The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-29 00:00:00

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

Sir R. PEEL gave notice that, on the motion for adjourn-
ment to-morrow, he would draw attention to the proposed
annexation of Sicily to Piedmont, and ask whether Govern-
ment would afford any information as to what might be the
demand of France in consequence thereof. He would also
ask whether any intimation had been conveyed to the Sar-
dinian Government that the unconstitutional policy pur-
sued by the King of Sardinia was viewed s ith disapproba-
tion by this country.
DESPATCH OF M. THOUVENEL.

Sir R. PEEL inquired of the noble lord the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs when the despatch of M. Thouvenel would
be submitted to the house.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the despatch alluded to
would be laid on the table in the course of next week.
EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. A. MILLS said it was most desirable that the ques•
tion raised with respect to this subject should be settled
The matter at issue between those favourable and those
opposed to this measure was whether they should continue
an ancient military machinery or not, and one that had
rendered essential service in moments of peril, and to
which this country was indebted for the dominion
of India, without providing any adequate substitute. The
abolition of this local military force, as proposed by
the bill, would have the effect of burdening the re-
venue of India with an annual impost of £200,000. It
should be recollected also that the mortality amongst
natives of this country was much greater during the
first five years of their residence in India than during sub-
sequent years, so that there was the strongest ground for
maintaining an acclimatised army. Having cited the
authority of several military writers in support of
his views, the hon. member proceeded to con-
tend that, on political grounds, the proposed alteration
was most inexpedient. They could not argue from
analogy in regard to India, because our relation with that
'country was altogether different to those with other coun-
tries. He admitted that a speedy settlement of this ques-
tion was of the first importance, and if ho thought this bill
would have that effect he would abandon his oppo-
sition, but he denied that it would produce such a result.
He considered this bill -was a hasty and ill-considered at-
tempt to determine a question that, fora considerable time,
had occupied the attention of those best ac-
quainted with the subject without any satisfactory
solution of the problem involved being obtained. He
repeated that the bill proposed to abolish one system with-
out the slightest substitute, and that it intended to violate
the rights and privileges guaranteed to the officers of the
Indian army by the 56th. 57th, and 58th sections of the
Indian Bill, passed in 1858. His firm conviction was that
this bill would do far more injury than any good it could
possibly effect, and he denounced it as a dangerous and
most unconstitutional measure. He concluded by moving
that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
Sir T. COLEBROKE said that if this question was one
that merely affected the organisation of troops in India he
would not have taken an active part in this debate, not-
withstanding that he was in favour of the maintenance of
a local army in India. He considered, however, that the
matter at issue was far more important, and was intimately
connected with the financial position of India, as well
as with the Indian patronage of this country. It involved
further Parliamentary and political interests whose import-
ance could not be exaggerated. If the question was merely
whether they should have a force composed solely of
royal troops in India, he admitted that he would be
in favour of such a proposition, but the measure did not
make any such proposition. He contended that, on the
ground of economy, it was most desirable to continue the
local force, because if they adopted a different course they
would have to maintain their home garrisons in this country
to enable them to afford the necessary military reliefs to
India. He strongly objected to the increased patronage
which the measure would confer on the military adminis-
tration. The bill in the outset proceeded on the principle
that it was necessary to maintain a European force of
80,000 men in India, in order to secure the tran-
quillity of that country, which was illustrated by
the recent mutiny of the native troops. Circumstances,
however, had led to that mutiny which were not likely
to occur again, as it was not to be supposed that
this country would repeat the folly of confiding too
largely to the local force, and that there would
be an efficient number of garrisons of British troops
maintained in India. However, there was a large margin
between the force in the garrisons at the time of the mutiny
and that increase now proposed. Besides the advance
in military science, and the extension of railways in India
rendered unnecessary the maintenance of so large a force as
that proposed. As to the causes of the mutiny Lord Clyde
and Sir James Outram respectively stated that the
grossest exaggerations of facts had been made ; under
those circumstances he (Sir T. Colbrooke) thought the
house were entitled to some further information before
they proceeded further with the bill. Although it was ad-
mitted that the discipline of the troops of the local force
was not, in some respect, equal to that of the troops of the
l'ne, yet that was an evil which could be remedied with-
outs applying this extreme measure. The gallant
gr.eral who was about to succeed Lord Clyde brought
Crge and sweeping charges against the whole army
of India, both the local forces and those of the line, and was
very severe both on officers and men; but, admitting the
correctness of his allegations, it was not likely that any ef-
fective remedy could be obtained by the proposed change.
hSiisr slita.tßemoseent
tadhaetathcanorediwdocidonmfd ebsseioan,girneatthdeebaelgoifnpnriinvgatoef
vi no tl evreeds
.t bro
Thereug h t
wt oe rbe e afdyors
__uwwr
aittshdhiet
ffor
Bee
urgreniantir.
ittdsehi
ei
all t
tthnahgeresayelp,
aai
,rtimr
ao
systems,idnerasaguse,naadinnneddr-
fßo
oumr
bd
ai different r en ct
The
criffinicuanit
one head. The events of the last few years showed the im-
possibility of uniting, under one head, all those forces. But
the experience of Sir Hugh Rose showed what could be
done by a local force. He commanded the Bombay column,
and with the assistance of that army he advanced from Bom-
bay into the territory of Bengal, and powerfully assisted in
suppressing the revolt in that part of the country. If with
these facts, so patent to him, he supported the proposal to
place all the forces under one system, implicit reliance
should not be placed on his opinion. The evidence of recent
events was quite opposed to such a proposal. Upon the
grounds he had stated he deprecated the change which the
Government proposed to make in the bill before the house.
Mr. J. G. BARING said with reference to the charge
which had been made against the Secretary of State for
India, of his not having consulted the Council of India, he

would observe that, in the papers which had been laid be-
fore the house, they would find the opinions which were ex-
pressed by the members of the council on the subject in
in question. He, therefore, regretted to hear what had been
said by an hon. member about the Council of India being a
mockery. (Hear, hear.) When the opinions of the coun-
cil had bee* given it mattered not in what way the opinions
were taken. The noble lord (Lord Stanley) who had
appointed the members of council, had pursued a similar
course to that which had been followed by the present Se •