Sitting of 14 February 1861

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Pembroke, District of Boroughs, v. Sir John Owen, baronet, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Offences against the Person; Larceny, &c.; Malicious Injuries to Property; Forgery; Coinage Offences; Accessories and Abettors; Criminal Statutes Repeal; Appropriation of Seats (Sudbury and Saint Alban's); Law of Foreign Countries.
2° Bankruptcy and Insolvency; Bank of England Payments; Red Sea and India Telegraph.

CALEDONIAN, EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW, AND SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAIL. WAY BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill, for amalgamating these railways. The Bill
394
was essentially the same as that before the House last Session. But, inasmuch as the Select Committee by whom it was consisidercd last Session, rejected it on the ground that they could not find in it any advantage to the public, the promoters this year had made very material reductions in the rates which they proposed to take. The Bill, however, was to be opposed by several powerful interests, and he thought it was for them to show on what grounds they took the unusual course of opposing it on the second reading. The opponents of the Bill were the Corporation of Edinburgh, who, as the lion. Members for Edinburgh well knew, could make a very bitter opposition, the Corporation of Glasgow, and several large towns. Their argument was, that the Bill had already been thrown out, and that it was not reasonable to put the opponents to the expense of opposing it Session after Session in Parliament. But this Bill differed in several respects from the various other Bills that had formerly been before Parliament; and, as to expense, some expense must always be incurred, and he had no doubt it would appear that the expense incurred by the opponents was much greater than it need be.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. BLACKsaid, he would admit that it was not usual to oppose private Bills on the second reading, hut there were precedents in favour of such a course, of which several occurred in the year 1848. The ground of the rejection was, that it was not reasonable to harass private individuals by introducing the same Bills Session after Session. Not one of these cases was half so had as the present. Amalgamation was not the proper word for this Bill. Under the name of amalgamation the promoters sought to establish a monopoly; for, if the Bill passed it would give them a monopoly of the whole traffic between England and the north and west of Scotland. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire admitted that this Bill was substantially the same with that of last Session, which was unanimously rejected by the Select Committee of the House. It was now opposed by every chamber of commerce, and almost by every merchant in Scotland, who all felt the danger to which they were about to be exposed by this gigantic monopoly. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this Day Six Months."
MR. DALGLISHsaid, he should oppose the Bill, as it was founded, upon a principle of injurious amalgamation. The same Bill was last year for fifteen days before a Committee, and that Committee decided that the preamble of the Bill was not proved. All persons in the districts through which this railway passed were opposed to the Bill.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that as a resident on the line, he could say that he was not opposed to the Bill; and he knew many others who were not. The Bill would give great facilities to the public, and prevent travellers journeying to the north from being detained four or five hours, as they now were, at the various junctions of the different lines.
MR. INGHAMstated that he was Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the Amalgamation Bill of last Session, and that the Committee were so thoroughly convinced that the scheme was not for the benefit of the public, that they rejected it without calling upon the opponents to state their objections. The Committee were much impressed by the number of bodies representing the mercantile community of Scotland who opposed the measure.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, the House would put the people of Scotland at the mercy of the railway companies if they sanctioned the proposed monopoly. The Bill had been before private Committees, and had been most carefully examined. If there had been anything about it of any value it would not have been rejected, and he called upon the House not to sanction these pertinacious applications when the sense of Parliament was clearly against the object sought to be obtained.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he did not think that the Bill ought to be taken out of the category of Private Bills and passed by discussion of that House. He objected to such a precedent as that being established in the present case. There was nothing about the Bill which could not be settled in the usual way. The promoters only sought to have confirmed by Parliament advantages that had practically existed for some time past, by which the public were as much benefited as themselves. These points a Select Committee ought to determine, and, there-
396
fore, he should support the second reading of the Bill.
THE LORD ADVOCATEremarked that when the Bill was considered last year by a Select Committee it was opposed by a large number of persons who represented the public; and, so far as he knew, it was not supported by a single petition. The promoters of the Bill had come to Parliament this year in pursuance of an agreement to do so for five years, until they carried the Bill. The House, therefore, would only be doing justice if they told those railway companies that, though they might agree to come to Parliament, as against the public, year after year, yet that it did not necessarily follow that the public would have to bear the expense of opposing the Bill.
MR. CAIRDsaid, the amalgamation would bring together nearly half the railway capital in Scotland. It was the seventh time the application had been made, and, unless the House put an end to it now, it might go on for years longer. Every large town on the different lines was opposed to the monopoly, and he hoped the House would reject the second reading.
MR. HADFIELDbriefly spoke in favour of the second reading, and deprecated the feeling which seemed to have been excited by the statement that the object of the Bill was the establishment of a monopoly. Every railway in the kingdom was as much a monopoly as the Bill before them sought to establish.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the Board of Trade has been invited to make a special report previous to the second reading of the Bill; but that, after consideration, they did not think that this was an occasion on which they ought to depart from their usual practice, which was not to make their reports at that time. The Board did not wish to express any opinion either in favour of or adverse to the Bill, but desired to leave the matter entirely in the discretion of the House.
MR. MASSEYsaid, he did not think any sufficient reason had been shown for taking the Bill out of the ordinary rule by which a Bill was read a second time, in order that it might be examined by a Committee. If it were laid down that questions once referred to a Committee should never, under any circumstances, be re-opened, the House would not long retain the jurisdiction over private business which at present it guarded so jealously. But when any opposition was made to the

397
second reading of a private Bill, the opponents were bound to make out a case that was absolutely conclusive. Amalgamation might be beneficial in some case and injurious in another; but to pronounce in the abstract that railway concerns should never be consolidated under a central management was one of the most extraordinary propositions he had ever heard.
MR. BLACKBURNstated, that having a strong personal interest in the question, it was not his intention to vote.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
House divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 85: Majority 46.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°, and committed.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. — MEMBERS EXCUSED FROM SERVING ON COMMITTEES.—OBSERVATIONS.
The Clerk read the List of Members who have claimed to be excused from serving on Election Committees as being upwards of sixty years of age:
Also of the various Members of the Government who claim to be excused on the ground that their attendance would be inconvenient to the public service.
On the Question that Sir CHARLES WOOD be excused from serving on Committees,
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he did not, of course, rise to oppose the Motion; but he could not avoid saying that the rule by which hon. Members over sixty years of age were excused from serving on Committees required some modification. It had the effect of depriving them of the assistance of many hon. Gentlemen who were quite capable of taking part in the business of the House. Amongst the list read over by the clerk at the table were many Gentlemen who by their mature judgment were fully competent to render great assistance on Committees. To his astonishment he had heard read over the names of more than one hon. Member who had just entered the House, and one of whom had been returned as the representative of a large and important constituency. Those hon. Members were about commencing their public life, and this rule of the House stated that they were incompetent to fulfil all the duties that were thrown upon them. He wished to enter his protest against the present state of the law, but as it was the law of course more than a suggestion could be made. It was a
398
subject which ought to engage the attention of the House, and he hoped it would come before the Committee which the House had recently appointed, with respect to the business of the House. That Committee ought to take the whole matter into their consideration.
Motion agreed to.

SALMON FISHERIES IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDREW STEUARTsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether he intends at an early period of the Session, to introduce a Bill on the subject of Salmon Fisheries in Scotland, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of the Lords which reported last Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he bad in course of preparation a Bill upon that subject, and he hoped to be enabled to introduce it at an early period.

ARTERIAL DRAINAGE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measures for further facilitating the Drainage of Lands by the Improvement of Outfalls and Arterial Channels?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had had his attention directed to the subject during the recess. He believed it was one which excited a great deal of interest. He had a measure nearly prepared with respect to it; and he hoped to be able to lay that measure soon before the House, but he could not yet name a day for its introduction.

IRELAND—MILITARY AND CONSTABULARY IN LONDONDERRY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CORMICKsaid, he would beg to inquire of the Chief Secretary for Ireland by whose advice and recommendation a large number of the Military and Constabulary Force were sent into the city and county of Londonderry, on or about the 18th of December last; and whether any Correspondence or Documents, upon which such orders were made, are in existence, and will lie produced?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the constabulary and the military force bad been

  399
  sent to Londonderry upon that occasion on the responsibility of the Government, who had acted upon information conveyed to them in the usual manner, and not upon any formal requisition or sworn information. The Government had proceeded upon their own judgment with a view to the preservation of the peace.

PENSIONS TO THE MYSORE PRINCES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, What amount of pension has actually been paid over to the Mysore Princes in each of the last seven years?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the following entries appeared in the accounts which had been annually submitted to Parliament. In 1853–4, "Appropriated by the Treaty of Mysore for the maintenance of the families of Hyder Ali and Tippoo Sultan," £70,000; in 1854–55, the same sum of £70,000. In 1855–56, come, for the first time, the actual payments, namely, in that year £20,006; in 1856–57, £29,177; in 1857–58, £104,718; in 1858–59, £55,701; in 1859–60, £28,022; the average of those five years being £47,524. For the year 1860–61, that was to say the current year, as far as it had gone, the estimated payment was £54,000: and that would have to be increased before the close of the year by £12,000; so that the total of the year would be £66,000. In that sum was included the salaries of superintendents and other officials; and, as he had before stated, the ultimate permanent income of the members of these families would be £17,106.

  PAROCHIAL SCHOOLMASTERS IN SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. STIRLINGsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, If he proposes to introduce in the present Session any Bill for the relief of the parochial schoolmasters of Scotland, whose salaries have been diminished by the expiry of the late Act?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he should have to submit to the Government a proposal upon the subject, but he could not state specifically whether a Bill would be introduced with respect to it this Session.

  VAGRANCY, ROAD REFORM, &c., IN SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether it is his intention to introduce Bills in the present Session for the suppression of Vagrancy in Scotland, for Road Reform, and for the abolition of the payment of Procurators Fiscal by Fees?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had in preparation a Bill on the subject of road reform in Scotland, which would substantially carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners who had inquired into that matter; and he also proposed to introduce a measure on the subject of vagrancy in Scotland; hut he had at present no intention of introducing a Bill with respect to the payment of procurators fiscal by fees.

OPERATIONS IN CHINA.—VOTE OF THANKS TO THE NAVAL AND MILITARY FORCES.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, to perform one of the most agreeable duties which can fall to the lot of a Member of this House; and, in doing so, I call upon the House also to discharge one of its functions which, I am sure, must be the most gratifying to every Member of it. I am about to move that the Thanks of this House be given to a number of brave and gallant officers of the Army and Navy who have performed brilliant and distinguished services under circumstances of great difficulty, and with the most complete success. The operations to which I refer are those that took place in China in the course of last year, and they were in many respects of a most remarkable description. They were, in the first place, performed by a comparatively small European force at one of the most distant parts of the globe. They were performed by a force that was, perhaps, better equipped in every respect than almost any force that ever left the shores of this or any other country. There was nothing, in short, wanting on the part of those who in this country sent out a portion of the troops which were employed in China; nor on the part of the Government of India in that portion of the expedition which went from India to make the arrangements as complete and efficient as possible. The operations of the force were conducted with the greatest possible skill, gallantry, and in-

  401
  trepidity. Not a single mistake was made in the whole course of the expedition. There was no deficiency in any of the arrangements made either for providing the force with all those things that are necessary for service, and in transporting it from place to place, or in those naval and military operations which it was in the end called on to perform. There prevailed, also, I am happy to say, the most perfect harmony between the British and French forces, both military and naval, employed in the expedition. The difficulties were great, but they were overcome with rapidity. The period during which the operations lasted was comparatively short—comparatively, I mean, with reference to the dangers and difficulties that lay in the way, and the success, as I have said, was complete, without a single check being sustained throughout.
  It is well known that the operations in China arose from the refusal of the Chinese Government to ratify the Treaty of Tientsin which had been concluded between the two countries. It became necessary to obtain the ratification of that treaty. The French and English Governments both concurred in that necessity, and each sent a force to obtain it; but both Governments resorted in the first place to persuasion and diplomacy to insure their object. Both Governments sent their representatives to China before they had recourse to extreme measures to endeavour to persuade the Chinese Government to fulfil the obligations which it had contracted; and it was not till every effort was made, and it was evident that nothing but force would obtain the ratification of those engagements, that force was resorted to. It was at the end of May that our whole force assembled at Hong Kong; at the beginning of June it left Hong Kong, and by the end of June reached the rendezvous at Talin-Whan, where the English and French forces joined each other. On the 26th of July everything was ready for commencing operations. I believe the French force had sustained by shipwrecks and storms the loss of some portion of their supplies, and it was necessary to wait till those losses could be made good. On the 1st of August the forces landed at Peh-tang, at the mouth of a river which runs a certain way parallel with the Peiho, being the point at which the Chinese Government had requested the Ambassadors on a former occasion to wait. The landing at Peh-tang was an operation performed with the greatest possible suc-
  402
  cess, though not without great difficulty. The troops had to wade to a great extent up to their knees in mud before they reached dry land, and they then found a fortified position which might have been defended. They took possession of the town and forts the next day. For several days they had encountered difficulties from I the weather, as there came on a very heavy rain that rendered it impossible for them to advance upon the Taku Forts they intended to attack. On the 13th of August they left Peh-tang for Ting-hoo, and prepared to land and to take the Taku Forts. It was thought more desirable to land in the north and take the forts in rear than to attempt a second time to force the barrier in front under the fire of the guns. In the march from Peh-tang the force came upon an entrenched camp of the Chinese, from which the Chinese were driven with great success. On the 14th of August they took possession of a place called Ting-hoo, where they gallantly captured forty-five guns. On this occasion there was resistance on the part of the Chinese, but it was rapidly overcome. On the 21st of August they performed a most brilliant operation in the capture of the Taku Forts. It is just to the Chinese to say that they conducted themselves on this occasion with the greatest intrepidity and valour. The position was strong, and there were a great number of forts armed with a great number of guns, and also defended with stockades and palisades. They were not taken without considerable loss on our part; but the loss of the Chinese, who defended themselves with a courage that commanded admiration, was much greater. On that occasion the force captured 400 guns, and after the northern forts were taken by storm, the southern forts surrendered. On the 6th of September the allied forces reached Tien-tsin, the place where the treaty bad been concluded. Many attempts were made by the Chinese to induce the Ambassadors to enter into negotiations; but it was found that negotiations were begun by the Chinese, not to conclude an arrangement, but to gain time, in the hope that in a more advanced season the Allies would find operations more difficult. On the 9th of September the Allies left Tientsin, and advanced to a place within five miles of Tan-chow. An arrangement had been entered into between the Allies and the Chinese by which a place was to be marked out where the advanced guard of the Allies was to be encamped, and there

  403
  negotiations were to be conducted by the Commissioners on both sides. This arrangement was entered into on the 9th of September; but on the 10th, when the troops arrived there, they found the ground which had been mentioned as a place of encampment during the negotiations, occupied by a large Chinese force very much superior in number to that portion of the Allies which had arrived there, and supported by a great quantity of artillery, placed in a most formidable and menacing position. Mr. Parkes, and other gentlemen who had been employed to negotiate, went for the purpose of demanding explanations of this change of position, so entirely at variance with the arrangement that had been made. On that occasion these civil and military officers, advancing under the protection of a flag of truce, a signal which was well known to the Chinese, and had often been used by them in their communication with the Allies, were treacherously captured; and, I am sorry to say, that the greater part of them fell victims to the barbarous cruelties they suffered in their captivity. The troops then found it necessary to act, and an engagement took place in which this greatly superior number of the Chinese troops were dispersed in the most brilliant manner, and the Allies remained masters of the field. It was supposed that not less than 20,000 Chinese were engaged in this action, 600 of whom were captured, and 75 guns were taken. On the 21st the Chinese again attacked the Allied army. They charged the field artillery, and were repulsed. A brilliant charge was then made by the British cavalry. The intrenched camp of the Chinese was taken, and they were driven back to Pekin, with the loss of many men and 43 guns. I may here state that in the whole course of the operations the allied troops captured between 500 and 600 pieces of cannon. On the 2nd of October the Allies advanced to Pekin, and part of the French army occupied the Emperor's Summer Palace. On the 7th of October the Chinese were informed that they must deliver up their prisoners immediately and surrender one of the gates of Pekin. If that were not done, they were told the town would be stormed, and the responsibility would rest on the advisers of, the Emperor. This concluded the campaign, and Pekin remained in the hands of the Allies after a two months' campaign. The Chinese Government acceded to a treaty of peace. They ratified the former
  404
  Treaty of Tien-tsin, and agreed to a convention. Certain prisoners who had happily survived were released, and restored to the Allies. Thus, in a few days over two months, the operations of the Allies which were apparently of great difficulty were completed in the most brilliant manner, without a reverse, the result being the ratification of a former treaty and the conclusion of an additional convention, which has been laid before the House. One circumstance followed, which, had it not been mote than justified by the outrages that preceded it, would be greatly to be regretted, and, indeed, would not have occurred—I allude to the total destruction of the Emperor's Summer Palace. I will not put the House to the pain of stating in detail the barbarous cruelties inflicted upon those who were thus taken prisoners against the law of nations, who were at the time under the protection of a flag of truce, the value and respect due to which were, as I have stated, well known to the Chinese. I will not dwell upon the inhuman cruelties inflicted upon those unfortunate men. The greater part of them sank under the barbarities of which they were the victims. Nor will I dwell on the intended treachery on a larger scale, which contemplated the environment of the advanced guard of the army and the taking our Ambassadors prisoners, who would, doubtless, have been exposed to similar tortures. Negotiations had been entered upon, in the course of which the Earl of Elgin and Baron Gros were invited to go to Pekin, and when they said they required an escort each of 1,000 men the Chinese then no longer wished them to come, because they knew that our Ambassadors would then be safe against the treachery of which it was intended they were to be the victims. It is quite clear, therefore, that the treachery to those who were actually taken prisoners was only part of a much larger tragedy which the Chinese had planned. At the very time these unfortunate men were lingering under the most intolerable torments, the Chinese, when asked about them, said they were quite well and very well treated, and that the Allies need not be uneasy about them. It was absolutely necessary to mark by some signal act of retribution the extreme detestation that was felt at this cruelty and treachery, and to warn the Chinese against the repetition of them. These semi-barbarous Governments appear to deal with each other with treachery and cruelty, and

  405
  they are apt to think that they may act in the same manner against civilized Governments. It was, therefore, necessary to prove to them by some signal retribution that such deeds are not to be committed with impunity. It was, however, difficult to find any act that would punish the Chinese Government for its atrocities, and which would not at the same time involve in the punishment the innocent with the guilty. Had Pekin been stormed, or had even the Palace of the Emperor in Pekin been burnt, consequences might have ensued that every one must have deplored. It was therefore thought, and justly thought, both by the Earl of Elgin and Sir Hope Grant that the appropriate retribution for these abominable acts committed by the Chinese Government and authorities was the destruction of the Summer Palace of the Sovereign. The Emperor would thus be the only person to suffer, and the people of China would not he involved in the punishment. An hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Scully) has given notice of his intention to put a question to me, and to ask whether the French General acquiesced or not in this act of destruction. I have no hesitation in saying that General Montauban did not acquiesce in the destruction of the Emperor's Palace. The French had not suffered in the same way; and the French, having occupied the Summer Palace, had, to a certain degree, retaliated, because a portion of it had been destroyed, as the French General has said, by his troops and some Chinese people that were present. But the Earl of Elgin and Sir Hope Grant very properly judged that, notwithstanding the French General declined to take part in that destruction, it was their duty to carry out this act of retribution, and I have no hesitation in saying that Her Majesty's Government fully approve their determination. I trust that these incidents—the great and rapid success of our arms, and this punishment which has fallen upon the Emperor of China — will teach them that in dealing with the Powers of Europe they must obey those laws of international right which prevail among the civilized nations of the world.
  Sir, these transactions have been in every respect satisfactory. In the first place, we have obtained the ratification of one treaty and the conclusion of another convention, which, I trust, after the example that has been made of Chinese treachery and bad faith, will induce the
  406
  Government of China to maintain their engagements with the people of England. It is clear that, if they do, these arrangements will open up a field of commercial enterprise to the people of Europe, and especially to the people of this country, which will quite realize the expectations that have long been entertained from free intercourse with China, because we have now not obtained access only to the coast, hut have gained the right of going up that great river, the Yang-tse-Kiang, and of greatly extending our commerce by the privileges thus afforded to us. We have also had the great satisfaction of finding that the officers and men both of our army and navy have shown themselves worthy of the example of those who have gone before them, and of the country to whish they have the honour to belong. I am glad to find among those who have distinguished themselves in these operations names already familiar in our naval and military exploits. The name of Hope, for example, already well known in the Peninsular war as connected with the distinguished services of the army, is now associated with the brilliant services of the naval portion of these operations. We have also the name of Napier, well known both by sea and land. I do not know whether that officer be nearly allied to those of that name whose fame is recorded in the annals of this country, but I trust that he is destined to equal their exploits. I will not trespass too long by enumerating the names of all those who have distinguished themselves on this occasion. Their services are recorded in the papers before the House, and they already enjoy the gratitude of their country. We have also the satisfaction of knowing that in this expedition, at a remote part of the globe, encompassed by great difficulties, but attended with great success, we have the forces of two great nations marching side by side, fighting in a common cause, and carrying out those operations which, although not long in point of time, were long in point of incident, with the most perfect harmony and accord, and without those dissensions which too frequently prevail in the operations of forces, whether naval or military, belonging to two different nations. I trust that this is only a happy omen of the concord which will long prevail between the two nations. I trust that it may be long before the forces of England and France will go into action in any other way than side by side, for the common interest and

