1860] RUSSELL's reform BILL 351 ready to burst out in full vehemence when the opportunity should | arrive. Failure of form Bill. But conservative or not in its tendencies, it was impossible for a Cabinet which had made its way to power by the rejection of the Reform Bill of its opponents to avoid attempting to produce a more satisfactory one of its own, and Lord John Russell, who was thoroughly in earnest on this point, early in the Session (March 1) asked leave to bring in such a Bill. It contrasted strongly in its simplicity with the varied and fanciful measure of the late Government. It proposed that an occupation franchise of £10 should be introduced in the counties, that the borough franchise should be lowered to £6, that some 25 boroughs should be partially disfranchised and the vacant seats thus procured distributed among county divisions and larger boroughs. The only new principle contained in the Bill was the representation of minorities in those places which Russell's Re returned three members. But the Bill excited no enthusiasm either within the House or without. The Premier, who would undoubtedly have been glad to allow the question of Parliamentary reform to drop entirely from his programme, absented himself studiously from the House during the debates. The Conservatives had recourse to their old tactics, and threatened to introduce a vast number of amendments in Committee. The Session was drawing to a close without any settlement of the question; and when it appeared that an amendment by Mr. Mackinnon would be carried to postpone consideration of the Bill till after the new census, which, it was argued, would give a better basis of calculation, Lord John Russell, pleading the lateness of the season, withdrew the Bill (June 11); nor did the Government again attempt to grapple with the question. Several times during its long continuance, private members made motions leading to reform, but the Cabinet, encouraged by the general apathy of the nation, was contented to carry on the current business without further efforts at legislation on a large scale. From this inaction may be excepted the vigorous efforts of Sir Richard Bethell, subsequently Lord Westbury, at reforming the law. He began, as Attorney-General, by introducing a Bill for the improvement of the Bankruptcy Laws, including the appointment of a Chief Judge in bankruptcy so that this branch of the law might be selfcontained, and for the removal of the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency. The Bill met with great opposition, especially from the lawyers in the Upper House, who insisted upon expunging from Westbury's measures of Law Reform, the Bill what its author had considered as its most important advantage, the creation of the Chief Judgeship. The amendments of the Lords were rejected by the Commons. But on the suggestion of the Attorney-General, who was anxious that his Bill should not be wholly ruined, a compromise was offered by which the Chief Judgeship was retained. But even this was overruled by the Upper House, and rather than lose the whole advantage of his work, Bethell persuaded the Commons to accept the Bill mutilated as it was. His next measure was the solidification of the Statute Law with regard to criminals. Obsolete and useless Acts of Parliament were expunged, and contradictions removed. But, as Lord Chancellor, Lord Westbury aimed at a much greater and more complete process. He projected the examination and compression of the whole Statute Law, by which he hoped to reduce forty-four folio volumes of Acts of Parliament to ten. And even greater than this was his proposal that an attempt should be made to consolidate and codify the common or unwritten law. Common law consists of a vast number of recorded judicial decisions contained in some 1200 volumes of reports. It was suggested that these should be divided into three sections according to their dates, and thoroughly sifted by competent persons. The Lord Chancellor was unfortunately unable himself to carry on his great scheme. His sharp tongue and sarcastic manner had always rendered him unpopular. Some appointments, in making which he had no doubt been culpably careless, were seized upon with avidity as means of attack. In July 1865 a majority in the House of Commons supported a vote of censure against him, charging him with a laxity of practice, and a want of caution whereby great encouragement had been given to corrupt practices, and conduct which, even in the absence of any improper motive, was highly reprehensible, and calculated to throw discredit upon the administration of the high offices of state." Lord Westbury naturally thought it necessary under such circumstances to resign, and after an explanation of great dignity, in which he claimed credit for the measures of reform he had proposed, and regretted that he was unable to inaugurate the great measure he had at heart, the formation of a digest of the whole law, he laid down the seals, leaving his unfinished work to his successor. The Reform Bill was not the only legacy which Lord Palmerston's Government had inherited from its predecessor, and if the Ministry showed no earnest endeavour to carry out the one, no such blame can be attached to the able Change in the Government of India. 1859] REFORMS IN INDIA 353 administration of Sir Charles Wood with regard to the other. The destruction of the double Government in India proposed by Lord Palmerston's Government at the close of the Mutiny had been carried out during the short administration of Lord Derby. The change was practically a slight one. The power of the Company had already become so nominal that its entire disappearance was a matter rather of words than of facts, yet it involved important questions, and had at least the effect of bringing Indian affairs more prominently before the mind of the public. Its finance, its army, its judicial system, became in turn the subject of great anxiety and warm discussion. Efforts at Indian revenue, The balance between receipts and expenditure had been nearly attained in the year before the Mutiny. A deficit of £170,000 seemed immaterial, especially as much of the reform of the outlay was on public works from which a subsequent return might be expected. But the Mutiny upset all calculations. The year 1857-1858 showed a deficiency of £9,000,000, and the following year a deficiency of £12,000,000; so that even without taking into consideration the compensation claimed for the loss of private property during the Mutiny, the two terrible years had left a deficit of not less than £21,000,000. It was felt not unnaturally to be a question whether India was still to remain