diplomacy was exerting an increasing influence in Persia, and
the latter had always coveted the city of Herat, which was
popularly regarded as the gate of India. In 1856 the Persian
government, believing that England had her hands fully occupied
in the Crimea, seized Herat, and, in consequence, a fresh war—in
which a British army under Sir James Outram rapidly secured
a victory—broke out. The campaign, entered upon when
parliament was not in session, was unpopular in the country.
A grave constitutional question, which was ultimately settled
by legislation, was raised as to the right of the government to
undertake military operations beyond the boundaries of India
Wars with Persia and China.
without the consent of parliament. But the incidents
of the Persian war were soon forgotten in the presence
of a still graver crisis; for in the following year, 1857,
the country suddenly found itself involved in war
with China, and face to face with one of the greatest dangers
which it has ever encountered—the mutiny of the sepoy army in
India. The Chinese war arose from the seizure by the Chinese
authorities of a small vessel, the “Arrow” commanded by a
British subject, and at one time holding a licence (which, however,
had expired at the time of the seizure) from the British superintendent
at Hongkong, and the detention of her crew on the
charge of piracy. Sir John Bowring, who represented Great
Britain in China, failing to secure the reparation and apology
which he demanded, directed the British admiral to bombard
Canton. Lord Palmerston’s cabinet decided to approve and
support Sir John Bowring’s vigorous action. Cobden, however,
brought forward a motion in the House of Commons condemning
these high-handed proceedings. He succeeded in securing the
co-operation of his own friends, of Lord John Russell, and of
other independent Liberals, as well as of the Conservative party,
and in inflicting a signal defeat on the government. Lord
Palmerston at once appealed from the House to the country.
The constituencies, imperfectly acquainted with the technical
issues involved in the dispute, rallied to the minister, who was
upholding British interests. Lord Palmerston obtained a
decisive victory, and returned to power apparently in irresistible
strength. Lord Elgin had already been sent to China with a
considerable force to support the demand for redress. On his
way thither he learned that the British in India were reduced
to the last extremities by the mutiny of the native army in
Bengal, and, on the application of Lord Canning, the governor-general,
he decided on diverting the troops, intended to bring
the Chinese to reason, to the more pressing duty of saving India
for the British crown.
During the years which had followed the accession of the queen, the territories and responsibilities of the East India Company had been considerably enlarged by the annexation of Sind by Lord Ellenborough, the conquest of the Punjab after two desperate military campaigns Indian mutiny. under Lord Dalhousie, the conquest of Pegu, and the annexation of Oudh. These great additions to the empire had naturally imposed an increased strain on the Indian troops, while the British garrison, instead of being augmented, had been depleted to meet the necessities of the Russian war. Several circumstances, moreover, tended to propagate disaffection in the Indian army. Indian troops operating outside the Company’s dominions were granted increased allowances, but these were automatically reduced when conquest brought the provinces in which they were serving within the British pale. The Sepoys again had an ineradicable dislike to serve beyond the sea, and the invasion of Pegu necessitated their transport by water to the seat of war. Finally, the invention of a new rifle led to the introduction of a cartridge which, though it was officially denied at the moment, was in fact lubricated with a mixture of cow’s fat and lard. The Sepoys thought that their caste would be destroyed if they touched the fat of the sacred cow or unclean pig; they were even persuaded that the British government wished to destroy their caste in order to facilitate their conversion to Christianity. Isolated mutinies in Bengal were succeeded by much more serious events at Cawnpore in Oudh, and at Meerut in the North-West Provinces. From Meerut the mutineers, after some acts of outrage and murder, moved on Delhi, the capital of the old Mogul empire, which became the headquarters of the mutiny. In Oudh the native regiments placed themselves under a Mahratta chief, Nana Sahib, by whose orders the British in Cawnpore, including the women and children, were foully murdered. In the summer of 1857 these events seemed to imperil British rule in India. In the autumn the courage of the troops and the arrival of reinforcements gradually restored the British cause. Delhi, after a memorable siege, was at last taken by a brilliant assault. Lucknow, where a small British garrison was besieged in the residency, was twice relieved, once temporarily by Sir James Outram and General Havelock, and afterwards permanently by Sir Colin Campbell, who had been sent out from England to take the chief command. Subsequent military operations broke up the remnants of the revolt, and in the beginning of 1858 the authority of the queen was restored throughout India. The mutiny, however, had impressed its lesson on the British people, and, as the first consequence, it was decided to transfer the government from the old East India Company to the crown. Lord Palmerston’s administration was defeated on another issue before it succeeded in carrying the measure which it introduced for the purpose, though Lord Derby’s second ministry, which succeeded it, was compelled to frame its proposals on somewhat similar lines. The home government of India was entrusted to a secretary of state, with a council to assist him; and though the numbers of the council have been reduced, the form of government which was then established has endured.
The cause which led to the second fall of Lord Palmerston was in one sense unexpected. Some Italian refugees living in London, of whom Orsini was the chief, formed a design to assassinate the emperor of the French. On the evening of 14th January 1858, while the emperor, accompanied Orsini. by the empress, was driving to the opera, these men threw some bombs under his carriage. The brutal attempt happily failed. Neither the emperor nor the empress was injured by the explosion, but the carriage in which they were driving was wrecked, and a large number of persons who happened to be in the street at the time were either killed or wounded. This horrible outrage naturally created indignation in France, and it unfortunately became plain that the conspiracy had been hatched in England, and that the bombs had been manufactured in Birmingham. On these facts becoming known, Count Walewski, the chief of the French foreign office, who was united by ties of blood to the emperor, called on the British government to provide against the danger to which France was exposed. “Ought the right of asylum to protect such a state of things?” he asked. “Is hospitality due to assassins? Ought the British legislature to continue to favour their designs and their plans? And can it continue to shelter persons who by these flagrant acts place themselves beyond the pale of common rights?” Lord Clarendon, the head of the British foreign office, told the French ambassador, who read him this despatch, that “no consideration on earth would induce the British parliament to pass a measure for the extradition of political refugees,” but he added that it was a question whether the law was as complete and as stringent as it should be, and he stated that the government had already referred the whole subject to the law officers of the crown for their consideration. Having made these remarks, however, he judged it wise to refrain from giving any formal reply to Count Walewski’s despatch, and contented himself with privately communicating to the British ambassador in Paris the difficulties of the British government. After receiving the opinion of the law officers the cabinet decided to introduce a bill into parliament increasing in England the punishment for a conspiracy to commit a felony either within or without the United Kingdom. The first reading of this bill was passed by a considerable majority. But, before the bill came on for a second reading, the language which was being used in France created strong resentment in England. The regiments of the French army sent addresses to the emperor congratulating him on his escape and violently denouncing the British people. Some of these addresses, which were published in the Moniteur, spoke of London as “an