  407
  the common glory of the two countries, and for objects alike honourable to the one and the other. Sir, I will not trespass longer on the attention of the House, but will conclude by moving the Resolutions which I have to propose. The noble Viscount concluded by moving the Resolutions.
  [See Page 417.]
  MR. DISRAELI: I have the honour to second the Motion of the noble Lord. The noble Lord has given the House such a clear and animated narrative of the various operations in China, that it is unnecessary for me to dwell upon them; and, indeed, it would be presumptuous in me to do so. It is enough that we all feel that a great military operation has been performed with power and precision, with undaunted bravery and indomitable perseverance. The army and navy of England have more than once expressed their conviction that one of their greatest rewards is to receive the thanks of Parliament, and, I trust, I may say for the House that we consider it one of our greatest privileges to offer the expression of our thanks and admiration for their achievements. Although in the course of the events that have occurred in China it is impossible to point to any of those immortal fields which posterity ever afterwards looks at with feelings of a we and admiration, yet merely in a military sense, and regarded simply in reference to military considerations, there is one view of the case the importance of which cannot be overstated, and that is, that in a remote part of the world, and in a strange climate, we have found the health of our troops so wonderfully preserved. I attribute this, Sir, to our now perfect organization, and to the application of all the resources of modern science to the maintenance of the health and the equipment of our troops; and if, as I believe, this result is not of an exceptional character, but one on which we may count for the future, we may have the satisfaction of feeling that, so far as this is concerned, we have already mitigated one of the miseries of war. The noble Viscount has touched upon the singularity of such great results having been' achieved in a distant part of the world by so small a body of men, and at such a trifling sacrifice. Indeed, I think this is a subject that well deserves the consideration of the House. A handful of men, not, I believe, amounting in numbers to those who followed Xenophon, have waged war in a country almost in the remotest part
  408
  of the globe, and have dictated peace in the ancient capital of a nation which numbers more than one-third of its population. Sir, this is not the first occasion during the last quarter of a century when mankind have been impressed with the immense influence which Europe exercises over the rest of the world. This is not the first occurrence of exploits which has proved the predominant power of that part of the globe in which it is our happiness to exist. But, Sir, there are other considerations connected with this result, which ought not, I think, to be absent from our thoughts. At this moment, under Providence, it is not merely this quarter of the globe, but we may say it is Western Europe that commands the world. Sir, if that power be so irresistible, if those means be so great, I think we ought all to feel that the moral responsibility of their exercise is proportionably increased. This appears to be a consideration which ought not to he wanting in the councils of the Sovereign, and which may blend advantageously even with the triumphant gratitude of Parliaments.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, it was not his intention to interfere with the passing of this Vote of Thanks, but be did think it right that the nation should know whether the wilful act of destruction— the sacking and burning of the Emperor of China's palace—was done with the united consent of the French Ambassador and our own. For the first time he bad heard from the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) what previously he could hardly have believed, that this act was committed on the authority of the English Ambassador without the consent of the French Ambassador; nay, contrary to his wishes. He (Mr. Vincent Scully) had very carefully read all the papers connected with the expedition to China, and he must say that he could not agree with the noble Lord that greater provocation to this act of retribution, as it had been called, bad been given to the English than to the French. It was a matter about which it was important to have the correct dates. He had endeavoured to get them, and as well as he could make out it was on the 7th of October that the French first entered the Summer Palace. They retained possession till the 16th, upon which day this act of conflagration took place. All the cruelties and barbarities which had been perpetrated had been completed before the destruction of the palace was ordered. Now, he did not wish to cast any imputation on the

  409
  army and navy. They had performed their duty during the whole war in the only manner in which it was possible for soldiers and sailors to do it: they obeyed their officers and the commands given to them with bravery and determination; and they did not appear to have been guilty of any great excesses. But when they found the British Ambassador acting on his own responsibility, and transgressing the authority given to him, it did become them to inquire into it. He (Mr. Vincent Scully) did not blame Her Majesty's Government in any degree for anything that had occurred in regard to the contest of the war previous to the burning of the palace. It appeared to him that the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had given very clear and proper instructions to the Earl of Elgin. The only culpability which attached to the Government was in respect of subsequently endorsing the proceedings of their Ambassador. All Governments, however, did the same thing, and it was called "backing their friends." Lot the House see how the orders given by the Government were carried out:—and he must apologise for trespassing upon the time of the House, while he pointed out what were the instructions given to the Earl of Elgin.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he rose to order. The Question before the House was one of a Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy, not as to diplomatic matters.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member was in order.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that that was only another instance of the system which prevailed when an independent Member was endeavouring to elicit information, of some one rising ou the back benches of the Opposition, and, in some convenient form, interrupting his (the speaker's) pertinent remarks with his (the interrupter's) not very pertinent observations. The matter to which he wished to call the attention of the House was an important one, and one in which the nation was deeply interested. He could assure the Gentleman who had interrupted him, if he belonged to the army or the navy, that lie (Mr. Vincent Scully) had no intention to cast the least slur upon those honourable professions. But if the act deserved to be reprobated and condemned the nation ought to separate itself from the act, and if the act was susceptible of palliation and justification those reasons ought to be stated. Let the House see the instructions given to Lord Elgin by the noble
  410
  Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) in his letter dated the 6th February, 1860. If hon. Members would read it they would find that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) anticipated by six months what subsequently occurred. The noble Lord, after alluding to the possible flight of the Emperor, the encouragement which that would give to the rebels, and the possibility of the whole Empire being involved in Revolution, said —
  "Under these circumstances you and your enlightened colleague Baron Gros will exercise those personal qualities of firmness and discretion which, induced Her Majesty and her Ally to place confidence in you and the French Plenipotentiary."
  Thus the settlement of any difficulty was not left to the Earl of Elgin alone, but conjointly with Baron Gros. How, then, was it that, with such instructions, the Earl of Elgin ventured to order the destruction of the Summer Palace, not only without the consent of Baron Gros, but contrary to his wishes? The noble Earl was about to do an act which might blast the fair fame of the country which he represented, and yet he took no notice of the objections of his co-ambassador. He would not detain the House by going through the justifications of the Earl of Elgin—he saw it would be almost an annoyance to the House to occupy its time at any length, and certainly it would be so to himself to go through those details. Suffice it to say that the Chinese had been humiliated to a much greater degree than was contemplated by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. On the very day upon which intelligence was brought that the prisoners had fallen victims to Chinese treachery, as a sort of holocaust to their manes, the Earl of Elgin, of his own authority, and contrary to the wish of the French, whose officers and men had been treated with equal cruelty, indignity, and treachery, committed that act which certainly in his (Mr. Vincent Scully's) opinion, and in that of a great many out of that House, was an act of barbarism and vandalism, for which it was difficult to find any precedent in ancient or modern history, and the nearest resemblance to which was the burning of Persepolis under somewhat similar circumstances by Alexander the Great. It would be no excuse assuredly that the French had first satiated their revenge. He knew that was the received version; but he did not find that in the blue book, and the version given by the French

  411
  General Montauban, in his despatch to; the French Minister of War, as translated from the Moniteur, in The Times of January 2, 1861, was to the effect that sentries were placed everywhere to see that no one entered the palace until the arrival of the English General Sir Hope Grant who was immediately sent for; and that a certain sum of money was afterwards equally divided among the soldiers of both armies. He could not see the necessity of inflicting such an act of retribution on the Chinese, nor did he understand how it could be a matter of ridicule to hon. Gentlemen in that House. Let hon. Gentlemen consider whether it would be a matter for ridicule if Chinese barbarians on being admitted into London had treated the palace of the Sovereign as we had treated that of the Emperor of China? What was the object of burning the Summer Palace? Was it to conciliate the Chinese, or was it to Christianize them? They would have been the first to condemn the act if the case was reversed; and Baron Gros had done it contrary to the opinion of Lord Elgin. Nothing could be more impolitic than to inaugurate a peace by an act of cruel retribution, the effect of which could only be to excite ill-feeling towards us among the natives, and to check the extension of our commerce. He feared that the obloquy of the transaction would be transferred from Lord Elgin to the nation he represented if it were now tacitly adopted by the House, and, therefore, he had felt bound to draw their attention to the subject.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that had the noble Lord who made the Motion shown the good taste and excellent judgment which had distinguished his seconder, he (Mr. White) would be quite content to give a silent assent. But when the noble Lord told them that the origin of the war was because the Chinese refused to ratify the treaty, he (Mr. White) was really as tonished, because he was sure the noble Lord did not count upon the credulity or ignorance, but upon the forgetfuluess of the House. He (Mr. White) had passed ten years of his life in that part of the country which was the scene of the great events which they were called upon to commemorate as so honourable to our army and navy, and, therefore, he might speak with some authority. He hoped the House would acquit him of the slightest disposition to derogate from the merit of those gallant officers and men, but he was con-
  412
  strained to draw the attention of the House to what had fallen from the noble Lord. As he (Mr. White) understood the transaction, not only did the Chinese not refuse to ratify the treaty, but they said they were willing to do so, and at the same time they did ratify the American Treaty. The noble Lord did not confine himself to the Vote of Thanks, but spoke of the vast advantages which would accrue to commerce from what had happened. He (Mr. White) was a merchant, and were he silent he might be supposed to assent to the dictum of the noble Lord. But, however deplorably consistent the noble Lord might have been in his course, the same remark could not apply to many of his Colleagues, who had distinguished themselves by the most determined opposition to the war. Not only had the Chinese wished to ratify the treaty, but the Government itself, of which the noble Lord was the head, had acknowledged its substantial ratification, as would be seen by referring to the Estimates, in which the expenses of the consuls that were to be established under it were voted. And yet that was the treaty which the noble Lord said the Chinese would not ratify. All the advantages which had accrued to the British had been demanded and obtained from the Chinese before this war was brought to a conclusion. The noble Lord, on a former occasion, reminded the House that the American Minister had been smuggled into Pekin in a wooden-box. The truth was that the American Minister only used those carriages which the Prime Ministers of China and the first administrators in that land were accustomed to use; and, still more, they were the very carriages which were now being used of choice by the British officers in their journies from Taku to Tien-tsin. That no indignity had been used towards Mr. Ward could be shown very briefly. The treaty with the American Government had been carried out most successfully, and the indemnity which was stipulated under that treaty to be paid to the American merchants had been paid to them. On the other hand, the indemnity which was due to the British merchants had not yet been paid, notwithstanding that they had sacrificed human life, had devastated property, and had imposed £6,000,000 of taxation on an already over-burthened people. He denied that commerce would derive any benefit; and he should blush for his brother merchants did he not know that those in

  413
  the East almost unanimously repudiated any concurrence or sympathy in the objects of the late war. He had received a letter only yesterday from his agent in Shanghai, which was dated the 20th of December, wherein he stated—
  "So far from benefiting by the late treaty, we are much worse off, seeing that we now have to pay full duties, which, by consent of the Imperial authorities, were before diminished to one-half."
  The present was not the proper time to point out what would be the consequences which would probably result from the last war; and, therefore, he would merely content himself with entering his solemn protest against the observations made by the noble Lord. At the same time, lie had much pleasure in concurring in the Vote of Thanks to their gallant Army and Navy.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he concurred most heartily in the Vote of thanks to the Army and Navy in China. Tndeed he would not have detained the House for a moment from what must be their unanimous decision respecting the brilliant and heroic services which had been performed by the army and navy, were it not that he thought there was an omission, which needed only to be brought under the notice of the House in order to be rectified. On the advance of the army on Pekin, a number of our men fell into an ambuscade. He would remind the House that in the previous year there was an ambuscade of an equally gross character, in which the lives of a larger number of men had been sacrificed than in almost any disaster which bad taken place to our arms. The only case he could recollect at all similar was Nelson's attack on Teneriffe. Then the gallantry of our seamen had fought themselves out at an enormous loss of life, but they maintained the character of the British arms in a manner which was equalled by the gallant Hope and the officers and men under his command at the Peiho. Then we had three vessels sunk, four disabled, and three much daaiaged; eighty-nine men killed, 345 wounded, leaving 660 survivors out of a force of 1,100. He last year called the attention of the House to that case, and recommended that the Government should instruct our Ambassador as a preliminary demand, to exact from the Chinese Government distinct satisfaction for the loss of material and men upon that occasion. That principle had now been distinctly recognized in the case of the officers who
  414
  were taken captive and so barbarously treated last year, and a sum was exacted for the benefit of the relatives of each of those men whose death had resulted from the treatment they had received. He thought he need only bring to the notice of the noble Lord the similarity of the two cases. In both cases they were acting under a flag of truce. In both they were led into an ambuscade; in both cases a loss of life took place under the protection of a flag of truce. He wanted, therefore, to know why the same compensation was not exacted for the relatives of the men who fell at the Taku Forts in 1859 as had been lately exacted for those who were taken prisoners and ill-treated in the neighbourhood of Pekin in 1860? It was a grave omission; but, fortunately, the Government had received a large amount for the expenses of the war, upon which there were, in his opinion, liens:—Fist for the lives of the men who were killed before those forts; next, for the remuneration of those who were wounded; and, thirdly, for the material which was sacrificed in that action. He did not believe that the treaty which had been concluded would produce the good effects which were anticipated from it; but it would he ungracious on that occasion to discuss that matter, and he would, in conclusion, express the warmest admiration for the brilliant services which had been performed both by the army and the navy.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Vincent Scully) who has raised a question not immediately before the House, with respect to the conduct of the Earl of Elgin and Sir Hope Grant in directing the destruction of the Summer Palace, said that it might be objected to him that he was an Irishman, hut he followed up that remark by saying that no doubt among the killed and wounded of every action which occurred in China he could find many of his countrymen. No doubt that is perfectly true. Full justice is always done in this House to the gallantry and good conduct of the Irish troops; and the hon. Gentleman, although the representative of an Irish county, is fully entitled to make any representation which he thinks proper with regard to the conduct of the officers employed in China. But as to the substance of his complaint, I must say that I am greatly astonished and somewhat surprised to find that he has not been satisfied with

  415
  the reasons given by the Earl of Elgin. Here was a case in which most barbarous treatment had been inflicted by officers of the Emperor of China upon military and civil officers of Her Majesty who were not engaged in any military operation, but in forwarding the desire which the Earl of Elgin and Sir Hope Grant entertained, in common with their French colleagues, to conclude the war as speedily as possible, and with as little suffering as might be to the Chinese people. They were engaged in arranging an armistice which was intended to lead to a peace, and for that purpose they went forward upon the faith of the Chinese Government and of the Chinese General to a place where it was supposed that they would be in perfect safety. There they were treacherously captured, and they were afterwards so barbarously tortured that the lives of Captain Brabazon and Captain Anderson, two most distinguished officers in Her Majesty's service; of Mr. De Norman, whose praise was most properly recorded by Mr. Bruce, and who was certainly one of the most promising members of Her Majesty's diplomatic service; of Mr. Bowlby, whose graphic and interesting account of the attack upon the Taku Forts in The Times must have excited the admiration of every one who read it, and who appears by the testimony of those acquainted with him to have been a most accomplished man—the lives of these four gentlemen, and of several soldiers, were taken by the Chinese under circumstances of atrocity which must excite the horror and detestation of all civilized men. The Earl of Elgin had to consider how he should treat a proceeding of that kind. The most obvious course was to demand that, as an atonement for the suffering which had been inflicted upon our officers, a certain number of the persons who had ill-treated them should be given up to us to be capitally punished; but the Earl of Elgin says, and says most truly, as I believe, that if he had made such a requisition the Chinese would have no difficulty in complying with it, but that the lives of some miserable subordinates would have been sacrificed, while the higher Chinese authorities, or the Tartar generals by whose orders more probably these tortures had been inflicted, would escape scathless, That course, therefore, was not adopted. The Earl of Elgin might also have asked for a very large sum of money, but, considering the indemnities which we already had to demand, he did not think
  416
  that it was desirable to press more severely upon the Chinese finances, or to delay the conclusion of peace by a demand for any very large sum of money. There was another course, which no doubt must have been discussed between the Earl of Elgin and Sir Hope Grant, and that was the infliction of some severe punishment upon the inhabitants of the capital itself. That, however, would have been still worse than asking for the lives of the subordinate torturers; it would have been to punish an innocent people for what was in fact the act of the Government. The Earl of Elgin, therefore, determined, with the concurrence of Sir Hope Grant, that punishment should be inflicted upon the Emperor of China himself by the destruction of a palace which was assuredly a most costly structure, which was filled with every possible object of luxury, and the loss of which would show to him that we were not indifferent to the loss of our officers, or unmindful of the treatment to which they had been subjected at the hands of his servants. It is true that the French Commander, General Montauban, did not assent to that proposal, but the principal reason which he gave for objecting to it was one which experience did not corroborate. He said—and Baron Gros used the same argument—that the destruction of the palace would strike such terror into the minds of Prince Kung and the Chinese negotiators, that the negotiations would be broken off, we should have to destroy the Imperial Palace in Pekin as well, and the final object of the expedition, the conclusion of peace, would be further off than ever. The Earl of Elgin, with more knowledge of the Chinese character, and with a truer appreciation of the course which they would take, did not believe that the destruction of the palace would delay the signing of the treaty a single day. Events proved that he was right. The palace was destroyed, and the treaty was signed. Some persons think that the Chinese were even more willing to sign the treaty after the destruction of the palace than they were before. Of course it is impossible to speak with certainty as to that; but, at all events, this act of severe retribution did not delay the conclusion of peace. So far, therefore, from blaming the Earl of Elgin, I think that he is entitled to high praise, for having, without destroying the power of the Emperor upon the one hand, or punishing the innocent people of China on the other, inflicted a

  417
  severe chastisement for the atrocities which had been committed under the authority of the Government.
  The Resolution now before us is a Vote of Thanks to the gallant Officers who took part in these operations. Against that proposition no one has said a word, and I hope that it will be carried unanimously. The question respecting the propriety and policy of a war with the Emperor of China was amply discussed last year, and I shall not now enter into it. An hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me why there was not some vote of indemnity to the families of those who suffered at the Peiho? but their case is totally different from that of the men who entrusted themselves under a flag of truce to the authorities of the country. Those who engage in war enter into it with all its risks, and it has therefore not been usual to ask for indemnities on behalf of those who fall in actual warfare. I am happy to state that there can exist no difference of opinion as to the gallantry and good conduct of the Army and Navy of England. It has, indeed, been above all praise. And it is satisfactory to learn that so far from its being the case—as was stated in one of the telegrams — that the Articles of the Treaty were not known in the South of China, a despatch has arrived from the Consul at Canton stating that the treaty had been published there, that the new tariff was declared, and that trade had begun under the provisions of the treaty and in conformity with the tariff, and was proceeding to the perfect satisfaction and contentment of English, French, and Chinese.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
  "That the Thanks of this House be given to Lieutenant General Sir James Hope Grant, Knight Grand Cross of the Bath; Vice Admiral Sir James Hope, Knight Commander of the Bath; Major General Sir John Mitchell, Knight Commander of the Bath; Major General Sir Robert Napier. Knight Commander of the Bath; and Rear Admiral Lewis Tobias Jones, Companion of the Bath, for the distinguished skill, zeal, and intrepidity with which they conducted the combined operations in the North of China, which terminated in the Capture of Pekin, whereby an honourable Peace has been obtained on the Terms proposed by Her Majesty and Her Ally the Emperor of the French."
  Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
  "That the Thanks of the House be given to the other Officers of the Navy, Army, and the Royal Marines including Her Majesty's Indian, Forces, both European and Native, for the energy
  418
  and gallantry with which they executed the Services they were called upon to perform."
  Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
  "That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the gallantry, discipline, and uniform good conduct displayed by the Petty Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men of the Navy, Army, Royal Marines, and Her Majesty's Indian Forces, European and Native, and the cordial good feeling which animated the United Forces; and that the same be communicated to them by the Commanders of the several Ships and Corps, who are respectfully desired to thank them for their gallant and steadfast behaviour."
  Ordered,
  "That the said Resolutions be transmitted to Lieutenant General Sir James Hope Grant and Vice Admiral Sir James Hope; and that they be requested to communicate the same to the several Officers referred to therein."

