Sitting of 14 April 1859

MINUTES
. PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Offences against the Person; Forgery; Malicious Injuries; Coinage; Personation; Criminal Writings; Larceny.
3° Exchequer Bills (£13,277,400); Consolidated Fund Appropriation; Convict Prisons Abroad.

THE ACTION AT CAWNPORE.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India,
  1728
  the date of the receipt in England of the Despatch from the Commander-in-Chief in India of the 20th day of December, 1857, referring to the actions fought under the command of Major General Windham at Cawnpore, on the 26th, 27th, and 28th days of November, 1857?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, there had been two Despatches from the Commander-in-Chief on the subject of that action, written on the 2nd and 20th of December, which were published in the Calcutta Gazettes of the 13th and 24th of December; both gazettes reached this country together on the 15th of February last. He took it for granted, however, that some earlier communication must have been received.

THE NEW INDIAN TARIFF.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he wished to put a question to the Secretary of State for India. The last Calcutta Mail had brought information that it was intended to levy a new scale of Duties in India; the Tariff showed a Duty of 5 per cent on Manchester goods, and as high as 40 per cent on other articles. On looking over it he found no mention of Flax, Hemp, Jute, or Linen; he therefore wished to know whether it is intended to levy any Export Duty on Flax, Hemp, or Jute, or any import Duty on Linen Manufactures, and also whether there will be any objection to lay a Copy of the Tariff on the Table?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that he would lay a copy of the Tariff on the table when it arrived. At present no copy of the Tariff had reached this country, and the report to which the noble Lord alluded referred merely to a draught of a proposed enactment laid before the Legislative Council. That might be altered by them, and it was impossible to say finally what it would he. In the draught as it stood, linen was not enumerated, and the duty on un-enumerated articles was proposed to be raised from 5 to 10 per cent. With respect to flax and hemp there was an export duty at the rate of 3 per cent, and in the draft that duty was not proposed to be altered.

THE CANDIDATE FOR BERWICK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he wished to know from Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether one of the Candidates for

  1729
  Berwick is the same gentleman who appears in the List of the Foreign Office as paid attaché at Vienna, and, if so, whether he still retains that appointment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the gentleman in question, who had done him the honour of being his Private Secretary, had been attaché to the Embassy at Paris, and he believed that he was appointed to some other Embassy, but he concluded that the gentleman did not repair to that appointment, as he continued to assist him. He apprehended that he was not a paid attaché, but would inquire.

SIR HENRY SEATON.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FREESTUNsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, previous to his moving the Thanks of the House to the Army in India, whether he will be pleased to include the name of Brigadier General Sir Henry Seaton, K.C.B., who has done such gallant deeds of arms during the war, for that honour. He would only mention a few of his services. He was at the capture of Bhurtpore; served in Afghanistan in 1840, 1841, and 1842; the forcing of the Khoord Cabul and Jugdulluck Passes; defence of Jellalabad and action there in 1842; in the various actions under General Pollock which led to the re-occupation of Cabul; at the siege of Delhi, where he was severely wounded the 23rd of July, 1857, and present at its capture; and brought a convoy, covering ten miles in extent, safely into camp, after beating the enemy, four times his number, who threatened to molest it, and taking their guns.
LORD STANLEY, in reply said, that he would inform the hon. and gallant Member of the course he intended to pursue in his statement.

THANKS TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ARMY IN INDIA.
LORD STANLEY: Sir, I believe that, by the practice and courtesy of the House, Resolutions like those which I am about to submit take precedence of other business. There are some occasions, Sir, when even those who on merely personal grounds are least anxious to find or make opportunities for rhetorical display, must deeply lament the deficiency in themselves of those qualities which are necessary to bring properly before this House a subject such as that which it is now my duty to lay before it. It is a subject not of argument, not of reasoning, not of dry logic; it is a subject
1730
which appeals to the deepest and warmest feelings of all I address, to the patriotism and to the public spirit of every Member of this House. But if, on the one hand, I never rose to address the House under a more painful and discouraging sense of personal deficiency, so, on the other I never rose to address the House with a firmer and more unhesitating conviction than that which I now entertain, that whatever may be wanting in the statement I shall lay before you, however feebly and inefficiently may be put before you the case I have to submit to the House, these deficiencies will, nevertheless, be amply supplied, and more than supplied, by the sympathy, the cordiality, and by the unanimous feeling which a Motion of this nature never fails to bring forth. I believe I may now congratulate this House—I believe I may congratulate the country, after two years of public peril and national alarm, on the complete restoration of our military ascendancy in India, and on the return of peace to that unhappily distracted country. There may still be local disturbances, there may still be unsettled districts; the waves may here and there continue to run high, though the storm that raised them has subsided; but every mail and telegram bring us news of the submission of some insurgent chief under the terms of Her Majesty's Proclamation, of the dispersion of some body of rebels lately in arms, and of the restoration of law and order in some district where anarchy lately prevailed. The struggle through which we have passed has cost many thousands of brave English lives, it has inflicted incalculable sufferings on the people of the country in which it took place, it has heavily augmented the debt and burdened the resources of India—it has done even worse than this, it has for a time exasperated and embittered that rivalry of races which must always to some extent exist in a conquered community; yet, against these evils, grave and serious as they are, we have to place some compensating advantages. We have come through that great contest with our military reputation enhanced in the eyes of foreign nations and our own—enhanced, not only by public success achieved under extraordinary difficulties, but by individual heroism displayed even where success was hopeless. Never, I believe, at any former period of our history,—not when the news of Plassey first spread through Bengal; not when the power and life of Tippoo Sahib ended together at the storming of Serin-

1731
gapatam; not when the Mahratta and Pindaree power was destroyed in Central India; not when the Sikh army, the terror of all the north-west, was crushed in two battles; not when the loss of 15,000 men in Affghanistan was retrieved, and the English standard again planted on Cabul and Candahar—never at any former period of our history was there so strongly impressed on the Asiatic mind the convictions of the inevitable permanence of British rule, and the unconquerable energy and perseverance of the British race. In the existence of that feeling we have cause to rejoice—not selfishly, not in mere vain glory, not with an exclusive reference to the interests of this country, but for the sake of India herself. We rejoice in it, because the existence of that conviction furnishes the best guarantee for the continuance of peace, and enables us to indulge a hope that in the long calm which will follow upon such a storm, India may repair her losses, recruit her energies, re-adjust her finances, improve her administration, and develope—as they have never been developed before—those almost incalculable material resources, which we all know her to possess. If, Sir, I am right in the judgment I have formed—if I am right in believing that the military difficulty is at an end, and that nothing now remains to deal with except difficulties of administration and finance—then I am sure this House will feel that it is not premature on our part to offer our thanks to those, whether in civil or in military employ, under whose wise direction, or by whose skill and courage this state of things has been brought about. Sir, Lord Canning has been Governor General of India from the beginning, and even before the beginning, of the recent insurrection. There has devolved upon him an amount of labour, of anxiety, and responsibility such as rarely falls to the lot of any British statesman, and no one, I believe, either in India or in England can deny, or has denied, that under the circumstances in which he has been placed, he has displayed both the courage and the humanity which belong to the character of an English gentleman. There may have been—as there always will be in such cases—diversities of opinion as to isolated acts of the Governor General, and to these differences of opinion I now refer, only because I think they render it doubly imperative—as to me it is doubly gratifying—that we should pay him the mark of honour
1732
and respect which is his due, and to which I ask the assent of this House. But whatever differences of opinion may exist as to isolated acts of his policy, I think it cannot be disputed that that policy, taken as a whole, has been temperate, and prudent. Lord Canning, to his honour, resisted a vindictive cry for blood, at a time when that cry met with too much sympathy, even in this country. He has acted throughout in harmony with the military authorities; he has remained at his post in a season of the utmost difficulty; in the darkest hour of national calamity he has not despaired of success. Sir, I think this House will feel that both officially, on account of the post which he fills, and personally, on account of the labour and responsibility which have devolved upon him, Lord Canning is entitled to the thanks of this House. Upon Lord Elphinstone, as Governor of Bombay, there has devolved a responsibility more limited indeed in its scope, but still most grave and formidable. To be satisfied of that fact you have only to look to the position of the Presidency of Bombay. Whether we look to the western frontier of that Presidency with Scinde—a province of comparatively recent acquirement—on one extremity, surrounded on two—we may almost say on three—sides by Native States, and with the wild Beloochee tribes beyond, or whether turning eastward we survey a vast aggregation of independent States, presided over by princes, mainly of the Rajpoot race, proud, warlike, free, and likely to sympathize with the cause of those who have risen against our rule—or whether we look within the Presidency itself to the variety of races which it includes, and the large presence of the Mahomedan element—it will be seen that the duty of protecting it alike against aggression from without, and revolt from within, was one of no ordinary difficulty. In the discharge of that duty Lord Elphinstone has been vigilant, sagacious, indefatigable. He has afforded to those engaged in the suppression of the rebellion all the assistance which the civil power could give. He has not hesitated, even at a time of the utmost emergency, almost to denude Bombay itself of European troops in order to send them to those districts where their services were more urgently needed; and I believe I am only expressing what is the universal opinion both in India and in England, when I say that no governor of a Presidency will ever have returned to this country with a reputation more enhanced

1733
by his conduct in office than will Lord Elphinstone. In the list of names which I have submitted to the House, that of Lord Harris does not appear, and I must explain the reason of the omission, lest it should seem to convey a slight upon that distinguished person. Lord Harris, until failing health compelled him to retire from his post at Madras, performed his duty as an administrator sedulously and well, but the Vote of Thanks we now propose is not for services rendered in the way of ordinary administration, but it; the suppression of disturbances in India. Now, during the last year, 1858, not only has there been no serious disturbance, but I think I may venture to say there has been no serious alarm or apprehension of disturbance throughout the Presidency of Madras and Southern India. Lord Harris, therefore, has not enjoyed the same opportunities of service and distinction which have been possessed by Viscount Canning and Lord Elphinstone, and that is the reason—and I need hardly say the only reason—why his name does not appear in the present Motion. There are still, Sir, some other names of civilians to whom, I believe, this House will willingly present its tribute of gratitude. The year 1858 has not been like 1857, and the great name and reputation of Sir John Lawrence will gain no accession of honour by the events of the last fourteen months. But Sir John Lawrence, notwithstanding failing health, and medical warnings, with a constitution skaken by thirty years of Indian toil, but with an energy and self-devotion which nothing could shake, has remained steadily at his post organizing new levies, pouring them down upon the plains, watching at once the turbulent population he had to control, and those even wilder race3 which inhabit the country lying beyond the Khyber and the Affghan frontier, and from first to last, throughout these transactions, has rendered that Province—which was regarded as the greatest danger of India—a source of security and strength to the British empire. Sir John Lawrence refused to quit his government until he was assured by the Governor General and by his own observation of the state of affairs that his services were no longer required. He has within the last day or two arrived in this country to take a part in the home administration of India—to adorn that administration by his presence, and to instruct it by his counsels. I believe and hope that the recep-
1734
tion which will be given him by the people of this country will be such as is due to his high deserts; and I can conceive nothing more fitting or appropriate than that the first news which greets him on his return to his native land should be the news that now, for the second time, Parliament—speaking, as it always ought to speak, the sense of the Commons of England—has recognized by an unanimous vote the value of his services. Sir Robert Hamilton has by his diplomatic exertions, by the happy union of firmness and conciliation, established and maintained English influence among the powerful and independent Native States of Central India. No man, throughout the transactions of the last two years, has had at his command better sources of local information, or has communicated more useful intelligence to the generals in the field. I need not point out to the House how seriously the difficulties of the last year must have been increased if the vast population of Central India under Native rule, encouraged and aided by their Governments, had taken part against us; but, with hardly an exception, the chiefs of that district have remained loyal and faithful to British authority. I have no desire to deprive them of the credit which is their due, but it seems to me that some portion of that credit justly reflects upon the able statesman to whom the conduct of diplomatic affairs in that part of India was entrusted. While I am on the subject of services rendered in that capacity, I think it only a debt of gratitude to advert to another eminent civil servant, whose name has not been included in the vote—Colonel Davidson, the Resident at Hyderabad. We all know how steadily and faithfully—notwithstanding the presence of many elements which might have been elements of hostility—the Government of the Nizam has adhered to the English cause, and I think we are bound to mark our respect for the officer who has done so much to maintain British influence at that Court. Mr. Frere, whose name stands next in the vote, is one of two men by whom the outlying and comparatively recently acquired province of Scinde has been governed with a very small display of physical force, and a comparatively limited amount of European aid. He was indefatigable at a time of the greatest difficulty in forwarding supplies of all kinds to those parts of the country in which military operations were in progress. He has

1735
ruled the province of Scinde with justice, with wisdom, and with vigour, neither on the one hand unduly deferring to Native prejudices, nor, on the other, harshly and inconsiderately disregarding Native ideas and feelings; and he has had his reward, for throughout those battles, Scinde has been tranquil and loyal. I said that Mr. Frere was one of two men by whom that province had been kept in order. The other, unhappily, cannot now be reached by the thanks of this House, or by any expression of national gratitude. But it is not right that the name and memory of General Jacob should pass away without receiving some passing recognition of a genius so rare and a character so exalted. General Jacob was in almost every respect the pattern of what an officer commanding Native troops ought to be. His men would have gone anywhere and have done anything. With such an officer, no difficulty as to caste could arise, because he trusted them and they trusted him; because they well knew that he never spared himself; and because every one of them felt assured, that if he gave an order disagreeable to their feelings it was not done wantonly or in ignorance, but because it was requisite for the good of the service. General Jacob maintained peace on the wildest frontier of India, and created a flourishing settlement out of a desert. Upon this settlement, he laid out such private means as he had acquired, and he has died at the age of forty-five, worn out with exhaustion from excessive labour, having given all he had, even his life, to the service of the State. Mr. Montgomery, during a great part of the last year, having the advantage of a long previous training in the Punjab Government, administered the civil affairs of Oude. He was left, and wisely left, with large powers of independent action, and with a discretion comparatively unfettered; and I am only stating that which I have heard from every quarter, and which I believe to be strictly true, when I say it is to his tact, to his temper, to his skill and good management, to his indefatigable exertions, that we owe, in a great degree, that so many of the great landowners of Oude—those, I mean, who had become compromised in the rebellion—have been induced to make terms with the British Government. Considering the importance of the operations in Oude, and how much the success of the military movements there have been influenced by the conduct of the civil administration, I think the House
1736
will not be inclined to refuse an acknowledgment of the services of Mr. Montgomery. Sir, I come now to the strictly military operations which have been carried on during the last twelve months, and I wish to say that, in mentioning the services of officers who have been engaged in these operations, I shall not attempt to give anything like a detailed or connected narrative of the military transactions in India. I do not pretend to the requisite familiarity with military subjects, and I apprehend that even to those who do possess the requisite familiarity, so many and so various have been the operations carried on—taking place as they have done simultaneously in different parts of India—that it would be hardly possible within any reasonable compass to bring the whole of them before the eye in a single connected view. It seems to me that the operations of this war mainly divide themselves into four principal epochs. The campaign which ended in the siege and capture of Delhi first broke the insurgent power in the North-West. Next followed that series of operations beginning with the first and then the final relief of Lucknow, and ending in the siege and capture of that place. Thirdly, you have to take into account that entirely separate and distinct series of operations carried on by Sir Hugh Rose in Central India, which ended in the complete subjection and tranquillization of that part of our empire. And lastly, we have before us that comparatively bloodless, but bloodless only because planned with consummate skill and judgment—campaign in Oude, which has ended in the entire re-establishment of peace in that country. With this brief sketch I shall proceed to mention the names of those officers in the military service who are named in the Vote, and who have taken a principal part in the operations I have alluded to. The name of Lord Clyde is one which half a century of military service has rendered familiar alike to Asia and to Europe. Whether we look to the remote period of the Peninsular campaign, or to earlier service in India itself, or to the campaigns in China of twenty years ago, or to that great Crimean contest in which on the English side no braver or better officer appeared; or whether we look to the services of the last eighteen months, we find everywhere the same personal daring, the same cool and cautious policy, the same energy, the same promptitude and the same decision in the public service. Lord Clyde, as we

1737
know, left England literally at a clay's notice to take part in this Indian war, and the rapidity and decision which he then evinced were only an earnest of the qualities which he displayed in every subsequent act, No soldier of that army can complain of his share of fatigue or exposure when he sees the Commander-in-Chief of India, nearly seventy years of age, sharing that fatigue, more than sharing that exposure, bearing in addition the undivided responsibility of an immense command, and, as happened only a few weeks ago, when struck down by an accident which would have disabled many a younger man, refusing to be laid up, refusing to allow himself the necessary time for rest and recovery, but still continuing to follow in a litter the march of his troops and to act as their chief. Everything I hear, everything I road, of the personal bearing of Lord Clyde in the field, identifies him in my mind with that young Lieutenant Campbell who forty-six years ago headed a storming party in the desperate and unsuccessful assault upon San Sebastian. How cautious has been his military policy, how economical of his soldiers' lives have been his campaigns the military history of this country will prove. I cannot but be struck with this fact—that in all the criticisms which are necessarily passed upon military affairs, I have never heard a single mistake or a single error in judgment attributed to Lord Clyde. The only adverse comment which I have heard upon his military policy has been the complaint of some that he has shown a tendency towards excessive caution, and has preferred to employ a large force where a small force would probably have sufficed. That is a line of conduct which may be justified, not only on the score of humanity, as anticipating resistance and preventing loss of life by an overwhelming display of force, but in India especially it may be justified on the score of policy also. In a country of that kind, where so much of your power depends, and necessarily depends, upon the opinion entertained of your power by the Natives, the moral effect of even a. single reverse can hardly be calculated and certainly is not to be measured by the mere material damage which it may occasion. Sir, I am only expressing the universal opinion when I say that the appointment of Lord Clyde to the chief command in India is an honour to the Minister who selected him. And here, perhaps, I may be permitted to refer to the career of that distinguished officer, in
1738
order to point out that whatever may be the defects inherent in our civil and military administration, those defects do not prevent men of humble social position, but of energy and talents, from rising without interest or influence to the highest and most important posts in the empire. Sir, the name which stands next on my list and which, if such distinctions are not invidious, yields in renown only to that of Lord Clyde, is the name of Sir Hugh Rose. Sir Hugh Rose commanded the force engaged in the campaign of Central India, and the services of the troops whom he led have been so clearly and distinctly described by himself that I think I cannot do better than read his own words. His force, he says, "marched 1,084 miles, took 150 pieces of cannon, took one entrenched camp, one fortified city, one partly entrenched town, fought sixteen successful actions, captured twenty forts, and never received a check." Sir, I think that plain and unadorned, and almost matter-of-fact description of results achieved shows an eloquence which Englishmen know how to appreciate—the eloquence of simplicity and of truth. English troops can do such things as are here described, but even English troops can only do these things if they have confidence in the general under whom they serve—if they know that their courage and discipline will not be wasted, and their lives thrown away by an error in judgment, by professional ignorance, or by any rash and hasty impulse of undisciplined courage. Sir, the campaign of Central India is in many respects one of the most memorable of late years. It was a campaign carried, as indeed almost all those carried in India have been, against great numerical odds. It was a campaign carried on during and through the hottest and worst season of the year, at a time when European troops are rarely called upon to act in the field. It was a campaign which involved a perpetual and unremitting series of marches, sieges, and battles, none of them operations in themselves of first-rate military importance, but collectively, as I imagine, constituting a far severer trial of the courage, discipline, and endurance of the troops engaged than could have been afforded by any single battle, or siege. The quality of personal courage is happily one for the exhibition of which no one thinks of praising an English officer or an English general; endurance is a quality which among Englishmen is almost as prevalent; but I nevertheless think it is impossible for

