Sitting of 8 February 1858

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—for Mayo, Lord John Thomas Browne; for Reigate, Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson.
1° London Corporation; Clerks of Petty Sessions (Ireland); Markets and Fairs (Ireland); Lady Havelock and Sir Henry Havelock's Annuities.
2° East India Loan.

PRINCESS ROYAL'S MARRIAGE.—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
Mr. SPEAKER reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
"I receive with great satisfaction your dutiful and affectionate Address; and I thank you for your congratulations on an event which, it is most gratifying to Me to know, has called forth expressions of heartfelt sympathy and loyal attachment from My faithful People."

CHAPEL IN PARIS FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. WISEsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £2,000 advanced from the Fund for Civil Contingencies on account of the purchase of a Chapel in Paris has been repaid, and what course Her Majesty's Government has taken with reference to the decision of the House of Commons declining to confirm the contract made by the British Ambassador; whether it is true that certain British residents at Paris have offered to purchase the said Chapel, and that Her Majesty's Government have declined to resign the purchase condemned by the vote of a large majority last Session.
THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHE QUERsaid, in reply, that no offer had

861
been made to the Ambassador at Paris which would completely exonerate the British Government from the liability which it had incurred in this matter. An offer had been made which would have that effect if a condition were complied with which it was within the discretion of the French Government to grant. The matter had been under the consideration of the French Government, but he understood that there were some legal difficulties in the way. Her Majesty's Government, however, had received a favourable answer, and he did not doubt that the affair would be satisfactorily arranged.

CAVALRY REINFORCEMENTS FOR INDIA.—QUESTION.
In answer to Captain VIVIAN,
SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that arrangements had been made to reinforce our cavalry in India in the same manner as the rest of the troops there would be reinforced—by sending out draughts to the regiments already there. There was no present intention to send out any more cavalry regiments, but that, of course, would depend upon the course of events in that country and the necessities which might arise. Neither was there any intention to send out troop horses with the reinforcements; that course was attended with great risk, and the Government had reason to believe that there were already in India, or would soon be there, troop horses from the Cape, Persia, and the usual sources of supply, amply sufficient for all purposes.

THE ENGLISH ENGINEERS AT SALERNO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether Her Majesty's Government have received a Copy of a Despatch, dated the 16th day of January, sent by the Sardinian Government to the Government of Naples, on the question of the illegal capture of the Cagliari steamer and her crew; and if so, whether it is intended to lay a copy of that despatch on the table of the House. Also, whether the views of Her Majesty's Government coincide with those of Count Cavour; and, if so, what course they propose to take in pursuance of those views?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that a copy of the despatch alluded to has been communicated in confidence to Her Majesty's Government by the Sardinian Government, ac-
  862
  companied at the same time by documents drawn up by the Neapolitan Government, forming the act of accusation against the parties seized on board the Cagliari steamer. There is at this time a question pending between the Sardinian Government and that of Naples in regard to the capture of the Cagliari in that part of the sea where she was seized. The whole of the matter has been referred by Her Majesty's Government to the Law Officers of the Crown for their opinion as to the bearing of these facts on any rights which the British Government may have with regard to the engineers who were on board the Cagliari; but at present I am not able to state what their opinion is, nor how far Her Majesty's Government will think it right to alter their course in consequence. I am not at present authorized to lay that despatch before Parliament, but when the matter is a little further advanced we may expect that the Sardinian Government will have no objection to its production.

GENERAL ASHBURNHAM.—QUESTION.
MR. WARRENsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is true that General Ashburnham proceeded from China to India in pursuance of instructions from home, and whether he has since returned to England, and, if so, under what circumstances, whether voluntarily or whether he has just been recalled; and, in the latter case, whether there be any objection to state on what grounds?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, it is well known that General Ashburnham was sent out from this country to take the command of the forces which were intended to operate against Canton. Those forces have been diverted from their destination at the request of Lord Canning, in order to reinforce the troops which have been engaged in India. In consequence of this, and of the necessary suspension of any active operations against Canton for an indefinite time, General Ashburnham was directed by the Commander in Chief to leave China and to go to India, in the expectation that his services might possibly be useful in India in some active operations in the field. General Ashburnham went, therefore, to India; but on arriving at Calcutta he found that he should have no opportunity of obtaining active employment in the field, and likewise that there was not room upon the Staff for an officer of his rank. He waited there for three or four weeks, and, finding that there was no immediate prospect of any active employment

863
in India, he thought it best to return home and to place himself at the disposal of the Commander in Chief in this country. He was not recalled, because there was not time for the fact to become known at home that there was no employment suited for him in India; but he came home of his own accord, and placed himself at the disposal of the Commander in Chief.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that the question was one which involved honour and character, and he must throw himself, therefore, upon the indulgence of the House. [Calls of "Order!"] He would, however, put himself in order by moving the adjournment of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: I have usually observed that in eases where the honour or character of individuals is involved the House is in the habit of allowing a departure from its strict rules. If it is the pleasure of the House to take that course on the present occasion I trust that the proceeding will be confined to individual explanation, and that it will not be allowed to lead to a debate.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that be would not trespass longer upon the time of the House than would be absolutely necessary for the purpose of an explanation. He was obliged to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Warren) for having done him the honour to ask whether he thought the question would be a proper one to put, and he at once replied to his hon. and learned Friend that, judging from his own feelings and from a knowledge of the high character and honour of General Ashburnham, he believed that, so far from such a question being regarded as an unfriendly act, it would confer the greatest possible favour upon General Ashburnham, because it would afford him the earliest opportunity of making an explanation of the circumstances under which he had returned to this country. Those circumstances had been most correctly stated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but, as his gallant Friend had intrusted him (General Peel) with a detailed account of the matter, he would, with the permission of the House, read to them General Ashburnham's statement. It was as follows:—
"On the 26th of October I received official notice of my nomination as Lieutenant General on the stiff in India, with directions to proceed to Calcutta, in company with the senior officers of the general staff in China, Colonels Pakenham and Wetherall. I took my departure from Hong Kong on the 17th November by the first direct opportunity. On arrival in Calcutta I found no instructions awaiting me, and the Governor General
864
informed me that he knew of no way in which my services could be employed. I reported my arrival by telegraph to the Commander in Chief, then at Cawnpore, stating what I had learnt from the Governor General, and adding that if there were no employment open to me I wished to return to England. In answer to this I received the following telegram from the chief of the staff:—'Your message has been laid before the Commander in Chief. You can learn from Colonel Birch the decision as taken regarding Lieutenant General Beresford, whose case is similar to yours. I will write at length by post and convey his Excellency's views to you.' I immediately went to Colonel Birch, Military Secretary to Government, and learnt from him that Lieutenant General Beresford remained in command of the division he held, as Major General, previous to his appointment as Lieutenant General. Some days after I got the following letter from the Chief of the Staff, dated Cawnpore, the 12th of December: 'Sir—I have the honour, by desire of the Commander in Chief, to inform you that there is no command in the field to offer to an officer of your rank at present. It would appear that the only mode in which your services may be made available at this time is the command of such division as the Governor General in Council may be pleased to put under your orders. When Government shall have decided on this question his Excellency will take care that you shall be instantly informed. (Signed.) M. MANSFIELD, Chief of the Staff.' After this I had some further conversation with the Governor General, who offered me command of the Lahore Division, about to become vacant. I replied that, having been appointed (as an exceptional case) Lieutenant General on the Staff, I did not conceive I should fulfil the intentions of his Royal Highness by taking command of a permanent district removed from the scene of action, and that my acceptance of such a command would deprive other officers of a post to which they were entitled by recent distinguished service in the field. I added, that I should be happy to take the command of any force, however small, on active service. It should be borne in mind that the command of a division is the best appointment open to a military man in India, excepting that of Commander in Chief. My acceptance of such appointment, to the exclusion of any of those officers whose rank befitted them for it, and at a time when many had rendered such brilliant service, would surely have seemed an act of injustice. What would the people of England have said if I had obtained such a prize before Major General Sir Archdale Wilson of Delhi? I wrote accordingly to his Excellency the Commander in Chief that, as there was no command in the field open to me, I proposed returning at once to England, and it was notified by the Military Secretary of Government that the Governor General had no objection to my so doing."
That was the whole history of the case. He admitted on the part of General Ashburnham that he was aware that he might have been guilty of a breach of military etiquette in not awaiting in India until be received permission from the Commander in Chief to return to England; but he trusted that the House would agree with him that his gallant Friend had been actuated only by the most honourable motives in wishing, as he could not obtain a com-

865
mand in the field, not to supersede other officers who had distinguished themselves in the service.

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE, ARMY AND NAVY IN INDIA.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhaving risen to propose the Vote of Thanks which stood in his name upon the Paper,
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he rose to order. He must appeal to Mr. Speaker whether upon an Order night it was not usual for Orders of the Day to take precedence of Motions?
MR. SPEAKER: It is the practice of the House that upon the occasion of proposing a Vote of Thanks, that Motion has precedence of any business—whether Notices of Motion or Orders of the Day—which may stand first upon the list.
MR. DISRAELI: Then, Sir, I wish to speak to a point of order, arising out of the manner in which the notice appears upon the Paper, and which I do not think is altogether regular. So far as my memory serves me it was, I think, on Thursday night that the noble Lord at the head of the Government gave notice of certain Motions which I understand are now to be brought before us. The noble Lord gave notice upon that occasion of a Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy for their services in India. On Friday morning, when the Paper appeared, there was no intimation of the character of the Motion which the noble Lord was going to make, and certainly the general impression was that upon this evening the noble Lord would propose the Thanks of the House to the Army and Navy for their services in India. Now we had an opportunity on Friday morning of clearly understanding what were the intentions of the Government, and of receiving from the noble Lord those explanations which I think were desirable; because I am sure that it must be the wish of every hon. Gentleman that an expression of opinion of this kind should, if possible, be unanimous. But upon Saturday morning, to the great surprise of many, we first saw the propositions which the noble Lord is about to make introduced upon the paper, and no opportunity was then offered of making any inquiries of the noble Lord with respect to the intentions of the Government. The point of order on which I wish for your direction, Sir, is whether these notices which the noble Lord has put upon the
866
Paper and is about to propose are altogether regular. If the House will allow me, I will point out the very painful and embarrassing position in which we are placed by a course of conduct which on the part of the Government could not, I am sure, have been intentionally disingenuous. The first notice on the Paper is for a Vote of Thanks to the Governor General of India, of which no notice was given by the noble Lord on Thursday night. Sir, I am far from wishing to raise any discussion upon this occasion on the merits and conduct of the Governor General. I have my own opinion of the policy which he has adopted, and I know that there are some hon. Members who have thought that this policy ought to have been brought under the consideration of the House; but I have always dissuaded hon. Gentlemen from taking that course, because, in a great emergency I thought that it would be premature and precipitate to ask the opinion of Parliament on the conduct of the Governor General. Sir, I merely make these observations to show—what I assure you most sincerely is the case—that I have no personal or party feeling in the course which I am now adopting. We are, however, asked to-night to vote our thanks to the Governor General of India, and I maintain that we have had no proper notice of that intention. The notice on Thursday night, by which we were guided, was a notice of a Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy. Now, Sir, I put it to Her Majesty's Ministers whether it is not most desirable, in a case like the present, that there should be a unanimity of feeling, and whether the noble Lord ought to press a Motion which comes before us in so irregular a manner? If the noble Lord thinks it right to propose a Vote of Thanks to the Governor General of India, it is perfectly open to him to give a notice of his intention. He then can have a debate upon the whole policy of the Indian Government during the last twelve months, and there may be a call of the House, if necessary, in order that upon that important subject a fair verdict may be given. But I ask the noble Lord, and I ask you, Sir, whether the noble Lord is justified in taking the course which he intends to take to-night by proposing a Vote of Thanks to the Governor General of India, while the notice that was given to us was simply a Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy? That, Sir, is a point of order on which I should like to hear your opinion.
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord gave in the first instance a general verbal notice of his intention to move a Vote of the Thanks of this House. The noble Lord afterwards placed upon the table a Paper which I now hold in my hand, containing the terms of his Motion, being the very same as those which appear in the Votes of today. This notice was printed on Friday and delivered with the Votes on Saturday morning. I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, ample notice has been given by the noble Lord of his intention to propose the Motion in the terms in which it stands on the Votes.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I rise, Sir, to a point of order. You will believe me, I trust, when I say that I should be the last person in this House to dispute the correctness of any point of order ruled by you; but I may venture most respectfully to say that the answer which you have now given does not meet the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. It appears from the answer you have now given that your own recollection of the facts is not quite distinct. In your reply to the appeal of my right hon. Friend you have said that the noble Lord on Thursday last gave a general notice. Now, Sir, the appeal which my right hon. Friend has made to you, and which I beg with great respect to repeat, is founded upon the fact that the noble Lord did not give a general notice. The notice of the noble Lord was specific, and not general. The notice of the noble Lord—I am in the recollection of the House, and I think that you, Sir, will admit the accuracy of what I say—was, that on this day he should move the Thanks of this House to the Army and Navy. I do not believe that there is a man in this House who had any idea until he saw the notice in the Votes delivered on Saturday morning that there was to be a Vote of Thanks to the Governor General of India, and yet that is the first and most important part of the Motion of the noble Lord. Now, Sir, this is the point of order which I venture, with the greatest respect, to put to you—whether it is consistent with the rules of this House, or ought to be consistent with its practice, that a Minister shall give a notice on one day, in a certain form of words, and then substitute for it a written notice of a totally different character?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Allow me to say, Sir, that there never was a dis-
868
cussion on a point of order which seemed to be more completely irrelevant to the Orders of the House than the present. Why, Sir, if we come to order it is not necessary, in point of order, to give any notice. The Orders of the House would permit any hon. Member to get up on the spot to move a Vote of Thanks. Therefore, when hon. Gentlemen appeal to the Orders of the House, they ought to know and remember what those orders are. Now, with regard to the practice of the House, on which the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) had laid so much stress, it is this—any hon. Member who intends to propose a Motion first gives a verbal notice of it, and is next hound to put upon the Votes the distinct and detailed words of his Motion. Now, I gave notice on Thursday that I should move a Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy; but the right hon. Baronet now says that I am about to propose the direct contrary.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: No, no! Something directly different.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The notice that I have given in the Votes does include the Army and Navy, and the only difference between my verbal and my written notice is that the latter goes beyond the Army and Navy. I should think that it shows grounds and reasons why the Governor General of India, the Governors of the Presidencies, and Sir John Lawrence, are entitled to be included in the Vote of the House. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) and the right hon. Baronet have been arguing, not upon the Orders of the House, but their opinion of the propriety of the Motion which I am about to move. I appear to you, Sir, whether there is any question about order.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must repeat his opinion that due notice had been given of the Motion as it stood in the Votes.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, to perform a duty at once painful and gratifying to the person who has to perform it—one which I am sure will excite in the minds of every Member of this House who hears me feelings of a similar character. The occasion upon which we are assembled is of no ordinary character, and the Motion I am about to submit may be considered in one sense as productive of unmixed congratulation. The House should bear in mind those great events which in the last year have happened in India, and which

869
have called forth from the British residents in every part of that country all those high and distinguished qualities which characterize our race, and which never in the history of the world have been more eminently displayed. That great mutiny, which has extended to almost the whole of our Bengal army and to some small portion of the armies in the other Presidencies, was an event unexpected by anybody. It was foreseen by nobody before it happened, although there have been many prophets after the fact. There were those to whom it was known that as to particular matters of local concern certain regiments of Sepoys had manifested a discontented and mutinous feeling; but those who best knew the Sepoys, and who had had the longest experience of them, reposed the most perfect confidence in their general loyalty and fidelity. Sir Charles Napier, who had, as he said himself, for six years the command of the Bengal force, in a paper which I laid upon the table last Session, dated 1849, described the Native troops as proverbial for their fidelity. It is true that in that very paper he mentions that Lord Hardinge—who had not had so much experience of the character of the Indian soldiers, but who, judging, probably more correctly as it has turned out, by the general principles of human nature, thought that it would not be expedient to collect a large body of the Native troops together for the purpose of military exercise or parade lest they might be led to revolt. But Sir Charles Napier, alluding to that opinion, distinctly said that he entertained no such apprehension, and that he thought we might confidently rely upon the fidelity of any number of Native troops that might be collected together in large masses for the purpose of instruction. This great mutiny, which began by small degrees, but gradually extended itself over a vast extent of the country and withdrew an immense amount of the military force of India, took the Europeans in that country almost entirely by surprise. Those officers who were best acquainted with the character of their troops had so much confidence in their fidelity that they could not be persuaded, even at the last moment, to believe in the danger that had arisen, and some of these gallant men unfortunately fell victims to the over confidence which they reposed in their troops. Well, Sir, the great evil coming unexpectedly, and taking the civil and military servants of the Company and of the Crown in India by surprise, greater opportunities have been
870
afforded than if warning had been given for the display of that energy, that resource, that self-reliance, that courage and perseverance which they have shown upon so many and such great occasions. Though we rejoice at the triumphs which have been obtained, and are proud of the successes which our troops have gained over superior numbers, yet it would be unworthy of this House, and not in consonance with the feelings of the people of this country, if we were not to mourn over the loss of the many great and brave men who have fallen in this great revolt. I do not allude to those private afflictions which have been the consequence of acts of barbarity committed upon many occasions throughout India. That is an affair which, however painful it must be to the feelings of every man who has heard of those barbarities, is yet one with which it is not the duty of Parliament to concern themselves in their collective capacity. We look to what concerns the public service of the country. At the same time, in passing a vote of thanks to the living, it would be unworthy of us not to pay a passing, but well deserved tribute to those whom this country has lost. We have lost many men, some of whom gave promise of future distinction, and some of whom, by their active career had already entitled themselves to the gratitude of the country. The first man whom I should mention, because he was the first to perish, is General Anson, who was Commander in Chief when the mutiny first broke out. General Anson, though in a state of health which hardly permitted him to undertake any active operation at the moment, immediately assumed the command of such troops as he could collect, and pressed forward with them to Delhi. General Anson has been reproached by certain persons in this country, who were unacquainted with the facts, with having unnecessarily delayed the investment of Delhi and with having waited for a siege train which was not required. Now, Sir, so little informed were the people of this country with regard to the state of things in India that many persons imagined that Delhi was an open town, which could be at once walked into by any force which might be brought against it, and few were aware that it was surrounded by forts and batteries. General Anson, however, unfortunately fell an early victim to his zeal for the public service, and was succeeded by General Barnard, who marched to Delhi, and who, during the short time that his life

871
was spared, displayed the finest qualities of a general. General Barnard, on arriving before Delhi, gained a considerable advantage over a body of Sepoys who were outside the town. Some officers might have paused after an engagement in which, although success had been achieved, it had been achieved with great exertion and after a long and harassing march; but General Barnard saw that if the Sepoys were allowed to remain outside the town they would strengthen their position, and consequently he would have two sieges to undertake, one against that advanced position, and the other against the city itself; he therefore pushed on, and having routed the enemy, drove them within the town, thus gaining a great advantage for the besiegers. Well, Sir, General Barnard also fell a victim to his zeal, and was succeeded by General Wilson, who, more fortunate, was able to bring the siege to a close, and happily is still spared to us. The list of those indeed who have perished either by disease or by the sword in this unhappy struggle would be too long for me to recapitulate, but I may, perhaps, be allowed to mention the names of some who have performed actions which have been most prominent in the public view, and in doing so I must not be supposed to imply that there are not others whose names I do not mention who are equally deserving of public esteem. Sir Henry Lawrence was a man whose great services we all know and appreciate. He was a man who had for years held most distinguished positions, both military and civil, and every man who is acquainted with India knows how admirably he discharged the duties which fell to his lot. Then there was General Nicholson, an officer of surprising merit, and whose services would have continued to be, had he lived, of the utmost value to the country. Sir Hugh Wheeler, too, fell in the midst of his arduous attempts to defend Cawnpore, regretted by all. It is sufficient merely to mention the name of Havelock, for all must feel the loss which the country has sustained in his death, and we all know how deep was the lamentation and regret of the country at his death. Then there was General Neill, an officer of great merit, and whose death was a great loss to the country. Lieutenant Willoughby early distinguished himself by one of the most daring attempts ever made, and, although when he blew up the magazine at Delhi he at the time escaped, he fell a victim afterwards either to disease or
872
to the assault or ambuscades of the enemy. Then there was Salkeld, whose name in conjunction with that of Lieutenant Home will go down to posterity as that of men who in the performance of a desperate duty, blowing in the gate of Delhi, displayed a cool judgment and an indifference to danger which have never been surpassed Well, Sir, there have been many others whose names I forbear from enumerating, but whose services we ought not upon the present occasion to forget. We ought to clearly show, when referring to those who are happily still alive, and performing good service in India, that we do not forget the exertions of those that have fallen, but that we associate with their memories the bitter recollection that those exertions are no longer available for their country. There is one consolation, however, in this matter, and that is, that the display which we have seen of those great and manly qualities, which adorn the people of this country, has been so general, that it is impossible not to believe that many persons, who have had no opportunity of distinguishing themselves, would have shown qualities equal to those which have earned for their more fortunate brethren the grateful recollection of their country. I then come to those whose good services have happily been still spared to us, and I will state to the House the Resolutions which I propose to move. I propose, in the first instance—and it is the usual practice upon such occasions—not only to thank the military and naval officers and men for the services which they have rendered, but also to thank those persons at the head of the civil government, who by the arrangements which they made, and by the means which they have placed at the disposal of the military officers, have essentially contributed to the success which has happily attended our efforts. I propose, also, to thank, not only the officers and men of the sister services, but to add a Resolution of which I have not given notice; but I am sure that, although it is a departure from the strict practice of the House, it will not be objected to upon any point of order. I think that this House, in recognizing the services of the naval and military officers and men in India, will at the same time be most willing to acknowledge the services of a great number of persons who, although not belonging to the military profession, have in different parts of India defended their posts when attacked, and have ably co-operated with the mili-

873
tary. Some objection may be taken to the first Resolution, which relates to the services of Viscount Canning, Governor General of the British Possessions in the East Indies; Lord Harris, Governor of the Presidency of Madras; Lord Elphinstone, Governor of the Presidency of Bombay; Sir John Laird Mair Lawrence, G.C.B., Chief Commissioner of the Punjab; and Henry Bartle Edward Frere, Commissioner of Scinde. Now, Sir, if those different officers had not performed the services which they have performed—if they had not evinced the utmost diligence and care, by which alone they were enabled to place at the disposal of the military commanders a considerable force even before the arrival of a single man from England, the successes which we have obtained might probably not have befallen us; Delhi and Cawnpore might not have fallen, nor might the garrison of Lucknow have been relieved. When first the mutiny assumed a shape which displayed its formidable extent and magnitude, Lord Canning, knowing that a considerable period must elapse before large reinforcements could arrive from England, began to consider whence he could obtain troops; and he wrote to Lord Elgin, strongly urging him to permit the force which had been placed under his directions for China to be diverted from its destination, and to proceed to the assistance of the army in India. Well, Sir, Lord Elgin, with prompt and ready zeal, immediately acquiesced, and consented to denude himself of that force on which he depended for the success of the mission upon which he had been sent—Lord Elgin, I say, feeling the vast importance of suppressing the mutiny in India, immediately consented to part with his force, and for the time abandon the negotiation with which he had been intrusted. Lord Canning sent also to the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope for assistance, and Sir George Grey, although there were certain symptoms with regard to the Kaffirs calculated to excite some uneasiness, seeing the importance of the emergency, sent him men, horses, artillery, and money,—in short, everything which could assist Lord Canning upon the occasion. The Governor of the Mauritius did the same. The Governor of Ceylon did the same. Indeed, Sir George Anderson and Sir Henry Ward stripped their respective colonies to an extent which, perhaps, nothing but a great emergency could have justified, and took upon themselves a responsibility which did
874
great honour to their public spirit. Lord Canning took steps also to procure from Persia, from the Mauritius, and from Australia, horses to mount the cavalry and artillery which he expected to arrive, or which he had already at his disposal. Lord Canning, knowing that, when the troops from England arrived, there would be a difficulty in sending them from Calcutta up the country, and knowing, from experience, that the bullock-carts, the animals and vehicles of the peasantry, were taken, as was the custom, by conscription, and that the peasantry, therefore, hid them and carried them away, and that it was difficult to obtain the means of transport—Lord Canning, I say, wisely resolved to pay the peasantry for the use of these carriages, and the result was that, so far from there being no means of transport, after the arrival of 20,000 troops, a great number of bullock-carts were obliged to be sent away, which had been brought to the railway station by the people in the hope that they would be employed. I say, then, that Lord Canning is justly entitled to the acknowledgments of this House for the energy he showed on that occasion. Sir, Lord Canning has been the object of much attack; and I will give the House a specimen of the justice and truth of those attacks. A statement, I am told on authority which I can trust, although I did not see it myself, appeared in a Calcutta newspaper, published at the time when Lord Canning appointed the staff officers for the expedition to Persia, in which it was said, in regard to one of those appointments, "that Lord Canning had now crowned all his former follies by confiding to a worn-out red-tapist, and a man totally unfitted for such a post, an important military command." In short, the officer so selected was held up by this newspaper to ridicule and contempt, as a man fit for nothing else but to sit at table with a dinner before him. And who does the House think was the officer thus assailed? Why, no other than the distinguished General Havelock. I hope, then, the House will not allow themselves to be led away by the vituperation cast upon Lord Canning by the Calcutta press, or by the reports sent home in private letters from that capital. I entreat them to look at the public services which Lord Canning has performed in providing our officers with the means requisite to enable them to accomplish their military operations with success; and I think that no man of generous

875
mind will be disposed to refuse to the Governor General the meed of acknowledgment so justly due to him. I may say the same, in a lesser degree, of Lord Elphinstone and Lord Harris, who did the utmost in their power to strengthen our forces at the immediate scene of action by sending every disposable man to Bengal, and thus stripped their respective Presidencies of troops which, even under ordinary circumstances, might have been thought necessary for their tranquillity, and which, if there were to be a mutiny in their armies, would have been doubly essential in those Presidencies. The services of Sir John Lawrence were really beyond all praise. Sir John Lawrence, by his ability and judgment, not only kept the Punjab tranquil, but organized a large force of Sikhs—the very men who were before regarded as the most dangerous to our rule—threw himself upon them for support, and then sent almost every European soldier within his reach to Delhi, by which means General Wilson was enabled to effect the capture of that great stronghold. I trust, therefore, that this House, ever generous in its appreciation of distinguished public services, will concur in the first Resolution which it is my duty to propose. I must not, however, omit to mention the name of Mr. Frere, the Commissioner of Scinde, who is also included in this vote—a man whose services are so well known and appreciated that it is superfluous for me to allude to them at greater length. The second Resolution which I have to submit is—
"That the Thanks of this House be given to his Excellency General Sir Colin Campbell, G. C. B., Commander in Chief of India; Major General Sir James Outram, G.C.B.; Major General Sir Archdale Wilson, Hart., K. C.B.; and Major General John Eardly Wilmot Inglis, K.C.B., for the eminent skill, courage, and perseverance displayed by them in the achievement of so many and such important triumphs over numerous bodies of the mutineers."
No warmth of approbation which this House can express can be greater than the services of Sir Colin Campbell deserve. Sir Colin Campbell has displayed the highest qualities which can distinguish a general in the field. The alacrity with which he left England to take the chief command was characteristic of his country, of his Highland extraction, and of his military career. When requested to proceed to India he replied that he would be proud to have the trust committed to him; and on being asked when he could start,
876
he answered, "To-morrow evening." He wanted no time for preparation, no delay for arranging his military equipments. He could get every thing he required, he said, at Calcutta, and he would not lose an hour in leaving England by the first steamer then under orders to sail. He arrived at Calcutta, and presented himself at the residence of the Governor General; and, whatever may have been reported from India to the contrary, I am able to slate that the most perfect confidence, the most perfect harmony, the most perfect reciprocal esteem and goodwill prevailed between him and the Governor General from the moment that he reached that country down to the latest hour to which our intelligence extends. I know that Sir Colin Campbell has written to the Governor General, expressing his lively sense of the public services performed by Lord Canning in the course of this general and wide-spread mutiny. Sir Colin Campbell has the rare merit of uniting to the greatest intrepidity and the most daring courage that caution, that combination, that facility of adapting the means to the end which is best calculated to accomplish the object in view with the least possible sacrifice of life to his troops. This most admirable quality is one which, perhaps, few of the great leaders whose deeds are recorded on the page of history can be praised for displaying; but it is nevertheless a quality which his illustrious predecessor (the Duke of Wellington) eminently possessed, and which is always sure not only to command the confidence of the army, but to render its services doubly effectual when the day of battle arrives. In his splendid advance upon Lucknow, in the manner in which he extricated that large train of women and children, and of sick and wounded from the beleagured Residency, Sir Colin Campbell has shown a military skill and ability that were never surpassed. And when he returned to Cawnpore, and had to attack the Gwalior Contingent, instead of rushing to the encounter without preparation, he paused to mature his plans and complete his arrangements for the safety of those entrusted to his care, and then inflicted upon the enemy a discomfiture all the more signal and decisive for his previous delay. It is a great consolation for the country to know that it possesses so great a commander as Sir Colin Campbell has proved himself to be; and it is equally satisfactory to feel that we have men who

877
the moment they are placed in situations of great responsibility show themselves fully equal to the occasion, and entitle themselves to the applause and gratitude of their country. Then, Sir, there is General Wilson who came accidentally to the command of the force before Delhi by the death of his two predecessors. General Wilson has shown that the officers of the scientific branches of the service are not less capable than their comrades of the other branches to command armies and achieve great and glorious results. The skill he exhibited in the various engagements which took place before the great rebel stronghold, the talent he has evinced in conducting the siege, and his judgment in not attempting the assault until he had a sufficient force under him to insure success, entitle him to the high approbation and Thanks of this House. General Outram, too, after performing with great ability the service upon which he was sent to Persia, returned to India and was appointed to a command which entitled him to supersede General Havelock, who had been earning by repeated successes those laurels which now, alas! can only crown his monument. Yet Sir James Outram, with a spirit of chivalry equal to his gallantry and skill—with that generosity which is so often the accompaniment of true courage, declined to take from General Havelock the command of that force with which he had acquired such brilliant distinction, telling him that "Until you have succeeded in relieving Lucknow, the object of your successive efforts, I will serve under you as a volunteer, and will not step in to deprive you of that glory which you so justly deserve." It is gratifying, then, to see that those who distinguish themselves in arms also show themselves to be endowed with the magnanimity so nobly displayed in this instance by General Outram. The exertions of General Cotton and Colonel Edwardes were also of important service in conjunction with Sir John Lawrence at Peshawur, while by General Hope Grant, an officer of great distinction and great promise, very brilliant achievements have been performed, which lead us to hope that, from his time of life, he may yet long continue to be an honour to his profession and a glory to his country. Then there is Brigadier Chamberlain, who greatly distinguished himself at Delhi, and also General Greathed, whose gallant feats have won him so much fame. I mention
878
these names because, although some of them cannot be formally mentioned in the Resolution, it would yet be a suppression of the feelings of this House were they not inscribed in the records of our discussion. Still I cannot name them all even orally, but must content myself with only pointing out those who happen to have had the greatest opportunity of making themselves prominent. There is Colonel Jones, of the 31st Foot, who made himself conspicuous at Delhi; Colonel Campbell, of the 32nd, and Colonel Jones, of the 60th, who also distinguished themselves on the same occasion. Colonel Baird Smith, of the Engineers, had the merit of conducting, under General Wilson, all the siege operations of Delhi with the greatest ability, and succeeded in placing a battery within fifty yards of the wall to be breached,—a feat worthy the highest admiration; Lieutenant Rayner and Lieutenant Forrest co-operated with Lieutenant Willoughby in that gallant exploit of blowing up the magazine at Delhi. General Woodburn, of the Bombay army, and Brigadier General Stuart have also rendered essential service, while General Van Cortlandt has acquired great reputation by his achievements in the Punjab. There was Brigadier General Burnes; Colonel Vincent Eyre, who performed most gallant and most important services; Colonel Inglis, a name never to be forgotten, and made illustrious by that gallant defence of Lucknow, which he conducted in the presence of overwhelming numbers of the enemy, through three months of unexampled suffering and difficulty. Then, Sir, there was another man, not, indeed, belonging to the army, but who was always to be found where fighting was going on—Captain Peel, who has distinguished himself equally at sea and on land, and who was always foremost in battle. I shall also move,—
"That the thanks of this House be given to the other gallant officers of Her Majesty's Army, Navy, and Marines; and, also, of the Hon. East India Company's Service for the intrepidity, the patient endurance, and other high military qualities which have marked their discharge of those arduous duties which they have so successfully performed. That this House doth highly approve and acknowledge the high courage, the devoted loyalty, and the brilliant services of the noncommissioned officers and men of Her Majesty's military and naval forces, of the European troops in the service of the Hon. East India Company, and of the great body of those Native corps throughout India who have remained faithful to their standards; and that the same be signified to them by the commanders of their several corps, who are desired to thank them for their gallant behaviour."

