brigadier-general, and as such took precedence | pathy from the queen and Prince Albert was of men who held her majesty's commissions as colonels. It speaks well for the discipline of the army that such a step passed unchallenged, but it speaks volumes for the character of Lawrence that he dared to undertake it. By holding the Punjaub in his iron grip, by diverting every available soldier to Delhi, by mercilessly stamping out rebellion wherever it reared its demon head, Sir John Lawrence enabled Archdale Wilson to storm the capital of the Great Mogul before a single reinforcement reached him from England. With the fall of Delhi the hopes of the mutineers were extinguished. Our power in India was reasserted, and the pacification, not the subjugation, of the country became the task for its rulers. For his share in suppressing the mutiny Sir John Lawrence was created a baronet and a Grand Cross of the Bath. But forty continuous years of active service fully entitled the saviour of India to a rest, and at the close of the mutiny he gladly handed over the Punjaub to one of his most trusted lieutenants and retired to his well-earned pension in England. He was immediately elected to the Indian council at home, where his large and varied experience, his cool judgment, and firmness of purpose were soon felt.1 The grave had closed over Havelock, whose rewards and title had come too late. Both houses of parliament (7th of December, 1857) unanimously voted him a pension of £1000 a year, after fitting tribute had been paid to his services in eloquent language by the Earl of Derby and Earl Granville in one house, and by Lord Palmerston in the other. It had also been announced that he was to be created a baronet and K.C.B. One of the first acts of parliament, when it reassembled in February, was to pass a bill settling an annuity of £1000 upon his widow and on his eldest son, Sir Henry Marshman Havelock, himself a distinguished officer, on whom the baronetcy had descended which had not been enjoyed by his father. No sooner was General Havelock's death known than a warm expression of sym 1 Times. Obituary notice of Lord Lawrence, June 28, 1879. conveyed to his widow through the Duke of Cambridge. In replying to the duke, Lady Havelock said: "In the loneliness of my present position I cannot help wishing that every woman, thus bereaved, might have such a son (I might say sons) to comfort and heal her broken heart." In the same letter (24th December, 1857) in which Lord Canning announced the death of General Havelock to the queen, he spoke of the loss of another very distinguished officer, Brigadier-general Neill. "They were,” writes Lord Canning, "very different men, however. The first [Havelock] was quite of the old school-severe and precise with his men, and very cautious in his movements and plans, but in action bold as well as skilful. The second very open and impetuous, but full of resources; and to his soldiers as kind and thoughtful of their comfort as if they had been his children.” Captain Sir William Peel, K.C.B., commander of the naval brigade, the third and much-loved son of Sir Robert Peel, was another officer whose loss was greatly deplored. He died of small-pox at Cawnpore in April, 1858, after having taken a brave and distinguished part in the worst time of the campaign. In a gazette extraordinary Lord Canning thus spoke of this distinguished man: “The loss of his daring but thoughtful courage, joined with eminent abilities, is a very heavy one to the country; but it is not more to be deplored than the loss of the influence which his earnest character, admirable temper, and gentle, kindly bearing exercised over all within his reach; an influence which was exerted unceasingly for the public good, and of which the governor-general believes that it may with truth be said there is not a man of any rank or profession who, having been associated with Sir William Peel in these times of anxiety and danger, has not felt and acknowledged it.” Colonel Inglis, the brave defender of Lucknow, was specially mentioned by the queen when her majesty was referring to the necessity of immediately promoting officers for able and distinguished services. Nor were some of our native allies forgotten. LORD CANNING'S DEFENCE OF HIS POLICY. Lord Canning had to bide his time before votes of laudation and promises of grateful recognition reached him amidst the denunciations which were levelled against him, and were presently to be repeated on entirely opposite grounds. The demand for indiscriminate slaughter and severity, which in England had been stimulated by a feeling of indignation and revenge, had been upheld in Calcutta because of the panic not unnaturally produced by reports of the atrocities of the mutineers. Many of the residents in Calcutta and the Presidency of Bengal, finding that the governor refused to adopt a policy which would have carried persecution and injustice to the unoffending masses of the native population, had sent a petition to the queen asking for Lord Canning's recall, as he had not adopted measures to punish in sufficient numbers or with due severity those native races who could be influenced by power and fear alone. It was complained of both by the petitioners and by some violent writers in the press, that the whole of India had not been placed under martial law after the mutiny broke out, while