opposite view, and were ready to support it by argument and statements. His hon. and gallant Friend stated that he was prepared to move that the subject should be referred to a Select Committee. That he considered was a fair course, and one with which the Government ought to be satisfied, and they were prepared now, as they were then, to assent to such an inquiry being instituted. His hon. and gallant Friend had inserted upon the Notes a form of words for effecting that object, but which, for some reason or other, he had thought fit to alter. The Government had no objection to the form of words as altered, or to the form of words as it stood on the Votes; but if his own opinion was asked he should say that the original form, being more comprehensive, embracing the past as well as the future, would indicate to the Committee the more satisfactory form of inquiry. He therefore would recommend to his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his present Motion, and submit in lieu of it the Motion as it stood upon the Votes.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he was perfectly ready to acquiesce in the suggestion.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought the House was called upon to protest against a course which he held to be irregular, inconvenient, and to a great degree, if not entirely, unprecedented. The noble Lord said that when the House met last year, in December—[Viscount PALMERSTON: Last summer.] He begged pardon, but he thought it was on the 4th December when the noble Lord made his memo-
  722
  rable statement about the monsoon being the reason why the troops had not been sent through Egypt. It was in December, then, that the hon. and gallant Officer brought forward the subject; and there was certainly at that time much discontent in the mind of every Member of that House and of the country as to the manner in which the troops had been forwarded to reinforce our army in the East. The hon. and gallant officer, than whom no Member of that House was more competent to bring forward such a question, gave notice of his intention to bring on the subject for discussion on an early day; and in consequence of that notice there was an absence of discussion at that time, for although many opinions might have been incidentally expressed one way and the other, it was felt that, acting in accordance with the mode in which the business of the House was ordinarily conducted, that expression of opinion ought to be postponed until the Motion—though certainly no one expected it to be a protracted one—came fairly before them. But the Session was most unexpectedly terminated, and the hon. and gallant Member had no opportunity of bringing on his Motion before the House adjourned. But was it anticipated by any hon. Member that such a Motion could be agreed to without a full and complete discussion? Whatever view hon. Gentlemen might take—whether it was a Motion for the satisfaction of the public mind, or whether it was a Motion of censure upon the Government, certainly no one anticipated that it would be assented to without the grounds upon which it was brought forward being stated and the House being called upon to pronounce a decision on those grounds, and upon those grounds alone. No one could deny that such a Motion as the present was at least unusual. It is only upon a prima facie case being laid before it that the House of Commons can be expected to grant an inquiry, and, therefore, not for a moment could it have been supposed that such a Motion would be made, much less carried, without full opportunity for discussion and the expression of opinion. At the commencement of the present Session it was generally understood that an opportunity would be afforded for a full discussion on this important subject, and when they were told that the sitting, which it was supposed would have lasted three weeks, was only to last one, and that the hon.

  723
  and gallant Officer had an understanding with the Government that his Motion should be assented to by them, there was a feeling of great and universal disappointment on all sides. He would recall to the recollection of the House the fact that the noble Lord the Member for London stated that he did not consider himself bound by that understanding, but reserved to himself the right of moving for a Committee of the whole House—a most important step, as he need not say. He protested, then, against the view which the noble Viscount has taken of this Motion, and contended that he had no right to expect that this Motion should be referred to a Select Committee without discussion. He concurred with the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Drummond), that there was no instance on record in which a Motion of such importance, involving the conduct of the Government, had been carried without the grounds upon which it was brought forward being explained. He contended that the hon. and gallant Officer was bound to lay his grounds for the Motion before the House, and that hon. Members were found to listen impartially to the statements he might have to bring forward, and to what the Government had to say in their own defence. Until this was done he trusted that the House would not agree to the Motion. For what was the object of a Select Committee? It was to obtain that information which the House could not elicit direct from the Minister. But as yet they had no discussion, and they could not therefore know whether the explanations which the Minister might be prepared to give in the House were satisfactory or not—and, consequently, whether or not the Committee was necessary. Whatever the terms of the Motion, of this they might be assured, that if it were agreed to without discussion, the feeling of the public would be that there was an arrangement between the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster and the Government, by which full and open discussion of a subject which so immediately concerned the public interest, and which had so much agitated the public mind, had been prevented.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he rose to explain:—He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to misrepresent him, but he had, nevertheless, made a remark which might lead to a very incorrect inference. The right hon. Gentleman had attributed to him an ar-
  724
  rangement with the Government for the purpose of preventing discussion. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had not exchanged a word with any member of the Government upon the subject, beyond what had taken place in the House when the subject was last before them. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that he (Sir De Lacy Evans) ought to have stated the grounds of his Motion, and to have called for a full discussion. He thought he had brought the subject before the House already, and so far from having misled the House, he stated distinctly on the last night on which the subject was mentioned that as the Government had assented to his Motion, it was not his intention to induce a discussion.
  MR. SPEAKER, after intimating that the hon. and gallant Officer must confine himself to explanation, said that looking at the opinions expressed on both sides of the House, he would suggest to the House that the most convenient course would be, to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. That the hon. and gallant Member should withdraw his Motion, and move it in the words in which it had originally stood on the paper.
  MR. FRENCHremarked, that as the Motion had in that form been already put and withdrawn, it could not now be put again.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire concerning the measures resorted to or which were available, and as to the lines of communication adopted for reinforcing our Army, during the pending Revolt in India, and to report thereon to this House; with a view to ascertaining the arrangements which should be made towards meeting any future important emergencies involving the security of our Eastern Dominions."
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he thought the proceedings of the House were certainly somewhat irregular; but whether it was irregular or not, after a form of words had been proposed, and by the leave of the House withdrawn, to move it again, he thought the words which originally stood in the former part of the Motion were essential. It appeared to him that the words "which were available," which it was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to insert, were necessary. If including those words they adopted the Motion down to the words "this House," they would leave it to the Committee to consider what measures were available,

  725
  and what measures were adopted by the Government, which was a reasonable and useful subject of inquiry. But if they went further and the Committee were asked to consider what arrangements might be made to meet future emergencies that might arise in our Eastern dominions, they called upon them to go beyond what was necessary, and to enter upon an inquiry that could result in no practical benefit. There might be certain reasons existing now why the Government thought it better not to send the troops overland through Egypt, or by steam round the Cape, instead of by Bailing vessels, but which in future emergencies, when there might be a railway the whole distance from Alexandria to Suez, and improved means for the reception and transport of troops at the latter place—in fact when different circumstances existed from those with which the Government had now to contend, might not apply. Therefore he thought it would be better to confine the Motion to the earlier part, leaving out the words after "this House;" and he would move as an Amendment that the last sentence be omitted.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to leave out from the words "House" to the end of the Question.
  MR. DISRAELI: The House must consider before it assents to this Motion, the position in which it is placed. The reason for appointing a Select Committee in such a case as this is, that when a subject in which great interest is felt has been brought before the House and discussed, the House feels that it is yet so involved in a mass of details as to render it impossible in a public discussion to deal with it completely, and to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. But here there has been no pretence of a debate at all. And yet, so far as I can understand the question, I am of opinion that this question might very completely and profitably have been debated and disposed of in the House itself without the interposition of a Select Committee. It was open to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have brought forward his Motion, and to have stated his opinion that our army in India ought to have been reinforced by the overland route, as generally a more early and more efficient mode than that to which the Government had recourse. We should have listened to his statement, supported as he would no doubt have been by information and argument, and we
  726
  would also have heard what the Government had to say in vindication of the course which they thought proper to pursue. We have, however, had no opportunity of pursuing that course, and I ask the House is it wise or expedient that we should relinquish our functions as a deliberative assembly, representing the feelings and opinions of the country, and bound to watch over its interests, and without any reason assigned, appoint a Select Committee to inquire into a subject which we ought to inquire into, and which by the ordinary means of public discussion we are expected to extricate from its confusion. The course proposed is, no doubt, convenient, when the conduct of Government is called in question—and called in question, too, not by an opponent but by one of their habitual supporters, but it is one which is not very honourable to this House. For observe how the House is placed with regard to it. On the first night of this Session the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives notice of a Motion on the subject, and, of course, by the courtesy of the House, he prevents any hon. Gentleman on this side of the House from giving notice on the same subject. I speak with authority on this point, because I know there was an hon. Friend of mine, on this side of the House, who would, but for that notice, have submitted the question to the House and taken its decision upon it. See, then, the position in which we are placed. At the unexpected early Session in December there was a general feeling that the position of our army in India would have been improved by an earlier adoption of the overland route, and great discontent and dissatisfaction throughout the country as to the means by which our army in India had been reinforced and the military power of England in the East sustained. It was naturally expected that, when Parliament did meet, this question would be brought to that sure test of truth—a discussion in the House of Commons. But while matters were in that state, a hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is an habitual supporter of the Government, gets up and gives notice of a Motion for a Select Committee. By the courtesy which in this House one hon. Member invariably shows to another, he thus makes himself master of the situation, and prevents any opponent of the Administration from originating inquiry. The question is thus left in the possession of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and till the very last

  727
  moment in the December Session we are left to suppose that the question will be brought forward. We supposed, and we had a right to suppose, that no Government would allow Parliament to adjourn without having first secured for that question a full and ample discussion. Yet, by some hocus-pocus, which it is difficult to understand, which it is by no means easy to trace, we find affairs are so managed, not of course by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he says he is incapable of management, that no discussion of a question can he had on a point on which the country was most anxious there should be a discussion. Then consider in what a crude, inconsiderate, incoherent way the matter is now brought before us. The hon. and gallant Gentleman first makes a Motion, then he withdraws it, and then he introduces it again in another form. For my part, I agree with the noble Lord the Member for London, (Lord John Russell), that even though this question were now to be discussed, it would be | impossible to agree to the form in which, at your recommendation, Sir, it has now been put from the chair. The whole question has been brought before us in the most crude and incoherent form, and quite beyond the power of this House to sanction. The best thing would now be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should manfully withdraw his Motion, and so shape it that discussion on it might be challenged by a clear and definite issue. The noble Lord at the head of the Government indeed, tells us that the question has been sufficiently discussed. When was it discussed? I never recollect any instance when the question was made matter of serious discussion, or sustained attention. It is true that on one memorable occasion the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown gave us the grave reason why the troops could not be sent by way of the Red Sea. I must say I listened to the noble Lord's statement—made, I believe, about midnight on almost the last evening the House met before Christmas—with astonishment. I remember the noble Lord said he could not take upon himself the responsibility of allowing the British troops to proceed across the desert when the monsoon was blowing, and when there was no accommodation provided for the men at Suez; and further, that he did not think it was befitting the dignity of Great Britain to go cap in hand to any foreign Potentate, and ask
  728
  for permission to allow British troops to proceed through his territory. The noble Lord's objections resolved themselves into a physical and a moral one. As to the moral objection, I do not think there would have been anything degrading, under the circumstances, in a British Minister asking a foreign Power to allow the passage of our troops through his territories, even as a matter of favour; but that was altogether unnecessary, for it happens that we have a treaty of transit through the territories of the Ruler of Egypt, which would permit our troops to pass as a matter of right. Then as to the physical difficulty. The noble Lord talked of the danger of encountering the monsoon and the desert. Now, Sir, this desert is a mere strip of land. One would suppose, to hear the noble Lord's description, that it was the desert of Sahara, instead of being a mere strip of land, the greater portion of which was traversed by a railroad. As for the monsoon which British troops cannot encounter, it has been habitually encountered on the voyage to India not by Englishmen only, but by English women and English children. If they could encounter the heats of the monsoon I should think British troops would not fear to face it. Besides, it ought to be remembered that this wind, against which the noble Lord inveighs so much, is favourable to the passage of the troops, as it blows up the Bay of Bengal, and would then enable them to make the voyage in a fortnight. And when the noble Lord tells us of the perils that were likely to be encountered by the British soldiers during these few days of the monsoon, he forgets the inconveniences to which they are subjected during their long three months' voyage round the Cape. Now, if the noble Lord have no better defence than this, I can easily understand that the noble Lord thinks it would be better to have the question remitted to a Select Committee. But that is not the position of the House of Commons. We have our duties to consider and our dignity to uphold, and I think it will be more consonant with them that this question should be brought fully before the House—that the mover of this Motion should state his reasons why he thinks the conduct of the Government objectionable—and that we should listen to his reasons rather than that, by a reference to a Select Committee we should seek to protect ourselves from that responsibility from which, as a representative assembly, we ought not