1739
any man to follow the incidents of the late campaign in India without being filled with admiration for the conduct of Sir Hugh Rose, struggling as he did not only against the enemy, but against the climate, struck down again and again by that terrible sun, often disabled but never giving up his command; encountering fatigue and suffering, and conquering physical weakness with that power which belongs only to a determined will. Sir, the services of Sir James Outram require, I imagine, no mention from me in order to become known to this House. We are all well aware how, in conjunction with Sir Henry Havelock, he penetrated into Lucknow with reinforcements in the month of September, 1857; how he took command of the garrison and remained there until relieved by Lord Clyde, in the month of November; how he held the isolated and exposed post of the Alumbagh until March, in the face of vast bodies of rebels whom he kept in check; and how he aided in the final capture of Lucknow. In maintaining the occupation of the Alumbagh, Sir James Outram rendered a service of not only great military, but of great political importance, because he thus proved to all India that the withdrawal of our troops from Lucknow was a withdrawal dictated merely by strategical reasons, and did not assume the aspect of an abandonment of that city. I shall simply add that Lord Clyde, in mentioning the name of Sir James Outram, speaks of "the brilliant and thoroughly complete manner in which he executed the duties intrusted to him." The next name on my list is, that of Major General Roberts, who commanded the Rajpootana field force, and who, on the 30th of March, made a successful assault on Kotah, taking fifty-six pieces of artillery. He also defeated a force of the Gwalior rebels on August 14th, with a loss of 1,000 men, and subsequently defeated another body of them at Sanganeer. He, in short, rendered most valuable service throughout the operations in Central India, and afforded the utmost assistance to Sir H. Rose. I come now to the name of Major General Whitlock, who, on the 10th of April, 1858, gained a victory over the rebels at Jughar, and on the 19th of the same mouth defeated the Nawab of Banda, on which occasion he took his palace, a fort, and thirteen guns. He also co-operated with Sir Hugh Rose throughout the recent operations in India. There is another name which has been rendered familiar to the
1740
people of this country in connection with the operations which took place at the siege of Delhi—I allude to that of Sir Archdale Wilson. I do not now propose to advert to those operations which were included in the former Vote of Thanks. But Sir Archdale Wilson was again employed in March, 1858, when he commanded the artillery at Lucknow, on which occasion, according to the testimony of Lord Clyde—a testimony I venture to quote on this occasion, because on a subject of this kind, professional eulogy naturally carries more weight with it than that of a person unskilled in military affairs—"he bore a conspicuous part in its reduction." Lord Clyde goes on to add—
"The merits of Sir A. Wilson are too widely known to gain anything from encomium by me, but I may be permitted to express my satisfaction at having been able to avail myself of the services of this distinguished officer. The effective fire of the artillery during the long operations that depended so much on the management of that arm elicited general admiration."
Sir Hope Grant, whose name I shall now mention, has perhaps been more constantly and actively engaged than any other officer who has taken a part in the suppression of the recent outbreak in India. He has, I believe, been mentioned more frequently than any other officer in despatches; always in the front, always in the post of difficulty, a complete narrative of the engagements in which he has taken part would in itself furnish a history not very imperfect of the whole of the operations of this war. Sir Hope Grant commanded a cavalry brigade at the siege of Delhi; led a column sent in pursuit of the enemy after the capture of that fortress in October, 1857; commanded a division at the relief of Lucknow in November, and at Cawnpore in the month of December of the same year. He also commanded a division at Lucknow in March, where, Lord Clyde said, he fully justified the expectations which had been formed of his high military qualities. He was again sent in pursuit of the rebels after the capture of Lucknow, and at Nawabgunj defeated a force of 16,000 of the enemy with a vastly inferior number, took nine guns, crossed the Goomtee, fought a battle on the Gogra, and on that occasion was complimented by Lord Clyde, who said that "he had given effect to his instructions in his usual brilliant manner." In his despatch, dated the 7th of January of this year, Lord Clyde adds:—

1741
"Sir Hope Grant's despatches during the last six months have told the story of the admirable part taken by him in this war. I cannot say too much in his praise. He has the rare merit of uniting the greatest boldness in action to a firm and correct judgment and the most scrupulous regard for his orders and instructions."
When an officer is thus mentioned in a despatch of his Commander-in-Chief I think I am justified in including his name in the vote to which I am now asking the House of Commons to assent. Next in order comes Sir W. Mansfield, who has filled an office which is comparatively new, I believe, in the military system of this country—that of Chief of the Staff. In that capacity he was—if I may be allowed to use the phrase—the right hand of the Commander-in-Chief, and the relations which subsisted between these two distinguished men furnish, I am glad to say, an instance, happily not rare in the profession of arms of professional co-operation, combined with personal friendship. Lord Clyde, in his despatch of the 16th of January last, adverting to the relief of Lucknow, writes as follows:—
"I cannot convey to your Lordship in adequate terms my deep sense of the obligations I am under to Major-General Mansfield for the very able and cordial assistance he has afforded me and the service during these operations, and how admirably the very many important duties belonging to his situation have been performed."
In December, 1857, Sir W. Mansfield commanded the division at Cawnpore, on which occasion his conduct also was highly praised; and in May, 1858, referring to the capture of Lucknow, Lord Clyde writes:—
"I have now the pleasing task of communicating to your Lordship the name of an officer to whom, not only I, as commanding general, but the service at large is under great obligations, Major-General Mansfield, Chief of the Staff, whose labours have been unceasing, whose abilities are of the highest order, and have been of the greatest use to me during this campaign. It is impossible for me to praise this officer too highly, or to re-commend him sufficiently to the protection of your Lordship and the Government."
Since that despatch was written Sir W. Mansfield has served through the last campaign in Oude. To the testimony of Lord Clyde, in reference to his services, I shall add only the simple expression of my belief that anybody who has the good fortune of knowing Sir W. Mansfield personally, in however slight a degree, will concur in the justice of that estimate of his abilities to which his Commander-in-Chief has given expression, and of which, in my opinion, he has formed no exaggerated estimate. I may now advert to the name of Sir T. Franks, who
1742
crossed the Gogra in command of a division to be present during the operations at the siege of Lucknow. Of that gallant officer Lord Clyde writes that his division was on the occasion in question "admirably commanded." His chief exploit was, however, the series of rapid and skilful manœuvres which ended in the defeat of separate bodies of insurgents in three different battles at Chanda, Ameerapora, and Sultanpore, within four days, several pieces of artillery being taken. Sir Edward Lugard also commanded a division at the capture of Lucknow, and received the high praise of the Commander-in-Chief. In the following April and May he commanded the Azimghur field force, by means of which a large tract of country was recovered which had up to that time remained in the hands of the insurgents. Lord Clyde speaks of "the skill he had displayed," and expresses admiration of the manner in which the troops under his charge had borne exposure and fatigue. Sir John Michel commanded the Mhow field force, and defeated Tantia Topee at Beowra, with a loss of twenty-seven guns, in addition to his camp and baggage. Since that time he has been employed—and I venture to say he has been most assiduous in the discharge of that very arduous and disagreeable, but necessary and important duty—in hunting down the detached and broken forces of the insurgents. I now come to Brigadier Walpole, who received the praise of the Commander in Chief for his conduct at Cawnpore. He commanded a division at Lucknow, which Lord Clyde mentions as having been "admirably managed," Since that time he has been in command of a field force in Rohilcund and Kumaon, which has been frequently engaged with the enemy and signally successful, and I think those whom I address will feel that in the case of an officer who has rendered good service to the country, and who has long and faithfully discharged his duties, the mere accident of a single reverse—such as may happen to any general, however able, and such as the ablest generals have not been ashamed to acknowledge—affords no good reason why Brigadier Walpole should not receive those thanks which his general conduct has deserved. I have now to mention, with rather more particularity, the valuable and effective services of Sir Robert Napier. He marched with Havelock and Outram to Lucknow upon the occasion of the first relief. He remained and defended the Re-

1743
sidency until the date of the final relief in November. The Commander-in-Chief writes:—
"The success of the troops has been in no small degree promoted by the incessant and self-denying devotion of Colonel Napier, who has never been absent many hours, by day or night, from any one of the points of operation; whose advice has ever been readily tendered and gratefully accepted by the executive officers, whose earnestness and kind cordiality have stimulated and encouraged all ranks and grades amidst their harassing difficulties and dangerous labours."
And again, upon a late occasion, referring to the part which Sir Robert Napier took in the capture of Lucknow, Lord Clyde says, "it is difficult to give an adequate idea of the zeal and activity he has displayed." Since then Sir Robert Napier has held command of the Gwalior district, and among other services he performed the singularly brilliant and successful act of defeating with an inferior force, consisting mainly of cavalry, a large body of the enemy on their retreat from the capture of Gwalior, from whom he took twenty-four pieces of artillery. I believe I have now gone through the list of officers whose names are included in the vote which I have to propose, and if I have dwelt at some length upon that which, from the impossibility of going fully into details, is little more than a dry enumeration of services performed. I hope the House will believe that I have done so in the performance of a duty to those officers whose names I have mentioned. I am anxious before I sit down to explain the principle upon which this vote has been framed. In these campaigns, in every rank of the service, instances of gallantry, devotion and military skill have not been rare; but it would be impossible to recognize all those instances separately and individually even were we only to take the cases of officers holding comparatively high and responsible positions. In the selection of names to be included in this vote it was felt that the least invidious course, and that sanctioned by precedent, would be to consider the military standing of the individuals and the operations in which they had been engaged. We have included all those who have commanded independent divisions and have been actively engaged in the field. There is another rule which has been laid down in preparing this vote to which I wish to advert, because it may explain the omission of names which some hon. Members might think ought to have been included. It has been thought right not to go back
1744
to the operations of 1857, that is to say, to those operations which were within the knowledge of the Government of the day when the last Vote of Thanks was proposed, because nothing could be more improper or unseemly than that one Government should in a matter of this kind undertake to revise and possibly to reverse the decision to which its predecessors had come. I mention this because there are one or two names which, but for the necessity of some limitation such as that I have referred to, I would gladly have included in the vote. I think the services which Sir Patrick Grant rendered in 1857 were deserving of public and even national acknowledgment. Sir Patrick Grant for a time held the chief command in India previous to the arrival of Sir Colin Campbell, but he has not been actively engaged in the field during any portion of the last year, and therefore, acting upon the rule we have laid down, we found it impossible, though with regret, to include his name. There is also Sir John Jones who commanded a division which entered Rohilcund, who has been omitted from a similar cause. Brigadier Chamberlain, too, is not mentioned; but I am assured on the highest authority that no man did more to organize and discipline the Punjab force. Sir Sidney Cotton again, though not engaged in any regular campaign upon a large scale, yet rendered most valuable and effective service in keeping peace upon the wild frontiers of Eusofzye. And now, Sir, having paid the tribute that is due to those who live, it is not fitting that we should pass away entirely from this subject without recognizing the services of the dead. Operations like those which have been carried on for the last eighteen months, could not be conducted without a great and lamentable loss of life, and unfortunately the loss to the public service in that respect is not one which can be measured by any numerical test, because it is always the best and bravest officers who rush to the front,—who volunteer for every service of danger or difficulty, who expose themselves to every risk, and among whom, therefore, there is necessarily a disproportionate loss of life. Among the many brave men who have fallen in these campaigns there are two whom, without exposing myself to the charge of invidious preference, I may be allowed especially to mention The first is Major Hodson, of the Guides, who, in his short but brilliant military career, displayed every qua-

1745
lity which a cavalry officer should possess. Nothing is more remarkable in glancing over the biography of Major Hodson that has just appeared than the variety of services in which he was engaged, unless it be the energy and versatility with which he turned from one to the other. At one time displaying his personal courage and skill as a swordsman in conflict with the Sikh fanatics; then transferred to the Civil Service, the duties of which he performed as though he had passed his whole life at the desk; afterwards recruiting and commanding the corps of Guides, and, lastly, taking part in the operations before Delhi, volunteering for every enterprise in which life could be hazarded or glory could be won; he crowded into the brief space of twelve eventful years the services and adventures of a long life. He died before the reward which he had earned could be received, but he attained that reward which doubtless he most coveted—the consciousness of duty nobly done, and the assurance of enduring military renown. Sir, the other officer to whom I shall refer, bore a name the mention of which which will always be received with feelings of special and individual interest by Members of this House. No words of mine can add to the glory attaching to the short but noble career of Sir William Peel. He bore a name which is inseparably connected with the Parliamentary history of this country, and it was with feelings I may almost say of personal pride and of personal sorrow that we, who sit in this assembly, received the news of his glorious achievements and of his untimely end. For his own reputation, indeed, he had lived long enough; no future acts could have enhanced his fame. It is England, it is the people of this country that have to deplore his loss. The last Resolution which I propose is one which I am sure needs no words of mine to recommend it—I mean the Resolution acknowledging the valour, self-devotion and brilliant services of the non-commissioned officers and private soldiers, both European and Native, who have taken part in the suppression of the Indian mutiny. Never was British courage more nobly displayed, never was greater energy or endurance shown, and never were they more needed. In order to prevent any misapprehension, I propose to add words to the Resolution which—as was my intention by the original terms—will include the petty officers, seamen, and marines, serving in India. I believe, Sir, if the
1746
people of the country pay, as they do, one and all, rich and poor, respect to the courage and endurance of our troops in India, it is not merely in consideration of the results which that courage and endurance have produced. It is not merely because we owe to them the restoration of our power, the enhancement of our military reputation, but it is from other and different reasons. It is because we feel that the qualities of courage and endurance which have been so singularly displayed in this war are qualities which he at the very root of our national character, and that if those qualities should cease to form a part of our national character, not only our military power, not only our possessions abroad would be endangered, but the honour, the independence, the safety, nay, the very existence of this great and world-wide empire, would no longer be secure for a single day. Without further comment, Sir, but with regret that I have detained the House so long, I beg to move the Resolutions which I have placed in your hand.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.—Sir, in rising to second the Motion of the noble Lord opposite, I do not hope, nor will I attempt to add anything to those glowing and manifestly heartfelt commendations which the noble Lord has bestowed, in the speech which I am sure we have all listened to with the utmost sympathy and admiration, upon the distinguished men, civil, military, and naval, who are the subjects of the vote which he has proposed. But I cannot refrain from asking permission of the House to have the honour of coupling my name with the tribute of gratitude and respect which the noble Lord has now proposed that we shall offer to the persons who are the subjects of the Resolution. Sir, the occasion upon which we are now assembled is one of those bright periods which from time to time occur amidst the hostile conflicts of party politics in this House. There are occasions on which this House, forgeting all that party strife which is incident to the working of our constitution, and remembering only that it is the representation of the nation which sent us here, unites in offering a tribute of honour and gratitude to those men who have the good fortune to perform great services for their country; and those occasions are not only gratifying and honourable to the members of this House, but they are occasions on which this House becomes more than ever the organ and expression of the feelings of

1747
the nation. There never, perhaps, was an occasion more deserving of an expression of the Thanks of Parliament and of this country than that which we are now commemorating; for I may say, without fear of contradiction, that the great struggle in India which has been brought to a happy termination is one of the most remarkable events in the history not only of this country, but of any country that ever existed in the world. There never was an occasion on which a danger of such immense and fearful import broke out so unexpectedly among the authorities of a country; there never was an occasion in which a great danger was faced with more wonderful fertility of resource, and overcome with more complete success. The noble Lord opposite has so eloquently and so well dealt out to each of the persons mentioned in this vote the appropriate terms of praise belonging to their respective functions that it would be almost impertinent in me to attempt to add to the commendation he has bestowed on them. But it is impossible for me not to concur in those well-merited praises which he has apportioned to Viscount Canning, the Governor General. He has well said there never was a man placed in a more difficult position, or one who has shown greater resource and greater courage in facing danger, greater moderation in the use of success, greater spirit and daring, greater firmness in peril, and greater humanity towards those whom he was compelled by necessity to resist. We had the satisfaction of advising the Crown to confer on Lord Canning that high and important command which he has so well held, and undoubtedly we cannot but feel some gratification in thinking that the advice we gave to the Sovereign on that occasion has been attended with such happy results. Sir, with regard to Lord Elphinstone, whom also I have the honour of claiming as my friend, the noble Lord has paid a just tribute to the ability and energy which that noble Lord has displayed during the administration of his separate Presidency. It is needless for me to attempt to add to the just praises which have been bestowed upon that most eminent and distinguished public servant, Sir John Lawrence, and those other civilians whom the noble Lord has mentioned. But with regard to Lord Clyde and Sir Hugh Rose, two officers whose eminent services the noble Lord has so well sketched out, I certainly was thankful to the noble Lord for the manner in which he alluded to the
1748
circumstance of their having been appointed by the late Government. I must say, however, in justice to the illustrious person who now holds the office of Commander-in-Chief, that in all those appointments his Royal Highness was consulted by and cooperated with Her Majesty's late Government. Undoubtedly it is not too much to say of Lord Clyde that he has shown all the great qualities which combine to make a great military commander—courage, ability, skill, discretion, care for his soldiers, the power of combining movements, personal endurance, and contempt of danger; in short, there is not a quality which goes to constitute a great military commander that Lord Clyde has not bad an opportunity of showing in the distinguished part helms been called on to play. I am glad that his health has not materially or permanently suffered by the exertions and dangers he has undergone, and I trust when his period of service is over he may return in the possession of all his natural vigour to receive that honourable welcome which a grateful country owes him. With regard to Sir Hugh Rose, I had the good fortune to place him many years ago in the position in which he gave that promise of distinction which he has since so amply fulfilled. In every position of command in which Sir Hugh Rose had previously been placed, whether in Egypt, Syria, or the Crimea, he showed that he possessed those qualities which he has since had an opportunity of more fully developing, and in the development of which he has so justly entitled himself to the honour and thanks of this House. I could not hope to add anything to the tribute bestowed by the noble Lord on Sir James Outram and those other persons whom he has mentioned; but, with regard to Sir Hope Grant, we may trust one day to see adorning the walls of our National Gallery some record of his distinguished exploits from the hands of the eminent artist who is his near relation in this country. I should be trespassing too far on the indulgence of the House by going into details to which the noble Lord has adverted with so much good taste and feeling. So far from thinking the noble Lord exceeded the proper limits connected with the task he had to perform, I am sure, from the manner in which he stated what he had to state, if he had not thought it wrong to intrude further on the attention of the House, his natural feelings would even have prompted him to add still further to the well-merited testimony which he has