the instructions which were issued by Lord Canning to the various civil authorities for their guidance in putting down insurrection in the disturbed districts were satirically called "clemency orders." As we have seen the rebellion was virtually at an end by the last part of December, 1857, but there remained all kinds of prognostications, and when resolutions were proposed by the government in both houses, thanking the civil and military officers in India for the energy and ability displayed by them in suppressing the mutiny, and Lord Canning was first mentioned, Lord Derby in the Lords and Mr. Disraeli in the Commons proposed to exclude his name from the vote, on the ground that it would be premature to give him the thanks of parliament until the exceptions which had been taken to his policy by the Calcutta petition and in other quarters had been discussed and disproved. Not only would the exclusion of Lord Canning's name from a vote of thanks which did not touch questions of general policy, but only the result of the recent oper 271 | ations, have been equivalent to a vote of censure, but the governor-general had already in a despatch (to the court of directors of the East India Company), which had been made public, vindicated his policy and explained its necessity. In a letter to Lord Granville at the same time his position with regard to the whole question was clearly defined. He said: "I could write a chapter in deprecation of anything being done or said in parliament by the government, which shall tend to throw cold water upon the policy that has been pursued towards the natives. Look at a map— (never think of Indian matters without looking at a map, and without bringing your mind to take in the scale of the map and the size of the country),-look at a map. With all the reinforcements you have sent (all the Bengal ones are arrived, except 800 men), Bengal is without a single European soldier more than we had at the beginning of the mutiny, Calcutta alone excepted, which is stronger. Twenty-three thousand men have moved through Bengal, and in Bengal we are still dependent (mainly) upon the good-will, I can't say affection, and interest, well understood by themselves, of the natives. "Suppose (not an impossibility, although I hope not a likelihood)-suppose that hostilities train on, and that we do not make our way with Oudh and other disturbed places, that our strength becomes again a subject of doubt-will it be the part of a wise government to keep such a population as that of the three great provinces in a loyal frame of temper? Can you do so if you proscribe and scout as untrustworthy whole classes? ... . "For God's sake raise your voice and stop this. As long as I have breath in my body I will pursue no other policy than that I have been following: not only for the reason of expediency and policy above stated, but because it is immutably just. I will not govern in anger. Justice, and that as stern and inflexible as law and might can make it, I will deal out. But I will never allow an angry and undiscriminating act or word to proceed from the government of India as long as I am responsible for it. "I don't care two straws for the abuse of the papers, British or Indian. I am for ever wondering at myself for not doing so, but it really is the fact. Partly from want of time to care, partly because an enormous task is before me, and all other cares look small. . . . "I don't want you to do more than defend me against unfair or mistaken attacks. But do take up and assert boldly, that whilst we are prepared, as the first duty of all, to strike down resistance without mercy, wherever it shows itself, we acknowledge that, resistance over, deliberate justice, and calm, patient reason are to resume their sway; that we are not going, either in anger or from indolence, to punish wholesale; whether by wholesale hangings or burnings, or by the less violent, but not one bit less offensive course, of refusing trust and countenance, and favour, and honour to any man because he is of a class or a creed. Do this, and get others to do it, and you will serve India more than you would believe. "Had not the 'clemency' question been taken up as it has been taken up in England, I really believe that the cry would never have been heard again, even in Calcutta. I have, however, great faith in parliament on this question, though by no means on all others concerning India." Of course the vote of thanks was carried, and supported not only by the government but by independent members who knew what the work in India had been, and spoke in Lord Canning's honour. One of the most determined opponents of the governor-general was Lord Ellenborough, who afterwards contrived to act with so much pompous indiscretion in sending a secret despatch to India, counteracting the proclamation made by Lord Canning with regard to the landowners in Oudh who had taken part in the rebellion, that the Derby ministry which had then come into office was seriously embarrassed, though Mr. Disraeli completely endorsed the despatch and upheld its representations. Lord Canning's proclamation, doubtless, was liable to be interpreted into an intention to adopt a system of confiscation of the whole land of Oudh; since, with the exception of six loyal pro prietors in the province, the chiefs and landowners were to surrender to the chief commissioner, when