The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-08 00:00:00

tual change caused by the amalgamation would not be more

,han £119,000, and from this was to be deducted £20,000

per annum, the saving to be effected in maintaining a single
instead of a double staff. Statistical information which he
quoted showed that the health of the local troops was not
so good as that of the troops of the line. No stress there-
fore could be laid on the argument respecting health. Lord
Clyde's opinion was that it would be dangerous to the state
to maintain for the future a European local force in India.
That was the opinion of a man responsible for the conduct
of military affairs in India. Those who opposed the bill
attempted to show that the mutiny was merely a remon-
strance on the part of the local troops, but the hon. gentle-
man read the opinions of various military authorities, which
went to show that several of the local regiments had been
guilty of the grossest insubordination and mutinous conduct.
The officers of the local corps were usually employed in
one civil employment or another, instead of living with
their several regiments. There was no intention to inter-
fere with the rights of the officers. It was not true that
there were a great number of unemployed officers in Ben-
gal. Gentlemen talked as if there was jobbery in India.
The opinion of officers in India was, that the staff appoint-
ments depended upon interest, and did not arise from merit.
This measure was supported by Sir George Clarke, and
that gentleman was well known as the great advocate
of the rights and privileges of the natives of India, and he
would not be a supporter of the proposed alteration if he
thought it would be prejudicial to the natives of India. Sir
C. Trevelyan was also an advocate of the proposed altered
system, and these names were equal to those of Sir J. Law-
rence and Mr. Willoughby, who were quoted against the
plan before the house. The principle of amalgamation was
also supported by the hon. and gallant member for West-
minster—[Sir De L. Evans denied that he had done so.]—
The hon. and gallant member not only did so, but he se-
conded a motion of Sir E. Perry on the subject. He called
upon the house not to agree to the motion of the hon. mem-
ber (Sir J. Elphinstone), but to adopt the measure proposed
by the Government.

Sir DE L. EVANS said he had no recollection of having
done what had been stated by the hon. gentleman who last
addressed the house. He objected to the bill because it was
brought before the house without any papers to justify it.
The bill said that the local troops were to be got rid of, and
yet nothing was said in respect to the existing local artil-
lery in India, which was a most effective arm of the service
during the mutiny which broke out in that country. The
Governor-General, whose conduct in tins matter had been
consistent throughout, had always advocated the continu-
ance of a local force, but his opinion was overborne by the
Horse Guards. Then came the question of patronage. The
commissions given away by the Horse Guards amounted to
£1,570,000, and that patronage was under the control of the
Commander-in-Chief for the time being. It far exceeded
in amount anything of the kind in any Government of
Europe ; and now a system was proposed which would pro-
bably make it double the amount. He did not think it
wise or prudent to adopt such a system. (Hear.)
Sir H. VERNEY said the hon. gentleman defended the
Government proposal on the ground of the bad state of
discipline among the European troops. But this was no
proof of the badness of the system ; it only proved that the
system had not been properly worked. The officers of the
'Queen's Indian army went there to study the language and
customs of the people, and also how to take care of their
health and the health of their subordinates ; while the
officers of the Queen's army went out to India with the in-
tention of soon returning, and therefore did not apply
themselves to those necessary studies with the zeal and
assiduity which an officer would who went to India with
the intention of remaining there for life. He (Sir H.
Verney) was, therefore, opposed to the present proposal.
(Hear, hear.)
Colonel HERBERT said he on a former occasion stated
that when troops barricaded themselves in barracks and
took possession of guns,' that was mutiny, let other men
call it by what name they might. The hon. and gallant
colonel here read an extract from a document showing that
the local European force, when they resolved on the mutiny,
took especial care to conceal their designs from their
officers; and he added that it was well ascertained that the
artillery had determined to seize on the guns at Cawnpore.
His main objection to the local European force in India
was that it was a local force ; and, after what had occurred,
he hoped the house would give its assent to the bill, the
main object of which was to establish the Queen's army as
the ruling and preponderating force in India.
Mr. HORSMAN rose, he said, merely to enter his final
protest against passing this measure, which, when intro-
duced, proposed the maximum of change accompanied by
the minimum of inquiry and information, and ho com-
plained that Parliament had not been afforded an oppor-
tunity of forming an accurate judgment upon it. He ob-
jected to the bill, not for what it contained but for what
it omitted. There was nothing on the face of it which
showed what was the plan of the Government ; upon this
point the house had no information, and it ought
to have had it before passing the bill. Mr. Horsman
recapitulated the specific objections to tho measure, grounded
upon the expense of abolishing the local army, upon the
patronage that would be transferred to the Horse Guards,
and upon sanitary considerations ; and he contended that
all these questions should have been fairly submitted to
Parliament before so largo a change was proposed, and this
in opposition to the unanimous opinion of the Council of
India, who had considered it not only as a military, but in
a civil and political aspect.
Sir M. FARQUHAR contended that Mr. Baring had
not correctly represented the additional cost of a line army

