Reform and the Indian Mutiny.

41

peace of Europe, Mr. Disraeli turned to the far more important one which related to the state of India, and found an opportunity for making sarcastic reference to the amazement and incredulity with which his allusion in the preceding Session to the annexation of Oude as a cause of the Indian Mutiny had been received by the Government. Three months ago the Government had laughed him to scorn on the subject: now it was universally recognized that that nefarious transaction was one of the principal causes of the Indian Mutiny. On the general policy of the Government with respect to India, their unreadiness, their want of knowledge and of foresight and their general incapacity, he was severe, though not more so than the case deserved, and he expressed a hope that India would not be referred to a Select Committee, since in that case the only Bill which the Government would pass would be the Reform Bill. As for that measure, he begged that the Government would bring it in at once, so that members might consider it during the recess. "Nothing is more unwise," said he, "and nothing can keep public feeling in a more fretful state than the constant idea of a Parliamentary Reform Bill being held over the heads of the people of this country. . . . Now that we have a Reform Ministry, a Reform. Minister and a Reform Bill, we should have the Bill at once."

The opinions expressed in this Speech on the Bank Charter Act, Mr. Disraeli found an opportunity of reiterating in the debates on the Indemnity Bill, and when a vote of thanks to the Army and Navy in India was proposed, he found occasion, whilst saying everything that was gracious and generous of those who were engaged in the task of suppressing the rebellion, to strike once more at the Government on account of its apathetic neglect of duty in failing to prepare for this outbreak.

With regard to Lord Canning, whom the first resolution of the series was designed to thank, he expressed himself as somewhat uncertain, and with great moderation proposed that whilst agrecing to the main body of the resolutions, that relating to the Governor-General should be postponed until the House had a better opportunity of forming an opinion as to the value of his services. A memorial had notoriously been sent to England from Calcutta bearing the signatures of 2000 of the most conspicuous of the English residents there, and praying for his Excellency's recall. Until that memorial was disposed of— and it was not on the table only because of a technicality—he thought it would be as well to postpone the Resolution. suggestion was seconded by several of the more conspicuous members present, but Lord Palmerston refusing to agree, Mr. Disraeli withdrew his opposition rather than divide the House ungraciously.

His

It is now perfectly well known that throughout this unhappy business Lord Beaconsfield was right and the Government wholly misled. They were of course to blame for allowing themselves to be so deceived, and the responsibility must in the first place be held to fall upon the officials in India, who, from the beginning of the struggle to its close, failed to appreciate the magnitude of the work before them; but the Government cannot hope to escape censure. Sir John Kaye has apologized for Indian mismanagement in the way in which a Whig official might be expected to apologize for his brother bureaucrats, but Colonel Malleson, who has undertaken to continue Sir John's "History," is so dissatisfied with the conduct of the Indian Administration, that he has re-written one of his predecessor's volumes. We have seen in what manner and in what spirit the

The Indian Mutiny.

43

warnings of the leader of the Opposition were received by Lord Palmerston's Government. Except for the papers since published, the tone of those speeches would be wholly inexcusable, but one can look upon them with more leniency when an official of the Indian Government could write in the following terms to the French residents in Calcutta, declining their offer to form themselves into a volunteer force for the defence of the capital :

Everything is quiet within 600 miles of the capital. The mischief caused by a passing and groundless panic has already been arrested, and there is every reason to hope that in the course of a few days tranquillity and confidence will be restored throughout the Presidency."

This was written on the 25th of May, 1857-five days before the rising at Lucknow; eleven before the rising at Allahabad, and the same time before the commencement of the siege of Cawnpore by Nana Sahib. The author of the letter was Mr. Cecil Beadon, who, having served his country in India, obtained the honour of knighthood, and has latterly distinguished himself in connexion with joint stock and cooperative enterprise at home. Lord Canning's policy more than justified the tone of suspicion with which the leader of the Opposition spoke of it. He it was who most strenuously opposed the formation of volunteer corps in Calcutta, until overborne by the persistency of Mr. (now Sir J. P.) Grant; he it was who was responsible for gagging the European press by a measure, the restrictions of which were, says Colonel Malleson,

so galling that compared to them the restrictions on the press of France during the darkest days of the reign of Napoleon III.

* Malleson's " History of the Indian Mutiny," vol. 1.

were light and easy," and he alone was responsible for the Disarming Act, which took away from Europeans as well as from natives the right to carry arms.

It was not, however, upon his Indian policy that Lord Palmerston was destined to lose the confidence of the country. On the 14th of January, 1858, the Emperor Napoleon was on his way to the Opera with the Empress, when the famous attempt upon his life was made by Orsini and his friends. It was tolerably notorious that the would-be assassins had found shelter in the same country as the Emperor himself in the days of his misfortune, but England's hospitality to him did not prevent a great display of hostility towards her, both privately and officially. The Emperor opened the Chambers three days later with a fine speech, crammed with classical and historical allusions, but making no reference to the fact of the assassin's domicile in England. His Minister of Foreign Affairs (Walewski), however, supplied the omission by writing a despatch to Count Persigny, directing him to bring the matter under the cognizance of the English Government. "Ought the right of asylum," he demanded, "to protect such a state of things? Is hospitality due to assassins? The English legislation serves to favour their designs and their manœuvres, and can it continue to protect persons who place themselves by flagrant offences without the pale of the common law, and expose themselves to the law of humanity?" Count Persigny bettered his instructions, and not content with communicating with the English Government, made a theatrical speech to the Corporation of London, calling for exceptional measures against assassins and conspirators. Meanwhile the Colonels of the French army presented congratulatory addresses to the Emperor

Difficulties with France.

45

full of attacks on England, and asking permission "to demand an account from that land of impurity," that "infamous haunt." These addresses were published in the Moniteur, and created so much irritation that the French Ambassador thought it advisable to make, in the name of the Emperor, a formal apology for their appearance.

The threats of the French colonels and the pressure of French diplomatists were, however, not without effect. Lord Palmerston yielded to them so far as to bring in a Bill to punish Conspiracy to Murder. The popular indignation was intense. No living Englishman had the smallest sympathy with Orsini and his accomplices, and had it been possible to bring them to trial in this country they would have met with small mercy. But the people were indignant that the Minister, whose “spirited foreign policy" was their boast, should be willing to change the law at the bidding of the French ambassador, and after the insolent menaces of the French soldiery. It was not as if the laws of England were insufficient to punish the offence of conspiring against the life of a foreign sovereign. Lord Campbell had authoritatively declared that they were, and whatever may be thought of Lord Campbell as a biographer, there was no doubt of the general soundness of his legal knowledge. It was known too that this proposed law was brought in at the express instance of Count Persigny, and there were not wanting those who remembered that even weaker Governments than that of Lord Palmerston had refused to allow France to dictate in any way to this country. There were some historical students who recalled the fact that in 1802 the Government of the First Napoleon had made somewhat similar demands, and that Mr. Addington and Lord Hawkesbury had refused them in energetic