879
I am happy to say that, even in the Bengal army, some corps have remained faithful to their allegiance; that, in the very town of Lucknow, there were Bengal troops who not only bravely and gallantly co-operated with the European garrison in defending the place, but being within talking distance of the mutineers, and being repeatedly and constantly solicited to be faithless to their oaths, and to join their rebellious countrymen, steadily resisted all the allurements which were held out to them, and resolved to shed the last drop of their blood in conjunction with their European allies. That honourable fact ought to be remembered in justice to a portion, at least, of the Bengal Sepoys. In the Madras army there was hardly any, and in the Bombay army only slight disaffection; and it is, I think, due to those troops—a large portion of our Native army—who have remained faithful to their standards, that their fidelity should be recorded and acknowledged. In addition to these Resolutions, Sir, I would move one of which I have not given notice, but which I trust the House will nevertheless accept, namely:—
"That this House do highly appreciate and cordially approve the courage, self-devotion, and exemplary conduct of those persons who, though not holding military rank, have nevertheless performed valuable military service in defence of the various posts throughout the disturbed districts in India at which they were resident; and that the Governor General be requested to thank those persons for their spirited and patriotic exertions."
We should not be doing justice to those persons, if we did not include them in our thanks. To name them would be impossible, because the reports which we have received would not enable us to do so. There are, however, many of them who have performed heroic actions; there are many who have shown the greatest military capacity, who have resisted superior numbers, not only with courage and perseverance, but also with the greatest possible skill; and, taking a large view of these transactions, we should not do justice to our own feelings, or the feelings of the country, if we did not include them in our Resolutions. With these observations I beg leave to propose the votes of which I have given notice. It must be satisfactory to the people of this country to see that our countrymen, whether they have been brought up to the military or naval profession, or whether their habits have been those of civil life, ate always found equal to any circumstances in which they may be
880
placed, to any difficulties by which they may be surrounded, and that their conduct in all emergencies does honour to themselves, and to the country which has given them birth.
The noble Lord concluded by moving the following Resolutions:—
"Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the Thanks of this House be given to the Right Honourable Viscount Canning, Governor General of the British Possessions in the East Indies; the Right Honourable Lord Harris, Governor of the Presidency of Madras; the Right Honourable Lord Elphinstone, Governor of the Presidency of Bombay; Sir John Laird Mair Lawrence, G. C. B., Chief Commissioner of the Punjaub; and Henry Bartle Edward Frere, Esquire, Commissioner of Scinde, for the energy and ability with which they have employed the resources at their command to suppress the widely-spread mutiny in Her Majesty's Indian Dominions.
"Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the Thanks of this House be given to His Excellency General Sir Colin Campbell, G.C. B., Commander in Chief in India; Major General Sir James Outram, G.C.B.; Major General Sir Archdale Wilson, Baronet, K. C.B.; and Major General Sir John Eardley Wilmot Inglis, K.C.B, for the eminent skill, courage, and perseverance displayed by them in the achievement of so many and such important triumphs over numerous bodies of the Mutineers.
"Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the thanks of this House be given to the other gallant Officers of Her Majesty's Army, Navy, and Marines; and also of the Honourable East India Company's Service, for the intrepidity, the patient endurance, and other high military qualities which have marked their discharge of those arduous duties which they have so successfully performed.
"Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That this House doth highly approve and acknowledge the high courage, the devoted loyalty, and the brilliant services of the Non-commissioned Officers and Men of Her Majesty's Military and Naval Forces; of the European Troops in the service of the Honourable East India Company; and of the great body of those Native Corps throughout India who have remained faithful to their Standards; and that the same be signified to them by the Commanders of the several Corps, who are desired to thank them for their gallant behaviour.
"Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That this House doth highly appreciate and cordially approve of the courage, self-devotion, and exemplary conduct of those persons, who, though not holding military rank, have nevertheless performed valuable Military Service in the Field, or in defence of various Posts throughout the disturbed districts in India at which they were resident; and that the Governor General be requested to thank these persons for their spirited and patriotic exertions."
Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That the Thanks of this House be given to the Right Honourable Viscount Canning, Governor General of the British Possessions in the East Indies; the Right Honourable Lord Harris, Governor of the Presidency of Madras; the Right Honourable Lord Elphinstone, Governor of the Presidency of Bombay; Sir John Laird Mair Lawrence, G.C.B., Chief Commissioner of the

881
Punjaub; and Henry Bartle Edward Frere, Esquire, Commissioner of Scinde, for the energy and ability with which they have employed the resources at their command to suppress the widely spread mutiny in Her Majesty's Indian Dominions."
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, although I believe that no differenee of opinion can possibly prevail among us as to the unprecedented lustre of the actions of our countrymen generally in India, I must still express my regret that, on an occasion like the present, the noble Lord should have, as I think, unnecessarily introduced any elements of controversy. I quite agree with the noble Lord in his view of the conduct of individuals during the last year in India. I do not think there has ever been an instance in which the vigour of personal character has been so remarkably exhibited, and in which individual energy has shone with so much splendour. Indeed, the story is quite epical. The narrative reads like the Homeric poems—every scene produces a hero. In these remarkable events there are two incidents which, by their importance, immediately attract our attention, and it is curious that in these two instances our countrymen were placed in exactly opposite positions. In one they were besiegers, in the other besieged; and in both cases they achieved complete success and gained immortal glory. Between the siege of Delhi and that of Lucknow there was, however, one passage which ought not to be forgotten on this occasion; the connecting link between them, the march of Greathed—worthy, I think, of Caesar. The noble Lord has very properly reminded us that, on an occasion like the present, when we are expressing the thanks of this House for the heroic efforts of our countrymen in India we ought not to forget those who are departed—those who deserve, but who, unfortunately, cannot receive the tribute of our admiration and our gratitude; and I was glad that he did justice to one who long sat in this House, and who, had he had the opportunity, would, I believe, have proved equal to the occasion. I mean the sagacious and gallant Anson, who, had he lived, would have maintained, I think, the reputation of an illustrious name. The noble Lord has also reminded us that there was a distinguished General who fell before Delhi, but who, before he fell, had the satisfaction of achieving great results for the interests of his Sovereign and of his country—General Barnard. These are the
882
names of men who were prematurely cut off, therefore cannot be included in a Vote of Thanks of this House, but who, had they been spared, might have been inscribed upon that roll of heroes on which we find the names of Nicholson, of Have-lock, and of Neill—names which will ever be remembered by the firesides of their country. Lucknow also produced a cluster of illustrious names not inferior to those to whom I have referred. They are contained in one of the votes which will come under our consideration this evening. All remember the charge of Outram, the chivalry of which was not more distinguished than the generous sentiment which placed him in a subordinate position. One of those eminent men whom we shall be called upon to thank to-night, for his gallant conduct in the defence of Lucknow not only excited the interest of all Englishmen, but, owing to peculiar circumstances, created a special sentiment in this House. There were in this House many whose hearts throbbed with sympathy for the beleaguered fortunes of the gallant Inglis, and who will, with peculiar appreciation, join in the vote of approbation of his signal services. The noble Lord has with great happiness described the character of our Commander in Chief. Sir Colin Campbell has, I believe, only one fault—a courage too reckless for his country. An union of personal valour so eminent, with strategy so prudent, has seldom been presented in the history of great military commanders. The noble Lord has also referred, at least in his votes, to the conduct of the other branch of Her Majesty's service, and although it appears somewhat singular that Her Majesty's Navy should take part in a great war in India, still by that happy destiny which in some degree seems to connect the danger and the glory of our country with that eminently national branch of the service, even in this strange war the achievements of our Navy have been most signal and distinguished. Those who remember the early career of Sir W. Peel in the Crimea may not be astonished at his actions in India; but when we read of his bringing heavy artillery across a country through which there were no roads, and presenting it before the countenances of our astonished enemies, who had reckoned upon the absence of such means of attack, one is almost reminded of the character of Sir Sidney Smith, who, half a century ago, won the admiration and gratitude of his coun-

883
try by his romantic energy. However alarming may have been the course of events during the past year, however troubled and gloomy even may now be our prospects in India, every one must feel that the nation which produces such men is not destined to a declining empire. I wish the noble Lord had permitted us this evening to give an unanimous vote with respect to the heroes, whether officers or privates, to whom we are under such obligations; for it is not merely the officers of the army and navy who have distinguished themselves; there has not only been conduct of general valour, but there have been instances of individual heroism on the part of the common soldiers which cannot be too highly praised. Many of the noncommissioned officers and men have shown an elevation of sentiment and a purity of feeling which I am sure this country will always appreciate. In the moment of their severest trial I can conceive what may have sustained and animated these illustrious men, from the highest general to the rank and file. We know by the confession of many warriors how in the hour of danger they were animated to such determined valour and energy by the thought that they might obtain the approbation of their Sovereign and their country. The favour of their Sovereign and the Thanks of Parliament have armed many a gallant spirit with new courage and fortitude in the moment of peril, and who can conceive what may have been the feelings of a man like General Inglis during his ninety awful days at Lucknow with respect to those influences. We know what it was in the case of the heroic Havelock. Perhaps at the darkest and most trying moment, among other moral rewards, even the vote of the House of Commons may have suggested itself to his mind, and sustained him in the hour of danger. That shows how important it is that we should take care that votes of this kind are not degraded by being unworthily bestowed. Let us not depreciate the value of our thanks by conferring them upon men whose conduct has been little meritorious. When I am told, if I make any observation on the manner in which these votes have been brought forward, that it is the usual form and the usual precedent to name in the same votes persons whose actions are of far different degrees of excellence, I will say that we should beware that we do not make our votes mere votes of form, because, without honouring those who receive them unde-
884
servedly, we shall destroy the distinction to those who have been prepared to give their lives, in order to obtain it. Permit me to explain myself distinctly with regard to the first vote which the noble Lord has proposed. Among the noblemen and gentlemen mentioned in that vote there are some respecting whose services there can be no question. The country is grateful to Sir John Lawrence, and recognizes him as a man who has placed himself in the highest position,—as a man who evidently not only possesses great qualities, but knows how to exercise them without regard to personal feeling. So far as we can appreciate the course of events, the conduct of the Governors of the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras may be, and I believe is, deserving of public thanks. So far as I have been able to obtain information, Lord Elphinstone has shown great facility in the discharge of the duties of his high office, and I have always understood that it was owing to him that those troops were obtained from the Cape to which the noble Viscount has referred, though, for what reason I know not, he has given the credit to another individual. Now I am desirous upon this occasion to enter into any controversy with respect to the conduct of Lord Canning. Her Majesty's Ministers were perfectly justified in proposing, if they think his Excellency deserves them, the thanks of this House to Lord Canning; but then I think that upon a subject like that due notice should have been given. It should not have been considered a mere form; it should not have been a surprise. After all we have heard, I think that the friends of Lord Canning, not to speak of his Excellency himself, could not desire that a vote of such a kind should be surreptitiously obtained. I have never brought any charge against Lord Canning, but if the noble Viscount challenges me to-night I must express my opinion, which I am sure is not one influenced by prejudice or passion. There are passages in the conduct of Lord Canning which require great explanation and a vindication which I have not yet heard. I am not prepared to say that a satisfactory explanation cannot be given, or that a triumphant defence may not be made, but I am prepared to say that we ought not to vote these thanks, and Lord Canning ought not to deign to accept them, until we have arrived at the clear conviction that his services are entitled to our approbation. The noble Viscount says no one expected

885
what he persists in calling the "mutiny" in India. It took everybody by surprise. There are prophets after the event who explain everything, but nobody expected anything to happen at all. Of course that is intended as an excuse for Lord Canning, but I am still of opinion that it is not a prima facie proof of excellence in a Governor General that he should be taken by surprise when there is an insurrection. I confess I should like to have upon that subject an explanation far more satisfactory than that given by the noble Viscount. But there are passages of policy in the conduct of the Government of India which demand the most careful investigation before the House can be so unwise as to commit itself to the approbation of measures which afterwards it may find it its duty to impugn. We want information as to the negotiations that took place between the Governor General and the ruler of Nepaul. That is a matter entirely left in mystery. Why were negotiations commenced with the ruler of Nepaul to induce him to pour troops into Oude at a particular moment? Why were they afterwards countermanded, and why were they once more renewed? It is possible that the friends of Lord Canning may be able to explain his conduct in that particular, but surely the subject is one which requires explanation; and before we have thoroughly investigated the facts we cannot prudently pass a vote of thanks to his Excellency. I should also like to know what were the motives which induced Lord Canning to order troops from Rangoon, and then to countermand them? In the conduct of the Administration of India—which, I repeat, may possibly be triumphantly explained and defended—I see inconsistency and incoherency, and to ask us to thank the Governor General for pursuing a policy which appears on the surface to have led to great public disasters seems to me to be most unreasonable and impolitic. The noble Viscount tells us, as one claim for our approbation of the conduct of Lord Canning, that his Excellency has distinguished himself by the manner in which he has forwarded troops up the country. No doubt the noble Viscount is in possesssion of information of the highest kind. He says that newspapers are not to be trusted, and that private letters should not be attended to. What, then, are we, who have no official despatches, but who are obliged to get our information as we can, to
886
do in order to ascertain the facts? I am bound to say that, having given careful attention to that subject, and endeavoured to obtain information from authentic sources, I have all along been under the impression that there was a lamentable deficiency of transport at Calcutta. We have heard of troops arriving there without any preparations having been made for their reception. In the month of November last, we had an official telegram announcing the arrival of troops, and at the same time confessing and deploring that there were no means of forwarding them up the country. The charge against Lord Canning is, that he did not take those steps which were absolutely requisite, and upon which the results of the campaign depended, and that by that neglect we are about to enter into that which I took the liberty at the end of last Session to warn the House was a most dangerous course—a third campaign. We want to know why Lord Canning did not send to Madras for 20,000 bullocks, which might have been obtained? Upon the means of transport depended whether the hostilities in India should be prolonged; and yet, without any inquiry into the conduct of the Governor General in that particular, we are asked to agree to a vote which would prevent us hereafter from impugning or criticising any part of his public policy. There are many other questions of the same kind which ought to be answered satisfactorily before I can give my consent to such a step. For instance, I should like to have had a clear account, before I came to a vote of this kind, of the motives which influenced Lord Canning to adopt the measures which he did with regard to suppressing the English press in India. I am convinced myself, from information which I possess—not from writers of anonymous letters in Calcutta papers—that it was an unnecessary step, and that it has entailed great mischief on our interests. I do not want the House to come to a decision upon that subject upon an occasion like the present, though I believe it is one which requires grave deliberation; but I do say that it is monstrous to ask us of a sudden to come to a vote which precludes us from hereafter ever offering an opinion upon it, or upon all those topics to which, without preparation, I have referred. There are many other topics which, if I had thought the debate would take this course, I might have intimated to the House. It is of the utmost importance,

887
not that the House should come to any precipitate conclusion, or encourage any prejudice in relation to Lord Canning, but that the House should keep itself perfectly free to give a calm decision whenever occasion offers, and not be estopped from future criticism upon the conduct of an Administration which has had to deal with remarkable events, and has had recourse to extraordinary modes of meeting them. Another subject, which cannot be introduced into a debate of this kind, but which appears to me to require the clearest information, is the relations between the Government of Calcutta and the kingdom of Oude since the rebellion commenced. It has been reported to me, and I believe the information is correct, that since the rebellion commenced in India the most considerable persons in the kingdom of Oude, chiefs of high character, of vast possessions and influence, have been attempting to negotiate with our Government and would have been desirous to assist in a settlement, which, in my opinion, was not only for the advantage of England, but one which the interests of justice demand. I am told that these negotiations were commenced long before the fall of Delhi; that Lord Canning was aware Delhi would fall a considerable period—at least three weeks—before the event took place; and that it was in the power of the Government of India not only to have accomplished the fall of Delhi, but at the same time to have pacified Oude. I give no opinion upon that matter, but it is an important consideration for the House if hereafter, when any hon. Gentleman brings forward the subject, which may be the pivot on which our fortunes in India turn, we are to be precluded discussion, and asked by the Minister, "How can the House entertain this charge against the Governor of India, when it has come to a unanimous Resolution approving the conduct which it is now called upon to impugn and to censure?" I make these observations not to commit the House against Lord Canning. I am not myself committed against Lord Canning. I am perfectly prepared to listen with candour to any defence which is offered to me; only let us have an opportunity of bringing forward the charges in a mature and complete manner, and let the House come to a decision upon them. But do not let the House in this surreptitious manner be precluded from exercising its highest functions. Do not let the House
888
betray the interests of the country, and by passing a Vote of Thanks prevent themselves from visiting with censure those who may be guilty of maladministration, and may be the direct or indirect cause of all the disasters and dangers yet impending. Do not let the House be hurriedly drawn into a course which will shut their mouths for ever. Now, I want to recommend a course to the noble Lord which shall not be invidious to Lord Canning. I want to treat Lord Canning with fairness. I do not take Lord Canning out of the category of eminent or illustrious persons in which the noble Lord places him. No one doubts the services of Sir John Lawrence. No one wishes to question the services of the other individuals whose names are in this first Resolution, besides the Governor General's. What I wish the noble Lord to do is to postpone this first Resolution. It cannot be invidious to Lord Canning. It cannot be unjust to him, because we shall then postpone the vote to all the eminent civilians whom we are called upon to thank to-night. There is nothing offensive or unjust to Lord Canning if we also postpone the vote to Sir John Lawrence, who has probably deserved more than any other man in India, whether soldier, sailor, or civilian. Therefore, I say, let us agree to-night in a unanimous Vote of Thanks to the army and navy, to the troops of the Company, and all who are included in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Resolutions. Let us offer no opinion whatever upon the first. Let the noble Lord postpone that, and give due notice hereafter of his intention to bring it forward; and if we then pass a Vote of Thanks to the Governor General, let it be in a manner gratifying to him. Do not let the mail go out and tell him, "Well, we have smuggled a Vote of Thanks to you through Parliament." Will that reward him, and will that sustain him in his labours? Will that add to his moral influence in Calcutta? No! There is not an; hon. Gentleman in this House but must feel that a Vote of Thanks under these circumstances is worse than nothing. It excites the passions of party, and, instead of Lord Canning being held forth as a statesman who has deserved well of his country, an impression will go about that he is used as a stalking-horse, and that for factious purposes the vote has been bestowed. Let the noble Lord withdraw this vote. Let him give fair notice of his intention to bring it forward on a future occasion. Let

889
us have the conduct of Lord Canning fully and fairly discussed, and if the charges brought against him are satisfactorily met and explained in a manner which will carry conviction to a candid mind, I will be the first person to vote unqualified approbation of his conduct. The noble Lord must permit me also to say that it is notorious a memorial has been sent to this country, very numerously signed, against Lord Canning. I will not give the slightest opinion as to the merits of that document; but that document had it not been for an informality, would have been lying on our table, and if it had been lying on our table it would have been the subject of discussion, and if it had contained charges which were unjust those charges would have been refuted by her Majesty's Ministers. Why is not that document on our table—a document, as my right hon. Friend reminds me, signed by more than 2,000 of the most considerable Europeans in Calcutta, praying for the recall of Lord Canning? I do not in any way connect myself with the charges contained in that memorial, but they are grave charges, coming from persons of character and influence. That document ought to be on our table, and had it been, the truth would have been established in discussion. It is not on our table through a quibble. The document praying for the recall of Lord Canning was forwarded to Her Majesty's Ministers for presentation to Her Majesty. By a rule of etiquette no document can arrive in this country in a perfectly orthodox manner unless it is transmitted by the Governor General himself. It was, of course, a matter of gentleman-like delicacy not to intrust a memorial praying for his recall to the Governor General; yet in these days, when empires are in danger and when one would suppose that the spirit of routine might be a little modified, I understand the memorial was sent back to Calcutta in order that it might be returned to England by the Governor General himself. Our fellow-countrymen in Calcutta have not the advantage of what is called representative government. Some of them want representative government. I give no opinion to-night upon that point. But if any of our countrymen residing at a great distance have grievances to allege against their governors, and have no other means of bringing those grievances before the notice of persons in authority than memorials to the Sovereign or petitions to Parliament, I think if we avail ourselves of an infor-
890
mality to prevent the subject of these complaints being before us, and at the same time vote thanks and approbation to the Governor whose conduct is impugned, we go a great way to make them dissatisfied with the home Government. I hope the noble Lord will not put me in the painful position of making a hostile Motion tonight, but will yield to my suggestion and postpone his first Resolution. But in case the noble Lord does not do that, I shall feel it my duty to move the previous question.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONintimated that he would not postpone the Resolution.
MR. DISRAELI: Then I move the Previous Question.
Previous Question proposed, That that Question be now put.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had done as much as any person could do by a speech to divert the House from the real issue before it, and to place the question in a false light. Anybody would suppose, from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask the House, by concurring in this vote, to pass a general vote of approbation upon the whole Indian administration and the policy of the Governor General of India. Had any such intention existed, he would admit with the right hon. Gentleman that not only would it have taken the House by surprise, but it would have been most improper for the Government to have mixed up with the expression of their approbation of the successful exertions of their soldiers what was a totally distinct question—the civil policy of the administration under which the Government had been conducted. But that was not the case. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the terms of the Motion, he would see that, so far from the Motion approving of the conduct of Lord Canning with regard to the civil policy which he had pursued—his policy with regard to the press—the Arms Act; with regard to Oude and other questions on which great diversity of opinion might reasonably exist—it addressed itself simply to the one Bingle point of the manner in which military operations had been conducted, and Lord Canning was in no way connected with it except so far as in his capacity of Governor General he had directed and superintended those opera-

891
tions. The right hon. Gentleman said something about the House having been taken by surprise. He (Mr. Labouchere) knew that in that House that was always a popular cry; there is nothing of which this House is so jealous, and so reasonably jealous, as an attempt at surprise; but anybody who had watched the course of proceedings in that House, and had referred to precedents, could tell them that the House would have been taken far more by surprise if the name of the Governor General had been omitted upon the present occasion. In every former occasion upon which Votes of Thanks had been given by the House for military operations in any part of Her Majesty's dominions, the names of the distinguished civilians under whose Government those operations had been achieved had been invariably mentioned, and coupled with the names of those by whom those operations had been performed. If the assertion was any comfort to the right hon. Gentleman, he would inform him that Her Majesty's Government would hold no Member of the House precluded in any future discussion from arraigning, blaming, or, if needs be, from moving a Vote of Censure for any political or civil act of the Governor General or the Government of India which was not connected immediately with the military operations of the country which were now the subject of approbation. If the name of Lord Canning and the other civilians were left out, it would imply censure upon the part of the House; their being mentioned was merely in accordance with the usual practice, and no special reason had been shown why they should depart from it upon this occasion. But beyond this he had no hesitation in saying, that with regard to the general policy of the administration of Lord Canning the Government were perfectly willing to defend it, and had no wish whatever to avoid any suitable occasion of discussing his acts with those who wished to arraign them. What he contended was, that the present was not the proper time for such a discussion, for it had reference entirely to the manner in which the military force of that country had been conducted and managed; and when they remembered the circumstances under which Lord Canning was placed—recollecting the surprise with which so tremendous a calamity had fallen upon them, how wide-spread the Indian mutiny was—and what a most inadequate supply of troops Lord Canning had at his immediate
892
disposal—when they witnessed his wisdom, the calm courage with which he encountered danger, and the admirable tact evinced by him in applying the forces at his command so as to meet and overcome the dangers by which he was surrounded, he thought that no just man, who had watched the current of events in India, would consider it right for the House to pass such a slight upon Lord Canning as would be implied in the omission of his name from a vote of thanks for military operations, in which it was always customary to include civilians who had conducted the affairs of the country where such operations had taken place. It was very well for them to talk at their ease in this country of this thing and the other thing that ought to have been done, but he considered that no human being had ever been placed in a situation of greater responsibility than Lord Canning was at the breaking out of the mutiny. The noble Lord went out to India with his mind filled with the desire and intention of carrying out peaceful reforms, extending civilisation and advancing the material improvement of the country intrusted to his charge. Scarcely had he been there a year when this terrible storm broke upon his head, and be had dealt with it in a manner which had inspired all around him with confidence and courage. When all the circumstances attending this frightful mutiny came to be inquired into, the people of England, who were always just and generous to their public men, would see that full justice was done to Lord Canning, and he (Mr. Labouchere) believed that in the end the result would be that the country would feel that they owed a deep debt of gratitude to that noble Lord, for the able manner in which he had conducted its affairs at so terrible a crisis. But this was not the time for a discussion of this kind. He asked the House fur no general vote of approval for Lord Canning on this occasion, but he implored them not to depart from the ancient and recognised course taken by them; but he asked the House, that when they were about (as he was sure they were) to express unanimously, in the name of their country, their cordial approbation of those gallant soldiers who, under so many perils and difficulties, had displayed qualities which had not only served the interests of their country, but had inscribed another page of imperishable glory on the annals of history, they would not forget the past services conferred by Lord Canning in superintending and directing

893
those efforts, and that they would not do anything which could be even misinterpreted so as to cast a stain upon Lord Canning's name. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had certainly surprised and entertained him, when he said that nothing could be fairer or less liable to misconstruction than a course which he recommended. There was, said he, the case of Sir John Lawrence, a man whom they all delighted to honour, and he (Mr. Labouchere) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they could hardly mention another man to whom the country was so much indebted; it was hardly possible to say what might have occurred if Sir John Lawrence, by his consummate policy, firmness, and indomitable civil courage—a quality rarer and not less precious than military courage—had not met and overcome the innumerable difficulties in the manner which has rendered his name famous. There was no knowing what turn affairs might not have taken in India had not Sir John Lawrence displayed such talents. But what did the right hon. Gentleman suggest? Why, that they should postpone the Vote of Thanks to him in order that in consequence of so great an act of injustice being done to him, no other man could complain of being left out of the vote. He hoped the House would not deal with the question in this spirit—would not listen for a moment to such a suggestion, for its adoption would, indeed, be to make a solemn vote of approbation by that House, which he considered the highest honour England could bestow, or to which an Englishman could look forward, a mere mockery and delusion. No, let them pursue the course invariably adopted on great occasions like the present; let them vote thanks to those brave men who had sustained the interests and the honour of the country in the late calamitous circumstances of India, and reject a suggestion in support of which no argument had been offered; let them include in the same Vote of Thanks not only those who had fought their battles, but those who had directed those operations with an energy and skill to which no small part of the successes with which they had been attended was attributable. He did not say this because he entertained a doubt that the civil policy of Lord Canning would not bear investigation. He believed that Lord Canning had been made the victim of as much misrepresentation and the object of as many acrimonious attacks as
894
any man alive. He was a man of a sensitive disposition, and felt these attacks deeply, but at the same time he had been supported under them by the conscientiousness that he had done his duty; and when his country calmly investigated the whole matter, and had before them all the information upon which the attacks and the defence were made, they would do him justice. He would only mention one circumstance to show the groundless nature of some of those attacks. His noble Friend has touched upon one class of the calumnies which have been freely circulated in this country—that he was anxious to thwart Sir Colin Campbell with respect to the policy to be pursued in the conduct of military operations. My noble Friend said that mere assertions were not only false, but ridiculously false, absurdly false. He (Mr. Labouchere) happened to have several letters of Sir Colin Campbell, not written with any expectation that they would be published or shown to any one, in which Sir Colin Campbell spoke in terms of the highest admiration and deepest affection of Lord Canning, stating that nothing could be more satisfactory than the manner in which they worked together. He spoke also of his many admirable qualities as a man of business, of his character for honour, and what was more marked than anything else, of the calm deliberate courage which he had shown on the occasion of the calamitous outbreak, the result of which they were now suffering. His (Mr. Labouchere's) object in rising was to implore the House not to believe what the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to persuade them was the fact, that by passing this vote they were precluding themselves from considering on some future occasion the whole policy of Lord Canning. The present vote implied no such general approbation as that, and the time would come when the House would be called upon to express their opinion upon it, and when, it would be brought before them upon, perfectly distinct grounds.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I deeply regret to learn from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the noble Lord will not accept the suggestion which has been made by my right hon. Friend with so much moderation. I deeply regret the course which he has taken because, since I have had the honour of a seat in Parliament I do not remember any circumstances more painful than those in which the House is now placed by that refusal. The right

895
hon. Gentleman has just told us that this vote does not involve approbation of Lord Canning's conduct. What, then, is the meaning of the language employed in the Motion before us? What are we asked to thank Lord Canning for? The Motion says, "for the energy and ability with which he has employed the resources at his command for the suppression of the rebellion." Is not that approbation of Lord Canning? In the absence of any proof to the contrary I am sorry to say that I am irresistibly brought to the conclusion that, instead of Lord Canning's conduct being marked with energy and ability, it has been marked with great vacillation, great indecision, and a great want of that statesmanlike capacity which was requisite for the discharge of his duties. I don't for a moment doubt that Lord Canning has acted for the best. I don't for a moment deny that he has been placed in a position of extreme difficulty; and I think that great allowances ought to be made for the unexpected emergency in which he found himself involved; but I submit to the House that Votes of Thanks ought not to be lightly complimented away. The thanks of Parliament are one of the greatest honours that can be conferred upon any Englishman, and it is the duty of the House to take care that they are not voted except in cases where there can be no doubt whatever that they are well deserved. I am sure I need not state that my mind is free from anything like prejudice against Lord Canning. So far from it, if I have any wish with regard to Lord Canning, it is, that as a public man he should prove a good title to the name of his great and distinguished father. As I have already said, I hardly recollect anything so painful occurring in this House as the necessity under which we now find ourselves of taking exception to the course proposed by the Government; and I submit that that course is not fair to this House, and that it is not fair to Lord Canning. Why did not the noble Lord, last Thursday, when he gave his notice, tell us fairly and honestly what his Motion would be? Why did he not tell us that the first Vote of tonight would be one of thanks to the Governor General? I think, Sir, that we have great reason to complain of the course which the Government have taken in thus attempting to obtain by surprise a vote of this nature. Was the omission accidental? I can't help strongly suspecting that the noble Lord withheld the announcement of a Vote of Thanks to the Governor General
896
because he felt that it was doubtful how far it would be well received in this House, and that it would be better to keep it back till the latest moment. But this is not all. Let me remind the House and the Government of the extraordinary circumstances under which they ask for this Vote of Thanks. My right hon. Friend has referred to a memorial which was sent from Calcutta to the Queen, praying for the recall of Lord Canning. I think that those who have read that memorial will feel that, if the allegations it contains are true, Lord Canning ought to be recalled instead of being thanked. Before the holidays I asked the noble Lord opposite whether that memorial was to be placed on the table of the House, and the answer that I received was that, for the reasons which have been stated by my right hon. Friend, it was necessary, not merely as a matter of form, but as a matter also of fairness and of justice, before it was produced, that it should be sent to Calcutta for the answer of Lord Canning. I could take no exception to the perfect propriety of that course; but we have not yet seen that answer, and the noble Lord now asks the House to pass a Vote of Thanks and approbation of the conduct of Lord Canning at a moment when a serious document of that kind, desiring his recall, has been referred back to Calcutta, and we have not seen what the answer of Lord Canning is. I understood the noble Lord on a former occasion to say that the answer had been received. [Mr. VERNON SMITH: We are awaiting it.] Then that only makes the case the stronger. At all events, we have not yet seen the answer which has been received from Lord Canning to the serious allegations contained in the Calcutta memorial. The noble Lord says that the conduct of Lord Canning has been judicious, and that he has done all that he possibly could to apply the resources at his command to the repression of the rebellion in India. I am sorry to say—if we are to believe the allegations in the document referred to—that the instances are most numerous in which Lord Canning has shown the greatest vacillation and the utmost infirmity of purpose. I must impress upon the House that it is very difficult to arrive at anything like a fair opinion on this question without bearing the dates in mind. On the 10th of May occurred the massacre at Meerut. On the 11th of May, Delhi was captured by the rebels. On the 19th, the revolt took place at Lucknow. On the

897
21st of May a loyal deputation went up to Lord Canning offering their services as volunteers in Calcutta. The answer of Lord Canning was a decided refusal of their offer, accompanied by a rebuke for the imputations which they were throwing out against the loyalty of the Bengal army. On the 25th of May another offer was made by, I believe, the whole of the European residents in Calcutta to enlist as volunteers, in order that Lord Canning might be enabled to send up every available soldier to the disturbed province. Again Lord Canning refused their offer in an abrupt and-offensive manner, telling those gentlemen that the "partial disturbance was nearly quelled." But that was not all. Those offers were made to Lord Canning on the 21st and 25th of May, and on the 19th—two days before he rebuked the loyal inhabitants of Calcutta for having thrown imputations upon the loyalty of the Bengal army—Lord Canning had written home to the Court of Directors speaking of the alarming events which had just taken place at Meerut and Delhi, and alluding to the dangerous state of the whole of the Native army in Bengal. I do not for a moment contend that it was Lord Canning's duty to hold the same language to those deputations which he held in his correspondence with the Court of Directors; but it is clear that on the 19th of May, Lord Canning was aware of the disaffection of the Bengal army, and I say that the answer which he gave to those deputations was most improper and injudicious under the circumstances, and that it was hardly worthy of Lord Canning, considering the statement which he had just sent home to England. On the 12th of June, Lord Canning was obliged to accept the offer of those loyal inhabitants of Calcutta to perform those services which a fortnight before he had rejected offensively and contumeliously. But there is another and more serious instance of vacillation on the part of Lord Canning. I allude to his conduct with regard to Nepaul; and here again I must entreat the House to bear the dates in mind. Delhi was captured by the rebels on the 11th of May. No sooner was that fact made known to the Government of Nepaul than an offer was made to Lord Canning by Jung Bahadoor of a large force of Ghoorkas. Lord Canning accepted the offer and the Ghoorkas marched, so that by the end of May they were nearly at Lucknow. On the 22nd of June the first massacre at Cawn
898
pore took place, and it was about the middle of July that those horrible events occurred which will be associated in history with the "well of Cawnpore." Now, what was the conduct of the Governor General of India? At the end of May, when the Ghoorka force had actually marched and had nearly arrived at Lucknow, Lord Canning changed his mind and sent word to the Government of Nepaul that he would not keep their contingent. Those forces were accordingly marched back into Nepaul, and afterwards, when it was too late, Lord Canning changed his mind again and was obliged to entreat the Government of Nepaul to send back the soldiers. If these things are not true let them be disproved. I have no wish to be harsh on Lord Canning, and I adopt every word that was so well and judiciously said by my right hon. Friend with respect to him. I shall be thankful to be persuaded that these accusations against Lord Canning are not deserved; but I say, if they are true, that we cannot resist the conviction that on the vacillation of the Governor General at Calcutta must rest the blame of all those unhappy events at Cawnpore and Lucknow. If that Ghoorka force which was offered by the Nepaul Government and absolutely sent down to Lucknow at the end of May, had been allowed to stay where it was, and had not been most rashly and imprudently sent back to Nepaul, there is every reason to believe that what subsequently took place at Lucknow and Cawnpore might have been averted. [Mr. VERNON SMITH dissented.] I shall heartily rejoice if the right hon. Gentleman can disprove that; but what I complain of is the proposal to pass a Vote of Thanks to the Governor General pending these accusations, and while the British public, who are not in possession of official information, are under the impression of their correctness. It may be a false impression—then disprove it; but are you prudent, are you even fair to Lord Canning in asking for a Vote of Thanks and approbation while the British public entertain that impression, right or wrong? But even this is not all. Let me remind you of what took place at Dinapore in July. Remonstrances after remonstrances, both public and private, were addressed to Lord Canning, warning him that the regiments at Dinapore must be disarmed. At last the public patience was exhausted. The usual mode of communicating with the

899
Government was found to be ineffectual, and a deputation of influential merchants requested an audience of the noble Lord, and pressed upon him the absolute necessity of disarming the Native troops of Dinapore. They were treated as the volunteers had been treated; their advice was rejected; the Dinapore regiments were not disarmed, and not a week elapsed before a revolt occurred, and the horrible scenes of Arrah were enacted. Allow me to refer to the case of Allahabad. Allahabad is the most important station in a military point of view in India. Allahabad stands, as hon. Gentlemen are well aware, upon the junction of the Jumna and the Ganges. It was all important to us as a military position. If we had lost Allahabad we must have lost all the Upper Provinces, and the gallantry of our troops would have been utterly unable to avert the greatest calamities. In what spirit did Lord Canning deal with Allahabad? At the time of the outbreak at Meerut, Delhi, and Lucknow, there was not an European soldier at Allahabad. Remonstrances were made. The press was not gagged at that time. The press cried out. On the 23rd of May, and not before, sixty-five European invalids arrived at Allahabad, and I believe that among the many providential circumstances connected with these events, for which this nation has to be thankful beyond what we have language to express, there has been nothing more providential than that we did not lose that important station. I will not go further. My right hon. Friend near me has adverted to what I have no hesitation in saying we regard as the most questionable act of Lord Canning—namely, his suppression of the English newspapers. That Lord Canning was right in suppressing the Native papers I am not disposed to question; but I think that Lord Canning was ill-advised in drawing no distinction between the European and the Native press. I am perfectly ready to give every consideration to what Lord Canning's friends urge in his behalf on that subject; but the only grounds upon which we can found our judgment are the papers which Government have laid on the table, and I must say that those papers do not exculpate him in my mind. On what does he rest his policy with regard to the press in India? Why, upon language held by Sir Charles Metcalfe, to the effect that invidious distinctions ought not to be made between the
900
European and the Native press in India. But that was a general proposition made in a time of peace and tranquillity, and would hardly bear the inference drawn from it by Lord Canning, that such a distinction was also impolitic in a time of rebellion. I believe that Lord Canning was unable to vindicate the policy he had adopted, not that he had any reason whatever to complain of the spirit in which the English press was conducted. Entertaining these feelings, it is impossible for me, however painful the avowal, to concur in a Vote of Thanks to Lord Canning, I beg the House and Her Majesty's Ministers to remember that, although these charges against Lord Canning have been before the public for a considerable time, we on this side of the House have made no attack upon Lord Canning. We have acted with the greatest moderation. As my right hon. Friend has said, we were willing to incur risks rather than take a course which, so long as Lord Canning enjoyed the confidence of Her Majesty, and Her Majesty was advised by hon. Gentlemen opposite to retain Lord Canning as Governor General, might have the appearance of embarrassing the Government of India in such a crisis. But when the noble Lord at the head of the Government comes down to the House to propose a Vote of Thanks to Lord Canning, it is impossible for us not to resist such a proposition. We have but one course to take. For my own part, I take that course with the greatest pain; but until the imputations on the wisdom and judgment of Lord Canning are removed it is impossible for me to concur in the vote of approbation of the policy of that noble Lord.
MR. MANGLESsaid, that he had hoped he should have been able to give a silent vote on this Motion. He thought that when the House was called upon to acknowledge the debt of gratitude which was due to our gallant soldiers such a vote would have been unanimously passed. Nor did he know any reason why those who had rendered great services, although filling a civil office, should be omitted, especially considering their great exertions during this remarkable contest. A great deal of hostility which had found vent in language had been manifested with regard to Lord Canning, and he knew no man who deserved it so little. He could not sit still and hear the conduct of Lord Canning condemned as it had been, under a certain appearance of candour, by the right hon.