  729
  to shrink. I hope the hon. and gallant Member—after the unsatisfactory state in which the Motion stands, a Motion which has suffered from the attentions of fathers, godfathers, and friends of all kinds—will shrink from any responsibility connected with it; that he will withdraw it for the present, and give notice, after due reflection, of a Motion which will allow the House fairly to discuss its merits, with a view to elicit some result which will be satisfactory to the country, and a guide to that opinion in the country which is always ready to be affected by that of this House, when the country believes that the House does not shrink from the pains necessary to ensure the truth.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The right hon. Gentleman has talked of the various fathers and godfathers of the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend. One's eyes sometimes deceive one in this House; but, if mine have not deceived me on this occasion, one of the godfathers of this Motion sits close to the right hon. Gentleman himself,—for I think that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) raised his hat in sign of approbation of the Amendment just proposed to limit the last Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I leave the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend to settle between them who is right—he himself, who opposes the Motion, or the right hon. Baronet, who appears to give it his support. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government hurried the House through the short Session which took place before Christmas, and implied that one of the objects for which that precipitate termination of the sittings was brought about was to prevent the discussion of the question now before us. Sir, I really put it to the right hon. Gentleman (and he is much too candid, even in Parliamentary dialectics, not to avow the truth) whether he and a noble Friend of his in the other House were not much more anxious than we to put an end to the late short Session; and whether we had not the distinct assurance held out to us that, if no other business was to be brought forward by the Government, except that connected with the special matter for which Parliament had been called together, it would be agreeable to all parties that our ante-Christmas sittings should be as brief as possible? The right hon. Gentleman, who appears to put himself forward as the champion of Government, says—" What can be so unjust
  730
  as to call for a Committee to inquire into a matter connected with the conduct of the Government, before they have had an opportunity of justifying themselves in debate in this House, and of thereby rendering further investigation unnecessary?" The right hon. Gentleman is therefore anxious, for the sake of the Government, that this Committee should not be appointed. Sir, I thank him exceedingly for the kind care he takes of our interests; but we are perfectly willing, as I have already said, that the inquiry should take place, and we are confident that an investigation before a Committee upstairs will lead to a more satisfactory conclusion of the whole matter than could result from a desultory discussion in this House. The right hon. Gentleman says that a debate 13 the best test of truth; but I take leave to think that, in cases like the present, a sifting inquiry carried on by a Select Committee is a much better method of ascertaining the truth. The right hon. Gentleman says that such a Committee is only fitting when the question at issue is one involving complicated details. Why, this is precisely a question of that nature; it is precisely a matter in regard to which the opinion to be formed must turn upon a great variety of complicated details. Those details can be better inquired into by the examination of witnesses before a Committee upstairs than in a debate in this House. There have undoubtedly been some details adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman which I am afraid even the searching inquiry of a Committee will not be able entirely to ascertain. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the disastrous effects of the monsoon in the deserts of Egypt; and, although he did not mention it, I presume he also meant to turn his thoughts to a sand-storm in the midst of the Indian Ocean. But these meteorological details I leave to the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Baronet who sits next to him. Setting aside these particular geographical questions, I am of opinion that a Committee of this House would be the best instrument for determining whether the arrangements of the Government were those most suited for their purpose. The right hon. Gentleman says that, on a former occasion, I gave very unsatisfactory reasons for the course we pursued. I have no doubt the reasons I may state for anything are usually unsatisfactory to him. That is nothing new. It is a misfortune to which we who sit on this side of the

  731
  House must naturally make up our minds. Still, the unsatisfactory judgment of the right hon. Gentleman by no means shakes my confidence in the opinion I expressed, and for which, I think, I gave sufficiently detailed reasons—namely, that the plan we adopted was the one best calculated to promote the public service. I then stated that to have Bent troops in large numbers through Egypt, and down the Red Sea, would have required an amount of previous preparation involving an immense loss of time; and, from the difficulty of getting adequate transport from Bombay to Suez, would have been utterly impracticable, and would have entirely defeated the object in view. I said that if you had to send ships from England to arrive at Suez, in order to convey the troops thence to India, it would be much better to send the troops in those ships from hence all the way to India. Certainly, to have sent the ships round the Cape of Good Hope, in order that they might proceed up the Red Sea and receive troops which had been conveyed through the Mediterranean by another set of vessels, would have been a very circuitous operation. These, however, are details which the Committee will have an opportunity of examining. But I must say the right hon. Gentleman's complaint is most extraordinary, and one the least complimentary to himself that I have ever heard in this House. He says he has been taken by surprise, and seemed to imply that he has not had long enough notice to prepare a speech on this subject. Why, he has had six weeks; and if he was unable in the whole of the recess to prepare his mind for a Motion that was announced before Christmas, what chance is there that, if my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion were postponed for four or five days more, those four or five days would be more prolific in a speech from the right hon. Gentleman than the longer interval that has preceded them? The right hon. Gentleman is not a man to be taken unawares. He is not a man who is unable to collect his thoughts and put his information in a proper shape upon the shortest notice; and, therefore, the very meagre statement he has made this evening, and the very unwillingness he has shown to enter into this subject, prove that something has been passing in his mind during the Christmas recess which leads him to think that the result of an inquiry before a Committee will not be precisely that which may suit the views of those hon. Gentle-
  732
  men who sit on his side of the House. The course of my hon. and gallant Friend appears to me the proper one. He has yielded to the wishes of the House by withdrawing the Motion he had made, and by reverting to the Resolution of which he had given notice in print upon the Votes. And as far as we are concerned we are perfectly ready to adopt that Motion, satisfied that the Committee, by a sifting inquiry, will arrive at the conclusion that the course we pursued was the one best adapted for the public service. Instead of thinking the latter part of the Motion inappropriate, it seems to me that any investigation with regard to the past would be deficient in results, did it not lead to suggestions as to the best methods by which troops should hereafter be sent to India, either in time of peace when no great emergency exists, or in time of war when there is an urgent necessity for transporting a large amount of force with every possible despatch.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord that a Committee upstairs was the best mode of conducting this inquiry, and he thought that the Government showed great courage in acceding to the Motion, for he could tell them that there were things that would come out in that Committee which would surprise them. He thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite right not to enter into any discussion on the subject now; for, in the first place, there were no papers before the House. A return ha (Sir Charles Napier) had moved for with regard to the number of sailing and steam ships sent out to India had not yet been given, and he was not prepared with papers to prove that he was right with regard to the course which ought to have been taken by the Government in sending out troops in steam ships. Still, when the President of the Board of Control laid these returns upon the table, it would be seen that the Government had been perfectly wrong, and that he had been perfectly right. As to what had been said about sending the troops overland to Suez, the Government, however, were quite right. No preparations of any kind had been made for it, and they could not be certain that vessels would arrive from Bombay. With respect to the "circumbendibus" described by the noble Lord, nobody would have thought of sending vessels round the Cape of Good Hope and up the Red Sea to Suez. The real diffi-

  733
  culty was whether the Government of India could have found ships to receive the troops when sent from this country. He believed that they could not. He believed that steamers would have arrived in India much sooner than troops sent viâ the Isthmus of Suez. But he could not acquit the Government of neglect—perhaps their conduct might deserve a stronger epithet—in not hiring steamers in the first instance, and sending them out with troops to India. If they had done that, he believed the men would have arrived six or seven weeks in advance of those conveyed in sailing vessels.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that he begged leave to remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) that when he talked of the various paternities of this Motion, that right hon. Gentleman had been the cause of that variety of paternity, by objecting to the course which the proceedings had taken. The right hon. Gentleman said that he (Sir De Lacy Evans) had not made a proper statement to the House on so important a subject. If he believed that he had any of the powers of oratory which the right hon. Gentleman possessed he would enlighten the House as often as the right hon. Gentleman did; but as he had great misgivings as to his own oratory he was careful not to obtrude himself unnecessarily on the House. He had inquired what could possibly be the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's excitement on this subject, and he found that the right hon. Gentleman had come down to the House primed with a very long speech, which the course taken with regard to the Motion had prevented his having an opportunity of delivering. He (Sir De Lacy Evans) had not now troubled the House, because he had spoken on the subject two or three times last Session, and had gone into the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman charged him with being a habitual supporter of the Government. He denied that he was any such thing. He was the habitual supporter of no one, and owed allegiance to no party. He was there as the independent representative of one of the greatest constituencies of the country, and, as far as he could judge, his constituents believed him to be independent, and were quite satisfied with the course he bad pursued in Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman also charged him with making an arrangement with the Government with respect to his Motion, and he now answered
  734
  that he had not made any arrangement with the Government. He had not even exchanged a word with any Member of the Government on the subject, but had learned that the Government intended to accede to his Motion in the same manner that the right hon. Gentleman came to the knowledge of that fact. The Lord President of the Council in the other House had stated that it was the intention of the Government to accede to it. On the following evening an hon. Gentleman, who sat on the same side of the House as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald), made a very able speech, and urged upon him (Sir De Lacy Evans) to pursue the course he had adopted, and to press for the Committee of Inquiry, and he asked the Government to ratify the statement of the President of the Council. Upon this the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control rose and did ratify that statement, and said that the Government would not object to a Committee; and that was his (Sir De Lacy Evans's) whole knowledge of the matter, and all the diplomatic arrangement of which he had been guilty. There was no foundation whatever, therefore, for the insinuations of the right hon. Gentleman, which he was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should have made, for he was so fortunate and felicitous as to agree on this question with the right hon. Gentleman, and it was rather ungrateful of the right hon. Gentleman to attack him in this violent manner. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman that he had found an opportunity of making part of his speech, and if it had not been so long as it otherwise might have been, it was certainly very effective as far as it went.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he did not rise to prolong the discussion, but he wished to enter his protest against the position in which many hon. Members might find themselves, in consequence of the course which had been taken with regard to this Motion. he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier), that there was no better way of sifting a question of this sort than by means of a Select Committee; for his (Mr. Bentinck's) experience had taught him that when a question was raised against a Government the surest way to shelve it was to refer it to a Select Committee; and the noble Lord had exercised a wise discretion in acceding to this