entirely separate from the English Exchequer or not, and whether the deficiency existing in its revenue could be supplied wholly from its own resources. Lord Stanley, the Indian Secretary of Lord Derby's Government, without proposing any change in the existing system, which had been to charge the Indian debt on the Indian Exchequer only, hinted in no obscure words that as three-fifths of that debt was held by Europeans and English capitalists, it was a matter of doubt whether it would be possible to continue the separation. The revenue of India had not the same elastic character as the English revenue. It arose from land, and could therefore increase only as new land was cultivated, a slow and uncertain process, or by additions of territory which no man desired; from opium, a precarious and variable source; from salt; and from a few customs duties. The mercantile classes were therefore as a whole scarcely taxed, and thus increased prosperity had little influence upon the revenue. The remaining resource-lessened expenditure-seemed scarcely possible if the present large armaments were to be maintained. For the present all that Lord Stanley suggested was the authorisation of a loan to India of £7,000,000. The loan was granted, but it was obviously only a temporary expedient, and the duty of bringing the finances into order was left VICT. Z to Lord Palmerston's administration, and to Sir Charles Wood as Indian Secretary. Accordingly, in the autumn of 1859, Mr. James Wilson was appointed financial member of the Legislative Council of India, charged with the duty of attempting an equalisation of income and expenditure. Such a plan he matured, and produced before the Governor-General's Council in India. His scheme included an increase of taxes, a graduated tax upon traders, and an income-tax. His propositions received general approval, but Sir Charles Trevelyan, at that time Governor of Madras, believing that the balance might be obtained by reduction of expenditure, without new taxation, wrote and published a minute to that effect. The publication of such a document could not but be regarded as an act of insubordination, and much as they valued Sir Charles Trevelyan, the Government thought it necessary to recall him, only however to send him out a few years later as financial Minister, with the opportunity of carrying out his own views. Reductions in expenditure, especially in military expenditure, proved possible. £6,800,000 had been withdrawn from this item before the middle of 1861 ; and conscientious efforts continuing to be directed to financial reform, in 1864 Sir Charles Trevelyan was able at length to show a surplus. The additional taxes had little to do with this result. The proceeds of the tax on traders proved quite insignificant, and the income-tax was so distasteful to the inhabitants of India, that at last Lord Northbrook, during his Viceroyalty (in 1872), thought it better to abolish it. It has been chiefly by means of retrenchment that any advance has been made towards producing a well-balanced Indian Budget. In close connection with the efforts to bring the finances of India into order was the reorganisation of the army. The Reorganisation of the Indian army. suppression of the Company had implied that the Indian army should be taken over by the Government. The feeling against this change of masters was so strong, and was exhibited in so insubordinate a manner, that many of the European regiments were broken up. The movement was so general as to be spoken of as the white mutiny. It became a question whether it was desirable to keep up a local army as distinguished from the Queen's army. The old Indian servants who formed the Council in London, and of whom Sir John Lawrence was one, were strongly in favour of preserving the local force. But Sir Charles Wood, probably with better judgment, overruled their opinion, and determined that the armies should be amalgamated, and the distinction between Indian troops and Queen's troops abolished. At the same time, however, a large native 1860] THE ITALIAN WAR 355 force was still maintained, officered by men volunteering for permanent service in India. It has been mentioned that the inaction of the Government in domestic legislation was partly caused by the distraction Interest in of public attention in foreign affairs. Among these may foreign be reckoned the disturbed condition of Europe, wars and politics. rumours of wars in the East, and the great American contest with its attendant results on English trade. Lord Palmerston had entered upon office in the midst of the Italian war, and his sympathies were entirely with the Napoleon's war French Emperor as he pursued his successful march in Italy. from Montebello to Solfarino. It seemed as though he would fulfil the programme with which he had started, and would "sweep the Austrians from the North of Italy up to the Adriatic." But Napoleon himself had no intention of thus completing his work. There is no doubt that he found his difficulties greater than he at first expected. The resistance of the Austrians had been firm, and the losses of his army proportionately large. The four great fortresses known as the Quadrilateral lay still before him. The attitude of Prussia and Germany was threatening, and even Russia, which had told him that it could not unmoved see Austria come victorious from the war, displayed no alacrity in assisting in the defeat of that Power. Moreover, the time had come for Napoleon to repeat with regard to Austria the game he had already played with Russia, and purchase by a show of generosity the friendship of his conquered rival. He applied to England, urging the Ministers to suggest an armistice. The terms he proposed were the cession of Lombardy to Sardinia, and the establishment of Venetia as a separate State under an Archduke. But Lord Palmerston declined to be used as a cat's-paw to enable the Emperor to escape from his difficulties. Venetia was not yet conquered, and it was not likely that Austria would yield it without a further struggle; and as the Premier wrote to Lord John Russell, "the scheme throws wholly out of the question the wishes of the Italians themselves, and we are asked to propose to the belligerents a parcelling out of the nations of Italy as if we had any authority to dispose of them." Napoleon had therefore to find his own way out of the difficulty, and on the 8th of July 1860 an armistice was concluded, and a meeting arranged with the Emperor of Austria. It was held at Villafranca on the 11th. The agreement arrived at was even less advantageous to Italy than that which Lord Palmerston had rejected. Lombardy was to be given up, but the |