[Footnote 299: The whole bill is given in the 'Annual Register' for the year 1858, p. 226.]
[Footnote 300: See her letter to Lord Derby on the subject, given in the 'Life of the Prince Consort,' iv., 308;
[Footnote 301:
[Footnote 302: It should be remarked that the arrangement originally carried out awoke among the European troops of the Company so deep and general a spirit of discontent as at one time threatened to break out in open mutiny; the ground of their dissatisfaction being 'the transfer of their services in virtue of an act of Parliament, but without their consent.' Accordingly, 'on the announcement of the proclamation transferring the possessions of the East India Company to the crown, some of the soldiers of the Company's European force set up a claim for a free discharge or a bounty on re-enlistment.' Lord Clyde's recommendation 'that a concession should be made' was overruled by the government of India, and 'pronounced inadmissible by the law-officers of the crown' in England. The dissatisfaction was allayed for the time by the judicious measures, equally conciliatory and firm, adopted by Lord Clyde, in whom all ranks of both armies felt equal confidence; but eventually the government became convinced of the necessity of granting discharges to every man who wished for one, provided he had not misconducted himself.-Shadwell's
[Footnote 303: See
[Footnote 304: Stanhope's 'Life of Pitt,' i., 173.]
[Footnote 305: Sir Theodore Martin quotes a passage from a letter of the
[Footnote 306: The 'Annual Register' says that 'neither the Emperor nor the Empress was touched;' but Sir Theodore Martin ('Life of the Prince Consort,' iv., 155) says that 'the Emperor's nose was grazed, and that the Empress received a blow on the left eye which affected it for some time.']
[Footnote 307: 'Life of the Prince Consort,' iv., 156.]
[Footnote 308: Speech of Lord Palmerston, February 19.]
[Footnote 309: It is remarkable that it was not a very full House, the numbers of the division being only 234 to 215. Many members absented themselves, being equally unwilling to condemn the bill or to approve the silence of the ministry.]
[Footnote 310: 268 to 39.]
[Footnote 311: 'Life of the Prince Consort,' v., 131.]
[Footnote 312: 'Life of the Prince Consort,' i., 99.]
[Footnote 313: Chapter II., p. 54.]
[Footnote 314: It is known, from two letters from Lord Palmerston to the Queen, published in the 'Life of the Prince Consort,' v., 100-in one, written before the debate in the House of Lords, he expresses a hope that the smallness of the majority in the House of Commons will encourage the Lords to throw it out, and he 'is bound in duty to say that, if they do so, they will perform a good public service;' and in another, the day after the division in the Lords, he writes again 'that they have done a right and useful thing,' adding that the feeling of the public was so strong against the measure, that those in the gallery of the House are said to have joined in the cheers which broke out when the numbers were announced.]
[Footnote 315: 433 to 36.]
[Footnote 316: See the proceedings of 1700 (Macaulay, 'History of England,' v., 278; and of 1704, Lord Stanhope's 'Reign of Queen Anne,' p. 168). The Whig and the Tory writer equally condemn the 'Tackers.']
[Footnote 317: In the debate on life peerages ('Parliamentary History,' cxl., 356), Lord Grey spoke of 'that great transfer of political power from one class to another which was accomplished by the Reform Bill' And Lord Campbell, speaking of Lord Grey himself in connection with that measure, says: 'His Reform Bill ought to place him in a temple of British worthies by the side of Lord Somers, for it wisely remodelled the constitution, and it is hardly less important than the Bill of Rights.'-
[Footnote 318: A recent writer, professedly belonging to the Radical party, claims for it the credit of 'being the legitimate issue of the Reform Bill of 1832.' ('The State of Parties,' by J.E. Kebbel,