1749
borne to the services of these distinguished men. It is needless to say of any of our English soldiers and sailors that wherever they may be they are sure to perform their duty to their country with all the courage, perseverance, and ability which have uniformly characterized their distinguished services. I should say in passing that the noble Lord very handsomely mentioned the services of certain officers who had not been included in the vote which we proposed when in office, and whom, therefore, he thought the present Government were debarred from including in the vote they now propose, because their services had not been performed subsequently to the date of that Vote of Thanks. I ought in justice to those officers to say that the late Government deemed themselves bound, by certain rules and the practice of Parliament, to select only those officers they enumerated in their Resolution, and that if we had had merely to look for those meritorious officers whose services entitled them to that distinction the list would not have been so limited; but the ordinary rules observed in those matters compelled us to confine ourselves to those who held a particular position and whose services had been of a particular nature. I was about to say, Sir, that there is one class of British subjects in India whom it is not possible to include in a Vote of Thanks of this kind, but whose courage and conduct are not undeserving of mention in this House. I allude, Sir, to the great number of civilians who are scattered over the whole of India. I am reminded by an hon. Friend behind me that allusion was made to them in our last vote. But, Sir, I allude not only to men but to women, who were exposed to the greatest perils and dangers, and whose conduct throughout the entire crisis was of the most heroic character. We have frequently seen records of endurance on the part of persons who have gone forth to explore distant countries, who have traversed deserts, who have been exposed to the privations of famine and to the dangers arising from hostile and wild tribes; we have read of the sufferings of shipwrecked crews who have undergone difficulties which it was hardly possible to suppose human nature could endure; and we have all of us perused the records of great battles by sea and land, and read of the skill of commanders and the bravery of the men serving under them; in all those cases, however, it was either an individual effort of courage and endurance that was manifested, or it was a great action per-
1750
formed by men trained to that particular service, whose minds were prepared for the dangers they had to endure, and who were supplied with all the means and appliances by which those dangers could be resisted. But in India we saw thousands of British subjects, scattered in handfuls over immense tracts of country, and placed there for purposes of administration, of commerce, or of agriculture, unprepared to encounter difficulties involving the necessity of fighting for their lives and their property. We have seen those people suddenly overwhelmed by a hurricane for which they were totally unprepared, but—to use the language of M. Montalembert in his recent eloquent work—"every one fighting, and every one resisting." I say that was a spectacle in the highest degree worthy of the national character, bringing out, as it did, in the strongest and boldest relief, individually and personally, in both men and women, those qualities of mind and determination which I trust will ever distinguish the nation to which we have the happiness and honour to belong. Those who had to defend themselves at the shortest possible notice have fought in a manner worthy of the most heroic ages, while those whose lot it was to be overwhelmed met their fate with a dignity and firmness which were as honourable as the victories achieved by others. Both sexes of our fellow country people have equally distinguished themselves, and we cannot too constantly bear in mind their heroic actions, because they are an honour to the country to which we belong, and must tend to raise it to a high point in the estimation and respect of all the nations of the world. I have only to add, in conclusion, that I cordially concur, as I am sure the House will do, in the vote which the noble Lord has proposed, and that I gladly acknowledge the very handsome and eloquent manner in which the noble Lord has discharged his duty upon the present occasion.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he rose to offer his hearty acknowledgments to the Secretary for India for his very able and judicious speech. No honour was more appreciated by the naval and military services than the Thanks of the House of Commons, and he rejoiced that on the present occasion the vote had been proposed in such handsome and eloquent terms. The noble Lord clearly manifested that he at least did not regard this duty as a mere ceremony: he looked upon it, as it was, as a matter of high importance. He

1751
had observed the strictest equity in his statements; but it was to be regretted that no precedent existed for including in the Vote of Thanks itself, as well as in the speech of the noble Lord, the names of the distinguished persons who had fallen in India. He (Sir De Lacy Evans) most cordially concurred in the praise bestowed on that excellent sailor—that excellent soldier—Sir William Peel. He would not further detain the House than by requesting the Government to consider the propriety of erecting a monument to those noble individuals.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, perhaps I may be allowed the privilege of adding my voice to the Vote of Thanks which has been proposed in such eloquent terms by the noble Lord opposite. I was delighted to hear him speak of the merits and services of those officers who, from the Governor General downward, have distinguished themselves in India, and are mentioned in the vote he has proposed to the House. I certainly shall not pretend to follow him in detailing the deserving conduct of those officers, but shall content myself by saying that in the aggregate there were never greater services performed than those which have been rendered by our civil and military officers who had to meet and resist the dangers of the Indian mutiny. There never was a greater danger, and there never was a more complete sucsess. The dangers we had to encounter, and the successes we achieved in former times in India, from the time of Clive down, great and important as they were, become in a manner insignificant when compared with our recent trials and our recent triumphs. In former times we had to meet the Native forces equipped only with their own arms, adopting only their own mode of campaign, and acting upon defective military science; but in this mutiny we have had to encounter a trained and an immense force, armed and disciplined by ourselves—an arrow feathered from our own wing—and those who have overcome the danger have earned for themselves imperishable glory. Whether we look to the conduct of our troops when acting upon the offensive or defensive—whether we look at the aggressive operations at Delhi, or the marvellous defence of Lucknow—in every part we meet with the greatest courage, endurance, and devotion on the part both of officers and men. Sir, I should not have risen on this occasion if it were not for one thing not
1752
mentioned in the vote—not that I find fault with the noble Lord for the omission of it, but while the maintenance of our empire in India is one of the greatest difficulty, we ought, I think, to feel thankful that during the chief heat of the insurrection we have had the assistance of the most eminent and illustrious of the Native Princes—I would especially name Holkar, Scindiah, and the Nizam. The greatest honour is, I think, due to them for their fidelity, and the utmost readiness with which they afforded to our men, in the moment of their danger and surprise, every assistance in their power. They sorrowed for our losses, they rejoiced at our triumphs, and we owe them our thanks for their sympathy and support. I mention this the rather because, while we have every reason to rejoice at our triumphs, I remember that on the occasion of the former vote the noble Lord pointed to a truth, and told us in most forcible terms, that while we ought to rejoice in the victories of our countrymen, there was a danger lest those who had achieved them might show a want of consideration and kindness to those who belonged to a different race. I thought the suggestion of the noble Lord a very wise one; and I rejoice to find that every means were taken to avert the danger to which he then referred. It is said by Lord Metcalfe, in one of those admirable letters of his, that our empire in India is not wholly an empire of force, or wholly an empire of opinion, but is one of a mixed power of force and opinion. I trust that those duties which are incumbent on the noble Lord, and which he has shown himself so competent to fulfil, will continue to be performed in such a manner that we shall have to rejoice not merely at military and naval triumphs, but at the fact that those who are in command in India have earned for themselves the affections of the Natives, and that our empire of opinion has become as strong and as lasting as our empire of force.
MR. VERNON SMITH: Sir, although it may appear some what presumptuous in me to think that I can add anything to the. speeches which we have just heard, yet I hope the House, considering the position which I filled in the councils of the country during the great part of the mutiny in India, will allow me, in a few short sentences, to express my cordial concurrence me in the Vote of Thanks which the noble Lord has proposed. During the whole of

1753
the anxious autumn of 1857, one of my chief consolations was the confidence which I could repose in the great and illustrious men of whom the noble Lord has spoken in such eloquent terms. When every heart was throbbing with anxiety in England, and even the most sanguine entertained fears for the safety of our Indian empire, what a consolation was it to reflect that we had in the East such men as Canning, Outram, Grant, Mansfield, and the others whose names are included in the Vote of Thanks! I rejoice that the noble Lord has added fresh names to those which we brought before the House last year, but I regret that, following, as he says, our example, he has not introduced the name of Sir Patrick Grant. The reason why Sir Patrick Grant was not mentioned in the Vote of Thanks which we proposed last year was that he had not been immediately engaged in any of those actions which we were then commemorating; but at the close of the mutiny I think his name ought to be included. My reason for saying this is so much the stronger, because I had the good fortune to appoint him to the command of Madras, and that was the first occasion on which an Indian officer was appointed to so great a command in the Presidences. I know that that circumstance had a great effect on that service. The name of Grant was hailed with acclamations by the Directors of the East India Company when it was mentioned for the appointment, and the appointment was acknowledged to be a fit one by the Commander-in-Chief at the Horse Guards, and by the Crown. But the noble Lord the Secretary for India is correct in his statement that that officer's name was not included in the Vote of Thanks before, and therefore it is that it is not included on the present occasion. There is another name not so generally known in England, but known to me from the opportunities I had of becoming acquainted with it—I allude to Major-General Roberts. He is known through the Bombay army as one of the best officers in that service and his achievements, as described by the noble Lord the Secretary for India, have been of invaluable service. The noble Lord having detailed the whole proceedings, having given such generous praise to every one concerned, and made so brilliant a speech, all I can do is to add general applause to the approbation he has bestowed on specific cases. It is a great pride for this country that all classes when called on to exert
1754
themselves in such operations, exhibit themselves fitted for the occasion. The noble Lord's first Resolution applies more particularly to those who had the duty of presiding over the acts of others than to those who were themselves actors in these achievements. Among these, and at the head of them, of course stands the Governor General of India. I think that the country has a right to be proud of that great statesman Viscount Canning. I recollect the dinner given to him on his going out to take the government of India, and he then expressed a hope that everything would be peaceful during his reign; and although he could not be expected to foresee everything still he did foresee somewhat, for he added, that if we should not continue at peace, we ought to deserve it by exercising good faith towards the Native and subsidiary States; and then if peace should unfortunately be broken, we should be prepared with a good conscience to strike the blow, and it would be a blow struck with such effect that the struggle would be short. Viscount Canning has entirely acted up to everything he stated on that occasion. I am not inclined to allude on the present occasion to any bygone circumstances, but as regards Viscount Canning, it is part of his eulogy that during his tenure of office he was vehemently and unscrupulously assailed, and that he met the anger and abuse of persons in his own country with the same calmness and resolution with which he opposed the revolt and insurrection in India. The noble Lord stood forth an example of moderation and firmness, because in all cases he resisted both extremes by his courage and constancy; and an eloquent tribute has been rendered to his courage and conduct in that respect by the Secretary for India. It will be recollected that he deliberately put aside the advice tendered him even by such authorities as Sir John Lawrence and Sir Archdale Wilson, to treat with the King of Delhi during the insurrection, and at the same time he refused to listen to the council of many persons, who, in their alarm, urged him to act with greater severity towards the unfortunate inhabitants of India. It is the praise of Viscount Canning that he never forgot to look to the hereafter of that great country over which he presided. He acted indeed with vigour, but he was also determined not to stain the annals of his reign with such severity as would afterwards make the name of Eng-

1755
land odious and detestable. The noble Lord the Secretary for India had eulogized with great propriety the conduct of Lord Elphinstone. Few people know what resources that noble Lord displayed on the first outbreak of the rebellion. It was to him that we were mainly indebted for securing the earliest supply of troops from the Cape and Ceylon. He took upon himself every responsibility, denuding his Presidency almost entirely of troops to give them to the service of Bengal. There was no act of responsibility which he shrunk from during that most eventful period. The noble Lord had accounted for the omission of the name of Lord Harris from the Resolution. True, he was an Administrator, and during the whole course of the time very little took place in the Presidency of Madras which called for military energy and decision in the suppression of mutiny; but Lord Harris was not wanting in any quality which his position required, and for that reason he was included in the vote of 1858. The Secretary for India had spoken so handsomely in his praise this evening that I hope that speech will compensate Lord Harris for any dissatisfaction he might feel at finding his name omitted. It would be idle to attempt to speak in terms of greater approbation than the whole nation feel for Sir John Lawrence. He is now among us to contribute his powerful aid to the council of the noble Lord, and I am certain that England will meet with acclamation the man who saved for her the whole district of the Punjab in one of the most difficult positions in which a man could be placed, while at the same time he tendered excellent counsel to the Council and Governor General. In speaking of those who survive, we must not altogether forget the mighty dead. I believe that no man took a better part in Indian Administration than Sir Henry Lawrence. He fell early, and his loss was much to be deplored, for there was no man who stood higher through his writings and his books than Sir Henry Lawrence. Death closes, or ought to close, the lips against the failings of eminent servants of the public; but there is no reason why the mouth should not open in praise of the departed. His death, therefore, allows me to open my lips to speak of facts, which discretion or the fear of the jealousy of contemporaries might prevent me disclosing in his lifetime. I think I may now be allowed to state publicly what is generally known to the friends of Sir Henry Law-
1756
rence. In the early period of the outbreak of the melancholy mutiny, when battle was striking down many military men, and when disease was destroying some of the wisest and best councillors of India, it occurred to the Government that it was possible that some illness might attack or death seize upon the Governor General. It then became my duty to look out for a person who in such an event should take the place of Viscount Canning; and, with the entire consent of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, then Prime Minister, I fixed on Sir Henry Lawrence. That appointment of provisional Governor General, was accepted at once by the East India Directors, who knew the services of Sir Henry Lawrence, and was also fully approved of by Her Majesty the Queen. I feel it right to state this as due to the memory of that great man, because it shows that the position he achieved for himself, unaided by anything but his own merits, was fully recognized by his masters, the East India Directors and by the Sovereign. The noble Lord the Secretary for India has mentioned the name of Mr. Frere. No man stands higher in India in reputation than the Governor of Scinde. Among many circumstances which are so satisfactory in the power of offering thanks to the great men who achieved such remarkable success there is one feature certainly of dissatisfaction, which is this—that we praised the prominent men who suppressed the revolts and insurrection, but are almost necessarily obliged to be silent on the merits of those who preserved a province where no insurrection or revolt took place. I am therefore glad to see introduced into the Resolution the name of Mr. Frere. He, together with General Jacob, preserved that province almost without troops, and mainly, I believe, by the authority and terror of—among the troops the affection for—General Jacob. General Jacob has gone from among us: but he has left in his writings sufficient to show what wonders the determination of one resolute will may achieve over the minds of other men, particularly the European mind over the Natives. I believe it was entirely owing to the discipline of the troops in Scinde that not one of them stirred when the rest of the Native army were up in revolt. I am also glad to find the name of Sir R. Hamilton mentioned in the Vote of Thanks. He became thoroughly cognizant of the habits of the Natives and acquired great dominion over their minds, and it was very

1757
much owing to him that Holkar and other Native Princes took no active part in the late insurrection. The noble Lord the Secretary for India has paid a tribute of eulogy to Colonel Davidson, and Major Macpherson is also entitled to much praise. He contrived, by management of which we have as yet 110 knowledge, to prevent the Gwalior Contingent, after they revolted, from joining the other insurgents during two or three of the most perilous months of the year; and to him was much to be attributed the maintenance of tranquillity in that part of India at a period when insurrection and attack might have proved most injurious. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton has alluded slightly to the omission of civilians from the vote. I imagine the noble Lord's (Lord Stanley) reason for omitting their names is, that since the Thanks of this House were voted to them in 1858 they have had no opportunity of exhibiting such remarkable energy and courage as they had displayed previously. They are a body of men to whom it is impossible for any one who has been connected with the affairs of India to hesitate to pay the highest tribute of admiration; but they have abundant work before them hereafter, which will be more congenial with their character and occupation. I trust that, although their names are omitted from this vote, they will be aware that the country looks forward with the expectation that they will show as much diligence, activity, and determination in the reform of Indian Institutions and in the economy of Indian expenditure as they have exhibited in the preservation of the British empire in India. I beg to express to the noble Lord the Secretary for India the sincere pleasure with which I have listened to his speech, which I am sure will find a most cordial response in the feelings of this House.
COLONEL NORTHsaid he begged to add his tribute of thanks for the services of those distinguished men whose names were mentioned in the Resolutions of the noble Lord. He, thought it was a most important and fortunate circumstance that there should have been at the head of the Government of India when the mutiny broke out a nobleman like Viscount Canning, in the prime of life, full of energy, activity, and courage, and possessed of those qualifications which rendered him especially fitting to meet the difficulties by which he was surrounded. He (Colonel North) believed that since the world began no man was over placed in so
1758
awful a position. Without the slightest warning, without the least apprehension, a most gigantic mutiny broke out, and when his noble Friend turned for support to those regiments which had previously maintained the highest character for loyalty and discipline, and which Sir Charles Napier had described as constituting one of the finest armies in the world, he found he had to rest upon rotten reeds and that the most distinguished regiments were in fact the most mutinous. If under those circumstances his noble friend had committed errors, they at least ought to have been viewed with the greatest lenity; but instead of committing errors, from the moment of the outbreak to the present time his noble Friend had shown the greatest activity, the greatest discretion, the greatest courage, and the greatest humanity. With the assistance of that glorious old soldier, his noble and gallant Friend Lord Clyde, backed by the invincible army under his command, he had secured the safety of our empire and upheld the honour of the British name in India. Recent events had certainly entailed great losses upon this country; at the same time they had given an opportunity for the display, perhaps more conspicuously than on any former occasion, of those high qualities which pertained to the English character. Courage and devotion in their country's cause had not been confined to the military and naval service or to the sterner sex alone, and at no period had the courage and devotion of all classes of our countrymen been more strongly exhibited than during the last two years in India. Perhaps the House could not mark publicly their admiration of this conduct, but they had every reason, and he believed they would be happy, to testify the deep admiration they felt at the manner in which their countrymen and countrywomen in India had conducted themselves on so many occasions, under circumstances which might have appalled the stoutest heart. He was extremely pleased at the terms in which the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith) had alluded to the name of Sir Patrick Grant. He (Colonel North) had given notice to the noble Lord the Secretary for India that he should move an Amendment on this occasion in order that the name of Sir Patrick Grant might be added to the list of distinguished officers contained in the vote. He had not the honour of Sir Patrick Grant's acquaintance, but from the inquiries which he had made amongst Indian officers, and officers

