was, in his opinion, unjustly severe, and Governor-General, condemning his policy calculated to drive every noble to despara- in very severe and trenchant terms. Whattion. He wrote at once to the Governor- ever opinion might have been formed of General, pointing out that there was not a the proclamation, it was universally felt dozen landowners in the province who had that the style of the despatch was absolnot either themselves borne arms against utely indefensible, and it produced a great the British Government or assisted the and sudden ferment both in Parliament and rebels with men and money; that conse- in the country. It was strongly condemned quently the effect of the proclamation by the Opposition for the intemperate and would be to confiscate the entire proprie- unmeasured terms in which it censured a tary right in the province, and to make the statesman absent at a post of great responchiefs and landlords desparate; and that sibility, and placed in circumstances of no the result would be a guerilla war for the common difficulty and danger. Even the extirpation, root and branch, of this class supporters of the Government, though they of men, which will involve the loss of might disapprove of Lord Canning's policy, thousands of Europeans by battle, disease, could not defend Lord Ellenborough's deand exposure.' Lord Canning was induced, spatch. The stability of the Ministry, who with some difficulty, to add to the procla- were jointly responsible for the act, was mation a clause announcing that 'to those seriously imperilled, and resolutions expresswho shall promptly come forward and give ing strong disapprobation of the despatch their support in the restoration of order the were proposed in both Houses of Parliaindulgence will be large, and the Governor- ment. Lord Ellenborough, however, averted General will be ready to view liberally the the danger from his colleagues by a timely claims which they may thus acquire to a resignation of his office. The resolution restitution of their former rights.' This proposed in the House of Lords by Lord concession, together with an accompanying Shaftesbury was defeated; and after four circular from Sir James Outram practi- nights' debate, in which the proclamation. cally neutralized the threatened mischief. was condemned by Mr. Bright and Sir James Graham, and the fact that it had been disapproved of by Sir James Outram was stated, the condemnatory resolution moved by Mr. Cardwell was withdrawn in a somewhat ridiculous manner. The moment a copy of Lord Canning's proclamation reached Lord Ellenborough, who was now President of the Board of Control in Lord Derby's Administration, he prepared and forwarded a despatch to the END OF VOL. III. PRINTED BY WILLIAM MACKENZIE 43 & 45 HOWARD STREET, GLASGOW, THE AGE WE LIVE IN. CHAPTER I. End of the East India Company-Transference of the Government of India to the Crown-Institution of the Order of the Star of India-Orsini's attempt on the life of the French Emperor-Lord Palmerston's Conspiracy Bill-The overthrow of his Ministry-Termination of hostilities with China-The Derby Administration-Removal of the Jewish Disabilities -The Ministerial Reform Bill-Dissolution of Parliament-Compact of the Liberal party-Defeat of the GovernmentLord Palmerston's Premiership-His powerful Administration-Treaty between France and Sardinia-Austrian rule in Italy- Ultimatum sent to Victor Emmanuel-Declaration of War-The Austrians invade Piedmont-Incapacity of General Gyulai-Defeat of the Austrian Army at Magenta-Garibaldi's successes-Retreat of the Austrians-Their defeat at Solferino-Their position within the Quadrilateral-Armistice between the French and the Austrian Emperor-Terms of Peace-Dissatisfaction of the Italians-Disapproval of the British Government-Negotiations of the French Emperor with Kossuth-Proposed Italian Confederation-Its failure-Annexation of Tuscany and Emilia to Sardinia-The French Emperor's demand for Nice and Savoy-Impolicy of his conduct-State of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies-Garibaldi's descent upon Sicily-Its rapid success-His inroad upon Naples-Defection of the army-Defeat and expulsion of Francis II.-Revolt of the Papal States-The Papal Army-Invasion of the Marches and Umbria by the Sardinian forces-Defeat of the Papal Army and of the Neapolitans-Surrender of Gaeta -Establishment of the Kingdom of Italy-Death and Character of Count Cavour. THE rebellion of the native troops in India | led directly to the abolition of the government of the East India Company, one of the most remarkable institutions the world has ever seen. It originated in 1599, when an association was formed for the trade to the East Indies; and in the following year the Adventurers,' as they were termed, were constituted a body corporate, under the title of 'The Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading with the East Indies.' In 1609 the charter of the Company was not only renewed, but rendered perpetual. In 1640 the Company obtained permission from a Hindoo prince to purchase a piece of ground, on which they proceeded to raise Fort St. George and the town of Madras. About twenty years afterwards, on the marriage of Charles II. to Catherine of Braganza, the town and island of Bombay were ceded to the English king VOL. IV. as part of the Infanta's dowry. In 1698 the Company obtained from the Mogul, on payment of an annual rent, the land on which their station at Chuttanuttee stood. They then constructed for its defence a citadel named Fort William, under whose protection the original small village expanded by degrees into the great city of Calcutta, the capital of modern India. The beginnings of this famous Company were small, but their latter end greatly increased. 