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that upon the occasion of the introduction of the Bill such universal admiration was accorded to the hon. and learned Attorney General that no one had dared to raise a voice in opposition to what had been said. But it appeared to him (Mr. Roebuck) that the hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely failed in this matter. The House had been told some time ago that they were going to have a Bill which would entirely settle the question. Now, what was it that they had got? The hon. and learned Attorney General had first complained that there was a want of uniformity in the decisions of the Courts of Bankruptcy under the present system; next, that the proceedings were attended with great expenses; and, thirdly, that a distinction was made between bankruptcy and insolvency which alone rendered the present system an opprobrium to the English law. But how had the hon. and learned Attorney General attempted to remedy these admitted defects? There were five Commissioners, he said, who could each give different decisions on matters coming before them; but he forgot to state that an appeal lay from these decisions to the Lords justices. The remedy which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed was to appoint a Chief Judge. But first, with regard to the want of uniformity in the decisions of the five existing Commissioners, that there was an appeal from them to the Lords Justices, and he had proposed to appoint a Chief

  419
  Judge. But what would the Chief Judge do that was not already done by the Lords Justices? Was he to be a superior lawyer? It was impossible. Was he to be a man of superior attainments? It was equally impossible. Therefore, the fact was that the appointment of this Chief Judge was merely an extra expense without a concomitant benefit, for it could not in any way secure a greater uniformity of decision than that which at present existed. Then with regard to the expense:—The great cause of the expense at present was one on which the learned Attorney General had not put his finger—namely, that fees were payable which did not go to any officer of the Court, but were paid into a fund belonging to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not in any way diminish the fees that were now payable. Then, as to the third point, the distinction between trader and non-trader, the hon. and learned Attorney General, although he had complained of it as a distinction that ought not to be permitted any longer, did nothing in the present Bill to abolish it. It remained the same as ever; for that which constituted an act of bankruptcy on the part of a trader was not an act of bankruptcy on the part of a non-trader. Therefore, all that was done by the new Bill was to alter the law. Alteration was not necessarily reform. Alteration by itself was a mischief, and, unless advantageous in a greater degree than it was mischievous, it should never be adopted. No good, therefore, was obtainable by the present Bill; but, on the contrary, he would venture to prophesy—although wise men rarely did so —that the Bill would, if passed into law, increase the expense of the administration of the bankruptcy law even beyond what it was at present. The Bill, in fact, was an attorney's Bill—not an Attorney General's Bill, but an attorney's Bill, and all it would do would be to advance the interests of attorneys. Beyond this it was merely a return to a system which had already been found inefficient and objectionable, and would take out of the hands of the official assignee that control which was one of the principal benefits conferred by the Bill introduced by Lord Brougham in the year 1831.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he wholly differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. Instead of increasing expense and creating delay, the object of the Bill was to diminish expense and to simplify the proceedings in bankruptcy.
  420
  The Bill of Lord Brougham was an utter and disgraceful failure, and was admitted on all hands to be so. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No, it is not!] He maintained that it had failed in every part of the country. Nine-tenths of those whose circumstances became embarrassed shunned and repudiated the Court of Bankruptcy. The right of appeal to the Lords Justices, on which the hon. Member laid such stress, was costly and cumbrous in its exercise, and was rarely made use of. As to the expense caused by the appointment of the Chief Judge, that was to be thrown on the Consolidated Fund, and would in no way, therefore, increase the expense of the administration of the law as far as the estates of bankrupts were concerned, and on the first and largest item of expense a reduction of 50 per cent was made by the Bill. But while he thus differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman in the view which he took of the measure, he was bound to say that it did not promise all those advantages in the reduction and simplification of offices for which the commercial public had hoped. He wished, therefore, it should be understood that, in agreeing to the Bill being read a second time, and admitting thereby its principles, he was not pledging himself in any manner to its details. There were grave exceptions to be taken to it as a whole. It contained, for instance, a power of selling the goodwill and book debts of a bankrupt, but not until after twelve months from the date of the petition had expired. But at that period what would he the value of the goodwill and book debts? Then the Bill proposed that every case of misconduct on the part of the bankrupt should be heard before the Chief Judge, assisted by a Commissioner. That would inevitably bring about the same state of things that now existed in the Divorce Court, and the appointment of additional Judges would soon be required. Then, in Section 189, he found that the services of the Accountant General were invoked; but that in Section 17 his office was abolished. Then—and with regard to this part of the Bill he wondered much that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had not made it the subject of remark—the Bill proposed to enact that a wife should be compelled to give evidence in cases where the husband was charged with fraud, concealment, or misconduct. That was so entirely inconsistent with the spirit and constitution

  421
  of the English law, and so repulsive to every Englishman's notion of propriety and justice that he hoped it would not, under any circumstances, be permitted to remain part and parcel of the Bills. But, notwithstanding these defects, no one could help being struck in looking over the Bill, with the great care and ability displayed in the drawing of it, and at the comprehensive skill with which this important subject had been treated. The mercantile community must feel under great obligation to the Attorney General for the introduction of the measure.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he bore willing testimony to the exertions of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in this matter. No law officer of the Government had ever devoted more time and intelligence to any subject than the Attorney General had bestowed on this question of bankruptcy. Still, he could not wholly agree with the Bill before the House. The result of many months thought and labour was the Bill of last Session, which comprised a complete consolidation of the law, and which did honour to the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The country, and the mercantile community especially, had a right, therefore, to expect that after the recess a measure as complete, if not more perfect, should have been proposed—particularly when the subject had been put forward so prominently in the Speech from the Throne, and in the answer to the Address. At the present period the Government had no other great measures to propose, and he had heard no reason assigned why the Bill this year should not have been as complete and comprehensive as that which was laid before the House in the last Session. In introducing the measure the hon. and learned Gentleman was apologetic in his tone. "Fragmentary" was the title he gave to it, and any one who had read the Bill would see how exactly the term applied. It touched upon almost every point of the bankruptcy law, and introduced amendments upon almost every one—yet practically and substantially it left the old law in force—and the result would be to add another Act of 250 clauses to the statute book, which would have to be read, not instead of, but along with, the other Acts already existing. The Bill drawn up, as was understood, mainly by the right hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), and introduced by
  422
  the noble Lord the Member for London, was also a complete consolidating measure—so that the Attorney General had plenty of materials if he had persevered in his original intention of consolidation. He should be sorry to bear the appearance even of opposing the second reading, but there were several points in the Bill deserving of attention. The hon. and learned Attorney General, in introducing the measure, had first remarked upon the confusion between the judicial and administrative functions in bankruptcy. One would have thought, therefore, that, admitting the inconveniences resulting from such a system, some attempt would have been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman to introduce a remedy, but such was not the case. The Bill proposed to continue precisely the same system. It preserved the Commissioners precisely as they were, with precisely the same confusion between the two functions exercised by them. And what was the establishment of a Chief Judge in bankruptcy but the restoration of a system which had been before tried, had failed, and had been abolished by Act of Parliament? He alluded to the Court of Review, established by the measure of 1831, introduced by Lord Brougham. That was a Court which at first bad four Judges—Judges of ability and of high judicial position. But the system failed, the Judges gradually dwindled from four down to two; and then, because of its increasing inefficiency, the Court was abolished altogether by Act of Parliament. As a substitute, a Vice-Chancellor was deputed to perform the duties of Judge of Appeal, but that experiment met the same fate, and was abolished. The next attempt at improvement was the establishment of an appellate jurisdiction in the Lords Justices. That system still existed, and a more satisfactory or complete tribunal for the decision of all legal questions arising in the Court could not have been devised. It was a matter for serious consideration whether the House would appoint a new Chief Judge at a salary of £5,000 a year in place of a tribunal which now worked well. In the Bill of last year, which abolished the Commissioners, there might have been some reason for appointing a Chief Judge; but this Bill, whilst providing for a Chief Judge also retained the Commissioners at their present salaries, with all their staff. Why retain the Commissioners if, on the completion of the new Court their offices

  423
  became unnecessary, as was alleged last year. He must presume that this proposal had been forced upon his hon. and learned Friend. The only reason that he had heard his hon. and learned Friend give for retaining the Commissioners was the difficulty that would be experienced in that House in obtaining for them pensions charged on the Consolidated Fund. But was that a reason to be entertained by the House for the retention on full salary of Commissioners whose offices were admitted to be useless if a Chief Judge was to be appointed? On the ground that the Government could not get for them a retiring allowance charged on the Consolidated Fund, the country was to be saddled in perpetuity with the expense incurred by the existence of the whole body of Commissioners, unless the Lord Chancellor should think fit on a vacancy occurring to reduce their number. If they began with a body of five Commissioners, the new system would accommodate itself to the staff, and hereafter there would be no means of getting rid of them. But, not only were the Commissioners to be retained, but the whole of their officers likewise. The registrars were still to be attached to the Court, and at their present salaries. Then came another class of officers. He had understood his hon. and learned Friend to be of opinion that there was no necessity for the messengers, and by his Bill of last year he proposed to abolish them altogether. However, it was now found that all the messengers were to be retained, and that they were to have salaries not exceeding £500 a year; so that all the mischiefs connected with that department of the existing system were to continue. Then the officers of the official assignees were to be maintained, and power was to be taken to add to their number if necessary. From all this it would appear that, as regarded the constitution of the Court and its officers, there was to be no alteration at ail, except that there was to be the addition of a Chief Judge with a salary of £5,000 a year, to perform the duties now so ably and satisfactorily discharged by the Lords Justices. So much for the general administration; and now for other matters. Complaints had been made of the expense of collecting the assets of bankrupts, and the unsatisfactory result to the creditors. What had the old plan been? To appoint creditors' assignees. A creditor's assignee had some advantage in the way of patronage. He
  424
  appointed a solicitor. That was sometimes an inducement to a creditor to act, and sometimes persons acted because they were large creditors; but it was said that difficulties had arisen in consequence of the apathy of creditors in this matter. So much had that been felt that the collection of the assets was transferred in 1831 from the creditors' assignees to the official assignees. After some time complaints arose of the latter; they did not give satisfaction. His hon. and learned Friend, however, proposed to retain them, and to divide the responsibility of collection of the assets between the creditors' assignees and the official assignees. It was proposed by the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend that the official assignee should act in the first instance and up to the appointment of the creditors' assignee. He was then to hand over his accounts to the latter, who was to audit them. From that time the creditors' assignee was to collect all debts over £10, and the official assignee all debts under that amount. His hon. and learned Friend said that the official assignees discharged that duty with great efficiency. Why was that? It was because, being paid by commission, they were well remunerated for the collection of large sums, and were able to afford the time and labour of their clerks for the realization of small accounts; but the collection of the larger debts was to be taken from them under this Bill. There was an audit provided for all sums above £10 received by the creditors' assignee, and the audit was to be made by the official assignee. If they substituted creditors' assignees for official assignees, they would be reverting to the old system, and would bring up again all the inconveniences that had been experienced when that old system was in operation. Again, there were clauses in the Bill which would be so stringent on the creditors' assignee that he ventured to think no one would ever think of becoming a creditors' assignee if his so doing were to expose him to such provisions. He threw out these suggestions, because he thought it of importance that such matters should be carefully considered. There wore many valuable clauses in the Bill. Among them was one giving creditors the power to appoint a manager. They had seen that such a plan had succeeded very well in the Court of Chancery; but, as a whole, the system now proposed seemed to be reverting to what had been done before rather than a scheme such as that brought forward by his hon.

  425
  and learned Friend last Session, which was one for sweeping away an old system and substituting an entirely new one in its stead. He (Mr. Bovill) could not help thinking with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), that if this Bill were to pass within the present year they would soon have the same complaints from the mercantile community, and that all the old evils against which they were now called on to legislate would arise again. Among the many valuable provisions contained in the measure, he would instance that which would give validity to arrangements between debtor and creditor. If the Bill contained nothing more, that provision would entitle his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to the thanks of the country; but, when a Bill like this was brought forward as the great measure of the Session, and was introduced at a period that secured ample time for the consideration of its details, the House had a right to expect a full and comprehensive measure. There were many matters in connection with the Bill which deserved the most serious consideration on the part of the Members of that House, and be should not have risen to say a word on the second reading were it not that, on the introduction of the measure, most of those hon. Gentlemen who spoke seemed to think it perfect. While ready to admit the many excellent provisions which the Bill contained, he was not satisfied that it should go forth to the country that a Bill of so fragmentary a character was one which the House and the mercantile community had a right to expect, not simply from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, but from the Government.
  MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, he was no lawyer, and, therefore, did not intend to enter into the various legal details; be rose only to express his opinion that the mercantile community highly approved of the Bill, and hoped that it would be carried as soon as possible.
  MR. LYSLEYsaid, he preferred to look at the measure in its practical and commercial, rather than in its legal bearing. Indeed, it appeared to him that the former failures to which reference had been made had arisen from the subject having been considered in too forensic a manner, and that the excellence of the present Bill consisted in the fact that that feature had, to a considerable extent, been departed from. The law intruded too much into the com-
  426
  mercial affairs of this country, and they ought to look to administrative measures rather than to legal proceedings in cases of bankruptcy. There was an analogy in this respect to the old Poor Law, which was treated throughout in a legal spirit, and the consequence was that thousands of pounds were spent in litigation. A change then took place; the poor law had been changed mainly to a system of administration with great benefit to the country. It was mainly in that point of view that he thought the Bill defective. It was proposed to appoint a Chief Judge at a high salary to adjudicate upon disputed matters in bankruptcy; but 19–20ths of the bankruptcy business arose out of the collection and distribution of the estate. He would, therefore, suggest that the functions of the Chief Judge should he increased by intrusting him with a general supervision over the administrative business of bankruptcy, or, if the two functions were thought incompatible, one of the Commissioners should have this duty confided to him, and should take into consideration all inquiries and representations made by the creditors when they supposed that any delay occurred in administering the bankrupt's estate. Such an officer, thus rendered responsible for whatever neglect took place in collecting and distributing the assets, would be a most useful one.
  MR. HADFIELDobserved, that matters of detail might be disposed of in Committee. It should be remembered by those who objected to the measure that this Bill did not represent the full intentions of the hon. and learned Attorney General. List year he produced a measure which embodied his own views, but the House of Commons would not allow him to carry out those views; and he was now, therefore, acting to some extent under restraint. Still the Bill now proposed would he very acceptable to the country at large. He (Mr. Hadfield) had consulted many authorities, who were unanimously in its favour; and he was, therefore, surprised at the speech of his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Roebuck) which reminded him of the often quoted instructions given to the barrister—"Having no case, abuse the Attorney." The object of the Attorney General was to encourage private arrangements between debtors and creditors, and to assist the parties in administering the estate with the least possible cost and delay. This was a most desirable object, and the commercial community were deeply

  427
  indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the attention which he had given to the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not know a more instructive passage of ancient fable than that which warned them against the attempt to please everybody. Last year he brought in a Bill which consolidated the whole bankrupt law. Thereupon it was said, "What a huge production! Who can examine it? Who can expect that it will be accurately estimated or understood?" This Session he had brought in a measure which indeed did not embody the old law in its provisions, but in which was incorporated in an improved and amended form every suggestion, every novelty, every alteration contained in the measure of last year. Inasmuch, however, as he had, with perhaps unnecessary candour, described it as in some sense fragmentary—because it could not be read and thoroughly understood unless the reader possessed a knowledge of the old law— hon. Gentlemen now said "See how very imperfect it is, and how it differs from the old measure!" Now, he should like those hon. Gentlemen to explain, if they could, how the Bill differed from its predecessor? The difference consisted merely in this,— that the present Bill did not re-enact the provisions in the statute law. He confessed the main reason he had given up the task of codification was, that when in Committee last year he found that each section, though it might only embody the existing law, was challenged, discussed, and became the subject of keen controversy. But, if every part of the old law was thus to be brought again to the test of inquiry and discussion, it appeared hopeless ever to expect to arrive at any definite conclusion, or to pass any Bill at all. From necessity, therefore, in order that the House might have a measure which it would be in their power to investigate, and which they might reasonably hope to pass during the present Session, he had carefully extracted from the old Bill all that was new, all its improvements, and had put them in a Bill which, so far from being of less, was, in his judgment, of much greater value than the measure of last year. He should be unfortunate, indeed, if it were not of greater value, for then he should have thrown away weeks and months of labour. There could be no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) spoke out of the abundance of his well-known good nature, and his speech
  428
  flowed over with the milk of human kindness for which he was so eminently distinguished. Then, he had only one thing to say, and he said it with regret, that whatever objections the hon. and learned Member might state to the Bill, it was very evident that he knew nothing about it. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the fees put into the public fund; but if he had read the Bill he would have found that the greater part of the fees to which he referred were utterly abolished. He would have found, had he read the Bill, that the stamp duties were reduced one-half, and that the fees to be taken were so small and insignificant that, were it not for the fees expected to be derived through the registrars, it would be absolutely necessary to provide some additional income to carry on the business of the Court. Indeed, he had carried the principles of reduction to the very verge of rashness; but in spite of all he had done in the way of retrenchment—reducing the stamp duties one-half, taking away the fees for the building fund, the fees for public sittings, and leaving almost no fees to be levied—the hon. and learned Member charged him with having neglected the abolition of impolitic duties. Then, when the hon. and learned Member spoke of the Chief Judge, and the distinction between the administrative and judicial duties of the Court, did he mean to say that the Judges who were to sit in this particular Court and administer its business would not give an immediate and practical application of the law in all questions that came before them? —while the Chief Judge, sitting in Chambers, would ever be ready for the discharge of the duties intrusted to him, reserving the more important questions for the open Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the Commissioners being retained. In the Bill of last year it was proposed to do away with the services of the Commissioners, and to give them compensation. That was objected to, and he thought he would hardly be doing his duty if he was to deal otherwise with them than he now proposed in the Bill. It was undoubtedly true that the five Commissioners now in existence were to remain to perform the duty appertaining to their offices, but a smaller number was to be the permanent number of Commissioners. He must say that he had heard the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) with astonishment, and could not help wondering how he had contrived to make so good

  429
  a speech with such slender information. The material was, indeed, far inferior to the workmanship. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked of the official assignees. Had he read the clause reducing them to five? The hon. and learned Gentleman complained of all the registrars being continued. Had he read the important provisions of the Bill by which the registrars would carry their courts to the door of the creditors, there to administer justice — saving that great reproach which now existed of creditors being compelled to come to London? With regard to the office of the Chief Judge, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the right of appeal was given now to the Lords Justices. Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman know that the Commissioners in their admirable report spoke of that right of appeal as one of the greatest inconveniences of the existing system, and did he not know that a question could not be carried to the Lords Justices for less than £60? Very frequently it was twice £60? Was there no necessity for altering that? The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had designated this as an attorney's Bill. Well, it was a Bill demanded by the mercantile part of the community, and by none more than by the constituents of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. One of its leading principles was to give the creditors the power of looking after their own affairs; and, as the property of the bankrupt belonged to the creditor, be was entitled to have it under his control. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the Bill bringing about a restoration of the old state of things prior to 1831, and he specially pointed at the provision respecting creditors' assignees. But if he examined the Bill he would find that all the benefits now derived from official assignees were to be continued. No money or property would be allowed to remain in the hands of creditors unappropriated; for it would be the duty of the official assignee to see that every farthing of money or property was appropriated to its right ends. He had now adverted to some of the topics referred to by the hon. and learned Gentlemen, but they were all topics that could be more legitimately discussed in Committee. He frankly admitted that when they got into Committee there were a great number of things in the Bill on which a difference of opinion might arise. When they arrived at that stage he would be most happy to receive the criticisms of his learned Friends,
  430
  and of all those hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in the important matters embraced in the Bill. He would only add that it would be a great reproach to the House of Commons if it allowed this Session to pass without enacting a law on this subject—a law that was most urgently demanded by the whole mercantile community of this country.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that when the Bill was introduced the understanding was that the Committee would not be put for an early day. He could not understand bow his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) had been able to master the details of the measure in so short a time. He had not himself been as yet able to give any time to the consideration of them. He did not suppose that the hon. and learned Member would admit the assertion of the Attorney General that he was ignorant of the provisions of the Bill. [Mr. BOVILL: Certainly not.] It was clear from what had passed that it would be disadvantageous to discuss the general policy of the measure before time was given for fully considering it. He believed it was intended to take the Committee on Monday next.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he only intended to take the first fifty clauses of the Bill on Monday. They were clauses that were generally accepted last Session. He wished to bring the Bill to the point at which it was then left, but not to go one step beyond it.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he would not object to that course, as he approved all those clauses. But it was evident, from the speeches made that evening, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must he prepared for considerable discussion, even on some of the provisions that were passed last year. Some of those who last year acquiesced in the appointment of a Chief Judge were not prepared now to continue that acquiescence. It would be better not to take the Committee till Monday week; that would give ample time to all the Members interested in the measure to look at the Bill, which certainly had the great advantage over the measure of last year of being only half its length.
  MR. EDWIN JAMEStrusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would not yield to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman and assent to any delay. The first fifty clauses had been conceded last Session, and the Attorney General, with the greatest fairness and candour, had in-

  431
  vited them to discuss the details in Committee. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow the Committee to be fixed for Monday next.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would press the Bill; Monday next would be the most convenient for the Committee, as in the following week many hon. Members would be absent on the circuits.
  MR. WILLOUGHBYsaid, the first fifty clauses of the Bill involved the whole important question of compensation to the superseded officers of the Court of Bankruptcy. Last year a considerable majority in the Committee objected to placing any charge for that purpose on the Consolidated Fund. The proposal had been changed in the present Bill. The offices were to be maintained out of the funds of the Court; but that fund was to be reimbursed by a grant of money from that House, made from year to year. That was equally a charge on the public purse; it was only obtained in a different way. Still, it raised the main question, of the policy of throwing new charges on the public funds.
  Bill read 2°; and committed for Monday next.