1759
in the Queen's service, he found that there was but one opinion entertained—namely, that of the many distinguished officers which the East India Company had produced there was none more distinguished than Sir Patrick Grant. He knew that the gallant General had felt hurt at his name having been omitted from the Vote of Thanks on a former occasion; but he was confident, from the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith) had spoken of his services—and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had on all occasions shown himself jealous of the honour of English officers—that that omission was entirely accidental; and he lamented that by the rules of the House the name of Sir Patrick Grant could not be added to the present vote. It would be gratifying to the gallant officer, no doubt, to hear the individual opinions which had been expressed by the Ministers of the day; but all must feel that, flattering as those opinions might be, they could in no way be compared to a Vote of Thanks on the part of the House. Still, after the terms in which the noble Lord the Secretary for India and the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of Sir Patrick Grant, and feeling how advantageous and desirable it was that these votes should be carried unanimously, he (Colonel North) would not move the addition of which he had given notice. One further remark he would make. Perhaps the House was not aware that, upon the receipt of the intelligence of General Anson's death, his noble Friend Viscount Canning telegraphed to Madras, and ordered Sir Patrick Grant to repair at once to Calcutta, That gallant officer immediately gave up the command of the Madras army, and in two or three days left for Calcutta, where he organized that illustrious column which, under the command of the distinguished and lamented Havelock, performed such eminent services for their country. It was at his suggestion also that the Naval Brigade was formed; and he believed, further, that the preparations made by Sir Patrick Grant enabled Lord Clyde to take the field with such success on his arrival in India. Having made these observations he should content himself by saying it was not his intention to press his Amendment.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that while agreeing cordially in nearly all the observations of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), he must express his regret that it was thought necessary to adhere so strictly to prece-
1760
dent as to omit from the vote the names of many men who had rendered valuable services to the country. The noble Lord had said that the vote was confined to officers who had distinguished themselves in general action; but many officers had rendered inestimable service by maintaining tranquillity on the frontier. Sir Sidney Cotton and Colonel Edwardes, by days of toil and nights of anxiety, by firmness, wisdom, and conciliation, preserved perfect tranquillity at Peshawur, where they not only had to contend with the wild tribes of the frontier, but to hold in check with a very small European force five regiments of mutinous Sepoys. Yet these men, who deserved the deepest gratitude, were, in consequence of strict adherence to precedent, precluded from having their names mentioned in the vote of that House. There were at present in this country the only two surviving officers who escaped from the dreadful massacre at Cawnpore—Captain Thomson and Lieutenant Delafosse; yet, although they had served throughout the whole of Havelock's campaign, they had received no mark of distinction, and he thought they were entitled to some recognition of their services.
MR. W. VANSITTARTsaid, he was anxious to bring under the consideration of the noble Lord and the House one who had rendered great and important services to the English Government during the past five years. Whether it was competent to include the potentate in question in this Vote of Thanks he knew not, but his object would be partially gained by availing himself of this opportunity of bringing his name prominently forward, in the hope of his obtaining that expression of praise and public gratitude which he had so honourably earned. He alluded to Mohamed Said, the present Pasha of Egypt. It was probably in the recollection of hon. Members that during the Crimean war the want of cavalry was much felt, and that Her Majesty's 10th Hussars and the 12th Lancers were accordingly ordered to proceed by the overland route from India to the Crimea. The present Pasha not only forwarded these two splendid regiments, nearly 1600 strong, through his territories from Suez to Alexandria, at his own expense, but during their detention at Cairo he entertained the officers and men in a most hospitable manner. In 1857–8 he rendered every possible assistance in forwarding our troops through his territories, from Alexandria to Suez, in considerable

1761
numbers; he had not the return on the subject to refer to, but he believed be was correct in saying not less than 10,000 men; and so admirable were the Pasha's arrangements, that they were much more than sufficient to meet our requirements. His Highness had constructed, at his own expense, a railway across the Isthmus of Suez, which not only contributed very much to the convenience and comfort of oar passengers, but was of great importance to our traffic with the East by this route; and he had afforded and continued to afford the greatest possible facilities to all their important traffic. No public thanks, no decoration, and no honour of any description had been accorded to the Pasha by our Government, although few of our allies deserved more at our hands; while at the same time he had been decorated by nearly all—certainly by most—of the other European Powers, none of whom participated, beyond a mere fractional degree, in the benefits which had been secured to us by his active and continuous efforts to meet our wishes. Under these circumstances he hoped that the noble Lord and the House would excuse the liberty he had taken in availing himself of this opportunity to introduce the name and services of Mohamed Said, the present Pacha of Egypt.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that if any doubt could have been thrown upon the value of the thanks of this House that doubt must have been removed by the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary for India, than which he felt sure that nothing could be more eloquent or more acceptable to the service, nor was it his intention to detract in the least degree from the unanimity with which it had been received. It was not the least, however, of the privileges enjoyed by a professional man who had the honour of a seat in that House that he had it in his power, when requested, to defend an absent officer, should that officer's character be at any time called in question. Now, there was one officer to whom he must be allowed to refer on the present occasion because, in the course of the mutiny, he had been grossly blamed, even, by civilians in the service of the East India Company. He alluded to Major General Johnstone, who had commanded at Jallundur. It had been said that that gallant officer neglected his duty, and this had been stated in terms that were even coarse. General Johnstone referred the whole matter to the Commander-in-Chief,
1762
and in justice to his character he (General Codrington) would read in a few words what was the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief on the gallant officer's conduct. Lord Clyde's judgment was this:—
"It is evident that he was impressed with a strong sense of duty, and acted to the best of his ability; his military character, therefore, stands out clear and unsullied after this inquiry, and the utmost that he can be accused of is an error in judgment in one particular, and the Commander-in-Chief conceives that atonement is due to him."
He (General Codrington) referred to this matter, because the feeling against General Johnstone was at the time very strong in India, and he suffered a great deal in consequence. He trusted, however, that the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, which he had just read, would altogether exonerate the gallant officer from blame. Another officer who had been hardly treated was Major-General Windham. He had been excluded from the thanks of Parliament on the last occasion; but if Lord Clyde's second despatch, with reference to the engagement at Cawnpore, had come home before that vote had been proposed there could be no doubt that that exclusion would not have occurred, and General Windham would have shared in that honour. On the subject of these actions at Cawnpore Sir Colin Campbell wrote, on December 20, that there was an omission which he had to regret in his despatch of the 2nd, and he begged then to repair it. He desired to make his acknowledgment of the great difficulties in which General Windham was placed in the operations described in that officer's despatch, and to recommend him, and the officers under him, to the protection and good offices of the Governor General. Viscount Canning accordingly, in a general order, stated that General Windham's reputation, as a leader of conspicuous bravery and coolness, would have lost nothing from an accidental omission, such as Sir Colin Campbell had occasion to regret, and the Governor-General had felt it his duty to bring under the notice of the Government in England the difficulties with which General Windham and the officers and troops under his command had to contend. When blame had been thrown upon officers, and the real facts were afterwards stated by the Commander-in-Chief, it was only fit that their exculpation should be as publicly known as the statements in which their conduct had been impugned. Nothing could be more true, and more eloquent because true, than the terms in which the

1763
noble Lord had proposed the thanks of that House to the civilians who had so eminently deserved them, and to the military officers who had done so much for their country. The Commander-in-Chief was worthy of all the honours he had received, and it was to be hoped that Lord Clyde would come home in good health to enjoy them.
The first three Resolutions were then put and agreed to.
Upon the fourth Resolution.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that as an old Sepoy officer—and he took pride in the appellation—he deemed it his duty to call the attention of the House to the peculiar circumstances in which the native army of India had been placed during the recent lamented disturbances. He wished the noble Lord had thought it consistent with his duty to mention specifically in this Vote those portions of the armies of Madras and Bombay which had taken so distinguished a part in the suppression of the mutiny. When it was remembered that the Madias force possessed a large infusion of the class of men who constituted the Bengal army, and that the Bombay army contained two-fifths, if not one-half of the same class from the same localities—when it was remembered, too, that the Bengal army was in constant communication with these men, using every possible effort to induce the Madras and Bombay Sepoys to swerve from their duty—it would, he thought, be conceded that native troops had never been exposed to so severe an ordeal, in spite of which they had stood fast to their allegiance, and had manifested in the strongest possible manner their devotion to British interests in India. Those very troops which had done such good service on the frontiers of Madras and Bundelcund under Generals Rose and Roberts, who had been so much and so deservedly eulogized by the noble Lord, had been forwarded to their destination owing to the energy, zeal, and prudence of the Governor of Madras and the Commander-in-Chief in that province. The Bombay Infantry had been justly eulogized, and, he might add, with respect to the cavalry, which consisted of three regiments, that the first, which was composed of Brahmins, Rajpoots, and high-class Mussulmans, had vigorously charged a brigade of mutineers furnished with guns at Neemuch, and had been driven back with desperate loss. The second regiment had been in the field since August, exposed to every kind of privation, and he had re-
1764
ceived a letter in which it was stated that the Sepoys had marched 166 miles in four days, with only the firmament for their canopy and the ground for their bed, and yet that a murmur had not escaped their lips. The 3rd Bombay Regiment of Cavalry had been in the field ever since the time of the Persian war, and had taken part in the actions which had been enumerated by the noble Lord the Secretary for India, and yet as he had been informed by its commanding officer now in this country on sick leave it had not lost a single man by desertion. Were not those proofs, he would ask, that reliance might be placed on the fidelity of a Sepoy army? Did those facts justify us in placing no confidence in those men for the future? There ought to be no hesitation to the answer which should be given to that inquiry, and he must, before he sat down, express a hope that the Government would act upon the policy of displaying for the future confidence in the fidelity of the native troops, and thereby enable this country to rule India with such an European force as might save her finances from utter ruin.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
"That the Thanks of this House be given to the Right honourable Charles John Viscount Canning, G.C.B., Her Majesty's Viceroy and Governor General of India; the Right honourable John Lord Elphinstone, G.C.B., Governor of the Presidency of Bombay; Sir John Laird Mair Lawrence, baronet, G.C.B., late Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab; Sir Robert North Collie Hamilton, baronet, Agent to the Governor General in Central India; Henry Bartle Edward Frere, esquire, Commissioner of Scinde; and Robert Montgomery, esquire, late Chief Commissioner in Oude,—for the ability with which they have severally employed the resources at their disposal for the re-establishment of Peace in Her Majesty's Indian Dominions."
Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
"That the Thanks of this House be given to General the Right honourable Lord Clyde, G.C.B., Commander-in- Chief in India; Lieutenant General Sir James Outrun, baronet, G.C.B.; Major General Sir Hugh Henry Rose, G.C.B.; Major General Henry Gee Roberts; Major General George Cornish Whitlock; Major General Sir Archdale Wilson, baronet, K.C.B.; Major General Sir James Hope Grant, K.C.B.; Major General Sir William Rose Mansfield, K.C.B.; Major General Sir 'Thomas Harte Franks, K.C.B.; Major General Sir Edward Lugard, K.C.B.; Major General Sir John Michel, K.C.B.; Brigadier General Robert Walpole, C.B.; Brigadier General Sir Robert Napier, K.C.B.; and Captain Edward Sotheby, R.N., C.B., for the eminent skill, courage, and perseverance displayed by them during the Military Operations by which the late Insurrection in India has been effectually suppressed.
Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
"That the Thanks of this House be given to the other gallant Officers of Her Majesty's Army and Navy, and also of Her Majesty's Indian Forces, for the intrepidity, zeal, and endurance evinced by thorn in the arduous operations of the late Indian Campaign."
Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
"That this House doth highly approve and acknowledge the valour, self-devotion, and brilliant services of the Non-Commissioned Officers and Private Soldiers, both European and Native, and of the Petty Officers and Seamen and Non-Commissioned Officers and Marines, who have taken part in the suppression of the recent disturbances in India; 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.
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."

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that during the discussion which had just terminated he had received a communication from his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department, to the effect that it would be conducive to the public interest that his promised statement with respect to the present negotiations on European affairs should be postponed until Monday next. With the permission of the House, therefore, he would postpone his statement on the subject until that day, when his noble Friend would make a similar statement in the other House of Parliament.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would take that occasion to ask the Secretary for the Treasury for information with reference to the expenditure of the votes of credit, amounting on the whole for the years 1854, 1855, 1856, to £8,000,000, which had been granted during the Russian war. He wished to ascertain whether the entire of that sum had been expended, and, if not, what the balance was which remained still unappropriated?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the actual state of the fund to which the hon.
  1766
  Baronet referred was, that £6,400,000, had been actually laid out on account of the service of the war. With regard to the remaining £1,600,000, the power to draw one million of it out of the Exchequer had been surrendered last year, which left a sum of only £600,000 to be accounted for. As soon as the Army and Navy accounts were wound up it was his intention to lay a statement of the manner in which the whole of the money had been expended on the table of the House. Only one account, he believed, involving a sum of any magnitude remained to be settled. It was connected with our arrangements with France, in reference to what took place during the Crimean war, and was in progress of settlement. It was possible, too, that there might be some charge on account of the German Legion; but as soon as those two items were arranged the balance of the votes would be formaly transferred to the Exchequer, and the accounts laid before Parliament.
  Bill read 3° and passed.

JEWS' ACT—REPORT.
Report of Select Committee read.
MR. WALPOLE: I rise, to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on the Jews' Act. The House will recollect that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) placed a Motion on the paper for leave to introduce a Bill by means of which some difficulties which it was thought might probably arise in carrying into effect the provisions of the Act of last Session, would be avoided; those difficulties being connected with the question whether a person of the Jewish persuasion would be enabled to take his seat at the commencement of a new Parliament. The hon. Member for Finsbury was anxious to introduce a Bill to enable the House to pass a Standing Order by means of which, until it was repealed, a person of the Jewish persuasion would be able to take his seat. Great difficulties have arisen as to the proper construction of the Act; those difficulties, however, have been considered in Committee, and the Committee think that the doubts created by that Act of Parliament are so great that it would not be prudent to attempt to do by a Standing Order that which the Legislature has empowered either House of Parliament to do by Resolution only. There is this difference between a Standing Order and a Resolu-

1767
tion. I will explain it in the words of the late Speaker. In answer to a question which was put to him by the noble Lord the Member for the City (Lord John Russell) on the 12th April, 1842, the late Speaker (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) observed—
"The distinction between a Resolution and a Standing Order is this, that a Resolution is only binding throughout the then present Session of Parliament in which it is passed, and therefore during that Session it cannot be questioned, although it may be questioned during any other Session of Parliament; but a Standing Order is binding upon all future Parliaments until either repealed or revoked."
I believe, Sir, when Baron Rothschild came to the table to take his seat, you expressed it to be your opinion (and if I may take the liberty of saying so, that was an opinion in which the Committee entirely concurred) that the mode then pursued was the proper one. A Resolution was then passed in the words of the Act of Parliament authorizing a Member professing the Jewish religion to take his seat. During the present Session another Member professing the Jewish religion came to the table, and as, according to the Speaker's ruling, the Resolution of the preceding Session did not affect him, another Resolution had to be passed, which will enable any other Member of that persuasion to take his seat and the oaths during this Session. But the case would be very different supposing the Member to come up in another Session. The Resolution will have no operation then. It is true you may turn the Resolution into a Standing Order, but if you do that, you must take care to keep within the statutory power, which makes no mention of a Standing Order, but merely provides that a member of the Jewish persuasion, on taking the Parliamentary oath, may omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian." The difficulty is, when a new Parliament is elected, to reconcile the power conferred by the Legislature on either House of Parliament to admit persons of the Jewish persuasion by Resolution, with the privilege which belongs to every Member to come and take his seat as soon as he thinks fit so to do. We propose to treat the question in this way. When a new Parliament is chosen, the Speaker is first selected, and he first takes the oath himself, and then proceeds to administer it to the other Members. No other business is transacted till Her Majesty has delivered the Speech from the Throne, and then the business of the
1768
Session commences. Bui before that time it is obligatory that those who take part in the business should have taken the oath. It was the opinion of the Committee that there should be nothing to prevent the Jewish Members from taking their seats as soon as the other Members; but they were also of opinion that it would be expedient to abide by the practice adopted in the last and present Session of Parliament. To meet the difficulty, however, they suggest that a time may be appointed for the House to decide whether effect shall be given to the statute by passing the Resolution which the statute requires. The only remaining question then is, on what day will such a Resolution be best considered, so as to secure the deliberate judgment of the House, with a full attendance of Members. Three day 3 occupied in swearing in Members gives every Member an opportunity to be sworn at the table if he choose, between the time of the election of the Speaker and the Speech from the Throne. If, therefore, we fix four o'clock on the fourth day as the time when the House may pass the Resolution to enable the Jew to take his seat, omitting the words to which he has a conscientious objection, you will secure a full House to decide the question, and yon will deprive no Member of the privilege of taking his seat as soon as circumstances admit. We say, in recording the conclusion at which the Committee arrived, that the only question is on what day the best attendance could be secured; but, on the whole, the fourth day was considered the best for settling the question under consideration; and it was, therefore, recommended that the Resolution be made a Standing Order. I am going to move, therefore, that the course to be pursued shall be resolved on now, and that on the meeting of the new Parliament the Resolution passed in pursuance of the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 40, on which is founded the Resolution permitting Members professing the Jewish religion to take the oath, with the omission of the words "on the true faith of a Christian" be not taken into consideration till four o'clock on the fourth day after the meeting of Parliament. I believe the many difficulties in the case will be avoided by this course. Looking at both sides of the question, and endeavouring to avoid the various difficulties of the case, I think the Committee have been enabled to propose the course best calculated to deal with them. The

1769
right hon. Gentleman concluded by formally submitting the Motion recommended by the Committee.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that having moved an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, upon which the Committee, whose Report the House was considering had been appointed, and in which he had served, and having thus brought under the consideration of the House the propriety of requiring notice of the Resolutions which the Act enjoined as necessary to the admission of Jewish candidates to take the oaths required by law, he felt that, having in the first instance brought the matter under the consideration of the House, he was bound to refer to the omission from the Resolution now proposed by the right hon. Member for Cambridge, of all provision for securing adequate notice of the intention to require the House to pass such Resolutions as the Act sanctioned. The Resolution and the standing order which the House was now asked to adopt provided in part for the difficulty by preventing the House being required to pass a Resolution before the Members were sworn at the commencement of a Parliament, That absurdity would be obviated. But whenever afterwards the House might be required by the appearance of a Jewish Member at the table to pass a Resolution for the alteration of the oath to suit the convenience of this Jewish Member, the inconvenience of the want of notice would again be felt. He spoke with deference of the opinion of the Committee, but he confessed that he was surprised at the decision at which they had arrived. He could not think that the House ought to expose itself to the danger of being surprised into the adoption of a Resolution which conveyed a solemn decision of that House, with the authority of law, by the absence of all notice of the intention to require the House to exercise an option and pronounce a judgment. He was surprised that the very distinguished Committee, of which he was a member, had made no provision against such a contingency. He admitted the right of the Jewish Member to time his appearance at the table, as a matter of privilege; but he did not think that it was consistent with the dignity of the House, when made aware of the necessity for its proceeding in accordance with the Act, which it last year sanctioned, by giving a solemn judgment as to the admissibility of a Jewish Member that the House, should not require
1770
twenty-four hours to collect its Members and deliberate as to its decision. The Committee, however, had not provided for this case, and the impression of the Committee seemed to be that if a necessity for deliberation should occur to any Member of the House, he might, by moving the adjournment of the debate, afford the House the opportunity of deliberation. He (Mr. Newdegate) knew that such a course would be attended with considerable inconvenience to the Jewish Member, and perhaps to the House, as the debate thus adjourned would not have precedence of other Orders on the following day, and it was not fair to entail on any individual the odium of causing this inconvenience. But his object was to warn the House that no alternative remained but the adoption of this means of preventing the House from being surprised into the adoption of a Resolution which it might afterwards regret, as the decision of probably a small section of its Members, or of a section representing almost exclusively one cast of opinion, but which would be binding on the whole House during the remainder of the Session in which it was passed.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought it most desirable that this matter should be set at rest, without reference to party questions, and, in his opinion, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman met the difficulty in the most satisfactory manner.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must object to the delay of four days before a Member was allowed to take his seat, as a thing unprecedented in the Parliamentary history of this country. The effect of it would be to disqualify the Member for that time, and he believed render him liable to a penalty if he voted for the election of the Speaker. At all events, it would have the effect of continuing a distinction between one class of Her Majesty's subjects and another, which ought no longer to exist. Nothing so bad or intolerant had taken place in the worst days of the Test and Corporation Acts.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he was also of opinion that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would continue a distinction which ought to be abolished; but this could only be regarded as a temporary adjustment, and he hoped they would soon see this system of the compulsory administration of oaths put an end to.
Resolved,
"That, on the Meeting of a Now Parliament, no Resolution in pursuance of the Act 21 & 22

1771
Vict. c. 49, which shall have the effect of admitting a Member professing the Jewish Religion to be sworn at the Table, be taken into consideration before Twelve of the clock on the fourth day appointed for taking the Oaths required by Law."
Ordered,
"That the said Resolution be a Standing Order of this House."