901
Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). That right hon. Gentleman had used the remarkable expression that the Votes of the House would be degraded if this Resolution were passed.
MR. DISRAELI: Allow me, Sir, to inform the hon. Gentleman that he has entirely misinterpreted what I said. I said that if the Votes of the House ever became treated as mere forms, they would be degraded. I did not refer to this particular case.
MR. MANGLES, after that explanation, would not pursue that branch of the subject further; but he desired to bear his humble testimony to the remarkable degree of foresight and vigour that Lord Canning's measures for the suppression of the mutiny had evinced. He had manifested the greatest coolness in a great emergency, in a crisis unparalleled in the history of the empire. From the very commencement of the outbreak Lord Canning set himself to use every means in his power to get troops from Ceylon, Burmah, the Cape of Good Hope, and other places. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) stated that the troops which had been sent for had been countermanded. The fact was that no such transaction took place at all. The foundation for it was a statement in the Calcutta press, but it arose out of a transaction which was utterly different. The charge made was, that troops were ordered from Rangoon, and that the steamer which brought them was under orders to take them back. That was the charge. He did not believe it was true, but such as it was, it was entirely different from that which had been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. Then, again, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had repeated certain charges against Lord Canning, and he had called particular attention to dates. He (Mr. Mangles) accepted the right hon. Baronet's challenge, and he could do so with the most perfect impunity, considering that in respect to the particular transactions alluded to the right hon. Baronet was wrong in every one of the dates, for he stated the transactions took place in the month of May, when, in point of fact, they took place in the month of June. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: What transactions?] The transactions which took place with respect to the troops from Nepaul. The right hon. Baronet stated that in the early part of June the troops from Nepaul had nearly reached Lucknow—the fact was that they
902
had not left the territory of Nepaul when the Governor General wrote declining the offer. Between the 13th and 19th of June the Governor General received intelligence that Sir Henry Lawrence was blockaded at Lucknow, and that assistance was required. Then it was that the Governor General wrote to Nepaul for the troops, having received in the meantime information which was not in his possession before, and consequently he thought it right to accept the offer made. But in that case the difference in the dates was not the only misstatement of the right hon. Baronet, who was so precise as to the matter. He said that the Government first wrote and asked for troops, and then declined them.
SIR J. PAKINGTON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very glad if he is in a position to correct those statements. I have had no official information, only the general knowledge that others might have had. Still my statement was not that the Governor General had written and asked for troops, but that he had accepted the offer made by the Government of Nepaul, and that after the troops had moved near to Lucknow they were sent back again and then subsequently recalled.
MR. MANGLES: But such was not the case. The fact was, a letter dated the 10th was received from the Resident at Nepaul, stating that the Government had made the offer, and the Governor General wrote on the 13th, declining it. No blame could be laid to him for that. Really, it appeared that such a taste seemed to have been created for charges against the Governor General that, if the public could have swallowed them, it might not only have led them to believe that the Governor General was a most inefficient man, but was actually a traitor to his country. All the stories mentioned that night as reflecting upon the character of Lord Canning had been concocted in Calcutta, and he would give the House another instance, in order to show their nature, and the amount of reliance which may be placed upon them. It was stated in a Native Calcutta newspaper, and the statement had found its way into the English press, that two men had been detected at Fort William hauling down the Queen's flag and hoisting a green one, which was to be the signal to 13,000 "nice young fellows"—that was the expression of the paper—to march on the fort, and that such was the irresolution and weakness of Lord

903
Canning, that nothing bat the appearance of mutiny in the European troops could induce him to allow the sentence of death, which had been passed on the detected persons, to be executed, and two men, added the correspondent, were executed accordingly that morning. Now, what was the explanation of this affair? Would the House believe that the whole foundation on which it rested was this—that one evening when the Bun had just gone down information was given by a sentry that some person had been pulling down the standard from the walls. On the matter, however, being inquired into, the report was found to be utterly untrue, for the standard remained in its usual place; and yet, on this slight foundation, the story to which he had referred had been trumped up about the matter, and it was said that two men were executed on account of it on the following morning. This was a fair specimen of the stories which had been current at Calcutta. He was sorry to say that on the part of a portion of the inhabitants of that city—and it was but a portion, much injustice had been shown towards Lord Canning at a time when this great public functionary had to encounter unparalleled difficulties. This hostile feeling towards Lord Canning arose from the animosity of the press in consequence of the Governor General finding himself compelled to put a certain check on it. No man was more attached to the liberty of the press than he (Mr. Mangles) was; nevertheless, he considered it impossible for Lord Canning to have taken any other course with a view to the future security of India than to interdict the mischievous and lying writings of many of those papers in India. For when in Calcutta there was one paper telling the whole Native population that it was intended to trample them under foot, and another which designated certain persons, such as the Maharajah of Gwalior or the Nawah of Moorshedabad, who had remained constant to the British rule, as traitors, surely it was high time to put some constraint upon men who showed themselves so devoid of prudence and moderation. It had been stated that Sir Colin Campbell had had differences with Lord Canning, but there were many hon. Gentlemen in the House who had seen Sir Colin's letters, and he would appeal to them to say in what manner Sir Colin always spoke of the Governor General. One matter spoke volumes in praise of Lord Canning. The country leading to
904
Cawnpore had been only partially in our hands; while that between Cawnpore and Lucknow had been in the hands of the enemy; but he would appeal to the House whether they had ever seen a single complaint with regard to the commissariat supplies furnished to the troops who marched to the relief of the Residency? Even to him (Mr. Mangles), who was acquainted with the Indian commissariat, it was perfectly marvellous to think how complete the arrangements must have been, to enable the relieving columns to move with such rapidity. He would challenge any hon. Member to point out a single complaint which had found its way into the papers to the effect that the troops were brought to a stand for want of means of transport, or were distressed by the absence of supplies or provisions. Was there no reason in this for voting thanks to Lord Canning? He said nothing about Delhi, because he knew the credit of the commissariat supplies for that place was due to that great man, Sir John Lawrence; but Sir John Lawrence had dome no more for the troops before Delhi than the Governor General had done for those at Cawnpore and Lucknow. He hoped the House, therefore, would not listen to the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and withhold their thanks from Lord Canning, He (Mr. Mangles) believed—and of course he had seen more of the papers than perhaps any other man—that, in spite of all the aspersions which had been cast upon the noble Lord, there was no one more honourably or more eminently entitled to the thanks of the House for the great judgment and energy which he had displayed. He (Mr. Mangles) trusted he might be allowed to take this opportunity of explaining an expression which he had made use of in another place, and which he found had given pain to a lady to whom he would not for the world have willingly caused a moment's uneasiness. He had said that when General Wilson assumed the command before Delhi he adopted a different system of tactics than that previously pursued—a system which spared the troops more. That remark, he regretted to learn, had been interpreted by a near connection of General Barnard as intended to disparage the conduct of that distinguished commander. Nothing, however, could have been further from his thoughts than to presume to criticise the military conduct of General Barnard. He had no doubt that General

905
Barnard acted rightly, and be took this most public opportunity of disclaiming any intention to disparage his conduct. With, regard to the valour shown by both the Queen's and the Company's troops there could not be two opinions; but, having been in the country, there was one thing that appeared to him even more surprising than the courage they had shown when before the enemy—he meant their endurance under what Lord Macaulay had once called "that terrible sun." With regard to the civil servants, perhaps the House would allow him to say he felt heartily glad to find that the noble Viscount had thought right to introduce them into the vote. There were men amongst them, who, though not soldiers by profession, had nevertheless proved that they could fight as bravely as the rest. Not the least wonderful thing in this year of wonders had been the fidelity of the Sikhs. In that little siege of Arrah, the garrison consisted of forty or fifty Sikh soldiers, and when the enormous body of mutineers who were attacking the place found that they were unable to obtain an entrance by force, they adopted every means they could think of to win them over. They called to them that every man should have fifty pounds if they would come out; but the only answer they received was, "come a little nearer, we can't hear you." They went nearer, and the gallant Sikhs instantly shot them down. It would perhaps scarcely be credited, but the Native commanding officer had upon him six or eight wounds, which he had received from the English in the Sikh war. He (Mr. Mangles) hoped the House would reject the Amendment and agree to the Motion.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he should be sorry to give a silent vote upon this occasion, although the House seemed unanimous except in the case of the Governor General. He (Colonel Sykes) had not had the same means of judging of Lord Canning's conduct as the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) had, but he enjoyed some means not accessible to other hon. Members, and he felt sure the Governor General deserved the thanks of the country for the great services he had performed. It was his firm conviction that Lord Canning, placed as he was, in a perilous position, and surrounded by a factious European population which ought to have been his support, had acted with a judgment, a perseverance, a fertility of resource, and a humanity befitting a Christian gen-
906
tleman, which did him the highest possible honour. To give the House some idea of the difficulties that the Governor General had to encounter from some portion at least of the European population which he had to manage, he would read an extract or two from a Parliamentary paper which had been laid on the table so recently that hon. Gentlemen might not have had an opportunity of perusing it. The first ex-tract was from an unofficial letter, dated Allahabad, 6th of July, 1857, and was as follows:—
"—had adopted a policy of burning villages, which is, in my opinion, the most suicidal and mischievous that can be devised; it prevents the possibility of order being restored; the aged, women, and children are sacrificed, as well as those guilty of rebellion. Cultivation is impossible; a famine is consequently almost certain. The sternest measures are doubtless necessary. and every possible endeavour should be made to apprehend and punish those actually engaged in plunder or rebellion, but here there seems to be no discrimination. A railway officer, whose report you will probably see, did excellent service, and seems to have behaved very gallantly when sent with a small guard to restore the railway where it might hare been injured; but, in accordance with the custom, as he met with opposition from some plunderers and mutineers, he burnt ten villages, which he found deserted. The trunk road now passes through a desert; the inhabitants have fled to a distance of four or five miles; and it seems to me to be obviously the proper policy to encourage all peaceable per-sons to return, not to destroy the villages and render the return of the people impossible. Some five persons have been invested with the powers of life and death in the Station of Allahabad; each sits separately, and there are also courts-martial in the fort. You will do the State, service if you can check the indiscriminate burning of villages, and secure the hanging of the influential offenders instead of those who cannot pay the police for their safety."
His next extract was from an unofficial letter, dated Benares, 13th of July, 1857, which stated:—
"I have had in many of the principal men of Dobee, against whom the first attack was made, and they are all willing to keep quiet now. I hope the same of the Dugaon men, who helped them on their march into Benares. It is quite against my feelings and policy to bare any bloodshed which can possibly be avoided.——is much more, severe; the young men of course require to be kept in. Mr.——, a daring and unscrupulous partisan, requires a great deal to be kept in."
This last extract he would quote was from an unofficial letter, dated Allahabad, 22nd of July, 1857, viz.:—
"The true version of the story alluded to in your letter of the 17th inst. is this: there is one, and only one, zemindar in this neighbourhood who behaved well to us during the disturbances here, namely, Mohummud Takee, of Mundoolee. This man saved the lives of several Christians, and re-

907
ceived certificates to that effect from Colonel Neill and myself. On the 22nd of June, Mohummud Takee came to my cutchery, and complained that a Mr.——a railway employé, had entered his Tillage with armed followers and driven away his flock of goats. I immediately went to Mr.——'s house, Mohummud Takee accompanying me, and asked if the complaint was true; Mr.——admitted the act, and the goats were produced and made over to Mohummud Takee in my presence. I remonstrated with Mr.——, and told him we could never hope to restore order if Europeans continued to plunder the people. He justified his act. Mohummud Takee appealed to me for protection in future. I told him I could give him no material protection, adding, however (and particularly explaining the addition to Mr.——), that if Mr.——came again into his village with armed men to plunder, that he (Mohummud Takee) would be perfectly justified in treating all such men as common dacoits and robbers; that he might resist such plunderers to the death. Mr.——never plundered in that village again. You have no conception of the dangers and difficulties created by lawless and reckless Europeans here. One of them cocked his pistol at Captain Brasyer in the fort; the ruffian was as likely as not to have pulled the trigger, and in that case, as Captain Brasyer himself observed to me, his Sikhs would have slain every European in the fort. This was before Colonel Neill took the command; if it had happened in his time the probability is that the offender would have been tried and hanged."
With such a feeling on the part of Europeans who were not under control, hon. Gentlemen would see the extreme difficulties with which the Government had to contend. When men of this kind were called to account they brought every species of accusation against the person who reprehended their conduct, whether he was their immediate superior or the Governor General. It was, therefore, easy to account for the innumerable tales told about Lord Canning in Calcutta, and which were about as credible as the details of the mutilation of the poor ladies who were reported to have come down the Ganges in steamers, and to have been conveyed home in the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company's vessels, when it was well known that not one had ever been seen on board of those vessels. As to the memorial of the inhabitants of Calcutta not having been taken up here, what would any hon. Gentleman think if an accusation made indirectly against him were determined upon by an authority remote from the locality and without affording him the means of making his defence? The meanest ryot in India had the power of memorializing the home authorities; but his petition must go through the Governor General, that it might be accompanied by a proper explanation. He could not sit down
908
without expressing his opinion that public gratitude was due to Lord Elphinstone for the resolution of purpose and sound judgment with which, when peace with Persia had been signed, he took upon himself the responsibility of withdrawing two regiments from Persia which would otherwise have been exposed to the dangers of the intense coming heat. The effect of this measure was that these two regiments were most opportunely in Bombay harbour when troops were telegraphed for from the opposite extremity of India. His conduct in, sending troops contrary to the usual practice during the monsoon by sea to Vingorla, in order to prevent sedition in the Southern Mahratta country, where there were only 100 Europeans in a district half as large as England, was deserving of the highest praise, and had been attended with the best results, as it enabled Major General Lester to punish traitors, and keep the country quiet. He begged to be allowed to correct an error which had appeared in the papers, by stating that the powder-bag party which blew up the Cashmere gate at Delhi was led by Lieutenant Home, Lieutenant Salkeld, his junior officer, having been associated with him in the perilous enterprise. It was to be regretted that the forms of the House did not admit of the mention of the names of many officers who had performed important services in the preservation of order in the southern Mahratta country, at Hyderabad, and other parts of the Deccan. He further wished to say that he cordially concurred in the honourable mention made of the civil servants in the Resolution.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that the House was placed in a very unfortunate position in regard to this question. On the one hand, no one could wish not to recognise the services of all those, whether military officers or civilians, who shared in the great struggles in India; and, on the other hand, nobody could wish to prejudge any question which might hereafter be brought before the House; and still less would wish that the Vote of Thanks offered by the House to any persons for eminent services should be degraded into a mere form, which might be the case if they followed the example set them on the present occasion. He owned, if he were asked to give his opinion, apart from the present discussion, as to the conduct of Lord Canning, he should arrive unhesitatingly at the conclusion—considering all the difficulties

909
the noble Lord had had to go through—that he has exhibited wonderful calmness and firmness; and though there might be some solitary occasion when a person could put his finger upon a passage in the life of a person occupying such a position, which might be regarded in the light of a blot upon his public character, he was of opinion, upon reading all the documents before them, that Lord Canning deserved the gratitude of his country. Though he said that, he wished also to be understood as expressing his regret that this Vote should have been brought forward at the present time, because he thought that, unless the vote received the unanimous, or almost unanimous, concurrence of the House, it would lose half of its virtues and; its merits in the eyes of those for whom it was specially intended. But, more than that, he thought that this House was called upon, for the first occasion he knew of, to express a Vote of Thanks to a distinguished functionary at a time when a memorial was in a manner before them, in which the conduct of that person to whom they were about to give their thanks was impeached, in reference to the very subject matter for which their thanks were asked. It was for that reason he regretted most deeply that the noble Viscount had thought it necessary to extend the vote he proposed to Lord Canning for his services, and that he did not confine it, as his first notice intimated, to the military and naval operations alone. Well, but they were placed in this position. They had great difficulties in the passing of this vote, because it might be supposed that they were giving an opinion as to the conduct of Lord Canning while a memorial impeaching the noble Lord's conduct was actually brought under their notice. On the other hand, they were placed in a still more disadvantageous position—at least he thought it a more disadvantageous position—when this matter was actually brought before them, of appearing, as it were, to pass over the eminent persons whose names were specially mentioned in the Resolution by at least seeming to intimate that the vote at the present time was not desirable. Now, he must look at all the consequences of their proceedings—to those in India as well as to their probable effect on the future deliberations of this House. He feared that, if they refused to express their opinions upon the subject, now that it had been regularly brought before them,
910
they would be placing the Governor General of India, who had still the responsibility of conducting the operations there, in a most disadvantageous position, as a public servant under a cloud, and as a man whose conduct had neither been condemned nor approved of by the House of Commons. Looking, then, at the matter in all those points of view, he owned, if his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire were then in his place, he should be induced to press upon him the propriety of not persisting in his proposition. And ho would request him to refrain from doing so upon a ground on which he thought his right hon. Friend might fairly acquiesce, while still retaining those opinions which he had so ably, so clearly, and so judiciously expounded. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had told them that, in passing this vote as it stood, they were not to be considered as prejudging the memorial which might be yet presented against Lord Canning. Now, if the assent of the noble Viscount to that proposition be given, it would enable them to get out of the difficulty in which they were placed; and, upon that understanding, he would press upon his right hon. Friend the propriety of withdrawing his Motion. He must add, taking the view of the question which he had expressed in reference to Lord Canning's conduct, that, if his right hon. Friend did not take that course, but the proposition of his right hon. Friend were pressed to a division, he should feel it his duty to vote against it. With regard to the merits of the persons referred to in the other portions of the Resolution, the House was, he believed, unanimous: there were not two opinions on the matter. He would only add, that when this question came regularly before them, regarding the conduct of Lord Canning, he trusted sincerely that the opinions which he had formed of the conduct of the noble Lord, on his present information, would be confirmed by the subsequent papers that would he laid on the table. If the suggestions he ventured to make be now adopted, he thought that the House would be enabled to do its duty, both to Lord Canning and to the officers who were specially mentioned in the Vote of Thanks, in a much better manner than by taking any division or raising any controversy which might have the effect of implying a doubt as to the conduct of those functionaries, who, until the mutiny was entirely suppressed,

911
would be still placed in most responsible situations, and whose future efficiency might be more or less impaired in consequence.
ADMIRAL WALCOTT: It is a grateful change to turn from the retrospect of unparalleled atrocities, wreaked during an insurrection unprovoked, upon our fellow-countrymen, their wives and children, and from their bitter entail of desolation of families at home, so terrible as to excite the sympathy of every European nation to the brilliant achievements of our heroic generals, officers, and soldiers. As a member of the sister service, to me it is an augmented pleasure to offer to their merit this slender meed of commendation, and recognition of abilities and vigour of the distinguished commanders, and the alacrity with which their followers supported their heroic efforts. Delicacy alone forbids me to allude in stronger terms to the earnest and invaluable co-operation with the land forces of the blue jackets under that gallant officer Captain Peel. I can conceive no campaign more arduous, no difficulties or harass more trying, and, indeed, ordinarily insurmountable, than had to be endured only to be triumphed over by those brave and determined men. They had to face an enemy far outnumbering them by thousands the army they formed—a foe disciplined by our own hands, taught our own strategy, armed with our own weapons, and still more formidable because rendered desperate by the consciousness that defeat would only change for them the form and scene of death. The highest distinction which this country can bestow, those noble spirits have deserved; they ennoble, and are worthy of the name of Englishmen. Titles and honours, if justly awarded, constitute the cheap defence of nations. They must be given with discrimination, but without dilatoriness; or, perchance, as in a late instance, the posthumous honour will devolve upon a survivor bowed down by a loss which admits of no consolation. Those who have already fallen, whether the general highest in rank, or the private soldier, the same heroic feeling animated and sustained; each ended his life as a true soldier ought, fighting for his country, his Queen, religion, and honour; his soul willingly departing from his body, leaving behind the lasting fame of having behaved as every valiant man is bound to do. Their gallantry will bear its proper ruits; their memory will be one of the
912
highest and most enduring possessions and great bulwarks of their native land. We may well be at a loss whether to admire most the rapid advance of the conquering Havelock, the generous self-denial of Outram, the storming of Delhi, held by a maddened garrison, or the passive indomitable courage displayed in the heroic defence of Lucknow, a defence scarcely if ever surpassed in history—or the masterly advance, the admirable tactics, and the memorable retreat of Sir Colin Campbell, crowned by his victory at Cawnpore; but of this he was quite certain, that all these actions would conduce to one and the same end, the establishment, on a sounder basis, of the British supremacy in India. He had the greatest satisfaction in supporting this Vote to the Army and Navy, founded as it is on the strictest and most constraining principles of justice and national gratitude.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I rise to say that I hope the House and the Government will accept the very wise and temperate suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole). I will not enter into the question whether it was in the first instance wise to propose this Vote of Thanks to Lord Canning. It might, perhaps, have been better that this vote should be deferred until we had more complete information. There can be no doubt whatever that the army and navy have distinguished themselves; but there is one thing which I wish to say of Lord Canning. I do not pretend to judge of the manner in which he has conducted these operations. Her Majesty's Government appear to be satisfied with the general ability with which the noble Lord has acted in his difficult situation, and I am bound to say that I believe a great portion of the stories which have been told, and the comments which have been made on the other side, to be founded upon falsehood. There is, however, one very remarkable thing, and one which deeply affects the future welfare of India, to which I wish to call the attention of the House. We all know that the atrocities committed by the mutinous Sepoys very naturally roused a deep spirit of resentment, and it cannot be doubted that at first revenge was carried to great lengths. Now, I believe that if Lord Canning had yielded to that which was a very natural feeling among those who were in India,

913
there might have been created a degree of animosity between Europeans and Natives which would have made it impossible for us, with all the bravery of our soldiers and all the skill of our commanders, to keep possession of India for any length of time. Lord Canning, however, took the only course becoming his Christian character, and withstanding the clamour that was raised, exposing himself to an odium which only a man of calm conscience and determined wisdom could have borne, issued proclamations which have been much misunderstood and much blamed, but the spirit of which was, I think, that the guilty should be punished, but that resentment should not be extended so as to involve the whole Native population of India. There was much misapprehension in this country, and I myself waited for information, because I did not know what would be the explanation of the proclamation called the "clemency proclamation" of July. It now appears that there were other orders given in May and June—orders very effective and very sufficient for the punishment of the mutineers—some of them directed to different parts of the country where the mutiny had broken out, and others, general orders, by which courts-martial could be assembled, and civilians might be added to those courts, for the immediate punishment of the mutineers. It was after the issuing of these orders—which were not known in this country—that there came out that proclamation of July, by which Lord Canning thought fit to temper and complete his other orders. Without completely approving the manner in which that was done—because I think it would have been better to publish the whole together as a consolidation of all the minutes upon the subject—still I conceive that the course which the Governor General then took was a right one, and one, moreover, which will hereafter produce very great benefit to this country. I did not think it right, as there had been questions raised with respect to the conduct of Lord Canning—upon which questions I give no opinion whatever—to conceal my conviction that the measures he has adopted to prevent unnecessary animosity between the Europeans and Natives does great credit both to his wisdom and his humanity. I hope, in conclusion, that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not be pressed to a division.
LORD JAMES STUARTsaid, that
914
having the honour to represent the county to which the late lamented General Neill belonged, and knowing the affection in which his memory was held by the people of the county of Ayr, he could not help expressing his deep gratification at the terms in which both the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman had awarded to that brave officer the highest meed of honour and praise. The people of Ayrshire were determined to do all they could in honour of his memory, and they had already raised a considerable subscription for a monument to be erected to him in the county town; and he was sure they would have considered it to be a great omission on his part if he, as their representative in the House, had not taken this opportunity of making those few observations.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not refrain from expressing the regret which he felt at their being unable to come to an unanimous vote on this occasion; but he must say, after listening attentively to the whole debate, every succeeding speaker had convinced him more strongly of the impolicy of the course pursued by the noble Lord in forcing the House into so painful a position. He would abstain from passing any opinion upon Lord Canning in his capacity of Governor General of India, and he regretted that such a course had not been more strictly adhered to during the debate. Still he felt bound to say, and he was perfectly justified in saying, that not only were there general allegations of mismanagement, not to say misconduct, but that certain specific charges had been brought against the noble Lord holding that high post. There was a strong feeling in the country, and a strong feeling in India, that many of the horrible atrocities which had been committed there might possibly be traced to the consequences of his mismanagement, and it was, therefore, putting the House into a false position and dealing unfairly with the country to call upon them to offer an opinion, either directly or indirectly, upon Lord Canning's conduct before all the information necessary for the purpose was before them. He thought the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies perfectly untenable. That right hon. Gentleman said the House was called upon to pledge itself only to one portion of Lord Canning's conduct, and that the military portion. Even upon that portion of Lord

915
Canning's conduct there might be a difference of opinion, but he could not understand for his part how the House of Commons could pronounce an opinion of high praise and unqualified approbation on one portion of the noble Lord's conduct, reserving to themselves the right of passing at some other time an unqualified condemnation, if subsequent information should justify them in doing so, upon some other portion of his conduct which might have been going on at the same time. That course was not in accordance with reason, nor, he might add, with common sense. He held in his hand the official copy of a correspondence which had taken place between the Governor General in Council and the Directors of the East India Company; and though he would not read any portion of that document nor comment upon it now, he must contend that there was matter in those letters which would require the strictest investigation as to the way in which Lord Canning had dealt with the military resources under his control. He thought, therefore, that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary fell entirely to the ground; for, he would ask, suppose they Were to agree to this vote now, and; if it should afterwards be discovered that many of the horrors that had occurred in India had occurred through his mismanagement, in what position would the House then be placed? Whatever the result of the present discussion might be, whether the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was pressed to a division or not—if it were he would vote for the Amendment—but if it were not, then he wished to record his humble protest against being precluded, by what had passed to-night, from hereafter exercising his unbiassed judgment on the conduct of Lord Canning.
MR. SYDNEY HERBERT: I wish to say a few words upon the subject under discussion before a division takes place, or, as I rather hope, before the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University is adopted and Amendment withdrawn. I stand in a somewhat different position from any hon. Gentleman who has yet addressed the House. I desire to express my cordial assent to the proposal of the Government to include the civilians, and, among others, Lord Canning, in the Vote of Thanks, without reservation or qualification. I think it would have been unworthy of the
916
Government, at such a moment, to pass so marked a slight upon Lord Canning as to have omitted his name from the Resolution before the House,—especially when they knew that to his firmness and courage they owe, in a great measure, the success which has attended our military operations in India. I maintain this without going into those various questions which have been raised to-night. We are not called upon, as the right hon. Member for Cambridge University has remarked, to discuss the general policy of Lord Canning's government in India, and therefore I must decline to go into the questions raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) as to whether or not Lord Canning approved the annexation of Oude, or whether or not he refused to enter into negotiations, subsequent to the mutiny, with the deposed family of Oude, in order that a compromise might be effected.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a mistake; I never touched upon the annexation of Oude.
MR. DISRAELI: I may be allowed to explain that the reference to Oude was made, not by my right hon. Friend, but by myself. But I did not allude to the deposed family of Oude, or to the annexation of that kingdom. What I said was, that Lord Canning had refused to negotiate with certain chieftains of Oude with a view to a settlement of differences.
MR. S. HERBERT: If that be so, it adds to the cordiality with which I agree to the proposed Vote of Thanks, for it was the business of Lord Canning not to negotiate with the chieftains of Oude, but to re-conquer a country in a state of mutiny. His military conduct is, however, all that we had to do with on the present occasion, and I maintain that the fame of Lord Canning will rest upon his proclamation and upon the masterly manner in which he made his arrangements for conveying troops from Calcutta to the scene of action—of the first the noble Lord the Member for London has spoken with well-deserved praise for the courage with which Lord Canning interposed to prevent what would have been a war of races; as to the second, I need not remind the House that in England civilians are not famous for their direction of the operations of armies in the field. But here was a case of very great difficulty, in which troops were forwarded, for the first time, in a novel manner with com-

917
plete success, and with an expedition never before contemplated. They were sent to the railway station which was the furthest on the route to the scene of action, and, for 400 miles from the termination of the railway, relays of bullock-carts and horses were provided, by which they were conveyed at a rate of speed increased by three times of the rate of speed which could have been accomplished by marching. Large buildings, at intervals on the line of march, were provided for the soldiers to repose in during the heat of the day, and provisions were cooked and ready for their use. The result was, that all the troops were passed up in one continuous stream. Calcutta was never burdened with a single regiment for which carriage could not be found, and not a foot-sore man, I believe, arrived at the scene of action; and the whole of this was done without resorting, or almost without resorting, to the system of pressing for carnages and animals. These things seem very slight when done, but are very difficult when undertaken; and this particular operation had never been attempted before, and therefore never done before. It was done for the first time, and with complete success. I, like every one else, have heard these accusations against Lord Canning; but, day by day, and one by one, they melt away, like snow before the sun; and I find things, which at first were asserted with such minute particulars as to almost render it impossible to refuse credence to them, turn out to be without a particle of a shadow of a foundation. God alone knows for what purpose these stories were invented; but, for the future, I have made up my mind, whenever I hear any story with the name or date of Calcutta to it, to be upon my guard as to believing it. I must say, however, that even the opponents of Lord Canning sometimes do him justice. The author of the Second Red Pamphlet, who writes in a spirit certainly of no favour to Lord Canning, gracefully eulogizes the attitude of courage and determination which has marked his conduct throughout all these transactions. I shall give my cordial assent to the vote proposed by the noble Lord, without qualification and without restriction, because I believe Lord Canning's conduct has been most honourable to himself and advantageous to the empire, which by his courage and firmness he has, in a large degree, contributed to save.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he was gratified to hear the high encomiums
918
which the noble Lord had pronounced on the conduct of Captain Sir William Peel and the naval service of India; but as he had restricted the vote to the names of general officers only, he found the name of Sir William Peel omitted from the vote because he was not an Admiral in command. He supposed that it would be said, in justification of this omission, that there was no precedent for it; but he could tell the noble Lord there was a very good precedent, for Colonel Stuart, who held a similar rank with Sir William Peel, and who was in command of a very small body of land troops at the attack on Copenhagen, was yet included in the Vote of Thanks agreed to on that occasion. He trusted, therefore, the noble Lord would yet put in Sir William Peel's name. He was a very gallant officer, as they all knew. He (Sir C. Napier) had the honour to know him in the Syrian campaign, when he was a very young man, though even then he distinguished himself. Since then he bad done excellent service in the Crimea, and he believed that he commanded the ladder party who accompanied the stormers at the attack on the Redan; and in the present service he had left his ship and marched his crew up to the scene of action, carrying their heavy guns with them, though without any land carriages; and it was most extraordinary how they got them there. He hoped the noble Lord would not object to the insertion of Sir William Peel's name.
MR. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he felt the greatest pleasure in expressing his cordial concurrence in this Motion. There were no men who more deserved the thanks of this House than the gallant officers and soldiers now in the district of Bengal. There was another thing he could not omit to mention—the admirable conduct and entire fidelity of the Madras army, and the general and almost entire fidelity of the Bombay army. There could be no doubt that under God it was to the continued loyalty and fidelity of these bodies that we owed much of our present position of comparative safety. With regard to the Governor General, though it was now agreed that this Vote of Thanks did not include any opinion of the policy pursued by Lord Canning, yet he was of opinion that that noble Lord was entitled to the thanks of this House for the calm and unruffled front with which he had contended against the unparalleled difficulties in which he was placed—difficulties which were much enhanced by the short period during which

919
Lord Canning had resided in India. What be had been most blamed for would, he believed, in the end redound most to his credit—he alluded to those wise methods he had adopted to allay those feelings of exasperation which were too naturally excited in the minds of the whole Anglo-Indian population on the first information of the atrocities committed by the mutineers. The greatest fault with which he was charged appeared to him to be no more than this, that he had impressed upon the agents of the Government who were entrusted with unlimited powers for the suppression of the rebellion, the necessity of caution, and the importance of discrimination between the guilty thousands and the innocent millions. It was a pleasure to him to find the name of Lord Elphinstone, the Governor of that Presidency to which he had himself been so long attached, in the list of those to whom thanks were voted; and to those thanks he was amply entitled, whether they looked at his conduct in denuding the Presidency of European troops, of which he himself stood greatly in need, or whether they looked at his sagacity and foresight in sending, to the Cape and to the Mauritius for reinforcements. He was glad to find also' that his friend, Mr. Frere, the General Commander of Scinde, was singled out for praise. It was said of Sir John Lawrence, the Commissioner of the Punjab, that he had saved India, and he might say of Mr. Frere, that he had saved the Punjab; for if it had not been for the appearance of a British regiment, and of the Beloochee troops from Scinde, at Mooltan, matters might have assumed a very different aspect there. He was gratified to find that the noble Lord had included in his vote the civilians, several of whom had greatly distinguished themselves in the recent disturbances. The fact was, that in India civilian officers were often so placed that they might be called upon to act as soldiers, even in ordinary times. What achievements of late had been more entitled to admiration than the conduct of the twenty volunteers, most of them civilians, who were engaged in the charge at Agra? The gallant conduct of Mr. Cowper, of Lucknow, had called forth general approbation, and so had the defence of Arrah by Mr. Wake. He might also mention the son of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles,) who, though wounded himself, had carried a wounded man into the fort on his shoulders. He might also allude to the conduct of Mr.
920
Hume at Dacca, and Mr. Montgomery in the Punjab, as well as the conduct of his friend Mr. Wedderburn at Agra, and Mr. Tucker at Cawnpore, all of whom had shown themselves fully entitled to the thanks of this House.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that he entirely concurred in the terms in which the vote had been proposed, and greatly regretted the painful discussion which had been raised by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire; for though the introduction of the Governor General's name into the Vote of Thanks to the army was doubtful, still, considering that he was a public servant, unconnected with party, he thought the best course would be to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole). Undoubtedly the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) must be gone into at one time or another; but, as Lord Canning was now Governor General of India, charged with duties not less important than any man in the empire had to perform, it was most desirable that they should not weaken his hands. On that ground, unequivocally, he hoped that the House would come to a unanimous vote. With regard to the military part of the subject, the noble Lord, with a very proper feeling, and in very eloquent terms, had named a great number of officers who had performed signal services, although those officers were officers under the rank of major general. At the same time, the noble Lord seemed to have some little consciousness that the list of names mentioned in the record of the nation's gratitude was extremely limited. In addition to Sir Colin Campbell, who had performed such brilliant services, there were but three names of military officers mentioned. There never was a war in which so many officers under the rank of major general had performed signal services; and yet not one of them was mentioned in this Vote of Thanks. He was certain the omission did not arise from the noble Lord himself. Perhaps the gentlemen at the War Office had told the noble Lord that this was according to custom. He maintained that it was totally contrary to custom; and why should it be so under those peculiar circumstances? A great number of officers under the rank of brigadier had been very properly mentioned by the noble Lord—General Hope Grant, who had just performed most brilliant services—General Chamberlain,

