Queen Victoria, Gladstone and the Viceroyalty of India, 1893-1894
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Queen Victoria, Gladstone and the Viceroyalty of India, 1893-1894 It is a well-known fact that the victory of the Liberals in the elections of 1892 and the formation of the new administration under William Gladstone was a most disagreeable event for Queen Victoria. The relations between Queen and Prime Minister never rose above the cold formality that officialdom necessitated and, on more than one occasion, sharp exchanges of views between the two were to take place.1 Surpris- ingly little is known, however, of the last major disagreement which occurred just before Gladstone resigned the premiership in March 1894. It concerned a subject which had been the cause of the Queen's dis- pleasure in the previous year and had involved the Foreign Secretary, Lord Rosebery, and the Secretary of State for India, Lord Kimberley, as well.2 When the Conservative government of Lord Salisbury dissolved Parliament in June 1892, the Viceroy of India, Lord Lansdowne, who had been the Conservative appointee in 1889, was still due to serve almost another year before his term of office would end. At the first signs of the impending change of government at home, therefore, Lansdowne, whose political sympathies lay with the Conservatives, sounded the India Office about his desire to complete the full term even if the Liberals came into office.3 When it was quite certain, in mid-July, that there would be a Liberal government under Gladstone, Lansdowne expressed his profound regret to the out-going Secretary of State for India, Lord Cross, at what he described as 'a very serious misfortune' 1 The subject has been most recently treated by P. Stansky, Ambitions and Strategies. The struggle for leadership of the Liberal Party in the 1890's Oxford, 1964, and R. R. James, Lord Rosebery, London, 1962. 2 There is a fleeting reference to the problem of finding a successor to Lansdowne in most of the biographies and memoirs of the time, but only in G. E. Buckle's Letters of Queen Victoria, Third Series, London, 1926-32, is there any appreciation at all of the entire question. 3 Landsdowne to Arthur Godley (Permanent Under-Secretary at the India Office), 17 July 1892, Copy L[ansdowne] P[apers], MSS. Eur. D.558/VIII/IV, India Office Library, Commonwealth Relations Office, London. 175 176 J. CHANDBAN for India.4 But, although Cross's resignation was a 'most painful subject' to him, Lansdowne was much relieved to find that he was to be suc- ceeded by Kimberley with whom he had 'always been on good terms'.5 The new government did not, of course, make any attempt to recall Lansdowne in order to send one of its own men, and relations between the Viceroy and Kimberley were established on a fairly cordial footing. However, as early as October 1892, the new Secretary of State for India was deeply disturbed by the apparently energetic frontier policy of the Indian government and took the first opportunity to deprive it of one of its more expansionist supporters. The term of office of the Commander- in-Chief in India, General Roberts, had come to an end and Lansdowne had asked for it to be renewed; but Kimberley was determined that Roberts should not remain any longer in India as he was 'the powerful representative of a forward policy which has gone very far already and if it goes on, may involve us in serious dangers'. Kimberley suspected that Roberts had 'got command of the Indian frontier policy and carries the F.O. (Indian) and Lansdowne too much with him' and quietly asked the Secretary for War, Henry Campbell-Bannerman, to find 'some good military reason ... for not complying with his [Lansdowne's] request'.6 Later in the year, Kimberley again expressed his fears of the Indian government's frontier policy privately to Campbell-Bannerman and hoped that 'if we are in office when Lans- downe's term is over we can select a Viceroy, who is not a Jingo' and would be 'strong enough to counteract' the advocates of a forward policy at Calcutta.7 By mid-1893, there appears to have been some discussion among the leading members of the Cabinet about a possible successor to Lans- downe and on 3 August Gladstone wrote to Rosebery, who was about to go away to Homburg for a much needed rest after the troublesome Siam crisis had cooled down, that Lord Cromer, the British Consul- General in Egypt, was 'in the prospective' for the Indian appointment. As Gladstone put it, there seemed to be 'real difficulties about anybody else'.8 There is no evidence as to how Cromer's name came to be considered but, if he was Gladstone's own choice, it is quite likely that moving Cromer from Egypt to India was viewed by the veteran leader as a first step in reaching a settlement of the Egyptian question between Britain and France. However, even at this early stage, the Queen had already been in touch with the only member of the Cabinet who found favour with her, Rosebery, in order to urge the appointment of the 4 Lansdowne to Cross, 19 July 1892, Cfross] P[apers], MSS. Eur. E.243/32, India Office Library, Commonwealth Relations Office, London. 