said, 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?

said, he bad in course of preparation a Bill upon that subject, and he hoped to be enabled to introduce it at an early period.

said, 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?

said, 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.

said, 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?

said, that the constabulary and the military force bad been 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.

said, 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?

said, 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.

said, 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?

said, 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.

said, 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?

said, 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.

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- 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

said, 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 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.

said, 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.

ruled that the hon. Member was in order.

said, 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 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 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.

said, 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- 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 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.

said, 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

said, 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 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.

said, 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. 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 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.

said, 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 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 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 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. 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.

said, 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.

said, 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- 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.

observed, 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 indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the attention which he had given to the subject.

said, 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 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 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, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.

trusted 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- vited them to discuss the details in Committee. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow the Committee to be fixed for Monday next.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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 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.

said, 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.

The hon. Gentleman will be out of order in doing so.

said, 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 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.

thought 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.

said, 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- 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.

said, 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 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.

remarked, 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.

said, 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 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.

said, 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 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- 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.

pointed out that the preamble of the Bill recited that the Company were to present their line in working order.

said, 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.

said, 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 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- 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 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 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 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.

said, 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 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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.

said, 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 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.

said, 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.