921
and others; but not one of them was named in the Vote of Thanks. The noble Lord's speech would go forth; it would go to India, and would be, no doubt, most gratifying to those officers; but it would not go into the general orders of the army—that was the important point, and that was what he regretted. If ever there was a war in which the ambition of officers and men should be stimulated in every possible manner, this was that war. The course pursued was a total departure from custom. Too short notice had been given of the terms of the rote; on a matter of that kind more than a few hours' consideration was due. With regard to brigadier generals it was a complete departure from custom. He had a memorandum of about twenty or thirty occasions on which Parliament had voted thanks to the army, and in those votes he found that sixty officers of that rank had been mentioned. Why should these precedents be departed from on the present most peculiar occasion? The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier) had alluded to the omission of Sir William Peel's name. Even if there was a red-tape custom which excluded the name of that brilliant officer, it ought to have been set aside. He hardly recollected in our naval history an officer who had displayed such heroism as Captain Peel, and yet he was not mentioned. Colonel Stuart at Copenhagen had been quoted; he commanded the 49th regiment, and was not relatively in such high rank as Captain Peel. He recollected seeing in Votes of Thanks the names of Lieutenant Colonel Packe, afterwards the distinguished General Packe; and Lieutenant Colonel D'Urban, afterwards the distinguished Sir Benjamin D'Urban. He deeply regretted that the noble Lord had been advised to omit so many justly appreciated names from the vote; and if the error were not corrected, he should perhaps himself deem it a duty to propose to the House to rectify this omission; for it was competent to any hon. Member to do so. There were several precedents during the Peninsular war for the subsequent introduction of names improperly omitted. He was quite sure that the noble Lord, with his generosity of feeling, was not the perpetrator of this omission. It was only of late that officers of lower ranks had been allowed to participate in honours at all. In the high aristocratic times of the Peninsular war general officers alone were per-
922
mitted to receive decorations; but now very properly captains, subalterns, and sometimes non-commissioned officers, were decorated. A rule had recently obtained, which was much to be condemned—it had first prevailed in the Crimean war—that the names of all those, even of the highest distinction, were omitted who had fallen in battle. Their names neither appeared in the lists of military decorations, nor in the Thanks of Parliament. Why should that be? Why should not that man, whom everybody in the nation regarded as one of our most glorious soldiers—Sir Henry Lawrence—be mentioned in this vote? Though they could not give their thanks to these men, they might record those thanks. A custom had been certainly introduced lately of inserting a notice in the Gazette with respect to such men, that had they survived they would have been made a C.B. or K.C.B., as the case might be. This was, after all, a bungling mode of signifying the distinction which they had earned, and he would have a Gazette issued, dated on the day of the battle in. which these men were killed, conferring on them the actual distinction. These points, he trusted, were worthy of consideration. With regard to the progress of the war in India, he regretted that reinforcements had not been sent in sufficient numbers to have enabled Sir Colin Campbell to follow up with more complete success the victories he had already so nobly achieved. But, as a military man, he took no gloomy view whatever of the state of affairs. He believed that the neck of the revolt had been completely broken. In fact, when Delhi was taken, he considered that the affair was, in point of fact, achieved. Though a great deal of hard service remained to be done, the rebellion was essentially put down; and be was happy to think there was no occasion to doubt of an early termination of the war.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he hoped that the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) would be adopted, but, at the same time, he felt bound to express his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman opposite for bringing this question under discussion. He himself had been taken by surprise on seeing the notice of Motion in the paper on Saturday morning, and many hon. Gentlemen around him shared in that feeling. The Chairman, two of the Directors of the East India Company, and

923
the Government had taken part in this discussion, but what did the mass of hon. Members really know of the merits of the case? He did not wish to prejudge the matter, but really he felt that he was about to give a vote on a question upon which he had no information. For instance, the annexation of Oude had been alluded to; and, though he had been credibly informed that whereas before that step the people were favourable to us, now the measures adopted under the orders of the Governor General for changing the tenure of land there had entirely turned them against us; yet, in the absence of authentic information, it was impossible to form a satisfactory opinion on this important subject. Several papers on the mutiny in India had been promised to the House, and it was most important they should have the answer of the Governor General before they passed a Vote of Thanks to him. However, he was prepared to accept it in the sense that it did not commit them to approving of the policy of Lord Canning.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONobserved, that he thought that every successive speech must convince the Government how rash they had been in bringing forward this Motion without proper notice. Had they taken the precaution to give notice of the terms of the vote and to ascertain the general feeling of the House on this very important point, they would have avoided a discussion painful to all present and most unfair to Lord Canning. It was desirable that such a vote should be unanimous, but the introduction of Lord Canning's name into this vote without notice had led to a discussion showing that he was not entitled to ask a great compliment from the House, because the documents on which alone the House could form a deliberate opinion on his conduct were not before it. The very eminence of Lord Canning's position had prevented the House from knowing all that had passed between him and the Government. With respect to the other distinguished gentlemen named in the vote connected with the civil service, the House had had the official and published despatches of Lord Canning himself, but they were not possessed of such facts with regard to the conduct of the Governor General as would enable them to form a just and deliberate opinion upon it. He thought, therefore, that the Government had placed Lord Canning in a most unfair position, because by this hasty and premature proposition they had de-
924
prived him of the means of meeting the charges which had been made against him. He believed that Lord Canning had prepared an elaborate defence to the charges which had been brought against him, and it was very possible that he might be able to prove that his conduct deserved the highest meed of praise which it was possible for the House to offer. However that might be, the house was placed in this painful position by the premature measure of the Government, that under any circumstances the proceedings of that night must convey pain and not pleasure to Lord Canning. Considering, then, the position in which Lord Canning had been placed for so many months, and the manner in which he had fought against unexampled difficulties, he repeated that he looked upon the proposition of the Government as most unjust to that noble Lord. Lord Canning was ready and anxious no doubt to meet every charge that could be preferred against him, and it would have been desirable that the Government should have given him the opportunity of clearing himself, and of demanding an acquittal from his country before this Vote of Thanks was proposed. He (Lord Claud Hamilton) confessed that no vote which he could give upon the Motion before the House would be thoroughly satisfactory to himself; for while, on the one hand, he refused to condemn Lord Canning unheard, he protested, on the other hand, against the sweeping denunciations which some gentlemen had indulged in against the whole population of Calcutta. He thought that they ought to suspend their judgment until they had access to all the documents which would enable them to arrive at a just conclusion. LORD HARRY VANE said, that no doubt the discussion which had arisen was of a very painful nature; but what, he asked, would have been said if, although it was customary to introduce the name of the Governor General in these votes, it had been omitted on the present occasion? It would have been looked upon as a slur cast on the name of Lord Canning, and as a disapproval of his policy by the Government which employed him. That course, then, could not, he thought, have been followed with propriety, and he would recommend the House to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), because he was persuaded that it would have a very ill effect in India if Lord Canning's name were omitted from the present rote. That would,

925
in his opinion, be of itself a sufficient reason for including Lord Canning in the Vote of Thanks; but he agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. Sidney Herbert) that there were other reasons for thanking Lord Canning. After a careful examination of all the accusations that had been made against the noble Lord, and a careful review of all the papers that had been laid before them on the subject, he had come to the conclusion that Lord Canning had perfectly refuted the different charges which had been brought against him at Calcutta, and had come out triumphantly from the accusations which had been levelled at him. It had been distinctly stated by the members of the Government that the House was not asked by this vote to pronounce an opinion upon the policy of Lord Canning. They were asked to thank him for the energy and ability which he had shown in directing the military operations in India. Such questions as the annexation of Oude hardly came under consideration in discussing the present propositions, and it would be competent to the House to discuss those matters subsequently quite independently of this vote. This was a specific vote for a specific purpose. No charge had been substantiated against Lord Canning, and he thought that it would be unjust if the House were to hesitate to give him the Vote of Thanks which had been proposed. He trusted that that expression of thanks would be unanimous; but if net, Lord Canning, however painful that want of unanimity might be to his feelings, would at least have the satisfaction of knowing that a large majority of the House were anxious to tender him their thanks for his firmness and judgment, combined with humanity, for he was not ashamed to confess that he thought humanity was a merit.
MR. DRUMMOND: The noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton) professed to be actuated by a great desire to do justice to Lord Canning, and the mode by which he shows that such really is his wish is that of asking us, when about to pass a Vote of Thanks to the Indian Government and its agents, civil, military, and naval, for great, unexpected, and extraordinary successes, to leave out the name of Lord Canning, and to give thanks to everybody else but him. Such is the justice to Lord Canning which the noble Lord recommends. Now, if it were indeed true, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), said, that we
926
were asked to give a vote of approbation of all Lord Canning's conduct from the time that he became Governor General of India, I confess the right, hon. Gentleman's deduction could not be easily denied—namely, that we had been entrapped into that vote. But no such thing is intended, nor is it in the words of the Motion. The Motion is simply confined to the question in hand—the conduct of the naval and military commanders, guided as they have been by the civil administration, in suppressing the most formidable mutiny which ever broke-out in any country in the world. Now, the right hon. Gentleman says, that among the things for which Lord Canning is to be blamed is that he did not foresee this mutiny. Why, if he had he certainly would have been the most extraordinary man in the world. How was it possible for, Lord-Canning to know anything of a country of which he was ignorant previous to entering it as its Governor, except by the information which he could obtain from persons who had lived there for years? If he had asked the Indian Directors in this country, who had lived in India, whether they suspected a mutiny in India, they would have laughed in his face. Have we not been reminded to-night of the melancholy truth that so completely did the European officers repose on the fidelity of their regiments that they answered for that fidelity with their lives? How possibly could Lord Canning anticipate this mutiny in any way? It is somewhat curious to observe the difference in the countenance of people in this House before and after dinner. You may sometimes judge by their little mild cheer and their little mild sneer what is passing in their minds. When the noble Lord at the head of the Government spoke with approbation Lord Elgin sending his troops from China, of Sir Charles Grey sending troops from the Cape of Good Hope, and Sir Henry Ward sending troops from Ceylon, there was great cheering for these acts, but not a single cheer for the man who sent for those troops, for the man who induced all these gentlemen to take these bold steps. Why, it was Lord Canning solely that did so. The noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Hamilton) thinks it very unfair to speak with disrespect of Calcutta information. Now, I am one of those who never will believe anything I see in the Indian press. I believe that when you go to the bottom of the question you will find that that press, which Lord William Bentinck so foolishly

927
gave to the Indian people, has been the main cause of this mutiny. I will give you an instance or two of the false statements which have caused my disbelief in that press, One of these papers stated that Sir Patrick Grant took his passage in a steamer to go to a particular place, and it professed to report a conversation which he had had on that steamer upon things in general and Indian politics in particular, in which he expressed himself as opposed to the views of Lord Canning, and in favour of those of that paper. Now, it was found that Sir Patrick Grant did not go by that steamer, but by another. Now, mark you, there could be no mistake about the matter. It was a wilful, premeditated lie. There is no room for explanation. There was no need for audi alteram partem. It was a pure, unmitigated falsehood. I go to another story. Shortly after Sir Colin Campbell's arrival at Calcutta he dined with Lord Canning and several other people. It appears that there is in Calcutta some paltry military prison or other which was under the control of the Governor General, but now under that of the Commander in Chief. Some court martial was held, and a conviction was brought in to be signed. Sir Colin signed it, and afterwards found out that he had no authority to do so. At the dinner I have mentioned Sir Colin treated the matter as a joke, remarking, with a laugh, that the first thing he had done was to commit an act of mutiny against the Governor General. This story was the origin of the reported differences between the Governor General and Commander in Chief. This was one of the charges in one of the Calcutta papers, and it is to English newspapers, to which these falsehoods have been transferred, that the hon. Gentlemen in this House, who have to-night attacked Lord Canning's character, have looked for information about Indian affairs. An attack was made in one of the Calcutta papers upon Lord Canning for not having performed some act of severity which they recommended. In a few days or a week afterwards another paragraph appeared in that same paper, praising Lord Canning for having done some act of severity which they had recommended, and we were told that the three men whom they had pointed out to the Governor General as deserving of punishment had just been executed in such and such a square. All a lie! Pure falsehood from beginning to end. Now, I
928
think I have shown reasons why I at least shall never believe a Calcutta paper. This debate has been entirely confined to Lord Canning's conduct with regard to the mutiny. Lord Canning has also been the victim of anonymous writers in English newspapers. It is from them that hon. Gentlemen have taken their inspiration. I have spoken of those English papers before, and I will speak of them again, but not anonymously. You shall hear of them by the names of the writers, and if you who talk about superstition in India will put your heads underneath a Juggernaut in England, you must abide by the consequences.
MR. HENLEY: Having formed an opinion upon this question, which involves the character of a very high functionary of the Government, I do not like to give a silent vote on the occasion. I have taken some pains to read the papers that have been circulated upon the subject, and I have formed a distinct opinion, which, as far my judgment goes, nothing stated tonight should induce me to alter. I think that for the last six months Lord Canning has been placed in a situation of difficulty almost unprecedented; that he has acted in the main with great resolution, and that he is one of those rare men who have the moral courage to be just. He is not to be swayed or driven from one side to the other against his own judgment, and there is nothing to lead me to think that he has acted wrongly. There is no doubt that in this great crisis many people may differ as to whether this or that particular act of Lord Canning's might not have been better done; but I think that when a man has been placed in such extraordinary circumstances, if his conduct on the whole has been right, it is unjust and ungenerous to withhold our approbation. That, I think, is the view we should take if our own conduct were in question. I cannot say whether the many things that have been alleged against him are true or not; but I do not think that they rest upon a foundation that should induce us to withhold this mark of approbation, and therefore I, for one, am disposed not to do so. I should feel extremely sorry if any division were to take place upon the question, because there can be no doubt that it would take something from the value of the thanks of this House if they are not unanimously accorded. I sincerely hope that the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) will

929
have weight with the House. Lord Canning has dealt successfully with a state of things for which it was impossible to be prepared. We are not now asked to say whether any other man might have dealt with the crisis more ably. All that we are asked to pronounce upon is whether his conduct deserves our thanks. I think it does, and I shall join in the Vote. I cannot, however, sit down without saying that the noble Lord at the head of the Government hardly played fairly or candidly with us when on Thursday he did not openly and manfully say it was his intention to propose this vote. I think it is quite possible that this discussion might have been prevented. It seems, I must say, an ungracious thing to Lord Canning that his name should now be tacked on as it were to the vote to the army and navy, and should not have been mentioned when the noble Lord first gave his notice. I deeply regret that omission, because, let what will be said as to the point of order, people will have an idea that there was some wish to conceal his name, and that the mention of it has come suddenly upon the House.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, that he must protest against being called upon to thank Lord Canning for the ability which he had displayed in the late emergency; he felt it impossible to do so when, from letters which he had seen from India, he perceived that people of all classes agreed in condemning the course which he had adopted. He must deny that they were actuated by any desire to slander or traduce the noble Lord, for it was notorious that in Bengal not more than one out of ten of the residents could be found to speak in praise of the Governor General, and, that being the case, it appeared to him to be almost an insult to Sir John Lawrence to couple his name with that of the Governor General in a Vote of Thanks.
GENERAL THOMPSONwas anxious, as one who had some experience of India, to express his opinion that if Lord Canning had had his way, all the mischief which had fallen upon us would have been prevented. Lord Canning was the successor of those great and able men who for 250 years had made India an honour to the British Crown. Since then, a new race had sprung up, with whom the noble Lord had to contend. Lord Canning had had to struggle with maniacs and reprobates; in proof of which he would
930
only refer to what had been read to the House by his old Indian friend (Colonel Sykes) on his right. The mischief came from the European immigrants or colonists, who brought from the slave-penns of America that detestable term which was among gentlemen non nominandum. Their great fear was that an Indian native should be promoted to any place of trust or profit. There was but one way to prevent this, and that they took. They broke faith with that Indian army, which was the Magna Charta—the Constitution—the Bill of Rights—of the Indian people; for while there was a Native army of 350,000 men, they knew that England must, and would, treat them with justice. The only means by which the Indian soldier could be driven into resistance was by attacking him in his religion—the free exercise of which had been guaranteed to him when he enlisted. Why could they not let the Indian army alone? Why did they insist on filling the mouths of the soldiers with hog's lard? If the Life Guards or Blues were invited to trample on the cross—or the Connaught Rangers to do what they considered equivalent to spitting on the Host—he took the phraseology from an eminent literary authority, the columns of The Times—the same kind of results would follow, as in fact they did in the time of the Second James. It was a guet-á-pens. He had said in the summer that it was a breach of military faith and honour, and he said so now. There had been times and places where a man making such a declaration would be asked to account for it. He was glad to have the opportunity of expressing his opinion of the merit of the Governor General of India, by supporting the present Vote.
MR. TOWNSENDsaid, he trusted that the Amendment would be withdrawn and the Motion unanimously adopted. He thought that under existing circumstances it was their duty to do all they could to strengthen the hands of the Indian Government by showing their confidence in it.
MR. DISRAELIintimated that he would not press his Amendment to a division, and added that if the statement which had been made that evening had been made by the noble Lord before, namely, that by agreeing to this vote they were not to be held committed to any expression of approbation in reference to

931
the general policy of Lord Canning, he should not have interposed any objection.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I should have made that statement had I thought it necessary, but I imagined it would be taken for granted. I thought the shape in which the Resolution was proposed sufficiently showed that the thanks were intended to apply simply to the measures taken by Lord Canning in support of the military operations, and had no reference to the general policy of the Government. I am quite ready to state now that I consider the House, if it agree to this vote, will still be perfectly free to take any course in respect to Lord Canning's general policy they may think fit, and will be in no way bound except as to the conduct of that noble Lord in supporting the military operations which have been rendered necessary by the outbreak of the mutiny.
Previous Question, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, that as a British Officer he could not but feel grateful to the noble Lord at the head of the Government for the cordial manner in which he had acknowledged the brilliant services of our troops in the East. He (Sir F. Smith) very much regretted that certain Returns for which he had moved some time since had not yet been produced, as they would have shown the House the relative proportion between the European and the native troops in India at the outbreak of the mutiny. Still, in the absence of Official Returns, it was probable that the European soldiers did not exceed 25,000, while the aggregate native force numbered 289,000. The successes achieved by our troops under such an overwhelming numerical disparity were perfectly marvellous, and this country showed in the glory which was reflected by such splendid exploits as the marches of Have-Jock and of Greathed, the marvellous relief of Lucknow by Sir James Outram, and the striking display of skill and energy made by Sir Colin Campbell. But, perhaps, the most memorable episode in the whole of those operations was the defence made by the garrison of Lucknow, than which he knew of nothing more admirable in ancient or modern history. A few hundred men had, in that case, successfully defended a weak position during a period of eighty-seven days, against an army numbering many thousands, and able to bring to bear against the little garrison heavy guns from
932
a distance of not more than fifty yards. He wished, however, to call particular attention to the heroic conduct of Brigadier Inglis and the garrison of Lucknow, to which there was no parallel in ancient or modern history. His feeble voice, however, could do but small justice to the glorious exploits of this gallant garrison, and he would, therefore, take the liberty of quoting to the House the words of Major General Outram, in his divisional Order of the 5th of October last. Sir James Outram said—
"The Major General believes that the annals of warfare contain no brighter page than that which will record the bravery, fortitude, vigilance, and patient endurance of hardships, privation, and fatigue displayed by the garrison of Lucknow, and he is very conscious that his unskilled pen must needs fail adequately to convey to the Right Hon. the Governor General of India and His Excellency the Commander in Chief the profound sense of the merits of that garrison which has been forced on his mind by a careful consideration of the almost incredible difficulties with which they have had to contend. The term 'illustrious' was well and happily applied by a former Governor General of India to the garrison of Jellalabad; but some far more laudatory epithet, if such the English language contains, is due, the Major General considers, to the brave men whom Brigadier Inglis has commanded, with undeviating success and untarnished honour, through the late memorable siege; for, while the devoted band of heroes who so nobly maintained the honour of their country's arms under Sir Robert Sale were seldom exposed to actual attack, the Lucknow garrison, of inferior strength, have, in addition to a series of fierce assaults gallantly and successfully repulsed, been for three months exposed to a nearly incessant fire from strong and commanding positions, held by an enemy of overwhelming force, possessing powerful artillery, having at their command the whole resources of what was but recently a kingdom, and animated by an insane and blood-thirsty fanaticism."
The House ought to know that by the exertions of the men and officers, and without the assistance of a single miner, Brigadier Inglis succeeded in discovering no fewer than seventeen mines which the enemy were about to explode under the ramparts of the Residency. He earnestly hoped that Her Majesty's Government would take the necessary steps for bestowing the due rewards on the small band of heroes who had added so much lustre to the British name.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
The other Resolutions were then severally agreed to, Nemine Contradicente.
Ordered, That the said Resolutions be transmitted by Mr. Speaker to the Governor General of India, and that his Lordship be requested to communicate the same to the several Officers referred to therein.

EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he hoped the House would have no objection to read this Bill a second time that evening without any discussion; and in that case he would undertake to postpone the Committee until next week, when the objections to the measure, all of which he believed related to points of detail, could be best considered.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know when the Government would be prepared to lay before the House an authentic account of the state of our Indian finance.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that a Return, containing ample information upon that subject, was being printed, and would in a few days be laid on the table of the House.

CONSPIRACY TO MURDER.
  MOTION FOR LEAVE.

    (FIRST NIGHT.) DEBATE ADJOURNED.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, in pursuance of the notice I have given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to conspiracy to murder. From time to time circumstances arise which point to the necessity, or the expediency at all events, of revising particular laws; and I think the House will concur with me in the opinion that an event has recently happened which does render it expedient that Parliament should revise the particular branch of our criminal law to which my notice relates. Sir, a conspiracy has been formed, partly in this country, for the purpose of committing a most atrocious crime. That conspiracy has led to most disastrous consequences. Providentially, the particular consequence to which it was aimed did not take place; but, nevertheless, great disasters have happened, and a sensation of indignation and disgust has been spread over the whole face of the earth. The natural consequence of the fact, that the parties who were immediately concerned in this diabolical attempt issued from this country, has been that foreign nations, ignorant of our peculiar laws, and unacquainted with the spirit of our constitution, have thought that there was an indifference in this country to the commission of crimes of an atrocious nature, and that, so far from entertaining those feelings which human nature must ever entertain with regard to such projects and such acts, on the con-
    934
    trary, the people of England were disposed rather to look upon them with a feeling amounting almost to favour. A disposition prevails on the Continent in general that the Government and Parliament of this country should take some steps which should place it in the power of the Government, on mere suspicion, to remove aliens from the United Kingdom. Sir, it is needless for me to say that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any measure of that kind to Parliament. We are sensible, as everybody must be, that there may be cases in which men, entertaining the most criminal projects, might with advantage be removed from the country; but, at the same time, any law which gave to the Government that power would be so liable to abuse, and would infringe so much on that general principle according to which the shores of the United Kingdom are open to people of all nations who may be compelled, from political or other causes, to seek a refuge here, and who ought, so long as they conduct themselves peaceably, to enjoy the protection they seek, that any Government would hesitate long before they proposed such a measure to Parliament, and I am quite sure Parliament would be quite as much disinclined to adopt it. Such a measure, therefore, is out of the question. But Her Majesty's Government, finding that an offence of a peculiar nature has been committed—namely, that there is strong reason to think that a conspiracy for the commission of murder has been, at all events, partially concocted in this country, we are anxious to consider what is the present state of our law with regard to that particular offence.
    I will, Sir, in the first place, meet an objection which I am aware many people entertain, at the consideration of this question having been taken up at all at the present time. It has been said by many that, because great irritation has been expressed on the part of foreign nations, and supposed to exist on the part of foreign Governments, against England, upon the mistaken assumption that we are indifferent to these matters, and that because, in France especially, certain addresses have been made by military bodies and published in the official paper, the Moniteur, on this account we should be prevented taking a step which, on its own merits, we might think it becoming the character and the interests of the country to take. Sir, for myself I must confess I cannot under-

    935
    stand the argument on which such an objection is taken. If it be right in itself to make such an alteration in our law; if our law is defective, and if it is capable of material improvement, there can be no reason why we should abstain from doing in regard to our own legislation what we think to be right merely because other nations have given way to impulses in moments of passion and perhaps of fear which we think to be wrong. But I am glad to say, in regard to those particular addresses from military bodies to which objection was taken on a recent occasion, that in the first place it appears that if the people of France are ignorant of what is the spirit of our constitution, and the habit, course, and current of our legislation, we, on the other hand, are very ill-informed as to the constant course and practice in France in regard to matters to which we take objection; because—and I confess it is only within the last few days that I have been acquainted with the fact—that the practice of addresses being presented by military bodies of all descriptions to the head of the Government of France upon all occasions of public interest, whether political or not, is a practice which has prevailed for, at all events, the last sixty years. It appears that in every reign, when events of public importance have occurred, whether for good or for evil, whether they were events upon which congratulation could be offered, or events upon which strong opinions could be expressed, it has not been considered inconsistent with the military discipline of the French army, but, on the contrary, it has been an approved practice, to allow regiments, and even detachments, to make addresses to the head of the existing Government. There was, therefore, nothing in the fact of these addresses being permitted and published which was a departure from the ordinary and uniform practice which prevails in France., But there were in those addresses, undoubtedly, expressions and passages at which in this country offence was taken, and at which, were it not a pity that we should examine too narrowly what passes in France, persons in this country might justly take offence. Well, Sir, Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable to inform the French Government of the unfortunate effect which those passages had produced upon the public mind of this country. I am glad to say my noble Friend Lord Clarendon has had placed in his hands by
    936
    the French Ambassador, by the directions of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, a despatch, in which it is stated that, Lord Cowley having communicated to the French Government the bad impression which that particular circumstance had produced, Count Walewski had ordered the Ambassador here to state that, although the practice was a universal practice, if in two or three addresses out of many hundreds some passages were allowed to be printed to which objections had been taken in England, that circumstance must have arisen from the inadvertence of those who had the charge of publishing those addresses, and that he was ordered, upon the part of the Emperor, to state that he regretted their publication. As far, then, as any objection to the revision of our laws is founded upon these recent addresses, I think such objection ought to cease after the handsome manner in which that explanation has been made.
    I come now, therefore, to the question disembarrassed of any feeling connected with that subject. Upon examining the state of our law it appeared that the law in this country—in England—treats a conspiracy to commit murder simply as a misdemeanour, subject to a fine and a short period of imprisonment; that, in point of fact, the offence of conspiracy to murder is punishable on the same level and in the same manner as a conspiracy for any other purpose, such as hissing at a theatre, or doing anything which it is an offence for men to conspire to do. In another part of the United Kingdom—that is to say, in Ireland—it will be found that the law upon this subject is very severe. There a conspiracy to commit murder is a capital offence. Well, Sir, it appeared to us that while, on the one hand, the law of England is too slight and the punishment not adequate to deter persons from the commission of the crime, on the other hand, the law of Ireland, which was passed in former times, was more severe than was necessary, and that it would be an improvement to make the law of the United Kingdom uniform by reducing the penalty in Ireland and by increasing the penalty in England. That which we now propose is that conspiracy to commit murder should be a felony, punishable with penal servitude, according to the nature of the offence, at the discretion of the Court, varying from any period not less than five years to the extent of life. Penal servitude for life was the maximum punishment, or the

    937
    offence might be punished by imprisonment and hard labour for a period not exceeding three years. That would apply to conspiracies by persons in this country, be they British subjects or foreigners—conspiracies to commit murder upon any person, whether a British subject or a foreigner, and whether resident within this country or abroad. This law will be universal, and will apply to all persons with respect to conspiracies to murder wherever intended. In this country, if a conspiracy to murder were to succeed, and a person were to fall a victim, then a conspirator would be an accessory before the fact, and could be tried for murder. With respect to a conspiracy to procure the murder of a person out of this kingdom, we propose that the conspiracy should be a conspiracy to commit murder if the murder which the conspiracy is intended to produce would be murder according to the laws of England if the crime were committed within the United Kingdom. The Bill, then, Sir, will be exceedingly short, and will run thus:—
    "1. Any person who shall, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, conspire with any other person or persons, being either within or without the said United Kingdom and the said Islands, to commit murder, either within or without the dominions of Her Majesty, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted shall be liable to be sentenced to penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than five years, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three years.
    "2. That any person who shall, within the said United Kingdom, or said Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, incite, instigate, or solicit any other person, being either within or without the said United Kingdom and Islands to commit murder, either within or without Her Majesty's dominions, shall be guilty of felony, and shall be liable, upon conviction thereof, to be sentenced to penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than five years, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three years.
    "3. Any person charged within the United Kingdom with a felony, under the provision of this Act, may be apprehended, tried, and punished, or otherwise dealt with, in all respects, in any county or place within the United Kingdom in which he may be found, in the same manner as if the felony with which he is charged had been committed in such county or place.
    "4. In any proceeding under this Act in which the murder shall be alleged to have been intended to be committed in any foreign country the word "murder" shall be construed to mean the killing of any person, whether a subject of Her Majesty or not, under such circumstances as would, if the person were so killed in the said United Kingdom, make such killing murder by the laws of the said United Kingdom."
    938
    Then the 5th clause repeals the Irish Act of 10th Geo. IV., entitled "An Act for Consolidating and Amending the Statutes relating to Offences against the Person." The effect of the Bill which I now ask the House to allow me to introduce is to increase the penalty for conspiracy to murder as far as relates to Great Britain and to diminish the penalty in Ireland, and to make one uniform law for the whole country. Now, I think that is an improvement of the law of this country, independent of all temporary circumstances. I think at the same time it is due to the character of the country that, a great crime having been attempted, the arrangements for which were partly concerted in this country, as far as we can go without violence to the constitution, and without any legislation which would not in itself be right and proper, we should so far show our feeling upon this occasion as to enter upon a review of the particular law-relating to that crime which has been attempted. It may be said possibly that as yet the present law has not been found ineffectual, because no proceedings have taken place under it. But will any man say, the object of the law being by punishment to deter persons from the commission of the offence, that by increasing the penalty attaching to the offence you do not add to the deterring effect, and still more prevent men from committing such offence? Can it be said, because it has so happened that this crime is scarcely known in this country, and that no case has occurred in which the law has been applied, that we are not adding a security that in future the crime will not be repeated by increasing the punishment which is to deter from its commission? It may perhaps be said, that if any one thought he should be successful no amount of punishment would deter him from the attempt, and that many an enthusiast would not care to lake imprisonment for three years as the result of an unsuccessful attempt; but I cannot but persuade myself that increasing the penalty to that length of penal servitude which is mentioned in the Bill will have a wholesome effect in teaching those who might wish to make this country a place in which to hatch and concoct disgraceful crimes that they cannot do so without incurring a liability of a very serious character. I therefore propose to the House that I should have leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of amending the Law relating to Conspiracy to Murder.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Conspiracy to Murder."
    MR. KINGLAKErose to move an Amendment:—
    "That this House, while sympathizing with the French Nation in its indignant abhorrence of the late atrocious attempt against the life of the Emperor, and anxious upon a proper occasion to consider any defects which may be shown to exist in our Criminal Law, the amendment of which might tend to defeat a repetition of such attempts, deems it inexpedient to legislate in compliance with the demand made in Count Walewski's despatch of the 20th of January, until further information is before it of the communications between the two Governments subsequent to the date of that despatch."
    He need hardly say that he warmly concurred in the noble Lord's expression of the abhorrence of this country at the dreadful crime which had been attempted against the life of the Emperor. As a moral and religious people we absolutely abhorred the crime of assassination. As a people used to bracing exercise and manly strife of many descriptions we regarded assassination as a cowardly and dastardly evasion of those rules of fair conflict to which we were accustomed; and perhaps we might add that to our abhorrence of the crime we joined a great deal of hearty contempt, because, as a thoroughly practical people, we were naturally apt to despise those who were continually making attempts and never succeeding. If he imagined it possible that by any legislation we could prevent the repetition of attempts such as that recently made against the life of the Emperor, and if the law officers of the Crown had come to that House, and, speaking with faithful regard to the science of the law, and not as politicians bending under pressure from abroad, had told them that the law required amending, then he should have been quite ready to give his best attention to any measure which might have been proposed upon the subject. But how stood the case? The indignation occasioned by the late atrocious attempt was very natural, and it was also natural that France should, in the moment of indignation, turn towards this country, because it was from this country that the assassins went thither. [Cries of "No, no."] At least, some of the conspirators went from this country, and it was therefore natural that the French people in the first moment of their indignation should turn their eyes towards England. The result was the despatch which had that
    940
    morning been placed in the hands of Members, and to which for some reason or other the noble Lord had made no allusion. In that despatch the Government of this country was in the most urgent terms called upon to alter its internal law. Now, his objection to legislate upon this occasion was of the simplest description. He confessed that he was so old-fashioned—so illogical, if they chose—as to decline to concur in altering the municipal law of England at the instigation of any foreign potentate. Either the measure proposed by the noble Lord was merely a piece of law reform, or it was a political measure suggested from abroad. If it were a piece of law reform he should have expected it to have been proposed to the House by the very able law officers of the Crown, and he could not believe in that case the noble Lord would have made himself the organ of the Government. But, if it were, as he conceived it to be, a concession to the pressure put upon the noble Lord by the despatch to which he had referred, he must decline to concur in the proposed legislation. It so happened that at that very moment hon. Members had in their hands notices of Motion for revising that very branch of the law which the noble Lord was now submitting to their consideration. The Solicitor General, than whom no man was more capable to deal with legislation of this description, only so lately as Thursday last gave notice of his intention to introduce several Bills for the consideration, improvement, and amendment of our criminal law. Of these notices one was—
    "Mr. Solicitor General: Offences against the Person.—Bill to Consolidate and Amend the Statute Law of England relating to Offences against the Person.—An early day."
    The other was—
    "Mr. Solicitor General: Indictable Offences.—Bill to Consolidate the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Accessories to, or Abettors of, Indictable Offences."
    Therefore, if it were not intended that this proposed legislation should be absolutely exceptional, it might be most aptly, conveniently, and properly comprised in the measures the notices of which the Solicitor General had placed in their hands. But, perhaps, that would hardly satisfy the exigency under which the noble Lord was acting. The despatch was very strongly worded—
    "But M. le Comte, how different is the attitude of the skilful demagogues established in England. It is no longer the hostility of misguided individuals, manifesting itself by all the excesses of