  735
  Motion. As he (Mr. Bentinck) thought that referring the question to a Select Committee was only shelving it, he must guard himself and other Members, in case they were called on to divide on the Amendment, and did not have an opportunity of going to a division on the original Motion, for they would be in the position of being able to record their opinions on a portion of the Motion without an opportunity of voting on the whole of it. If the arrangement originally proposed—that there should be no discussion, and that the Committee was to be agreed to—had been carried out, he should not have troubled the House; but, as it was, he felt bound to say that there ought to be an opportunity given to hon. Members to express their opinions on the original Question.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that he thought that an opportunity ought to have been afforded for going into the whole of this question, as it was a long time before the Committee could report, and there was a strong feeling on the subject in the country. He himself entertained a very strong opinion with regard to it, for although large bodies of troops could not be forwarded over the Isthmus of Suez, yet a beginning might have been made sooner than it was. It was confidently asserted that Bombay steamers were kept ready coaled, in order that they might be sent to Suez as soon as information should be received that troops could be forwarded by that route. He himself crossed the desert before it was a fashionable amusement to do so, and he could assert that it was by no means physically impossible for troops to cross at that season of the year. There were large and convenient barracks at Cairo, to which place the troops might have been conveyed by railway, and although there might have been some difficulty in crossing the twenty-five miles of desert at the further end, yet troops might, by a forced march, have accomplished that distance during the night, and have gone on board ship next morning. In this way 100 or 150 men might have crossed at a time, and 400 or 500 might have been forwarded by each of the monthly steamers. In passing down the Red Sea they would have had calm weather, and though probably it would have been very hot, yet the temperature would not have been so great as that experienced by their brother soldiers before Delhi. After passing the Straits of Babelmandeb they would have
  736
  got a strong breeze from the south-west, which would have carried them speedily and comfortably to Bombay, whence they might in a few hours have been transported into, probably, the most delightful climate in the world. From these premises he drew the conclusion that the Government ought much earlier to have sent troops by the Isthmus of Suez. As to the relative merits of sailing and steam ships, he believed that from the month of February to that of April sailing ships, such as the James Baines and the Sovereign of the Seas, might make the voyage to India in seventy or seventy-five days; but in the summer time, when calms extended down to the north-east trade wind, and the wind blew lightly, it was a great oversight not to have towed these ships to the southward. He did not think that sufficient expedition was shown in taking up the steamers which performed such good service in the conveyance of troops to the Crimea, and this, as well as other neglects, he attributed to the abolition of the Transport Board, which was formed, and had proved so efficient, during the late war. That Board was in possession of various documents and data, which showed the various powers of every merchant steamer, so that it could at once have laid its hand upon the best and most powerful vessels. If that Board had been still in existence, he believed that troops would have been forwarded in a much shorter period than they had been. In conclusion, he could not but express his disappointment that some member of the Government had not made a comprehensive statement of things as they now stood.
  MR. WILLIAM VANSITTARTsaid, he would express a hope that the inquiry which was about to take place would be full and comprehensive. He thought that it would be proved that the Government had made a mistake in not availing themselves of the overland route for sending troops to India at an early period. It had since been proved, in the case of the 97th regiment, that such a course was quite practicable, and in one instance 300 artillerymen had passed from Alexandria to Suez in twenty-six hours. As to the heats in the Red Sea, he believed that the troops would have suffered no more, or so much from heat, than they must have done under the equator in the transit by sea. The Pacha of Egypt was quite ready and willing to assist us in the transit of our troops, and it had been stated that he was ac-

  737
  customed to send 300 of his troops from Alexandria to Cairo in one train.
  MR. MARSHobserved, that having twice passed along the Red Sea, he was able to say that he never experienced such discomfort and suffering as during that transit. He had been in Australia when the thermometer was at 110 degrees, but there his appetite was good, and he could do anything; but in the Red Sea the effect of the heat on the human frame was very great—the appetite failed—and there was a depression of the system peculiar to the climate, which would render any soldiers unfit for fighting for weeks after the passage. He had passed during the cool season, and much as he suffered, he was told by the officers of the ship in which he sailed, that he could not conceive the misery which was endured by passengers during the hot season; and if that was the case in a well-fitted and ordered passenger-steamer, what must be the case in a crowded troop-ship?
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTexpressed his belief that the country would be disappointed when they knew that the whole conduct of the Government with regard to the reinforcement of our army in India had been referred to a Select Committee, instead of being discussed in that House. Last year, on the breaking out of the Indian mutiny, the Government proposed an addition of 2,000 men to the army; and, as most of the operations which were expected must have taken place on land, he had said that it was strange that the Government had made no statement with regard to the measures they proposed for carrying on those operations on land. He had also, on more than one occasion, appealed to the Government to send out the troops in steamers, but he was told by the First Lord of the Admiralty that sailing vessels were better than steamers at that time of the year; time, however, had shown how fallacious that opinion was. Hon. Members on his side of the House, following in the wake of the hon. and gallant General, and the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier), had pressed on the Government the necessity of looking the crisis in India in the face; hut they could get no satisfactory reply from the Government, which pursued its own course. He should have been glad to have been able to think that an investigation into this subject by a Select Committee would be the best course; but, at any rate, he hoped that opportunity would be taken by the Govern-
  738
  ment to make some statement with regard to the measures they were taking for the future. By the last accounts from India, Sir Colin Campbell was stated to be prevented from realizing the great results which his military genius would have secured by the want of men. It was to be feared that the unfortunate motto, "too late" would be found as applicable to the proceedings of the Government in India as it had been in the Crimea. He trusted that some hon. Member of more influence than himself would induce the House to press upon the Government the necessity of adopting some means for adequately reinforcing the army in India, and thus enable our generals to retrieve our position, and restore peace and tranquillity in that country.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes 147; Noes 78: Majority 69.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

LONDON CORPORATION BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED.—FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of the Corporation of the city of London it would be unnecessary to occupy the time of the House with any protracted observations, because the Bill was in its main features the same as that which he had laid upon the table on a former occasion, and the nature of which he then fully explained. There were some modifications to which he should briefly call attention. The Bill which was introduced before was based upon the recommendations of a Commission of inquiry, who had gone fully into the subject. It dill not embody implicitly those recommendations, but departed from them in certain particulars, upon which, after full consideration, it was thought desirable to propose other enactments. The object of the Commissioners was to apply to the City of London a measure similar in principle to the Municipal Corporation Act, but subject to such alterations as the peculiar circumstances of the Corporation of the city of London made expedient. It was proposed in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners, to provide for the division of the city into sixteen wards, of about the same area and of about the same population, so as to avoid the great inequality in the twenty-six wards which now existed. It

  739
  was proposed that the main governing body, as in other municipal boroughs, should be a common council, to consist of the Lord Mayor, aldermen, and common councillors. The present number of common councillors was 232. It was proposed in the previous Bill that each of the sixteen wards should elect one alderman and five common councilmen. In communications which he had since had with persons, connected with the city he had been very much pressed to enlarge the number of common councilmen, and upon consideration it had been determined that instead of each ward electing five, each ward should elect six, which would give 112 common councilmen, as compared with the present number of 232. The constituencies of the common council would be altered and extended. Upon that point, he was happy to say, there was a perfect agreement between the recommendation of the Commission, which was the proposal in the Bill, and the opinion which had been expressed in Resolutions adopted by the common council, and in a Bill which they laid before the House. The qualification would be the rated occupation of a house or premises of the annual value of £10, doing away with the restriction which at present required every elector to be a freeman of the city, and on the Parliamentary register of burgesses. It was proposed that the common councilmen should be elected annually. With regard to the election of aldermen, there was a departure from the recommendations of the Commissioners and the proposal in the former Bill. The Commissioners said they did not think it right, for several reasons to which they adverted, to propose that the same rule should be adopted which was adopted with respect to aldermen in other boroughs. Aldermen of London occupied a very different position. It was well known that they exercised magisterial duties. The Commissioners recommended that, instead of making the tenure of office the same as that of aldermen in other municipal boroughs, they should hold office for six years; they also recommended that they should continue to act as magistrates, and be eligible for re-election at the end of those six years of office; and that power should be given to the corporation to apply for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates similar to the power which existed and was exercised in other corporate towns. With regard to this arrangement, however,
  740
  a difficulty, which he stated on a former occasion, and which pressed very much upon him, arose out of the consideration that it was opposed to the principle hitherto universally recognized in this country—that no class of persons exercising magisterial functions should be subject to continual election and re-election. There was no such instance except that of the mayor of a borough, who, during his year of office and the year succeeding, was a magistrate, but then ceased to be a magistrate, and was not very frequently re-elected mayor. On the whole, then, he had been led to the conclusion that it was better not to make any alteration in the existing tenure of office of aldermen of London. He should propose that they be elected for life, and retain their magisterial duties; but he should add a proposal which had emanated from the common council, and which he thought wise, to vest a power in the common council, upon the petition of a majority of the constituency of the ward for which he was elected, and for cause shown to have arisen since his election, to remove any alderman from office. This, he thought, would be the best solution of the difficulty, adopting the recommendation of the Commissioners as to the magisterial functions of the aldermen, and giving the corporation the power, if it chose, of applying for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. The recommendations of the Commissioners in regard to the office of Lord Mayor had been embodied in the former Bill, and in the present Bill also. Instead of requiring the Lord Mayor to be elected from among the aldermen, and from among those aldermen who had filled the office of sheriff, any person possessing the qualification of a common councilman would be eligible. He would be chosen by the common council. The qualification of the sheriffs would be the same as that of the Lord Mayor, and the right of election would be transferred to the common council. The election of all the chief officers of the corporation would be in the common council, with the exception of the Recorder. In all other municipal boroughs the Recorder was an officer appointed by the Crown, but in the city he was elected by the aldermen, who had exercised their duties in this respect with a great deal of discretion. Objections had been made to the proposition to transfer the election of that officer to so large a body as the common council, and upon consideration it had been thought

