the principles of her government. Such a document should breathe feelings of generosity, benevolence, and religious feeling, pointing out the privileges which the Indians will receive in being placed on an equality with the subjects of the British Crown, and the prosperity following in the train of civilization."1

The Queen's wishes were respected, and with admirable results. More particularly were her personal views revealed in the passage with reference to religion: "Firmly relying," said her Majesty, on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the right and the desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects. It is our Royal will and pleasure that no one shall in any wise suffer for his opinions, or be disquieted by reason of his religious faith or observance. We will show to all alike the equal and impartial protection of the law, and we do strictly charge and enjoin those who may be in authority under us that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects under pain of our highest displeasure. It is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever class or creed, be fully and freely admitted to any offices the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, abilities, and integrity duly to discharge." Finally, the Queen declared that the aim of her government should be the benefit of all her subjects resident in India. "In their prosperity will be our strength, in their contentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward."

The proclamation produced the happiest effect in India, and the Queen's pleasure is reflected in a letter to the Viceroy (Dec. 2nd, 1858). "It is," she writes, "a source of great satisfaction and pride to her to feel herself in direct communication with that enormous Empire which is so bright a jewel of her Crown, and which she would wish to see happy, contented, and peaceful. May the publication of her proclamation be the beginning of a new era, and may it draw a veil over the sad and bloody past." 2

The Queen's hope was realized; the proclamation did inaugurate a new era-the direct government of India by the British Crown. This fact was further emphasized by the State Tour of the Prince of Wales (Oct. 1875-April 1876), and still more by the Queen's assumption of the new title of Empress of India. The 1Q.V.L. iii. 379. 2 Ibid., 389.

1858]

THE QUEEN'S PROCLAMATION

295

latter step was severely criticized at the time, but it is now generally recognized to have been both opportune and appropriate. It gave great satisfaction to the ageing Monarch, and it served to cement the bond between the Queen-Empress and the Princes and peoples of the Indian Empire. To describe it as a piece of political charlatanry is merely to betray that lack of imaginative sympathy which cost us so dear at the time of the Mutiny. Almost every other gift, both of character and intellect, had been bestowed in full measure upon Lord Dalhousie; had this been added, the Mutiny might never have occurred. Had the obverse gifts been lacking to his lieutenants and his successor the Mutiny might well have been more serious than it was. For, tragic as were many of its incidents, and critical as were many of its moments, the Mutiny was suppressed with relative ease. That this was so was due to many contributory causes; primarily to the unruffled coolness and intrepid courage of Lord Canning himself; to his promptitude in diverting to India the British reinforcements on their way to China, and his refusal to give way to panic; to the skill with which Lord Elphinstone restrained the restlessness of Bombay; to the combination of sternness and conciliation displayed by Lawrence and his colleagues in the Punjab; to the loyalty of the ruling Princes, not one of whom espoused the cause of the mutineers, and to that of several powerful Ministers such as Jang Bahadur of Nepál and Sálar Jang of Haidarábad; to the splendid services rendered at more than one important juncture by Captain Peel and his Naval Brigade, and not least to the heroic fortitude of thousands of individual Englishmen, known and unknown to fame. There were other factors in the suppression of the Mutiny, to which allusion has already incidentally been made. Of these, perhaps the most important was the lack of national unity in India. Thanks to this, the sepoy mutiny never developed, except in Oudh and in a less degree in the Central Provinces, into a national insurrection. Had it done so it could hardly have been quelled by the efforts, however splendid and heroic, of a handful of Englishmen, planted in the midst of a teeming population, alien to themselves in tradition, in race, and in creed.

The most momentous result of the Mutiny was to bring that teeming population, for the first time, into direct dependence upon the British Crown.

Financial crisis, Novem

CHAPTER XVI

DOMESTIC ADMINISTRATION. ENGLAND AND ITALY

FOR

(1856-1860)

OR nearly a decade-from the reopening of the Eastern question (1852) to the suppression of the Mutiny (1858)—the mind of the nation was concentrated upon affairs external to Great Britain. The Near East, the Middle East, and the Far East in turn demanded all but exclusive attention. It was not long before foreign policy was again the dominant interest. For a brief interlude, however, we must plunge into the vicissitudes of parties and recall the details of domestic administration.