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON.

  LEAVE—FIRST READING.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to offences against the person. This and seven other Bills to amend the Statute Law were the first of a series of Bills amounting, in the whole, to 150, which were in a forward state of preparation, and which, if approved of by Parliament, would complete the consolidation of the entire Statute Law of the United Kingdom. At this period of the Session, and of the Parliament he felt reluctantly withheld from submitting to the House any detailed statement of the intentions of the Government on this important subject. He would merely observe, that after 350 years of inertion—after the efforts of so many of our greatest lawyers and statesmen had failed, the late Government, in pursuance of certain proposals and suggestions of the Statute Law Commission, which was presided over by Lord Cranworth, undertook the commencement of the task. These Bills were arranged with great pains by some of the first lawyers and statesmen of the country, and were introduced into the House of Lords and passed that House in 1856. The late Solicitor General introduced them in this House in 1857, but their progress was interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament. Last Session the House was so occupied with other business that it was found impossible to bring them forward; but early this Session he (the Attorney General) was prepared to lay them on the table. In the interval, however, the Government had come to the conclusion that while consolidating the Statute Law of England, it would be as well to extend the consolidation to that of Ireland. With the able assistance of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and the late Solicitor General for Ireland, now a learned Judge in that country, those Bills to amend and consolidate the Criminal Statute Law of England and
  1772
  Ireland were prepared. He now begged to lay them on the table, and he hoped that early in the new Parliament they would become law, and result in an entire consolidation of the law.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that it would be more convenient, in order that those Gentlemen who were interested in the subject should be able to examine them, that the seven Bills which were finished should be printed. They could not, however, well understand the scheme without the Procedure Bill and the Punishment Bill, which were not yet completed. He would, therefore, mention, that instead of specifying the punishment at the end of the clause which constituted the offence, it had been thought advisable to bring in a separate Bill, defining the punishment assignable to each offence. They proposed to do away with capital punishment in ten cases in which it was now legal, reserving it only for treason and murder. In Ireland conspiracy to murder was a capital offence, but it was proposed to change the law in that respect, so that the Bills would not only consolidate, assimilate, and amend the Criminal Statute Law, but would also ameliorate it in favour of Ireland.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he begged to tender his thanks to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the steps they had taken towards assimilating the law of Ireland to that of England, and he hoped they would not stop there, but make the assimilation complete.
  Leave given.
  Bill to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Offences against the Person, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ireland, and Mr. Secretary SOTHERON ESTCOURT.
  Bill presented and read 1°.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Exchequer Bills (£13,277,400).
3a. Sayings Banks (Ireland) Act; Affidavits by Commission, &c.

THE THAMES WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN BILL.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  LORD EBURYhoped their Lordships would extend their indulgence to him for a few minutes, while he referred to a matter somewhat personal to himself. He was the more reluctant to trespass upon the patience of the House because he knew that their Lordships had assembled in greater numbers than usual for a far different purpose; but he had always understood that whenever a member of their Lordships' House was put in a position whereby his motives were liable to misconstruction, their Lordships were accustomed to afford the earliest opportunity for removing any imputation which might seem to attach to him. On Tuesday last a Motion was made by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) which certainly in effect called in question the proceedings of a Committee of which he (Lord Ebury) was the Chairman. He regretted that he was not in the House at the time, for he was not only willing to share in the general responsibility which attached to the individual members of the Committee, but to take to himself all the especial responsibility which attached to him in consequence of his being the Chairman of the Committee. The circumstances which gave rise to the Motion took place ten days ago. The Committee concluded its sittings on a Monday between two and three o'clock, and as he did not suppose that any notice was likely to be taken of their proceedings in the House, and having occasion to go into the country, he requested a noble Friend to present the Report of the Committee formally to the House. When the notice of the noble and learned Lord's Motion was sent to him, it was sent to his town house, and not to his country residence; and it was not until he saw the report of what had occurred in the House in the newspapers that he was aware there was any motion for the purpose of referring the matter back to the Committee. He had no intention whatever of seeking to reverse the decision which had been arrived

  1689
  at. He understood the Committee were blamed because they did not hear all the evidence which was tendered, nor hear counsel sum up the case, The fact was, that the opponents of the Bill adduced evidence which it took a whole day to hear, and at the termination of that day it struck both the Committee and himself that the testimony given against the Bill entirely proved the case of the promoters; and, under those circumstances, he indicated on the following morning that, with respect to the points on which they had heard evidence, the Committee were perfectly satisfied, but that they were ready to hear any evidence upon other points. Another day's evidence was received; but the additional witnesses only accumulated evidence upon the points already settled. On that ground the Committee thought proper to stop the case—on the ground that the testimony adduced against the Bill really went to justify the allegations of the preamble. He did not, therefore, acquiesce in the decision of the House, but he did not desire to alter it. He assured the House that he never saw a Committee more patient or more anxious to do justice to all parties. It had been his lot to perform an honourable, arduous, and it now appeared an invidious duty, and he accepted and took upon himself, without reluctance or hesitation, the whole responsibility of the proceedings of the Committee.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that no blame whatever was cast upon the noble Lord or the other members of the Committee. What had been stated was, that the case had been decided before the whole of the evidence had been heard, and the decision of their Lordships was grounded upon that fact.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT POSTPONED.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I believe it will be conducive to the interests of the public service that I should postpone the statement I have to make on our foreign relations until Monday next; and I trust that the courtesy and indulgence of your Lordships will allow me to defer it until that day.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONasked when the Ministerial statement upon that subject would be made in the House of Commons?
  THE EARL of MALMESBURY: On Monday also.

INDIA—VOTE OF THANKS TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CIVIL OFFICERS—THE MILITARY COMMANDERS AND FORCES.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the subjects are very few which a Ministry already condemned by a vote of the House of Commons can with any propriety submit to the consideration of a Parliament on the eve of its dissolution. Under such circumstances, which I am sure your Lordships will concur with me in thinking ought to last for as short a time as possible consistently with the exigencies of the public service. Under such circumstances the authority of the Ministry and of Parliament are alike weakened; under such circumstances—at all events within the walls of Parliament—the strife of political parties is suspended, and the ordinary legislation of the country has been put in abeyance, except with regard to measures of pressing and urgent importance, which it is impossible to delay, or measures of the most ordinary routine character, to which no one could object. But the Motion which I have to submit to the consideration of your Lordships this evening is one to which I cannot anticipate that any objection will be taken on the ground of the condition either of the Ministry or of Parliament. My Lords, it is one to which I anticipate no objection. It is one in which I am perfectly certain that the Government, in bringing it forward, would represent the feelings of this or of any Parliament that could be assembled; and it is one on which I am quite certain that the feelings of Parliament faithfully represent the general feelings of the country. Not only do I anticipate no objection to the Motion, but I rely with confidence, and I look forward with satisfaction to having any deficiencies—and there must be many in the statement which I am about to submit to your Lordships—supplied by the cordial support and co-operation of noble Lords whom I see opposite; and more especially do I rely on the support of those who, like the illustrious Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Cambridge) or my noble Friend the noble Earl below the gangway (the Earl of Ellenborough), are enabled from their position and their knowledge to speak upon this question with an authority to which I can make no pretension. It is, moreover, I think, peculiarly fitting that at the close of the great and formidable revolt which has subsisted in India—when

1691
we happily see it brought to a satisfactory; and a successful issue—it is peculiarly fitting that Parliament should not separate without expressing its sense of gratitude and the public estimation in which are held the services of those to whom, under Divine Providence, we are mainly indebted for the suppression of that revolt, and the restoration of public tranquillity. That revolt has subsisted for a longer period than the not very protracted existence of the present Parliament; and it is fitting that one of the last acts of that Parliament should be an expression of its gratitude for the suppression of that great and most formidable rebellion. The only question, then, which can arise is, whether we have arrived at a period when we are enabled to announce the satisfactory tidings that the revolt is completely suppressed. I would certainly not have delayed until the present period submitting to your Lordships a Vote in payment of the debt of gratitude which we owe to those who, whether in a civil or a military capacity, have aided in bringing the revolt to a termination, had I not hoped that the period was not far distant when I should be enabled to announce to you its complete suppression. And I rejoice to believe from the intelligence which reaches me, not only from all public sources, but also from every private quarter, that the period has arrived when we may say that the rebellion is altogether suppressed. The illustrious Duke on the cross benches has been good enough to communicate to me a letter addressed to him by Lord Clyde, which he received by the last mail; and I am sure that any of your Lordships who know that noble Lord would not believe that he would place anything in regard to the complete success of the great undertaking in which he has been engaged in a stronger light than the circumstances of the case warranted. These are Lord Clyde's words:—"I am happy to say that the tranquillity of the country is every day becoming more and more solid, and the Government have every cause for congratulation in this matter. Within my experience I have never known India more quiet than it now is." I might add to this, as the evidence of facts is still stronger than than that of words, that the Governor General, in his discretion, has felt himself authorized in sending back to this country a very considerable portion of the troops forwarded to India, including of course those who have seen the longest service
1692
and suffered the most severely. And, as a further proof, I may state that the same noble and gallant Lord to whom I have referred, and who is the last man to spare himself or to shrink from the discharge of any duty as long as he thought the country required his services, felt himself warranted, in the state of affairs, in returning to Simla for the purpose of there recruiting his health, which had been shattered in the course of those most trying operations. I think, therefore, I may assume without any further preface, that the time is come when we may congratulate ourselves on the complete termination of this dangerous revolt, and when we may offer the tribute of our public thanks to those by whom that happy result was obtained.
And the first person to whom those thanks are due is the man who stood in the foremost position, who has had thrown upon him the greatest share of public responsibility, and who has been naturally overwhelmed with the largest and heaviest weight of public anxiety. But in order fully to appreciate the services rendered by Her Majesty's Viceroy the Governor General of India, Viscount Canning, it is right that your Lordships should bear in mind what were the circumstances under which he assumed his present onerous office. Almost contemporaneously with the noble Lord's arrival in India there occurred the first appearance of disaffection in that country. A spirit breaking out which had for a considerable time been smouldering, and which was, perhaps, misunderstood and neglected; and just at the period when he entered on the duties of his arduous office he was encountered by the sudden explosion of that outbreak; at a time when he was necessarily unacquainted with many of the circumstances of the country which he was about to govern. That explosion not only took the noble Lord by surprise,—it equally took by surprise those who had the greatest experience in India, and upon whose councils it was most necessary to rely. It is no marvel, therefore, that Viscount Canning, on his first arrival, did not fully appreciate the magnitude of the danger with which India was threatened; but from the time—and it was not long—when he became alive to the full peril with which the empire was menaced, he applied, in grappling with the difficulties he foresaw and the dangers to be encountered, all the powers

1693
of a vigorous mind, all the faculties of an active and energetic disposition, and he endeavoured sedulously, diligently, and earnestly, to meet the great exigency by which he found himself suddenly surrounded. It is due to the noble Viscount to state that from first to last, calm, sagacious, resolute, he has pursued a tenacious, steady and consistent course—that he has never permitted his mind to be thrown off its balance by representations of exaggerated fear on the one hand or of extravagant and passionate resentment on the other. He has steadily watched the course of events; he has left untried nothing which could be done by indefatigable industry, by constant assiduity, and by the most patient and diligent attention to the details of business and to all the means by which this great revolt could be encountered. He has been constantly in communication—and I say it emphatically, in most friendly communication—with the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's forces in India. He has brought to the consideration of the difficult problem which it was left to him to solve, and which he has had the happiness and the credit of solving, the characteristic spirit of an English gentleman and the sagacity of a professional statesman. I think that, considering the successful issue to which the noble Viscount has brought this great undertaking, your Lordships will not grudge him the tribute of praise and thanks involved in the Motion I am now submitting to you; and I believe your Lordships will also feel that Her Majesty could not have chosen a more graceful or a more fitting opportunity than the time at which the two Houses of Parliament are expressing their gratitude for the services of the noble Viscount, for testifying her sense of those distinguished services by raising him to the dignity of a British Earl.
My Lords, I hope that none of your Lordships will think that if you find omitted from this Vote of Thanks a name which appeared in the Vote of last year, it is thereby intended to involve the smallest slight or to impute any neglect of duty to the noble Lord the Governor of Madras. The fact is, my Lords, I think it of the deepest importance that Votes of this kind should not be made to assume a merely formal character, by conferring them on persons merely because they fill high positions without having had any important share in the events to which the Votes re for. It is no discredit to the noble Lord
1694
the Governor of Madras (Lord Harris) that from the circumstance of his Presidency having been itself free from any taint of revolt, and having contributed but slightly towards the suppression of the rebellion—although undoubtedly some of the Madras forces were engaged in this campaign—I trust your Lordships will think that no discredit attaches to the Governor of that Presidency, and that no slight to him is involved if his name is not included in the list of those to whom Parliament is now about to tender its thanks. I am aware that some surprise has been expressed at the omission from the Vote of another name—the name, not of a civilian, but of a most distinguished military officer. I have heard the fact commented on, and more especially by the noble and gallant Viscount behind me (Viscount Gough), who has himself personal experience and knowledge of the service of India, that the name of that distinguished officer, Sir Patrick Grant, is not included in the present Motion. But, again, I say that the omission of his name can imply no disapproval of and no want of respect to that gallant Officer, whose services are too well known to require any eulogium from me, and who has already been three times honoured with the Thanks of Parliament. But upon the present occasion his name has been intentionally omitted—first, because, although for a short time he held the nominal command of the army soon after the lamented death of General Anson, and although in that capacity I doubt not his services in Calcutta, in co-operating with the Governor General, were of signal advantage to the country, yet from the brief period during which he held that high command he had not an opportunity of appearing personally in the field. And moreover, I beg your Lordships to recollect that the Vote which I am now proposing is not a Vote of thanks for the whole of the services in the Indian revolt, but that it is limited to those services which have been rendered within the last fourteen or sixteen months, and which were not acknowledged in the former Vote of Parliament. The services of Sir Patrick Grant I need hardly say were included in that Vote; and it is on that ground, and upon that ground alone, that no reference is made to them in the Motion which I have now the honour of submitting to your Lordships' consideration.
But, my Lords, there is a, noble Lord who, governing another Presidency, has

1695
contributed most largely, most beneficially, and most effectually to the suppression of this mutiny; and I believe I may state that hardly second to the exertions of Lord Canning himself have been those which have been made—and made so freely and be liberally, as well as with so much advantage to the public service—by Lord Elphinstone, the Governor of Bombay. My Lords, it would appear—whether or not in consequence of an earlier knowledge of India I cannot pretend to decide—that that noble Lord formed from the very first a more correct opinion than others of the extent of the danger with which that country was threatened, and that to his promptness and readiness in taking upon himself a responsibility which did not immediately attach to him—to his activity and energy of mind—the Indian Government were indebted for the early arrival of the first reliefs which they received—reliefs which at the time were most urgently required. From the very commencement of the revolt to the end the noble Lord devoted all the energies of his mind to its suppression and to the maintenance of tranquillity in that portion of the country over which his own authority extends. Fertile in resources, he had vigorously applied himself to meet the exigency and to grapple with each difficulty as it arose; and while he diligently laboured to maintain tranquillity in his Presidency he also made his arrangements most sedulously and carefully, so that all that he did fell in with and supported the general scheme and plan of the Governor General and of the Commander-in-Chief in the general operations in Central India. My Lords, Her Majesty has been pleased to signify to the noble Lord, and I had very great pleasure some time ago in communicating to him Her Majesty's intention, whenever the revolt should be brought to a close, of marking her sense of his services—not, indeed, by giving him a seat, which he already holds in your Lordships' House, but by adding to the dignity of a Representative Peer which he already enjoys that of a Peer of the United Kingdom. The last mail brought from Lord Elphinstone a grateful acknowledgment of the honour which Her Majesty was pleased to confer upon him, and modestly expressing an opinion—in which I am sure he stands alone—that the honour thus conferred upon him is far greater than his merits deserve.
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords who are connected with the military service
1696
will not consider that I am treating them with disrespect, or that I have any disposition to postpone the consideration of the claims of military officers to the public Thanks, if I follow the order which is laid down in the paper on your Lordships' table, and refer to the other civilians whose distinguished services are mentioned in the Resolution. There is one name to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention—one name not better known nor more highly honoured in India than it is in England. Two illustrious brothers have borne that name; both have distinguished it by the highest sagacity and the most devoted courage. One of them unhappily is no more. He has fallen in the actual service of his country too early to receive the information of those thanks and honours which Parliament was about to award him; but the other still survives, and I rejoice to think he has returned to this country. Sir John Lawrence has arrived in England within these few days; and I rejoice to think that he has arrived in time personally to know how he is appreciated by his countrymen, and he will be enabled, as a member of the Indian Council, to give his country that assistance which his great experience and knowledge of Indian affairs make so invaluable at the moment. He will perceive that the conspicuous part which he bore in the late mutiny has not been forgotten. He will find that his courage and dauntless resolution; the firmness with which, with the very insufficient means at his disposal, he met and sternly put down every appearance of disturbance in the district that had only been newly acquired to the British empire—the awe inspired by his name and the respect due to his character, by which he not only kept down every symptom of revolt, but, making his word law, he converted that country into another England, and called forth from it in the hour of India's extremity those levies and reinforcements to which in great measure the suppression of the revolt is due, have not been forgotten by the English people. There is another distinguished man who has distinguised himself in a civil capacity, and who on a former occasion was referred to in terms of just praise by the noble Earl who sits below the gangway (the Earl of Ellenborough), Mr. Bartle Frere, the Commissioner of Scinde. Perhaps his task was not so arduous as that of Sir John Lawrence, as he succeeded to a government in which much had been done before to tranquillise and settle