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he did not understand upon what ground the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed a few evenings ago that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Was it to be referred to a Select Committee to ascertain whether an unconditional guarantee had been given to this company, or to enter into the whole question of telegraphic communication? To his mind, it was not clear that the Company had strictly complied with the terms of the contract. Anybody who read the contract would say that it was the intention of the late Government to give a guarantee only in the case of the Company putting the cable into working order, and the provision inserted by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn as to the perfect working of the line for thirty days after the laying down, appeared to show that the Company was only to be entitled to a dividend in the event of their having brought the line into working order. A failure had occurred, and the Company had abandoned the whole
  432
  undertaking, but the House was required to fulfil the guarantee, and the Company demanded that a million sterling should be handed over to them, or interest on that amount for fifty years at 4½ per cent. He thought the Committee ought to have the power of investigating all the circumstances of the case.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he felt obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question. After looking through the Bill, he was not at all prepared to vote for the second reading. He found words in the Bill which he could not assent to. The Bill contained a summary of the history of the contract entered into by the Government of the Earl of Derby and the Company who had undertaken to carry out the line. It stated that the Company had laid down the line of cable, and had expended their capital thereon, but by reason of accidents over which they had no control had failed in maintaining it in working order. Now, that was begging the whole question. From the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it seemed that the whole line had never been in working order. Links of it had been, but never the whole. Why, therefore, should the Representatives of the people be asked to vote money for that which had never been done? It seemed to him (Mr. Coningham) that this measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not calculated to promote the interests of the public, or to bring to light the secret intrigues—if intrigues there were—or the mal-administration of subordinate officials of the Government. He had read with considerable interest an article in The Times to which he would refer.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will be out of order in doing so.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that to refer the matter to a Select Committee, which could not take evidence on oath, was a most unsatisfactory thing. At present there was litigation pending between Mr. Newall and the Company, in the course of which no doubt some light would be thrown on the affair. Why, then, should the matter be hurried on? He could not think that a sufficient case had been made out for committing that House to the payment of so large a sum of money in fulfilment of a guarantee, the terms of which, he submitted, had never been carried out. Another singular circumstance connected with the business was that Mr. Lionel Gisborne, the gentleman who had been employed to superintend this line, was a gentleman whose

  433
  antecedents were not of the clearest nature. He had been employed upon the Rangoon Line, and upon the Gibraltar Line, and, if he were not misinformed, the Red Sea Telegraph was not the first instance of the failure of Mr. L. Gisborne's enterprise. In 1854 there was a survey of the Isthmus of Darien, with a view to a ship-canal, and he had been told that Mr. Gisborne's survey turned out to be a complete delusion. There was, he thought, a primâ facie case for inquiry, and when the question was put he should certainly offer a negative to such an unsatisfactory expenditure of public money.
  MR. AYRTONthought the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) had confounded two distinct questions. The first question was, what was to be done with the claimants; and the other was, what ought to be done with reference to the expenditure of money that had been guaranteed? The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Bill, said the House was bound to keep good faith with the subscribers, but he did not wish to compromise the House with relation to the expenditure of the capital. The compilation of papers that had been laid upon the table did not give any information as to the application of the capital, nor of the causes of the failure to lay down the line. He intended to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be an instruction to the Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which the Company failed to lay down the telegraph, and, as he did not at all desire to impede the progress of the Bill, he saw no reason why the Committee should not report at once upon its provisions, and afterwards proceed with the other inquiry. He hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his opposition, as such an inquiry as he suggested ought not to interfere with the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he did not doubt that the hon. Member for Brighton was influenced by the best motives in taking the strong views which he had enunciated, but he was hardly justified in indulging in harsh insinuations as he had done. The hon. Member had referred to Mr. Gisborne's antecedents, and especially to his survey of the Isthmus of Darien, but it was hardly fair to prejudice that gentleman by allusions to former alleged failures, and certainly he was not justified in speaking so harshly of him without be-
  434
  ing prepared to state the grounds upon which he did so. He (Mr. Crawford) protested against an absent man being prejudiced in the opinion of the House, but if the hon. Member thought he bad grounds for the imputation he had brought against him, he should communicate them to the House. The hon. Member had also indulged in insinuations of secret intrigues and mal-administration on the part of the subordinate agents of the Government. If those subordinate officers had been guilty of mal-administration it was the duty of the hon. Member to state in what respect they had thus been guilty. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) said there had been a failure in the laying down of the line, but this was a mistake. The failure had been in the practical working of the line, for which the Company were not responsible, and which was incidental to the nature of the undertaking. He had not the slightest personal interest in the Company, but he was satisfied the line was undertaken in perfect good faith to the public. All the best science of the day was employed in the undertaking, and the failure arose from certain occult influences at the bottom of the sea which could not be provided against.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that an impression had gone abroad which had found its way into the city article of The Times, and which appeared to have arisen from a misapprehension of a statement made the other evening by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli). The facts were that the Government entered into a contract with the Company that the line should be made and handed over to them in working order. The contract between the Company and the contractor was submitted to the Government for its approval. It was found to contain a stipulation that each portion of the line should be kept ten days in working order by the contractors before it was handed over to the Government. It was pointed out that ten days were too short a term, and the Government required that it should be extended to thirty days. That was a contract between the Company and the contractors, and not between the Company and the Government. The distinction was important, because it was said that the entire line had never been in working order for thirty days, and it was held that this invalidated the contract, whereas the contract between the Government and the Company contained

  435
  no such stipulation. He entirely concurred with the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) in thinking that the insinuations advanced by the hon. Member for Brighton, were unfair both to Mr. Gisborne and the subordinate officers of the Government. If the Government and the House thought proper to refer anything connected with the undertaking to a Committee, none would be better pleased that the matter should be thoroughly investigated than the late Government and Mr. Gisborne.
  MR. DUNLOPremarked, that having been Chairman of the Select Committee on this subject, he had moved and carried a Resolution in the House that in future no public guarantee should be introduced into a private Bill. That Resolution would now become one of the Standing Orders of the House.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he certainly thought it advisable that contracts of this kind should be brought before the House in the form of public Bills. But it was only fair to remind the House that, although this contract was introduced through the form of a private Bill, nothing could have been better known at the time than that the Government proposed to enter into an arrangement with a company for the construction of a Red Sea and India telegraph. A Bill was brought in upon the subject; the House was perfectly well informed as to the facts of the case; and nothing could have been watched with greater intensity, excitement, and curiosity in the City of London, than the chances that the contract would be entered into. It would be the height of hypocrisy, therefore, to pretend at the present moment that they were placed in an embarrassing position in consequence of that contract having been introduced silently into a House of Commons which had not the slightest suspicion of what was going on. So far for the form; and now as to the spirit of the transaction. He had to state that in consequence of the relations which then prevailed between Her Majesty's Government and our Indian empire, if a company had not been formed to carry out this scheme it was his intention, and that of his noble Friend the late Secretary for India (Lord Stanley), to have advised their colleagues to undertake the construction of that line of telegraphic communication. And he was quite certain that if he had made that proposal, such was the state of the relations between England and India at the moment, it
  436
  would have passed unanimously. He did not wish to avoid any responsibility in this matter, but he held that it would have been the duty of any Government to carry such an undertaking into effect. That it had failed was greatly to be deplored. But it was to be expected that in the infancy of such enterprises failures would occur. Notwithstanding this failure, however, and that of the Atlantic Telegraph, he remained profoundly convinced that the time would speedily come when the Red Sea and the Atlantic Telegraph lines would be completely successful. Enterprises of this kind, that gave a new colour to civilization and a new impulse to the progress of mankind, could not be undertaken without some risk of failure. The Government, however, did not the less do their duty in patronising and supporting the scheme, and if they had not found the machinery of a public company for executing the undertaking it would have been the duty of his colleagues and himself to come to Parliament and ask for leave to carry it out on their own responsibility. The patriotism and sagacity of Parliament would, he was confident, have supported the Government in such a proposal.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry to find that the right hon. Gentleman had that evening very much widened the field of that discussion, and that he had not kept within those bounds to which he had very prudently and very carefully confined himself on the preceding evening. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished it to be understood, that if he did not follow the right hon. Gentleman in all his details he must not be understood therefore as necessarily embracing all the doctrines he had laid down. No doubt it was true that in the infancy of great inventions many failures were to be expected, but then that raised another and a very difficult question — namely, at what stage of the infancy of those inventions the Government ought to take them into their hands, and promote them by means of the public money. That was a question of great importance. But, on the other hand, he was ready to admit that it was one which could not be decided on mere abstract considerations, but that the urgency of the circumstances should be taken into account, as well as the state of public feeling at the time. All that, however, he believed, had better be kept apart from the discussion in which they were then engaged, because that discussion

  437
  turned strictly upon a point of public faith and honour, and he thought the importation of any other topics into it tended only to distract their attention, and to weaken the sense of their obligation to give effect to a pledge which had received the sanction of Parliament. He hoped, therefore, they would be allowed to confine themselves strictly to that question. He begged his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) to believe that there was no indisposition in any quarter to have the fullest investigation into all and every portion of the history of this transaction. But the point then before them lay in a narrow compass. It did not in any way embrace the consideration whether or not the Government were justified by motives of general policy, or by the peculiar urgency of the crisis which at that time prevailed, in departing from what would, perhaps, be universally recognized as the safe and prudent rule in such cases. It did not embrace the question whether the details of their proceedings were judicious; whether the amount of capital for which they gave the guarantee was moderate or sufficient, or excessive; or whether the terms of that guarantee, tested by the state of the public credit at the moment, was or was not reasonable. It was, he thought, desirable to keep the two subjects apart. Those persons who had engaged their property in the enterprise not only depended on the House of Commons giving effect to the engagements of the country, but also on that being done with all possible dispatch; and he believed that to mix up this small and simple question of public faith with those other larger questions involved in a full investigation of the whole matter would create dissatisfaction out of doors, and perhaps, give rise to a suspicion which, of all others, would be unjust to this House —namely, that the House was seeking for some occasion to elude the fulfilment of its, pledges. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton would be satisfied to allow this Bill to go forward without taking the sense of the House on the second reading. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), if it were considered desirable — and he thought it might be reasonably desired—to examine into the matters to which that hon. Member had called attention, there would be no objection on the part of the i Government to allow or promote that investigation; and if he had delayed to an-
  438
  nounce, on the part of the Government, any fixed intentions on the subject, it was not so much in relation to the failure which had just occurred as in relation to the general merits of other similar arrangements which were likewise examined in the Telegraph Committee of last year; and it might still he a question how far it was desirable that, if another investigation of this kind were made, it should be limited to the particular arrangements with the Red Sea Telegraph Company, or embrace a wider range. On that question he would like time for consideration whether the Committee to whom the clauses of this Bill were to be referred should likewise investigate the matters to which his hon. and learned Friend desired to direct attention. But, at all events, he trusted that the progress of that particular Bill would not be retarded, while the reference of those other matters to the same or another Committee remained a matter of decision. He trusted, then, that the hon. Member for Brighton would not insist on dividing on the second reading.
  MR. CONINGHAMpointed out that the preamble of the Bill recited that the Company were to present their line in working order.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this was a point which would be examined into by the Committee on this Bill. The questions involved in the Bill were altogether different to those general questions which applied to other similar arrangements. He must say that he did not agree with the retrospect of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, who said there never was a measure of which the nature was better understood by Members of Parliament than the Red Sea Telegraph Bill of 1858. It was not a question of praise or blame one way or the other. The practice pursued was the established one. But he did not concur in thinking that the nature of the measure was well understood by the Members of the House of Commons who passed the Bill; and, he thought, the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) had done well in calling attention to the subject, and proposing to provide for a different practice in future by a new Standing Order; and the hon. Baronet who represented Evesham for suggesting that the securities of a Money Bill should, in time to come, be thrown around Bills for the ratification of such arrangements as that which had been made in the present case.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for To-morrow.

  CRIMINAL LAW (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT.—LEAVE.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce Bills to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to offences against the person, malicious injuries to property, larceny, forgery, coinage offences, accessories and abettors, and also to repeal certain enactments which had been consolidated in other Acts. It would be in the recollection of the House that during the last Session Rills bearing the same title as those on the Notice Paper came down from the other House of Parliament, and, after being read the second time, had to be dropped because the state of public business would not admit of their then receiving that consideration in Committee which was thought desirable. At the time of their withdrawal, however, an intimation was given by the Government that an early opportunity would be taken in the present Session of introducing the Bills into this House; and, he thought, the House would agree with him that no unreasonable delay had been allowed to interfere with the performance of such promise. The Bills in question were seven in number, and their general object was to consolidate and assimilate the Statute Law of England and Ireland bearing upon crimes. One of the seven, however, was simply a repealing Bill, abolishing the enactments for which the other six, if passed, would become the substitutes; while another, referring to accessories and abettors, fell rather under the category of criminal procedure than of crime and punishment. These measures would not interfere with that portion of our criminal law, now small in extent compared with the rest, which was common or unwritten. As to the propriety of consolidating the statute law, but one opinion was entertained among all who had applied their minds to a consideration of the subject. It might be expected, indeed, that with respect to the various Bills which from time to time were proposed as means for carrying out consolidation, those Bills or those means might meet with more or less of disapprobation; but he repeated that as to the propriety of consolidation of the criminal statute law no second opinion was entertained. Any attempt, on the other hand, to collect and put into a compact form that other part of the criminal law which was called common or unwritten would
  440
  amount not to consolidation merely, but to codification, and would stir up controversial matters. But, as for many years past the great bulk of our criminal law had been the creature of statute, the Bills which he was about to bring in would effect a very considerable reform in the administration of that branch of our jurisprudence. The punishments provided by the common law were comparatively few and simple. As society grew older, and new wants were felt, other punishments had to be established, and these were based upon statute. The measures, it would thus be found, to which he invited attention, not only dealt with a very large portion of our criminal law, but with that portion which was most familiar in its operation, and which, in its relation to the interests of society, was of the gravest character. No doubt, while consolidating, it was wise also to assimilate the law of the two countries as far as practical and convenient; but, as the circumstances and exigencies of England and Ireland in important points materially varied, it was obvious that a limit was placed by that fact on the expediency of assimilation, and, consequently, on the extent of consolidation. That distinction had been observed in framing the Bills now before the House. The proposal contained in the Bills to consolidate and assimilate was but part of a most important work, in which it would be of the highest advantage to make material progress—he meant the reformation of the statute book. In order to this the statute book should contain only those statutes which were in operation —not repealed, expired, or obsolete; and those statutes which alone composed the statute book should appear on the face of it in a convenient form, collected under proper heads and divisions. That collection was the function of consolidation, and when consolidation had taken place expurgation must follow. They could not have a perfectly satisfactory statute book until they were able to combine these two operations. Consolidation, however, was the first step, and the necessity for it was the most urgent. That portion of the statute law which related to crime was the most easy to consolidate, and, therefore, he hoped the House would be of opinion that the step taken by these Bills was in the right direction, and that the benefit to be derived from them, if passed, would be not inconsiderable, forming an auspicious beginning in the course of general statute law conso-

  441
  lidation, and conferring important facilities and benefits in the way of clearness, intelligibility, and access both upon those who were subject to the law and those who administered it. He admitted, however, that after the sum of improvement these Bills would effect, much would still remain to be done. suppose these Bills passed, they would be published in autumn as component parts of the statute book, which, so far, would be extended; but, if they followed up their work with the other process of expurgation going on, a great mass of enactments and clauses of other Acts would disappear from the statute book. The subject of consolidation had not been recently taken up for the first time; its necessity had been long felt, and legal writers of great eminence, in comparatively early times, when the statute book was much less formidable than now, had insisted on it, and deplored that it had not been carried into effect. That eminent statesman, Sir Robert Peel, had paid great attention to the subject, and various Acts consolidating the criminal law had been prepared under his auspices, and still bore his name. A number of Royal Commissions had been issued from time to time to inquire into the existing state of the Statute law, with a view to digesting and consolidating it; and as this was a matter of great importance, as showing the authority on which the Bills were brought in, he would venture to remind the House of the dates of those Commissions. The First Commission for the digest and consolidation of the criminal law was issued in 1833. In 1836 a similar Commission was issued, which made three Reports. In 1837 there was another Commission, and which issued four Reports. In 1845 a fourth Commission was appointed, which issued five Reports. From 1833 down to 1849 there bad been no less than four Commissions and twelve Reports on the subject of consolidation. Although the Bills he was now seeking to introduce were not framed by any body of Commissioners, they had been prepared after a careful perusal of the Reports of the various Commissioners to which he had referred. In 1853 and 1854 two successive Commissions were issued, which differed from some of the previous ones in some respects, and which were called Statute Law Commissions; for, whereas certain of the earlier Commissions he had mentioned had reference to crime alone; the Commission of 1853 and 1854, which was the last of
  442
  the series, had reference to the statute law at large, of which that relating to crime formed only a part. In 1856 eight criminal Bills were prepared by the Statute Law Commissioners, and were referred to eminent and competent authorities—Lord Wensleydale, the late Chief Justice Jervis, Sir FitzRoy Kelly, and Mr. Greaves. Those Bills were the foundation of the measures which he was now seeking to introduce. They were placed before the other House by Lord Cranworth in July, 1856, but, in consequence of the late period of the Session, they were dropped and not further proceeded with. In the following year a change was made in the mode of procedure adopted by the Commissioners. Up to 1857 it had been considered that the labours of the Commissioners should be confined to the work of consolidation, without any attempt at amendment, but in that year the Statute Law Commissioners, presided over by Lord Cranworth, resolved that, in future consolidations, admitted imperfections and omissions should be remedied. That plan had been invariably acted upon since 1857, and the present Bills, although entitled to the character of Consolidation Bills, contained various alterations and amendments of the existing law. With two omissions they were similar to those which were introduced in 1857, and which had been previously approved by the deliberate judgment of Lord Wensleydale, Chief Justice Jervis, Sir FitzRoy Kelly, and Mr. Greaves. They were not brought forward, therefore, without due consideration and ample information; they embodied the result of the labours of successive Commissions, and could not fail, he thought, to meet the approval of the House. The next point to which he would advert was that of the assimilation of the criminal law as it prevailed in England and in Ireland, an object which, in the Bills on the subject which had been introduced in 1857, it had been sought, to a limited extent, to attain. The question, not being one of a party character, had been dealt with by successive Governments with an earnest desire to solve the difficulties by which it was encompassed in a satisfactory manner; and the administration of the Earl of Derby had, accordingly, in 1858, taken steps to carry out, still further than had been proposed in the previous year, the principle of which he was speaking. The measures, however, which the Government of Lord Derby had laid before Parliament with that view, and which were substantially the