  741
  best to continue it in the smaller body. The Court of Aldermen would be abolished as a separate body, and the Lord Mayor and aldermen would no longer form part of the Central Criminal Court. The restrictions of the Municipal Corporations Act on charging or alienating corporate property would be extended to the city. The Bill, also, contained clauses abolishing all exclusive rights of trading, street tolls, the right of metage, and the exclusive right of the fellowship of porters. Some clauses contained in the former Bill, with regard to the local courts, were not in this Bill, because those provisions had been embodied in a private Bill introduced by the Corporation last Session, and passed into law. The same observation applied to the question of the conservancy of the Thames, which had also been settled in the course of the last Session. Another important difference between this Bill and the last was, that this Bill did not contain any provision relating to the coal duties. There were three of these duties. The first was one of 4d. per ton, which was claimed by the City as part of its estate, subject to a charge of nearly £600,000. It would be a long time before this charge could be cleared off, and there could therefore be no immediate benefit derived from its abolition. The former Bill proposed that this duty, when the charge was cleared off, should absolutely cease, but since that Bill was before the House a question had been raised with regard to some other boroughs claiming certain dues as property, which was exactly the same in principle, and a Bill proposing to deal with certain dues which were claimed by corporations as part of their estates, had been withdrawn. Although the question, so far as Liverpool was concerned, had been settled by compromise in the course of last Session, the general question had not yet been decided by Parliament. He did not think it fair, therefore, to ask the House to give an opinion upon it in this Bill, and, as it would be long before the public really could receive any relief from dealing with this duty, he had not introduced any provision relating to it into the Bill. The other two dues were one of 8d. and one of 1d. per ton. In neither of these was the City of London interested at all, and from neither did it receive any benefit. The first was subject to a charge of £12,000, and the second, subject to charges for collection, was payable to the Commissioners of Works for Metropolitan Improvements,
  742
  and both would expire in 1862. As the time when they would expire was so near he had not dealt with them in the former Bill, and he did not propose to deal with them in the one he then sought to introduce. These were the general provisions of the Bill, which he would have stated at greater length had they not been already presented to the House on a former occasion. The delay which had occurred in passing a Bill for the reform of the Corporation had at least had the good effect of bringing the Government and the Corporation of London into closer agreement. From communications he had had with the representatives of the Corporation—he did not mean the Parliamentary, but the Corporate representatives—he was led to believe that, although on some questions, especially that relating to the qualification of the Lord Mayor and the mode of his election, there would be a difference of opinion, there would be no objection to the principle of the Bill, and there was, consequently, reason to hope that the details of the measure would be fairly and temperately discussed in Committee. Indeed, he would add that an application had been made to the Government by the Corporation to allow them to bring in a Bill embodying the chief provisions of this measure in the form of a private Bill. He had not thought it desirable, however, that it should be dealt with as a private Bill which would withdraw its provisions to a certain extent from the cognizance of the House, and he had felt it his duty to introduce it as a public Bill. The right hon. Baronet then concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  ALDERMAN CUBITTsaid, he had heard with satisfaction much that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, but he had to add, that he dissented from some of the details of his measure. For instance, he did not think that the House of Commons would sanction the removal of the right of electing the Lord Mayor from 14,000 liverymen and ratepayers to the common council. Neither did he approve of the provision which excluded the Lord Mayor and aldermen from the Central Criminal Court. It was of great, importance to the administration of the criminal law in the city that the aldermen should have every opportunity of becoming intimately acquainted with that law, and they bad always derived the greatest benefit from sitting in the Central Criminal Court by the side of the Judges. He did not think it expedient to

  743
  throw open the office of Lord Mayor to all persons. It was very desirable that that functionary should he chosen from among those persons who had had considerable experience in the business of the city, and according to the present practice the Lord Mayor had generally served about ten years as an alderman before his election.
  MR. WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, he was not surprised at the general approbation which had been expressed at the measure. He hoped, however, that the Court of Aldermen was not to be continued as a distinct court. [Sir G. GREY: Certainly not.] He must protest against the continuance of the 4d. coal due, to which the city had no right whatever. The debt for which it had been granted had been extinguished long ago. When the corporation was first founded all the population of London was comprised within the city walls; but now the city population did not form one-twentieth part of the population of the metropolis, and he contended that the limits of the Corporation ought to be extended so as to represent the whole of the metropolis.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the. Home Secretary would introduce some provision to appropriate the property of the Irish Society to its legitimate uses, as recommended by the Commissioners who had inquired into that subject.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLremarked that he had heard with great pleasure the statement of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and was glad that he had approached nearer to an agreement with the Corporation than he bad done when he introduced his previous Bill. He thought that the alterations which his right hon. Friend had made in his former Bill were very expedient, and he was glad that the aldermen were to be elected for life instead of for six years, as was before proposed. He thought likewise, that questions of property ought not to be lightly interfered with by that House; and he was glad, therefore, that the subject of the coal dues was not to be included in the Bill or to be hastily decided by the provisions of a measure to which they did not necessarily belong. On the other hand he regretted to find that the election of the Lord Mayor by common hall had not been preserved; and in that respect, and that alone, he should probably differ from the Government when the Bill got into
  744
  Committee. With regard to the city of London, they must always recollect that the corporation had, by its struggles at a most critical poriod of our history, shown its attachment to the constitutional liberties of the country. He did not wish, therefore, to carry changes in that body to any greater extent than were necessary.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to ask of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department whether he proposed that there should be an amalgamation of the police of the city with the rest of the metropolitan police. That was a change which every person very earnestly desired.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he also would express his conviction of the desirableness of that measure of police reform.
  SIR G. GREYsaid, that there were no provisions in the Bill relative to the police. He had stated so fully, when introducing his former Bill, his reasons for not including a clause of that description, that he had not thought it necessary to repeat them now.
  Leave given.
  Bill brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY, Viscount PALMERSTON, and Mr. MASSEY; and read 1°.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (1848) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING DEFERRED.
  MR. COWPER MR. COWPER moved that the Second Reading of this Bill be postponed to Monday next, as several hon. Members who felt an interest in the subject were not prepared to discuss it that evening.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, the Bill had only been printed since the adjournment of the House in December, and, therefore, he hoped that a longer period than Monday would be given. The Bill was an improvement on the former one; still, these Bills were a source of constant worrying to the people, and ought not to be sanctioned.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the Bill consisted of 186 clauses. He thought that the Board of Health had been dead and buried, but now it was proposed to continue it for a period of five years. He trusted that a longer time would be given for considering the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. COWPERsaid, it was his wish to meet the views of hon. Members upon this subject. The Bill was printed six weeks since; and, though it was a long Bill, it

  745
  was in substance the same as the one of last Session, and not much different from the Bill of 1855. If it were postponed for a longer period it would not meet with such a full and fair discussion as in the early part of the Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-after Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
1a Libel; Bishop's Trusts Substitution.

LIBEL BILL.
LORD CAMPBELL presented a Bill further to amend the law respecting Libel. It proceeded on the Report of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House which sat in the last Session of Parliament, and its object was to carry into
686
effect the recommendations of that Committee. It would give, in the first place, immunity to all correct accounts of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, which should take place when strangers were admitted; in the second, it would give immunity to all faithful accounts of lawful public meetings, where no loss or damage had been done by the publication; and, in the third place, it would contain a definition of what should be considered a public meeting assembled for a lawful purpose.
Bill read 1a.

THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS.—QUESTION.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to ask his noble Friend on the woolsack whether it was his intention to propose any amendment in the Bankruptcy Laws, which were at present in a most anomalous condition?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the subject was under the consideration of the Government, and a Bill had been prepared in reference to it, and was actually printed; but at present he did not like to say more upon the subject, as he believed differences existed between his noble and learned Friend and himself with respect to what amendments were desirable.

THE STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
EARL GRANVILLEmoved that the House do now adjourn:
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am certainly surprised at the Motion which has just been made by the noble Lord. My Lords, considering that this is virtually the commencement of a new Session—considering that we have not before us that summary of the state of public affairs which is presented in the shape of a Speech from the Throne at the beginning of a Session—considering that two months, or nearly so, have elapsed since we last met in this House, and those months not unmarked by memorable events,—I certainly should have thought that on now meeting again, virtually on the commencement of another Session, Her Majesty's Government would have felt it their duty to volunteer a statement to this House somewhat more explicit than was given on a former occasion with regard to their intentions on various important matters. I had thought it was their duty to advert to the present position of affairs both at home and abroad.

687
in which, although undoubtedly there is some amendment since we last met here, there is still much to excite the gravest apprehension and to call for serious and anxious consideration. It is true, my Lords, that for the moment the monetary crisis, which was the ground assigned for the meeting of Parliament in December last, has past away, that there has been a most extraordinary revulsion in the money-market, that the state of the Bank now presents a remarkable and almost unparalleled contrast to that which it assumed at the period when we last assembled in this House, and that the sudden and extraordinary alteration in the rate of interest and discount affords grounds for the serious and anxious consideration of Parliament, Undoubtedly, my Lords, the monetary crisis has passed away, and there are symptoms of great improvement in the commercial and manufacturing districts of the country; but up to the present time the labouring classes and operatives in those districts have suffered and are still suffering the most severe distress and privation, and it would have been cheering to hear some hope held out by the Government to those to whom it is but justice to say they have borne this calamity throughout with a patience and a dutiful submission that reflect the highest credit on them. But, my Lords, when we look to the state of our foreign affairs I must say that, although we have been relieved from those immediate apprehensions which were painfully entertained by every one of us with regard to the garrison of Lucknow, the aspect of affairs in India, although undoubtedly improved, still continues threatening and menacing in the highest degree. We have had to rejoice over victories and successes achieved over the enemy by comparatively small numbers of men—we have had to rejoice over the gallantry and endurance and almost superhuman efforts of our troops on repeated occasions—and we have had many other causes for congratulation afforded by the conduct of our brave army in India; but all these were, to a certain extent, marred by the deep feeling of regret that, to the long list of heroes who have fallen in their country's cause we had to add the name of that illustrious man who unhappily died in the hour of victory, and died, too, without the gratification of knowing the honours which a greatful country had conferred upon him, or hearing how his country appreciated his brilliant and heroic achievements. My Lords, I believe that when
688
the news of this painful event arrived there was not a heart in England that did not feel it to be a subject for private as well as public mourning. My Lords, while we speak of him and of the many that have fallen, let me, however, speak of the many that remain; and I think it is but due to them and to ourselves that we should take the earliest opportunity of expressing our deep sense of the great exertions, the signal valour, the happy mixture of exemplary prudence and distinguished talent, and the military skill which have characterized the victories of the gallant veteran Sir Colin Campbell. My Lords, it is not too much to say that that gallant officer's recent achievements have vindicated, if not raised the high reputation which this country formerly enjoyed in our Indian empire. But, my Lords, I pray you to look even now, in the midst of our partial successes, at the position in which we are still struggling in India. Do not flatter yourselves that you have succeeded in putting down the revolt. You have achieved great successes; you have scattered the troops that have appeared against you—wherever you met them you scattered them—but you have still before you a task of unparalleled magnitude, and most inadequate means with which to accomplish it. At this moment I do not believe Sir Colin Campbell, for any one distinct operation, could muster 10,000 men under arms; and I am morally certain that nearly double the force now in India would not be too much to enable us to re-establish our empire there, and to restore peace. Now, I say, with inadequate means, even numerically, you have to accomplish this task; but I must call your Lordships' attention to the manner in which this number is maintained in India. I have heard more than one officer state it as his distinct opinion that the successes which we have achieved in India would have been doubled, trebled, and even quadrupled, if we had had at a sufficiently early period an adequate amount of cavalry to make good what the infantry had commenced, and so far as in them lay accomplished. But although on every occasion the infantry fought against an unheard-of disparity of numbers, and gained victories against those numerically superior forces, still at the last moment—in the hour of victory—there was no cavalry to pursue the fugitives, and so completely vanquish the rebel army. My Lords, we see the effects of this. One day we are told that all the

