Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,*. Duke of Montrose. ΟΝ N Lord Palmerston's resignation, Lord Derby found it possible to form a Ministry and undertake the Government. Lord Derby's The management of the House of Commons fell to Mr. Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by his skill the Conservatives were enabled to remain in power till the close of the session in presence of a hostile majority. Feb. 28, 1858. The Ministry was at first directly charged with two duties, the destruction of the double government in India, and the formal reply 1858] REPLY TO WALEWSKI Reply to despatch. 337 to Count Walewski's despatch. Lord Malmesbury undertook the second of these duties, and called attention to those strong expressions which the French Minister had walewski's used, and which, as he said, had not unnaturally been understood to imply not only that the offence complained of was not recognised as such by the English law, and might be committed with impunity, but that the spirit of English legislation is such as designedly to shelter and screen the offender from punishment. To this letter Count Walewski replied emphasising strongly the desire of the French Government to maintain the alliance, and disclaiming all idea of putting undue pressure upon England. "My despatch," he wrote, "of the 20th of January had no other object than to draw attention to a state of things which was to be regretted, but I carefully abstained from expressing any opinion as to the measures calculated to remedy it, and I have been unable to understand how certain expressions of that despatch have been so misunderstood. As the intentions of the Emperor have been misapprehended, his Majesty's Government will abstain from continuing a discussion, which, from being prolonged, might prejudice the dignity and good understanding of the countries, and he appeals purely and simply to the loyalty of the English people." On the receipt of this despatch, Mr. Disraeli declared in Parliament that the threatened discord between the two countries had been got over, and the incident closed. The alliance was yet too valuable to the French Government to allow of its being broken by an outburst of popular temper, so long, at all events, as the Emperor could hold it in restraint. Failure of No. 2. This question was scarcely settled when the Government proceeded to its second task, and produced what is known as the India Bill No. 2. It proved a complete failure. Like India Bill the Bill of Lord Palmerston, it established for the Government of India a President with the rank of Secretary of State, and a Council, but the Council was to consist of fifteen instead of eight members, all of whom were intended to be in some way representative men. Half were to be nominated, but each man was to be drawn from some particular class. The other half were to be elected, some by all men in England who had served the Government for ten years in India, or who were proprietors of a certain amount of Indian railways or stock; the rest were to be elected by the Parliamentary constituencies of London, Manchester, Liverpool, and Belfast; a qualification based upon residence in India or upon trade with that country, was also required for the members elected. Leave was given to bring VICT. Y in the Bill though there were very slight signs of approval, and the Easter recess was allowed for its consideration. During that time it became evident that it was entirely distasteful to the nation. It was marked by a misplaced ingenuity which robbed it of the simple character requisite in so important a measure; and it was very generally felt that the introduction of election by Parliamentary constituencies of members to represent not them, but the interests of Calcutta and Bombay, was an entire misapprehension of the principles of representation, and a mere piece of clap-trap for the purpose of winning Liberal votes. When the Bill was brought in after the recess, there appeared to be no chance whatever of its being passed, or of the Ministry avoiding a great and fatal defeat. But as a mere piece of party tactics, it might well be doubted whether the defeat of Government would have been advisable. The fall of Lord Palmerston's administration had been brought about by the disorganisation of the Liberal party, by the disagreement of its chief leaders, Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, and by the mistrust felt by the more advanced section of Liberals, both as to the foreign policy and reforming tendencies of Lord Palmerston. There was nothing in the present question which could afford a solid basis for reorganisation. From a higher point of view, as all parties in the House were on the whole agreed as to the necessity of the proposed change in the Unanimity of parties on the principle of the Bill. Indian government in some shape or other, it was, as Lord Palmerston said, far too serious a matter to be made the shuttlecock of political parties. Under these circumstances, instead of driving the Government to extremity, Lord John Russell proposed to proceed by way of resolution, that is to say, that the principles should be discussed and settled in the House, and that a Bill which would thus become the joint production of all parties, based upon the decisions arrived at, should then be introduced. As a matter of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer sprang eagerly at the opportunity of avoiding defeat, so eagerly indeed as to cause some amusement in the House. He went so far as to propose that Lord John Russell should himself bring in the resolutions. But as it was generally felt that the responsible Ministry should undertake this duty, Mr. Disraeli expressed his willingness to produce them