  443
  same as those which had received the sanction of Lord Wensleydale and other eminent authorities, had been dropped, owing to the dissolution which had taken place shortly after their introduction; but an eminent Member of that Government (Mr. Whiteside) had in the Session of 1859 laid upon the table certain Bills which had not gone beyond a second reading, and which embraced the principle of assimilation to the extent provided in those to which he now invited the attention of the House. Again, in the vacation of 1859, Mr. Greaves, assisted by two gentlemen of the Irish bar, Mr. Pigott and Mr. McBlane, applied themselves diligently to the task of consolidation, and, with great care, prepared Bills which were introduced into the other House of Parliament, and were subsequently referred to a Select Committee of the Upper House. Those measures also failed to pass this House in consequence of the lateness of the Session. Into the history of the various measures which had been introduced on the subject of the consolidation of the criminal law generally, up to the present moment, he should not further enter, beyond saying that as the Bills proposed to be brought in, stood when brought into the other House by the Lord Chancellor last year, the punishment of death was reserved for infliction, under the Offences against the Person Bill, for two offences only—murder and the administration of poison with intent to murder; but subsequently, in the passage of the Bills through the other House, three other instances in which death might be inflicted were added to the catalogue of offences so punishable. These instances were, wounding with intent to murder; destroying or seriously damaging a building with intent to murder; and setting fire to a ship with intent to murder. The Bills, however, as they were now framed, had been restored in that respect to the shape in which they had been originally introduced. For malicious injuries a provision was copied from a Statute of George III., inflicting the punishment of death on those who were found guilty of setting fire to arsenals, dockyards, and establishments of that kind. The Bill left that punishment as it was; and it would be for the House to deal with it. Some expressions of dissent had been used with regard to the punishment of whipping, which occurred with some frequency in these two Bills. Where it was sanctioned at all it was restricted to persons of the age of eighteen, and some hon. Members thought that too
  444
  advanced an age. He had left the clauses as they stood, but it would be competent for any Gentleman at the proper time to review the decision of the framers of the Bills, and in the end, doubtless, that would be done which would give satisfaction to the House. If the House granted him leave to introduce these Bills he should propose after they were read a second time to refer them to a Select Committee. He had already stated that that course had been satisfactorily adopted by the other House of Parliament. There were circumstances in the state of Ireland more or less different from the circumstances of England, which made it expedient not to alter the principle of the law, but to confine assimilation to cases to which it was reasonably applicable. If the propriety of the changes proposed, with a view to assimilation, were challenged, it would be necessary to refer to various enactments affecting the sister kingdom, and to compare them with the criminal statute law of England. Some amount of detailed labour might be necessary, as any hon. Member was fairly entitled to require it, and it could be better accomplished in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the Whole House. It was not too much to anticipate that the Bills would come from the Select Committee in a State in which they might be regarded with the persuasion that the law was properly and prudently consolidated, and that no injurious changes had been introduced for the purpose of assimilation or otherwise. In conclusion he would move for leave to introduce the first of the series of Bills to which he had referred—that to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Offences against the Person.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, the House must feel grateful to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for the full, clear, and satisfactory statement which he had made of the history of consolidation and of these Bills. He believed he was thought bold and audacious for saying last Session that they ought not to take these Bills on trust, and that they should be referred to a Select Committee. But any one who had heard the statement that evening must be satisfied of the propriety of carefully examining these provisions. These Bills would not diminish the bulk of the statutes, and they would not simplify the knowledge of the criminal law to be gathered now from Archbold or any book of practice. He suggested that the whole subject of consolidation should be taken in

  445
  hand. Why not consolidate the criminal law of England, Ireland, and Scotland? If there was one part of the United Kingdom which required general consolidation more than another it was Scotland. The law of Scotland was in as barbarous a state as that of Italy. There was no habeas corpus; though a prisoner might demand his discharge after 150 days if the public prosecutor did not bring him to trial within that time. Again, in Scotland, a man might he hanged by the casting vote of a jury of fifteen, and the judges, if a new crime was committed, adapted the law to the new state of facts. The Eighth Report of the Commissioners in Procedure contained a most capital code, and having seen the advantages of the Codes Justinian and Napoleon, he did not see why they should not have a perfect code for the United Kingdom, to he called the Victoria Code, showing how, from the time when a man was taken into custody on a charge of committing any offence, to the time of his final acquittal or punishment, the law afforded every possible security that a regard for truth and justice, and for the lives and liberties of the Queen's subjects, could require.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, that he did not rise to criticise the details of these Bills, but to express, on behalf of his Colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, his warmest acknowledgments for the way in which the hon. and learned Solicitor General had spoken of the Bills introduced by him (Mr. Whiteside) when in office under the Earl of Derby's Government; and he could promise that his right hon. and learned Friend would give all possible assistance to complete this work before the Select Committee. He would suggest that the five Hills which his right hon. and learned Friend had introduced should be sent to the Committee along with the present measure; and also that some of the provisions in the two other Bills of his right hon. and learned Friend—that in the criminal procedure and the punishment statutes, might be usefully imported into the present Bills. The principle of assimilating the law of England and the law of Ireland, especially with regard to conspiracy to murder and other grave offences, might be carried further than seemed to be intended by the Bills now before the House. In the present improved state of Ireland, there was no reason why such a difference should exist.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he could not but deprecate the expending of large sums of money upon Commissions for improving and consolidating the law, from which the country obtained little benefit. Moreover, he strongly objected to the use of the lash on juvenile offenders. It was a degrading punishment; and a boy who had once been whipped never forgot it. Sixty-four crimes, if the culprit was under eighteen years of age, were still visited with flogging; and its results, as described to him, were perfectly horrifying. He regretted to say that the county of Lancaster was more conspicuous for this punishment than any other. There was actually more flogging in Lancashire than in all Ireland. In Salford and Manchester there was more of it than in any other place whatever. He believed that it was a very injudicious penalty; and, if the Committee reported for its retention, he should think it his duty to take the sense of the House on the question. In his opinion many of the sentences at the quarter sessions were far too severe, and not suited to the times. The policy of the country was to mitigate both the sentences and the actual punishment.
  MR. TURNERsaid, he was not aware that the magistrates of Manchester were more severe or cruel in the administration of the law than other people. It had certainly been their custom to give lads guilty of petty offences a good whipping rather than subject them to the contaminating influences of a long imprisonment. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hadfield) said that a boy who had once been whipped never forgot it. He (Mr. Turner) believed that that was quite true, for when they had given a lad a good sound whipping they seldom saw him again. He considered that flogging was the best punishment for juvenile offenders; but he hoped there would be less and less of it in Manchester, for many ragged schools had been opened with a view to keep children out of the hands of the police altogether.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Solicitor General had done well in not attempting to consolidate the laws of England and Scotland in the same measure. With respect to the strictures on the Scotch law which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, it might be true that the majority required for a verdict in Scotland was too small; but it was better, at any rate, than the scandal of acquitting persons notoriously guilty in consequence of there happening

  447
  to be some one capricious or partial individual in the box. He believed that the Scotch criminal law would bear comparison with the laws of England or Ireland; and as for their civil law, it was notorious that most of the improvements which had been introduced of late years into the English code had been borrowed from Scotland. He might instance, for example, the Divorce Bill, and the Declarator of Legitimacy. Five years ago the Scotch Members had had to fight a hard battle to prevent the English law of bankruptcy from being forced down their throats against their will. They succeeded; and the other night they had had the satisfaction of hearing a measure proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General, the chief features of which were all taken from the Scotch law.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he considered that the Solicitor General had exercised a wise discretion in consolidating the laws of the two countries. He had been glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), who occasionally spoke loudly of Irish grievances, declare that the difference between the laws of the two countries was but trifling. With regard to corporal punishment, he was of opinion that, when administered, a magistrate ought to be present. It was all very well to say "Let a boy be soundly whipped," but it was impossible, under present regulations, to know what amount of torture was inflicted. If whipping were to be retained as a punishment, the magistrate who ordered it should be present to see it administered. In the army and navy, when the men were flogged, an officer was obliged to be present. One hon. Member had said that he would rather be whipped than put on bread and water for three days. For his own part, he confessed he would prefer the bread and water, which, taken in prison, might be very beneficial. Motion agreed to.
  Then the following Bills were ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, and Sir GEORGE LEWIS.
  Offences against the Person,—Bill to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Offences against the Person.
  Malicious Injuries to Property,—Bill to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Malicious Injuries to Property.
  Larceny, &c.—Bill to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Larceny and other similar offences.
  Forgery,—Bill to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to indictable offences by Forgery.
  Coinage Offences,—Bill to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of the United Kingdom against offences relating to the Coin.
  Accessories and Abettors,—Bill to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Accessories to and Abettors of Indictable Offences.
  Criminal Statutes Repeal,—Bill to repeal certain Enactments which have been consolidated in several Acts of the present Session relating to Indictable Offences and other matters.
  And the said Bills were afterwards severally presented, and read 1°.

APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SUDBURY AND ST. ALBANS).—LEAVE.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Although the measure I am about to propose is not large and comprehensive, any Bill which affects the construction of this Assembly, and which deals with four seats in it, on the principles which this House, if it legislates on the subject, will consider and adopt, is nevertheless, of considerable importance; and I feel certain that it will receive the deliberate attention of the House. Sir, the Bill which I seek to introduce is founded on the fact that, by former Acts of Parliament, two boroughs, those of Sudbury and St. Albans, have been disfranchised: the one in 1844, the other in 1852. Plans have been previously proposed for assigning these four seats, but the reason why the House has hitherto abstained from filling up the vacancies has been that an expectation was entertained that some measure would be passed, which, in the generality of its provisions, would deal with these four seats, and fill up the vacancies thus created. During the last Session of Parliament, as the House is well aware, Her Majesty's Government proposed a measure of Parliamentary Reform which embraced the disposal of these four seats. That measure, I need not remind the House, did not pass, and Her Majesty's Government have not thought it expedient to ask the House to consider a general measure of Parliamentary Reform this Session. Under these circumstances, it has seemed to them advisable that these four seats should not remain vacant, and that, to complete the integrity of the representation, a separate measure should be proposed whereby these vacancies shall be filled up. Sir, I am quite aware that any person who makes a proposal to the House affecting the disposal of four seats, under-

449
takes a difficult task, inasmuch as it is necessary that he should make definite proposals in reference to them. It is quite certain that, should this Bill ever reach the Committee, many alternatives will be presented to the House; two notices have been already given which will deal with part of the subject, and no doubt at a future stage various views will be entertained by hon. Gentlemen who are the advocates of different districts or parts of the country. I cannot hope that the Measure I have to propose will not be open to criticism on particular points, and that it may not be possible to present other proposals in a manner which may appear specious to the House, or to certain portions of the House; but I will ask hon. Gentlemen to consider the plan as a whole, and not to expect that it shall be more than a fair and reasonable proposal, and on the whole superior to any other proposition which can be submitted to the consideration of the House. Without further preface, I proceed to state the manner in which I propose that these seats shall be filled up. The House will observe that the vacancies have been created by the disfranchisement of two boroughs; but although that is a consideration which I do not think the House should altogether lose sight of, Her Majesty's Government are not of opinion that it in any way binds them to assign all these seats to boroughs. They, therefore, propose, in the first place, to assign two seats to the two largest counties—namely, one seat to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and one seat to South Lancashire. I will state the total population of these two counties, and also their population exclusive of the represented towns. The total population of the West Riding of Yorkshire, according to the census of 1851, was 1,315,896; and exclusive of the represented towns, it was 794,884. The total population of South Lancashire was even greater—namely, 1,570,000, but, exclusive of the represented towns, it was only 500,000. These two are the largest counties in England; the next two in point of size would be North Lancashire and Middlesex. Our proposal does not contemplate any division of those counties; this is a matter which is always one of great difficulty, and with regard to which differences of opinion arise. We propose to make no disturbance in existing boundaries, but simply to add one Member to the representation of each. There remain, then, two seats, which we propose to assign
450
to boroughs. The first we propose to give to the united parishes of Chelsea and Kensington. It is possible that many hon. Gentlemen may entertain objections to adding to the number of metropolitan Members, may think that the metropolis is already sufficiently represented, and might prefer to assign the two seats to some rural borough. That is a matter which is fairly open to the consideration of the House, and, no doubt, when the Bill reaches Committee, the opinion of the House will he fully tested on it; but nevertheless I shall be fully prepared, when the proper time comes, to defend the selection which has been made, and I shall be surprised if the deliberate judgment of the House does not sanction it. The population of the parish of Chelsea at the last census—and I have no doubt it has since increased—was 56,538. Kensington, which has also increased, and where a large number of excellent houses have been recently erected, had a population amounting to 44,053. The united population of Chelsea and Kensington, therefore, at the last census was over 100,000, and I have no doubt is now considerably more; but that is a fact which will be ascertained in April next, inasmuch as we are then to take the next census. Some persons may say, "It is all very true that Kensington and Chelsea together form a considerable population, larger than any unrepresented town, but London must be taken as a whole; we must look at the whole number of Members for the metropolitan districts, and, looking at that number, we say that it is sufficiently represented." But if that argument be resorted to, I wish to call attention to what is the present population of London, because it is an important element in the question. I have obtained from the Registrar General an estimate of the population of London at the present time, which is made on a fair principle— namely, by supposing that London has increased in the same proportion in the last ten years as in the ten years previous. He estimates the population of London at the present time at 2,864,000. Hon. Gentlemen may, perhaps, wish to know what is the comparative population of Scotland. At the last census the entire population of Scotland was 2,862,000, nearly the same, or rather less, than what is now estimated to be the population of London. The House, therefore, will, I think, agree with me that, whether you look to the population of these two parishes standing alone, or take

451
them in connection with this enormous Metropolis, it is difficult to deny their claim in one character or the other. With regard to the other seat, I propose to give it to the town of Birkenhead. It is a town which differs in character from the other three communities to which seats will be given. It is not a manufacturing place like the West Riding or South Lancashire, which may be said to a great extent to be manufacturing districts; it is not a metropolitan borough like Chelsea and Kensington; it is a commercial town, which has greatly increased within the last ten years. Its population at the last census was 24,000, and it has considerably increased since that time. It is now the most populous of the unrepresented towns. It might be said by some persons who take a general view of the subject, that if two boroughs such as Sudbury and St. Albans are disfranchised, their seats ought to be assigned to boroughs somewhat similar in character, or, at any rate, to the four largest unrepresented towns. If that principle of appropriation were adopted, the four boroughs selected would be Birkenhead, which had a population of 24,000; Staleybridge. which has 20,000; Burnley, which has 20,000; and Gravesend, which has 16,000. I cannot but think, however, that the choice which I have submitted to the House is preferable. It is the distribution of seats which, upon deliberation, the Government have decided to submit to the House, and it will be contained in the Bill which I am now asking permission to lay upon the table. I repeat, I hope the House will consider whether it is a fair and reasonable proposal. I do not lay claim to its possessing any extraordinary perfection, nor do I deny that other alternatives may be submitted to the House which may deserve their attention, but I maintain with confidence, that it is a fair and reasonable plan which merits their consideration, and which, having received their consideration, may, I trust, in the present Session of Parliament, meet with the support of a large majority of the House. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the appropriation of the Seats vacated by the Disfranchisement of the Boroughs of Sudbury and St. Albans."
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he did not wish, on that occasion, to go into the question at any length; but he could not allow what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet to
452
pass without entering his protest against the scheme he had proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the dealing with the four seats was a very important question, in which statement he (Mr. Bentinck) most fully concurred; but the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he dealt with the distribution of these seats upon principle. But after listening attentively, he (Mr. Bentinck) was totally at a loss to discover what the principle was; but if he had any leaning of opinion it was that the right hon. Gentleman intended to act upon the principle of figures. If this were so, he could show him that he had totally lost sight of the real merits and justice of the case; but if he did not attempt to deal with the matter upon the principle of figures; he (Mr. Bentinck) was then utterly at a loss to understand the principle. If the question were one of figures, then he could show that not only those four seats, but every one of the next 130 or 140 which might become vacant ought in justice to be given to the rural counties of England. ["Oh! oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh!" but there was no gainsaying figures; and if the matter was to be decided on figures alone those seats must be given to the counties. Of course, if it were to be dealt with on other principles not yet explained, diferent considerations would come into view. It was almost superfluous for him to say that representation and taxation were convertible terms, and that when they discussed in that House what interest was to maintain its fair or unfair share of representation, the real battle they were fighting was what class of the community was to hear the heaviest or the lightest share of taxation. When once they began to deal afresh with the representation, they were bound to deal with the question as one of abstract justice, which could be supported by figures. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, given no such reason, but had said that more specious plans might be suggested. He (Mr. Bentinck) most decidedly objected to specious plans, and simply asked the House to consider whether the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman proceeded was sound or not. Then as to that part of the proposition which was to add to the number of metropolitan Members—and he could not help thinking, that when the time came for discussing the details of the Bill it would be shown not expedient to adopt that part of the scheme—he would not go into the

453
matter further than enter his protest against any tampering with the rights of the rural districts of England. One would imagine, from what one heard of Reform, that it consisted in nothing but large towns and railways, and that there was no such thing as a country, or of that part of the population which contributed most to out-wealth and security. He should he extremely sorry to argue that the great commercial emporiums of the country should not have their fair share of representatives, but what he did argue against was any attempt on the part of the boroughs to obtain a monopoly of representation. It was on these grounds that he protested against the scheme of the Government; and when the time came for entering into details he hoped to be able to show that the proposal was not founded on figures or in justice.
MR. STIRLINGsaid, he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the Universities of Scotland. Scotland was the only one of the three kingdoms that had no University representative. England had four University Members, and Ireland two; and be thought it would be conceded by the House that those Gentlemen enjoyed their seats to the advantage, not only of their respective constituencies, but of the nation at large. The right hon. Baronet said that his arrangement was based on figures. That being so, he (Mr. Stirling) wished to present the House with a few statistics, and they should be very few. Not many years ago it might have been said with truth that although Scotland had Universities she had no University constituencies; that those who received their education in those Universities had no concern with them after they left them; that they neither took degrees nor had any rights or privileges in connection with them. But Parliament, in its wisdom, amended that state of things. Three years ago Her Majesty's Government passed a measure known as the Scotch University Act, which had infused new life into the Universities. Short a time as it had been in operation, there was now in Scotland a very fair University constituency. Without going into the details respecting what was called the General Council of the Universities, which answered to the Convocation of Oxford and the Senate of Cambridge, the Scotch Universities had an aggregate constituency of 3,304. That, in itself, was a considerable number. It was larger than would be found in any book of reference, for the
454
constituency was increasing, and he had obtained those figures on the previous day. The constituency of the University of Cambridge was 4,566; of Oxford 3,623; and of Dublin, 1,780; so that the constituency of the Universities of Scotland was much larger than that of the University of Dublin, nearly as large as that of the University of Oxford, and, he had no doubt, it might be as large as that of the University of Cambridge. There was no one of whose assistance he would have been inclined, on general grounds, to be more hopeful in respect of this matter than the right hon. Baronet. Surely such a constituency would be at least as intelligent as any of those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. In England, members of the Universities were, as a general rule, only found in the better classes; but in Scotland the case was different, for University education was sought for and enjoyed by all classes of the community, from the peasant upwards. What was the problem which all or many statesmen tried to solve last year? Was it not to find a means by which intelligence without property might be permitted to enjoy some of the constitutional advantages of property, which had hitherto been considered to be the standard of electoral fitness? By admitting the constituencies of the Scotch Universities to the elective franchise they would be conferring a constitutional privilege on men whose intelligence qualified them for its exercise, yet many of whom might never obtain the necessary property qualification. Having made this suggestion, he would venture to express a hope that the right hon. Baronet would allow a sufficient time for the judgment of the country to be collected on this important subject. It would be only becoming to allow time for it to be considered by the country and criticised by the press. Should it not be taken up by some more influential Member, he should himself endeavour to take the sense of the House on the question to which he had now directed attention.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would remind the House that by the Government Reform Bill of last year two of the seats were to have been given to Ireland and two to Scotland. The population of Scotland had been spoken of in somewhat contemptuous terms; but it was not less this year than last. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stirling) embodied his proposition in a substantial form, he would be glad to give him his support. Of the two Mem-

