The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-14 00:00:00

cheated in the dark, buVour clever nomista do it
more openly—in bro, daylight—and take due
credit for the frank legerdemain of the way they do
it. After some sparring between Gen. PEEL and Sir
G. C. LEWIS as to details, Lord ROBERT CECIL said

that Prussia had published an authorised state-

ment, and according to that statement the facts were

as follows :—ln England the cost of each soldier was

£93 15s. ; in France, £34 7s. ; in Sardinia, £3O.

But here:he was interrupted by Sir G. C. LEWIS,

who said that the amount of £93 was obtained by

dividing the total number of the at my by the total
cost, and if the foreign estimates were not map on
the same principle as the English estimates, which
included the yeomanry, militia, half-pay, and other
matters, there would be no analogy between them.
This interruption but served to stimulate the in-
quisitor into the comparative cost with other states
and the noble lord proceeded, hoping he would
satisfy the Secretary for War that there was

the closest analogy between them. He con-
tinued his quotation from his German autho•
rity. In Spain the cost' of each soldier was
£2B 135., in Portugal £2B ls., in the German
States LlB 12s, in Denmark 12 guineas. Now,
he meant this statement merely as an introduc-
tion to further inquiries. He confessed when he
saw it he was much startled. Well, there had been

added to the library of the House a valuable contri-
bution in the shape of the French blue book, which

enabled them to go into all the details connected
with this important subject. He would first give

,he total cost of the two regular armies, and he

would afterwards give them the net cost. The
number of the English army was 148,242 men, and
the total cost £13,157,000, being a proportion of
about £BB a man. The number of the French army

was 400,000 men, and their total cost £14,515,702,
being a proportion of £36 bs. 10d. per man. Now,
that cost was calculated upon precisely the same
series of charges as those of the British army. He
knew he should here be met by the argument of

the conscription which existed in the French
army. That no doubt was a most important

consideration, for the services of the volunteer
could not be secured at the same price as the
pressed man. It was equally true that the French
army occupied a different position to that of ours,

for in France it was the greatest power in the
state, and upon it the crown actually rested. But
he would remove that objection as to the conscrip-
tion by ascertaining what were precisely the non-
combatant forces of both armies. There were the
fighters and the non fighters—the element that
fought and the elements
.that wrote and manu-
factured. There was a very large number of men
provided for in the right hon. gentleman's estimate
who could not in any form be raised by conscrip-
tion, and a reference to whom in comparison with
the same classes in France was both fair and just.

The noble lord found that the cost of the coin
batant and non-combatant force of the British
army was £29 10s., while that of the French
(400,000 men) was but £9 14s. 2d., in other words the
English soldier cost two and a half as much as the
French soldier, and in the non-combatant force each
man in England cost three times as much as the
man in a similar position in France. Why, the
difference between the cost of the two forces was
equal to threepence in the pound in the income
tax. The difference in the cost of the central ad-
ministrations of the two countries was still more
startling. The cost in England for 148,000 men
was £182,000; the cost in France for 400,000
men was £76,000. The proportion per man in
England was £1 4s. Bd.; in France, 3s. 10s. In
other words, we actually paid six times as much as
the French. If we could administer the English
system as cheaply as the French, the present vote,
instead of being £182,000, would be £28,000. Then
as to .the number of employes in the War Office,
omitting the offices of the adjutant general and the
quartermaster general, the number in England
was 665 ;in France, 480. But what were they
paid ? In the English offices there were receiving
more than £2,000 three persons, in the French only
one; receiving more than £l,OOO and less than
£2,000, in the English office 12, in the French
office not one ; between £5OO and £l,OOO, in the
English office 57, in the French 7. And the
French office was for 400,000 men ; the English for
148,000 men. No doubt the right hon. gentleman
opposite would reply that the circumstances
of the two countries were unlike. He might
say that intellectual wages in England were higher
than those in France. That was true enough,
tut it was generally admitted that whereas English-
men were paid twice as much as Frenchmen one
Englishman would do the work of three Frenchmen.
But the peculiarity of the English War Office was
that the clerks were paid twice as much as the
French clerks for a third of the work. To all this
and more Sir 0, C. LEWIS made but a very ineffec-
tive answer. Other members took part in the de-
bate, which ended, as all debates on the Estimates
terminate, in the votes being carried, although there
was a very close division, there being only a majority
of 6in favour-71 for, and 65 for the amendment.

Another of our veteran heroes has passed from
among us—Sir JAMES OUTRAM is no more. The
" BAYARD of India," the daring, high-spirited sol-
dier whose sword knew no stain, and whose honour
no blemish, has sunk under the toils and hardships
of his laborious life, just as he had returned to enjoy
the repose so hardly earned, and to receive the
tokens of admiration and esteem his countrymen
hastened to bestow upon him. The son of a civil
engineer, without rank or fortune or influence, Sir
JAMES OUTRAM has added another name to that
long list of self-made men which is among Eng-
land's chiefest glories. His career in India opened
in 1819, when he entered the 23d Bombay Corps
as a cadet, but his courage and intelligence soon
obtained notice in those stirring times, and he was
appointed lieutenant and adjutant to the Bheel troops.
This post he fired with signal efficiency, indeed his
views of our rights and duties as rulers of India
always placed him on a favourable footing with the
natives. From 1835 to 1838 he was employed in
the Mahee Kanta, a task for which his judgment,
skill, and energy especially fitted him. Afterwards,
appointed aide-de-eamp to General Sir JOHN
KEANE, he distinguished himself greatly in the
first Affghan war. In the course of it he volun-
teered to take despatches through Kelat and the
west, which dangerous undertaking he safely ac-
complished in the disguise of a native horsedealer.
His whole career, indeed, was replete with similar
exploits, alternating with a sagacity and rnodera-
iori in the council chamber not always belonging
to the intrepid soldier. Into the unhappy diffe-

rences between him and another general, of whom
England may justly be proud, it is needless now
to enter. Both have gone to their rest,
regretted and honoured by their countrymen, and
to renew the discussion between them would be an
ungracious and unnecessary task. It is enough to
say tbat Sir JAMES OUTRAM continued to maintain
his opinions with consistency throughout his whole
career, and in successively filing the posts of poli-
tical agent at Guzerat, commissioner in Upper
S3inde, and resident at Sattara, Baroda, and Luck-
now, he succeeded in inspiring the more worthy
natives with friendship and confidence. At Barodu
he turned his energiee., to the ret:lrmation of the 'greet
evils existing in its administration, and the sys-