their lives would be spared provided that their hands were unstained by English blood murderously shed. As regarded any further indulgence to be granted to them, and the conditions in which they were thereafter to be placed, they must throw themselves on the mercy of the British government. Of course this proclamation was to be read by the light of Lord Canning's general policy; but he had no right to leave that interpretation of it to be taken for granted. The commissioner himself, Sir James Outram, was staggered by it; for there were scarcely a dozen landlords in the province who had not borne arms against the government, and to confiscate their property would be to turn them into bandits, and to make a long and exhausting guerrilla war necessary for their extirpation. Lord Canning called this in question; but he was ready to insert in the proclamation a clause granting a liberal indulgence to those who came promptly forward to aid the restoration of order, and generously regarding the claims which they might acquire to a restitution of their former rights. The question was, what should be done with the province whence the mutiny sprang? It had been annexed so recently before the rebellion that it could not be treated as the theatre of an insurrection against long-settled rule. What was necessary was that it should be regarded as a province held under the direct government of the British, and there must be enough of demand against the insurgents both to mark the mutiny as a revolt which must be met by punishment, and to ensure some material guarantee against its recurrence. The proclamation did not say all this. It left a good deal of authority-an almost despotic authority in the hands of the governor-general, who was, however, not likely to exercise it. Whatever it may have been, a man like Lord Canning did not require or deserve to be rebuked in absurdly pompous language which might have been used to a subordinate by a civic official with a turn for grandiose reproof. Mr. Bright, who was on the side of the Derby government in this matter, because he objected to what he THE END OF THE REIGN OF "JOHN COMPANY." conceived had been undue severity exercised against the Sepoys, and suspected that unjust exactions might continue, was obliged to excuse the tone of Lord Ellenborough's communication on the ground that the chiefs of the East India Company had been accustomed to send despatches of a hectoring character addressed to subordinates who were entirely dependent on the board. Through the secret committee of the court of directors the despatch had been sent to Lord Canning. The matter was taken up by Lord Shaftesbury in the House of Lords, by Mr. Cardwell in the House of Commons, and by the queen, who thought that to send such a despatch at such a juncture was injurious to the state, and that it should first have been submitted to her, as all such despatches were, in connection with the foreign office. Worse than the sending of the despatch, however, though that would of course be made known all over India, was the fact that Lord Ellenborough placed himself in correspondence with some of the principal native chiefs, explaining his policy. It afterwards transpired that Lord Canning had written a letter to Mr. Vernon Smith, who had been Lord Ellenborough's predecessor at the Board of Control, stating that the proclamation about to be issued would need some further explanation which the pressure of immediate duties compelled the governor-general to defer. Mr. Vernon Smith was in Ireland when that letter arrived, and it did not reach him in time to prevent Lord Ellenborough's despatch from being sent. Probably it would have made little difference, for the pompous nobleman seemed disinclined to listen to a private letter to the same effect which Lord Granville had received from Lord Canning. The opportunity of snubbing a successor was too good to be lost. But the explanation that Mr. Vernon Smith had not been able to give the information which might have rendered the secret despatch unnecessary, had the effect of letting the government escape and baffling the authors of the motion for censure. Mr. Disraeli, speaking at Slough a few days afterwards, triumphed exceedingly at what he considered had been the utter failure of his opponents. He said "it was like a con VOL. III. 273 vulsion of nature rather than any ordinary transaction of human life. I can only liken it to one of those earthquakes which take place in Calabria or Peru. There was a rumbling murmur, a groan, a shriek, a sound of distant thunder. No one knew whether it came from the top or the bottom of the house. There was a rent, a fissure in the ground, and then a village disappeared; then a tall tower toppled down; and the whole of the opposition benches became one great dissolving view of anarchy." The queen, however, had been on the side of "Clemency Canning" in his protests against a policy of extermination, and she now felt deeply the injustice of counteracting his proclamation before any intelligence had been received of the conditions with which he would have to contend. The government of Lord Derby gained little by Lord Ellenborough; and Lord Canning's proclamation worked its way in the direction which he had intended-that of limiting the power of the landowners, not by creating a new proprietary right on the part of the