1697
the minds of the Natives, and to establish among the wild native tribes the blessings of a good and beneficent government. But to Mr. Frere is due the credit of having supported that system throughout, and of having maintained his province, when a great portion of India was in a state of disturbance and revolt, in a state of entire and unbroken tranquillity; and, my Lords, permit me here to say that though the duties performed and the services rendered by those civil officers are not so brilliant and dazzling as those of the military service, they are not less essential to the good government of India. Our hold on India must not depend solely, though it must mainly, on our military force; but the hold maintained by a military force sufficient for its purpose, must be strengthened and supported by the respect and esteem which the Natives entertain for those who hold all that unlimited authority in those distant provinces.
There is another distinguished civilian to whom I may refer. Mr. Montgomery the Chief Commissioner in Oude deserves our praise for the manner in which he had administered the civil Government of that province during the last year. Following immediately upon the suppression of the revolt, he, by his judicious, wise and humane measures, with Her Majesty's Proclamation in his hand making the best use of the promises of mercy which that Proclamation held forth—by his wise and conciliatory conduct—by tempering mercy with firmness—Mr. Montgomery succeeded, to a great extent, in restoring tranquillity to a country which was but newly subdued and whose feelings were highly excited. Under these circumstances the speedy return to tranquillity reflects the highest credit upon that civil authority which had the chief conduct of affairs. I may mention here—and I am sure the information will be received with satisfaction by the House—that in consideration of these services of Mr. Frere and Mr. Montgomery, Her Majesty has been pleased directly to confer upon these Gentlemen the civil Knight Commandership of the Bath; and I think your Lordships will be of opinion that these distinctions were never conferred more worthily.
There is one more civilian to whose services it is necessary that I should refer—a gentleman who has had most arduous and difficult duties to perform. I allude to Sir Robert Hamilton, the Agent to the Governor General in Central India. I am
1698
sure that few of your Lordships can have any idea of the difficult and delicate services which gentlemen in the position of Sir Robert Hamilton perform. It is the duty of the Agents to the Governor General, accredited to the Native States, to watch with unremitting vigilance every, even the slightest, symptom of the rulers of those States faltering in their allegiance; to confirm the wavering; to stimulate those that are inclined to hang back; to keep in awe those who, if a favourable moment were to come, would fall off from their allegiance; and to watch with anxious jealousy the slightest symptom and indication of intrigue, in which, I need not tell your Lordships, every Oriental is a proficient; to watch and counter manœuvre the intriguers; to keep tranquillity unbroken; to overawe some and to persuade others; and by all and every means to maintain the authority of the English name. These, my Lords, are difficult and delicate duties, which require great skill, temper and patience—these are the services which, throughout these troubles in Central India, have been performed and successfully performed by Sir Robert Hamilton at the court of the Gwalior. His name consequently appears in the Vote which I have to-night the honour to propose.
In turning from the civil to the military branch of the service, and in asking your Lordships to give the Thanks of this House to those gallant officers whose names are contained in the Resolutions, I am aware—and I rejoice to think that it is so—that I shall not have occasion to call your Lordships' attention to circumstances of such deep and thrilling interest, and exciting such painful emotions as those which were commemorated on the last occasion when Your Lordships awarded your thanks for services rendered in India. We have—thank God for it!—during the last year, or last year and a half, to record no such horrors as the massacre of Cawnpore, no such atrocities as those which were perpetrated before the siege of Delhi; we have not had to watch with that painful anxiety with which day by day, during that memorable seige, we waited to see whether it was possible that success could crown efforts made with means so disproportionate to the opposition we had to encounter. We have not to watch, nor have we to recount to your Lordships the painful anxiety with which, mail after mail, we followed the steps of that marvellous advance

1699
of the lamented Havelock; we have not to wait and count the hours, how long the endurance of that devoted garrison will prolong the seige of Lucknow, and if we have not to recall that thrill of satisfaction with which we heard of their relief, neither have we to be reminded how those hopes were dashed to the ground when we learned that the garrison, though relieved, was still beleaguered; nor have we to recount the news of the final and complete relief of the heroic garrison under Lord Clyde. From events of such thrilling interest and anxiety the state of India is now altogether free; for however high public expectation may have been raised, still that expectation can hardly be said to have risen to a state of anxiety; for since the earlier days of the period to which I have now to refer, the progress of our arms has been one unbroken success, success to such an extent that a check of the slightest nature has given rise to a greater feeling of disappointment than prominence has been given to our greatest successes. Happily also this period has not been marked with such lamentable loss of distinguished lives as characterized the earlier period of the revolt. Doubtless many have fallen whose deaths have made fearful gaps in families and private circles—many who, if they had been spared, would have risen to the highest eminence and to most brilliant stations in the public service; but of those who already filled a place in the eye of their country, comparatively few have been cut off during the present year. To three names your Lordships will permit me to refer as those in which the country, as well as their families, have sustained a deep loss. Of the loss of one, mention has already been made in this House; but I am sure my noble Friends will excuse me if on this occasion I again refer to the brilliant services and the lamented death of Sir William Peel. To a bravery which almost verged on rashness, and a determination which bordered on the heroic, he joined those high qualities a frankness of disposition, an openness of manner, a cordiality of feeling, and private virtues which endeared him to his friends and those immediately surrounding him, as much as his public character and services raised him high in the estimation of his country. Others there were of a somewhat different character and of a different service, but there are two men especially in whose premature removal India at all events has sustained
1700
a deep loss. I need hardly say that I allude to two men, both of whom were the models of chiefs of irregular forces, which they formed, disciplined, and trained from among tribes who not long before had been our enemies, and who by the adoption of a rigid discipline, at the same time that they were most careful in their attention to the comforts, the wants, the desires, and even the prejudices of their followers, obtained over them an influence altogether marvellous, and led them into situations of difficulty and danger with as full and entire confidence in their steadiness as if they had been followed by British soldiers. One of those men died a soldier's death; the other unhappily succumbed on a bed of sickness to those labours which were too much even for him to endure. But it will be long before India—long before England—I am sure it will be long before the Punjab and Scinde will forget the services of Hodson's Guides and Jacob's Horse. With these exceptions the list of those heroic men who have fallen in the service of their country since the last year, as I have said, is not great, and I turn with satisfaction to the more pleasing task of commemorating the services and conveying the gratitude of the country to those who still survive to reap the reward of their valour. I think, my Lords, I need say nothing to your Lordships of the merits of the Commander-in-Chief. His eminent services speak trumpet-tongued of his merits; but I may say this, that in his career in India he has more than vindicated the high military character of which he gave promise in his earlier career, and with which he proceeded to India at a moment's notice at the call of his Sovereign. Cool and cautious in coming to a determination to such a degree that superficial critics charged him with slowness—eagerly anxious to spare the lives and labour of his men, while himself recklessly careless of exposure and fatigue—slow to deliberate and form plans, but sagacious in making his combinations, he determined not to strike till the time came for striking an effectual blow; but when the time came that the blow should be struck his enemies were shattered to pieces under the stroke. He knew when to strike; and those he encountered know that he knew how to strike. It may, perhaps, be convenient here—though it is impossible for me to attempt more than the faintest sketch of his operations, yet it may be convenient for me, as affording an opportunity of bringing under your notice

1701
the names of the gallant officers to whom I am about to refer—that I should remind your Lordships of the principal features of the campaign since the last occasion when your Lordships tendered to him a Vote of Thanks, immediately after the final relief of the garrison at Lucknow. The Commander-in-Chief at that time believed that he was unable, with his paucity of forces, to do more than withdraw—which in itself was a great achievement—the garrison which had been so long beleaguered, and the helpless women and children shut up with them. He felt it was necessary to fall back upon Cawnpore, in order to make preparations for further offensive operations, by establishing his communications and assuming a new base of operations. He arrived at Cawnpore barely in time to relieve General Windham, who was hard pressed by the Gwalior rebels, and by his opportune arrival he was enabled to convert what at all events appeared a doubtful day into a complete and brilliant victory. On that occasion, I believe for the first time—for of course such events to a man in his position must be rare—the command of a division was held by that distinguished officer, Sir William Mansfield, the chief of the staff. At the battle of Cawnpore Sir William Mansfield commanded one of the divisions, and by his skill and daring contributed greatly to the success of that day. In that battle, also, another gallant officer, Brigadier Walpole, of the Rifles, by his efforts and the manner in which he handled the troops under him, showed so much gallantry that General Windham handsomely stated the chief merit of that day was due to him. In recognition of the merits of Brigadier Walpole the Commander-in-Chief appointed him to the command of a division sent in pursuit of the rebels, and in command of that division he continued during the remainder of the campaign. In speaking of the services of Sir William Mansfield your Lordships need not be reminded how arduous and how important are the duties of the chief of the staff. He has not the same opportunity of distinguishing himself in a separate command that other officers have; but acting under the eye and in the name of the Commander-in-Chief he has perpetual occasions of performing the most signal services, and without the assistance of an able, energetic, and thoroughly trustworthy Chief of the Staff no Commander in Chief can hope so to conduct a campaign as to ensure success. It may be sufficient for me here to quote
1702
the words of the Commander-in-Chief as expressive of his opinion of Sir William Mansfield's services. After the relief of Lucknow, in March, 1858, he says:—
"I have now the pleasing task of communicating to your Lordships the name of an officer to whom not only I as the Commanding General, but to whom in truth the service at large are under the greatest obligations—Sir William Mansfield, the chief of the staff, whose labours, energy, and skill have been of the highest order and of the greatest use to me during this campaign. It is impossible for me to praise this officer too highly or to recommend him sufficiently to the protection of your Royal Highness.
This testimony to the services of Sir William Mansfield will be best confirmed by the recital of the further progress of events. Immediately after the defeat of the Gwalior rebels at Cawnpore the Commander-in-Chief prepared to resume offensive operations. He proceeded to clear the Doab, and afterwards captured the fortified city of Futteyghur; and then he commenced operations for the final and complete conquest of Lucknow. When Lord Clyde proceeded to undertake the final seige of Lucknow he had under his command an amount of force which appeared wholly disproportioned to the enterprise. If I am not mistaken the European troops under his command did not number more than 13,000 or 14,000 men; certainly they were considerably under 20,000. They were met and strengthened, indeed, by some Napaulese troops, under the command of Jung Bahadoor, who amounted indeed to a considerable number; but with regard to whom it was not a matter of absolute certainty that entire confidence could be placed. It is due, however, to their gallant commander and to those troops, to say, that though circumstances from time to time arose which seemed to cast suspicion on their fidelity, yet they never swerved from their engagements, but faithfully performed all the duties allotted to them. I attribute this fact, in great measure, to the wholesome influence exercised on their minds, and above all on the mind of their gallant commander, Jung Bahadoor himself, by his personal acquaintance with the power and resources and irresistible force of this country. Immediately under the Commander-in-Chief, and after the Chief of the Staff, was Sir James Outram, who had been left in command at the Alumbagh. General Franks, from another side of the country, was fighting his way to the scene of action, and joined in the siege. The artillery was

1703
commanded by Sir Archdale Wilson; the engineers by Sir Robert Napier; the other divisions were under the command of Sir Edward Lugard, Sir Hope Grant, and Brigadier General Walpole. I mention these names because, though the statement I have to make may be unavoidably long (but not longer than the occasion demands) I wish to refer in detail to the services which each has performed. The earlier services of Sir James Outram during this rebellion are perfectly well known to your Lordships, who have not yet forgotten the noble forbearance and generous self-denial with which he met General Havelock, on his return from his first attempt upon Lucknow, when he abstained from superseding him in the command until the final relief of the garrison, and left that gallant officer to obtain that glory which he had so well merited by his previous efforts. After the relief of the garrison and the retirement of the Commander-in-Chief Sir James Outram was left with a small force in the exposed and perilous post of Alumbagh, and there he was exposed for several months to the constant assaults of an enemy ten times his force—assaults, however, which on every occasion he successfully repelled until the Commander-in-Chief again returned to the siege of Lucknow. Sir James Outram maintained his post, and in maintaining it he made it clear to the Natives of India that they were not to suppose that the retirement of the Commander-in-Chief was more than a temporary withdrawal. Against such an idea the maintenance of Alumbagh was a standing protest and a standing menace to the city of Lucknow; and no long time elapsed before that menace was converted into a reality. Sir Thomas Franks, in consequence of ill health, has returned to this country, and I think, my Lords, that this is a fitting occasion on which to call attention to the circumstances under which he gained the thanks and admiration of his country. Sir Thomas Franks was engaged on the other side of the Gogra, far from the scene of action, and in order to reach it had to force his way from the east through a host of hostile troops. In so doing, my Lords, that gallant officer exhibited qualities of the highest order, and qualities the more remarkable, because he succeeded in gallantly surpassing the Native troops in respect of an accomplishment in which they certainly are pre-eminent, namely, in the rapidity and secrecy of their movements; but Sir T.
1704
Franks, by the rapidity of his movements and his march, succeeded in meeting two important bodies of the enemy in battle by anticipating their junction—defeating two of them on the same day, prior to the possibility of their coalescing, and then upon either the next or upon the following day fighting a third battle. He thus succeeded in forcing his way, having fought three successful actions in the course of two days, in time to give his valuable assistance, and join in the achievements of the siege of Lucknow. My Lords, the course which Lord Clyde pursued—if as a civilian and an unprofessional man I may express such an opinion, and mention it in passing—the course that Lord Clyde pursued—the wise and humane course that Lord Clyde pursued—on the renewed siege of Lucknow, was not to risk the lives of his solders in a premature assault, or to attempt the storming of the town, from which great loss would have ensued, but trusted mainly to his artillery to secure its successful capture. That artillery breaching the walls of Lucknow, and battering down building after building, and narrow street after narrow street, assisted by the labours, the persevering and active labours, of the Royal Engineers, mainly contributed to the successful, and I may almost say bloodless, capture of Lucknow. The fire of the artillery was so true and deadly that it was impossible for the rebels to withstand its force. In consequence, they took an early opportunity, which the smallness of the force prevented our impeding, of altogether emptying and evacuating the town, and leaving to us almost a bloodless conquest; thereby vindicating the sagacity, the wisdom, and the prudence of the course pursued by the Commander-in-Chief. Sir Archdale Wilson's name is already immortalized by his command of the siege of Delhi; but with regard to the services rendered by that gallant officer subsequently at the siege of Lucknow, I cannot do better than quote Lord Clyde again, to show how he expresses himself upon the subject. Lord Clyde said—
"The merits of Sir Archdale Wilson were too widely known to require any encomium from me; but permit me to express my sense of the services and the way in which I availed myself of the assistance of that most distinguished officer. The effective fire of the artillery during the long operations, which depended so much on the management of that arm, elicited general admiration."
My Lords, another officer who commanded

1705
a division under the Commander-in-Chief, at the siege of Lucknow, was that very distinguished and able officer, Sir Edward Lugard. That gallant officer has recently been compelled, from the state of his health, to return to this country, whore I trust his health has been already considerably reestablished, and I know that I am only expressing the feeling of the illustrious Duke on the cross benches when I mention the satisfaction which I am sure he felt at being able to reward the services of so distinguished an officer in succession to Sir Henry Storks in the department of the War Office, by one so efficient, and in every way so fitting for the discharge of those duties as Sir Edward Lugard. It is a great satisfaction to find that the services, the active services, of that gallant and distinguished officer are not lost to the public at large, or to the gallant service of which he is so distinguished a member. My Lords, I have mentioned the name of most of those officers who, shortly after the siege of Lucknow, from one cause or another, returned to this country, or, at all events, quitted the field, like Sir James Outram, for the purpose of taking a place in the Council of India, or in other civil duties. My Lords, after the capture of Lucknow, when unfortunately the circumstances occurred which had the effect of driving and dispersing the rebels; but, at the same time, of distributing them over a great extent of country, in which their presence and number might have enabled them to do serious mischief, it was a question which was a matter of anxious consideration—and I recollect at the time—and noble Lords opposite will recollect—that it was made a subject matter of suspicion that there was some difference of opinion or some dispute as to the course pursued between the Governor General and the Commander-in-Chief. There was, my Lords, a most important question to be decided, and one upon which strong arguments were used on either side. There were two lines of policy that might be taken—on the one hand, being possessed of Lucknow, to concentrate and apply the whole of the army to secure and consolidate that conquest, and so obtain a complete subjugation of the whole kingdom of Oude—an object that, in the first instance, would naturally suggest itself to the mind of the Commander-in-Chief; but, on the other hand, there were other considerations which, notwith-
1706
standing the late period of the year and the approach of the great rains, rendered it, politically speaking, desirable that a different course should be pursued. Consequently, my Lords, I believe that the principal ground that actuated the Governor General and the Commander-in-Chief in coming to the conclusion they ultimately arrived at was in consequence of the condition of things throughout Rohilcund, a district into which the rebels had thrown themselves, but unfavourable for the movement of troops in large bodies; and the first impression was, that the best and most befitting course to adopt would be to leave the rebels during the rains undisturbed in Rohilcund, to coop them up, and keep them cooped up there, until operations were concluded in Oude, and then to deal with them as circumstances might suggest. On the other hand, it was represented that in Rohilcund the population was very well and favourably disposed towards the British Government, and consequently that any operation might possibly prejudice their fidelity in a moment of difficulty or disaster, and that the fidelity of the rajahs and chiefs might also be endangered, and that they would suffer in our cause, if we left them without assistance and subject to the overwhelming power of the rebel force, who would compel them either to capitulate or join in the revolt. The Governor General and the Commander-in-Chief, concurring in the same view, determined to confine the operations in Oude to the occupation of the city of Lucknow, and not to attempt to extend our government over the province of Oude, but to follow up the rebels into Rohilcund. With this view Sir Edward Lugard, at the head of the Lahore force, was despatched in that direction, and subsequently Brigadier General Walpole was directed to advance into Rohilcund, and a series of successful operations, only intermixed with one temporary check, enabled that officer, with the assistance of Brigadier Jones, who commanded the Rohilcund field force, and who entered the province simultaneously from the north, virtually, and I may add, victoriously to complete his operations there. The name of Brigadier Jones is not among those specified for honour in the Resolutions. The command that he held was not one that, in the opinion of the military authorities, was of sufficient eminence and of sufficient separate command to entitle him to so high

