been displayed by the officers in command in embarking and landing their troops in the highest state of efficiency. On the 1st of August, the troops under General Grant landed in China and occupied the forts of the Peiho. They subsequently, after encountering unexpected hardships, advanced through a difficult country, the obstacles of which were much lessened by the gallantry of the Sikh cavalry. The Taku Forts were next attacked, and after a short but gallant resistance, carried in the most successful style. He deemed it necessary to dwell on these points, because, since the capture of Pekin and the signing of the treaty, people were inclined to forget the difficulties which had been overcome. Lord Herbert next referred to the action which took place before Tientsin, and vindicated Sir Hope Grant from the charge that he had forced hostilities on the Chinese at this period, when they were particularly desirous of peace. Between the military and naval services he was delighted to state that there had been the most cordial co-operation. In terms of indignation he proceeded to detail the horrible barbarities inflicted by the Chinese on the unfortunate gentlemen whom they had captured by a foul act of treachery. This atrocious crime necessitated some sort of punishment, one which should fall upon the instigators of it, and not upon an unoffending people, and the punishment selected had been the destruction of the Summer Palace of the Emperor. From these topics he passed to speak in terms of great approval of the commissariat and

medical staff attached to the forces. It was the first time that a medical officer had been sent out solely for sanitary purposes, and the appointment had been productive of great benefits to the army. Already Her Majesty had expressed her sense of the services which had been rendered by the troops in China, and it now remained for their Lordships to express their approbation by giving their assent to the motion.

Lord Derby said that he felt it incumbent upon him to express his satisfaction at the perfect organization of the expedition to China, reflecting, as it did, the greatest credit upon the departments concerned with it, and especially upon their chiefs, Lord Herbert and the Duke of Cambridge. Although the campaign in China could not compare either in magnitude or in interest with late events in India, yet when he remembered how much had been done by a comparatively small force, how that force had passed through a thicklyinhabited country, advanced to the gates of the capital, and there dictated its terms of peace, he could not refrain from thinking such vast results achieved by such inadequate means read more like a page of romance than a fact of history. Having highly eulogized the various operations, he complained of the meagre information which had been laid before the House by the Government, and insisted that more papers should have been presented to their Lordships on the merits of officers whom they were about to thank for their services. No words, however, could be too high to mark their sense of Sir

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.

1

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 oppor tunity 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 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 a 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.

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. He contended 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