689
guns of a certain enemy have been captured, but in a few days more we receive the report of the capture of more guns than the same enemy was said to have had in the first instance. We are told one day that the enemy had twenty-one guns; we next read of the capture of twenty-seven; and in a few days more we are informed of the capture of the "remainder of the guns." This question of cavalry and horses for the artillery was constantly pressed on the attention of the Government by my noble Friend on my right (the Earl of Ellenborough). Now, what have been sent out? You have sent out a considerable number of guns, which are perhaps the things least wanted in India, but you have not sent out well-trained gunners, for you had them not; nor have you sent out horses or harness, and the consequence is that your guns are utterly and entirely useless. I well recollect my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), when Her Majesty's Government announced their intention of sending out artillery, pressing the question whether their horses were to be sent with them; but no answer was given to that inquiry; and I have been told that to such straits are you reduced in India for the want of horses that a number of three-year old unbroken mares have been taken into the service from the breeding stud of the Company. Again, I would beg the earliest attention of your Lordships to the necessity of keeping up a continual stream of reinforcement of the small army now in India. Now, even to maintain that army on its present footing would require 1,500 men a month, or 18,000 a year. I do not believe you are raising recruits at that rate, and the men you are sending out are raw recruits, mere boys, upon whom disease will commit frightful havoc when they first land in India. Now, I do earnestly entreat Her Majesty's Government to take this question into their earnest and immediate consideration, to strip this country of all the available force it possesses, and to intrust its own defence at home to its militia, the whole of which they have been repeatedly entreated and implored to embody. My Lords, if I thought the embodiment of the whole militia would interfere with the recruiting for the army I should be the last person to recommend such a course; but it is, in my belief, the best mode of providing for the internal protection of the country, and would enable you to send out, not raw boys, but trained
690
men to reinforce the army in India. There is another point to which I would ask attention for a single moment, and that is to repeat a suggestion which I ventured to offer to your Lordships during the Crimean war—namely, that I firmly believe if due encouragement were given and proper steps taken you might without difficulty raise for the service of this country five or six regiments among our colonial possessions. Your Lordships must understand that I do not mean regiments for colonial service merely. I believe that in the North American colonies, and possibly in the Australian colonies, you may find men perfectly willing to form corps for the general service of this country, provided they were to be all officered as well as manned from the colony in which they were raised, and provided also that they are placed in all respects on the footing of the British army, and differ in no respects from the regular forces of the Crown, except by a system of relief by which they would be permitted to have their period of home service in the colonies in which they were raised, instead of in this country. I do not know whether the suggestion was worth anything or not, but we certainly are in such a state of circumstances that it is necessary for us to provide for our home defences, and not to strip needlessly this country of all troops in order to give to our army in India those reinforcements which are so requisite for the duties it has to perform. Well really, my Lords, it makes one angry to think that at the moment when we are suffering from the disorders in India, when we need the services of every man that can possibly be spared for that country, there are fifty ships, with 560 or 570 guns and a considerable number of seamen and soldiers, idling, and worse than idling, in that other miserable war in which we are engaged in another quarter. I confess that I look upon that war with more apprehension than even I do on the state of India, because I do not see the end to which we are driving, or, indeed, any end that can by possibility be attained. Here we are in the midst of two wars, for neither of which had we made the slightest preparation, one of which took us absolutely by surprise, and the other has been brought on by the intolerable absurdity of our own Government, and yet we are wasting our forces in two distant parts of the globe, while in neither have we a sufficient force to carry into effect our avowed intentions. We were told when

691
we last met that Lord Elgin was going to Pekin to negotiate direct with the Emperor, supported by an armed force; but it now appears that that idea has been abandoned, and it was intended with the small force we have at present in the Chinese waters to attack the vast and populous city of Canton. I think it very likely that attack will succeed, and that we may destroy the city; but when we have done that we shall not, I apprehend, be one whit nearer to the attainment of any of our objects in China. Indeed, we shall be further off, for if we take possession of Canton, we must hold it, and to hold it, even if we have no ulterior objects, we shall have to provide an amount of force which we can very ill spare. By taking Canton we shall not have advanced towards the settlement of the Chinese dispute, but our destruction of a great and populous city may create a reaction against us, and excite feelings which may lead to our expulsion, eventually, from the other ports of China. And to carry on this miserable war we have been obliged to withhold the means of successfully operating in India, and to cripple the home defences of the country. My Lords, there is another and a very different subject, upon which I certainly expected Her Majesty's Government would have said something upon the present occasion. It cannot be denied that the recent atrocious attempt to assassinate the Emperor of the French has produced in France a most painful feeling with respect to this country. It cannot be denied either that accusations have been made against us, utterly unfounded, indeed, but which the malice of the enemies of this country in France have deeply impressed upon the minds of that susceptible people. I allude to the use of language and the utterance of sentiments, which, undoubtedly, if they proceeded from parties entitled to our respect, would go little to conciliate good feeling in this country, considering the position in which we now stand. It is not in France alone that extraordinary language has been used. We had a specimen of some rather curious oratory, from so distinguished a personage as the First Lord of the Treasury, some time ago; and in the use of dignified bluster we find persons in France who have equalled, if not surpassed the noble Viscount himself. But I do not think that the imprudent and disgraceful language which has been held upon this subject should induce us to shut our eyes to the fact that these accusations,
692
however unjust, and these imputations, however unfounded, may have the effect of alienating from the people of this country the friendly regards of a considerable portion of the population of France, and I think that the earliest opportunity ought to have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to disabuse the minds of the people of that country, and to explain to them the real state of what is called popularly the refugee question. My Lords, if there is one offence which is utterly revolting and repugnant to the feelings of every Englishman, if there be one crime that is looked upon with universal abhorrence in this country—if there be one crime the perpetrator of which is shut out from all hope of sympathy and protection from any human being in this kingdom, and in regard to which crime, the moment it is committed the sympathy of every man, woman, and child, is on the side of justice, and for the conviction of the offender, it is the crime of secret assassination. My Lords, I am convinced that to any man with an English heart to whom a proposal should be made to get rid of even his bitterest enemy by means of secret assassination, the first impulse would be to strike to the earth the man who proposed so base a crime. But when the offence is not to be committed against a bitter foe, but against one who has proved himself to be a firm friend of this country, one whose life I do not hesitate to gay is of infinite value and vital importance to the friendly relations between this country and France, as well as to the maintenance of peace and good order throughout Europe, then the crime is of still greater atrocity, especially when the assassins in their eager recklessness to destroy the object of their enmity, do not hesitate to sacrifice the lives of a concourse of unoffending spectators and imperil the innocent wife of the may against whose life they are aiming—then I say, the feeling of indignation agains the cowardly crime of assassination which is ever raised in this country is on this occasion of no ordinary character; but that crime excites a tenfold deeper indignation when perpetrated under circum stances such as these. It makes the blood of an honest Englishman boil to find that any one is so deluded, so infatuated, so embittered by hostility to this country a to be persuaded into at belief that English men, forsooth, connived at and sanctioned such an atrocity. Undoubtedly, there are persons in France who have used language

693
in reference to this country which deprives them of the right of asking for any explanation from us in respect to our conduct; but, my Lords, I do not think it a matter of indifference that there should be a want of friendly feeling between the two countries through the want of a clear apprehension of the state of our affairs—I do not gay between the Governments, for that I do not believe, but between the people of the two countries. With regard to the late most lamentable and most disgraceful attempt, I say that under no circumstances could any charge of a want of due precaution or watchfulness be sustained against this country. Admit for a moment—which I never can—that it was the duty of this country to drive from our shores men who might be suspected of entertaining hostile intentions towards foreign Sovereigns; still, even with that admission, I venture to say that the most rigid enforcement of any law would not have enabled us to interfere with the chief conspirator while residing here. What was Pierri? He was a man who for some years had been living at Birmingham as a peaceful citizen, earning his livelihood by the honest pursuit of a teacher of languages; he was not known to belong to any dangerous conspiracy, nor to be mixed up with any one engaged in secret plots. As long as Pierri remained in Birmingham he was perfectly safe and inoffensive—neither the object of suspicion nor of danger. But then it has been said, "Why did you allow him to leave Birmingham and go to France?" My Lords, it was no part of our business to prevent him; we are not to perform the office of gaolers. In this country every man is free to go and come when, where, and how he pleases, as long as he is guilty of no offence against our laws. But I must say if any lesson is to be drawn from the manner in which the late abominable attempt became so nearly successful, and was only baffled by a special interposition of Providence, that lesson demonstrates most fully the utter inutility of the vexatious system of passports. It has long been the rule at the Foreign Office of this country only to grant passports to our own subjects. The danger arising from Pierri arose, not from his presence in England, but from his landing in France. How did he obtain the means of getting there? Why, my Lords, he obtained a passport to enter Belgium, not with the connivance or assistance of the
694
British Government, but, I believe, with one signed by the French Vice Consul in Birmingham. Well, he proceeded to Belgium, and, I believe, the police of that country, who knew him, gave notice to the French Government that he was in Belgium and on his way to Paris. To Paris he went, and there, and not in Birmingham, he remained for a week completing his arrangements for the meditated crime, and employed in consultation with his coconspirators. The plot might have been devised in England, but in the French capital it was carried into execution—and carried into execution, too, by persons who had arrived there by means of passports furnished to them by a French Vice Consul, and who conducted their proceedings in the very face of that which we have been accustomed to regard as a most vigilant and active police, but which we must, I think, now consider to be a body upon which no great credit is reflected by the circumstance that they permitted this atrocious attempt at assassination to reach a point so fearfully near to success. So far as the case of Pierri is concerned, therefore, I maintain that whatever may be the state of the law in this country there was no neglect upon our part, and that we had it in our power to take no step which could afford to the Emperor of the French that security which I think he had a right to expect from the exercise of greater caution upon the part of his own Vice Consul in the granting of passports, and from the vigilance of his police. Passing for a moment, however, from this individual case, I think it my duty frankly to state that it is perfectly well known that there are in this country men who entertain the most dangerous designs. It has, nevertheless, my Lords, at no time been the policy of England—and I hope it never will be—to punish men for mere designs and intentions unaccompanied by any indications of action, and the existence of which is unsustained by any producible evidence. There are many foreigners who are here certainly not in accordance with our desire, some not even in conformity with their own wish, but because they have no other resting place for the soles of their feet; and those men do, no doubt, consult and combine together with the view of carrying into effect projects the most dangerous and the most criminal. So long, however, as they go no further than the forming of mere projects on laws are somewhat jealous of any inter-