in India.
After a few words from Mr. HADFIELD,
Sir C. WOOD, in answer to Mr. Horsman's complaint
of want of information, reminded the house that, when he
introduced this measure he gave an ample explanation of
the views of the Government, and that he had repeated
those explanations, and the reason why it was necessary to
take the opinion of the house upon this question. He de-
nied that the Government were in possession of all the
facts connected with the mutiny in August last year, when
he proposed to retain the local army. Circumstances were
subsequently changed, and with this change opinions al-
tered, and it was not thought safe to maintain a local army
in India. In reply to the various exceptions taken to the
measure, he entered very fully into its merits, admitting
that Indian authorities differed as to the expediency of
an amalgamation of the European army.
The amendment was then negatived, and the bill was
read a third time and passed.
MALT DUTY.

Upon the further consideration of the Customs Act re-
solution relative to the malt duty,
Sir P. KELLY said it was his desire that the resolution
as to the duty upon the importation of foreign malt should
be recommitted, with the view of moving that that duty
should be 265. per quarter instead of 258. Such an addi-
tion of ls. per quarter would, he contended, be doing jus-
tice to the manufacturers of malt in this country, and
would be quite consistent with the principles which the
Government caused to be adopted last night relative to the
importation of foreign paper. In France malt was only
made by brewers for the purposes of their business, and was
not manufactured as a separate branch of trade. The ques-
tion he wished to submit to the house was, whether, look-
ing to the amount of the Excise duty in this country, which
was 21s. Sd. per quarter, it was possible to increase the im-
port duty on foleign malt an additional shilling beyond that
proposed by the Government. If there were any doubt on
the subject he thought the Government should resolve in

favour of the trade-, the poor, and the labouring classes of
this country, who consumed so large a portion of the article
made from malt. The average price of barley was 425. per
quarter; the fair and exact average price of manufacture
into malt was 4s: per quarter, to which should be added the
further expense, 2s. Bd. per quarter, of transmission to
market, snaking a total of 48s. Bd. per quarter. The price
of barley was 25." less in Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark
than it was in England, while the expense of manufacture
of the article and its conveyance to this country would be
only 3s. 6d. The result would be that taking the price
of barley on the COntineut at 40s. a quarter, and the
expense of manufacture and of conveyance at 3s. 6d.
per quarter—foreign malt could be sent into this
country at
.ss. a quarter less than malt could
be sold by the English maltster. What, then, was the sur-
tax that ought to be added to the Excise duty to meet this
disadvantage on the part of the English manufacturer ? He '
thought that there ought to be an increase of at least Is. a
quarter added to the Excise duty over that proposed by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. and learned gen-
tleman then observed upon the great disadvantages to which
the English manufacturer was liable, not only as regarded
the manufacture of the article, but from the obligation to
which he was liable of paying the duty in the first instance,
and suggested that the Government were bound on every
ground to accede to his proposal to place the English manu-
facturer upon somewhat of a level with the foreign manu-
facturer. Owing to the restrictions at present imposed on
the British maltsters, they would be subjected to great n-
convenience and loss as compared with the foreign malt-
sters. The amount of that loss, owing to the mere delays
arising from the proposed arrangements would entail a loss
of 4s. a quarter. He hoped, therefore, that whatever prin-
ciples of free trade might be adopted, the Government would
take care that no injustice would be inflicted on our home
producers. Beer was one of the luxuries of the poor, and
for their sakes, as well as for the interests of the maltsters,
he hoped the Government would give the matter due con-
sideration. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by
moving that the resolutions as to the duty on foreign malt
be recommitted.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
were one or two points in the speech of the hon. and
learned gentleman which he (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) could not understand. He made an appeal to the
the house on behalf of the poor man as the universal con-
sumer of beer, and, strangely enough, he drew an argu-
ment from this in favour of raising the price of beer by
increasing the duty on that article. He then said the
matter was unimportant to producers in foreign countries,
as they would be few or none, but it was of vital import-
ance to producers in this country. But if the producers in
foreign countries would be few or none, where was the
use of talking about it (Hear, hear.) The article of
malt was within the view of the treaty with France. He
bell ved the maltsters of England had nothing to fear from
the proposal of her Majesty's Government, nor did he think
that the maltsters generally viewed the proposal with any
alarm. The trade was indigenots; it was coti,dtict9d 9A4 4