1707
an honour; and I am quite sure that the illustrious Duke, should he follow me on this occasion, will not be slow to testify his sense of the manner in which Brigadier Jones on that occasion supported Brigadier General Walpole in contributing to the successes which were achieved in Rohilcund. Another officer of great distinction was despatched in a different direction. That officer, my Lords, is one who from the very commencement of this revolt in India has always filled a prominent place in the military annals of the time, has commanded with dauntless and unfailing skill, and who has probably been mentioned more than any other gallant officer, (perhaps with one exception) during the whole of this revolt, and who has been engaged in constant, and almost always in successful contest with the enemy—although the encounters were hardly deserving the name of contest. But, my Lords, from first to last, from the period of the siege of Delhi to the final relief of the garrison at Lucknow, wherein Sir Hope Grant had a command, down to the very latest period of action, that gallant officer had been vigilant and unvaryingly successful. Between the 23rd February, 1858, and 13th June, 1858, he was engaged in no fewer than six general actions with the enemy, and on the 25th November, in the renewed campaign, after the great rains, he crowned his great achievements by the signal defeat of a large body of the insurgents, greatly outnumbering the whole force brought to bear upon them, while trying to cross the Gogra. I have now mentioned, I think, all those officers whose services where so signal and brilliant at the siege of Lucknow; and I now pass on to notice an officer, whose name stands pre-eminent even above those I have already mentioned, and whose services I should not so long have delayed in bringing before your notice had it not been that he held the command in a totally different district of country—entirely separate but I will not say altogether independent, but in which he exercised the supreme command. I allude with additional pleasure to the name of Sir Hugh Rose, more particularly in the immediate presence of one of his nearest relatives. My Lords, that gallant officer has earned for himself the highest and most distinguished honours. It would be vain, indeed, were I to attempt to enumerate all the distinguished achievements of that gallant officer; but from the period of the
1708
29th January down to the 22nd June, a period of less than six months, gives a tolerably complete abstract of his separate and signal achievements,—
"He commanded the Central India field force, constantly engaged in action with the enemy. Among their achievements may be enumerated the reduction of the fort of Rathgur, the relief of Saugor, the siege and storm of the fort of Chandairee, the siege, investment, and storm of the fortress of Jhansi, the capture of Calpee, the general action on the Betwa."
After these achievements we find that Sir Hugh Rose, exhausted by the labours of the campaign and sinking under a serious illness, felt himself obliged to abandon his command, but only for a time; for between the 16th and the 22nd June, hearing that the rebels had seized upon Gwalior and were in arms, regardless of suffering and ill health and at the danger of his life, the gallant officer again, without reluctance, placed himself at the head of his troops, stormed the Gwalior cantonments, fought the general action before Gwalior, and finally assaulted and captured the city and fortress. Indeed, I cannot do better than sum up the achievements of the gallant officer in his own words, which state that he marched in the course of two months 1084 miles, took upwards of 150 pieces of artillery, one intrenched camp, one fortified city, one partly intrenched town, fought sixteen successful actions, captured twenty forts, and never sustained a check. My Lords, in these operations, conducted with so much skill and gallantry, General Sir Hugh Rose was most ably seconded by Major General Roberts and Major Whitlock, who commanded the Saugor field force. These officers were under the command and joined in the victories accomplished by Sir Hugh Rose, and subsequently, at a later period, they were actively engaged in pursuing, and in many cases in overtaking and destroying those bands of rebels, which, dispersed as they were in fragmentary detachments over the country, harassed and annoyed, but never ventured to make head against our arms. I must not pass over a gallant officer who, in a separate and less well known district, performed also valiant services, entitling him to our warmest thanks. I refer to Major General Sir John Michel, of the Mhow Field Force. That gallant officer defeated the rebels under Tantia Topee on the 15th of September, 1858, captured twenty-seven guns, and divers places; and since that time that officer—equal to many

1709
others—has been most actively and zealously engaged in pursuing those fugitive Sepoy bands to which now the rebel force is fortunately reduced. My Lords, there is one name more among those who fought at the side of the Commander-in-Chief at the siege of Lucknow, who shared in the labours, anxieties, and dangers of the beleaguered garrison of Lucknow, and who subsequently placed himself under the command of Sir Hugh Rose, and co-operated with him in the capture of Gwalior, and has since also been actively engaged in pursuing and defeating the retreating rebels, and one whose name has a sort of hereditary claim on honours in this country, as well as on honours in India—I refer to that distinguished officer General Sir Robert Napier—an officer who cannot be too highly eulogized for the signal services he has performed; pursuing the enemy after the capture of Gwalior with unwavering gallantry, and regardless of danger, he charged and completely defeated them, took twenty-four guns, subsequently intercepted their retreat at Ferozepore, and did other valiant acts that entitle him to unmixed admiration.
I must apologise to your Lordships for the length at which I have dilated on this interesting and important subject. Apart from its length, I know how still more imperfectly and inadequately I, as a civilian and an unprofessional man, have been able to do justice to the services of the gallant officers whose names and exploits I have brought before you; but, holding the position that I do, I did not think I ought to spare either myself or your Lordships the infliction of a somewhat lengthened discourse rather than appear to undervalue the valued and valiant services of the heroic men who have added new laurels and lustre to our arms in India. My Lords, I have now gone through the list of the names of the distinguished officers to whom I ask your Lordships to give the meed of your eulogium and the mark of honour, and I think that seldom, if on any occasion, has a list of more distinguished names been presented to the nation for this purpose. Any one who looks to the annals of Indian warfare will admit that no roll of triumph could be more honourably headed than by the name of that distinguished General Lord Clyde; and it must be equally admitted that no more fitting or more honourable termination could be put to it than that of the almost equally honour-
1710
ed name of Napier. Of course, in the selection of names to bring under the notice of your Lordships and Parliament those who shall receive in their own persons the expression of the gratitude of Parliament and the country, it is necessary to draw some line of distinction—it is requisite to lay down some rules of distinction—in order to avoid the invidiousness which might arise from the indiscriminate selection of names without reference to position or responsibility. But, my Lords, I doubt not, that if any military officer should follow me, that from him many of those officers whose names are not included in the list submitted will receive proper testimony of approval and approbation, the value of which, coming from military authorities, will be infinitely greater than any notice I could venture to give of their names with the intention of doing them honour. I do not doubt but that there might be selected from amongst these names many men of eminent distinction; but their names do not appear on the Votes of the House, or in any special notice, asking for your Lordships' approval; but in the general Vote your Lordships are asked—"That the Thanks of this House be given to the other gallant officers of Her Majesty's army and Navy, and also of Her Majesty's Indian Forces, for the intrepidity, zeal, and endurance evinced by them in the arduous operations of the late Indian campaign;" and your Lordships are asked to add to this Vote—"That this House doth highly approve and acknowledge the valour, self-devotion, and brilliant services of the non-commissioned officers and private soldiers, both European and Native, who have taken part in the suppression of the recent disturbances in India; 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." And I must here, my Lords, pause for a moment to say, that by inadvertence, which I greatly regret, there has been a great omission in these Resolutions. In the third Resolution we have thanked the officers of Her Majesty's Army and Navy, but in the fourth Resolution no notice has been taken of a body of men not very large in number, but who, in proportion to their number, have rendered most distinguished service in the campaign—I allude to the seamen and marines. I propose to make an Amendment in the fourth Resolution,

1711
in order to introduce them as equally deserving of our Thanks with the European and Native Army.
My Lords, after these lengthened observations, I will only say, in conclusion, that at the present period I believe we may congratulate ourselves upon the complete and absolute return of tranquillity and the restoration of peace to India. My Lords, I saw it stated the other day—I am not now speaking from official documents—that within a comparatively recent period in Oude something like 1,000 forts had already been captured, something like 480 cannon taken, and 1,000,000 stand of arms of different descriptions. The subjugation of the province of Oude, and the restoration of peace throughout the vast Indian Peninsula is complete. So far as military operations and achievements are concerned we have fully and effectively accomplished the task we had undertaken; but, my Lords, I think that the experience of the last few years must teach us this great moral and momentous lesson, that we have yet before us, perchance, a more arduous and more serious duty than that which we have accomplished. My Lords, we have subjugated the Natives of India, and impressed them by the force of arms with a sense of our irresistible power, and of our indomitable determination to maintain that power. But that, my Lords, that remains for us to do is a yet more difficult conquest—a yet more solemn subjugation—a subjugation, if possible, of the heart's affections, and the prejudices of a vast people—so as to impress them equally with the strong sense of our irresistible power, with feelings of satisfaction and conviction in the benevolence, justice, and benignity of our dominion. My Lords, we have an arduous task to perform, and we must now apply ourselves diligently, sedulously, and anxiously to the successful accomplishment of our task, a task which must occupy us many years. And even if we do not restore entire tranquillity to that great empire, we shall yet be able to confer on India the inestimable blessings of good government. My Lords, with all our military force—and I admit that for a lengthened period it will be necessary to retain a considerable force in that country—with all our military force and organization—our sway will be, at all events, the sway of a conqueror, and our position problematical and uncertain, unless we honestly and conscientiously govern
1712
that great country, not for the advantage of the few, but for the happiness of the many; unless, simultaneously with our military success, we concurrently advance the moral, social, and physical condition of the population which Providence has placed beneath our rule; unless we endeavour to develop the industrial resources and the prodigal wealth of an empire restored by our arms to our superintendence and our rule; unless by a firm and temperate administration of justice we satisfy the Natives that if we are their masters we are friendly, and merciful, and benevolent masters, to whom it is not only their fate, but to whom it is also their interest to be faithful and obedient subjects. I believe, my Lords, that by acting on the principle—that wise and humane principle—set forth in Her Majesty's most gracious Proclamation, and endeavouring to heal the scars, and to obliterate the memory of the scenes of bloodshed that have accompanied this unhappy revolt, we shall best consult not only our own honour, but the interest also of this country, and I trust that under the blessing of Providence, the possession of the vast territories which have now been reconquered for us by the valour of our military forces, may, for the benefit of India and of this country alike, be long watched over, supported and confirmed by the generous care and the judicious wisdom of the Legislature and the statesmen of this country. The noble Earl concluded by moving to resolve—

1."That the Thanks of this House be given to The Right Honourable Viscount Canning, G.C.B., Her Majesty's Viceroy and Governor General of India; The Right Honourable Lord Elphinstone, G.C.B., Governor of the Presidency of Bombay; Sir John Laird Mair Lawrence, Bart., G.C.B., late Lieut. Governor of the Punjab; Sir Robert North Collie Hamilton, Bart., Agent to the Governor General in Central India; Henry Bartle Edward Frere, Esq., Commissioner of Scinde; Robert Montgomery, Esq., late Chief Commissioner in Oude; for the Ability with which they have severally employed the Resources at their Disposal for the Re-establishment of Peace in Her Majesty's Indian Dominions.

2."That the Thanks of this House be given to General The Right Honourable Lord Clyde, G.C.B., Commander in Chief in India Lieutenant General Sir James Outram, Bart., G.C.B.; Major General Sir Hugh Henry Rose, G.C.B., Major General Henry Gee Roberts; Major General George Cornish Whitlock; Major General Sir Archdale Wilson, Bart., K.O. B.: Major General Sir James Hope Grant, K.C.B.; Major General Sir William Rose Mansfield, K.C.B.; Major General Sir Thomas Harte Franks, K.C.B.; Major General Sir Edward Lugard,

1713
K.C.B.; Major General Sir John Michel, K.C.B.; Brigadier General Robert Walpole, C.B.; Brigadier General Sir Robert Napier, K.C.B.; for the eminent Skill, Courage and Perseverance displayed by them during the Military Operations by which the late Insurrection in India has been effectually suppressed.

3."That the Thanks of this House be given to the other gallant Officers of Her Majesty's Army and Navy; and also of Her Majesty's Indian Forces, for the Intrepidity, Zeal, and Endurance evinced by them in the arduous Operations of the late Indian Campaign.

4." That this House doth highly approve and acknowledge the Valour, Self-devotion, and brilliant Services of the Non-commissioned Officers and Private Soldiers, both European and Native, who have taken Part in the Suppression of the recent Disturbances in India; 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."

EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I feel it a great honour to be permitted to second the Motion which has just been made by the noble Earl. The speech in which he has introduced it has not lasted one minute longer than its great theme required; and has been marked not only by the most accurate information as to the circumstances upon which the claims of those whom he proposes to thank are founded, but also, if I may be allowed to say so, by the complete absence of anything like personal or party feeling. The noble Earl, in the speech he has just addressed to us, has spoken in the fullest and most national sense the feeling of this House and of the country. For these reasons it is hardly necessary for me, in following the noble Earl, to add a single word to the statement which he has made; but I think it important that some one should give evidence that those noble Lords who sit on this side of the House warmly and cheerfully support the Motion which he has made. My Lords, it is impossible for me, speaking on this subject, not to refer to the Vote of Thanks moved by my noble and gallant Friend behind me last year; and I cannot help rejoicing that all the circumstances of the comparison are calculated to give the House the greatest satisfaction. Of the distinguished individuals who were then thanked not one has since died, not one has done anything which could in the slightest degree tarnish the laurels which he had then won, while many of them have doubled and trebled the claims to the Thanks of your Lordships which they then possessed. The first of these Resolutions refers to the civilians, and I must say that I listened with heartfelt pleasure and satis-
1714
faction to the singularly just and accurate tribute paid by the noble Earl to the merit of the Governor General. Last year it was a matter of discussion, partly as a point of form, and partly on other considerations, whether he was then entitled to receive the Thanks of this House; and I am happy to say that the act which we are consummating this evening buries all that discussion in entire oblivion, and that we all have the pleasure of uniting in an unanimous tribute of Thanks to that noble Earl. I feel that if I gave any opinion of my own as to the merits of Lord Canning I should merely weaken the effect of that which has been stated by the Prime Minister; and I will therefore confine myself to giving perhaps the strongest possible confirmation of what has fallen so gracefully from the noble Earl, by quoting a single sentence from a letter the whole tenor of which is to the same effect. I quote it without the permission of the writer or of the person to whom it was sent, but it redounds so much to the credit both of the writer and of the subject of the letter, that I feel that in doing so I am guilty of no indiscretion. I therefore beg to read to your Lordships a single sentence addressed by the great authority whose name stands at the head of the second resolution, Lord Clyde, to Lady Canning, upon the pacification of Oude. He says—
"England will receive with acclamation the great statesman who never faltered in the moment of direct peril, and whose ultimate triumph has been so rapid, so perfect, and so merciful, that history can hardly equal it."
I believe that this expression of opinion will be a more forcible corroboration of what has fallen from the noble Earl than would anything which I could address to your Lordships. The noble Earl referred to the services of other distinguished men holding civil positions; and I am sure that the way in which the House received his mention of the sagacity of Lord Elphinstone, and of the services which he has rendered, must have been most gratifying to any friend of that noble Lord. I know no greater proof of the peculiar sagacity and unselfishness which have marked the civil servants in India during the mutiny, than the readiness which they have shown to a great extent to denude themselves of the forces which they themselves required, merely because they thought that the presence of those troops in other parts of India was still more necessary. I am sure that it must have been the cause of great

1715
satisfaction to the noble Earl in recommending to Her Majesty the honours which she has been pleased to bestow upon Lord Elphinstone, to remember that this was an act of justice done to one who was entirely separated from him in political and party feelings. The noble Earl next alluded to the services of Sir John Lawrence, and stated that he had already returned to this country to take a most useful part in the Home Government of India. I should be well pleased, my Lords, if that distinguished individual was present in this House, and had the opportunity of hearing his praise from the lips of the Prime Minister of the Crown, praise which has during the last two years been uttered in still warmer and still stronger accents, not only in the debates in both Houses of Parliament and in the press, but in the daily conversation of all classes of society. The noble Earl stated fully the claims of the other members of the civil service, to whom he referred to the Thanks of Parliament, perhaps the highest honour which an Englishman can receive; and I will only say, that I believe that in no single instance did he overrate the claims of those distinguished men to the honour which is now proposed to be conferred upon them. With regard to the military men, to whom it is proposed that we should give our thanks to-day, it would not be becoming in me to enter into details; but it is impossible to speak at all upon this subject without one word acknowledging the immense services of that most distinguished soldier, Lord Clyde; particularly in this House, which has derived new lustre from the addition of that noble Lord to our ranks. The only regret that any one can feel at his elevation is, that it takes away from us the power of using that still more familiar name of Sir Colin Campbell, speaking of the most honest and most successful soldiers ever employed by this country. Hoping that I shall be followed by those who are more competent to speak upon military matters than I am, I will not waste your Lordships' time by dwelling upon them; but I must say, that it is a remarkable instance of the diffusion of information through all classes in this country, that names like those of Mansfield, Grant, Rose, Lugard, Michel, and others, are known not only to a select portion of the nation, but are almost household words in every cottage throughout the land. There is one point to which I will call the attention of the noble Earl, without however, giving any opinion upon it. Nothing
1716
which fell from him was more true than the observation, that it is most important that the Thanks of this House should be given in such a manner, that no impression can arise that they are bestowed as a matter of form. To that I entirely agree. I have no doubt that every man whose name is mentioned in this second Resolution is justly entitled to our Thanks; but it seems to me a little anomalous, that among them are two officers who do not appear to have been thought worthy to receive even the lowest rank of the military honour of the Bath. There seems to be an anomaly or inconsistency in this, of which no doubt an explanation can easily be given. The name of Sir John Inglis also is omitted from the Resolution. I dare say some reason can be given for that. [The Earl of DERBY: He has been home]. But Sir Archdale Wilson. [The Duke of CAMBRIDGE: He commanded the Artillery at the siege of Lucknow.] So much misapprehension often arises as to Motions of this sort, that it is better that these things should be mentioned at once. The noble Earl alluded to the immense loss which this country has sustained by the death of such men as Sir William Peel, and he also paid a most just and deserved tribute to the memory of Sir Henry Lawrence. It is a subject of regret to me, as it is to many who are more competent than I am to form an opinion, that it is not consistent with precedents that Parliament should, on such a great occasion as this—one of the greatest which has occurred in the history of this country—express its regret at the loss of such men as Sir Henry Lawrence, Sir William Peel, Havelock, Nicholson, Neill, Adrian Hope, and others, whose untimely deaths we have all in our own individual capacities felt to be the greatest of misfortunes. The great events which have occurred in India during the last year, show clearly how idle are all human calculations, and how ridiculous it would be for any set of men to claim for themselves any sagacity or power of prediction which a slight turn in the course of events may so easily falsify. At the same time, it is satisfactory to us who, from the beginning, were taunted with being too sanguine on the matter, that, while we acknowledged the great dangers which were hanging over India; yet, for not one single moment did we ever doubt as to the ultimate result. Our excuse for entertaining that sanguine opinion, was the past history of our Indian empire—its conquest in so comparatively brief a space