455
bers who were to have been given to Ireland, one was to have been bestowed on the county of Cork, which contained 600,000 inhabitants, and the other on the city of Dublin, which had a population numbering 300,000. The population of Dublin had not decreased since last year, and that of the county Cork had increased since the time when the united wisdom of the Cabinet decided that it was entitled to one of the seats that was now about to be otherwise disposed of. These were matters which must be pressed upon the attention of the House if the present Bill ever reached that stage on which its details would be discussed, an eventuality which the right hon. Gentleman himself seemed to regard as problematical. As to the metropolis, he (Mr. Maguire) thought it was well represented. The metropolitan Members were among the most able, active, and intelligent in the House. They had a fair share of eloquence and a fail-share of wisdom. The metropolis was, therefore, admirably represented, and the Government and the House ought not to baulk Ireland. Justice had long been promised to her; but now the Cup was about to be dashed from her lip in consequence, he presumed, of political exigency.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he should have been well content to have allowed this miserable abortion of a Bill to fall stillborn upon the table of the House without a word but for the observations made by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck). He felt bound to say that if they had cause for great dissatifaction at the part played by the Government in abandoning the cause they had undertaken to advance, there was still much cause for satisfaction in finding that the hon. Member for Norfolk entertained such sound views upon the question of Reform. He had great hopes henceforth, he was happy to say, of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite (Conservative) side of the House; they had become so enlightened that Liberal Members might expect to get from them what had been denied by the hollow friends of Parliamentary Reform. He was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Norfolk say that representation and taxation should go together; and he doubtless recollected that the people of England, who paid one-half of the taxes, had now no right to send representatives to this House. The unenfranchised classes, when they despaired of obtaining justice from a Government which had betrayed them, would turn with confidence to
456
so eminent a Conservative as the Member for Norfolk, who in his speech had maintained the principle which formed the very foundation of the rights claimed by them from Parliament. The hon. Gentleman declared that if justice were done the counties would receive 100 seats or more at the expense of the boroughs. The truth of this observation might be admitted. But what was justice? If they proceeded upon numbers as the basis of representation, the counties could not send Members to the House of Commons until county representation was based on numbers. When the hon. Member came down to the House with a Reform Bill, giving to the adult millions who, unenfranchised, lived in counties the right of representation, he (Mr. Ayrton) would be the last to deny the right of representation to the counties. But what Conservative had ever professed to give the counties that right? At present the right of voting in the counties was vested in comparatively few, while the adult males who possessed no vote might be counted by thousands, and therefore the counties were now not only well represented, but over-represented. If the hon. Member were prepared to make this concession, and to submit a Bill for the enfranchisement of these persons, he would have a right to transfer to the counties some of the seats now usurped by corrupt and rotten boroughs, and might overthrow any amount of political intrigue directed against a fair settlement of Parliamentary Reform. [Mr. Bentinck: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member said "Hear, hear;" but where was the Bill? Why had not the Conservative Government framed the Bill they introduced in accordance with the wishes expressed by the hon. Member on the present occasion? Had they done so they would have immortalized themselves, and would have received support not only from a large majority in the House, but from the nation at large; but, instead of doing that, they proceeded on the principle of keeping the representation in the hands of a comparatively small number. It was certainly gratifying to the metropolitan Members to be told that they were so singularly efficient; but he objected to be improved out of his own estate. He did not admit that they were so efficient; at all events, they had not that power of numbers which unfortunately, when any question of weight was brought under the notice of the House, prevailed far more than any amount of eloquent advocacy. With regard to the Bill,

457
he did not admit the doctrine that numbers should constitute the basis of representation; and he regretted to see a Minister of the Crown proposing a measure to the House entirely upon that ground, for he did not think it a fair and statesmanlike mode of dealing with the question. If that doctrine were affirmed, the whole of the four seats ought to go to Ireland; but the constitution of the House of Commons had been settled on different principles. Those principles had been adopted after due investigation at the union of the two countries, and he believed that there were no good grounds now for changing the arrangement, and that Ireland could not claim to take a single representative from England. Representation was based not upon numbers only, but upon property, and on everything which contributed to the wealth, strength, and stability of a nation. He thought he should make a convert of the hon. Gentleman to the conclusion that, under proper conditions, it would be just and reasonable to add to the number of metropolitan representatives. But he did not mean to appeal to mere numbers in support of such an opinion; all the elements he had mentioned were to be considered whenever the question of representation was fairly discussed. It might not be conducive to the public interest that to numbers alone a great and overwhelming amount of representation should be intrusted. But the case of Chelsea and Kensington did not rest on this ground alone, though they comprised the largest unenfranchised constituency in England, and therefore had the first claim. He protested, however, against the attempt of the Government to escape from the performance of a great duty by presenting to the House this most trumpery Bill, and could not help expressing his sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman who had been used for such a purpose. If the part must he played out—the part of the ridiculus mus in the great mountain of Reform—there was but one person qualified for it, and that was the noble Lord (Lord John Russell). It was quite evident that the Government had taken advantage of the known goodnature of the right hon. Gentleman, and had imposed on him this —he could not say service, but this—ridiculous performance. The right hon. Gentleman always did his work well whatever it might be; but he hoped the House would not allow the right hon. the Home Secretary thus to be made a convenience of on
458
the present occasion. The Liberal party should hold the Ministry to the fulfilment of their great duty. They took office for one great object, which they were bound to carry out. They had confederated to displace a former Government, and succeeded because men thought that that Government would not perform its duty conscientiously. They put that forward as the ground on which they invited their Sovereign to change her Ministers. Nay, more—they might be said to have foisted themselves upon their Sovereign, usurping her great prerogative; and, in so doing, they had been buoyed up by the popular sympathy accorded to them because they were believed to be entering office for the performance of that duty. But now that they had got into office they shrunk from the fulfilment of their own pledges under the hollowest pretence—that the Bill which they brought forward, but which was full of defects, was subjected to adverse criticism. They thus availed themselves of the badness of their own Bill to absolve themselves from the performance of their duty. Surely there never was such a contrivance. The Ministry would find when it was, perhaps, too late, that they had lost character and credit throughout the country. Every succeeding election would turn to their disadvantage; and, if they did not do their duty manfully they would sink down, step by step, until they slipped out of office altogether, objects of universal contempt and of universal scorn.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, we shall not be at all swayed, as I can assure the hon. Gentleman, nor are we at all daunted by the magnificent phillippic which he has just delivered. It may be well for the hon. Member to misrepresent the conduct of the Government. But we do not propose this measure as the substitute for a general measure of Reform. We stated, I think sufficiently, the reasons why we do not think it our duty in this Session to bring in what is called a great and comprehensive measure of Reform. Those, I think, who remember the course adopted last year by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, as well as by those who sit opposite, can never feel in their hearts, whatever they may assume to feel, any great astonishment that the Government this Session have not called on the House to spend so many hours as were spent last year, not in discussing, but in evading and shelving that measure, which was

459
shelved as much by the professed friends of Reform as by its opponents. I therefore repudiate, Sir, the whole of the insinuations of the hon. Gentleman as totally unfounded, and, as in no degree affecting the standing or character of Her Majesty's Government. We have, upon mature deliberation, come to the conviction that it would not have been for the public advantage for us to have called upon Parliament in the present Session to renew any long discussions on a comprehensive measure of Reform. But we did think it our duty not to permit these four seats to remain vacant any longer. The reason no arrangement was proposed before is, that from year to year it was thought they might be included in some large and general measure. Now, we certainly did not expect that any proposal we might make for the distribution of these four seats would not be met by an infinite number of counter proposals. These four seats belonged to English boroughs, and the natural arrangement appears to be that they should be allotted to four English constituencies. But we did not disguise from ourselves that the moment we made that proposal we should have some hon. Gentleman from Scotland rising to say that they ought to be given to Scotland; and that hon. Members from Ireland would claim them for Ireland. We knew that we should have, as we probably shall have, various Gentlemen proposing a different arrangement for England. It was not in the nature of things that, whatever proposals we might make, counter proposals would not be urged against them. But I am myself of the opinion that when the House comes to consider our plan, and those counter proposals in Committee, it will think that the arrangement made is as fair as any that can be proposed against it. It is quite true, that mere numbers ought not to be the principle on which the representation of this country is founded. The House of Commons is the great legislative machine of the nation, and ought to represent, not its numbers alone, but all its various interests; all its different intelligence, and all those elements that are essential to the proper action of the great assembly that is to direct its general policy and destinies. Well, I think the manner in which we propose to distribute these four seats is founded on that principle. The two places disfranchised are comparatively small boroughs; but we do not propose to give these seats to two other comparatively small towns; we pro-
460
pose to give two of them to two great counties, in which there are both agricultural and manufacturing interests — interests that ought to have their opinions represented in this House. We give another Member to a place of a different character—a large and growing seaport town, with interests different to those of the counties. The fourth seat we propose to give to a new borough to be created out of a very increasing and thriving part of the Metropolis. Perhaps, that which in some degree excited the zeal and energy of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) against some hon. I Members who preceded him may have been the sounds—not articulate—that indicated an objection to any addition to the number of the metropolitan Members. That naturally excited some degree of warmth on the part of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He might, however, have been consoled by the compliments which were paid by those who spoke; and perhaps, the cheers that at one moment came from the other side of the House may have inspired him with an opinion that the views of the House were not so favourable to the proposal as might have been. I think, however, that Kensington and Chelsea are very fit places to be erected into boroughs. They include interests that deserve to be represented in this House; and I do not concur with those who think the proposal inexpedient, because it will be an addition to the metropolitan Members. I feel a great respect for those Members, and pay no regard to the opinion that has excited the indignation of the hon. Gentleman. I do not intend to go further into this subject at present; I think no case can be made for an addition to the Members of Scotland and Ireland. We are dealing with four seats that belong to England, that were forfeited in consequence of corruption. We had to look round England to find how we could best dispose of them for the public advantage. We have disposed of them by giving them to as great a variety of interests as could be consulted in that small number of seats; and when the House comes to consider the plan, I think it will be of opinion that it is as reasonable as any proposal that can be set against it.
MR. KNIGHTLEY: The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets appears to taunt the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) with having changed his opinion. The hon. Member must have been remiss

461
in his attendance in the House. I have had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member for West Norfolk speak often on this question, and I have always heard him use the same argument. The hon. Gentleman denies that my hon. Friend made out a case for the counties. I am unwilling to go into figures, but I have an extract from the Census of 1857 which is very short, and I will therefore venture to read it. It shows that the representation of England and Wales, under the Reform Act, is based on estimates of wealth and population, which give to the counties property of the annual value of £60,564,288; inhabited houses, 2,053,998; population, 10,495,930; while the number of county Members is 159. In the boroughs and cities the annual value of property is £42,898,247; the inhabited houses, 1,383,300; and the population, 7,431,679; while the number of borough Members is 337. Sir, on this side of the House we have never wished to maintain the present state of the county franchise; we have always wished to place the county and borough franchise on an equality in every respect. That was what the late Government proposed to do. They proposed to put the counties and the boroughs on the same footing. But, what did you do? You supported the Resolution of the noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), and refused to put them on the same footing. You destroyed the Bill of the late Government, and now a very nice little Reform Bill you have got instead of it. And how will this new borough of Chelsea-cum-Kensington act upon the county of Middlesex? It will not only have a Member of its own, but the 40 s. freeholders within its precincts will materially intefere with the representation of Middlesex. In that county there are 14,000 electors; 8,000 of whom vote upon freehold property situated within the borough, so that the metropolitan constituencies not only vote in it for their own representatives, but interfere with the representation of the county. Is that fair or just? I say it is not. If the House will give the counties a fair representation, I, for one, am willing to lower the franchise. We have always been ready to give a far lower franchise than the present, if you would consent to place counties and boroughs on a perfect equality.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: There are some Members in this House, Sir, whose notions of Parliamentary Reform are so
462
gigantic and colossal that any measure proposed to them is called a pitiful abortion. The Reform Bill of last year was called a "pitiful abortion," though now it is termed revolutionary and destructive. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets has thought fit to denominate the present Bill a "miserable abortion," and seems to think I have been reduced to some kind of servile duty in having laid the measure before the House. Now, the Bill is one that disposes of four seats at present vacant, and that are wanting to the integrity of the number of this House. In 1853 the right hon. Member for Bucks proposed a measure precisely similar to this "miserable abortion." He asked leave to introduce a Bill assigning the four vacant seats to the West Riding of Yorkshire and the southern division of Lancashire—two to each. The plan was discussed, but, on a division, was rejected—not on the ground that it was a "pitiful" measure, but because it was thought the Government was not in a condition then to make any important proposition. I would also draw the attention of the House that there are two notices on the Votes for Bills by which it is proposed to assign two of these seats to particular places. If the Government were not to interpose there would be other Motions on the subject, as it is known it is not the intention of Government to bring forward any general measure this Session. The consequence would be great confusion and inconvenience, and I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the course which we have taken as the most convenient mode of dealing with the question.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS, VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL.
Bill presented, and read 1°.
House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Subdivision of Dioceses; Admiralty Court Jurisdiction.

VOTE OF THANKS—(CHINA.)—RESOLUTIONS.
LORD HERBERT,in rising, pursuant to Notice, to move the Thanks of this House to Her Majesty's naval and military forces engaged in the operations in the North of China, said,—My Lords, I deem it fortunate that upon this, the first occasion on which I am called by official duty to trespass upon your Lordships' indulgence, I should have a subject which requires so little advocacy from any man, and which will meet, I believe, not only with the approbation but with the most cordial concurrence of all your Lordships.
My Lords, in describing the military events which have taken place during the

367
short but brilliant and decisive campaign which terminated in the capture of Pekin, I need not go back to the causes of the war, or raise any question which may have formed matter of debate in either House of Parliament. Upon receiving the news of what I must call the disaster of the Peiho, accounts of which reached England in the autumn of 1859, it became necessary to take measures forthwith lest the Chinese Government and people, intoxicated by the successes which they had achieved in the destruction of our ships and the capture of our guns at the mouth of the Peiho, should rise in other towns and ports of that vast Empire, and should endanger the safety of our large mercantile population there. Troops were, therefore, sent out immediately, matériel was despatched, and every precaution taken to prevent such a calamity. Later it became obvious that the Chinese Government would be unwilling to make any reparation for the affair at the Peiho, when Mr. Bruce was beaten back in-his attempt to proceed to Pekin for the purpose of obtaining the ratification of the Treaty of Tientsin. A large force was accordingly collected and organized at Hong Kong in May of last year, and was enabled, by the great exertions of its officers, to leave at the end of the month or the commencement of the next. There was one officer of great promise and ability, Colonel Haythorne, who had been selected as Chief of the Staff, to whom we are indebted, by his admirable arrangements at Hong Kong, for much of the after success of the campaign. He, however, reaped not where he had sown; he was called away to fill a still higher position in India, where, I have no doubt, he will evince equal ability to that shown by him in China. This force sailed at the time fixed, and reached the rendezvous at the entrance of the Gulf of Pecheli; and while collected there Sir Hope Grant had an opportunity of displaying to General Montauban the force under his command. His troops had been collected from India, from the Cape of Good Hope, and from England; and, on the 13th of July, General Montauban, at the request of the English Commander-in-Chief, came over to review them. This is the description which, in a private letter, Sir Hope Grant gives of this review:—
"On the 13th of July I took General Montauban and his suite to Odin Bay to show them our force of cavalry and artillery. We had about 1,000 men on parade, and their turn-out was really beautiful. The men, both Europeans and Sikhs,
368
were fine, handsome, stalwart fellows, well dressed, very clean, and their horses all in rare condition and with shining coats. It really was a sight worth seeing, and I felt proud of being in command of such a force. General Montauban said, 'it was a sight to see in Hyde Park or Paris, but one that he could never have expected so far away from home.' The infantry force is also very fine, and their behaviour excellent."
I mention this because I think it does credit, not only to the officers who organized the expedition, but to the naval commanders, who made such excellent arrangements for transporting this large force, and for landing them at the rendezvous after some bad weather, and after a very lengthened voyage, in such perfect health and efficiency. On the 1st of August the expedition lauded at the mouth of the Peh-tang. They occupied the forts and town without opposition, though, in disembarking the stores, the guns, and artillery horses, they met, owing to the nature of the shore, with considerable difficulty. General Grant was anxious to move his troops as quickly as he could out of a place which seemed so unhealthy. The retiring tide left a great surface of mud exposed, and the whole country around was nothing but a swamp, and he feared lest fever should break out. But the rains at first were so violent that he had great difficulty in effecting his departure from Peh-tang. Sir Robert Napier, an officer of Her Majesty's Indian forces, and who evinced throughout the distinguished military talent which seems common to all bearing his name, was the Commander of the First Division. He says that it was with some difficulty that his columns got through the swamp, that the gun-wheels were frequently imbedded axle-deep in the mud; and that it cost two hours' hard labour to the troops to traverse the first two miles. The state of the country, in fact, was such as to render military operations almost impossible. But the troops persevered, and they very soon came in sight of a Chinese force, consisting principally of cavalry. The first engagement which then took place exercised considerable influence upon the after part of the campaign. Sir Robert Napier states that the enemy's cavalry nearly surrounded the whole of his force in skirmishing order. Their number was very large, and the Tartar horsemen showed not the slightest fear or hesitation in meeting our troops. One body of cavalry gallopped close up to a half battery of our guns, which was protected only by an escort of thirty of Fane's Horse. This

369
escort was almost overwhelmed by the numbers opposed to it; but Lieutenant Maegregor, who was in command, undismayed by the disparity of numbers, rode at them with his thirty men with such a will that they broke quite through the Tartar ranks and scattered them most effectually. This was an important achievement. The Chinese cavalry were numerically vastly superior to our own, and it was important to solve the problem whether the Sikh horsemen could cope with them under such circumstances. Lieutenant Maegregor and his troopers answered the question most satisfactorily. This engagement had the effect of dispiriting thenceforward the Tartar cavalry; and, in the encounters near Pekin, as we shall presently see, our cavalry, by their rapid and impetuous cliarges, had the best of every encounter. On the following day the allied forces captured an intrenched camp with over forty guns. Then came the attack upon the Taku forts. These forts formed very formidable obstacles to any army. The whole country was a salt marsh, and the troops could only move forward on extremely narrow causeways, where the ground was so little consolidated that it became almost impassable after a shower of rain. Some nights were occupied in bringing up the heavy guns, and the canals were bridged by our engineers, who, night after night, had the most laborious duties to perform in erecting the works and bridges. The Peiho Forts were extremely strong. Sir Hope Grant, in one of his despatches, describes them as being redoubts, with a illicit rampart, heavily armed with guns and wall pieces; they had two unfordable wet ditches, between which and the parapet was a spiked bamboo palisade, leaving only a narrow approach, which was, of course, commanded by the enemy's guns. The attack was then commenced. But the facts of this engagement are so recent that I do not think it necessary to describe them in any detail. After the forts were breached, a most gallant and successful attempt was made to storm them, both by the French and English forces. The Chinese kept up j a deadly fire, so that fifteen of the Sappers, who were carrying the pontoon bridge, were struck down in an instant. I mention this because now that Pekin is taken, and the war at an end, people are apt to underrate the deeds of our men before the enemy, and to make light of the difficulties which existed, owing to the nature of the
370
country and the uncertainty as to the character of the resistance which would be attempted. It is said by Sir Robert Napier that he never saw forts better defended. His words are worth quoting:—
"The enemy made a noble and vigorous re-sistence, no entry had yet been made, the breach had not been completed, the gate was known to be built up, the attempts of the French to escalade at their angle were unsuccessful. At this juncture, with the permission of the Commander-in-Chief, I brought up two 24-pounder howitzers and two 9-pounder guns of Govan's to within eighty yards of the rampart, which, firing over the heads of the men on the berm, cut away the parapet at the point where the defence was most obstinate. After a lengthened struggle the French entered the embrasure at their angle by escalade, and the British climbed into the partial breach near the gate at the same moment, Lieutenant Rogers, of the 44th Regiment, being the first man on our side established in the place. The troops of both nations now poured into the place, but foot by foot the brave garrison disputed the ground, and as their was no means of exit other than by dropping over the wall and crossing the defensive obstacles of ditches, stakes, and abbatis, the loss of the enemy when they were ultimately driven out of the work was very severe, both from the rifles of our infantry, who crowded the cavalier, and from guns moved round to the left which swept their line of retreat on the further Northern Fort. It was half-past eight o'clock when this fort, now proved to be the key of the whole position, was in our hands."
When the fort surrendered, the rest followed the example. We found ourselves in possession of no less than 400 guns, some of which it was highly necessary to recover, for they were our own guns which had been lost in the gunboats sunk at the Peiho. I pass by the particulars of the march to and arrival at Tien-tsin. There negotiations were begun. Our troops, upon an understanding with the Chinese, advanced to a place about five miles from Pekin (I forget the name of it, and if I could remember it I could not pronounce it), and when they arrived at this spot they were to be met by Chinese Commissioners, with whom a treaty was proposed to be negotiated. But it was found that on this spot the Chinese had thrown up extensive works, placed heavy guns on them, and filled them with troops, the Chinese cavalry threatening both flanks of our little army. I believe it has been said that the action was commenced by us prematurely, and that we misunderstood the intentions of the Chinese, who, if we had not commenced an attack upon them, would have offered terms of peace. Now, I believe nothing can be more contrary to the