    941
    the press and all the violences of language; it is no longer even the work of the factious seeking to rouse opinion and provoke disorder; it is assassination, elevated to doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of which has just struck Europe with amazement."
    To do justice to the noble Lord he must confess that he had, in terms which he admitted to be perfectly decisive and conclusive, declined to act upon this portion of the requisition which was addressed to him. The despatch went on—
    "In submitting these questions to Her Britannic Majesty's Government, the Government of the Emperor does not merely discharge a duty towards itself, it re-echoes the sentiment of the country, which, under the influence of the most legitimate anxiety, calls upon it to do so; and which, in a matter where the common interest among all nations and all Governments is so clear, considers itself entitled to reckon upon the concurrence of England. The repetition and the wickedness of these guilty enterprises expose France to a danger against which we are bound to provide. Her Britannic Majesty's Government can assist us in averting it by affording us a guarantee of security which no State can refuse to a neighbouring State, and which we are authorized to expect from an Ally. Fully relying, moreover, on the high sense of the English Cabinet, we refrain from indicating in any way the measures which it may see fit to take in order to comply with this wish."
    So that, although no alternative was given to the noble Lord as to the general character of the measures which he was to adopt, the details were kindly left to the discretion of the Cabinet. He did not think that it would become the House of Commons instantly to legislate upon an appeal such as this. They had been told that this despatch, although dated January 20th, had not been answered. He did not wonder at that; but he proposed to the House that they should answer it here, and answer it now. He had great confidence in the noble Earl who conducted the affairs of the Foreign Office. He knew no one who could write a better despatch than Lord Clarendon; but he believed that no human ingenuity could give so good an answer to the communication of Count Walewski as would be involved in a simple vote of that House. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
    MR. HADFIELDseconded the Amendment, and expressed his decided objection to the measure, the effect of which would be to render two suspected persons talking together guilty of conspiracy, and subject them to severe penalty. This was an invasion of the constitution of the country which he had little expected from the present Government. It had been the pride
    942
    of Englishmen that this country had afforded an asylum to the political outcasts of all other oppressive Governments, and a refuge for the lovers of liberty all over the world. But it seemed to him that this Bill would involve all political refugees in the drag-net of the law of conspiracy, and would subject all who could be brought within the enactment to transportation for life. The Lord Chief Justice had stated that, in his opinion, the present law was quite sufficient for every purpose, and that an alteration was not necessary. There was danger in the Bill of the noble Lord. He was suspicious and jealous of it in the highest degree. If it should pass, farewell to the liberty of every one seeking a refuge in this country. The people of this country had established its character centuries ago. They had hitherto maintained it unsullied, and he deeply regretted that it should be impugned by a Bill of this kind at the dictation of a foreign State. He cordially supported the Amendment, and trusted that the Bill would be withdrawn, for if any Amendment should be considered necessary, it could be much more conveniently made in the Bills of the Solicitor General.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. BOWYERsaid, it was not easy to understand the objections which the hon. Mover of the Amendment urged against the Bill. Indeed no attempt had been made to show that the Bill was bad in itself. The first objection of the hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kinglake), that the measure was proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government instead of by the Attorney General, was not a very weighty one. Another was that the Bill was introduced at the suggestion of the Government of our ally the Emperor of the French. It was a very odd and certainly a new doctrine in civilized Europe that one ally was not at liberty from time to time to suggest to another things which, though immediately concerning the internal affairs of the latter, also deeply affected the peace of the former and the stability of its Government. He was surprised especially to hear that, after the soldiers of France had fought side by side with ours in the great struggle which had lately terminated, the French Government was not at liberty, in an amicable manner, upon a great emergency, to bring before the Government of England matters which af-

    943
    fected the security of our Allies and the safety of the life of him whom the votes of the French people had placed upon the throne of that kingdom. And that was all that the French Government had done on this occasion. He had read with care the despatch of Count Walewski, and he admitted there were some phrases in it which might he misunderstood by persons not acquainted with the niceties of the French language; but for his own part he could not conceive a more unobjectionable, a more inoffensive, or a more proper communication to be made by one ally and neighbour to another. The question was whether, because certain French colonels had spoken in an injudicious and objectionable manner, that House was to refuse its consent to a Bill which was in accordance with international law, and even with the criminal jurisprudence of England itself. They were not called upon to interfere with what had been termed the right of asylum, which was supported by the very highest authorities, both ancient and modern; they were not asked to alter any one principle in our law or constitution: but simply to enact a penalty adequate to the offence which it was intended to punish, and to provide more effectual means for the suppression of crimes against the peace and safety of other nations. Supposing they refused to pass this Bill, in what possible manner, he asked, could they more effectually give colour to the unjust and absurd imputations of the French colonels. Our Ally had brought before us a defect in our legislation, and several cases had occurred in which our law had proved practically inadequate to the prevention of crime. ["No. no!"] Crimes had been perpetrated; our law had not prevented them; therefore, it was not practically sufficient for the purposes which it was intended to serve. That was sound logic. It appeared to him, moreover, that it was most undesirable to give colour to the idea that we were indisposed to the suppression of conspiracy, and that it would be most undignified to refuse to do what was right merely because they felt offended at something that somebody else had said. He was actually told that if they passed this Bill it would be said abroad that they had acted under the menace of a foreign Power. He would be ashamed to sit in that House if such a motive were to be thought capable of influencing it. Foreign nations knew the English Parliament well enough to be aware that it was not to be moved by
    944
    menace, and that if it were to pass this Bill it would do so only because it thought it just, wise, and expedient. The laws of this country in their present shape had been found to be practically ineffectual for the prevention of crimes such as that which had lately been perpetrated in Paris, and it was, in his opinion, extremely desirable that they should be so far amended as to afford somewhat greater security against the recurrence of offences of a similar character than at present existed. If then, this Bill were a right Bill—if it remedied a defect in our law—the House should assent to it, irrespective of all these foreign considerations. It had, indeed, been urged in opposition to any such measure that the Emperor of the French had himself, while an exile in England, conspired against Louis Philippe, who was then at the head of the French nation. The argumentum ad hominem was, however, in his opinion, a bad species of reasoning to which to have recourse. It reminded him of that line of argument which schoolboys were wont to reprobate under the name of a tu quoque. But passing over the inconclusive nature of such reasoning he was prepared altogether to deny that there was any just parallel between the expedition of Louis Napoleon to Boulogne and the attempt which had recently been made to assassinate him in his own capital. Louis Napoleon was at the time of the expedition in question a pretender to the Crown of France; he believed himself to be entitled under an organic law of the Empire, which had not been abrogated without the assistance of foreign bayonets; he went to France for the assertion of his rights, and landed openly and at the risk of his life at Boulogne as his uncle did at Cannes—the only difference was that he did not succeed, and that, according to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, was decisive against him. Louis Napoleon landed openly with a handful of men, and risked his life bravely—and if he had succeeded he would have had the reputation of having done one of the most heroic things recorded in history. Between his conduct, therefore, and that of assassins who conspired to commit murder for months, and who did not hesitate in the prosecution of their designs to scatter destruction amid a crowd of harmless people,—to throw grenades under a carriage in which a lady was seated beside the object of their atrocious designs—there

    945
    was the widest possible difference. But, passing from that view of the subject, he was prepared to support the measure under the notice of the House upon the ground that the object which it sought to effect was perfectly in accordance with international law as well as in conformity with the municipal law of this country. That it was in accordance with international law was a proposition which was established by the writings of a great authority—Vattel. The House would bear in mind that a foreigner residing here and owing temporary allegiance to the Crown was legally, for the present purpose, on the same footing as a subject of the Crown. Vattel said:—
    "Since the Sovereign ought not to suffer his subjects to molest the subjects of other States, or to do them an injury, much less to give open audacious offence to foreign Powers, he ought to compel the transgressor to make reparation for the damage or injury, if possible, or to inflict on him an exemplary punishment; or, finally, according to the nature and circumstances of the case, to deliver him up to the offended State, to be there brought to justice. This is pretty generally observed with regard to great crimes, which are equally contrary to the laws and safety of all nations. The Sovereign who refuses to cause reparation to be made for the damage done by his subject, or to punish the offender, or, finally, to deliver him up, renders himself in some measure an accomplice in the injury, and becomes responsible for it."
    The extract which he had just read served to show that there was nothing in the proposal of the noble Lord at the head of the Government which was opposed to international law, while it was equally clear that it was not at variance with the criminal law of England, inasmuch as under the operation of that law, as it at present stood, two or more persons conspiring here to commit murder in a foreign State were liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour. To amend the law, therefore, so as to make the punishment more adequate to the heinousness of the offence was to take a step which would, in his opinion, be in no way a departure from the principles of our legislation. The present Bill would not make that a crime which was not at present one; and how absurd it was that a man who broke into a house and stole a trifling amount of property was liable to the punishment of penal servitude, while those who conspired against the life of a foreign Sovereign escaped with a sentence of fine and imprisonment. He wished, also, to observe that the laws relating to conspiracy seemed to him to be ineffectively enforced by the police. It was well
    946
    known that secret societies, which were nothing but standing conspiracies against the live of foreign Sovereigns, existed in this metropolis, and that the efforts of the police to discover and suppress them were of no avail, because they were composed of persons who were adepts in the arts of the conspirator. Orsini, for instance, had published a book in which he stated that he had at the age of twenty-five become a member of a secret society, and that he had from that time never ceased to conspire against the Government of Austria. That fact showed how well trained such men were to the work of concealment; while, as an instance of the facility with which they escaped detection, he might mention the case of Foschini, who had stabbed three or four different persons within a few yards of a crowded thoroughfare, and at so early an hour as eight o'clock in the evening, and had never been apprehended. Foschini had been deputed by a secret society to commit the crime, the only cause being—as two of those whose lives had been endangered had informed him (Mr. Bowyer)—that they had refused their concurrence in certain views which had been advanced by a particular section of the society to which Foschini belonged. Having made his murderous attempt upon the lives of these men he had rushed into the street, and so secure did he appear to have felt that he should not be captured that he proceeded home that night to his lodgings, and, having slept there, took his departure in disguise after breakfast the next morning, everything having been prepared for his escape. He (Mr. Bowyer) recollected that some time subsequently to the commission of the crime he had put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department upon the subject, to which he had received in reply the expression of an assurance that Foschini would be taken by the police; and he had since ascertained that at the very time when that answer was given Foschini was in Walworth, within a very short distance of where they were at that moment sitting. The murderer was never taken, for the Government reward of £100 gave the persons concerned reason to believe that some political motives were suspected, and money was accordingly forthcoming to get the man out of the country. Within the last few days he had been told that the victim of what had been called "the Waterloo Bridge tragedy" was a French

    947
    detective who had come over here to look after some of the refugees, and who was in consequence murdered by them. All this showed some defects in our police force, which required amendment. Now, he did not recommend anything like espionage. But as a conspiracy to stir up rebellion in a foreign country or to murder a foreign prince was a misdemeanour by the law of England, why were not the same vigilance and care taken to prevent that offence as was taken to prevent other misdemeanours? That was the real point to be looked at, and he must say he thought our police should take more care to cope with the craft and contrivance of these conspirators, and that further measures should be adopted in order to prevent these offences. He supported this Bill most strongly, because it changed nothing in the spirit of our law, but only amended it—because it did not affect the right of asylum in the slightest possible degree, and because it was a measure which he believed to be requisite for the peace of Europe, and also for the better protection of the honour of this country.
    MR. W. J. FOXsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had told a long story as to the defects in our own police system; now he (Mr. Fox) would match that story by an inquiry into the efficiency of the French police. That portion of the late infamous attempt on the Emperor of the French which took place in this country was perfectly open. Machines were manufactured in Birmingham; Colonel Dixon, of the Small Arms Establishment at Enfield, was acquainted with the new sort of grenade which was to be produced; and the whole affair was perfectly above-board until the parties possessing these instruments of destruction found their way to Paris, and there attempted to perpetrate their crime. Now, the atrocious attempt at assassination which had occurred might be called the occasion for the mandate which had reached us from across the Channel; but he thought it could not be called the cause. We had all heard for some time past murmurings upon the continent of Europe—from Austria, France, and Naples—as to the asylum afforded to political refugees in this country. A violent desire had long been expressed to put an end to our free and hearty reception and protection of these fugitives, and we must therefore look further for the cause. Now, there were those who did not object to wade through slaughter to a throne, and it was in the common course
    948
    of things that they should fear to be hurled by slaughter from that throne. He confessed he did not think that such persons had any particular right to call upon their neighbours to keep watch and ward over their safety. Assassination was not an English crime; it did not grow on English soil; it was not breathed in our atmosphere. It was said that the assassins went out of England; but how did that happen? They first came into England. They came from countries administered by Governments which made assassins, and which, for that reason, dreaded the return of assassins. But if you treated a man with injustice, with continued harshness and cruelty, you embittered all the springs of life in him, and might, perhaps, in time transform a good citizen and member of society into an assassin. This was a very practicable operation. His objection to this Bill was, that it made an alteration in our law in compliance with an external pressure. He also objected to it in consideration of the feelings and the comfort of hundreds and thousands of refugees who had found an asylum here. There might be among these persons who were capable of plotting, and even perhaps of executing assassination. He believed them to be a very small number indeed. There wore other refugees who were looking patiently for the time when other days should come, and when men should rule in their own country who would do them justice. Many of them were waiting here for that time with the strictest patience which could possibly be exercised. There were others who had given up all hope whatever of returning to their own country, who made themselves at home here, and who strove by honourable employment to earn for themselves and their families an honest subsistence. Now, he asked, what would become of all such persons if we shook their feeling of security by the enactment of anything like a new law? They would not, indeed, be within the range of your new Bill; they would not conspire to commit murder here or elsewhere; but their feeling of security in the unchangeableness of British law would be shaken to its foundations. You would spread a cloud over their dwellings—you would carry anxiety and apprehension into their bosoms—you would give rise among them to a feeling of bitterness and of insecurity which would go far to destroy their enjoyment of the hospitality now afforded here. He said of insecurity, for they might say, if this was done to oblige

    949
    France to-day, what might not be done to oblige Austria to-morrow? After that, something might perhaps be done to oblige the King of Naples. Such a thing once begun, there was no telling where it would stop. The first step was now proposed after such threats as he should have thought would have made English blood boil to hear them; and the first step was a pattern for the second. Those who submitted to be dragooned into one law might be cajoled or threatened into another, and thus it might go on until there would be no longer any difference between this country and others which had enjoyed no such freedom and afforded no such asylum. Look at the example we were setting to other nations If England gave way, what could we expect Belgium to do? What Switzerland? What Sardinia? Why, one after another they might all imitate this subserviency; there would not be a place on the soil of Europe where a political exile could set his foot. And we should have commenced the disgrace of setting an example to those weaker States; we should have levelled ourselves to the position of a secondary and fearful State, one ready to comply with any demand made by others; we should have set the example to Belgium, Sardinia, and Switzerland; we should be the first to lead on the dance of feeble States in this progression of infamy!
    MR. GILPINregretted, on some accounts, the character of the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Bridgewater, for he had rather the question had been met broadly upon its merits with an emphatic denial of leave to introduce the Bill within those walls. He hoped it would not be necessary for him or any Member of the House, in expressing his intention to oppose the introduction of this measure, heartily to disavow any approval, direct or indirect, of the infamous and diabolical deed perpetrated in the streets of Paris. From the bottom of his heart he abhorred assassination. He believed that liberty was not served by the success of such deeds, and he was sure that in their failure they only made more strong the arm of despots and more heavy the chains of the oppressed. He objected to the introduction of this Bill, because he believed it utterly unnecessary. He would quote the language of a distinguished legal authority—the Lord Chief Justice—that the law as it at present stood gave the Government all the power they ought to have. It appeared to him that that was a suffi-
    950
    cient answer to the noble Lord at the head of the Government when he proposed to alter the existing law, on the ground that it was insufficient. The law of England on this subject had been unchanged for many generations and throughout varying circumstances, affecting both England itself and the continent of Europe, and it had always been deemed sufficient. It was deemed sufficient many years ago, when the present Emperor of the French was a refugee in this country, and he found no fault then with the law of England in reference to refugees; and when he planned a descent upon the shores of France at a time when France was as much our ally as she was at the present moment, and when he executed that attempt, and with his own hand shot a soldier on landing at Boulogne. After the commission of that crime the present Emperor was received with open arms by England; here he received protection, and he then found no fault with the refugee law of this country. He (Mr. Gilpin) was not about to revile the Emperor of the French. [Laughter.] He was merely stating facts which none of the laughers opposite could deny, and he repeated that he had no wish to revile the Emperor of the French. It was enough for him to know that the Emperor had been placed in his present position by the people of France, and he (Mr. Gilpin) was too strongly impressed with the conviction that the interests of this country were best consulted by an abstinence on the part of its rulers from interference in the affairs of foreign States to find fault with the Emperor of the French, as Emperor, so long as he was tolerated by the French nation. He (Mr. Gilpin) further objected to the proposed alteration of the law on the ground that it was not real. There was a very expressive word which had been pronounced by high authorities to be not exactly Saxon; but it was better than Saxon—it was expressive. He alluded to the word "sham," and he believed the suggested alteration in the law was a "sham," for, though he did not mean to impugn the motives of the noble Lord in introducing the Bill, if it went no further than was at present proposed, it would not effect the purpose it purported to accomplish. Those who had watched the criminal jurisprudence of this country knew well that the detection and conviction of crime were not rendered more certain by severity, and he was sure that unless a further step in legislation were

    951
    taken to please the Emperor of the French, by admitting something like the French law of evidence, and adopting the system of French espionage, the law would be a dead letter. It might deceive the Emperor of the French; the noble Premier might himself be deceived by it: but for all practical purposes it would be a dead letter unless the Commons of England were prepared to do what he hoped they never would consent to do—to sacrifice upon the altar of mistaken political expediency the great principles of freedom which had distinguished the British nation. He hoped those who thought with him would oppose the Bill in every stage. Did the noble Lord suppose that, if he succeeded in carrying the Bill he had submitted to the House, this would be the last suggestion we should receive from across the Channel? There were monarchs in Europe—-he would not instance the King of Naples, who might not perhaps be strong enough—but there were monarchs as powerful as the Emperor of the French who might ask for modifications in our laws. He (Mr. Gil-pin) maintained that the will of a foreign monarch ought not to be the standard of English law, and he conceived that they would abandon the high position which as the Commons of England they held, and ought to hold, if in accordance with any such suggestions they altered the fundamental laws of this realm. He believed that those who opposed the Bill of the noble Lord would be supported by the voice of the country. He remembered, and probably many Members on both sides of the House would also remember, certain acts on the part of Secretaries of State for the Home Department which compromised the right of asylum of illustrious exiles, and which even caused the heads of noblemen to roll upon the bloody scaffolds of down-trodden Italy, and the people of England were not slow to express their opinion as to these acts. A noble Lord had in another place expressed a strong opinion, which he hoped would be endorsed by hon. Gentlemen on both sides. That noble Lord, who was the leader of a great party, had uttered these true English words, which had found, and he was persuaded would find, an echo in every British heart
    "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."
    952
    These were the words of Lord Derby; but he (Mr. Gilpin) might also remind the House of the language used by Lord Hawkesbury in 1802, when a demand, somewhat similar to that now put forward, was made upon this country.
    "Our Government," said Lord Hawkesbury, "neither has nor wants any other protection than what the laws of the country afford; and though they are ready and willing to give to every foreign Government all the protection against offences of this nature which the principles of their laws and constitution will admit, they can never consent to new-model their laws or to change their constitution, to gratify the wishes of any foreign Power."
    He (Mr. Gilpin) thought the only answer to Count Walewski's letter which would be honourable and becoming on the part of that House would be, that they heartily regretted the crime that had been attempted; that they rejoiced it had not been attended with success; but that it was wholly foreign to the interests and the custom of England to modify its laws upon the application of any foreign Power. He was satisfied that those who opposed this Bill and defeated it, would best serve the reputation of the noble Premier himself, and the defeat of the Bill would conduce to the honour of the country, to maintain the character of that House and the dignity of the Crown.
    SIR JOHN WALSHthought there was a very obvious distinction between the right of asylum and the abuse of that privilege for the purpose of concocting the mo3t frightful crimes that could he imagined—a distinction of which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last appeared to have lost sight. The right of asylum involved the honour and character of England, and it was one which no foreign Power having any knowledge of the spirit of English institutions could ask us to forego. But there was a great distinction between the right of asylum extended to refugees who might have been forced by political causes to quit their own countries, and the protection of atrocious criminals who matured within the British dominions the most execrable projects. He contended that, while they maintained intact the right of asylum, they ought to listen with considerable indulgence and attention to the representations of a friendly Power—a tried and proved ally—which pointed out the great danger to which its Government had been exposed by conspiracies and plots concocted in this country. It had been argued that the existing law applied to such offences, and to persons who benefited by the asylum extended over them

    953
    and at the same time violated our laws. Was there, then, anything very extraordinary in the adoption of measures to enforce stricter penalties against such persons? Could it be considered that we were yielding to the dictation of a foreign Power when by additional penalties we merely enforced our own laws against those by whom they were basely violated? The distinction was so obvious that no sophistry could place it in any other light. He had heard with great regret to-night, as well as on a former occasion, the most virulent sarcasms directed against the Emperor of the French. He (Sir John Walsh) was not about to put himself forward as the champion of the Emperor, whose acts had earned for him the love and confidence of one of the greatest nations of Europe, and whose character he would leave to be defended by his own countrymen; but he must say the Emperor Napoleon was the most true, sincere, and faithful friend to England and the English alliance who had sat upon the throne of France since 1815. Let the House compare with the Emperor, in this respect, the elder branch of the Bourbons who were restored to their throne by the English, and contrast their sincerity and ardour of friendship to England with those of Napoleon the III. Then, with regard to Louis Philippe, did he exhibit so much sincerity and good faith to this country? That monarch rather tricked and overreached England in the affair of the Spanish marriage; but the Emperor Napoleon, ever since he had presided over the Government of France, had adhered most faithfully to his treaties, and been most cordial in all his relations in reference to this country. Speaking, first, of his private demeanour—though that was a subordinate topic (and yet some inference might be drawn therefrom as to the real nature of his public feeling towards this country),—everybody knew that Louis Napoleon dwelt here in a private capacity during many years of exile; he was acquainted with a great many individuals, some in the very highest ranks of society, others in very subordinate and comparatively obscure position; but no one who had the opportunity of conferring a kindness on him in a period of his adversity and obscurity in this country was ever forgotten by him: let that face be presented at any distance of time—let that person but come across the Emperor Napoleon—and he would find that the memory of that monarch had this
    954
    admirable quality, that it had an indelible recollection of any act of courtesy that he had received. He mentioned this amiable trait as some reply to those sarcasms which, with very little taste and delicacy, had been lavished against the Emperor. But, to advert to what was more important—namely, the Emperor's public policy,—he reminded the House that the Emperor had adhered to his alliance with this country with the utmost honour and fidelity. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) the other night talked a great deal about his affection for the people of France, and had drawn a distinction between the people and the Emperor. He (Sir John Walsh) was afraid that some day the hon. Gentleman would find himself the victim of an unrequited affection. The people of France were neither fond of the hon. Member nor of the English people to the extent he supposed; but if at any time there appeared the chance of any animosity springing up between the French people and this country, the Emperor had exerted all his influence to allay such a feeling. During the whole of that great struggle in which France and England were engaged as allies, nothing could equal the fidelity and honour with which the Emperor carried out his engagements. At one time the Russian war was unpopular with the French people, and nothing but the great ascendancy of the Emperor's name and his energetic character could have induced them to continue the war. The noble Lord the Member for London would recollect that when he and M. Drouyn de Lhuys agreed to a certain basis of peace to be submitted to their Cabinets the Emperor of the French refused to ratify the terms, not because he disapproved them himself, but because the opinion of the British Cabinet was strongly pronounced against them, he stood by his engagement, and the English by the assistance of the French were enabled to bring the war to a triumphant and happy issue. He thought, then, that the Emperor, who acted with such cordial friendship towards this country, had some right, when his capital was convulsed with alarm and horror at a crime which was attempted to be accomplished at the risk of the lives of a multitude of unoffending women and children, to expect that this country, his ally, would—not give up the right of asylum, or change its laws—but afford him some protection from assassination. He was not lawyer enough to follow all the details of the Bill,

    955
    but he thought it desirable to effect the desired object with as little change of the existing law as possible; and he conceived that the Bill would not alter the spirit of the laws, but only render more severe the penalty attached to the offence to which it had reference. The House could at least give the noble Lord leave to introduce his Bill, and might afterwards consider carefully the details.
    LORD ELCHOsaid this was a question on which he had a strong feeling, and on which he did not like to give a silent vote, the more unwilling because he could neither agree with the Amendment, nor with the measure which the noble Lord had thought the circumstances of the time justified him in introducing. He could assure the noble Lord that it was in no spirit of hostility he objected to the introduction of a measure which he proposed on his responsibility as Minister of the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Kinglake) objected to the proposition of the noble Lord on two grounds: first, because they were asked to legislate at the instance of the French Government, and the second because they had not sufficient information before them on the subject. Now he confessed that if any sufficient cause had been shown for the necessity of this measure, he would not reject it simply because it was asked for by the French Government. Nor did he see much use in having any more papers laid before the House—he did not see how they could throw any more light on the subject. There were two things which he thought the House had now to consider—the one was the state of the law, and the other was the point of time at which the Government proposed to make the change. Now, being no lawyer it would be presumptuous in him to attempt to define the state of the law to the House; but it was plain that there was the greatest possible doubt among our legal authorities as to the state of the law on this question. They had the Government bringing in this Bill on the avowed ground that the law was insufficient; while in another place they had Lord Campbell and Lord Brougham declaring that the law as it stood was quite sufficient for all purposes. Now, this being the state of that question it appeared to him that they would act very hastily if they proceeded to alter the law without being satisfied that it was insufficient. The noble Lord himself in bringing in the Bill did not say that the existing law was insufficient
    956
    but that it was never brought into operation. That of course did not prove it to be insufficient, and they ought not to alter it without inquiry. He came next to the question of time; and to this he attached very great importance. On the very first day of the Session, immediately after the speech of Count de Morny in the French Chamber, the noble Lord came down to the House and gave notice that he would to-night move for leave to bring in a Bill upon the subject. This notice of Motion appeared concurrently with the appearance in the Moniteur of the addresses from the French Colonels. Now, taken in themselves these addresses were, perhaps, nothing very extraordinary; but the fact of their appearing in the Moniteur did give the matter a very great importance, for, as had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend, and as bad before been stated by Lord Hawkesbury in 1802, on a somewhat similar occasion, the Moniteur was as much the official organ of the Government as the London Gazette. It did not matter whether the offensive matter was contained in the partie officielle or the partie non officielle; there could be no doubt that all these addresses had been sent to the Generals commanding the districts, by them to the Minister of War, and had been by him transmitted to the office of the Moniteur. No doubt these officers were ambitious of promotion; and, in fact, he had observed in the French papers the other day, that the colonel, from whom one of the most violent of these addresses had emanated, had been decorated with the Legion of Honour. But then, publications in the Moniteur had a material bearing on the question of time. It appeared to him that there was the more reason for objecting to hasty legislation at a time when the public opinion of Europe was called to those addresses, and would convey the impression that this legislation was somewhat under compulsion. It was all very well to talk of public opinion in France; but there was a strong public opinion in England, too, and wherever they went they heard people saying, "Surely this is hasty, and it may compromise the right of asylum." Now, as regarded that right, he thought it would be impossible to persuade the people of England that they would ever violate it. But still he thought the honour and dignity of the House were engaged in not taking any step that would look like even an approach towards that violation. It appeared to him that a not unreasonable

    957
    course would have been for the House, instead of introducing suddenly a measure of this kind, to pass a Resolution, stating its horror and detestation of the crime that had been attempted against the person of the Emperor, and that, while it was determined to maintain inviolate the right of asylum, it would also punish those who, at any future time, might be found guilty of such crimes, and even to amend the law if it should be found insufficient. But as the state of the law, in the opinion of lawyers, was doubtful, it was desirable that a commission should be issued to inquire into the subject, and to report with all convenient speed. If that were done, they would be in a position to show that they had not acted hastily, while they had done all that was necessary to be done to render the law efficient.
    MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, although I am very much inclined to move the adjournment of the debate, yet, as it is desirable that the matter should be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible, I will throw myself on the indulgence of the House, and, even at this late hour, state my opinions on this very important question. It appears to me that we have before us two questions—first, does the law require any alterations? Scondly, is this the right time and mode for making it? Now, I will confine myself to these two questions. And, first, I would ask, does the law require any alteration? But before I address myself to that question, I would ask the House to consider with me the real position of our country at the present time. The whole of Europe, with the insignificant exceptions of Belgium and Sardinia, is, at the present time, subject to despotism. The two islands of Great Britain and Ireland are the only spots in Europe in which freedom of language and freedom of action still exist. We are an oasis in the desert. That desert has grown from day to day and from hour to hour, within my recollection. Despotism has been daily narrowing the sphere of liberty in Europe, and we are now in the proud position—though I will say that it is for the human race a lamentable one—we are in the proud position of being the sole depositaries of liberty in Europe. If England were stricken down to-morrow, do you think Belgium and Sardinia would exist for a day? Well then, Sir, I say that, for the sake of mankind, it becomes us duly to consider what we are asked to do, lest we should do anything to circumscribe the
    958
    liberty of England. This country is at present the asylum of all oppressed people—not, as has been said, that people of every description may come to England, for England has entered into treaties to give up criminals; but we do not give up political criminals; that is the great distinction. Such then, Sir, is our position; such is the position of Europe; and it is at this time that we are called upon to alter the law of England. It has been our boast for ages that we have given an asylum, a safe asylum, to every political offender; and mark the words "political offender." What then, Sir, is the present state of the law? It is this, that conspiracy is a crime. Conspiring to do an illegal act, or conspiring to do a legal act in an illegal manner, is a crime according to the Jaw of England. There is only one case in which the crime of conspiracy is erected by the law of England into a capital offence, and that is, the case of high treason. Conspiring to kill the Sovereign is the crime of high treason. The crime does not consist in killing the Sovereign, but in conspiring to kill the Sovereign. I As has been stated already in another place, it is well known to every lawyer that in the case of those who, in the days of Charles the Second, were called the "regicides," and who were indicted for bringing King Charles the First to the block, the indictment was for conspiring to kill the King, and the cutting off his head was laid as an overt act. That is the sole case in which conspiracy has been erected into a capital offence by the law of England. Our law of conspiracy is this—that whatever crime men conspire to commit the mere conspiring is a misdemeanour punishable with fine and imprisonment. Now, Sir, let me be understood. Two men come together, and they conspire together to kill A B. If one of them only killed A B, then the one who conspired, and did not kill him may be indicted as an accessary before the fact; but if they have only conspired, the conspiracy is a misdemeanour punishable by fine and imprisonment. Such is the law. Now, such being the law what has occurred to induce us to alter it? For a long period we have gone on from time to time ameliorating—that is rendering less cruel—the law of England. We have learnt by experience that in order to make a law efficient, you must make discovery certain, and the infliction of punishment certain; and we have found that when punishments are severe there is great

    959
    difficulty first in discovering the criminal, and next in bringing him to justice. I will take the case of forgery. The punishment of that offence has in my time undergone a complete change. I recollect hearing when I was a youth of many persons who were at that time executed for the crime of forgery. At length it became almost impossible, not merely to find out forgery, but to convict a forger. We then went back to the very origin of the disease, and we ameliorated the law; we rendered the punishment less severe, and thereby increased the efficiency of the law, making the crime more certain of detection, and the punishment more certain of being inflicted. Now, Sir, the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) asks us to pursue a contrary course. He says, "there is a crime which, with a mild punishment, we have been unable to find out," for that is the real state of things—and, therefore, I ask you to increase the punishment. I ask is that rational? A great crime has been perpetrated. What was done in England? I will suppose that certain people conspired together in England to kill the Emperor of the French. We have no evidence of that yet—none whatever. No man has been tried; there is nothing before the world except the vague statements which have appeared in the newspapers. We know that a crime has been committed, but we know nothing certain as to the persons who committed it; we know not where they concocted the crime; we know not whence they obtained the means of perpetrating it. But I will take the statements in the newspapers for granted. I will suppose that the crime was concocted in England. Then what was the overt act? I will suppose that it was going down to Birmingham, and getting made there certain grenades or projectiles. The man who made them received the order openly, and when he went to Enfield he spoke of the peculiar projectiles which he had been employed to make, and he asked the officials if they knew anything about them?—showing that he knew nothing about the purpose to which they were to be applied. The officials at Enfield told him that they knew nothing about them; but as soon as the attempt made at Paris became known here, their attention was called to the circumstances, and it was suggested to him that he had made the projectiles which were thrown under the Emperor's carriage. Now, Sir, was there anything
    960
    there which an increased severity of punishment could have brought to light? Supposing that you had in force the law now proposed—suppose that any man who conspired to kill the Sovereign of France would have been guilty of felony—would that have rendered the discovery of the crime one whit more easy? If you tell me that the severity of the punishment would have induced these persona not to commit the crime, I ask you to go with me across the water. There the crime was carried to its consummation; there the crime was punishable with death; and though the punishment of death stared them in the face, these men committed the crime. What then, according to the reasoning of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), ought they to do in France? Why, the crime not having been prevented by the fear of death the punishment of torture ought to be added to the existing punishment. If an addition to the punishment here be necessary, an addition to the punishment in France is also necessary. The only punishment you can add to death is torture; therefore, according to the principles of the noble Lord torture ought to be introduced into the French land. I want this statement to be answered. Hon. Gentlemen may sneer; but there is a great difference between sneering and answering. I say the law as it at present stands in no way prevents discovery, and the law as it is proposed to be altered would in no way facilitate discovery. Discovery is the only thing that is wanted. The Emperor of the French points to that in the despatch that has been laid upon the table. He asks that you should alter your law of police—in other words, that you should introduce the French system of police. I ask what the French police did on this occasion? Why, in the very face of that organized body, who are banded together to keep down liberty and to keep it under the heel of the despot—in the very face of a body thus trained, thus armed, thus accoutred in every possible way for the purpose of trampling down a nation in the dust—these things were prepared, and thrown near the Emperor, to the great danger of his life. All this, I say, was done in spite of his terrific police. And then, when his police fails, he turns upon us and says, "Oh, but England is a den of assassins, for she has sheltered these men, from English shores these wretches have come, and you must alter your police law." And why do I say