695
ference taking place in their regard. But it would, my Lords, be idle to endeavour to conceal from ourselves that it has been sought to convey to the sensitive minds of the French people the impression that such persons as I have described are kept here as it were in the leash, under the guardianship of England, to be let loose at any moment at which our Government may feel disposed, for its own objects, to create political disturbances in other States. Now, my Lords, I cannot but deem it right that, under these circumstances, the people of this country, as well as of France, should be undeceived, and should be made aware of the real position in which matters stand. I repeat, then, in the presence of my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that there are in England men who entertain those dangerous designs to which I have adverted. I go farther, and assert that those men are known to, and, so far as our repugnance to any system of surveillance will permit, are under the observation of the police, I must, however, add that, so far from its being true that we keep those men here for the purpose of plotting against the lives of foreign Sovereigns, it has at all times been considered the bounden duty of the Government of this country, if any such dangerous designs came to its knowledge, to give the Sovereign whose life may in consequence be endangered the most timely warning, so that he might be placed upon his guard against those criminal machinations. I will, moreover, venture to express it as my positive conviction that the Emperor of the French has, upon more than one occasion, been mainly indebted for his safety to the friendly intimation which has been conveyed to him of the dangerous designs of persons such as those whom we are now charged with harbouring for the purpose of instigating them to the commission of the most heinous of crimes. I think it is but right it should be known to the French people that such men are watched by the Government of England; and that, so far as the laws of the country permit us to go, their nefarious designs are counteracted by the vigilance of a police which, although it may not make so much noise, is, I believe, fully as effective as the police of France. I also deem it right that Her Majesty's Government should seize upon the earliest opportunity to give expression to the views which they entertain upon this subject, inasmuch as it is one with regard to which
696
a great deal of misapprehension, calculated, if not removed, to do mischief, prevails; and, inasmuch as it is one to which public attention has of late been very earnestly directed, I think it is of the utmost importance that we should hear from Her Majesty's Ministers, without delay, whether they intend to take any steps in consequence of the atrocious attempt which has just been made upon the life of the French Emperor—any steps which, even though they should afford no effectual security for the protection of the lives of foreign Sovereigns, may serve at least to indicate the goodwill towards France which exists upon the part of the English people, and which may show that we are prepared to do everything which may fairly be expected at our hands. Now, my Lords, I say without hesitation that, not for the security of the Sovereign of France, or of all the Sovereigns of Europe twenty times over, would I consent to violate, in the slightest degree, that sacred right of asylum to foreigners by which our history has always been characterized. Of the advantages of that asylum men of all political shades of opinion have ever freely partaken. By many of them it has, I regret to say, been most shamefully and ungratefully abused; and I do not hesitate to add that such men are guilty of a serious crime against the world, and against humanity, inasmuch as they imperil by the suspicions which their conduct raises against her, the land which, in the hour of their distress, has held out to them—and which holds out to all who are similarly situate—a place of refuge and protection. But, not because of the crimes of those people, nor because of any consequences which may flow from them, would I for one consent to destroy, or even to relax, that privilege of asylum which England affords to all those who do not act in direct disobedience to her laws. There is also another measure which I am sure no Government would propose, and which, even if they did, I feel convinced no Parliament would sanction—that is, that any man should be punished upon mere suspicion or notoriety in this country, and not upon evidence brought against him in the face of day. If, my Lords, the people of France are unreasonable enough to expect such a sacrifice of feeling and constitutional principle upon the part of the English nation, they are lamentably mistaken; and, however I may regret that ill will should for a moment be engendered between them and us, all

697
such considerations must yield to the preservation in its perfect integrity of that vital principle to which I have just referred. But, while I maintain that no person ought to be punished in this country except upon clear evidence of his guilt, I am disposed to think it is a question well worthy of the attention of the Government how far the laws at present in existence can be put in force for the prevention of offences of the heinous nature to which I have been alluding. I do not presume to express any opinion as to the specific measures which may be introduced with the view of striking somewhat more of terror into the minds of the persons by whom such crimes are contemplated, and for the purpose of making manifest to the sensitive people of France the sincerity of our expression of goodwill in their regard; but I may nevertheless give utterance to the hope that her Majesty's Ministers may be able to see their way to the framing of some law which may prove effectual for the suppression of those attempts at assassination while it does not infringe upon the vital principles of the constitution. To the enactment of such a measure as that Parliament would, I feel assured, be prepared to give a cheerful assent. Now, my Lords, I thought it expedient as a member of this House wholly unconnected with the Government—Her Majesty's Ministers not having deemed it to be their duty to offer any expression of opinion upon the subject—to seize this the first opportunity which presents itself to advert to the late atrocious attempt upon the life of the Emperor of the French, and to state the views with respect to it which I entertain. I feel a deep interest in the continuance of the life of that monarch, and I attach the utmost importance to the maintenance of a good understanding, not only between the Sovereigns of England and France, but between the people of the two countries. It is, in my opinion, of the greatest moment to France that her present ruler should long remain at the head of her Government—a Government of which I will say nothing more than that I believe it to be that which at the present moment is best suited to the feelings, the habits, and the opinions of the French nation. These being my sentiments, I deemed it desirable that I should do all that in me lay to remove any misapprehension or misconception with respect to England from the minds of the people of that country. I am also anxious to learn from Her Majesty's Government how
698
far they concur with me in the general principles which I have just laid down. I do not ask them to pledge themselves to any particular measure. I simply seek to know how far they are disposed, notwithstanding the imprudent and irritating language of those whose conduct well merits, if we were inclined to retaliate upon them, that we should refuse to take any steps whatsoever for the prevention of those plots for the future—how far, I say, they are disposed to afford every possible security for the protection of the lives of foreign Princes against the abominable crime of assassination. I should be glad to hear that Her Majesty's Ministers are prepared to declare whether the existing laws are adequate to that end, and, if not, whether they might not be so amended as to meet, wholly unconnected with any political consideration whatever, such a crime as that of which I have been speaking—a crime so heinous in itself, and so revolting to every feeling of humanity.
EARL GRANVILLE: I can imagine nothing which would have more surprised your Lordships, or be more contrary to all precedent, than for a Minister to rise immediately upon the meeting of the House after an adjournment of two months, and make a general essay upon matters political. I shall therefore only touch shortly upon some of those points upon which the noble Earl opposite thinks that I ought to have given some explanation to the House. First, with regard to the monetary state of this country:—it really appears to me that it would have been a most extraordinary intrusion on my part—considering we met before Christmas to discuss this question, considering, too, the great improvement which had taken place in monetary matters before we separated, and that that improvement has continued up to the present moment—had I started up the moment we reassembled, either to give any opinion of my own as to banking, or to state facts which are probably notorious to every one in the House. The noble Earl opposite has expressed surprise that I did not anticipate my noble Friend (Lord Panmure), who one minute before had given notice that no later than Monday next it was his intention to move a Vote of Thanks to that army on whose brilliant feats and whose claims to the gratitude of their country not only he, but every noble Lord in this House, will then have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. It would have been childish in me us well as im

699
proper, to anticipate the task which will fall upon my noble Friend. Next, the noble Earl thinks I ought to have imagined the attacks which he was about to make upon the Government in regard to the way in which matters have been conducted in India. My Lords, when the proper time comes my noble Friend (Lord Panmure) will be able to enter into all the details touched upon by the noble Earl, and will show, I hope satisfactorily, that we have not been remiss in sending our troops, that we have not been remiss in furnishing the means of reinforcing those troops in the field, and that even with regard to the great difficulty known to exist in the supply of horses, the orders sent out from here and the exertions of the authorities in India have overcome that difficulty to a much greater extent than could possibly have been expected. Respecting such small details as the want of harness, I believe my noble Friend will be able to show that the statement of the noble Earl opposite is exactly contrary to the facts. But I will not trouble the House by dwelling upon all the small matters of detail into which the noble Earl entered. Then your Lordships were told that we are at war with two countries, though, as he said, we were perfectly unprepared with the means of carrying on war with either. Now, really with regard to India, to say that we were not prepared for that war is to make a perfectly unreasonable accusation. Was anybody prepared—could anybody have been prepared—for the Indian mutiny? As to the Chinese war, I utterly deny the fact that we were unprepared. Subsequent experience has shown that, so far from not having been sufficiently prepared, the actual preparations made were, we have reason to believe, greater than would have been sufficient. The force originally intended for China was diverted for the purposes of India, and yet, at this moment, without, I believe, drawing on the resources in our hands for he prosecution of the war in India, we lope (though that question will be settled by the event) that we have in China a force quite strong enough to carry out the objects we have in view. But the noble Earl says our policy there is all wrong. It may be; but it has been debated in this House and in another place; it will be a fit subject for debate again and again; it was discussed by the two principal parties in the State, and the question after that debate was referred to the country at large, who gave the most triumphant verdict
700
in favour of Her Majesty's Government. Does the noble Earl pretend that, after such a verdict from the country, the Government who inaugurated the policy in question would have been justified in retreating entirely from it? Does he pretend that we should have been justified in leaving the points of dispute in statu quo, and in remaining passive under the insults offered us, no compensation of any kind having been given for the outrages which have been committed? Then the noble Earl passed to another subject. He professed some surprise that I had not alluded to an event of great importance—namely, the late attempt made on the life of the Emperor of the French. Now, it certainly would have been a most agreeable task either for me, or for any one of us on this bench, to take the very earliest opportunity to express our abhorrence, not only as members of the Government, not only as members of this House, but as Englishmen, of attempts such as these to obtain political objects by that most dastardly of all crimes, assassination. It would have been equally agreeable to us to express our joy and satisfaction that, although, unfortunately, many individuals were either killed or hurt by this most nefarious attempt, the lives of the Emperor and Empress were saved, as the noble Earl said, by almost a miraculous interposition. But, my Lords, I believe it would have been a course entirely unprecedented for me or any other Minister to start up and make such a declaration at this time, without absolutely any question being before the House. The noble Earl also thought we might have given some statement of the course which the Government is ready to take with regard to what has passed in France. Now, certainly no one can regret more than we do some of those intemperate addresses, founded on a total misapprehension of the feelings of the people of this country, which have been issued by officers under the excitement caused by seeing their chief's life attempted. I might, perhaps, express some regret that any publicity has been given to these addresses. But I do feel, as I am sure every one must feel who has calmly reflected on the subject, that it would be perfectly unworthy of a great nation like this, on account of intemperate expressions which may have emanated from parties in another State, not to have taken that course which they thought right abstractedly, apart from all other considerations.

701
I am glad to hear from the noble Earl so clear a statement of his views as to the impossibility of this country ever giving up those rights which are so dear to us as Englishmen—that right especially, which is our boast and our pride, of offering a refuge and hospitality to persons of all countries, whatever their political or personal opinions may be. Still more impossible, and still more criminal would it be, I think, for any Government to propose measures which tended to abridge the personal liberty either of Englishmen or of foreigners who have the happiness to live in this country. If, however, as the noble Earl remarks, by an examination of our laws, which we had always flattered ourselves were sufficient, any defects are found, I say it is our duty as soon as possible, to attempt to remove those defects. It is not usual in one House to give notice of any measures which are likely to be originated in the other; but I may, perhaps, take this opportunity of informing your Lordships that a measure on this subject will be brought into the other House of Parliament without delay—indeed, I am informed that notice of its introduction has already been given, and that the Bill will be brought forward on Monday next. Of course, it would be improper in me to give any statements of its enactments; but I trust that this Bill will be found to meet all the requirements of the case. My Lords, although, perhaps, the attack just made upon us was a little gratuitous, I can only express my gratification that it has given to the noble Earl opposite an opportunity of stating certain principles with regard to our laws on this subject, in which I fully concur; and of expressing his resolution—in which I am sure all Englishmen will agree—to surrender none of our rights and privileges, while, at the same time, we will take all means in our power to prevent the dastardly crime of conspiring to assassinate or murder.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I confess that I, like my noble Friend behind me, was surprised at the apparent intention of the noble Earl opposite to dismiss the House on this the first night of their meeting after the adjournment in solemn silence, without at all enlightening your Lordships as to the business which is to be brought forward in this Session of Parliament, which appears to me to be fraught with as many important topics for discussion as any to which
702
we ever looked forward. I am not now-going to waste the time of the House by re-opening the China question, although I must say that I am quite ignorant of the new Parliament having at any time expressed any opinion upon the China war. The noble Earl (Earl Granville), said, that a verdict in favour of that war had been given by the country. I challenge him to tell me on what day and in which House of Parliament any opinion has been given by any majority of either House in favour of that war. But if I know and can at all appreciate the good sense of my countrymen, I may infer that, looking to the state of affairs in India, and to the great want of troops both there and at home, both the Houses of Parliament and the country besides would be heartily glad if we had never entered into the contest with China. In submitting to your Lordships the several topics of great interest likely to be discussed, my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), I think, forgot one inferior to none of those which are likely, during the present Session, to occupy the attention of Parliament. I should like to know whether it is true, as is so reported, that it is the intention of the Government completely to abolish the double government of India, and to bring in a Bill for the alteration of the government of that country without delay. I cannot of course go into that question now; but if such is the intention of Government, I must say that I deprecate with all my might and power the policy they are prepared to pursue. I cannot conceive anything so dangerous as at the present crisis—in the middle of a rebellion which is only half suppressed—to meddle with the government of that great empire. I do not mean to say that that Government requires no reform, or that the double government is better than any other system which could be adopted; but I contend that it is most foolish and fatal to bring forward a new scheme of administration for India when that country is disturbed from one end to the other. If one of your Lordships' houses were in flames, would you, before the fire was extinguished, send for an architect to plan, a new building? And yet that is very much like what it is said Her Majesty's Government intend to do. I hope to hear that the rumour is unfounded as to the time at which they are to be carried ink execution, if not as to the ultimate intentions of the Government. While I am upon this subject, I wish to say that I was