371
facts. By the statements of Sir Hope Grant, both publicly and privately made, that gallant officer had repeatedly expressed his hope that the whole of these proceedings might be spared—that peace might be effected without bloodshed; and on this particular occasion so anxious was Sir Hope Grant that bloodshed should be spared, and that peace should be concluded without the sacrifice of human life, so anxious not to encounter the risk of provoking hostilities, that he allowed himself to be almost surrounded by the Tartar cavalry before the action was commenced. All the evidence that has since been obtained from the Chinese papers that were found shows that it was a pre-arranged scheme on their part, and that the Commander-in-Chief had no option left except to defend himself; he, therefore, made a vigorous attack upon the enemy, and by the charges of his cavalry on both flanks of the enemy, and by the power of his artillery and infantry, he was able to disperse the forces of the Chinese and to capture a large number of guns. Three days afterwards something almost similar occurred. Again, it was found that the Chinese had placed themselves in order of battle by the side of the canal leading to Pekin; again an attack was necessarily made, and again the Chinese troops were repulsed. On this occasion a charge was made by our cavalry, which I will mention, because it proved that they could overcome the difficulties of any kind of country. The Tartar cavalry were posted on an eminence, with a sudden fall below it; at the bottom was a ditch; the Chinese calculated that while our men were crossing this ditch it would be easy to pick them off with their matchlocks. The place has been described to me, by an eye-witness, as one that in a hunting field would be called "ugly;" one that many riders would look at, but which would be "gone at" by very few; those on the field who were rather discreet than valiant would go round some other way. The King's Dragoon Guards, however, rode at it, and so successfully that they cleared it, only leaving one or two saddles empty in the ranks, and they speedily remounted. The Sikh cavalry, equally ready to face anything, also rode at the ditch, but with their lung bits and short martingales, their horses' heads almost in their chests, they at first failed to clear it, and fell back, men and horses, into the ditch, but soon recovered and charged the enemy most effectually
372
The Tartars ever afterwards paid great respect to our cavalry, regular or irregular, and the alarm among the Tartar troops when the Dragoon Guards made any change of front, or whenever our irregular cavalry came in sight, was marvellous. At the time these movements were going on it should be stated that an admirable system of supply had been organized. The Commander-in-Chief states that "All the commissariat arrangements have been admirably made by Mr. Turner; there has not been a single complaint." I find also in the despatches of the Commander-in-Chief a passage, referring to his colleague, that is most agreeable to read: he says, "Admiral Hope is the best colleague I could possibly have had. He has a first-rate head, and his zeal and energy are untiring. His arrangements are all first-rate." Throughout the operations the utmost personal concord existed between the different arms of the service, especially between the Indian forces and those formerly called the Royal army. This distinction is now done away with, and I am happy to think that the two armies have been so successful on the first occasion they have been brought together, and have acted together, since the East India forces received the name of Royal.
My Lords, another feature of these operations has been the first use of that new artillery to which the Government has devoted great care and attention; and I cannot but congratulate my predecessor in office (General Peel) on having had the courage, amid a great variety of inventions to adopt, and, on a large scale, to bring into use the Armstrong gun. These guns had been severely criticized. Many persons admitted that they were a fine arm, of beautiful construction, and admirable at a long range; but they predicted that when actually used in war they would be found difficult to serve, too intricate and delicate, too much like a toy, to be so good or useful as the old field-pieces. Well, these new guns stood the long sea-voyage, and after not one but several transhipments, were landed in the best condition. Some of the ammunition was damped by the sea, hut none of the guns were injured; and throughout the Commander-in-Chief's despatches the greatest admiration was expressed of their efficiency in actual service. But at the time these guns were sent out so much doubt had been expressed of their ultimate success that I thought it prudent to send out with every Armstrong gun a

373
cannon of the old smooth-bore construction, to take its place in case of accident. But I am happy to say the Armstrong guns have proved entirely successful; and I believe the English army may be congratulated on possessing at this moment the best gun in the world.
My Lords, there is another point on which I wish to make a few observations — I mean the recommencement of hostilities on the 18th of September. On that day Mr. Parkes, Mr. De Norman, Lieutenant Anderson, Captain Brabazon, Mr. Loch, and Mr. Bowlby were taken prisoners. Now, there can he no doubt that these gentlemen, at the time they were so captured, were under the protection of a flag of truce. There can be no doubt of the inhumaity with which they were treated. The fate of these officers, and the sufferings they endured, made a profound impression on the people of this country. We bitterly lament the fate of those prisoners who perished. They did not fall in the storm of battle; they did not die a soldier's death, in the face of day and in a fair field. Had it been so, their deaths would have been less sorrowful. But they died in a fearful manner. They were made prisoners by treachery, carried off, and bound; their sufferings were cruelly increased by the cords being tied so as to cut into the flesh of their hands and feet, and wetted to increase their tension. They were taken in carts to distant places, exposed to both heat and cold; and their sufferings were aggravated by every species of indignity. They were all men of distinction. Mr. Parkes, by his activity and energy, had given the greatest assistance to the expedition. By his means the Commissariat Service became almost unnecessary, as he induced the country people to bring abundant supplies into the camp. Mr. De Norman was a young man of great promise, and had shown talents of no common order. Captain Brabazon was an officer of finished talent and skill in drawing, and had often been selected to take sketches of the country for the military operations. Lieutenant Anderson was an officer universally lamented. I have seen a description of the manner in which the news of his death was received at the head quarters of his regiment in India; it bad a most touching effect both on officers and men. There was also among the prisoners a gentleman, whom, I am glad to state, I have myself seen this day—Mr. Loch, who has happily survived the ill
374
treatment of the Chinese. Mr. Bowlby was the Correspondent of The Times, and had distinguished himself by the remarkable vigour and vivacity of his descriptions of the events of the war. The act of treachery by which these gentlemen were made prisoners was generally deemed one that deserved to be visited by some marked retribution. I do not believe there has been any great difference of opinion on that point. It was necessary that something should be done to mark the indignation we felt at the treacherous conduct of the Chinese.
Now, my Lords, let me mention two or three peculiar features of this campaign, which distinguished it from all former expeditions. First, we have had no failures in the Civil Department of the expedition. It had an excellent Commissariat under Mr. Turner; it had an excellent Medical Staff; and for the first time an attempt has been made to introduce the system of appointing a medical officer for purely preventive and sanitary purposes. I am informed that the greatest success has attended the operations of this system. Not only has there been more attention to prevention, at all times better than cure, but it has diffused the same spirit of care among the officers, and certainly the greatest success did attend the operations in a sanitary point of view. I have heard criticisms made of the cost of these precautious; and I have heard it said that if the cost of these hospital ships were divided by the number of patients on board of them, it would show that each patient cost an extraordinary amount. But that was because the expedition had been so singularly healthy. If there had been a great amount of sickness, the cost of each patient would, of course, have been much less; but the apparent large cost is the result of the success which has attended our sanitary precautions. After all, what expense can be too great, within reasonable limits, which insures that your army shall be perfectly efficient? When including casualties of all kinds, deaths and wounds, we find there was a better state of health and a lower rate of mortality among the troops forming the expedition in China than usually exist among troops in tropical climates in a time of peace, the success of the sanitary measures that were adopted is beyond dispute. There was a time when hostile critics said of English expeditions, that we could always obtain fighting men, but we could not find a general to lead them, nor a Staff

375
to direct them, nor a Commissariat to feed them, nor a Medical Staff to maintain them in health; but I say that Sir Hope Grant's army has given the lie to all those assertions. There has not been a failure throughout the campaign, not a single repulse have we sustained, and not only has our loss been very small, but the loss, also, of the Chinese, considering the enormous hordes with which they met us, has been remarkably trifling. Her Majesty has graciously expressed her approbation of the conduct of her army; she has distributed promotions and rewards; but it remains for the country and for your Lordships' House—which is no small portion of the country—likewise to convey to the troops, the commander, officers, and men, an expression of the gratitude which we owe to them for their arduous labours and their brilliant achievements, which have resulted in what I trust will prove a lasting and honourable peace. We have had in this campaign an admirable force beautifully handled and universally successful; there has not been a single reverse or drawback; and I trust, therefore, that, without trespassing further upon your Lordships' patience, I may with perfect confidence anticipate your unanimous assent to the Motion which I have the honour now to propose. The noble Lord concluded by moving to resolve—
"That the Thanks of this House be given to Lieutenant General Sir James Hope Grant, G.C.B., Vice Admiral Sir James Hope, K.C.B., Major General Sir John Mitchell. K.C.B., Major General Sir Robert Napier, K.C.B., Rear Admiral Lewis Tobias Jones, C.B., for the distinguished Skill, Zeal, and Intrepidity with which they conducted the combined Operations in the North of China which terminated in the Capture of Pekin, whereby an honourable Peace has been obtained on the Terms proposed by Her Majesty and Her Ally The Emperor of the French.
"That the Thanks of this House be given to the other Officers of the Navy, Army, and the Royal Marines, including Her Majesty's Indian Forces, both European and Native, for the Energy and Gallantry with which they executed the Service they were called upon to perform.
"That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the Gallantry, Discipline, and uniform good Conduct displayed by the Petty Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and Men of the Navy, Army, Royal Marines, and Her Majesty's Indian Forces, European and Native, and the cordial good Feeling which animated the united Force.
"And that the same be communicated to them by the Commanders of the several Ships and Corps, who are respectfully desired to thank them for their gallant and steadfast Behaviour."
THE EARL OF DERBY; My Lords, if my noble Friend, who has for the first
376
time to night shown in this House the great ability for which he has been so eminently distinguished in "another place," and who, I hope, will long continue to adorn the discussions of this House—if my noble Friend had had an opportunity of selecting the particular occasion upon which he would first address your Lordships' House, I think he could hardly have selected one which would have imposed upon him a more grateful task, and one more gratifying to his own feelings, than that which has to-night devolved upon him. For, my Lords, it must be a high gratification to my noble Friend to appeal—and with a perfect confidence that he would not appeal in vain—to your Lordships for a unanimous concurrence in an expression of admiration of the gallant services by which the name and reputation of this country have been so well sustained, and which in their results, it may be hoped, have procured for this country, not only so much credit, but also permanent and solid advantage. But I cannot help thinking that it must also be gratifying to my noble Friend to feel that, without derogating in the slightest degree from the merit of those who, under his auspices, in a distant part of the world, under circumstances of the greatest novelty, have so ably sustained the honour of their country, no small portion of the success which has attended the expedition may, without the slightest arrogation of anything that is not justly due to them, fairly be claimed by those departments of the public service which have been mainly instrumental in organizing and equipping the expedition. It is most satisfactory to feel that we have derived in many respects advantages from the bitter lessons of past times. I think that upon the present occasion it is the more incumbent upon me, as not being connected with the Government, and as not being able to pledge myself to give them my regular support and general confidence—it is, I say, the more incumbent on me to express my deep sense of the admirable manner in which the departments especially concerned organized and sent out this expedition. In every respect does there appear to have been exercised the greatest care and attention. That care and that attention were bestowed not only upon the efficiency of the troops and arms—to which I was glad to hear my noble Friend offer a well deserved tribute of praise,—but also for the health and comfort of the men, and which I say

377
again reflects the highest credit upon all the departments, more especially upon those which are presided over by my noble Friend himself, and that which is presided over by the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) upon the cross benches. There are many reasons, my Lords, why, in seconding the Motion of my noble Friend, I should not attempt to follow him through the very clear and lucid history which he has given of this short campaign. In the first place, whatever may be its ultimate consequences, the campaign itself cannot pretend to that deep interest and thrilling anxiety with which of late we have been accustomed to view military operations in the East; and none of the events which have occurred in the course of this campaign have excited that intense interest with which this country looked forward to and watched the successive march of events during the great revolt in India —the fall of Delhi, the relief of Luck-now, the successive marches and efforts of Havelock; the stern endurance which characterized the acts of Havelock, of Outram, of Inglis, of Lawrence, of Sir Hope Grant himself, of Sir Hugh Rose; and last, although not least, of my noble and gallant Friend who I am happy to see upon the cross benches (Lord Clyde). The achievements of these and others it is unnecessary now to refer to, because they have already received the high mark of distinction conferred by your Lordships' thanks and approval. But, my Lords, although the Chinese campaign did not present events of such peculiar interest as occurred in India, yet, if we look at what has been effected, and consider that the force employed, both naval and military, scarcely, if at all, exceeded 20,000 men, and that that force, in the course of little more than two months, effected a landing at Pehtang, penetrated to the very centre of a gigantic empire, containing, we are told, 300,000,000 of people, and after having captured the Taku Forts—which offered no inconsiderable and no discreditable amount of resistance—advanced to the very gates of the capital itself and there dictated its own terms of peace; when, I say, we compare the results that wore achieved with the apparent disproportion of the force employed, really the whole affair seems more like a page of romance than a leaf of sober practical history. It cannot be said upon this occasion, as upon former occasions, that our troops in China have had none or few difficulties to overcome. In
378
the first place we have met with no contemptible foe in point of courage and bravery. The Tartar cavalry in especial, have shown a degree of courage and energy, which, had it not been for our vast superiority in arms and discipline, might have been difficult to overcome. The Taku Forts were places of great strength, vigorously and ably defended, their natural strength had been greatly aided by artificial means, and they could only have been captured by gallantry and perseverance such as was displayed by the attacking force. But another reason why I should abstain from entering into any lengthened analysis of these events is that I feel I could add nothing to the accuracy of the description which my noble Friend opposite has very properly, from his official position, given to your Lordships, and also because the praises bestowed upon the commanders and other individual officers come with greater value and authority from him than they would from one holding no official position. Before I go further, however, I must say that, as regards the merits of individual officers and the part they have taken in the late events, the House has been left somewhat in want of the usual official information given on like occasions. I speak under correction, but I think it has been the usual, if not the invariable practice, when notice of Votes of Thanks is given, to state in the notice the names of those officers upon whom individually it is intended to confer the Thanks of the House. Whether that be the rule or not, your Lordships will agree that it would be a great convenience to do so, as it would enable those who are to take part in the discussion to make themselves acquainted with the particular merits of the individual officers who are to be named in the Vote of Thanks. Again, my Lords, having read with great interest the reports contained in the despatches of Sir Hope Grant and Admiral Hope of the events of the campaign, of which the landing at Pehtang and the capture of the Taku Forts were the most prominent and leading features, I turned, upon notice being given of this Motion, to the only official information which has been presented to us by Her Majesty's Government—namely, the papers relating to the transactions arising out of the war with China—and there, to my great surprise, although I found described in great detail every other transaction connected with the war, I found not a single despatch from Sir Hope Grant or Admiral

379
Hope giving a detailed statement of any one of the great operations which have taken place, still less any particular notice of the distinguishing services rendered by individual officers. Take, for example, the capture of the Taku Forts. The only notice of this event contained in the blue-book laid upon our table by the Government is a despatch of two or three lines from Sir Hope Grant, announcing, not the operations by which that capture was effected, but that he had received the surrender of the commander of those forts. Excepting that slight intimation, and one or two short Reports made to the Secretary of State by Colonel Foley, the Commissioner of the Queen with the French army, there is no ground laid in the documents now before us for the Vote which the noble Lord has proposed. I do not pretend to dispute the propriety of this Vote of Thanks, or wish to be understood as making any objection to it, but I think when a Vote of this kind is asked for eminent public services, we ought to have from Her Majesty's Government some official account of the services to which the Motion applies. We have this information, it is true, through the public newspapers, but the newspapers are not the basis on which we ought to proceed; and, although we may have seen alleged copies, and doubtless authentic copies, of despatches from the General and the Admiral, it would yet be more regular if those documents were formally placed before us as the official vindication and ground of our proceedings. My Lords, if my noble Friend opposite has not singled out any individual officer for approval—
LORD HERBERT: I named the General and the Admiral.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I meant except those mentioned in theResolution—namely, Sir Hope Grant and Admiral Hope. But, my Lords, it is impossible for any words too highly to mark our sense of the services of Sir Hope Grant and Admiral Hope. Of Sir Hope Grant it is enough to say that in China he has fully maintained, if he has not even surpassed, the distinguished reputation which he earned by his exploits during the Indian mutiny. There is, however, one point stated in the public prints to which I hope I may be permitted to advert, though it does not appear in the blue-book—and there is good reason why it should not. A circumstance has been stated in print — and I have never seen it denied — which reflects so much credit on Sir Hope Grant that it
380
would be an injustice to him to overlook it. My noble Friend has spoken, and in terms, no doubt, of deserved congratulation and commendation, of the good spirit and perfect unanimity which actuated all parties and all branches of the service engaged in the joint expedition. It is not in the slightest degree with the view of throwing any doubt on that perfect unanimity that I refer to the fact that, with regard to the operations against the Taku Forts, there existed, previous to their being commenced, considerable difference of opinion between Sir Hope Grant, acting on the part of the English, and General Montauban, commanding the French forces. My Lords, difference of opinion on such subjects must often occur among military men. But it has been stated, and not denied, that this difference of opinion went so far that General Montauban felt it due to his Government and his own reputation to enter a protest against the particular mode of operations intended and designed by Sir Hope Grant. Now, my Lords, if this were the fact—and I believe there is no question about it — I say it added greatly to the merit of our commander that under such circumstances he ventured to take upon himself the very serious responsibility of acting upon his own judgment, overruling the judgment and decision of the officer at the head of the French army, and, of course, incurring the risk of all the obloquy, odium, and discredit that would naturally have attached to him if the measure had resulted in disastrous failure, instead of the glorious success that crowned it. It is satisfactory also to know, after the event, that the event itself amply vindicated the judgment of our General; because, after the northern fort was taken, which Sir Hope Grant always believed was the key of the position, it was clearly ascertained that if that fort had not been first attacked, and if, according to the advice of the French commander, the operations had begun with the assault of the southern fort, even if that assault had been eminently successful, the invading forces would have found themselves commanded by the northern fort, and the whole of their labour would have had to be recommenced, and recommenced under great disadvantages. I mention this, Lords, because I think it is highly creditable to Sir Hope Grant that he exhibited not only that skill and courage for which everybody knows he is pre-eminently distinguished, but also that under most