    961
    that the Emperor of the French calls England "a den of assassins?" Because that expression has found its way into the Moniteur. It would not have found its way there but for the permission of Louis Napoleon. He is answerable for everything there said, and I fix upon him the responsibility of insulting my country. That he, too—he of all men upon earth—should dare to insult England!—he who has partaken of our hospitality, who has been sheltered by our fostering power! What, after all this, has he done? Oh, he sets a bright example to England. There was a man who conspired to kill England's great hero, the late duke of Wellington;—this was a man great too, but fallen in his greatness—and no one act of his life was, I think, so thoroughly inconsistent with that greatness as his leaving a legacy to the man who had attempted to assassinate the Duke of Wellington. The only explanation of, the only excuse for, that deed was, that the great Napoleon's mind was shaken to its foundations. I do not believe that Napoleon would in his right senses have perpetrated so infamous an act. But that man, who has received the protection of England, who has come here after attempting crime after crime against his native land—that man when he had climbed to the height of power at which he has now arrived—what did he do but pay to his foiled assassin the wages of his intended dirty deed? [Mr. Bow-YER: No!] Oh, I have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman defend the King of Naples. This man (Cantillon) is now living in Paris, and it was publicly and ostentatiously announced that the present Emperor of the French had paid him the legacy which was left him by the great Napoleon for attempting to assassinate the Duke of Wellington. When these panegyrics are thus profusely scattered in the English House of Commons by the hon. Baronet over the head of Louis Napoleon, I hope he did not recollect this fact. [Sir JOHN WALSH: I had not heard of it.] The hon. Baronet says he had not heard of it, yet he pretends to speak on this matter. But, Sir, if it were necessary that this alteration should be made in the law, I now come to ask if this is the right time? And now, Sir, I will address myself to the noble Lord; and I will ask him how it is that he is in his present position? He is there because the people of England believed him to be
    962
    the enemy of despotism in Europe. Yes, that is the reason the noble Lord is there. I recollect saying before the noble Lord came into office that he alone might constitute a Ministry—that with a row of ciphers by his side he might be the Prime Minister. So popular was he with the people of England, that I said he might go into the streets and select whom he liked for colleagues; and in order to prove the truth of what I stated the noble Lord has pretty well acted upon it. But such, Sir, was the character of the noble Lord. The people believed that he was a thorough English Minister, and that the despots of Europe trembled before him. They thought that the dignity, the honour, and the name were safe in his keeping. How does the noble Lord fulfil the expectation of his country? Why, an offence has been committed in France, for which the French police alone are responsible; and the Emperor of the French turns round and insults the people of England—nay more, he not only insults them, but by his satellites he threatens them. The noble Lord tells us to-night that he has got a despatch which says that the Emperor entirely disclaims the publication of those letters in the Moniteur. I should like to know the date of that despatch. I should like to know if it has not arrived since last Friday? I should like to know if it has not arrived in consequence of a certain statement made in the Count de Persigny's ear; and if, in fact, the noble Lord has not told the Emperor that there is rising a feeling in the people of England that he has insulted them, and that an indignity has been cast upon them with his cognizance? What is the time at which this proposal for an alteration of the law is made? The Emperor of the French, after the attack made upon his life, received addresses from certain bodies of his army. We are told that the Emperor is accustomed to receive letters like those to which I am referring; but he has gone through many occasions like the present. I never said anything against the French army addressing to him any letters they liked—that is no business of mine—but there is nothing said about their publishing them on those former occasions in the Moniteur. How came those letters there? They came there by the order of the French Emperor. Why, in a country in which no man dares to say that his soul is his own, do you mean to tell me that any Minister would dare to publish

    963
    anything but what the Emperor liked? Do you think that the Count de Morny or the Count de Persigny would do anything that the Emperor would dissent from? Not a bit of it. They receive their inspiration from the Tuileries. The great god on those occasions is Louis Napoleon; and it is he, speaking through his Minister, who has insulted the people of England. He asks that our laws may be altered so as to punish those who sent the assassins over. What does he mean by that? Does he mean to say that the people of England send anybody to assassinate people anywhere? Do we not know that Mr. Fox told the first Napoleon that there was a conspiracy against his life; and do you think that we are different from our ancestors? God knows that we are degenerating fast, but I do not think we have yet sunk so low that we would send anybody to assassinate any Sovereign, be he our enemy or our so-called ally. The people of England are a brave people. They put down one Napoleon, and they are not afraid of another. We are told that Louis Napoleon is our ally. Is it the business of an ally thus to use his friend? Is it showing friendship and kindness to us to accuse us of these atrocious acts? And when I say "to accuse us," I distinctly reiterate and reassert that Louis Napoleon is responsible for those insults upon the British people. I say then, Sir, that this is not the time when the House of Commons ought to con-gent to an alteration of the law, supposing for the moment that the alteration were a good one, which I deny. There have been times in our history when great resistance has been made to powerful enemies abroad, and if the shades of those who have passed away still retain a particle of human feeling, how must the shades of those who resisted Philip II., who resisted Louis XIV., who resisted the first Napoleon, look down now upon the House of Commons employed at the dictation of a French Emperor to alter the law of England! I say that we ate not yet so degenerate as to send anybody to assassinate either a friend or a foe; but if we submit to this indignity which is now sought to be put upon us, God knows we shall be degraded. I say that for us, the great people of England, to alter our law upon threat would be a humiliating sight for mankind at large; and it is became I deem it a degradation and a humiliation that I oppose this Bill on its very first introduction, and call upon you, as freemen and as the great protectors of the
    964
    oppressed in Europe, to throw out the noble Lord's Bill with all the ignominy which it deserves.
    On motion of Mr. WARREN,
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

BANK ACTS.—COMMITTEE NOMINATED.
On Motion of the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER it was
Ordered, That the Select Committee do consist of Twenty-five Members.
The list of the proposed Members having been read over as follows:—The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, Mr. DISRAELI, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. SPOONER, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Mr. GEORGE A. HAMILTON, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. CAYLEY, Sir FRANCIS BARING, Mr. VANCE, Mr. CABDWELL, Mr. BLACKBURN, Mr. WILSON, Mr. HORSFALL, Mr. WEGUELIN, Mr. HANKEY, Mr. HOPE JOHN-STONE, Mr. ENNIS, Mr. PULLER, the Earl of GIFFORD, Mr. FERGUS, Mr. JOHN L. RICARDO, Mr. PRICE, Mr. M. TUCKER SMITH, and Mr. GLYN;
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chancellor of the Exchequer be one of the Members of the said Committee."
MR. CAYLEYsuggested that the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Tite) and Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball) should be added to the Committe.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he had substituted the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) for the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, because it had been represented to him that there was a want of commercial members on the Committee. He had no personal object in the nomination, but he submitted that the Committee was already a large one.
MR. GREERhoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not insist on the nomination of the Committee on that evening; if he did, he (Mr. Greer) should move the adjournment of the debate. He hoped that mercantile men and the representatives of the railway and shipping interests would be added to the Committee.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that one would imagine, from what was constantly said in that House, that England was composed of nothing but cities and boroughs, and he must enter his protest against the system which is now invariably adopted of endeavouring to supersede the agricultural interest in Committees. He hoped the name

965
of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire would be re-inserted.
MR. TITEsaid, he did not complain of any personal discourtesy in his name being omitted from the Committee; but, being connected with the joint-stock bank interest of the City of London, and having diligently attended the sittings of the Committee, he should have been glad to continue to be a member if the public interests had required his attendance.
MR. BALLsaid, he could not suppose that any personal discourtesy was intended to him. It happened, however, that eighteen out of the twenty-five members of the Committee were connected with commerce, and it was not fair to the agricultural interest that it should only be represented by seven members.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdisclaimed any feeling of personal discourtesy towards the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ball), whose good temper and urbanity were recognized by Members on both sides of the House.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not admit that the agricultural interests were not deeply interested in this question. The question of the country banks was involved, and it was ill-judged to put off from the Committee an hon. Member (Mr. Ball) who was so well acquainted with this particular branch of the subject.
MR. CAIRNSbelieved that great satisfaction would be felt in Scotland and Ireland that the banking interests of those countries were about to be better represented on the Committee than they had hitherto been.
LORD JOHN MANNERSwas afraid that much inconvenience would result from the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it would re-open the whole question. The only ground named for the exclusion of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was that he was an agricultural Member; but he was the representative of the tenant-farmers of England, who were greatly interested in the question. He did not think that any ground had been shown for the exclusion made.
MR. GREER MR. GREER moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
MR. PRICE, as one of the number selected, should say, that while he had no particular desire to serve on the Committee, he thought that some one who represented the joint-stock banks ought to be on it.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYthought that more time should be taken to consider the important question of the formation of this Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that the matter could be disposed of now. If the House thought the Committee should be re-appointed as it stood last year, he had no objection, and would omit the names of the two hon. Members, and restore the two names which he had proposed to omit. The Committee could subsequently be enlarged if the House thought fit.
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
Question, "That the Chancellor of the Exchequer be one of the members of the said Committee," put, and agreed to.
Mr. DISRAELI, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. SPOONER, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Mr. GEORGE A. HAMILTON, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. CAYLEY, Sir FRANCIS BARING, Mr. VANCE, Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. BLACKBURN, Mr. WILSON, Mr. WEGUELIN, Mr. HANKEY, Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONS, Mr. ENNIS, Mr. PULLER, the Earl of GIFFORD, Mr. FERGUS, Mr. JOHN L. RICARDO, Mr. M. TUCKER SMITH, and Mr. GLYN, nominated other Members of the said Committee.
Power to send for persons, papers, and records; five to be the quorum.
SIR DE LACY EVANS SIR DE LACY EVANS moved, "That the Select Committee do consist of the following Members:"
Question proposed.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON SIR JOHN PAKINGTON moved, that the word "nine" should be substituted for "following." Inasmuch as he had before the Christmas holidays expressed an opinion that the Government had not availed themselves of all the means in their power in sending reinforcements to India, and this was, in fact, a judicial Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Executive, he did not think that he ought to be a member of it. He thought that the proceedings of the Sebastopol Committee were a precedent for those of this Committee, and that it ought to sit de die in diem, until the whole of the evidence was exhausted, in order that a report might be presented as speedily as possible, to satisfy the public, who, as the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had himself admitted, was entitled to an investigation of the charges of incompetence and dilatoriness against the Executive Government with regard to this subject.
Amendment proposed,—
To leave out the words "the following," in order to insert the word "nine" instead thereof.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas in favour of the Committee in the form proposed by the hon. and gallant General rather than in that of the right hon. Baronet; and he was convinced that when witnesses came to be examined it would be shown that the Government did right in the arrangements which they carried out for the transport of troops to India.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, the right hon. Baronet was mistaken as to the precedent of the Sebastopol Committee, for it did not consist of nine, but of eleven members. He would adhere to the number of the Committee as originally proposed. He did not think the inquiry would be of a very prolonged character; but he had no objection that the Committee should sit daily if the Members thought fit.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Committee nominated:
Sir DE LACT EVANS, Viscount GODERIOH, Lord STANLEY, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. HORSMAN, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Sir JAMBS ELPHINSTONE, Mr. ADDERLEY, Sir CHARLES NAPIER, Mr. OSBORNE, Captain VIVIAN, Mr. BYNG, Mr. WILLOUGHBY, Mr. CRAWFORD, and Mr. SEYMOUR.
Power to send for persons, papers, and records; five to be the quorum.
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Transfer of Land. 2a Bishops' Trusts Substitution; Church of England Special Services.

TRANSFER OF LAND BILL.
BILL PRESENTED. READ 1a.
THE LORD CHANCELLORpresented a Bill to facilitate the Sale of Land. The noble and learned Lord said, that a paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session announced the preparation of a measure for simplifying the sale and transfer of land, and he now presented to their Lordships a Bill on the subject, to which he asked their Lordships to give a first reading. This measure was one of the fruits of the recommendations made by the Commission appointed by the Crown four years ago pursuant to a Resolution of the House of Commons. That Commission had made a most elaborate and able Report; and although he was bound to say that he could not concur in all the recommendations contained in the Report, yet the present Bill, which was mainly founded upon one of them, had his entire concurrence and approval. He now asked their Lordships to give the Bill a first reading, and he proposed to have it read a second time that day fortnight, when he should feel it to be his duty not only to explain the measure itself, but also explain why he did not feel himself warranted in going the whole length of the recommendations in the Commission.
Bill read 1a.

RELATIONS WITH FRANCE.— THE ADDRESSES IN THE MONITEUR.

  QUESTION.
  LORD LYNDHURST: I wish to ask my noble Friend the Lord President whether any communication has taken place between this country and the Government of France with reference to certain offensive paragraphs Which have lately appeared in the Moniteur. These paragraphs having been inserted in the Moniteur, and nothing appearing in that official journal except with their concurrence, the French Government ate responsible for those offensive paragraphs. I belive that the French Government have entered into some explanation on this subject. I will not refer to that explanation except to say that, the French Government having rendered them selves responsible for those insults, I think
  808
  we are entitled to look to that Government for an explanation, and if necessary for a retractation. Within the last day or two I perceive that an article has been transferred from an English newspaper to a French newspaper, which, by omitting some passages and perverting others, may be converted as an acquiescence on our part in the insults that we have received. Now if the object of any Bill which may be brought into Parliament be merely to increase the punishment for conspiring to commit murder without at all in the slightest degree referring to that which is really the essential point between us, namely, facilitating the means of detection—which I understand to be the result of the measure contemplated by the Government, I am apprehensive it will be considered as having been introduced for the mere purpose of soothing that unjust and uncalled-for irritation in France which has led to the insults to which I refer. I hope my noble Friend will be able to say whether or not any communications of the nature to which I refer have passed between the two Governments.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am sorry my noble and learned Friend has not given me notice of his question, for then I should be able to answer it more accurately. A despatch has been written by Count Walewski and delivered by Count Persigny to Lord Clarendon, in which an explanation is given of the publication of these addresses, and in which the Emperor of the French expresses his regret that anything offensive to the English nation should have been inserted in the Moniteur.
  LORD LYNDHURSTasked if the despatch to which the noble Earl referred would be laid on the table?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that as his noble and learned Friend had given no notice, he was not prepared with a decisive answer; but he imagined that there was not the slightest objection to its production.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S PETITION.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, his noble Friend (Earl Grey) had given notice that it was his intention to present a petition from the East India Company on Thursday next against the proposed measure for altering the government of India. It would be for the convenience of the House if his noble Friend would say whether it was still his intention to present the petition on that day, and whether he would

  809
  accompany it with any remarks that were likely to lead to a discussion? He was, no doubt, aware that notice had been given in another place that a Bill relating to Indian Government would be introduced on Friday, the day following that on which his noble Friend proposed to present the petition, and he thought that some inconvenience would be experienced if their Lordships were called on partially to discuss the question without any knowledge of that measure. He hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend would postpone the presentation of the petition for a few days further.
  EARL GREYsaid, the petition was from so very important a body, and referred to so very important a subject, that in presenting it he would take occasion to state the substance of the petition, and its prayer.; and he should also consider it necessary to add a few remarks, setting forth how far he agreed or differed from the views expressed in it. Whether that would lead to a debate or not it was impossible for him to say; but he did not think it would be desirable to postpone the presentation of the petition till after the Bill referred to by his noble Friend had been introduced in the other House, and he was therefore disposed to adhere to the notice which he had given.

MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS ROYAL.— HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR reported The QUEEN'S Answer to the Address of Friday last as follows:—
My Lords,—I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address on an Occasion so deeply interesting to me as the marriage of my beloved daughter. I trust that, by the blessing of Divine Providence, she may derive constant happiness from an event which has been hailed with such affectionate sympathy on the part of my people.
At the request of Lord PANMURE the Earl of SHAFTESBURY having postponed the Order for the Second Reading of the Religious Worship Amendment Bill:—

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE, ARMY, AND NAVY. IN INDIA.
LORD PANMURE: My Lords, I thank
810
my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) for having so readily given way on this occasion, and permitting me, at the earliest possible period of the evening, to introduce the subject of a Vote of Thanks to the Indian Services. The Motion of which I have given notice is one that naturally falls into my hands from the situation I have the honour to hold, and it is one that could not but afford the greatest pleasure to any person who might be called on to propose it. I feel, however, that the duty is an important and delicate one, and I dread lest, in the discharge of it, I should, by any feebleness of expression or any inadvertent omission, cause disappointment to any one. Your Lordships, therefore, must perceive how much I stand in need of indulgence on such an occasion, and I trust it will be freely extended to me.
My Lords, the honour which is conferred by the Thanks of this House is, to all those who serve their Queen and country, the greatest and the highest that can he, bestowed. These Thanks are rarely given, and they are only expressed when Parliament feels it is thereby giving utterance to the concentrated feelings of the nation at large. There is not a man who serves his Queen and country who does not, in all the duties he performs, constantly bear in mind what his country thinks of his performance of those duties. When Sir John Moore was wounded and dying at Corunna, almost his last words were, "I hope they will do me justice at borne."—"I hope, they will do me justice at home"—"What will they think of us at home?" express the feelings that pervade every, noble and patriotic mind in the performance of every duty; and the result of the judgment given at home cheers many an hour of uneasiness and irksomeness, and sustains the soldier's heart in many a hard-fought field. It is my duty to draw your Lordships' attention to circumstances which have run over a considerable space of time, and extend over a wide field of action. There are three classes of individuals to whom I shall ask your Lordships to tender the expression of your thanks. The first of these are the individuals high in station in India, under whose administration the operations for putting down that mutiny, which we all so deeply regret, have been carried on. The second class includes those heroic commanders who have achieved for their country additional honours, and for themselves those distinctions which have been conferred upon them for the singular services

811
they have performed. The third class are those who, not belonging to the military service, have nevertheless volunteered to aid in various parts of India, either in putting down the mutiny in the service of the Queen, or in defending posts at which they had been placed.
Following this category, my Lords, the first individual to whom I shall refer is the noble Lord who, in the trying circumstances in which it has been his lot to be placed, has administered the government of India—to Lord Canning, the Governor General of India. It is my conviction that the Thanks of this House, and not the Thanks of this House only, but its gratitude also, are due for the calm, courageous, and prudent manner in which he has borne himself in the midst of the greatest difficulties. There is no one, I think, who will assert that, had there even been at the helm of Indian affairs a Clive or a Wellesley, he could have prevented or anticipated the outbreak of this disastrous mutiny. This mutiny, my Lords, was as little expected in India as it was here; it precipitated itself on the country like an avalanche, and it came at a time when Lord Canning had at his command nothing more than the ordinary resources for maintaining the peace of the country. But, my Lords, notwithstanding this, the detailed narratives of the past exhibit the readiness and the calm courage with which he at once applied himself to the duty of putting the resources at his command in motion for the mitigation and suppression of the revolt. He sent out orders conferring almost unlimited power on the local governments in the districts in which the mutiny had presented itself, and applied all the resources within his reach to aid and reinforce the British troops already in Bengal. He applied in the first place to Lord Elgin for the loan of those troops which had been destined for another purpose. Already had the Government at home given orders, on the information which had reached them from India, that those troops should be so diverted; but of this Lord Canning could know nothing; that already had instructions been sent out to Point de Galle that the ships conveying those troops should on arriving there be sent on to Calcutta, and thus to Lord Canning was offered the first military assistance which enabled him to reinforce the frontiers of India. Lord Canning, furthermore, forwarded a requisition for aid to Sir Henry Ward, in Ceylon; and Sir Henry Ward,
812
with the same alacrity which Lord Elgin had shown, at once consented to send to Calcutta all the assistance in artillery and infantry which he could possibly spare. He made a similar application to Sir George Grey at the Cape, with an equally favourable result. He received from these governors the utmost assistance, not only of men, but of horses, stores, and artillery. To Lord Elgin, Sir Henry Ward, and Sir George Grey, the approbation of their Sovereign has already been conveyed for the zeal and promptitude with which they responded to the appeal of Lord Canning for aid, and furnished reinforcements before they could possibly be received from England. Lord Canning not only sent for aid from without, and applied the resources he had within for the purpose of putting down the mutiny, but he set himself at work to organize the means of forwarding the troops to the disaffected districts as they arrived from Europe; and I have it in my power to state on unquestionable authority that in that endeavour he entirely succeeded. Since the mutiny first broke out, although the channels of communication had been interrupted, and difficulties far greater than could have been anticipated had been thrown in the way of obtaining the means of carriage, upwards of 20,000 troops have been moved from Calcutta to the central provinces, most of them by land, and those troops were brought to the scenes of action where their services were required in the most efficient state. For that purpose a system of carriage by bullock carts was admirably organized. Lord Canning had often been blamed for not insisting on the violent seizure of all the means of conveyance in the country in this great emergency, and thereby running counter to all the prejudices of the ryots and the various small landed proprietors; but by the more temperate course he pursued, by working on the feelings of that class of individuals, and by his uniform calmness and decision, Lord Canning has not only avoided the necessity of resorting to a forcible seizure of their conveyances, but has procured the hearty co-operation of the ryots themselves, and to such an extent that, according to the last accounts, the means of conveyance for his troops were so abundant, that in one day no less than 500 carts, with all their appurtenances, were found in superfluity at the railway stations. Therefore, my Lords, I think I am justified in asserting that Lord Canning has used every means at his disposal for the purpose of meeting the

813
extraordinary state of things in the country over which he rules. But it is not for these reasons alone that I think Lord Canning deserving of the grateful consideration of your Lordships. I cannot but admire his entire bearing through all the trials and difficulties he has had to encounter. I believe, my Lords, it is not too much to say that no one placed in a position of such difficulty could have exhibited a greater degree of moral courage, moral readiness, or more determination to meet the exigencies which surrounded him, than the noble Lord to whom I am now moving the Thanks of your Lordship's House.
My Lords, the next individual, high in rank and eminent for his abilities, to whom I invite your Lordships' thanks, is Lord Harris, the Governor of the Presidency of Madras. To Lord Harris we are indebted, during all the troubles which have prevailed in Bengal, for maintaining the peace of his Presidency entirely undisturbed; and not only has its tranquillity remained wholly undisturbed, but its soldiery have remained uniformly faithful to their standards and loyal in their attachment to the British rule. Lord Harris has been enabled to send not only such of the Queen's troops as were in his Presidency to Bengal, but also the gallant Neill at the head of his Madras Fusileers; I think your Lordships will be of opinion that Lord Harris has earned a title to the thanks of your Lordships' House.
Again, in another Presidency of India, another noble Lord, well known to your Lordships—I mean Lord Elphinstone—has rendered services well worthy your Lordships' approbation for the manner in which he has administered the Presidency of Bombay. In all that has occurred no man has shown greater decision of character, greater readiness of resource, or greater desire to contribute relief to his noble Friend at the head of the Presidency of Bengal than he has done. It was by Lord Elphinstone's arrangement that reference was made to the Mauritius for troops, and there, as at the Cape and at Ceylon, the Governor cheerfully contributed the force at his disposal. It was by Lord Elphinstone's arrangements that an organization was formed at Bombay for the purpose of getting overland such troops as could he forwarded by that route. It was by Lord Elphinstone's sagacity that almost throughout the Presidency of Bombay peace and order were preserved, and he was thereby enabled to send that aid
814
to Lord Canning which proved so useful. In doing so he displayed a courage which cannot be too highly estimated, for he did it at a time when the troops in his own Presidency afforded ground for much anxiety; but still he did not hesitate to make the sacrifice which he believed the public interest demanded.
Then, my Lords, there is another civil officer to whom I think our thanks are eminently due. That officer is Sir John Lawrence, the Chief Commissioner of the Punjab. It is hardly possible to mention the name of Lawrence without exciting in the breast of every one who is acquainted either with the government or the country of India feelings of the deepest gratitude and admiration. Sir John Lawrence was the Chief Commissioner of the Punjab at the time of the outbreak in India. By him and his noble brother that country had been converted from a conquered foe to a faithful ally; the bitterness of conquest had passed away, and the province was incorporated into the general system and government of this country. At the time of the outbreak Sir John Lawrence hastened to send to the army before Delhi all the aid he could contribute—troops both European and native—and not only did ho send those troops, but he at once set about raising new levies and organizing fresh forces. Indeed, I may almost say without offence to those who gallantly conducted the siege of Delhi that to the able and constant exertions of Sir John Lawrence the great success of that undertaking was mainly due.
There remains one other individual connected with the civil Government of India to whom I must invite your Lordships to tender your thanks—Mr. Frere, the Commissioner of Scinde. That gentleman's name, probably, is not so familiar to the public as those others whom I have mentioned, but it is certain there is no man to whom India owes a deeper debt of gratitude. As Commissioner of Scinde he has reconciled the people of that province to British rule, and by his prudence and wisdom confirmed the conquest which had been achieved by the gallant Napier. He was thereby enabled to furnish aid to the centre of revolt, or wherever it was needed; while by his prudent management he maintained, during the whole of this period, order and peace throughout the province with which he was charged. To these Gentlemen I will, in the first place, ask your Lordships to accord your cordial thanks.

815
My Lords, I now come to the second class of persons whom I mentioned—those gallant officers who have distinguished themselves in arms during the recent occurrences in India. I am aware that in moving a Vote of Thanks to the army it is often invidious and always a very difficult task to select from so large a number of deserving officers the particular names of those whom it is intended especially to honour. Upon this occasion I have selected the four gallant Generals who have held chief commands at different points, and the mere mention of their names will, I am sure, satisfy your Lordships of their just claims to pre-eminence. The first is the Commander in Chief of the array in India, a gallant officer who has on other occasions earned and received the Thanks of this House. The name of Sir Colin Campbell will, I am sure, be received with honour by your Lordships. It would be superfluous to refer to his former military career—it is within the knowledge of every man. Upon the present occasion Sir Colin Campbell within two days after the offer was made to him, accepted the chief command in India; within a day after that acceptance he was en route for his post, and he reached Calcutta in a space of time unprecedentedly short. Upon arriving at Calcutta, although he found fields of action inviting him in every direction, Sir Colin Campbell did not at once proceed to take command of the army in any place. He knew that considerable reinforcements were expected from England; he found that these reinforcements were to be moved considerable distances; and he, therefore, prudently remained at Calcutta for a time in communication—and I may add in harmonious communication—with the Governor General, settling the means by which the reinforcements could be forwarded, and organizing the system which has enabled him to receive such rapid accessions to his forces in the field. But the news of the straits of the garrison of Lucknow reached his ears, and as soon as he could collect an efficient force Sir Colin Campbell marched to the relief of our beleagured countrymen and women. His first great action was the relief of Lucknow, the garrison of which consisted of the troops which had been led there by Outram and the gallant Havelock, in addition to those under Inglis, the remains of the original defenders of the Residency. The manner in which Sir Colin Campbell performed that service, and the skilful military
816
strategy that he displayed were scarcely more than his high character as a soldier justified us in expecting; but still it was executed with a degree of courage, ability, and success, which commands the admiration and gratitude of all. Sir Colin Campbell, once in possession of the Residency of Lucknow, did not think it prudent to remain there, or to make it the base of his operations. He determined to withdraw from the position, and in that withdrawal he displayed the finest military tactics perhaps which have been exhibited in recent times. In the face of an overwhelming hostile force, encumbered with numerous sick and wounded, and a large body of women and children, with all his stores, all his baggage, and all the treasure, he accomplished his retirement—I will not call it a retreat—without the loss of a single man, and by such well-devised arrangements that for twenty-four hours the enemy was unaware of his departure. He conveyed his force to Cawnpore; but before reaching that place the distant booming of cannon warned him that his presence was needed. He pushed on with his small army, covering, at the same time, all those whom it was his duty to protect, and then, took up a position which enabled him in the course of a few days to defeat and disperse the Gwalior Contingent, and to capture the greater portion of its artillery. That Contingent, it must be remembered, was the most formidable force that the British troops would have to encounter in India, as it was the highest disciplined, the best organized, and the most completely equipped Native force in the country. Those, my Lords, are the actions which I submit fully entitle Sir Colin Campbell to your thanks and to the thanks of the country upon this occasion.
The next Commander I have to mention is Major General Sir James Outram. That gallant officer had just returned from the command of the successful expedition in Persia when he was called upon to render his services to his country in the suppression of the mutiny in India. In Persia he had achieved all that he was called upon to accomplish. Thence he came back with victory upon his crest, and was appointed to the civil and military command in Oude. Then it was that he found the gallant Havelock devising his plan for the first relief of Lucknow. With a chivalry which could be equalled only by his gallantry, Sir James Outram forbore to take out of the hands of his brother officer the command of those operations in which much had

817
already been done by him towards the attainment of success. When, however, my Lords, the first relief of Lucknow was accomplished. General Outram assumed the direction of operations, and distinguished himself by the continuance of that defence which Inglis had so gallantly carried on. After the evacuation of Lucknow he was left to maintain his position against a vastly superior force at the Alumbagh, and he has since greatly distinguished himself by the resistance which he has offered to the attacks which were made upon his position—attacks which he repulsed with a vigour which inflicted an immense loss upon the enemy, while that which was sustained by his own forces was comparatively trifling. For achievements such as these, it is, my Lords, that I propose that the Thanks of this House be given to Major General Sir James Outram.
I now come to another name which I am sure your Lordships will be disposed to regard as one which ought to occupy a prominent place upon this occasion. It is that of Major General Sir Archdale Wilson, the conqueror of Delhi. In adverting to that gallant General I may be permitted to remark that the honours of the struggle in which we have been engaged in India do not altogether belong to the officers in Her Majesty's service, but are shared by those who are employed in the service of the Company. Sir Archdale Wilson commenced his career some years ago in that service, and was in command, at the time of the outbreak of the mutiny, in the district of the Punjab. The division of which he was at the head was destined to join the army which was ordered to advance to the siege of Delhi. When he arrived in the vicinity of that city he found himself second in command to Sir Henry Barnard, and his first operations against the fortress consisted of a combined movement with that gallant General, which combined movement he executed with a skill that gave the strongest evidence of his capacity, and clearly presaged the glory which crowned his subsequent career. The movement to which I refer enabled Sir Henry Barnard to conquer and to occupy in one day that most important position which was subsequently held by our army before Delhi, and from which operations were conducted with an advantage to which it is to be attributed that the siege of that city was not still further prolonged. After the death of the gallant and lamented Sir Henry Barnard the chief command fell to the lot
818
of Major General Wilson. He then, with a coolness, deliberation, and judgment which merit our praise, deferred making an assault upon the fortress until he should find himself sufficiently reinforced to be able to do so with a probability of success. He knew perfectly well the effect which failure in the attempt to take Delhi would produce among the Native population of India. He paused, therefore, until he could operate with advantage, and when he found himself in a position which rendered success feasible, he achieved the great object which he had in view, and achieved it in a manner which clearly proved that he is eminently well qualified to discharge the arduous duties which attach to an officer in high command. But, my Lords, while General Wilson was waiting for reinforcements before Delhi, the army under him was by no means idle. He covered their position with great skill and attended to the comfort of his troops in a way which was well repaid by their devotion, as was testified by the success with which they assaulted the enemy and repelled the attacks made upon them Upon no less than twenty-six or twenty-seven different occasions. Then came the final triumph. Delhi was captured, and I am sure your Lordships will deeply sympathize with its conqueror, who immediately after this great success had been achieved was obliged, owing to the state of his health, to retire for a season from active military command. Let us hope, my Lords, that it is only for a season, and that he will soon be able to return with increased vigour to the service of his country. In the meantime no better panacea can, I am sure, be administered for the restoration of his infirm and broken constitution than those thanks which I feel confident your Lordships will cordially and unanimously accord him.
There is another general officer whom I have now to mention to you, and whose name need only be mentioned in order to be met by the expression of your warmest approbation—I allude to the name of Major General Inglis. There is, I apprehend, in the history of the defence of fortified places, scarcely a single instance which can exhibit such persevering bravery, a list of privations so great, endured for so long a period, or with a front so dauntless, and ending in a success so complete as the defence of Lucknow. For eighty-seven days, before relief reached it, partly under the direction of the gallant and lamented Sir Henry Lawrence,

819
and partly under the command of Colonel Inglis, upon whom the mantle of Lawrence had worthily fallen, did Lucknow hold out against its besiegers. Supplies were during that period from time to time received by the garrison, but, I may add, that upon all hands, from the highest officer down to the humblest individual in the fortress, those eighty-seven days formed but one series of continuous fighting. Although the name of Inglis has been selected for especial mention, in connection with that immortal defence, in asking a Vote of Thanks at your Lordships' hands, yet I must say that while all, from the highest officer to the lowest private, faithfully, nobly, and courageously fulfilled their duty, though I cannot mention all their names, yet I may say that gratitude is especially due to his true-hearted 32nd regiment, who so gloriously aided him in the trying position in which he was placed. Our gratitude is also due, my Lords, to those men of the Native Bengal Infantry who, notwithstanding the inducements held out to them, remained nevertheless faithful to their standards and to their Queen. These faithful men were not to be led astray by the persuasion of their faithless fellow countrymen, they would not give up their foreign allegiance, as it was termed, and to the last they obeyed with brave fidelity the officers under whose command they were placed. We cannot too much admire troops who under such circumstances acted as they have done. In the case of the men who have so gallantly signalized themselves in the defence of Lucknow, his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief has recommended—and the Government have cheerfully consented to act upon the recommendation—that they should be allowed to count one year's service towards their retirement and pension as a distinguishing mark of the bravery which they have displayed. It remains for me, my Lords, only to propose as one of their number Major General Inglis as entitled to a special Vote of Thanks at your hands.
I come now, my Lords, to another part of the subject, but certainly not the least in importance. I mean that brave body of officers in Her Majesty's and in the East India Company's service, European and Native, who have taken a prominent part in the victories which have been achieved. I hold in my hand a list containing the names of several officers both in Her Majesty's service and in that of the East India Company, who have distinguished
820
themselves in India. That list, however, embraces too many names to be mentioned on this occasion; but there are some which I think it is but fair I should bring under your Lordships' notice although they may not form the subjects of a special Vote of Thanks at your hands. We cannot altogether pass over such names as those of Chamberlayne, of Greathed, and of Colonel Baird Smith, who was the engineer under whose directions Delhi was taken. Such a man as Tombs who commanded the artillery in the various movements which took place before the capture of that city, is also entitled to our notice? nor must I omit the name of Colonel Vincent Eyre, who in another part of India furnished to the world so brilliant an example of all that is admirable in a soldier. But, my Lords, I must pause. The list of those officers who have won for themselves distinction during the recent struggle in India is far too long for recital. All I can say is, that taken in conjunction they form a band of which England may well feel proud, and from which great achievements may be fairly anticipated in any future emergency.
With the officers of the Army I wish also to couple those of the Navy now in India, to whom our thanks are eminently due. Connected with that service there is a name already widely known and widely reverenced by all in this country—I mean the name of Peel. Captain Peel, as your Lordships may remember, held a command in the naval brigade which assisted so effectively in the siege of Sebastopol and the operations in the Crimea; and he brought the experience which he had gathered there to the aid of Viscount Canning in India; for no sooner had the Shannon cast anchor in the waters of the Ganges than he organized and placed at the disposal of the Governor General a Naval Brigade, distinguished, as Naval Brigades ever are, for courage, for readiness to undertake any enterprise, and for the hardihood which especially belongs to our sailors. His services were accepted, and he was first of all Bent up to Allahabad, of which place he was made commandant. But the tedium of a garrison life was hardly suited to the tastes of Captain Peel. He sought for more active employment, and in an engagement which took place with part of the Dinapore mutineers he distinguished himself conspicuously at the head of his Brigade. In the final relief of Lucknow none showed greater valour, none gave

