Further, though John Lawrence has a commanding position, he is not yet in sole command of the Punjab administration. It is necessary to recount the circumstances whereby he came to be vested locally with that single and individual authority which he wielded with immense effect, during the crisis to be described hereafter.
It has been seen, then, that the Board of Administration for the Punjab was constituted by Lord Dalhousie in March, 1849. Henry Lawrence was President of the Board, and John was his colleague. A third member was also appointed, but after a short time he went away. The successor was Robert Montgomery, who had been the schoolfellow of the two Lawrences at Foyle College and a friend to them both equally. He was the one man in whom each of them would confide, when they differed with one another. Henry would, in his differences with John, open his heart to Montgomery. John too would speak of Montgomery as his bhai or brother. In addition to sterner qualities, the signal display of which will be seen hereafter, Montgomery possessed all those qualities which are needed for a peacemaker and mediator. His position at the Board, then, in conjunction with the two Lawrences was most fortunate. He had the art of making business move smoothly, rapidly and pleasantly. For the two brothers did, as will be explained presently, differ not privately nor fraternally but officially. When differences arise between two such eminent persons as these, each of them must naturally have his own adherents, especially as Henry was a military Officer in Staff employ and John a Covenanted Civil Servant, or in simpler phrase the former was a soldier and the latter a civilian. Consequently something like party spirit arose which never was very acute and which has perhaps, under the influence of time, died away. To attempt any description of Henry Lawrence here would be to travel beyond the purpose of this book. But he cannot, even here, be wholly dissociated from the present account of John’s career. In order to avoid the semblance of passing over or disparaging Henry, it may suffice now to state briefly and summarily what he was in 1849, and what he continued to be up to his untimely and lamented death in 1857. This may preferably be done now, before the necessity arrives for explaining the difference (respecting certain public affairs only) which arose between him and his brother.