H. Grant's and Admiral Hope's services. He should have been glad to have heard something concerning the reported differences of opinion between General Montauban and Sir Hope Grant, because he thought that the instance reported redounded much to the credit of Sir H. Grant, who, on his own responbility, and in spite of General Montauban's protest, determined to attack the North Fort. As to the forces engaged, whatever they had to do they did it well, gallantly, and successfully. He regretted that the navy had not, by taking a more prominent part at the scene of their former disaster, satisfied their own minds that they had avenged their old defeat. He then commented on the admirable discipline and subordination of the troops-qualities which had been proved by the kindly acts and friendly bearing of the population through which they had passed. He refrained from saying anything in reference to the treaty, as the motion before the House was one of a purely military character. As to the destruction of the Summer Palace, although he admitted that it was amply justified by the barbarities which had been practised by the Chinese, he thought that it was neither a necessary nor a politic act. In conclusion he cordially assented to the motion.

The Duke of Cambridge supported the motion, and observed that whenever it became unhappily necessary for this country to go to war, measures ought to be adopted on the largest and most complete scale in order to bring that war to a satisfactory and rapid conclusion. This course VOL. CIII.

募

had been followed in organizing the late expedition, and the result had been the most perfect success. He warmly eulogized the services of the troops engaged, and the officers in command, for the energy and gallantry which they had displayed throughout the whole of the Chinese expedition. In conclusion, he vindicated the destruction of the Summer Palace against the strictures of Lord Derby.

Lord Clyde was understood to allude in terms of high praise to the conduct of Sir Hope Grant.

Lord Grey said, that although he was still of opinion that the war with China was unjust, yet, as our army and navy were not responsible for the policy of the Government, and as he was fully convinced that both services had done their duty most efficiently, he should support the present motion.

He thought,

however, that the whole question of the Chinese war demanded discussion, and declared his intention, if Her Majesty's Government did not afford an opportunity for so doing, of bringing forward a motion himself for that purpose.

The Duke of Somerset expressed his approbation of the services of the navy, and read a letter from Sir Hope Grant, in which that officer spoke in the highest praise of the efficiency of those very gunboats which last year the House had been informed were entirely rotten. He defended the destruction of the Summer Palace, and expressed his conviction of the necessity of that act. He trusted that after this exhibition of our power the treaty would be effectually carried

out.

[C]

The Marquis of Bath protested against the destruction of the Palace as an unnecessary and barbarous act of demolition.

Lord Ellenborough dwelt in terms of eulogium upon the services of Lord Elgin, who, he said, had gone to China at much personal inconvenience, and whose conduct had been marked by firmness and decision.

The resolution was unanimously agreed to. On the same evening, in the House of Commons, Viscount Palmerston moved & similar resolution. "These brilliant services," he observed, "had been performed, under circumstances of considerable difficulty, with the greatest possible skill, gallantry, and intrepidity. Not a mistake had been made; there had been no deficiency in providing troops and stores, and in transporting them to the scene of operations, while the most perfect harmony had prevailed between the British and French forces. The obstacles, though great, had been overcome; the period of the services had been comparatively short, but the success had been complete, without a single check, in spite of the large number of Tartars and Chinese opposed to the allied troops." He gave a succinct narrative of the operations which had resulted in the ratification of the treaty; and with respect to the destruction of the Emperor of China's Summer Palace, Lord Elgin and Sir Hope Grant had thought very properly, he said, that this act was a fit retribution for the outrages committed by the Chinese, and the barbarous cruelties perpetrated upon captives taken in violation of the law of nations, and, al

though the commander of the French forces did not acquiesce in the act, Her Majesty's Government cordially approved their conduct.

Mr. Disraeli, in terms of high eulogium, seconded the motion.

Mr. Scully adverted to the destruction of the Summer Palace, and argued that no greater provocation had been given by the Chinese to us than to the French, who had not concurred in the act, and said that, if it was not justifiable, it was an act of barbarism and vandalism, of which the nation should disclaim the responsibility.

Sir J. Elphinstone, while warmly agreeing in the opinions expressed as to the brilliant services of the army, avowed that he doubted whether the treaty would be efficacious.

He con

Mr. White took exception to Lord Palmerston's statement that the war had originated in the refusal of the Chinese to ratify the treaty of Tien-tsin. tended that they had not refused to ratify it; that they had ratified the American treaty, and that the British Goverment had virtually acknowledged the ratification.

Lord J. Russell justified the destruction of the palace as a fit atonement for the barbarous treatment of the captives by the Chinese authorities. Lord Elgin was of opinion that if he had demanded the surrender of the perpetrators of the outrages, the Chinese would have had no difficulty in complying with the demand, and the lives of some miserable subordinates would have been sacrificed, while the real offenders would have escaped. The reason why General Montau

The ineffectual attempt of the Attorney-General, Sir Richard Bethel, in 1860, to carry through Parliament his comprehensive measure for the Amendment of the Laws of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, has been related in the preceding volume. On the withdrawal of that Bill, Her Majesty's Government undertook to introduce another for the same object at the earliest period in the ensuing session. In fulfilment of that engagement, the AttorneyGeneral, on the 11th of February, moved for leave to bring in the altered Bill which he had prepared, expressing a hope that he had succeeded in so framing the measure as to entitle it to greater favour than his former Bill had experienced. He began by adverting to the confusion which now existed in bankruptcy between the judicial and admis. trative functions of the law, and one object of the last Bill, as of the present, was to separate these two functions. Another feature of the late as well as the present measure was to restore to the creditors in bankruptcy the power of settling their own affairs. Another evil which the late Bill was intended to meet, was the vast expense of proceedings in bankruptcy, the various sources of which he pointed out to reduce this expense was likewise an object of the present Bill. He enumerated other objects contem. plated by the late Bill which

