[Footnote 298:  318 to 173.]

[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; confer also a memorandum of the Prince Consort, ibid., p. 310.]

[Footnote 301:  Ibid., p. 106.]

[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 Life of Lord Clyde, ii., 407-416.]

[Footnote 303:  See ante, p. 385.]

[Footnote 304:  Stanhope’s “Life of Pitt,” i., 173.]

[Footnote 305:  Sir Theodore Martin quotes a passage from a letter of the Times correspondent, giving a report of the effect of the proclamation on the natives:  “Genuineness of Asiatic feeling is always a problem, but I have little doubt it is in this instance literally sincere.  The people understand an Empress, and did not understand the Company.  Moreover, they (I am speaking of the masses) have a very decided notion that the Queen has hanged the Company for offences ’which must have been very great,’ and that fact gives hope of future justice.”—­Life of the Prince Consort, iv., 337.]

[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.]