'From the precarious tenure of some two or three petty forts-from the mere Mahratta-ditch of Calcutta on the "boundless ledge" of Madras-this empire spread far and wide from Ceylon to Gujurat, from the snows of the Himalaya to the sea-line of the Sunderbunds, along the loftiest mountains and the widest plains in the whole world!' The rise and progress of this vast empire was associated with the extraordinary exploits of a 1 Court of Directors and Court of Proprietors a President and a Council of eight members to be nominated by the Government, with a secretary eligible for a seat in Parlia Clive, a Warren Hastings, a Wellington, and | Crown. In the beginning of 1858 Lord a Wellesley; a Moira, an Elphinstone, and Palmerston introduced a Bill for that pura Munro; a Napier and a Dalhousie. It pose. He proposed to substitute for the must be admitted that 'some disgraceful intrigues, some unjust and cruel wars, some instances of odious perfidy and avarice' stain the annals of our Eastern Empire. It is undeniable that the duties both of government, and the President to be a member of ment and legislation were long wholly neglected or carelessly performed; and as Sir George Lewis said, no civilized government ever existed more corrupt, more perfidious, more rapacious than the government of the East India Company between 1758 and 1784. Its territory was larger and more populous than France, Spain, Italy, and Germany put together, and its clear revenue when the mutiny broke out exceeded the clear revenue of any state in the world, France excepted. From a trading body the Company had become by degrees transformed into a sovereign body, wielding enormous and for a time almost absolute powers. But at the time of the mutiny the administration of India had long ceased to be under the control of the Company as it was in the early days of its sovereignty. The country was now governed partly by a Board of Directors, partly by the Board of Control-a department of the Ministry under a president who was a member of the Cabinet. But the Directors were made in almost every case subordinate to that Board. The Governor-General was nominated by the Crown, but the Directors of the Company had the power of recalling him. This double government was undoubtedly cumbrous, unwieldy, dilatory, and inefficient. The whole experience of that system,' says Sir George Lewis, 'shows that it is embarrassing by needless delays that it encourages procrastination, divides responsibility, and throws obscurity on the seat of power.' A general feeling had arisen throughout the country when the mutiny broke out that the government of our Indian empire must be reorganized, and that it should be transferred from the Company to the the Cabinet. The overthrow of the Government, however, at this period caused the Bill to be laid aside. When Lord Derby became Prime Minister he brought in a measure of a totally different kind, but so absurd in its proposals that it met with ridicule from all parties, and was withdrawn before it had reached a second reading. Lord John Russell then suggested that the House should deal with the question by way of resolution, and the Government eagerly caught at this mode of extrication from their difficulty. A series of resolutions were accordingly proposed as the basis of the intended measure, and after long discussion and a good deal of modification they were embodied in a Bill entitled 'An Act for the better Government of India.' It provided that all the territories previously under the government of the East India Company were to be vested in Her Majesty, and that all the powers of the Company were to be vested in her name. A Secretary of State for India was to be appointed, who was to be assisted by a Council of fifteen, to hold office 'during good behaviour.' Eight members of this Council were to be nominated by the Crown, and seven at first by the Board of Directors, and afterwards by the Council itself. The appointment to the various civil offices had hitherto been vested in the Board of Directors, but the system of competitive examinations for the Civil Service and the Engineers and Artillery was now introduced into the measure, and made thoroughly practical. The naval and military forces of the Company were transferred to Her Majesty. A good deal of opposition was offered to various clauses of the Bill, but it passed through both Houses of Parliament without undergoing any alterations of much importance, and became law on the | escaped without injury. The perpetrators 1st of September, 1858. In the following of this foul deed were discovered and November the Queen was proclaimed as arrested. Orsini avowed his guilt, and Sovereign throughout India, with Lord Can- declared that his object was to put Louis ning as her first Viceroy. Napoleon to death, believing him to be the main obstacle in the way of the interposition of France in behalf of the people of Italy groaning under Austrian despotism. Four persons were put on their trial for this crime, and found guilty; but only two, Orsini, the leader of the gang of assassins, and Pierre, an Italian refugee, were executed. The other two were sentenced to penal servitude for life. On the re-establishment of British authority in India the Queen proposed that a high order of chivalry should be founded for the purpose of 'gratifying the personal feelings of the chief number of the native princes, binding them together in a confraternity, and attaching them by a personal tie to the sovereign.' Lord Canning made a suggestion, which was subsequently acted upon, that an infusion of English ordinary members, on a limited scale, would tend to raise the dignity of the order in the eyes of all nations without exception.' Various reasons caused delay in carrying Her Majesty's recommendation into effect; and it was not until the 25th of July, 1861, that the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India was instituted. It comprises the sovereign as Grand Master and twentyfive Knights (European and Native), exclusive of Honorary Knights. The first investiture took place at Windsor Castle on the 1st of November, 1861, when his Highness the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, Lord Clyde, Sir John Lawrence, General Pollock, and Lord Harris were invested. While the Bill for the reform of the government of India was passing through Parliament, an event occurred which was indirectly the cause of Lord Palmerston's ejection from office. On the 14th of January, 1858, an attempt was made by Felice Orsini, an Italian exile, to assassinate the Emperor of the French as