703
not a little astonished at a statement which appeared yesterday in The Times newspaper, emanating from the Indian Fund Committee, and declaring that no mutilations of women had taken place during the recent outbreak in India. I wish that such were really the case; but I cannot understand what can be the object of the announcement to which I refer. If the statement were true, it only amounts to this—that after committing every possible atrocity, and inflicting every possible torture, the Sepoys had the humanity to put an end to the existence of their victims, instead of leaving them to live in the miserable condition to which they had been reduced. If, however, the statement is not true—and it is not true—its only effect is uselessly to inflict another bitter pang upon the relations of those who have been the victims of Sepoy cruelty. If any of your Lordships doubt that the horrible mutilations which have been described have taken place, I may state that I am in a position to give them privately references to authorities who will satisfy them that such atrocities have been committed; and I am quite ready to afford the same information to any members of the Committee of the Indian Fund. I can only say that if the Governor General of India or others who are near him are ignorant of these acts, and have stated by letter or otherwise that such occurrences have not taken place, they have been grossly deceived. It requires very little knowledge of human nature and of woman's mind to enable one to understand that persons of high authority in Calcutta, or the Committee of the Indian Fund, are the very last persons to whom unfortunate ladies who have been subjected to mutilation are likely to appeal for assistance. It is, in fact, the knowledge of the cruelties and indignities which have been inflicted on our unhappy countrywomen which have nerved our soldiers with that superhuman strength to which my noble Friend has referred. It was no dry sense of military duty, no mere aspiration for military glory, which gave Havelock and his gallant soldiers that irresistible power which enabled them to defeat overwhelming numbers; it was the fierce and passionate conviction that they were the delegated avengers of the wrongs committed upon their unfortunate countrywomen.
EARL GRANVILLEstated, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Govern-
704
ment to bring in a Bill for the better Government of India.
LORD PANMURE: As the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) seems to have been so much misinformed with regard to the manner in which reinforcements have been sent out to India, I think it right that his statement should not go forth without some explanation from me. It is quite true that the first detachment of artillery sent out to the East Indies were sent without their guns, without their horses, without their harness. I was myself struck with the manner in which it was proposed to despatch this force, and I sent to the Court of Directors to learn whether, when artillery were demanded by the Company, as by law they might be demanded, and were sent out without equipments, the Company were ready upon their arrival in Calcutta to furnish them with guns and horses, and to equip them for the field. The answer I received was that everything would be prepared. By the time the next detachment was demanded the Court of Directors had found out, I presume, that their stores were not in the state they had expected, and the artillery then sent out were not only supplied with guns, equipments, and harness, but to every gun I sent out a double set of harness, in order that a supply of harness might be provided for any guns that were found serviceable in India, but for which there might be no harness there. Yet the noble Earl states deliberately and publicly, without having taken pains to ascertain the fact, that the artillery were sent out from this country without guns and equipments. Then, with reference to the troops sent out to supply the vacancies in the various corps, I may state that in the artillery force there was not a man who was not a well-trained soldier, and no recruits were sent out to the regiments of the line who had not so far advanced in their training as at least to have gone through a course of practice with the Minie rifle. Indeed, I may tell the noble Earl that the recruits recently sent out to India are as far superior as it is possible to conceive to the recruits furnished to the Duke of Wellington during the great wars he carried on in the Peninsula. The noble Earl has complained that horses were not sent out to India; but I think, upon a little reflection, he will see that the risk of sending horses from this country, either by the long voyage round the Cape or overland by Alexandria and Suez to Cal-

705
cutta, would have been very great. We were not, however, indifferent to the importance of providing horses for service in India, and I must do the Court of Directors the justice to say that they, as well as their officers, in all directions exerted themselves to the utmost to procure a supply of horses, and that their efforts were attended with a degree of success which had not been anticipated. Indeed, it is probable that a sufficient number of horses will be obtained from the Cape, from Australia, and from the countries adjoining our Indian possessions, to mount the cavalry we have sent out. I may add also that no demand has been made by the Court of Directors upon Her Majesty's Government or the military authorities for reinforcements which has not been immediately complied with. There is at this moment a constant stream of 1,000 recruits per month flowing into India; and if that addition to our force should be insufficient I believe the recruiting service is in such a satisfactory state as to enable us even to increase the number. Under these circumstances I thought it right to address a few words to your Lordships merely with reference to the condition of our army in India. The noble Earl has referred to a suggestion he made to the Government, but of which I have no recollection, that steps should be taken for raising regiments in our colonies. I may state, however, that we are at present engaged in raising a regiment in Canada, to be called the 100th Regiment, and to be added to the regiments of the line; and I have sent instructions to the governors of our colonies to enlist in the service of the Queen all British-born white subjects who may be willing to serve in India.
THE EARL OF DERBYinquired whether it was intended that these regiments should not only be raised in the colonies, but officered by colonists? That was a point of the greatest possible importance as regards the connection between the colonies and the mother country.
LORD PANMUREreplied that it was intended that such regiments should, to a great extent, be officered by colonists.
EARL GREY: I have heard with great satisfaction the explanations of the noble Lord (Lord Panmure), and I am glad to find that Her Majesty's Government are alive to the extreme importance and the great difficulty of meeting the demand for men to maintain the strength of our forces in India. For my own part, I have not
706
the information which would enable me to express an opinion in favour of or against the arrangements they have made; but I confess that, so far as I am at present informed, I must differ from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) as to what he said with reference to the embodying of our whole militia force. My belief is that the embodied militia act directly as competitors with the line in the matter of recruiting; and I think my noble Friend the Secretary for War would take a wise course if he would endeavour to dispel the misapprehensions which, in my opinion, exist on this subject by allowing a Committee of this House to inquire how far the militia were serviceable as a means of recruiting the army during the late war with Russia. As far as I am able to form an opinion from an examination of the papers laid before this House, I entertain a very strong conviction that if such an investigation were made it would be found that during the late contest with Russia the militia proved the most expensive and inefficient mode of raising men that could possibly have been adopted. Whatever may be the arrangements of the Government, there can be no doubt that the noble Earl opposite is right in contending that this country will have great difficulty in meeting the demands for men which will be made upon us from India; because we must not suppose that for a very considerable time to come we shall be free from continual demands for the maintenance of our forces in that part of the world; and I must repeat the opinion expressed by the noble Earl, that in such a state of things it was as impolitic as I deem it to have been wrong and immoral that we should have plunged into a new war with China. I can conceive nothing more mischievous than beginning at such a moment a contest in that country, of which no man can foresee the end; because, as the noble Lord truly observed, assuming Canton to be taken, then your difficulties only begin. Are you to hold Canton? If you do so, here is another drain of men opened, and we know that there is no station in the whole world in which British troops suffer so much as in China. I can state from my own knowledge that during the former Chinese war, and during the period we have occupied Hong Kong, that no climate in the world, not excepting that of the West Indies, causes, taking the whole year round, such a consumption of men. Well, if you take Canton you must hold it. The evil is that when once you are in the

707
wrong course every new step only leads to new difficulties. You say you are bound to take this course, because by the most improper conduct of Sir John Bowring you were plunged into an unnecessary contest with the Chinese, and you do not think it would be dignified to draw back; and so you go on, without right or reason on your side, inflicting destruction on the lives and properties of the innocent people of Canton. And, when you have got that town, what is to he done? If the Chinese content themselves with allowing you to take the town and refusing to make terms, are you to go on? Every new step will make it more difficult to stop or go back, and at the same time every new step in advance is rendered more difficult, if not impracticable, by the various demands on us for forces. This is not the time for debating this question; but I cannot help saying it does appear to me something almost unexampled in Parliamentary history that we are now actually engaged in a war with China and no authentic declarations have yet been made to Parliament or to the world for what objects the contest is going on. All we know is that when the subject was discussed your Lordships' House, by no very large majority, refused to condemn the proceedings in which the war originated, and that the other House did condemn them. Since then there have been no further explanations, and Parliament is uninformed for what we are now going to fight, or for what objects these hostilities are now carried on. We learn from the newspapers, and from the newspapers only, that one of the objects is to call on the Chinese to pay for damages done to English merchants by the late proceedings at Canton. If that be true, I think the demand is as impolitic and as unprincipled as any demand ever made by a great country on a helpless opponent. If such a demand were made by Russia on Turkey, or some such State, we in this country should condemn it as one man; and if such a demand is really to be made on China it is impossible, in my mind, to stigmatize it too strongly; and I think it as impolitic as wrong, for be assured there is much force in what was said on a former occasion by a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) who observed that a great deal of this evil had arisen from the demand for compensation to merchants made in the last war, though they received an advantage from the increased value given to their com-
708
modities by the war; and by the demand for compensation, that unhappy war, on which no one can look back without blushing, is turned into a direct source of profit; and nothing could be more impolitic than to give to persons in that situation an interest in engaging this country in war.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he wished to direct their Lordships' attention to two points. With respect to what had fallen from different noble Lords regarding India he had not a word to add, except to express his deep regret to find his noble Friend near him of opinion that though the danger is over the affairs in India are not yet nearly settled. If that were so—and to a certain degree he was afraid he must admit it—if, though the crisis is over, there is yet on hand more work in that part of the world—to say nothing of the addition of China—but if in India, in Central India—in Oude, for instance—the operations now undertaken were by no means finished, he could not but express amazement when he learned that such a time should be chosen for bringing forward a large and most important measure—neither more nor less than a plan for the final settlement, as it was hoped to be, of our Indian Government, and of the relations between the Indian and. Imperial Councils, and between the Indian and Imperial Governments together, and the proprietary body. That was a subject of great difficulty and no small complexity, involving, as it did, the largest interests, and he ventured to say that it had better be undertaken and settled at a time when all the operations of war were at an end, and when the whole subject might be calmly, deliberately, and with entire circumspection examined. The other matter on which he was about to address their Lordships related to a recent event in France—unhappy in one sense, and in another sense the most fortunate and providential, as it resulted in the escape of the French Emperor and his family—the escape of the Emperor and his capital, of France, of this country, and of all Europe—from that most execrable attempt, with the risk of murdering hundreds, and with the certainty of wounding large bodies of the people, in order to take away that life so invaluable both for the peace of France and for the peace of Europe, and, he would add, for the peace of the world. Nevertheless, the result was that the beginning of an irritation had been produced in France, in consequence

