i859-] Resignation of Aberdeen to Dissolution in 1859. 43 T India from the Company to the Crown. A debate lasting over three nights took place, and on the i8th, on a division, the House, by 318 to 173, decided that the bill should be brought in, and by this vote it sanctioned the proposed transfer of power. The change of government prevented the measure being proceeded with ; but it was not withdrawn, and the new ministers introduced a competing bill, which was called the " India Bill No. 2." Disraeli brought in the measure on the 26th of March, and it proved to be one of the most miserable jumbles ever submitted to Parliament. Ministers, it seemed, wanted or their Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted them to pose as the real friends of representative government, and they pro- ceeded to make the attempt in the usual fashion of beginners not to say pretenders. In talking about elective govern- ment for India, they had no thought of representing the two hundred millions of people who were to be governed ; but proposed that, of the new council to be constituted, five should be chosen by about 5000 persons who had been con- nected with the former government or army, or had been engaged in commercial or financial speculations in India, and five others by the Parliamentary constituencies of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Belfast In the debate which followed, Mr. Bright fairly characterized these pro- visions when he said it struck him that they might be called clap-trap. The fate of such an ill-conceived scheme was not long in doubt. On the evening when it was introduced the House adjourned for the Easter recess, and before the holidays were over it was generally known that the bill would be re- jected, and there was much anxiety in official and electioneer- ing coteries as to the probable result. The Whigs were not ready to take office, and members on both sides were anxious to avoid the cost and trouble of a general election. Yet the Indian Bill was absolutely inadmissable ; it could not even be mended. A method, however, was discovered out of the difficulty. Lord John Russell proposed that neither the Government bill nor that of Lord Palmerston should be pro-