he was driving to the Opera with the Empress and General Roquet. Just as they had entered the Rue Lepellitier three bombs filled with detonating powder were flung, one after the other, at the carriage in which they were riding. The bombs exploded, and killed ten individuals and wounded 156. But though the Emperor's carriage was almost blown to pieces its occupants The French people were greatly excited by this incident, but unfortunately their anger was directed not so much against Orsini and his accomplices as against England, where it is certain many of the arrangements for the plot were planned; and indignant complaints were made that our Government should afford shelter to miscreants by whom assassination had been reduced to a doctrine preached openly and practised in repeated attempts.' Count Walewski, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote to Count Persigny, the French ambassador at London, expressing in strong terms the feelings of the French Government and people at the forbearance shown to such conspirators. 'Ought,' he said, 'the right of asylum to protect such a state of things? Is hospitality due to assassins? Shall English legislation serve to favour their designs and their manœuvres? And can it continue to protect persons who place themselves by flagrant acts without the pale of the common law?' Language of this kind, though not inexcusable in the circumstances, was not wise, and was calculated to defeat its own object. Unfortunately it was greatly aggravated by the addresses which were presented to the Emperor by certain officers of the French army. One of these addresses spoke of the English people as the protectors of 'assassins surpassing those who had gone before them in all that was odious.' Another stated that their indignation moved them 'to demand an account of the land of im- | division took place the Government found punity which contains the haunts of the itself in a minority of nineteen. monsters who are sheltered by its laws.' 'Give us the order, sire,' it added, and we will pursue them even to their strongholds.' In a third address it was asserted not only that the 'miserable assassins should receive the chastisement due to their abominable attempts,' but also that 'the infamous haunt (London) in which machinations so infernal are planned, should be destroyed for ever.' Such foolish and reprehensible rodomontade would have been treated with merited contempt, if some of these addresses had not very unadvisedly been inserted in the Moniteur, then the organ of the French Government. Count Walewski expressed the regret of the Emperor that they should thus have received somewhat of an official stamp, and declared that this had taken place through inadvertence. But the mischief was done, and an indignant feeling was in consequence excited in Britain, and a disposition to resent the supposed insult offered to our country, rather than to take steps to soothe the not unnatural exasperation which the attempt to assassinate the Emperor had produced in France. This result was a complete surprise. The Ministry did not even anticipate a narrow division, much less a defeat. Many of those who voted in the majority had no intention to overthrow the Government; and if the Prime Minister had thought fit to appeal to the House of Commons for a vote of confidence, it would in all probability have been accorded. But Lord Palmerston never showed any undue tenacity in the retention of office, and he at once tendered his resignation. After weathering many a storm he was overthrown by a gust, and Lord Derby reigned in his stead.'* Lord Palmerston had the satisfaction, before resigning office, of being able to announce the success of our arms in the contest with China, and the capture of Canton. In the month of May, 1857, two successful expeditions were undertaken by Commodore Elliot and Admiral Sir Michael Seymour, which terminated in the complete destruction of the Chinese fleet of war junks in the Canton waters. But no progress was made in the settlement of the questions in dispute, in consequence of the detention of Lord Elgin, the British Plenipotentiary, at Calcutta for the purpose of assisting the Governor-General in the suppression of the Indian mutiny. He did not reach * John Leech hit off the incident with his usual Immediately after Orsini's attempt to assassinate Louis Napoleon, Lord Palmerston introduced a measure the effect of which would be to make the crime of Hong-Kong until the end of autumn. conspiracy to murder, hitherto treated as a misdemeanour, a felony punishable with penal servitude. The Bill, though strongly opposed by some of the Radical members, was read a first time by a majority of no less than 200. But by the time that the second reading was moved, the ridiculous effusions of the French colonels had produced a feeling of irritation in the House and in the country, which proved fatal both to the measure and the Government. Mr. Disraeli, who had supported the Bill on its first reading, saw that the tide had turned, and joined with the Radicals in opposing it. So did Lord John Russell and the Peelite party, and when a felicity in his sketch entitled 'Cock-a-Doodle-Doo.' A gigantic inflated cock is crowing with all his might, while the Emperor, portrayed in miniature, is exclaiming, 'Diable! the noisy bird will waken my neighbour!' A pamphlet published in Paris, and entitled "The Emperor Napoleon the Third and England,' described an obscure debating club in a Fleet Street public-house as a regicide association composed of a band of political desperadoes. Leech ridiculed the absurd notion in two cartoons entitled 'A Discussion Forum as imagined by our Volatile Friend,' and 'A Discussion as it is in reality.' The former represents a bench of savagelooking ragamuffins armed to the teeth, with a large basin labelled 'Blood' in front of the President's chair. The latter gives a view of nine or ten not over bright specimens of humanity seated round a table, smoking their pipes, and drinking Allsop's ale, while a bemused orator is on his legs descanting in a hazy style on some subject which it is evident neither he nor his audience understand. |