821
greater assistance to the Commander in Chief than did Captain Peel and his gallant blue jackets, aided as they were by a party of Marines. In the same category with the Officers of the Army, therefore, I ask your Lordships to include Captain Peel and the officers of the Naval Brigade.
It now remains for me to address myself to the last, though by no means the least, important resolution on the paper—I mean that which is to convey your Lordships' thanks to the Non-Commissioned Officers and Men of Her Majesty' Service who have fought the battles of their country with no less devotion and gallantry than those of higher rank, to whom I have already proposed you should do honour. In no quarter of India where this mutiny has called the Queen's troops into the field has there been anything like failure, or anything like a want of entire success. I am proud to say that the honour conferred on their country in other fields by the armies of England has been fully upheld by them upon the shores of India, and that we may look with confidence to our troops there to maintain that honour for the future. The men belonging to the Navy and Marines have done their duty in the same faithful and gallant manner. The European troops in the East India Company's Service have performed good service wherever they have been called upon. The Native troops of Madras have all proved faithful; so likewise has the greater part of the Bombay army; and the few Native soldiers of Bengal who remained true to their standards—an honourable remnant—have discharged their duty with an energy and a courage which demand the recognition of the country and of Parliament. In thus calling upon your Lordships to do honour to the troops upon this occasion I believe I may assure you that, equally as in the case of persons holding high positions and administering responsible offices under the Crown, the praise of Parliament is looked upon as the highest honour they can obtain, and there is nothing which so much gratifies a regiment as to hear, upon parade, that their countrymen have awarded to them for their deeds of valour the thanks they have deserved by their great and chivalrous acts.
I have now, my Lords, discharged the duties which devolved upon me with reference to those who have been spared in this mutiny to receive honour for their services from your Lordships' House. But I think
822
I should ill perform my task were I not to refer to those who have in this war (as I may call it) been gathered to their rest, whose ears are now deaf to praise, and to whom your thanks cannot, alas! be conveyed. There is a long list of officers, I grieve to say, in that category. Some of these there are who have fought our battles in the most distinguished manner, who have gained for themselves imperishable renown, who have left behind them brilliant examples to the world of what a British officer should be—how bravely he can fight his country's battles, and how nobly he can die as a Christian soldier. Foremost among those to whom I shall refer is one who, though perhaps not the first in rank, is undoubtedly the first in fame, Sir Henry Havelock. It would be impossible to refer to one who had seen more service; and who had discharged more perfectly the duties of his station. A soldier almost from his cradle, at least from the moment when he left school, where he and I passed many hours together, he has served uninterruptedly to the day of his death as a soldier in the field. I will pass over his early training, and will merely allude to the fact that after having risen to a rank which entitled him to serve as Adjutant General of Her Majesty's Forces he was selected to command a brigade in the force under Sir James Outram in Persia. I have heard that that appointment was at the time very much commented upon as an act of feebleness on the part of the Government, which was described as having appointed a man utterly worn out, whose energies were gone, and who was fit to do nothing but to look into the plate before him. In this instance we see a specimen of how the public will sometimes undertake to prejudge a man, and how their prophecies may be found to be utterly groundless? Sir Henry Havelock discharged his duties in Persia with eminent skill and bravery, as, indeed, he did upon all occasions; for I think it was said of him by General Nott, that Havelock never blundered and his men never misbehaved. When the Persian war was over he returned to India, and resumed his duties as Adjutant General of the army; soon after which, his services being required in another place, he accepted the command of a brigade. Appointed to his brigade, which consisted of two weak English regiments, one Native regiment, and one European regiment in the Company's service, he fought those nine actions

823
which have signalised his name and established his character as a general and a soldier. Finally, by the generosity of Sir James Outram, he achieved the relief of his friends, who were beleaguered in Luck-now, and scarcely had reached the pinnacle of honour, not indeed surviving to hear of the rewards conferred upon him by his Queen and country, ere he sank under the disease which was incident to his exertions, and now lies buried upon the scene of his exploits. He lies buried by the side of one whose services in India and whose military fame are equally great, and who was his dearest friend, I mean the late Sir Henry Lawrence. Every one who knows the character of that distinguished man knows the loss which India has sustained in him. He was not only a great soldier, but a great statesman. Every Governor General of India who has witnessed his career admits this. Not only, too, was he a great statesman and a great soldier, but he was eminently a Christian; and in all his acts he was gifted with so rare a kindness of demeanour that he never made a quarrel with anybody, never made any man his enemy, and in all that he did ever resorted to persuasion before he appealed to force. Yet he did not hesitate to appeal to force when necessary, and in doing so always displayed the greatest energy and promptitude, when convinced that no other course was open to him. I cannot pass over his career without alluding to the exertions of this great and good man in conferring benefit upon the British soldier in India, whether of the Queen's or the Company's service, which I had occasion to notice on Saturday, and which I mention again now. It was Sir Henry Lawrence's love of his profession, and his regard for those who served under his command, that led him to establish in India those institutions for the reception, of the children of European non-commissioned officers and privates who may fall in India while discharging their duty to their country, which will descend to posterity as the legacy of his benevolence, and which will prove of the utmost advantage to the European soldier whose destinies lead him to service in India, by protecting his children from the contamination of the barrack-yard, and from those diseases which are so incident to soldiers' children in that country. I think, therefore, the name of Sir Henry Lawrence deserves the warmest sympathies of your Lordships. I may further mention
824
the names of Neill, Wheeler, and Nicholson, and, descending to inferior ranks, those of Salkeld, Home, and Willoughby, Of General Neill I can state that he was as gallant and distinguished a soldier as I have ever known. I had the honour of his personal acquaintance, from the fact of his having volunteered, early in the Russian war, while at home on leave of absence, to join the Turkish Contingent during the war in the East. His services were accepted, and I am fully convinced that, had that branch of the army been called into active service, General Neill would have exhibited similar courage, perseverance, and activity to that which he displayed in India in conjunction with the gallant Havelock. Of General Wheeler I can only say, that he is reported to have been a soldier who greatly distinguished himself during a long career in India. He entered the military service in that country in 1803, and served with great distinction at the first siege of Delhi under General Lake. He also distinguished himself on various other occasions, and latterly under the command of the late Lord Hardinge, of my noble and gallant Friend opposite, Lord Gough, and of Sir Harry Smith. We must all regret the circumstances under which General Wheeler fell—cooped up within the walls of Cawnpore, and unable to demonstrate before the enemy those powers of military command which he undoubtedly possessed. With respect to General Nicholson, I may state that no one, during the recent operations in India, commanded more entirely the confidence and approbation of every one under whom he acted than that lamented officer. Indeed, in the conduct of all the operations against Delhi, no man distinguished himself more than General Nicholson; but it was his unhappy fate to be slain in the hour of victory, just when the town was captured, and it was our misfortune to lose the services of so good and so gallant a soldier at the very time, probably, when they were most needed to carry the conflict to a successful issue. These, my Lords, constitute the prominent losses which we have sustained during the recent mutiny in India; but there are others to whom I cannot abstain from paying a tribute of admiration and regret. I cannot forget that the first victim whose loss we had to deplore, at the commencement of the operations against Delhi, was the Commander in Chief of the army, General Anson. I think this is a fitting occasion for me to do justice to the

825
memory of my hon. and gallant Friend. I am quite certain that, had Providence been pleased to spare him, he would have proved himself equal to the emergency with which he had to deal; and it is some small satisfaction to his friends to know that the course of military operations upon which he had determined—namely, to wait for a siege train before making an assault upon Delhi, and to gather round him an efficient force before attempting such assault—was afterwards carried out by the other officers in command. It seems, indeed, as if General Anson had anticipated the very operations which were subsequently so successfully adopted by General Wilson. I am quite convinced, my Lords, that my friend General Anson possessed all the requisites which constitute a good soldier; I believe that he possessed great talents for organization and system, and certainly he had the talent of conciliating the respect and esteem of those who were associated with him in command. I deeply grieve that he was not spared to attain that high reputation which, had he lived, I feel assured he would have established. The next victim after General Anson was his successor in command. After an early and most important victory before Delhi, General Barnard succumbed to disease, and followed his predecessor in the command to the tomb. He was a gallant soldier of the Crimea; he was descended from a race of soldiers; throughout his career he displayed, whenever the opportunity was afforded him, high professional acquirements; and he died in the hour of victory, regretted and lamented by all to whom he was known—more lamented, perhaps, by those with whom he was associated in command than even the gallant Sir Henry Havelock. I might allude to the names of Colonel Finnis and of other officers whom we lost during the mutiny; but I will only refer to those gallant and illustrious men—Home, Salkeld, and Willoughby—who rendered the most important services. Lieutenant Willoughby by destroying, at his own peril, the resources of the enemy and endeavouring to prevent large stores of ammunition from falling into his hands, and Lieutenants Salkeld and Home by undertaking to blow open the gates of Delhi. I will not do more than mention their names, but it is impossible to pass by this last exploit without singling out and mentioning, in conjunction with Home and Salkeld, Sergeants Carmichael and Smith, and the bugler who engaged with
826
them in the bold attempt which cost those gallant men their lives.
There are many others who have sacrificed their lives in putting down the Indian mutiny, but I will not detain your Lordships by entering further into the subject. I will simply conclude the observations I have thought it necessary to address to you by submitting to your Lordships an additional Resolution which is not included among those of which I have given notice. I trust that, in undertaking to bring before you this very wide, and in some respects very difficult subject, I shall not, by any omission I have made, occasion pain, which assuredly I am most anxious to avoid giving, to the mind of any gallant soldier. Your Lordships will, I hope, understand, that in submitting these Resolutions I propose to thank the whole Army which has been, concerned in the suppression of the mutinies in India. I propose to thank every Private and every Non-commissioned Officer, as well as every Officer in the service. I have named the Generals as supreme in command; I have mentioned others who are well known, and whose deeds are familiar to the public; but I entreat your Lordships to give to all the meed of your thanks, and to adopt the Resolutions which I shall have the honour of placing in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
Moved—
"1. That the Thanks of this House be given to the Right Honourable Viscount Canning, Governor General of the British Possessions in the East Indies; the Right Honourable Lord Harris, Governor of the Presidency of Madras; the Right Honourable Lord Elphinstone, Governor of the Presidency of Bombay; Sir John Laird Mair Lawrence, G.C.B., Chief Commissioner of the Punjaub; and Henry Bartle Frere, Esquire, Commissioner of Scinde; for the energy and ability with which they have employed the resources at their command to suppress the widely-spread Mutiny in Her Majesty's Indian Dominions.
"2. That the Thanks of this House be given to His Excellency General Sir Colin Campbell, G.C.B., Commander in Chief in India; Major General Sir James Outram, G.C.B.; Major General Sir Archdale Wilson, Baronet, K.C.B.; and Major General John Eardley Wilmot Inglis, K.C.B.; for the eminent skill, courage, and perseverance displayed by them in the achievement of so many and such important triumphs over numerous bodies of the Mutineers.
"3. That the Thanks of this House be given to the other gallant Officers of Her Majesty's Army, Navy, and Marines, and also of the Honourable East India Company's Service, for the intrepidity, the patient endurance, and other high military qualities which have marked their discharge of those arduous duties which they have so successfully performed.

827
"4. That this House doth highly approve and acknowledge the high courage, the devoted loyalty, and the brilliant services of the Non-commissioned Officers and Men of Her Majesty's Military and Naval Forces, of the European Troops in the Service of the Honourable East India Company, and of the great body of those Native Corps throughout India who have remained faithful to their Standards; and that the same be signified to them by the Commanders of the several Corps, who are desired to thank them for their gallant behaviour."
The other Resolution which I shall move is as follows:—
"That this House doth highly appreciate and cordially approve of the courage, self-devotion, and exemplary conduct of those Persons who, though not holding military rank, have, nevertheless per-, formed valuable military Service in the Field, or in defence of various Posts throughout the disturbed Districts in India at which they were resident; and that the Governor General be requested to thank these Persons for their spirited and patriotic exertions."
I thank your Lordships for the attention with which you have listened to me, and I now beg to move the Resolutions.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it has been my lot, on more than one occasion, standing where I now stand, to support propositions similar to that which has just been submitted to the House, and the purpose of which is to convey the Thanks of the House to those to whose activity, energy, bravery, and public spirit, the country is indebted; and I may say that I have on all those occasions addressed myself to the task with unmingled satisfaction, except so far that I might fear I should fall short in discharge of the duty I had undertaken. I think, my Lords, that on occasions of this kind it is of the greatest importance that there should be not only unanimity in the vote, but unanimity also in opinion among the Members of this and of the other House of Parliament; and I never approached any subject with greater regret than when I feel myself compelled to say that, though I do not mean to offer any opposition to the whole of the Resolutions laid on the table, I cannot regard the proposition brought forward by the Government on the present occasion with the same unmixed satisfaction as similar propositions on former occasions; and I think the form in which the present proposition is submitted is one well calculated to interfere with that unanimity of opinion and feeling which it is so desirable should prevail on such an occasion. The noble Baron, in his opening observation, made a statement, and repeated it in the latter part of his speech, to the effect that the Thanks of
828
Parliament constituted the very highest honour which could be bestowed on any individual, an honour most highly appreciated by those in the public service, and which is granted only on rare occasions, when the expression of the views of Parliament embodies the concentrated opinions of the public at large. Concurring in those views, I regret that this Motion is not more restricted: for if there be any value in these Parliamentary Votes of Thanks—and I do not question that there has hitherto been the highest—that value must depend on their being conveyed not only rarely, and on great and signal occasions, but with discrimination with respect to the individuals on whom the thanks are bestowed. They must not be bestowed on individuals merely because they filled high situations at the time of great events, but should be granted only to those persons who, according to the unanimous opinion of the country, have fully and entirely vindicated their claim to so high a honour. Now, my Lords, I believe it to be an unusual course of proceeding to grant the Thanks of Parliament to a person filling the high situation of Governor General of India until the whole series of events for which thanks are given have been brought to a close. Now, I wish I could express my opinion that this Indian revolt is at present put down thoroughly and utterly. I wish I could say that there would not still be much more labour, anxiety, and toil, and sickness, but that we might now address ourselves, in the conviction that the evil has passed by, deliberately to the contemplation of the principles on which India should be hereafter governed. If this war had been brought to a successful issue—if it were made clear to the country that those who directed the civil affairs of India were entitled, from the commencement to the close of the transaction, to the honour now proposed to be paid to them, nothing would be more gratifying, not only to my public, but to my personal feelings, than to join in a vote of cordial approbation and thanks to the noble Lord now at the head of affairs in India. But I must express my opinion that, in the bringing forward of this Vote of Thanks, particularly at the present time, and in this manner, the Government have not only placed that noble Lord in an invidious and painful position, but have placed in a position of the greatest difficulty those who, anxious to avoid passing anything like the shadow of a censure on him, yet cannot concur in a

829
Vote of Thanks signifying an entire approval of his conduct, taking into consideration the period at which it is submitted and the limited information before us. It is not, then, my fault, but the fault of the noble Baron opposite, who has demanded in such emphatic terms approval of the conduct of the Governor General of India, if I feel myself compelled to discharge a most painful and invidious task, and to submit to your Lordships, not a condemnation of that conduct, but at all events considerations which make it questionable whether yet the time is ripe for conferring such honour as is now asked. I have already said that I think it would be more consonant with usage not to thank the Governor General until the close of those great operations which attach to. his high office, and I certainly think it would have been expedient not to do so until we had further information as to what has been actually done, by whom and how it has been done, and until an opportunity had been given to the noble Lord, the Governor General, to refute the charges not sparingly brought against his administration in India. My Lords, I am far from wishing to cast any blame; but when I am desired in this Resolution to return the thanks of Parliament for the energy and ability with which Lord Canning applied the resources at his disposal for the suppression of the mutiny, I cannot but inquire how the language of the noble Baron opposite is justified by the facts within our knowledge. I at once and frankly give to Lord Canning the highest credit on account of the moral and personal courage, the firmness, calmness, and temper which he has exhibited on all occasions. I think, my Lords, his conduct so far has been distinguished in these respects, and deserving every praise. I think, moreover, that in a paper not laid on the table of the House, but which has appeared in the public newspapers, the noble Viscount has succeeded to a great extent in vindicating the course he pursued in reference to the charges of undue leniency and an improper interference with the military authorities. I think he has satisfactorily shown that those "orders to which reference was made were not of the supposed lenient character, and that they well vindicated the authority of the law, and the enforcement of justice. But when the noble Baron opposite proceeded to say that if it had been Clive, or any of Lord Canning's most distinguished predecessors in the Governor Generalship,
830
no one of them could have foreseen the storm which recently burst upon India, I must differ from him. The noble Baron said it was an avalanche which overwhelmed the country without a moment's warning. Now, so far from that being the case—although there may have been few who appreciated the magnitude of the peril—unless State papers, instead of being authentic documents, are tales and romances, there is no question that the Government had warnings, and continually disregarded them, from quarter after quarter, of the danger that was imminent. The noble Baron opposite calls on me to bear testimony to the Governor-General's energy and ability; I must say that after the events broke out—I am really compelled to refer to these matters—energy was not displayed so early, so rapidly, or so effectually, as they might have been and, ought to have been. I think the warnings were disregarded. I think that the Governor General blindly and wilfully shut his eyes to what others clearly saw; and that he perceived too late the peril, deeming and describing it previously as not serious. But, I admit, that when his eyes were opened, and when he was awakened to the magnitude of the danger, that then he did the best to meet the danger, and applied himself with ability and energy to encounter it. In the first instance, however, he rather underrated the nature of the revolt, and then I think the conduct of the Indian Government was characterised not by energy and resolution, but by vacillation. I am far from endorsing or affirming all the allegations of the Calcutta petition; but recollect that at this very moment, when it is proposed to vote thanks to the Governor General of India for his energy and ability, a very large proportion of the inhabitants of Calcutta have sent to this country a petition praying for his recall, founding that prayer on what they state to be his weak management of public affairs, and attributing to him qualities the very opposite of ability and energy—namely, vacillation and irresolution. Lord Canning's answer to that petition is not before the public; but I must say, that to pass a vote of thanks to Lord Canning with that petition unanswered, and before there has been any opportunity of discussing its allegations, appears like screening Lord Canning from the effects of future charges, and prejudging a case which deserves the fullest inquiry. If I

831
were to refer to one or two cases exemplifying the culpable vacillation of Lord Canning's Government in the early period of the mutiny, I would refer in the first place, to the way in which Jung Bahadoor's troops were treated. It was found necessary to ask for the assistance of these troops. They were first asked for, their assistance was next repudiated, and then finally it was accepted. Now, that was not a proof of great energy and foresight on the part of Lord Canning, but of uncertainty and vacillation of purpose. Again, look at Lord Canning's conduct in regard to the 84th regiment. They were summoned up hastily from Rangoon; they were then in a short time ordered back to Rangoon, in the belief that their assist, once would not be required; the order that they should be sent back being again countermanded. I will take another instance in the course of proceeding adopted by Lord Canning when the inhabitants of Calcutta volunteered to arm themselves, and to take upon themselves a large portion of the military service, and thereby to set at liberty a large body of Her Majesty's troops. This offer was at first rejected—I will not say scornfully, but rejected with an expression of opinion that it proceeded under the influence of a groundless panic; that the revolt was nothing in the world, and that their services would not be required. In a very short time it appeared that this opinion was erroneous, that the panic was not so groundless, and that the Government were glad to avail themselves of the assistance they had refused. My. Lords, I am exceedingly loth to have the appearance of being the accuser of Lord Canning, but what I wish to impress upon your Lordships is this, that while circumstances remain thus, with the imperfect information we have, and with the present feeling of the country in regard to Lord Canning, this vote will not and cannot carry with it, so far as relates to the officials at the head of the civil departments, that weight which it is desirable the unanimity of the House should give to its vote on all occasions. I will not say a word against Lord Harris, whose claims were not put very highly by the noble Baron (Lord Panmure). Those claims seemed to be that having his province of Madras in a state of tranquillity he was able to despatch certain troops to the assistance of the Governor General. That may be creditable to Lord Harris, but it is notorious that there never has been of late
832
years any disaffection in the Madras army, and that circumstances were totally different in that province from those of Bengal. It may be very creditable to him to have had his province tranquil and to be able to despatch troops, but that does not entitle him to receive the thanks of this House, and to appear in company with such names as those to which I shall shortly refer. I hope my noble Friend will set me right if I am wrong, but I am not sure that he did not claim for Lord Canning praise which I believed up to this moment belonged to another noble Lord—that of having despatched from Ceylon the regiments which had been intended for service in China, I always thought that the diversion of those troops was the spontaneous act of Lord Elgin, and I have always given him, and always shall give him, the greatest credit for having manifested so complete an abnegation of personal interest, and for taking upon himself, when the safety of India was at stake, the diversion of the troops intended for China. I have not one word to say whether it was necessary or proper in these cases to draw a distinction between the different officers. I have not a word to say against your being called upon to pass a Vote of Thanks to Lord Elphinstone. For from first to last he has appeared to have been fully aware of the magnitude and importance of the crisis. He has been found acting energetically and most ably on every occasion, and I believe that a great portion of the success which has attended our arms in India has been owing to the wise foresight and activity displayed by Lord Elphinstone in forwarding supplies to the Indian army. Nor will any humane being object to the name of Sir John Lawrence in these votes. The name of Lawrence and the services of both brothers must be held in the highest esteem. Their services to India cannot, indeed, be too highly estimated, and I believe that it is to their activity, energy, prudence, and wise and conciliatory management, we owe, in a great measure, the safety and freedom from disturbance of the newly-conquered countries committed to their care. I take it for granted that a similar debt of gratitude is due to Mr. Frere, although I confess his name is not so familar to me as that of Lawrence. What I regret in this vote is that in the first paragraph there should have been the introduction of any names with regard to whom there might be a shadow of doubt whether, in the mind of any reasonable

833
man, they had fully substantiated their claim to what the noble Baron justly states is the highest honour Parliament can bestow. That Lord Canning does not stand in that position I am bound to express my opinion. Further than that I will not go; and I trust that Lord Canning himself, and his friends—and he has and deserves to have many friends—will not believe that I am endeavouring to insinuate censure or pass a slur upon him because, in the present state of affairs, I doubt the prudence and expediency of introducing his name and the Governors under him in a Vote of Thanks which is especially due to the military and naval services of the country.
I have now a much more agreeable task in expressing my entire and hearty concurrence in the following votes, in which Her Majesty's Government do justice, and do but mere justice, to the inestimable merits of the military and naval services. Nor do I think that any one can justly complain if from the list of names of those who are left alive the Government should have made the selection of those four names specially submitted for the Thanks of Parliament. The noble Baron, very properly, considering his official capacity, went at length into the individual services of these and other gallant officers. I do not feel myself entitled or called upon to follow the noble Lord through that enumeration. I believe, too, that there was hardly one of the survivors enumerated by the noble Lord to whom I have not endeavoured on a former occasion to give my meed of praise for their services. I may be permitted, without in the slightest degree disparaging the services of any of the other officers, to express my opinion, as I did before, that of all the events of this war, even the successful siege of Delhi and the successful relief of Lucknow are not exceeded in interest and importance by the gallant and unparalleled defence of that small garrison of Luck now. I believe that, without disparaging those other events, the existence of that garrison with their feeble means, against overwhelming odds, and under circumstances which might well have led them to despair, will stand almost unparalleled in history. I believe that from the general who held that important command down to the humblest soldier who shared in that unparalleled defence, and especially including those Native troops to whom the noble Baron has properly referred—I am firm in my conviction that there is not one of that
834
gallant and heroic garrison who does not deserve, and who will not, I hope, receive, some signal individual mark of Her Majesty's favour. If the Victoria cross can ever be well bestowed en masse, it would not be thrown away on men who could so endure, who had so dared, and had so nobly sustained. It is contrary to my wish and principles that either in this or the other House of Parliament there should ever be any discussion upon the character or nature of the rewards bestowed by the Crown or the persons who ought to receive them. But I cannot refrain from calling the attention of the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Cambridge) to a circumstance which was only made known to me this morning. It refers to the 32nd regiment, which suffered so severely and behaved so heroically at Luck now. I understand that, although a certain portion of the officers have succeeded to their promotion by death vacancies, there remain six lieutenants who have derived no advantage or promotion, and who have, in point of fact, nothing to show for the siege except the labours they have undergone and the wounds they have sustained. Of that six, three have returned invalided to this country,—one with a broken leg, another with a ball in the back of his head, still unextracted, and the third in a state of paralysis, arising from fever and exposure. I do not ask whether these officers are about to receive any honours or rewards, but I trust the illustrious Duke will forgive me for having thus publicly stated what I hear to be the case in that distinguished regiment. But I pass on, before I sit down, to one point which I certainly rejoice has been introduced by my noble Friend on the part of the Government. I mean an expression of the gratitude of the House and the country to those civilians who have so nobly distinguished themselves in our emergency. I recollect that in the Speech from the Throne mention was made of "the many civilians who, placed in extreme difficulty and danger, have displayed the highest qualities, including, in some instances, those that would do honour to veteran soldiers." In commenting upon the Queen's Speech I inadvertently, in running over the topics which it contained, omitted to mention the services of the civil officers. That omission did not escape the watchful eye of my noble Friend the President of the Council, for he, in reply, spoke of the conduct of these gallant civilians, and observed that, unlike "the noble Earl opposite," he

835
would couple them with those of the military. But, my Lords, great was my surprise when, on reading the Vote of Thanks that was to be moved on the part of the Government, I found that, unlike my noble Friend the President of the Council, Her Majesty's Government had altogether forgotten to introduce any thanks whatever to those civilians. I hoped that I should have been enabled to supply on this occasion this deficiency, and I actually prepared a Resolution which I intended to propose, but in which I am happy to find I have been anticipated by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Panmure)—I intended, at the close of the third paragraph of the vote to propose that the Thanks of the House be granted, in the words of the Queen's Speech, "to the many civilians who, placed in circumstances of extreme difficulty and danger, have displayed the highest qualities, including such as would do honour to veteran soldiers." I suppose the noble Lord considered it injudicious to select any name from among the list of civilians who have distinguished themselves. He went over the military officers who have taken the principal part in the suppression of the mutiny, but the civilians, though he certainly acknowedged their services, he passed over, as I thought, rather abruptly. Now, there are among them names that deserve to be mentioned with the highest approbation in this House. I am sure none of your Lordships who have studied the papers laid before us can have forgotten Mr. Venables, the indigo planter, who, when the authorities deserted the station of Azimghur, defended it with his own ryots and maintained it against the enemy for a period of six weeks. Then there was Mr. Gubbins, a most distinguished man, who successfully, and by the influence of his own character, kept down and maintained in entire subordination the important district of Benares. Again, there was the civil engineer, Boyle, who, at the head of the garrison of Agra, successfully set an example for the future defensive operations of Lucknow, and held the position against odds with a heroism which almost entitle it to rank by the side of that noble defence. There was also Money, who, by a splendid act of insubordination, disobeyed the orders of his superiors to abandon his post, maintained, in spite of those orders, the station of Gya, and succeeded, in the face of a large body of insurgents, in carrying off a large amount of treasure. Then there is another gentleman whose
836
conduct has not received the sanction of the Government. I mean Commissioner Taylor, of Arrah. His conduct has been disapproved by the Government; but the papers appear to me to show that he had a more enlarged view of the crisis, a keener sense of the danger, and a better idea of the remedy than the Government itself. I rejoice, my Lords, that the noble Lord has thought fit to introduce a Vote of Thanks to the civilians. With regard to the military officers and the soldiers, and with regard to all concerned in the military operations, there is no language that can be used too high, and no encomiums that can go beyond their merits, whether they have survived or whether they are now past the praise or censure of men. I wish I could give the same unhesitating approval to the first of these Resolutions. I will not take upon myself the responsibility either of dividing your Lordships against the Resolution, or of suggesting that it should not be passed; but I cannot permit it to be passed without entering to a certain extent my protest, and observing that the merits of these parties have not been made sufficiently manifest and sufficiently indisputable to the public to entitle them thus prematurely to receive the highest honours of Parliament. Depend upon it, the great merit of these distinctions is the universal acceptance given to them by the country. I should be sorry to see either the House of Commons or the House of Lords pass these Votes of Thanks in a merely formal manner, in consequence of the positions occupied by the parties; for I think they should be restricted—I had almost said severely—to those whose services have been such that the country would not only regret that the honour was not conferred, but consider it an injustice if it was not done promptly.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I am sure every Member of this House will share in the regret expressed by the noble Earl opposite, that any matter of difference should have been introduced into this discussion. But I cannot admit that the responsibility of raising any such question rests with the Government. It would clearly have been impossible to thank any of those eminent civilians who by the exercise of administrative powers have contributed so powerfully to our triumph in India, and who by unanimous assent must be included in this Vote, and at the same time to omit the governors of the Minor Presidencies, or above all the Governor General, without virtually passing upon

837
them a vote of censure. It is not, however, for this reason alone, nor on grounds of so negative a character, still less, as the noble Earl opposite suggested, because merely of their occupying a high position, that we call upon Parliament to give a Vote of Thanks to those distinguished men. In objecting to that Vote as regards the Governor General, the noble Earl has expressed his dislike of the task; and it is but just to the noble Earl to admit that the sincerity of this feeling was apparent in his manner. I am sure there is no noble Lord in this House who would willingly look upon this question in any party spirit; and I can only account for the reluctance expressed by some noble Lords to concur in this Vote by supposing that their judgment of Lord Canning has been warped by the credit they have given to the many false representations of his conduct which have undoubtedly obtained a wide circulation is this country. Now, my Lords, I have taken some pains to examine almost all the charges brought against Lord Canning, whether in Parliament or in the press, and I venture to affirm that there is not one of those charges of the least importance, which cannot be clearly refuted from papers which are already in possession of the House. Every one of them has emanated from the Calcutta press, whose enmity has been incurred by Lord Canning, in consequence of those restrictive measures which at an early period of the mutiny he considered it his duty to adopt. The noble Earl has alluded to a petition from Calcutta to which no reply has as yet been made. Now, without admitting for a moment that the fact of such a petition having been drawn up in Calcutta affords any reason whatever for delay in voting our thanks to Lord Canning, I am happy to say that a copy of that petition has been received with comments by Lord Canning on the allegations it contains. That petition has been moved for in another place, and will soon be in the possession of this House, when it will be seen that to almost every paragraph Lord Canning has been able to oppose a complete and conclusive contradiction. As, however, this document is not yet before us, I shall make little or no use of it to-night, and shall confine myself to those Parliamentary papers which are accessible to all.
Let me now recall to the recollection of the House some of the principal charges which have been brought against Lord Canning, and which from having been re-
838
peated in Parliament, or from the general credit they have received, have acquired some importance.
First it was said that in the earlier stages of the mutiny, when the first symptoms of it appeared at Barrackpore and Berhampore, no steps were taken by Lord Canning to pacify the Sepoys, or to reassure them on the subject of the greased cartridges. No assertion could be farther from the truth. Lord Canning at once adopted the suggestion made by General Hearsey, that the Sepoys should be allowed to select for themselves the grease to be applied to the cartridges, so as to be assured as to its nature and composition. Careful orders were issued in accordance with this suggestion, and careful explanations given to the men. Again, it has been asserted with equal confidence that for a whole month no precautions on the same matter were taken at the more distant military stations. This, again, is grossly false. At the same moment that the step I have already mentioned was taken in Bengal, identical orders were telegraphed to Meerut, to Umballah, and to Sealkote. Another charge, much dwelt upon by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) on a former occasion, was the alleged undue delay in punishing the mutineers of the 19th and 34th regiments, and the undue leniency of the punishment when at last administered. Now, I will not renew, on this occasion, the debate of December last, farther than to say that I appeal with confidence to those papers on the table for conclusive evidence, first, that there was no delay in dealing with the mutineers other than that which was absolutely necessary for the establishment of individual guilt; and, secondly, that the punishment ultimately inflicted on the guilty was the severest punishment short of death to which any military body can be subjected. Yet it is in reference to this transaction that Lord Canning had been accused of vacillation and of weakness, and his conduct has been contrasted with that of Sir H. Lawrence. It was asserted that the resolution to disband the 34th regiment was one to which he was incited by the example of Sir H. Lawrence, under similar circumstances, at Lucknow. Now, my Lords, what are the facts, which any one of your Lordships may verify by taking the trouble to refer to the Parliamentary paper? Why, that Lord Canning's order disbanding the 34th regiment was dated several days before he received from Sir H. Lawrence a recom-

839
mendation that the same course should he pursued with reference to another body at Lucknow.
And now, my Lords, let me call your attention to yet another accusation against the Governor General, which has been repeated with as much confidence as the rest, and which the noble Earl has this very night referred to, as requiring an answer before we can properly be called upon to vote our thanks. We are told that Lord Canning refused the offer of the Calcutta Europeans to form volunteer corps. My Lords, my answer to this assertion is, that it is absolutely false, and that no reply is needed from Lord Canning to prove it to be so. I hold in my hand the paper, which has been for months on the table of this House, and in which the whole transaction is authentically recorded. Lord Canning did not refuse, but accepted, the offer made by the Calcutta volunteers. That offer was first made on the 20th May, in the following terms:—
"At a special general meeting of the members of the Calcutta Trade Association … it was resolved that this body do send up to Government a statement that they are prepared to afford the Government every assistance in their power towards the preservation of order and the protection of the Christian community of Calcutta, either by serving as special constables or otherwise, as may appear most desirable to the Government."
And here, my Lords, I must observe, that in this offer the first symptom is apparent of that disposition, on the part of what is called the Calcutta public, which has all along been only too apparent, to establish an invidious and unjust distinction between the Christian and Native community, and thus to give the contest the aspect of a contest, not between the mutinous soldiery and the peace and good order of society, but between race and race, and between faith and faith. Now, what is the answer of Lord Canning? In the first place, he administers an indirect, but a most just and necessary rebuke to the disposition to which I have referred. He treats the offer in a larger and more liberal spirit than that in which it was made. He receives it as an offer for the protection of the whole "community of Calcutta," and in this sense he cordially accepts it. He says—
"In the event of a disturbance of order in Calcutta the mode in which the services of the members of the Association could be most easily and effectually rendered would undoubtedly be, as suggested by the Association, by acting as special constables, under the direction of the civil authority; and the Governor General in Council, therefore, proposes to the Association that those who are willing so to act should register their names and places of abode at the office of
840
the Commissioner of Police, who has been authorised to enrol them."
My Lords, if an assertion so grossly false as that Lord Canning refused this offer has been repeated and believed by the noble Earl opposite, who has had full access to the papers from which it receives so direct a refutation—and I must say noble Lords opposite are bound to have read those papers more carefully than they appear to have done—can we be surprised that the public out of doors, whose access to authentic information is less direct, should have been misled by the innumerable assertions as injurious, and as absolutely false, propagated by the Calcutta press, and repeated here. There s another point connected with the same subject, to which continual reference has been made, as indicative of the ignorance of the supreme Government during the gathering of the storm. In an answer given by Lord Canning to an address from French residents in Calcutta, presented about the same time, he used some strong expressions deprecating on the part of the public a "groundless panic." But this does not indicate on the part of Lord Canning any ignorance of the dangers which were then undoubtedly existing. It was his policy, and a wise one, to allay the exaggerated fears which were then prevalent in Calcutta, and which were doing much to increase the danger in Bengal, where there was a large body of Native troops with but a very small proportion of Europeans, and who, if they had felt themselves exposed to the fear and hostility of the Government as they were to those feelings on the part of the Calcutta public, would in all probability have been precipitated into immediate revolt. But to judge of the energy and of the foresight of the Government I only ask your Lordships to look in the same Parliamentary papers to their action at the time. You will find that Lord Canning was at that very moment sending telegraphic messages to every part of India, directing and organizing the means of resistance, and showing a full appreciation of the danger where it really existed. The answer to the French residents was an answer simply intended to calm a violent and local panic, and to prevent it from communicating itself to the numerous Sepoy regiments in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, at a time when as yet they had shown no symptoms of disaffection.
I now come, my Lords, to a charge against Lord Canning which concerns a