1717
of time; and the consciousness that, even if we had lost it, we were in a far better position to regain it than we were 100 years ago in originally acquiring it. But our chief reason for confidence was the reliance we felt in the moral and intellectual qualities of our fellow-countrymen in India. And, however great that confidence may have been, I say, without hesitation, that the conduct both of the civilians and the military have far surpassed every reasonable expectation that could have been entertained of them. It is marvellous to think of the great moral qualities, as well as of the physical courage, by the display of which they were enabled to struggle against and overcome the fearful obstacles they had to encounter. I know of nothing which appeals more strongly to the imagination than the manner in which Mr. Frere, amidst a population of some 6,000,000 Natives, and supported by but between 100 and 200 Europeans, contrived to maintain perfect tranquillity in the province intrusted to his charge, after denuding himself in every direction of troops and despatching them to points to which he thought they were more required. The achievements performed by Sir Hope Grant and Sir Hugh Rose seem more like the prodigies of valour recounted in the pages of an ancient romance than actual historical events occurring in our own times. Such were the qualities and the deeds which enabled us to reconquer India; and I heartily join, as I am sure all your Lordships will do, in the prayer of the noble Earl, that the same Providence which endowed our countrymen with the endurance, the courage, and the skill by which they have succeeded in regaining that vast empire in India, will vouchsafe to bestow upon us, both at home and in that country, a deep sense of the responsibilities which attach to their position, and that sagacity and wisdom which shall qualify them to govern this enormous mass of the human family, not in a spirit of selfishness, or only for their own interests, but in the mode most calculated to promote their social, material, and, I will add, moral improvement and elevation among the nations of the earth. My Lords, I beg most cordially to second the Resolution just moved by the noble Earl.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to make a few observations on the Motion now before your Lordships, because I feel that this subject, however interesting in itself, has been so fully and so ably dealt with by
1718
the noble Lords who have preceded me that it is really impossible for me, or indeed, I believe, for any one, to add much to what has been already said. At the same time, having regard to the official position which I have the honour to hold, I cannot allow myself to give a silent assent to the Motion proposed by the noble Earl. My Lords, we have to congratulate ourselves upon the present state of India; and, when we reflect upon what that vast empire has had to undergo during the last two years, it is indeed marvellous that my gallant Friend Lord Clyde should have been enabled to write to me in the terms which the noble Earl at the head of the Government has already quoted to your Lordships—namely, that never in his experience had India been more quiet than it is at the present moment. And when I come to ask myself how the recent fearful outbreak has been brought to so rapid and so complete a termination, I cannot doubt that the chief cause of this auspicious result has been the cordiality and good feeling which existed between the civil and military authorities of India. But for that I believe it would have been impossible for the gallantry of our troops, however heroic, or for the skill of their commanders, however admirable, to have brought India so speedily to its present tranquil condition. My Lords, the observation I have just made includes not only my noble Friend the Viceroy of India, but extends to the Governor of the Bombay Presidency, my noble Friend Lord Elphinstone, who I know exerted himself in the most active manner, in conjunction with the Commander-in-Chief of his Presidency, to forward supplies and furnish troops for the field—in denuding in fact his own Presidency—so as to enable the great operations of war to be carried to a successful issue. I have no doubt that the same energy and ability—though, perhaps owing to circumstances, to a less conspicuous extent—were displayed by the Government of Madras, where Sir Patrick Grant, a most distinguished and efficient officer, holds the chief military command, and has rendered the most valuable aid by despatching columns of troops to co-operate with the forces which advanced from Bombay into Central India. My Lords, I have been asked to fill up the void supposed to be left by the list of meritorious names embodied in the Resolution before us. But I feel considerable difficulty in attempting to do so, because, where everybody has con-

1719
ducted himself so praise worthily, it would be almost invidious for me to single out particular officers for especial commendation. It so happens that in this campaign a great many officers have had an opportunity of distinguishing themselves. Numerous columns have been in constant movement, and the individual capacity of each commander has demonstrated itself more conspicuously than usually occurs in ordinary campaigns. The number of Brigadiers employed has been remarkable, all of whom, though some of them have been at the head of small columns, have deserved well of their country; and I am sure that the officers of this rank who are mentioned by name in the Resolution would be the first to bear testimony to the valuable services performed by those of their brethren who may not be specifically included in the same distinction. Therefore, while it is with some reluctance I approach this subject, yet, as it has been brought under your Lordships' notice, and as the eminent names already quoted have been so fully dealt with, I may mention that Brigadier Jones, having previously greatly distinguished himself at Delhi, subsequently rendered very important services in support of Brigadier General Walpole's movements. Men, too, like Brigadier Horsford, of the Rifle Brigade, Brigadier Barker, of the Royal Artillery; Brigadier Showers, and Brigadier Troup, who belong to the local army of India, I am most anxious to bring under your Lordships' notice, because I am convinced that the greatest advantage has accrued, throughout these campaigns from the good feeling which has animated all portions of the army, both local and the line, and their common anxiety to do their utmost for the speedy suppression of the revolt. I think I have now gone over most of the names which I wished to particularize; though I may perhaps be permitted to add that of Brigadier Douglas, who succeeded Sir Edward Lugard in command of the Azimghur division, and has contributed so much to the pacification of his district. Of course, my Lords, as regards my noble and gallant Friend, Lord Clyde, it would be preposterous for me to sound his praises in this assembly. His fame is familiar not only to every Englishman, but it extends throughout the length and breadth of the Continent and of the world. I think it right, however, to state that Lord Clyde never omits an occasion of bringing under my notice the valuable assistance he has received from Sir William
1720
Mansfield; and with that modesty which does him so much credit, he constantly assures me that it is not to himself that the honour is due, but to General Mansfield, for the combinations which have marked this campaign. For it is in this that this Indian campaign has been, remarkable—not so much for hard fighting as for the great combination it has required, and the bringing of different columns to bear from various points. I believe there never was an instance of any campaign in which the evolutions of columns were so ably carried out as in this. I am not aware, in the whole course of it, of a single occasion on which any column intended for a particular post, and required to take a considerable share in. any operation, was not found at its appointed place, and did not carry out the duty assigned to it in the general combination. And now, my Lords, I turn to Central India. And here I listened with the greatest pleasure and satisfaction to what fell from the noble Earl as regards my gallant Friend Sir Hugh Rose. Certainly if any officer ever performed acts of the greatest daring, valour, and determination, those acts were performed by my gallant Friend Sir Hugh Rose. I personally had an opportunity of seeing what manner of man my gallant Friend is, and of what stuff he is made; and I was satisfied at the time that if ever the right occasion presented itself he would be found to distinguish himself in the extraordinary manner which he has lately done. Permit me to say that he was at the head of a very small European force, and that a very large proportion of the troops under his command were Natives, regular sepoys, and I have reason to believe, from letters received from him, that those troops on all occasions conducted themselves with a valour and bearing equal to that displayed by the Europeans. That, my Lords, is a fact which I think ought not to be overlooked. Sir Hugh Rose's operations finished with the capture of Gwalior, and certainly I concur with what fell from the noble Earl as to the manner in which my gallant Friend, at the risk of his health—I may say of his life—put himself at the head of his troops and rushed to the attack when he ought to have sought the rest of which he stood in such urgent need. His achievements having been brought to a triumphant close, Sir Hugh Rose was succeeded in his command at Gwalior by Sir Robert Napier, an officer whose services at Lucknow and elsewhere were of a character to stamp him as worthy

1721
of the honoured name he bears. General Michel succeeded to the command of the troops in Central India. His operations were not connected with any one great or brilliant event; but the work performed by that column and by its auxiliary detachments was beyond all praise. The number of miles his troops marched during those operations is almost fabulous; they are to be reckoned not by hundreds, but thousands; and the movements are not only remarkable for the number of miles the troops marched, but for the short time in which the marches were accomplished. I believe that no one during these operations has done harder service than General Michel. There are several other officers whose names have been mentioned in despatches, such as Brigadier Park, Brigadier Smith, and Brigadier Lockhart. The columns commanded by these officers were small, and they had not such opportunities of distinguishing themselves as others. But the duties they performed were considerable; they were constantly harassed by a persevering and daring enemy; and, as the result of their services, I trust Central India will soon exhibit the same stale of tranquillity as the other provinces. In remarking on the military operations of the campaign I cannot pass over some other departments of the service without which the military movements would have been paralyzed; I would mention the Commissariat and Medical departments, which, by accident no doubt, have been omitted from mention. [The Earl of DERBY: Hear, hear!] But I must think, when we reflect on the state of the country, doubt and fear existing throughout the land, the roads and communications interrupted, and the inhabitants not assisting us, as we might have hoped and anticipated, that it was wonderful how the Commissariat kept the troops as efficiently supplied as it evidently must have done, for I have never heard any instance of the troops not having been fully and amply supplied. I think this acknowledgment is duo to the Commissariat service. I think that the Medical department of the army has also well discharged its most important and most valuable duties. I have not heard of any portion of the troops who were not thoroughly taken care of; and, knowing that the amount of sickness necessarily resulting from the climate is much larger than in any European army, I think it right to allude to this Department. With regard to the Army in general and the Officers, I do not know
1722
that there is anything which, as a military man, I need add to the observations that have been already made. But I cordially agree with what has fallen from both my noble Friends as to the future of India. It is a question of deep and vast importance. I think that now the military officers have performed their portion of the work that of the civilians will really and truly begin. I am perfectly aware that the first duty of the civil Government is to control its expenditure; but, on the other hand, economy may be carried too far. Every effort should be made to keep down the military establishment, but I hope every reduction will be made with the caution and attention so important and difficult a matter fairly deserves. I have already referred to one subject to which, however, I wish to recur. Allusion has been made to Sir John Lawrence: to no man is more praise due than to Sir John Lawrence for those measures by which he was enabled to move a mass of troops from the Punjab to Delhi, which was one of the most remarkable features of the campaign. But Sir John Lawrence himself doubted whether, if it had not been for the assistance of Sir Sydney Cotton, he would have been enabled to carry out those measures. Sir Sydney Cotton's occupation of Peshawur enabled Sir John Lawrence to feel confidence in the military position he occupied in the Punjab. The aid was all the more valuable, also, because it was furnished by Native troops. My Lords, combined with the tribute of our thanks we have also expressed the pain and sorrow we feel for the losses we have sustained in the great men who have died in these operations; but they died nobly and gloriously; they felt that they died doing their duty, and it is ours to do honour to their names and their memory. It is a feeling that lies deep in the heart of every Englishman. That feeling will not lightly be eradicated, and as long as history speaks of the great events that have taken place in India the world will never forget the deeds of valour and daring performed by a Havelock, a Nicholson, a Neale, an Adrian Hope, and many other heroes. I cordially support the Motion.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I regret that a specific Vote of Thanks to the Governor General of India was not moved, separate from the Vote to the other civil officers who have assisted in obtaining those great military successes which have crowned our arms in India. I know that at the commencement of last

1723
session a Vote of Thanks was passed, in which the name of the Governor General was mixed up with many others. But in my opinion this was an exceedingly bad precedent. The Governor General is solely responsible for the conduct of all the operations in India; what is required from him is different from what is required from any other man. The whole responsibility is his; if he had failed, he would have been justly censured; having succeeded, he is as justly entitled to our praise. Responsibility has its rights as well as its obligations; and I think, seeing the enormous distance between the Governor General and even the Governor of a province, and still more the gentleman who is only the agent of the Governor General, it is due to that high officer that the peculiar merits he has exhibited throughout all these operations should be specified in a distinct and separate Vote of Thanks. I believe that up to the beginning of last year this was always the good practice of Parliament. My noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), with equal perspicuity and justice, has described the services of the various military officers whose names are mentioned in the Vote. But here again I must express the same regret that there is not a specific and separate Vote of Thanks to Lord Clyde. The illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) has well remarked that the last campaign in India was entirely one of military combinations. The merit of those combinations belongs wholly to the Commander-in-Chief,—not to the subordinate officers. Yet, in the Vote the Commander-in-Chief and the commanders of brigades are jumbled together, and the words of thanks are identical for both. This is not the right course of proceeding, and cannot give satisfaction either to the officers receiving the thanks, or to the army itself. The merits and services both of the civilians and military officers named in the Votes have been amply touched on by the noble Lords who have preceded me; but I wish to claim your attention for a few short moments on behalf of those who are indeed named in the Vote, but who have hitherto been more in your Lordships' minds than in the speeches you have heard. My Lords, I ask your attention for the troops by whom these glorious victories in India have been obtained. That which the Generals have done they could not have done with inferior troops. My Lords, I recollect well that the late Duke of Wellington told me once that the British army in India came, in his
1724
opinion, nearer to what the Roman legion must have been than any troops he had ever seen in his life. That army has not degenerated. There is nothing in ancient or modern history so astonishing as that which has been effected by that army during the last eighteen months. I have borne in my mind the various military events which have taken place during my life. I recollect, I am sorry to say, most of the great campaigns which have taken place from the battle of Austerlitz to the present time almost as if they had occurred yesterday. But, looking back this long vista of years, I cannot find any war in which there are so many circumstances combined of military, historical, and social interest as there are in the war which is now under our consideration. I cannot call to mind any occasion on which troops have shown so much fortitude, so much endurance, so much perseverance under suffering of every species. I know none in which they have shown such pertinacity in resisting the force of overwhelming masses, or in which they have shown such earnestness, such excitement, and determination to conquer the enemy, whenever they had a chance of success. My Lords, I know nothing equal to the conduct of the British army from the commencement of this war to this hour. Thank God we have such an army. When the several military Powers of Europe are bringing together their forces, I fear for the purpose of measuring their strength upon the field of battle, it is satisfactory for us to know that we have the materials for forming an army which can face any of theirs with absolute certainty of success. Would to God one-half of the army now in India were encamped at Aldershot! It would make the work of my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs at the Congress easy to do. Ten thousand of these men, on whatever side they might be called upon to fight, would secure the victory. There is nothing like our Indian army. There is nothing in modern history to be compared to the marches of that army during the late war. There is but one march the most remarkable in ancient Roman story—which can be compared to the marches performed by our army in Central India. Nay, more, my Lords, observe,—it was given to them to use for the first time those improved firearms, and all the improvements in war which science has of late contributed. They have learnt a new art of war. It is from them that Europe has now to learn. It is

1725
from them that Europe will have to suffer what they have learnt, if it be necessary for them to take part in a European war. The full and graphic manner in which all that has passed in India has been related to us week after week has rendered us almost present in the camp, on the march, in the bivouac, in the battle, and almost eye-witnesses of those great achievements on which we are now congratulating those who performed them. When we hear of the electric telegraph passing under the fire of the enemy, over an unfordable river, to a distance of several miles, used for the purpose of giving an order to the extreme flank of a detached corps during a general action, must we not admit that that indeed is an instance of science being taken advantage of by real genius? Look at the battle of Sultanpore, in which Sir Thomas Franks took advantage of all the peculiarities which result from the new species of weapons. Our troops in India have fought the battle of giants, but not as giants using mere brute force, but as if they had stolen the very fire from heaven. My Lords, I will not say more. I had not intended to say one word, but recollecting what those troops were when I saw them, recollecting that they have realized all I have said of them, that they surpass all the troops produced from one end of Europe to the other, that they are our countrymen, that in many cases they are the men upon whom we are to depend for the safety of our country, I could not allow this night to pass over without expressing my feeling, and declaring my belief that the feelings I have expressed are the general feelings of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT GOUGHsaid, he had had the good fortune of having been nobly assisted by Lord Clyde in China. That noble Lord ultimately joined his army in India, and he creditably and honourably did his duty in the position which he held. Sir Edward Lugard also served under him in the Sutlej campaign, and acted his part in a distinguished manner. He felt it his duty to join cordially in this Vote of Thanks, assuring their Lordships that the bravery and devotion of the troops and of the officers individually named were such as merited the approbation of their Lordships and of the country.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEwished to say a few words with respect to the gallant and distinguished officer whose name stood first in the second Resolution, as he was a personal friend of his, It had been
1726
very truly said that Lord Clyde enjoyed a European reputation, but as most of their Lordships were civilians he would call their attention for a few moments to some of the achievements of Lord Clyde during the half century that he had served his country. The first military service of that noble Lord was in the Walcheren expedition. He afterwards served in the Peninsula and was present at the battles of Vimiera, Corunna, Barossa, and Vittoria. At the siege of San Sebastian he led a forlorn hope, and received two severe wounds. At the passage of the Bidassoa he was severely wounded. He next served in China. His services in India were too recent and too brilliant to call for further comment. His recent campaign was, he believed, the most successful instance of strategy, with the exception of the campaigns of the late Sir Charles Napier, ever exhibited in that country. It had too often been the practice of his predecessors to rely too much upon the physical pluck of their countrymen, and to oppose a handful of Europeans to myriads of Indians, and to lead small bodies of their countrymen against batteries of enormous strength. The illustrious Duke had spoken of the combinations of Lord Clyde, and their Lordships would remember how he spread a net, as it were, and inclosed within its meshes, with one exception, every big fish that was to be caught—he meant with the exception of Feroze Shah, who, according to the last accounts, was entering into a treaty for his surrender. In India, as in the Crimea, Lord Clyde evinced a tender anxiety to avoid unnecessary destruction of life. He twice relieved the garrison of Lucknow and its hundreds of women and children, and in those two actions there was less sacrifice of life than in any one of the general actions ever fought in India. Not less conspicuous than his gallantry was the humanity which he had shown in the discharge of his duties. He had been not only chary of the lives of his own men, but of the lives of his enemies also. "There must be no hanging here," was the expression constantly attributed to Lord Clyde, and from his knowledge of the man he believed most truly so. In short the noble Lord was not more distinguished for his bravery than for his humanity.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, having already troubled you at so much length, I will now only say a single word, and that to ask your Lordships' permission to insert a name in the Vote which

1727
has been inadvertently omitted, and which I find has been inserted in the other House of Parliament. I have mentioned the services of the officers and men of the Naval Brigade, and it is very desirable to insert in the Resolution the name of Captain Edward Sotheby. With respect to the suggestion of my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Ellenborough), I may state that the course which he has recommended occurred to me so strongly that I had prepared separate Resolutions for the Governor General and the Commander-in-Chief; but on looking to the course pursued last year I followed the precedent then set, and abandoned the intention of taking the course which my noble Friend has recommended. I am glad that my noble Friend has adverted to the services of the troops in India; because, having gone at great detail through the services of individual officers, I did not wish unduly to trespass on your Lordships' patience by extending the length of my address. At the same time I hope it will be believed that there is not, on my part, or on the part of any Member of this House, any wish to depreciate or underrate the immense benefit conferred upon the country by the valour, discipline, and brilliant services of the troops in India.
Resolutions, as amended, agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
Ordered, That the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said Resolutions to Her Majesty's Viceroy and Governor General of India; and that his Excellency he requested to communicate the same to the said Governor, Commissioners, and Officers referred to therein.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow Three o'clock.