were embodied in the present, and then proceeded to explain the alterations he had introduced into the present Bill. He proposed to adhere to the plan of appointing a Chief Judge, but to continue the Commissioners of Bankruptcy; to abolish the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and to permit a majority of the creditors to remove the case out of the Bankruptcy Court into the County Courts. He next explained the course of proceeding proposed by the Bill. One great object was to enable a bankrupt's estate to be administered and worked out, without the necessity of going into bankruptcy at all, by a very simple mode of proceeding. He described the powers and functions with which he proposed to clothe the creditors and the official assignees respectively, and the nature of the discharge to be given to the debtor. He proposed to abolish the distinctions of the certificates given to bankrupts, and to set forth cases of misconduct which would warrant the judge, of his own motion, in either refusing the certificate or suspending the order of discharge, or committing the bankrupt to prison for a term not exceeding twelve months (unless the bankrupt desired to be tried by a jury), without any appeal from the sentence of the chief judge. These forms of procedure applied to trader-debtors. In the case of non-traders, he urged at some length the impolicy of the existing law in requiring a term of imprisonment before an insolvent could obtain relief from the court, a provision which was no advantage to the creditor or the

community, while it was the greatest injustice to the nontrader. It was, therefore, a boon to all parties to place the law of insolvency on the same footing as the law of bankruptcy. The difficulty was to specify the overt acts that would constitute insolvency, and he stated what he considered would be criteria of insolvency sufficient to cast upon a debtor the obligation of giving up his property to his creditors, who should not, in that case, be entitled to more than an equal distribution of the property possessed by the debtor at the time, and they should not be allowed to retain the power of pursuing him through life. He explained various other details of the Bill, and, in conclusion, expressed a confident expectation that the portion of it which provided for private arrangements by means of deeds of composition would be found most beneficial, ensuring economy and expedition.

Most of the legal members of the House, including Mr. Walpole, Mr. Malins, Mr. Mellor, and Mr. Roebuck, as well as Mr. Turner and other members representing commercial constituencies, expressed, with certain reservations, a favourable opinion of the scheme, which was accordingly then introduced in the form of a Bill. The further proceedings with respect to this measure will be related in a succeeding chapter.

On the 16th of March, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent died, full of years and honours, having enjoyed a large share of public respect, and seen, in the admirable qualities of her

Daughter's character, and the unparalleled brilliancy of her reign, the realization of her highest maternal hopes. Immediately upon her demise, motions were made in both Houses of Parliament, that addresses should be presented to the Throne, "to condole with Her Majesty, and to express our sincere regret at that melancholy event; to assure Her Majesty that we shall ever feel the warmest interest in whatever concerns Her Majesty's domestic relations; and to declare our ardent wishes for the happiness of Her Majesty and of her family."

The Address in the Upper House was moved by Earl Granville, who said:

"Your lordships are all aware that the Duchess of Kent, at a very early age, and after a brief period of domestic happiness with her second husband, the Duke of Kent, was left in this country the guardian of that illustrious Lady under whose rule we are now living. Since that melancholy event, with the exception of the loss of her eldest son, a few years ago, her life has been one of great prosperity and success. From the moment of her arrival in this country she enjoyed the greatest popularity among all classes of the people down to the close of her existence the other day. She had the gratification of seeing her first family gain general esteem and respect by their conduct, and of seeing one of her grandchildren distinguish himself, at the risk of his life, in the naval service of the country which she had adopted. She had further the satisfaction of beholding her

youngest brother profiting not only by his own ability in administration, but by the information as to constitutional govern ment which he had acquired in England, to lead a friendly neighbouring country to the full appreciation of free and liberal institutions. The great historical event in the life of Her Royal Highness is her charge of the only child of her second marriage. In the twelfth year of Her Majesty's life, Her Royal Highness was unanimously chosen by Parliament as Regent of the country, in the event of the Sovereign's death while his successor was in her minority. Many of your lordships may recollect that admirable speech of Lord Lyndhurst, in which he dwelt on the manner in which, up to that time, her Royal Highness had conducted the education of her child, and pointed her out for the important and responsible duty which she was then called on to perform. Six years afterwards, she saw that daughter, at the early age of eighteen, not yet arrived at the years of womanhood, placed in the most difficult and responsible situation which any one of her age and sex could possibly occupy the ruler of one of the greatest kingdoms in the world. In her Daughter's reign she beheld the beneficial effects of her previous education, and the influence of those personal qualities which she had fostered and developed. Soon after, she saw the Queen, of her own free choice, contract a marriage which has been of great advantage to this country, and which has led to a degree of domestic happiness not

to be surpassed in any sphere of life. She saw her daughter reign for nearly a quarter of a century, during times of national glory and prosperity quite unexampled. She saw her bring up a numerous family in a manner that gives us promise of their emulating her own private and public life. She had the satisfaction of seeing her eldest granddaughter, by her excellent qualities, gain the attachment of a neighbouring ally, and give birth to a son who will probably one day become the Sovereign of that country. She had seen the other children of the Queen visiting various parts of the world, and strengthening by their personal behaviour that respect for the royal family of England which prevails so widely, and which, if I am not misinformed by my noble friend behind me, amounts in the colonies which are connected with us by every tradition of birth and history, to a feeling of the most profound veneration and affection. Her Royal Highness had lived beyond the period which the Psalmist tells us is allotted to the age of man, and showed in her last hours, when she was cheered by the presence of her family, singular patience and resignation under a most cruel malady. Your lordships cannot be unaware how strong were the ties which bound together the illustrious mother and Daughter, how deep are the domestic feelings of the Queen, and how few trials of this sort she has experienced."

Lord Derby spoke in terms of the highest praise of the Queen, who had so identified herself with the interests of her