himself, and a few days later proceeded to do so. After considerable discussion a Bill which, under the circumstances, was necessarily something of a compromise between the two preceding Bills, was passed. The territories and powers of the East India Company were to be vested in the Queen; her sovereignty was to be exercised through one of her 1858] THE INDIA BILL 339 The India Bill Aug. 3. The same The Indian principal Secretaries of State, assisted by a council of fifteen members, of whom seven were to be elected by the Court of Directors from their own body, and eight nominated by the passed. Crown. Appointments to the Civil Service were to be thrown open, and to be filled by competitive examination. system was to be applied to the engineers and artillery. revenues were not to be applied to defray the expenses of military operations outside India. Orders directing the commencement of a war in India were to be communicated within three months to Parliament if sitting, if not sitting within a month of its next meeting. All the Provinces of India were to be placed under the authority of the Governor-General, henceforward to be called the Viceroy, but at the same time were to retain their own civil government. The change was proclaimed in India in the following November, and Lord Canning assumed the title of Viceroy. Excitement caused by proclamation of March 3. Canning's The passage of this very important Bill had been interrupted by an incident which had nearly overthrown the Ministry. It involved the policy pursued by Lord Canning upon the suppression of the Mutiny. Almost immediately upon the capture of Lucknow, he had issued a proclamation in which he had declared the whole of the land of Oude, with the exception of that held by six proprietors, forfeited to the Crown, which would dispose of it as it thought fit. Life was secured to all landowners at once surrendering to the Chief Commissioner, provided that their hands were unstained by English blood murderously shed: for any further indulgence they were to throw themselves upon the mercy and justice of the British Government. This appeared to many men, and among others to Sir James Outram, far too stringent a measure of confiscation. In his view it entailed the certainty of an endless guerilla warfare. He did not in fact understand Lord Canning's intentions. The Governor-General was far from meaning to deprive any large number of landowners of their property. But he wished to establish once for all a clear groundwork, freed from all complications arising from previous circumstances, for the reorganisation of the conquered Province. He so far yielded to Outram's objections that he introduced into the Proclamation, as actually published, a clause announcing that liberal indulgence would be extended to those who came speedily forward in support of order. A copy of the original Proclamation without the added clause was sent to England, but was followed almost immediately by a private letter to Mr. Vernon Smith, at that time head of the Board of Control, explaining Lord Canning's views with regard to it. When this letter reached England the change of Ministry had taken place, and while the Proclamation passed as a State paper into the hands of Lord Ellenborough, the new President of the Board, the letter was unwisely kept in Mr. Smith's hands. Without the key the Proclamation in all its apparent severity struck Lord Ellenborough in the same light in which it had struck Sir James Outram. Unfortunately, the new President was a man fond of showy writing, and of exertions of authority. He wrote a despatch through the secret committee of the Company to Lord Canning, in which, in very bitter words, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the policy he was pursuing. Such a despatch should certainly not have been written to a man of Lord Canning's position and well-known clemency. But the matter became much worse when the obnoxious language was published, and Lord Canning, in the midst of his extraordinary difficulties, found himself disowned and reprimanded by the home authorities. The outcry raised against Lord Ellenborough was so great that he was compelled to save the Government by sending in his resignation (May 13). Even this did not prevent Mr. Cardwell from bringing forward a motion of censure. But when the suppression of the private letter became known, and it was understood that in the Proclamation when issued a merciful clause, which Lord Ellenborough had not seen, had been introduced, it was felt that there was so much to be urged in favour of the President's view, that the ill-cemented union of sections which would have supported Mr. Cardwell fell to pieces, and the assault upon Government collapsed. The session was rendered further remarkable by the final settlement Admission of of the long-vexed question as to the admission of the the Jews to Parliament. July. Jews to seats in the House. Lord John Russell, brought in a Bill for altering the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, for the purpose of relieving the Jews from the necessity of using certain words in the oath, and in spite of some warm opposition the clause relative to the Jews was carried by a large majority. The Bill, however, met its usual reception in the House of Lords. It was amended by the omission, upon the motion of the Lord Chancellor, Chelmsford, of the clause which admitted the Jews to the advantages of the Bill. As the Commons refused to accept this amendment, a dispute between the Houses seemed likely, when happily Lord Lucan hit upon a compromise, and suggested that a Bill should be introduced allowing either House by its resolution to modify the form of the oath required from its own members. Ten times since |