841
transaction of much more real importance. It has been referred to by the noble Earl to-night, and like many others of the same kind has made considerable impression on the public mind. I refer to the alleged conduct of Lord Canning in regard to the offers of assistance made to them by the Sovereign of Nepaul. And here, my Lords, in passing, I must say that noble Lords opposite speak rather lightly of the considerations involved in accepting foreign aid, towards the suppression of domestic treason. Those considerations are of the gravest kind, and the policy of accepting such aid, doubtful as it must be in general, must depend entirely on the circumstances under which such an offer is made. The offer of Jung Bahadoor was made in the first place later than is generally supposed, and under circumstances which did not appear favourable to Lord Canning.
It was an offer to send a comparatively small body of troops in three separate divisions of 1,000 each, partly upon Oude, and partly upon our own older Provinces. It was the opinion of the Governor General that the direction proposed for these columns was not one in which they were likely to do good, or to have sufficient support. But at a subsequent period the aid of Jung Bahadoor was offered for the purpose of operating towards Lucknow, and was at once cordially accepted by Lord Canning. I cannot doubt, my Lords, that the despatch shown by the Nepaulese Sovereign to the British cause in India, throughout this crisis, and the bravery exhibited by his troops wherever they have met the enemy, will be remembered as it deserves to be, with gratitude by this country.
Another accusation against Lord Canning, which had, perhaps, a more plausible appearance than many others, was founded on his refusal to disarm the Native regiments at Dinapore, which did ultimately join the mutiny. Now, my Lords, the truth is, that at the moment when the deputation waited upon Lord Canning, asking him to disarm those regiments, General Havelock was making his first advance upon Lucknow, and the Governor General was straining every nerve to send up every European soldier at his disposal for the relief of that heroic garrison. It was then a matter of the last importance that not a moment's delay should take place in the forwarding of the few troops which the Government had to send; and it would have been in the last degree unwise to have sacrificed that first great object for another which at the time was of very doubtful policy. Lord Canning's answer accor-
842
dingly was, that he could not then stop any of the troops advancing towards Luck-now, but he would empower the officer com marking at Dinapore to do so, should, he seed any signs of disaffection among his Native regiments, and should think it necessary to disarm them. The mutiny at Dinapore eventually arose out of that very attempt—unhappily not well managed—at disarmament, which it would have been perhaps better not to have made at all. At all events, Lord Canning had before him a choice of evils—and under the circumstances in which he was placed, I am sure the House will be of opinion that he exercised a wise discretion.
These, my Lords, are some of the leading charges which from time to time have been made against Lord Canning, and which, passing, as they have long done, without authentic contradiction, have in the aggregate left an unfavourable impression upon the public mind. I maintain with confidence that this impression, in which at least some noble Lords opposite appear to share, has no other foundation than these, or other allegations as utterly without foundation.
I am sorry to have detained the House so long on what may seem to be trivial details; but there is one broad general view of Lord Canning's policy and conduct which does not require any tedious investigation, yet which affords, I think, a more adequate ground of judgment than any other. The conduct of Lord Canning has been compared with that of Sir J. Lawrence in the Punjab—of Mr. Frere in Scinde, and of others in similar positions in India. I am willing, my Lords, to enter upon that comparison; and I especially desire to direct the attention of the House to one point in that comparison which is of cardinal importance—I mean the proportion which the Native bore to the European troops in the different Provinces of India. In the Lower Provinces, being those more immediately under the command of the Governor General, and under the influence of his personal conduct, there were at the time of the outbreak about 29,000 Native troops, against whom in case of disaffection, Lord Canning had to rely on only 2,362 European soldiers. Yet those are the provinces in which alone the mutiny never assumed those dangerous proportions to which it rapidly swelled in others. My Lords, it is not enough to say that in the then aspect of affairs, Lord Canning acted for the best. It is not less true to say that all our knowledge of subsequent events does but confirm the

843
wisdom and prudence of his moderate and forbearing policy. It was that forbearance and the confidence which by means of it, he inspired into the Native troops, that they would not be harshly dealt with, or prejudged to be traitors without sufficient cause,—it was this alone which prevented an early outbreak in Bengal, and saved those provinces from the fearful convulsion which took place elsewhere. The "energetic measures" which were not taken by Lord Canning, and which were so constantly urged on him by the Calcutta public, were unfortunately taken at Meerut by men of inferior judgment, and instantly the mutiny swelled to the magnitude of a rebellion. In the North Western Provinces the proportion between Native and European troops was equally unfavourable—about 45,000 to 3,537—and there assuredly equal caution and gentleness should have been used. But now let us look to another quarter—to the provinces ruled by Sir J. Lawrence. The mutiny there broke out through no act of his, but in consequence of the events at Meerut and the capture of Delhi. But when it did break out, or threatened to do so, Sir John was in a very different position from Lord Canning in respect to European supports. In the provinces of the Punjab and the Sutlej he had 12,424 European soldiers against only 42,000 native troops, showing an enormous difference from the proportion with which Lord Canning had to deal. Sir J. Lawrence had also a warlike and well-affected Native population, whom his own wise measures had rendered heartily loyal to our rule. I hope, my Lords, it will not be thought for a moment by any Member of this House that I am seeking to detract in the smallest degree from the eminent merits of Sir J. Lawrence. But since his conduct has been placed in invidious contrast with that of Lord Canning, I think it right to direct your Lordships' attention to the essential difference between the circumstances in which they were respectively placed.
The fact is, my Lords, that most of the accusations against the supreme Government of India have been founded on the notion that this great mutiny has been the result of a vast preconceived conspiracy, the existence of which ought to have been detected by that Government. But, surely, if such a conspiracy had been open to detection it ought to have been first discovered by the officers of the native army. I do not wish to anticipate the results of those inquiries which must be conducted in India; but I know it to
844
be the clear opinion of many of the most distinguished men in that country, and of some of those to whom by universal consent we are to vote our thanks to-night, that no such conspiracy existed. And indeed, my Lords, why should we hunt for mysterious causes, of which there is no evidence whatever, when we have staring us in the face causes not mysterious, yet amply sufficient to account for the results? For many years the army of Bengal has been undergoing gradual changes in its system and organization to which I need not farther allude at present, and for a considerable time, from the progress and completeness of our dominion, it has been comparatively idle. Its discipline had become relaxed. And as military discipline, when it is good, is one of the noblest influences which can be brought to hear upon human character, so when it is bad, it is the very worst, giving men the habits of organization without the habits of obedience and the sense of power without the sentiment of duty or of honour. This, I believe, to have been the real secret of the mutiny, although, of course, there were other proximate causes of the out break; and among these, I am convinced, that a real panic upon the subject of religion or of caste had more to do with it than we have been willing to admit.
My Lords, I cannot omit this opportunity of expressing the deep regret which I am sure must be shared in by every Member of this House, on account of the absence—and above all, on account of the cause of the absence—of my noble Friend Lord Dalhousie, who must take the keenest and most painful interest in these events, and who would have been so able to assist and inform the House in the debates to which they are giving rise. It was inevitable, perhaps, that this great convulsion, occurring so soon after the close of his administration, should subject him to many accusations from those who judge more from impressions than from reasoning, or from careful investigation of facts. But I feel assured, that when the smoke of this contest shall have been cleared away, the great reputation of Lord Dalhousie, will reappear in the eyes of his countrymen; who ought not, even now, to forget that during this very contest, if one thing more than another has contributed to the salvation of India it has been the Government which Lord Dalhousie organized in the Punjab, and the admirable selection he made of the men by whom that Government has been conducted. To them, my Lords, and to the other illustrious men who are to be

845
included in our vote to-night, the House and the country may well be grateful, not merely for the individual gallantry they have displayed, but, far more, for the proof they have given that those qualities by which we gained India have not decayed; above all, that the power and art of converting to our own military use the people whom our arms have recently subdued, is not lost to our military and civil servants in the East. There has been nothing more remarkable during the whole of this struggle than the fact that the forces with which we have conducted it have in all cases been two-thirds, or even in larger proportion, Native. At Delhi every one of the storming columns was composed of Native troops in the same proportion; and in the memorable defence of Lucknow, one of the most distinguished portions of its heroic garrison was a small body of Sepoys.
In these facts we may see a clear indication that our hold on India has not been so relaxed—-as many seem to fear—that it will depend in future only on the maintenance of a vast European army. The same powers of organization and of Government which founded the empire under Clive and Hastings are as strong as ever in our hands.
I had almost omitted, my Lords, to refer to one point on which the noble Earl opposite seemed to question the accuracy of the language used by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War with reference to the diversion of the China troops. The noble Earl seemed surprised that my noble Friend should attribute to Lord Canning the merit of that diversion, having himself understood, he said, that it belonged exclusively to Lord Elgin. But the facts were as indicated by my noble Friend, the merit of that proceeding being equally divided between those two noble Lords, inasmuch as the one asked for, and the other assented to the diversion. Lord Elgin did not divert the troops of the China expedition of his own mere motion, as the noble Earl supposed—indeed be would hardly have been justified in so doing. But on receiving from Lord Canning a statement of the gravity of the crisis in India, and a requisition that he would allow of an alteration in the destination of the troops at his disposal, Lord Elgin at once assented, without waiting for any orders from the Government at home.
And here, my Lords, I may mention as some indication how little Lord Canning is open to the charge of inactivity or supineness in the early stages of the mutiny, that not long after the effects of the out-
846
break had become apparent in Upper India, a telegraphic message was received from Sir J. Lawrence, suggesting a variety or steps which might be usefully taken by the Supreme Government, and to that message Lord Canning was able to reply that every one of those measures had already been resorted to.
My Lords: I must again repeat, that in placing Lord Canning's name at the head of those whom this House is invited to thank, Her Majesty's Government have not been actuated by the mere negative consideration that the omission of his name would be in fact a censure—but by a sincere conviction that among those to whom the salvation of our Indian Empire has been due, Lord Canning holds, and will hold in future history, a place not less prominent than that which we have thus assigned to him. During this last year our Indian Empire has been saved by almost every kind of virtue and every form of valour. I doubt, my Lords, whether among all those virtues there has been any more remarkable, or for which we ought to be more grateful, with a view to the preservation of our dominion, than the perfect calmness, the strong will and clear head which Lord Canning has maintained amid the storms of passion and of panic which have raged around him. By these he has succeeded in impressing on the Native mind the invaluable conviction that for the future, as in the past—no matter under what name our Government may be administered, whether in the name of the Imperial Crown, or in the name—now but a name—of the East India Company, our rule is not to be the rule of a dominant and exasperated race over a subject people, but the rule of a just and equal Government, maintaining perfect equality before the law, between race and race, and between faith and faith. On that principle, my Lords, alone has our dominion been acquired, on that principle alone can it, or ought it to be preserved.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: Although, my Lords, allusion has been made by the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, in terms such as they deserve, to the names of all those military officers who have been brought prominently forward on this occasion as being entitled to your Lordships' thanks, yet I think that it is due to that army, of which I have the honour to be at the head, that I should express my entire concurrence in the terms in which its achievements have been mentioned, and the high sense of the gallantry which it has displayed in the conduct

847
of vast operations which I entertain. Before, however, I say one word upon that subject, your Lordships will, I feel assured, permit mo to state that the most cordial good feeling exists between myself and the Commander in Chief in India, and that in the case of that gallant Officer and the noble Lord who holds the position of Governor General of India similar cordiality and good feeling have prevailed from the moment of his arrival in that country. I may add that the existence of such sentiments has not been notified to me merely once or twice, but that it has formed a subject of almost every communication which I have received. I have, therefore, deemed it only due to Lord Canning and Sir Colin Campbell that I should make this public mention of the fact. Now, my Lords, with reference to another subject—the military operations which have recently taken place in India—I am happy to be able to give expression to my high sense of the extraordinary zeal and vigour which have been evinced by our present Commander in Chief in that country from the moment of his landing. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the War Department has observed that that gallant General was prepared to set out upon his arduous mission upon a notice of forty-eight hours; but I believe, my Lords, the fact to be that it did not take him two hours to come to a decision, and that within twenty-four hours he had actually received his appointment at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. As to the mode in which he has conducted the military operations which he has undertaken, I need only say that his achievements are patent to the world. It is a tiling almost unprecedented in military annals that a large force such as that under his command, encumbered and cramped as it was with numbers of sick, of women, and of children—in short, by every impediment which renders the movements of an army difficult—should have accomplished its withdrawal from Lucknow, as has been the case, without, I believe, the loss of a single man. So marked, indeed, was the ability with which its withdrawal was conducted that the enemy actually fired into the positions which our piquets had occupied, under the impression that our troops were still upon the spot. There were other subsequent operations, also, my Lords, carried out by Sir Colin Campbell, with an ability with respect to which nobody can entertain a doubt. It would, however, ill-become me—an Officer so much his junior in professional experience—to comment at
848
any length upon his great military capacity. His merits as a soldier are not new to us. They have been published to the world during the long series of remarkable events by which his life has been chequered. From the day on which he commenced his career in arms up to the present moment he has invariably manifested that capacity for military pursuits which has raised him to the proud position which he now so worthily occupies. Having said thus much in reference to Sir Colin Campbell, I may be permitted briefly to allude to the next name upon the list of those to whom your Lordships have been asked to pass a Vote of Thanks—I mean Sir James Outram. We are all aware of the mode in which he conducted the operations which he undertook in Persia. It is needless for me to say that, in my opinion, they do him the utmost credit, and while giving expression to a similar opinion with reference to his achievements in India I must not forget to notice the circumstance that when, as senior officer to Sir Henry Havelock, he might of right have laid claim to the command of the expedition for the first relief of Lucknow, he, with true soldier like feeling, allowed his junior to retain the command, and acting in subordination to him brought the expedition to a glorious consummation. Alas, my Lords, that it has not been permitted to us to pass a Vote of Thanks upon this occasion to that distinguished junior, upon whom your praise or blame now falls alike unheeded. But, the other day it was that this House passed a Vote of Thanks to him individually, and little did we then anticipate that his gallant life would so soon be sacrificed in his country's cause. To revert, however, to those who still remain. I am happy to be able to express my concurrence with my noble Friend in all that has fallen from him with reference to the next name on the list—that of Sir Archdale Wilson. The gallantry which was exhibited by the troops engaged before Delhi was, I believe, something extraordinary. Let it be borne in mind that the resources necessary for the prosecution of the siege of that city had to be collected from every part of the country, and that one false move in the conduct of that siege might have tended to the ruin not only of General Wilson and the army under his command, but to the annihilation of our power in India. The responsibility of the Commander was, therefore, great—almost beyond conception. Sir Archdale Wilson, however, was equal to the task which had

849
been imposed upon him, notwithstanding that he bad but very recently been placed in the onerous position which be occupied. He conducted his operations to a successful issue, and it was not until the hour of his triumph bad come that he found himself forced by the state of his health to withdraw from active service. The next name which has been brought under your Lordships' notice is that of Major General Inglis. I need only mention his name to ensure your Lordships' applause—his very name is associated with the idea of bravery. The defence of Lucknow under the direction of that gallant officer is, as my noble Friend at the head of the War Department observed, one of the most remarkable in history. I have seen in connection with that great exploit the names of many officers and men to whom, in all probability, your Lordships' attention has not been directed. I can, however, state a fact, which probably has not been brought to your Lordships' knowledge, that during the eighty-seven days which were occupied in the defence of Lucknow, every soldier and every Native employed in the garrison was, as far as I have been able to ascertain, actually under arms and upon duty. Each day during that eventful period every man was, I believe, obliged to shoulder his musket, and was not only under fire, but tinder fire of a character the briskest and the most severe. So far, indeed, was this discharge of duty upon the part of all carried that the officers shouldered their muskets and did duty as sentries, in order that their men might, to some slight extent, obtain that rest which nature demanded. Circumstances such as these are, I believe, almost unparalleled in the annals of history. I may add, and it is most important so far as the Native troops are concerned, that such was the proximity of the Native troops who remained faithful to us throughout the siege to the mutineers against whom they were fighting, that they were actually able to carry on a conversation with them, and that, although every inducement was held out to them by those mutineers to desert, no solicitation, no inducement, on the part of the enemy could persuade those faithful men to swerve from their duty, nothing could induce them to desert the British standard. I am happy, therefore, my Lords, that those faithful soldiers share in the honour which has this evening been conferred upon the rest of the army. I have now adverted to all those names which have been brought prominently under your Lordships' notice. There are, however,
850
many other names which possess high claims to our admiration. There are such men as Hope, Grant, Greathed, and Walpole. There are, too, various younger officers who have earned for themselves distinction, and who will no doubt, when circumstances call upon them to do so, prove themselves equal to any emergency which may arise. But, while we compliment the officers who have been engaged in this struggle, we must not lose sight of the services of those non-commissioned officers and privates of our army who have rendered great services to their country. Bear in mind, my Lords, the climate under which those services were performed. Recollect that the greater part of the late operations in India were carried on at a season when it was deemed impossible that European troops could march or fight in India; that one division of the army had to march to Cawnpore, a distance of fifty miles in forty-eight hours; in short, that all that could be done by men under the influence of the finest climate has been accomplished by the Queen's and the Company's troops, and I am anxious your Lordships should be informed that the utmost cordiality has prevailed between both branches of the service, under the burning sun of India; the two services, in short, have vied with each other in performing the important duties which they were called upon to discharge. There are many names, my Lords, not mentioned in the Vote of Thanks, the bearers of which have, alas, long since ceased to exist. There are the names of Nicholson and of the gallant Neill, of the intrepid Salkeld, Home, and Willoughby, and a host of others no less distinguished. But the fact is that the list of those who have won honour for themselves during these operations is so long that it is impossible to bring each individual case under your Lordships' consideration. My noble Friend at the head of the War Department, in alluding to the particular operations which took place at Lucknow, named especially the 32nd regiment as deserving of notice; but I think it right to state that a portion of the 84th regiment was also at Lucknow, as well as a considerable body of Artillery. All those troops are entitled to be placed in the same category, and it seems to me desirable that some special mark of favour should be conferred upon men who have performed services so eminent. I may mention that I have been in communication with the Government on the subject of the rewards to be given to the gallant garrison of Lucknow, and I am delighted to find

851
that the Government feel disposed to allow the officers and men to count a year's service—the officers on retirement and the men on pension—which will apply to the whole European as well as, I have no doubt, the Native force engaged. This is in itself a great distinction. We have a precedent for it, but the case is a very rare one; and I am persuaded that it will be received by the army as the highest compliment which could be paid to this body of troops. Of course, the services of the officers belonging to the garrison will receive every consideration. My noble Friend will recollect that on a former occasion I stated that we only waited to receive such details and correct information as should warrant us in bestowing an adequate reward on the gallant officer in command of the garrison; and that information having since been received, and the Government concurring with us in the steps we thought called for, this distinguished officer has been promoted in a way which I think will be gratifying to his feelings. The claims of other officers will also be considered. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for drawing attention to three who have returned to this country, a fact of which I was not aware, though I knew they had been severely wounded. Your Lordships, I trust, will pardon me for entering into these details, which I have done as a military man, feeling bound to express in the presence of your Lordships my sense of the great services rendered by our army in India. I trust I have omitted nobody in my allusions; if I have done so it has been unwittingly; and I have now only to express my cordial concurrence with the Vote of Thanks which has been moved.
VISCOUNT FALKLAND, alluding to what had fallen from a noble speaker respecting Mr. Frere, said that he knew pretty well the nature of the services rendered by that gentleman during the mutiny in India, and should like to say a few words respecting them. Mr. Frere arrived in Scinde early in the summer of 1857, after having been on leave of absence in England. Almost immediately on his arrival, news of the outbreak at Meerut reached him. Without hesitation, and acting upon his own responsibility, he at once sent two regiments—the 1st European Bombay Fusileers and a corps of Sikhs—to the Punjab to the assistance of Sir John Lawrence. The former of these rendered essential service in chastising a regiment of Bengal light cavalry which had mutinied; the Sikhs escorted the heavy siege train to Delhi, a service of no
852
slight importance, and afterwards assisted in the assault upon the magazine of that city. Not content with this, Mr. Frere sent down into the northern provinces of the Bombay Presidency half of the only European corps which remained; and afterwards, when the Mohurrum, the great Mahomedan festival, approached, such was the feeling of irritation in Bombay, that he found it necessary to denude Scinde even of the small number of Europeans then with him, retaining only a skeleton, so to speak, of the 2nd Bombay Light Infantry. Mr. Frere likewise opened a new line of postal communication between the Punjab and Calcutta and Bombay. He found the communication between those places, via Agra, completely closed; and had he not, by dint of great exertions, re-established it by a new line, the Punjab would have been entirely cut off from the rest of India. This, he (Viscount Falkland) thought, was no slight service; and he could not help feeling that, as he had lately seen it observed in a public print, a man who, by his own unaided exertions, held a newly-conquered country containing 6,000,000 of inhabitants entirely by his own energy, and through the respect entertained for his personal character by the Natives, and his known ability and firmness, at a time; when he had only 170 Europeans within the whole of that province—such a man had performed essential services to his country; and to have withheld the thanks of Parliament from him, when it was given to every man in the same position, would have been most ungenerous and unjust.
Resolutions agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente.
Ordered,—
That the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said Resolutions to the Governor General of India; and that his Lordship be requested to communicate the same to the several Governors, Commissioners, and Officers referred to therein.

BISHOPS' TRUSTS SUBSTITUTION BILL.
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that, consequent on the alteration which had recently been made in the territorial limits of different dioceses in England, it happened that Bishops were now official trustees in districts which were removed into other dioceses. There was no power of substituting the Bishop of the new for that of the old diocese in these official trusts, and considerable inconvenience arose from the want of such a power. He had therefore prepared this short Bill, enabling the Charity Commissioners, upon the case

853
being proved to their satisfaction, to substitute the Bishop who was intended by the founders to be the administrator of the trust, instead of the Bishop who had formerly occupied that position.
LORD CAMPBELLexpressed his approval of the Bill.
Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the debate upon this Bill had been adjourned from the short sitting of Parliament before Christmas, and it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House that he should state the course he intended to take respecting the measure. There were now before their Lordships two Bills on this subject, one introduced by himself, the other by the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), with the assent of the whole Episcopal Bench. After full consideration he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) infinitely preferred his own Bill, because he thought it would be far more simple in its operations, because it would not go one hair's breadth beyond the exigencies of the case, and would interfere much less than any proposition he had seen with the existing parochial system. Now this measure had received the almost unanimous support of the great mass of the laity throughout the kingdom, more particularly of the middle and those of the working classes, to whom it had been submitted; but he was bound to admit that it had not received by any means the same support from the clergy. A very large proportion of the clergy had declared themselves hostile to the Bill, and many were secretly unwilling to give it that support which would be necessary to carry it into operation. Since its introduction another measure had been introduced, and he was told that the whole four-and-twenty occupants of the Episcopal Bench were unanimous in its favour. Now, that must considerably influence his proceedings. It would not be possible for him to carry his Bill without long and angry contention, and without frequent appeals to the country, and without exciting ill-feeling between the clergy and the laity. Under these circumstances it was impossible for him to proceed with his Bill, and he would therefore ask their Lordships to give him permission to withdraw it. He had, however, to consider whether he could allow the Bill introduced by
854
the most rev. Primate to pass a second reading without opposition on his part. The more inquiry he made respecting the probable operation of that measure, and the more information he received on the subject, the more was he satisfied that it was open to very grave objections. The Bill, as it seemed to him, would give a power to the Bishops which they had not heretofore possessed. It would enable a Bishop, without assigning any other reason than that a deficiency of means of religious instruction had been proved to his satisfaction, to send into any parish he pleased a clergyman to hold occasional services, for a period which was not defined in the Bill, but which would, no doubt, be fixed when the measure went through Committee. The Bishop, however, would have the power of renewing the intrusion as often as he pleased. He was convinced that in some dioceses the Bill would be oppressive, while in other dioceses it would be inoperative; and he was satisfied that the incumbents who had raised objections against the Bill he had introduced would raise ten times as many objections to the measure of the most rev. Primate, which now stood for a second reading. As, however, he found that it would be useless to attempt to carry the Bill he had brought forward, and as he found the Bill of the most rev. Primate was unanimously approved by the whole Bench of Bishops, and that by it they recognized the value and necessity of special services, he would not take upon himself the responsibility of opposing the second reading, and thereby of acting with apparent disrespect to the Episcopal Bench. He would not, therefore, offer any objection to the second reading of the Bill; but, as he regarded it on the one hand as most defective, and on the other as likely to be most oppressive, he would reserve to himself the right, at some future period, of re-opening the whole question of special services. The noble Earl then moved for leave to withdraw the Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND SPECIAL SERVICE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it was with great satisfaction that he heard the former part of the noble Earl's speech, and with equal regret that he heard the strong condemnation which his noble Friend expressed of the Bill of which he now

  855
  moved the second reading. He felt sure, however, that the noble Earl had formed a mistaken opinion of it, and that on mature consideration he would find that it carried out the same object which he himself had at heart, though in a manner more consistent with ecclesiastical rule and order. The difference consisted in this, that before the special services were commenced the d'ocesan's permission was required, instead of their being inhibited by the diocesan after having been once required. The process would be, that when it appeared to the diocesan, from his own knowledge, or from representations made to him, either by the incumbent or by others, that such services were desirable in parishes of a certain population, he would communicate with the incumbent, and, unless the incumbent saw reason for objecting, he would issue his permission accordingly. It was quite possible that there might be local objections of which the Bishop might not have been aware; and it was right that the incumbent should have the opportunity of representing them, and right that the diocesan should have the opportunity of considering them. If after due investigation a difference of opinion should unhappily remain, an appeal to the Archbishop of the province was allowed, whose decision was to be summary and final. This provision was in accordance with the regular discipline of the Church, and with recent precedents; and if he might judge in this case by his experience in others of a like nature, the right of appeal would work in the most desirable manner by seldom coming into operation at all. This was the object of the measure which he and his right rev. Brethren now offered to their Lordships for acceptance, and these were its provisions. It would simply enable the incumbent and Bishop to supply, in some degree, the spiritual wants of large and populous districts, which they had a right to expect from the Established Church, but which the existing parochial system at present prevents them from enjoying. As he stated two nights ago, nothing would be so gratifying to his right rev. Brethren or to himself as to find that it met the views of the noble Earl who had the merit of first drawing their Lordships' attention to the change required in the present ecclesiastical discipline. He and his right rev. Brethren sincerely hoped that it might answer the purpose which the noble Earl was anxious to attain, laudably conversant as he had made himself with the condition and habits of the working classes, and earnestly desirous, as he was, to promote
  856
  their best interests, both temporal and eternal.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid that, having entertained very strong objections to the Bill introduced by the noble Earl, (the Earl of Shaftesbury) he must express his sincere gratification that he had been induced to withdraw it; for, had that measure become law, the lines of demarcation between the Church and Dissent would have been swept away, the whole parochial system would have been uprooted, and the seeds of dissension and schism would have been spread in the very bosom of the Church. Although he could not give his assent to all the provisions of the Bill introduced by the most rev. Primate, he thought it was in so far preferable to that of the noble Earl as it would prevent clergymen from being obtruded upon parishes for the performance of special services without a fair opportunity being afforded to the parochial incumbents of objecting to such a proceeding. He thought, therefore, that in regard to this measure he ought not to offer any opposition to the second reading.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he felt he ought not to allow the matter to drop without saying a few words respecting it. He supported the Bill of the most rev. Primate, because he believed it would accomplish everything which the Bill of the noble Earl proposed. He thought that the noble Earl, upon more fully considering the Bill of the most rev. Primate, would see that it really did carry out all the objects he himself had in view. The only difference he (the Bishop of London) could see between the two Bills was this—that whereas, in the one case, the Bishop was to step in in a few days, he was, by the Bill of the most rev. Primate, to step in in the first instance. The fact was, that the Bill of the most rev. Primate exactly made law that which did lake place in the ease of the Exeter Hall services. A representation might be made to the Bishop of the diocese by any set of persons who felt interested in the spiritual welfare of the district, and the Bishop, by a simple writing, might give permission for the proposed services. The only alteration from what actually took place last summer was that provision was made whereby, in the case of an injudicious permission being given, the matter might be brought before the Archbishop by the clergyman of the district. He would, if the noble Earl had not left the House, most earnestly beg of him to reconsider his statement, that in his opinion the Bill of the most

  857
  rev. Primate would be of no value. He thought that when the noble Earl made that statement he must have been speaking of a certain draft of a Bill which had been placed in his hands a few days ago, and which had since received important Amendments, which would bring the Bill exceedingly near to that which the noble Earl himself had proposed. In his (the Bishop of London's) opinion, the Bill now before their Lordships would, in a simple manner, effect all which the noble Earl was anxious to effect. It was a remarkable sign of the times that all the Prelates of the Church of England should agree that such special services were necessary, and should agree that any body of laymen residing in a diocese might come forward and ask for such services. It was remarkable that not only all the Bishops should agree in this, but that they should be joined in that opinion by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Dungannon), and he could not but think that it would be very injudicious of any one anxious for these services to put any impediment in the way of this Bill. Twenty-three Bishops, and those who took the same view of the matter as the noble Viscount, agreed that the Exeter Hall services were wanted.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONdid not say that the Exeter Hall services were wanted.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: The noble Viscount, he apprehended, at least agreed that services such as those provided by the Bill were required. This unanimity showed that the Church of England was prepared to do what was required of her; and that if the working classes, as they were called, were anxious to be taught, the Bishops and clergy were anxious to teach them without violating Church rules. There was now service for the working people in one of the great cathedrals of the metropolis, and he hoped that there would soon be the same in the other. There were similar services in many of the churches, and he trusted that within the next few weeks they would again have service in Exeter Hall.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, that in giving his assent to this Bill he merely bowed to the unanimous decision of the Bishops. He did not retract one opinion to which he had given utterance last Session, and did not wish to be understood as expressing an opinion in favour of the Exeter Hall services.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERwhile agreeing in the principle of the Bill, did not wish to be bound by all the conclusions drawn from the unanimity of the Bishops
  858
  by the right rev. Prelate who had just spoken. He (the Bishop of Exeter) supported this Bill in contradistinction to that of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), because it proposed to supply these special services without violating the rules of the Church.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sthought that the Bill of the most rev. Primate would effect all that was desirable. A clergyman who had taken part in the services at Exeter Hall, and was one of the most strenuous advocates of special services, not only objected to the details of the noble Earl's (the Earl of Shaftesbury's). Bill, but felt so strongly in respect to the manner in which that Bill proposed to deal with the parochial clergy, that he had published a letter to the noble Earl protesting against the form of the Bill, and suggesting a mode in which the noble Earl's object could be accomplished in another manner. Now that very suggestion was embodied in the Bill of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He (the Bishop of St. David's) was at a loss to conceive how any one could speak of the one Bill as being perfectly safe, and of the other as being dangerous.
  The EARL OF DERBY: It is certainly, my Lords, very satisfactory to find such unanimity amongst the right rev. Prelates, in respect of the objects which this Bill proposes to effect; and I am sure it is also a matter of satisfaction to your Lordships that after what has taken place the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has consented to withdraw his Bill for the purpose of enabling due consideration to be given to the very important subject with which you are proposing to deal. I am gratified to find that the Bill of the most rev. Primate is one which is meant to apply not to particular parishes but to districts. The Bill of the noble Earl laid down an abstract rule, permitting those services in any parishes. Now, it is quite clear that such a Bill would embrace many parishes in which there would be no ground whatever for introducing these services. The test of population in a parish would be a most fallacious one. There may be parishes in which the population amounts to 2000, 3000, 5000, or even 10,000, and yet in which the spiritual wants of the parishioners are amply provided for, while there may be parishes with less than 2000 inhabitants in which those wants are provided for in a very imperfect manner. The Bill of the most rev. Primate does not interfere with the parochial system at all, or with the jurisdiction of the incumbent, but applies to exceptional cases—to those cases in

  859
  which every one must admit there is a want of spiritual provision, and which occur throughout districts of a large town. The clergyman who is to conduct the special service is not to be introduced as a rival to the incumbent, or as exercising any authority within the parish. It is universally acknowledged that there is a necessity in this and other great towns for the introduction of these special services, to meet the shortcomings of the parochial system; but, wherever they be introduced, I beg that your Lordships will not consider them as anything but what I am sure the most rev. Primate and his right rev. Brethren intend them to be—namely, as merely subsidiary and ancillary to the local services. I hope, my Lords, that very great benefit may result from the services at Exeter Hall; but the attendances in Westminster Abbey, and in the other churches in which special services have been held, prove this—that there is no difficulty in inducing the people to attend the churches. The little church of St. Margaret's has been opened to receive the overflowings of Westminster Abbey, and it, too, has had its overflowing congregations. I look upon this as an experiment to ascertain what can be done in the way of bringing the masses to receive regular religious instruction; and I trust that even after the first gloss and the novelty have passed away, it will produce its lasting effects. But again I would beg of your Lordships never to consider these services as anything but subsidiary to the local services. In this great metropolis it would be impossible so to subdivide the parishes that every one should have his sphere of work, and this Bill of the right rev. Primate affords a means of supplying in a regular manner, and under episcopal sanction, additional religious instruction in those districts in which it is required. The Bill provides for an appeal from the Bishop to the Archbishop, so that I do not think any difficulty can arise as regards its operation in respect of the power given to the right rev. Prelates. It must be expected that in a Church constituted as the Church of England is, Bishops may entertain different views on certain matters; but I do sincerely hope that the Bishops will feel it their duty to impress on the clergy, that, in respect of these services, their duty is to call in the wandering, the guilty, and the ignorant within the Christian fold, and that they have nothing whatever to do with questions which, however important in other respects, would in their application be utterly inconsistent with the
  860
  purposes for which these special services are designed. I support this Bill because I think it will effect the views which the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) proposes in his Bill, and do so in a manner much less opposed to the system of the Church.
  THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFsupported the Bill, but was understood to give notice of his intention to move some proposition in Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday the 16th instant.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Four o'clock.