381
difficult circumstances, and at the distance at which lie was from any possible concert or consultation, be should not have shrunk from the immense responsibility involved in acting, on so important an occasion, on his own undivided discretion. At the same time, I feel bound to say that it reflects great credit on General Montauban that, notwithstanding his strong views of the impolicy of the course proposed to be adopted, and his decided preference of a different course, the cordiality with which lie supported the attack which he disapproved, was not in the slightest degree diminished by this difference of opinion. And I am sure that no man could have been more gratified than was General Montauban himself when lie found that his own apprehensions were not realized, and that his co-operation had gone far to secure the happy termination of an operation which had so important an influence on the final success of the war. The remainder of the campaign was not such as to afford any scope for brilliant services. And, my Lords, I must here express my regret that the circumstances under which these hostilities were carried on did not give Admiral Hope and our naval forces an opportunity of taking a more prominent and active part in the proceedings than fell to their lot. Certainly, whatever they did they did gallantly, energetically, and successfully; yet I repeat I cannot refrain from the expression of a feeling of lingering regret that it was not possible for thorn—I will not say to retrieve any disgrace, because the reputation of the British arms for valour and endurance was never more signally sustained than in the attack upon the Taku Forts in the former year, but — to take a more conspicuous share at the scene of their previous disaster, and in that way to obtain, in their own estimation, a compensation for that reverse and the temporary discredit which might have been cast upon them in the eyes of those who did not understand and could not appreciate the difficulties under which the former attack was made. But if the remainder of the campaign was marked by no brilliant services, it at least bore evidence—and this is no slight gain—not only of the great discipline, good order, and subordination of our troops, but of the readiness of all the native Chinese to receive—even to assist and give them every support in their power—during the whole of their march. The march, my Lords, was not like a march through an
382
enemy's country, but through a friendly population. That very circumstance may tend to dissipate the great delusions and very false impressions entertained respecting the disposition of the people of China generally towards strangers, and holds out hope that the success of this expedition, and the experience which it has given the Chinese of the discipline, regularity, and good order of our troops, will conduce to the attainment of those commercial advantages and that peaceful intercourse with the Chinese people which it has been anticipated will follow the opening up of this great Empire, and which was the great object sought to be attained by the war. I have seen remarkable accounts of the good disposition of the native population. So great was the co-operation of the people, that on one occasion, when Mr. Parkes went to Tien-tsin, I think, or some place further forward, he found a local commissariat which had been provided for the Tartar troops. That commissariat, especially organized for those Tartar troops, transferred their services to the troops of the invader; and from that time the enemy's commissariat supplied us, with the most perfect regularity, with everything required for the use of our army. It may be said that this was a mere act of submission; but I do not think that any people, however low, would, after all, evince such a readiness to co-operate with an invading force, if that force had signalized its advance by any acts of inhumanity, atrocity, or unnecessary pillage or violence. I believe, therefore, we may recognize in this alacrity on the part of the people to contribute to our assistance, a valuable testimony to the good order and discipline which appear to have prevailed among the forces of Her Majesty. I can only hope that when our commercial intercourse with China becomes greater than it is at present the conduct of our civilians engaged in that intercourse may be such as to keep up the good character for order and friendly behaviour towards the native population which seems to have distinguished our military service. My Lords, I will not say one word upon the other bearings of this war. I think that the question to-night is one of a purely military nature, and that we are called on only to return the Thanks of this House for the efforts and achievements of those connected with this expedition. I will not, therefore, even venture to enter into any theory as to the probable and ultimate result of the

383
treaty which has been concluded. Indeed, my Lords, it appears to me that it would be very difficult for any one to form such a Conjecture in the present utter disorganizetion of the whole Chinese empire. The terms of the treaty, however, without being unnecessarily stringent, have certainly obtained a large opening for our commerce; and I can only hope that our merchants will avail themselves of that opening—not with energy only—for that they are sure to do—but with justice and forbearance towards the Eastern race with which they are brought into contact. Nothing has been said of the merits of Lord Elgin, but I think it would be unjust to him not to say that the papers communicated to the House have impressed me with a strong sense of the ability, intelligence,; firmness, and, at the same time, moderation, which he has displayed throughout these transactions. At the same time I must say — even after having heard the grounds on which the measure has been attempted to he vindicated—I do feel some: regret at what I consider the unnecessary demolition of the magnificent place of the Emperor of China. It is quite true that we had ample grounds for showing, I may call it, a vindictive spirit, and a vindictive spirit bearing upon the chief authorities of the Empire. No doubt, as my noble Friend stated, some of our countrymen had been disgracefully kidnapped under a flag of truce, and treated in the most barbarous and disgraceful manner; and we had ample title to require reparation, if any reparation could be made for such injury and insult. It is also undoubtedly true, as Lord Elgin has stated, that it was very difficult to take any other mode of reparation or revenge—for it was nothing less—than that he adopted. To make it a mere matter of pecuniary compensation would have been to act too much like the Chinese themselves. To have demanded I the surrender of the actual murderers would have led to the surrender of some miserable wretches, taken probably at random, whose sacrifice would not have satisfied the justice of the case. On the other hand, if we had required the surrender of Prince San-ko-lin-sin, under whose authority these atrocities were committed, the demand would have been evaded, and we had no power or possibility of enforcing it. Nevertheless, whatever difficulty there may have been in the case, I must say that I am not satisfied that the demolition of the palace of Yuen-min-uen was either a neces
384
sary or a politic act. I think it likely to produce a painful and prejudicial impression against us as to the mode in which we carry on our military operations, and it appears to me to have been a mistake in point both of judgment and policy. But, my Lords, I have already exceeded the length at which I meant to address you. I am perfectly satisfied to give my support to the Motion of my noble Friend, and I am glad to have the opportunity of expressing in my place the confidence I feel that the acquiescence of your Lordships will be not only cordial but unanimous, without distinction of party or political feeling, not only in the Motion made, but in entire approval of the course the Government have taken in submitting it to your Lordships' consideration.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, after the full and able manner in which this Motion has been brought forward and seconded by my noble Friends who have preceded me, I feel that little remains for me to add further than to express my entire occurrence in the proposal made to your Lordships. At the same time there are one or two military points on which I think it may be desirable that I should say a few words to your Lordships; for there are points, my Lords, on, which we have received a lesson which I hope we shall not soon forget. In the first place, I cannot but think that we have now found out that when, unfortunately, this country is compelled through circumstances to go to war, the sooner that war can be brought to a close the better and cheaper it is for the country; but that object can only be effected by ample and abundant means of military operation. In this instance we may consider that the war in which we have been engaged was a little war; but that great man, the Duke of Wellington, once said, "England cannot carry on a little war;" and, even in the present case, that saying has proved correct, for, though the war might be considered a little war, the means and appliances used were on a great scale, and the consequence has been entire success, although the campaign was carried on at a distance from home greater than that at which we have ever before conducted military operations. We have had, it is true, two contests in China before, but they were on a very reduced scale, and the means now necessary were not then required. On the part of the military authorities, having had some participation in the arrangements that were made for con-

385
ducting this war, I must express on the part of the army my great gratification at the manner in which the military were supported by the civil branches of the ad-ministration. There has been no holding I back in any respect; everything required was done; everything thought necessary was well and readily accorded; and the result, as I have said, was that everything was successful, although the field of operations was at such an enormous distance from home. My Lords, it would be very unjust and improper on my part to omit to mention that no one gave himself more anxiously and laboriously to the preparation of this expedition than my noble Friend behind me (Lord Herbert), and we ought not now to forget that a great part of the merit connected with it is due to my noble and gallant Friend on the cross-benches (Lord Clyde). Although the military stores were sent from home, the whole expedition, so far as troops were concerned, was sent from India, under the direct authority and management of my noble and gallant Friend. To him therefore, I ascribe, in a great measure, the complete efficiency in which the expedition was landed in China. There are other military points which have certainly been most fortunately brought under the notice of the public in this war. This is the first opportunity on which we have been able to judge of the effect of that wonderful new description of ordnance with which our army is now being gradually supplied—I allude to the Armstrong gun. I know that experiments are constantly going on; but, however valuable and necessary these may be, they are as nothing compared with the information obtained by the actual use of these weapons in the field. Only yesterday I had the opportunity of conversing with a most excellent officer on his return from China. I asked what had been the effect of the gun under his charge, and his answer was, "I could go all over the world with that gun, and whatever the circumstances — however difficult—I am confident the result would always be the same." No doubt some alterations may be required, and alterations have already been made; but the Armstrong gun is now as perfect as any arm that can possibly be imagined. The merits and talents of the gallant and distinguished officer, Sir Hope Grant, who was placed at the head of this expedition, have been so fully brought to your Lordships' notice by both my noble Friends who preceded me, that
386
nothing is left for me to say, than that I believe there never was an officer who so thoroughly, so efficiently, conducted the operations entrusted to him. And let me remind your Lordships that his position was in many respects a very trying one As has already been well pointed out, joint operations are always more difficult than operations conducted by one country alone. Difficulties did arise, as has been stated by my noble Friend who spoke last. There was actually a difference of opinion between him and the French general on a most important military operation; when my gallant friend, Sir Hope Grant, decidedly took the right course. Still, so cordial and so satisfactory were the relations which existed between him and General Montauban, at the head of the French army, that in no respect was that good feeling interrupted or disturbed by this difference on an important military question. Those two officers differed in opinion, each thinking his own the correct one; and Sir Hope Grant took his own course, the other cordially supporting him—both showing; the most admirable feeling, which redounds very much to the credit of those gallant and distinguished officers. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that nothing could have exceeded the good feeling that existed throughout between our allies and our troops. In the whole of these operations, both French and English troops vied with each other in anxiety to do their duty, and do it in a manner creditable to themselves and their country, which they were bound and willing to serve. My Lords, there is another point of great importance to which I wish to refer—that in these operations we had Native troops of India associated with European troops in Her Majesty's service, and that after a period of great anxiety in India, which made it a matter of much interest to observe how these distinguished and gallant troops would behave when associated together in a distant land. Nothing could have exceeded the good conduct and good feeling of the Native troops of India while on service in China. My noble Friend the Secretary of State has alluded to a charge subsequent to the capture of the Taku Forts, in which the European cavalry particularly distinguished themselves; but it is the fact that upon that occasion the European and Native cavalry charged at the same time, and the only reason why the latter were less successful was, that the horsemanship and equipment of the Natives were not exactly

387
suited to the requirements of that particular occasion. But the gallantry of that charge, both as regards officers and men, European and Native, was most conspicuous— it was one of the most gallant deeds that could possibly be performed. I have heard from an eye-witness, that the position of the Tartars was such, that it required the greatest presence of mind and the greatest determination, to attack in front an enemy posted as they were; yet the attack was made and made successfully. I am also anxious to express the sense which I entertain of the conduct of the Royal Navy. The conduct of the Royal Navy, as it always has been, and as it is always sure to be, was admirable. It is true the navy was not able to take so prominent a part as it could have wished in the operations of the war; but, on the other hand, our military forces could not have arrived in the admirable state in which they were landed in China, nor could they have carried on their operations there with the same hopes of success, had it not been for the indefatigable zeal with which the navy supplied them with everything they required. The ships, in fact, were the base of our operations, and without them the expedition might have failed. All the larger ships were also necessarily at a considerable distance from the scene of operations. From a report I have seen as to landing the troops, and all the horses, and other things required, it was one of the most tedious and trying operations that the navy could have been possibly called on to perform; but, notwithstanding this, they did perform their duty in a manner such as they were sure to do it. I have, as I have said, and' as has been said by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), only one regret, that the navy did not have an opportunity of sharing in all those distinctions and all that glory to which military men naturally aspire in cases of this sort. I could wish also to allude more particularly to the names of some officers who have distinguished themselves in the campaign, though, no doubt, it would be very difficult to select particular names, for the war, with one exception—the taking of the Taku Forts—was very general in its character; yet still there is one name which has been already brought before your Lordships, that of Sir Robert Napier. I rejoice the more, because this gallant officer commanding one division, and Sir John Mitchell the other, that it was Sir Robert Napier's lot to command, espe-
388
cially at the taking of the Taku Forts, especially from the fact of that officer being a member of our sister service, the local service of India. It affords me the greatest satisfaction to see so gallant a man as he has shown himself to be, under my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Clyde), have such good fortune, and I am convinced that this distinguished officer may safely be called on on other important occasions, and that he will always do credit to the name that he has the honour to bear. There is one other circumstance to which, with great regret, I must refer—that portion of the operations to which, in common with all your Lordships, I must look with great grief. I allude to the fate of those unfortunate individuals who, in the performance of their duty, were treated in a manner which we have certainly never heard of before in civilized warfare, and, I think I may add, even in warfare that was not civilized. They were treated in a way which they in no respect deserved; and which certainly called for some very strong expressions of feeling on our part, such as has been alluded to by my noble Friend. It is not for me to go into the question whether what was done was right or wrong, but this I do say—and I say it, besides, with the authority of my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Clyde)— that some signal mark of indignation on the part of this country was necessary in order to impress upon the peculiar people with whom we were dealing our sense of the indignity which they had perpetrated on some victims whom they had accidentally seized under most unjustifiable circumstances. I knew one of those unfortunate men myself, and he was a most distinguished officer, Mr. De Norman, and, of course, this fact adds to the indignation that I have felt on this painful occasion; but, at all events, it is satisfactory to know the fact that up to the last our ill-fated countrymen performed their duty by their country; and that they died in a manner which, so far as they were personally concerned, will be a consolation to those who survive them. I beg cordially to concur in the Motion.
LORD CLYDEthen addressed the House speaking from the back benches; his observations could not be heard. His Lordship was understood to express entire concurrence in the Vote of Thanks, and his high sense of the skill and valour displayed by our troops and their commander in China. He eulogized the conduct of the

389
war by Sir Hope Grant, whom he had known and trusted in India, and joined in the expressions of admiration used by the Royal Duke who preceded him with respect to Sir Robert Napier. For himself, he said, that so far as he was personally concerned in preparing the expedition he had only carried out the details of a plan previously arranged.
EARL GREY: My Lords, in giving my cordial support to the Vote of Thanks proposed by my noble Friend on the Ministerial bench I should not have thought it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any observations, were it not that I have more than once expressed my opinion against the policy and justice of the war now brought to a close in China. From that opinion I have in no way departed. I still think that the war in China was most unjust and most impolitic; and I am still persuaded, whatever may be the state of things at present, that the ultimate result of the war will, in all probability, be most injurious to our interests in China. But our army and our navy are not responsible for the character of the war; and, as I believe, they well deserve all the commendation they have received, as I think they have shown courage, skill, and discipline in the highest degree, I am of opinion that the tribute which we are now called upon to pay them has been fairly earned, and the thanks proposed to he awarded to them meet with my cordial concurrence. I shall only add that, whilst I think it inexpedient, after what has fallen from the noble Lord, to raise a discussion on this occasion upon any matter on which there may be a difference of opinion; I, at the tame time, think we ought at some time and in some mode to have an opportunity of expressing our opinion with respect to the policy and probable results of the war. It is of the deepest importance that the subject should be brought before Parliament for discussion; for it is eminently worthy of observation that this war has been entered into and brought to a close without the ground for the war, the reasons for it, and the views with which it was undertaken having ever been brought formally under the notice of Parliament. I hope that at some future time the Government will call the attention of the House to the subject; but if they do not do so I think that it will be the duty of myself or of some other Peer to do it.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that after the unanimous expression of opinion
390
to which their Lordships had that evening been listening, it might seem unnecessary to prolong the discussion in which they were engaged. He did not, however, like to let the present occasion pass by without saying how entirely he concurred in those praises which had been so cordially bestowed upon the officers and men who composed our recent expedition to China. The department over which he had the honour to preside bad not, it was true, had an opportunity afforded it of exhibiting, in the course of the stirring events to which that expedition led, those dazzling and brilliant qualities which, in all former wars in which we happened to be involved, had won for the navy the applause and admiration of the country. But their Lordships were well aware that the services rendered by it in China were, nevertheless, of a most important character. In dealing with those services, the preparation for months beforehand, the maintenance of the necessary communications, the embarkation and disembarkation of the troops, and other labours, demanding for their successful performance the most ready obedience, the most unflagging energy, and the greatest professional skill, must not be lost sight of; and, when all those matters were taken into consideration, our naval forces in China would, he felt assured, be found to be eminently worthy of the gratitude of the nation. He held in his hand a letter from Sir Hope Grant to his noble Friend the Secretary for War, in which that distinguished officer bore the highest testimony to the efficiency of the assistance which had been rendered by our gunboats in the operations in the north of China, and in which it was stated that by means of those vessels the communications between the troops were kept up and stores landed under 'circumstances in which not a single transport could get within nine miles of the shore. In all operations carried on upon the sea-shore, these gunboats must be of the greatest advantage, and in no instance could this be more satisfactorily illustrated than in the late operations in China. Sir Hope Grant concluded by saying that he could not too strongly express his opinion of the value of the gunboats, nor of the admirable manner in which they were worked by their commanders. So that at the very time last summer when these vessels were being denounced in more than one quarter at home as being rotten and unfit for service, some of these very boats had traversed 15,000 miles of sea, and

391
having arrived in the Gulf of Pecheli, had there rendered the greatest service in the conduct of the operations. He might he allowed, in the next place, to observe, in reply to what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), that the reason why the despatches of our military and naval commanders in China did not appear in the papers on the table was to be found in the fact that the blue book had been prepared by the Foreign Office, to be produced at the meeting of Parliament, and that it was made to embrace, for the most part, only those despatches which were addressed to that department. The despatches, however, had appeared in The Gazette, and therefore, their Lordships were well aware of the tenor of those despatches, though he admitted that it would have been more regular if they had been laid on the table of the House. With regard to another point to which the noble Earl adverted—the destruction of the Summer Palace of the Chinese Emperor — he must say that he could not agree with the noble Earl. Allowance must be made for the feelings of the army when they knew that their comrades who had been taken so treacherously had been so cruelly used by the Chinese; and that, at this very time, when these cruel acts were being committed, the Chinese communicated with the army, saying that these persons were well treated and would be restored without any injury whatever. This falsehood, treachery, and cruelty did, in his mind, justify some strong measure of retaliation. Now, what measure of retaliation could be adopted? He thought that the arguments brought forward by Lord Elgin showed that if something was to be done nothing could be done which would bear so effectually on the Government as the destruction of the Imperial Palace; and, he believed, that those who were acquainted with the country would agree that the destruction of that Palace was also of great use in leading to the signature of the treaty. He believed that when the Chinese officials saw the destruction of the palace they became impressed with the conviction that we were in earnest, and that, therefore, longer to deal in deceit would not answer their purpose, and that there would be an attack upon Pekin if they did not sign the treaty. In passing he must say that both the Government and the country were much indebted to Lord Elgin for having, at considerable inconvenience and great personal risk, un-
392
dertaken a second journey to China in order to effect an object which he was by far the most competent person to effect, and which it was of the utmost importance that we should attain. He earnestly hoped that now we had got a commercial treaty with the Chinese it would lead to more intimate and friendly relations, and that a better understanding between the people of the East and of the West would prevent any more war between them. The Chinese said that the spear and the shield were laid aside for ever; and he hoped that the Chinese Government would be true to their engagements, and that friendly intercourse, which the Chinese people had always shown a desire for, would be promoted—for it was with the Government of China, and not the people, that we had been at war.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he only rose to say a few words in consequence of the Government having defended the conduct of the Earl of Elgin, in having ordered the destruction of the Summer Palace. The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) seemed to assume that the destruction of the Imperial Palace had taken place in a moment of excitement, caused by the circumstance of the cruel; treatment inflicted upon some of their comrades having come to the knowledge of our troops. Now, had that been the case, the act might, perhaps, to some extent be justified; but the fact was, that the order to sack and destroy the palace had been given by Lord Elgin in cold blood some time after the occurrence of the events to which the noble Duke alluded; and, if report were true, in spite of the remonstrances of the French, who were anxious to avoid a proceeding marked by so much barbarity. Upon an occasion such as the present, when the gallant and devoted conduct of our army and navy was the more immediate subject of discussion, he did not wish to dwell at any length upon so disagreeable a topic; but he could not, at the same time, allow to pass unnoticed an act of vandalism, which, although it had been sanctioned by an English ambassador and defended by an English Minister, might, in his opinion, justly be ranked with such deeds as the burning of the library of Alexandria, or the sacking of Rome by the Constable de Bourbon.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, we are under obligations so deep to Lord Elgin, that I regret any

393
question should arise among us as to the expediency of any part of his conduct in China. In dealing with the particular point to which the noble Marquess has adverted, we should, I think, do well not to give way to too great an extent to any feelings which we in this country may he disposed to entertain with respect to such acts: not to look upon them only from an European point of view, but to bear in mind that Lord Elgin had to make an impression upon Orientals, and to take a course which would be likely to render secure henceforward the lives of English subjects in a remote quarter of the world. For my own part, I cannot help saying that I believe no public man ever made a greater sacrifice than Lord Elgin did in proceeding a second time to China, while I am of opinion that his conduct throughout the recent transactions in which he was engaged has been marked by the utmost judgment, firmness, and discretion. Indeed, it is to him principally, I apprehend, that we owe the extrication of our army with honour and credit from a position utterly false in a military point of view.
Motion agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente:
Then it was moved, That the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said Resolutions to the Naval and Military Officers and Men engaged in Her Majesty's service in China:
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.