government, but by defining and enforcing the right which already existed of making such settlements of land as would control the native landholders and protect the occupiers and cultivators of the soil. This was the system adopted in Oudh, where nearly all the large landholders almost immediately tendered their allegiance under conditions purposely made conciliatory and advantageous. The policy of Canning was effective and successful, but he did not live to see the full result of it. He returned to England in 1862, when he was succeeded by Lord Elgin, and had scarcely received the acknowledgments which were due to him for his prompt and sagacious administration, under circumstances of extreme peril and anxiety, when the results of his cares and labours were to be seen in his failing health. In a few months he died. But he had received the high honour of having been named the first viceroy of India under the entirely new conditions which had by that time been established. For a considerable time before the Indian mutiny had emphasized the need for an entire 60 revision of the mode of government in that country, there had been serious thoughts of still further diminishing the power of the East India Company. Before the debate of the 27th of July, 1857, in which Mr. Disraeli had urged the policy of "drawing closer the relations between the population of India and the sovereign, Queen Victoria," Lord Palmerston had arranged with the cabinet to bring forward a measure on the subject. In the middle of October he wrote to the queen that "the inconvenience and difficulty of administering the government of a vast country on the other side of the globe by means of two cabinets, the one responsible to the crown and parliament, the other only responsible to the holders of India stock, meeting for a few hours three or four times in a year, had been shown by the events of this year to be no longer tolerable." He proposed, therefore, to prepare for the next session of parliament a measure for abolishing the existing state of things, and for placing the government of India for the future under the exclusive control of the crown and parliament, like any other part of her majesty's dominions.' "There would, of course," he added, "be much opposition on the part of all persons connected with the India Company, and the opposition in parliament might take up their cause; the matter, therefore, will require to be well weighed before any recommendation on the subject can be submitted for your majesty's consideration." We have seen that by the act of 1853 the patronage of the civil service was taken from the Company, and that a system of competitive examinations was established. The last speech ever made by Macaulay in the House of Commons had been in support of this principle, and many people at that time thought the proposed changes were sufficient. Lord Ellenborough a year before, had, in his evidence before the select committee to which Cobden alluded, recommended that the government should be transferred from the Company to the crown. It was this change which was contemplated by Lord Palmerston, who, early in 1858, brought in a bill by which a council, of a president and eight members, was to be nominated by the government, and there was much probability of its being well received by the house, when the Palmerston government was suddenly defeated on the "Conspiracy Bill," as we shall presently note, and Lord Derby came into power. One of the first acts of the new government was to bring in an India Bill of their own, which came to be called "India Bill No. 2," as the former was called "India Bill No. 1.” It proved to be a fiasco. Nobody supported it. It was thought that Lord Ellenborough had constructed it, and had given rein to the theatrical illusions by which he had for years been influenced with regard to a court and government in India. There was to be a secretary of state with a council of eighteen members, nine of whom were to be nominated by the crown, and nine to be elected in an elaborate and fantastic fashion. Four out of the nine must have served her majesty in India for not less than ten years, or must have been engaged in trade in India for fifteen years; and they were to be elected by the votes of those in this country who had served the queen or the government of India for ten years; or by proprietors of capital stock in Indian railways or public works to the amount of £2000, or the proprietors of India stock to the amount of £1000. The other five members must have been engaged in commerce in India, or in exporting manufactured goods to that country for five years, or must have resided there for ten years, and were to be elected by the parliamentary constituencies of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Belfast. The monstrous absurdities of such a bill were too obvious to need much pointing out. Its provisions were so devised that any incompetent man who had been long enough engaged in some petty traffic with India could be returned on the council, while men of real knowledge and ability were excluded. Before it went up for the second reading it was withdrawn, and Lord John Russell's proposal that a government measure should be framed in accordance with resolutions come to in a committee of the whole house, was agreed to. By these means the difficulty was surmounted, and on the 29th |