period he overruled Outram's objections to his own policy in dealing with the Taluqdárs in Oudh.
The last-mentioned affair, which might have cut short Canning's tenure of office, and which actually led to the retirement of a cabinet minister, was one of the most embarrassing incidents in Canning's career. It arose out of a proclamation which Canning deemed it advisable in the spring of 1858 to issue, as soon as the reconquest of Oudh should have been completed, regarding the treatment to be meted out to those who had been guilty of rebellion in that province. The proclamation declared among other things that with a few exceptions ‘the proprietary right in the soil of the province was confiscated by the British government, which would dispose of that right in such a manner as it might deem fitting.’ Canning regarded the proclamation as an indulgent one, seeing that it promised an exemption almost general from the penalties of death and imprisonment to Oudh chieftains and others who had joined in the rebellion. Lord Ellenborough, then president of the board of control, took a different view, and transmitted through the secret committee of the court of directors a despatch condemning the proclamation in language of unusual severity, as involving an unjustifiable departure from the course generally followed in dealing with a recently conquered nation. The language of the despatch, which had been issued without the knowledge of the cabinet, was generally disapproved in England, and provoked in both houses of parliament animated discussions, which would have led to the downfall of Lord Derby's government, had not Ellenborough, taking upon himself the entire responsibility of his act, retired from the cabinet. Canning, after having vindicated his policy in a dignified and masterly reply, in the course of which he observed that ‘no taunts or sarcasms, come from what quarter they might, would turn him from the path which he believed to be that of public duty,’ consented at the earnest request of the prime minister to retain his office.
In the course of the same year, 1858, Canning was called upon to give effect to the act of parliament which transferred the government of India from the East India Company to the crown. He thus became the first viceroy of India. In 1859 he was raised to an earldom. During the remaining years of his government, his duties, if less anxious, were scarcely less arduous than those which had weighed upon him during the mutiny. The reorganisation of the Indian army, the re-establishment of Indian finance, which had been seriously disarranged by the enormous expenditure entailed by the mutiny, the restoration of confidence in the minds of native chiefs, and reforms in the legislative and administrative system, which were embodied in the Indian Council's Act of 1861, were among the matters which chiefly engaged his attention during the last three years. He cordially supported Bishop Cotton's plans for educating the children of Eurasians and poor Europeans. He objected to the military policy of the home government. He deprecated the abolition of the system of raising British regiments for employment exclusively in India, holding that it was essential that the British force in India should be largely composed of regiments and batteries which could not be removed to meet an exigency in Europe. Regarding the native states, Canning attached great importance to the policy of securing and confirming the allegiance of the great chiefs. With this view he deemed it essential that the princes and people of India should be assured that the annexation policy was abandoned, and that the traditional custom of adoption would not in future be interfered with, and he caused ‘sunnuds,’ i.e. grants, to be issued to all the chiefs of a certain rank, sanctioning the right of adoption in terms which could not be misunderstood. One of the measures taken to restore the financial equilibrium—the imposition of an income-tax—was strenuously opposed by the governments of Madras and Bombay, and produced an official controversy, which was followed by the removal from office of the governor of Madras, Sir Charles Trevelyan, who had taken the extraordinary step, while the correspondence was in progress, of publishing in the local newspapers a minute condemning the policy of the government of India. Canning's action in this matter was mainly confined to supporting the policy of his financial advisers. Finance was not a subject with which he was specially conversant; but it is believed that while he condemned Trevelyan's insubordination, Canning did not consider his objections to the income-tax to be altogether destitute of force. The last months of Canning's stay in India were clouded by the death of his noble and singularly gifted wife, who was carried off by an attack of jungle fever in the latter part of 1861. His intense grief is vividly described by Bishop Cotton. Lady Canning's death was mourned throughout India by all who had been brought into contact with her. Canning retired in March 1862, much broken in health, and died in London on 17 June following. He had been made K.S.I. on the institution of the order in 1861, and K.G. a few weeks before his death. He left no issue, and his title consequently lapsed.