5 Lansdowne to Cross, 16 August 1892, CP, MSS. Eur. E.243/32. 6 Kimberley to Campbell-Bannerman, Private, 7 October 1892, C[ampbell]- B[annerman] P[apers], Add. MSS. 41221, British Museum, London. 7 Kimberley to Campbell-Bannerman, undated, (probably December 1892), C-B P, Add. MSS. 41221. 8 Gladstone to Rosebery, 3 August 1893, Copy G[ladstone] P[apers], Add. MSS. 44290, British Museum, London. VICTORIA, GLADSTONE & THE INDIAN VICEROY ALTY, 1893-4 177 First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Spencer. Indeed, on 4 August, Rosebery reported to the Queen that he had had a confidential con- versation with Spencer who would 'in all probability refuse the Vice- royalty'. While Rosebery admitted that Spencer 'would be incomparably the best Viceroy available' his going away would be 'irreparable to his colleagues'. Apparently, Rosebery and the Queen had also dis- cussed the possible appointment of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Herschell, for Rosebery stated in the same letter that there was no hope of his accepting.9 On 8 August the Cabinet had a preliminary discussion of the subject at the invitation of Kimberley and various names were presumably mentioned as possible successors to Lansdowne.10 It was at this point that the Queen, obviously disturbed by the difficulty of finding a suitable candidate, appears to have made the somewhat startling proposal to Rosebery that he might himself consider taking up the attractive and prestigious post in India.11 The Foreign Secretary, who had reluctantly joined the Cabinet after being persuaded by, among others, the Prince of Wales, replied from Homburg, however, that although he was 'grati- fied' by the royal suggestion it was 'not difficult for him to abandon any idea of relinquishing his present post'. He declared that he took 'the strongest possible dislike to the office of Viceroy when he perceived its character in India' and, in any event, it 'was not likely' that he would have been offered the post.12 Kimberley had, in the meantime, made some progress in finding a candidate for, on 9 August, he informed Gladstone that both Godley and Sir Donald Stewart, a member of the India Council and former Commander-in-Chief of India, spoke well of Sir Henry Norman, the Governor of Queensland.13 Most of Norman's experience had been in the army in India, where he had risen to become the military member of the council of the Governor-General but had resigned in 1877 because of his disagreement with Lord Lytton's forward policy. He returned to England and became a member of the Council of India until 1883. Then he was appointed Governor of Jamaica where he served for five years before accepting the Governorship of Queensland.14 9 Rosebery to the Queen, 4 August 1893, [G. E. Buckle, ed., The L]etters of] Q[ueen] Victoria, Third Series, Vol. Ill, London, 1932], p. 294. Gladstone to the Queen, 4 August 1893, R[oyal] A[rchives], Windsor Castle, D.42/122. Material from the Royal Archives is quoted by gracious permis- sion of Her Majesty the Queen. I would also like to acknowledge my gratitude to the Registrar and her staff for their assistance. 11 The evidence is not altogether conclusive in this respect as the Queen's letter to Rosebery could not be traced. The following is, however, suggestive: 'Kimberley came in something like despair about a Viceroy. I said, "You know, if I am fit and if there is no one else, I would go rather than see the place jobbed away". K. "Nonsense, if you go, the Government will go too." I. "Then let us all take cabins".' Cited in The marquess of Crewe, Lord Rosebery, London, 1931, II, 434. 12 Rosebery (Homburg) to the Queen, 9 August 1893, RA, N.48/232. 13 Kimberley to Gladstone, 9 August 1893, GP, Add. MSS. 44229. 14 Dictionary of National Biography, Supplement, January 1901-December 1911, ed. Sir Sydney Lee, London, 1951, p. 23. 178 J. CHANDBAN His name had obviously been raised at the Cabinet on 8 August and was not Kimberley's own choice as he told Gladstone that he would have preferred some eminent politician from home.13 Consequently, Rosebery, who had missed the Cabinet, did not have any real cause for concern though he had written to Gladstone on 10 August that he would 'earnestly deprecate any idea of appointing Lord Cromer' as it would 'be scarcely possible to continue any policy in Egypt' without him.