709
of the alarm in which people had been thrown. And, as fear was always the worst of counsellors, generally giving rash counsel, and not unfrequently cruel, the effect had been that degree of exasperation to which his noble Friend had alluded, coupled with an entire ignorance in many quarters of the whole bearing of the subject as regards this country. In saying this, he adverted to the requisitions he had seen calling for things which in this country are impossible under the law, and for other things which the state of the law rendered altogether superfluous. When he found that publications were complained of, not only extenuating but justifying assassination, and actually going so far as to lament the failure of plots for that purpose—publications previous to the late execrable attempt, and referring to former crimes of a similar nature—when he heard these publications complained of, and a clamour raised abroad for new laws in this country, his answer was that the law was sufficient as it now stood; that it was unlawful by the established law of the land for any man to publish provocations to murder and assassination, or a practical defence of murder and assassination, and that he would be punishable, he (Lord Brougham) apprehended, for a misdemeanour in so doing, and would be most severely dealt with by the Court which tried the offence. Again, if instead of a general panegyric of those enormous offences a man should limit his approval to a particular attack upon a foreign Prince, or were to point out or indicate a particular individual as an object of murderous attack, whether a Prince or not, there was not the least doubt but that he could be dealt with by the English Courts. He remembered that a libel against the Emperor Napoleon, then First Consul, was prosecuted in this country. He believed in that libel assassination was recommended. However, a prosecution took place, and a conviction was had; Peltier was convicted, and then war broke out; but that person, he thought most improperly, was not brought up for punishment. He had often discussed the matter in private with Lord Sidmouth, and had always expressed to him his belief that the man should have been brought up for judgment and severely punished. There were, no doubt, circumstances of extenuation in the case, and these would have been urged with ability before the Court by his counsel; but, notwithstanding all the efforts of counsel,
710
he had no doubt that punishment would have been inflicted. It would probably have been contended that the libel was written before the peace, but he (Lord Brougham) held that it was even more requisite to bring him to punishment after the war broke out afresh than before. Their Lordships would no doubt recollect the case of "Gilbert v. Sykes," which was decided by the Court of King's Bench in 1812. One of the parties in that case had given the other £100 on condition of receiving a guinea a day as long as Napoleon Bonaparte lived. The payment was claimed, and the case ultimately came before the Court on a rule for a new trial, and all the points were raised and fully argued. He (Lord Brougham) was counsel in the case, and he well remembered that the Court, which was presided over by the celebrated Lord Chief Justice (Ellenborough) decided in the most unequivocal manner that it was an immoral and, therefore, illegal contract, because it led to an encouragement of the crime of assassination. One argument in favour of the claim was, that it could only lead to the assassination of an enemy, for Napoleon was at that time at open war with this country, and it was contended that this could be no offence, because we had a right to put an enemy to death. "Yes," said Lord Ellenborough, "you have a right to put an enemy to death, but only in a legal way, in open war and by force of arms; you have no right to assassinate him, and no one has a right to make a bargain that might by probability lead to such an outrage on all law." The decision in this case was given on the broad principle that any act which could encourage, or had a tendency, however remote, to encourage assassination of a foreign Sovereign, even though an enemy, was illegal in this country. He was sorry to hear from his noble Friend that there were refugees in this country who combined and conspired together in a way that had a tendency to encourage attempts on the life of foreign Princes. He believed that if there was sufficient evidence of such proceedings the law was sufficient to suppress them; but if it was not sufficient to prevent such cabals, then the law ought to be amended. He begged to repeat, however that there was no doubt that if any persons met together either in public o, private meetings, or issued publication and set forth doctrines that led not morel to a general and abstract defence of mur-

711
der and assassination, but to the most mischievous act of attempting that assassination, then the parties so offending were liable to prosecution, and, if convicted, would be severely punished. Without the commission of any overt act such person might be punished. It had been said we had a law in England that made compassing and imagining the death of the Sovereign high treason; why not make the compassing and imagining the death of a foreign Prince high treason also? But it was evident that they could not charge a person with high treason unless they could get forth in the indictment the commission of an overt act—that overt act being necessary to prove the "compassing and imagining" the death. In the prosecution of the regicides for the death of Charles I., they were indicted for "compassing and imagining the death of our late Sovereign Lord of blessed memory Charles I.," and the overt act laid in the indictment was the cutting off the head of the Sovereign, an overt act, no doubt, quite sufficient to sustain the allegation of compassing and imagining; but they were not indicted for the act itself. In the case of a foreign Sovereign a difficulty was here felt that could hardly be got over, and for his part he did not see how it could be met. With regard to an alteration of the law affecting the general case, reference had been made to a revival of the Alien Act, and in order to put an end to proceedings so offensive and mischievous it might possibly be considered whether a modified revival of that Act could not be resorted to; but he entertained the strongest objection to some of its provisions, and he would not consent to re-enact them except in the most modified form. The old Alien Act was attended with many abuses and grievances, one of which was the sending parties abroad to the very places from which they had escaped, so that they were hurled, as it were, into the lion's mouth. One consequence of this state of things was that debtors often put the law in force against their creditors, and got them sent abroad as aliens, so that sometimes persons were carried back to France during the reign of terror, and were guillotined. He would leave such persons to make choice of the place to which they would be sent, and if any such law was resorted to, it would be absolutely necessary to be under great modification, including this freedom of choice.
712
He was quite sure the law of this country was sufficient severely to punish such acts as those most complained of, and he trusted Her Majesty's Government would see the necessity of putting it in force as soon as they had proof to support a prosecution.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that as he had the honour to be the head of the criminal jurisdiction in this country, he thought he was called on to make a few observations on this very important subject. For his part, he did most sincerely and earnestly deprecate any change in the criminal law which would extend the power of the Government over refugees who sought ant asylum in this country. By the law as it now stood the Government had all the power they ought to have. If persons belonging to the class of refugees committed offences while in this country let them be punished; but until they were proved guilty let them enjoy the hospitality and protection afforded by the English laws. There could be no doubt that as the law now stood, a conspiracy in this country, between British subjects as well as between aliens, to assassinate a foreign Sovereign, or to commit murder, or to disturb the peace between this country and any other with which we might be in amity, would be a misdemeanour liable to severe punishment. And not merely a conspiracy, but the acts of individuals, directly tending to disturb the amity subsisting between this country and a foreign State would be punishable. There could be no doubt that words might amount for that purpose to a misdemeanour. If there was an exhortation to commit a murder or a burglary, or to raise a riot, that would be in England a misdemeanour, and the moment the speaker had finished his speech he might be arrested and tried. He (Lord Campbell) had had the honour to be a law officer of the Crown for many years, and the only ex officio information he filed was against the late Feargus O'Connor for exhorting people in his newspaper, called The Northern Star, to plunder their superiors; he (Mr. O'Connor) said the land was the property of the nation at large, and ought to be equally divided among all the people of this country; and not only did he advance that speculative opinion, which, as such, might have been harmless, but he exhorted the people to rise and take possession of their share of the national property. The result was that he was tried and convicted in the Court of Queen's Bench, and sentenced to

713
two years' imprisonment. So the deliberate exhortation of an individual, either by writing or spoken words, to murder a foreign Sovereign would be a misdemeanour and it would make no difference whether the individual was a native-born subject or an alien resident in England. Where was the ground for changing the existing law? Were they to say that the Government should have the power, immediately upon the requisition of a foreign State, without any proof of culpability whatever, to expel an alien from the British territory? In that case, the law must be changed indeed;—but God forbid they should ever make such a change! In this country aliens as well as native-born subjects were always to be considered the subjects of Her Majesty; and while they were in this country and obeyed the law they were to be protected as much as if they were born in the metropolis of England. He hoped that would continue to be the principle on which all our legislation on that subject proceeded. It was the ground on which England had hitherto been the asylum of foreigners of all nations, and he hoped that asylum would never be taken away. If, however, there were anomalies in the law, or if there were diversities in the law of different parts of the United Kingdom, he would not oppose such alterations as might be necessary to reconcile them; but if a law were proposed to deprive aliens of the rights they now enjoyed, he would most strenuously resist it.
THE EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, he wished the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War had remained in his place, inasmuch as he was desirous of asking him some questions in reference to the defences of the country. He did not allude to those defences in reference to any particular power or occasion, but as regarded the general situation of the country. It should be remembered that we had already lost an army in India which was heretofore at the service of the State. We were called upon to send out another army there, which must necessarily be taken from the strength of the force in this country. Well, we had not as yet replaced that army at home. The Secretary for War stated that he was quite satisfied with the condition of our military forces; but he did not state whether the army now at our command was sufficient for the operations required of them, and for the restoration of peace and security abroad. His own opinion was, that the army in India was much too
714
weak for the purposes required of them; and if his noble Friend could do no more than supply that army with recruits, it would, he believed, fall short of the necessity of the case. But the country, in the meantime, was almost denuded of regular troops. From his side of the House they had frequently urged upon the Government to take the most effective measures against India by transporting the troops as rapidly overland as possible. They had further recommended the calling out of the whole of the militia. He was still of opinion that the whole of the militia should be embodied without any further delay. It was ridiculous to haggle about the question of recruits when the militia could be called out. What we wanted was an army of protection, embodied within the country. Then, after they had done all that they proposed, they would be forced to form a new army in England for all the exigencies of the State. Now the navy, with the militia, was the national defence of the country; but the present condition of the navy was really contemptible. He did not think he was telling anything new to foreign Powers on this subject; for there was not one which did not know, from our Navy Lists and other publications, every ship that was put in commission. He said that the present condition of our naval force was contemptible; but, instead of keeping even this small force at home, the Government were occupying it in a contemptible war. He had always contended—not from any feeling of pride, or disposition to attack the Government—that this war with China was one of the most contemptible and disgraceful that had ever been waged. It deprived the country of its commerce. Our merchants at Shanghae were in danger of being ejected from that place, and our tea trade was altogether endangered. Like children, the Government had commenced the war under a sham admitted by all. They went with this sham before the country, and obtained fictitious strength. They undertook the bombardment of Canton, with its million of inhabitants—one of the most barbarous acts ever committed in ancient or modern times; and, when they obtained their object, they meant to put into it 1,000 marines and 600 Frenchmen, to hold the city in future against millions of the Chinese population. Of all the contemptible proceedings ever attempted, none was more contemptible than the attempt to hold the place with such a force against

715
a great though an unwarlike nation. They could not expect to gain anything by such a step, except to rob this country of a portion of its trade, and the defence of a portion of its navy. He regretted that the noble Lord (Lord Panmure) was not in his place, as he meant to ask what he intended to do with regard to the defences of the country, because those defences were not in a condition they ought to be in, even under the most ordinary circumstances. He feared that none of the noble Lords opposite could much enlighten him as to the state of the army and navy, and should, therefore, wait for a future opportunity to put a question on the subject of the national defences.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow. half past Four o'clock,