While Englishmen were still racked by anxiety as to the fate of their countrymen in India, they were called upon to face a ber, 1857 financial crisis at home, which was sufficiently severe and might have been disastrous. It was due to causes which during the last century have periodically recurred and are now well ascertained. A period of overtrading and speculation is invariably followed by a cessation of demand, a consequent contraction of credit, and the failure of Banks and commercial Houses. The crisis of 1857 in Great Britain was due primarily to railway speculations in the United States. The effects made themselves felt on this side early in October. The Bank of England, in order to protect its gold reserve, put up the rate of discount to 8 per cent. and later on to 10. Private firms refused to discount bills at all. Banks of high standing closed their doors: the Bank of Liverpool, the Western Bank of Scotland, and the City of Glasgow Bank being among the victims. On the evening of November 11th the Government learnt that the reserve at the Bank of England had fallen to £1,400,000; that it had less than £8,000,000 in bullion, and that its liabilities exceeded £18,000,000. On the 12th, therefore, Lord Palmerston and the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorized the suspension of the Bank Charter Act, and gave the Directors

1860]

THE ORSINI BOMBS

297

On

permission to issue notes to an amount not exceeding £2,000,000 in excess of their legal maximum. This saved the situation. December 3rd Parliament met for the purpose of passing an Act of Indemnity. Lord Palmerston's summary of the debate is characteristic: "George Lewis and J. Russell made good speeches. The others, not having a clear idea, conveyed none." No serious opposition was offered to the Bill of Indemnity. The Government had done the right thing and had done it promptly. They could not, of course, avert a considerable amount of commercial distress; but they successfully allayed the incipient financial panic. As in 1847 the opponents of Bank restriction used the opportunity to point the moral of their argument, but they once more failed to convince the nation. The necessity for occasional suspension in times of panic is no proof of the futility of the restriction under normal conditions. From the standpoint of economic theory J. S. Mill's plea against the Bank Charter Act is unquestionably powerful; but it cannot stand against the advocacy of such practical experts as Lord Overstone and Sir Robert Peel.

sini

All serious danger was at an end when, on February 4th, Par- The Orliament reassembled for the regular session of 1858. Its first bombs business was to vote an address of congratulation to the Queen on the marriage of the Princess Royal to Prince Frederick William of Prussia. The marriage which had taken place at the Chapel Royal, St. James', on January 25th, was cordially approved by the nation, though the European position of an heir to the Prussian throne was not, in 1858, what it is to-day. The affection manifested towards one who was looked upon as " England's daughter (in Cobden's happy phrase) gave unfeigned pleasure to the Queen.2 A little later Parliament voted its thanks to the statesmen and soldiers who had saved the situation in India. The Conservatives showed some disposition to resent the inclusion of Lord Canning's name, but fortunately for the reputation of the Party the point was not pressed. To Palmerston's India Bill considerable opposition was offered, but the first reading was carried by a majority unexpectedly large (145). The position of the Government seemed unassailable, and it was generally believed that Lord Palmerston was installed in the Premiership for life. Sir Richard Bethell, the Attorney-General, remarked to the Premier, as they 1 Principles of Political Economy, P. 397 seq. 2 Vide Q.V.L. iii. 334.

left the House together after the division on the India Bill, that he ought, like the Roman Consuls in a triumph, to have somebody to remind him that, as a Minister, he was mortal.1 Within a week Lord Palmerston was beaten on what was virtually a vote of noconfidence, and a few days later he resigned. Such is the irony of English politics. The circumstances which led to the sudden overthrow of a powerful Minister require explanation.

Felice Orsini was one of the many Italian exiles who found a temporary home in England. His lectures on Italian independence were received with enthusiasm by English audiences, and he imbibed the crazy notion that, but for the Emperor of the French, the English Government would be disposed to give active assistance to the Italian cause. He determined, therefore, to remove the obstacle. On January 14th bombs were thrown at the Emperor's carriage as he was driving with the Empress to the Opera. The Emperor and Empress were unhurt, but so severe was the explosion that 10 people were killed and 156 were wounded. The news of the crime was received with horror and indignation in France, and indeed throughout Europe. Orsini himself and one accomplice were executed; two others were sent to penal servitude for life. But it was against England that the anger of the French people blazed out most fiercely. Orsini's conspiracy was hatched in England; here the bombs were manufactured. Napoleon III. and his Empress had paid a friendly visit to the English Court in the previous autumn, but Lord Palmerston's speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet (Nov. 9th, 1857) had been gratuitously provocative in tone, and he noted with curious satisfaction that he had aroused French susceptibilities. The Orsini conspiracy opened the flood-gates of invective against England. The army demanded to be led against the den of assassins; they urged that "the infamous haunt in which machinations so infernal are planned should be destroyed for ever". Unfortunately these foolish vapourings, and many like them, were published in the official Moniteur. Count Walewski, on behalf of the French Government, expressed official regret and pleaded inadvertence, but in a despatch (Jan. 20th) he affirmed the unquestionable fact that the Orsini conspiracy was the third which had been hatched in England against the person of the French Emperor, and propounded certain questions which could

1 Ashley, Life, ii. 142.