The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 3, 1860.

Mansfield, and the insubordination of the local troops, who,
he thought, had experienced hard measure. They had been
imbued with the conviction that justice was on their side.
The alleged foundation for this legislative measure was the
bad conduct of these troops ; but the papers hitherto fur-
nished did not bear out the plea. The house had been led
to believe that the whole of the local forte had disappeared,
and that, if continued, it must be re-created, but the re
rnaMing local troops numbered 17,000, and, in his opinion,
so large a European army as 80,000 men was not required
in India—that 50,000 or 60,000 would be sufficient. A most
important point was the constitutional question—the Horse
Guards question. He had no doubt that the prospect of a
largo amount of the military patronage had something to
do with the change that had come over tho Government.
In conclusion, he observed that, if the measure itself were
unexceptionable, the manner in which it had been intro-
duced would justify the house in rejecting it. He moved
that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. N. MILNES, in seconding the motion, condemned
the lust for centralisation which the measure of the Go-
vernment displayed, and expressed an opinion that the mere
correct course would have been the appointment of a select
committee before proceeding to legislate upon the subject.
Col. DUNNE said that so far as.the purpose of the bill
was to repeal the act which allowed the formation of a local
European force in India, he had no objection to it ; but
what he complained of was that the house had not been
informed of the amount of Royal forces to be employed in
India, nor by what means the two armies were to be united.
The reasons for introducing the bill were foreign to the ob-
ject in view, and so unfair to the existing local force, which
had conducted itself in a most heroic manner, that the house
ought to pause before they give it their consent.
Mr. AYRTON said now the papers were before the
house, which put the subject in the most clear, concise, and
full light, he could understand why Sir C. Wood had
ehanged his opinion. It had never been understood that
ho was formally to consult his Council; he had obtained
from them all the information he desired, but he had acted,
as it was intended he should act, upon his own responsi-
bility. The mode in which this measure was introduced
had been objected to; there should be a perfect scheme, it
was said ; but it was unnecessary for the house to have all

the details before it. Many objections to the proposed
change were founded upon more suppositions of some
wrong going to be perpetrated. He justified the change;
the conduct of the local troops, he contended, had been
mutinous, and evidence of their indiscipline was upon re-
cord. The change would operate no injury to the officers;
and as to the objection that officers could not be induced to
remain in India, he insisted that they would remain or re-

turn according to the inducements held out to them. He
believed that if the present system of a local service and a
general service were to go on for some years, the result
would be most injurious to the condition of the local offi-
cers, and that the proposed change would conduce to their
general interests. The bugbear of the Horse Guards had
been conjured up; but he did not believe in the power of
the Horse Guards to do all the mischief that was supposed.
It was very much at the command of the Secretary of State
for War, and in India, so far from its power being enhanced,
it would rather be diminished. He believed that the main-
tenance of a local force would raise up local prejudices and
local views, which would become paramount to other con-
siderations.

Mr. H. D. SEYMCUR admitted that a local European
force was an anomaly; but so also was our empire in
India. Who could tell, therefore, what might be the con-
sequences if these two anomalies were separated. He de-
precated the conduct of Sir C. Wood in setting the advice
of the Indian Council at nought, and condemned him in
strong terms for laying the papers upon the table in a
garbled and incomplete shape. His objection to the pro-
posed scheme was that it would have the effect of transfer-
ring the government of India from Calcutta to the Horse
Guards, and was opposed to the maxim upon which we had
always hitherto acted of governing India in that country
itself.

Mr. GREGSON commented upon the difference of opi-
nion which appeared to exist on the proposal to amalga-
mate the Queen's and the local army—gentlemen connected
with the former service taking a directly opposite view to
that entertained by those who were associated with the lat-
ter. Asking himself, then, the question "who shall decide
when doctors disagree ?" ho should give his support to the
measure propounded by the Government, thus constituting
the two armies one happy family, and putting an end to the
jealousies which had hitherto unfortunately prevailed be-
tween them.

Sir F. SMIT II vindicated the character of the local army
for discipline and gallantry, and denied that any jealousies
existed between the two services. If the scheme contem-
plated were carried out the efficiency of the regiments and
the position of the stations were objects that ought to re-
ceive the first care of the Government.

Col. SYKES denounced the Government proposal as re-
volutionary, and advocated the continuance of the present
military system in India, as that under which we had de-
feated all enemies, and built up our empire in that part of
the world.

Major PARKER, speaking from an experience of 17
years in the Indian army, said that the local European
force had always shown themselves ready to serve in any
part of the world, as was proved by the fact that they had
served in Java, Mauritius, and elsewhere, as well as in
Egypt, under Sir Ralph Abercrombie. The number of
European troops necessary for maintaining our Indian em-
pire had been very much e (aggerated. He thought that
by a judicious admixture of castes in the native army, and
requiring more vigilance on the part of the officers, the
number of European troops might be materially dimi-
nished.

Colonel NORTH supported the bill, and observed that
whilst he entertained no doubt respecting the gallantry of
the local European corps, he could not forget that gallantry
and discipline were very different things; and it was quite
clear to him that the men who had taken part in the late
mutinous proceedings were not to be relied upon.
Sir C. WOOD said he would be justified in considering
this as a continuation of the former debate. One reason
assigned for not agreeing to the second reading by one hon.
member was, that papers had been kept back which ought
to have been laid before the house. Now, as he had already
explained, these papers were not in his custody, but in the
hands of a gentleman of the highest honour, and who had
acted with the strictest impartiality. What he had before
stated on the subject was this—that he was unwilling to
depart from the policy of the late Government ; but the
events that had since occurred had placed the question in a
very different position from that in which it stood last year,
and he was sure that the course he now proposed was the
course to be pursued. He had hesitated long before ho had
come to any decision, but he felt sure that the decision he
had arrived at was the only one that could safely be pursued.
At present the highest authorities considered that not less
than 80,000 men should be retained in India. The measure,
ho repeated, did not affect the reorganisation of the Indian
army. Having defended himself from the charge of with-
holding, up to a certain period, private letters received
from Lord Clyde and other officials in India, on the ground
that they were confidential communications, and stated
that he made known their contents when he received per-
mission by telegraph to do so, the right hon. gentleman
referred to another point incidental to the main question
but on which considerable stress had been laid, namely,
his not having consulted the council, and not having pro-
duced the protests and the documents of the council. It
was quite true that he did not, before the decision of the
Cabinet, consult the council collectively, but he communi-
cated fully, freely, and frankly with them individually upon
the matter. The position ef the Secretary of State with a
council was a novelty in this country. He wished, there-
fore, to state clearly to the house what his understanding
was of the law which regulated the relations of the Secre-
tary of State and the council, and to explain why he did not
think that the protests, minutes, or memoranda of the
council, in the state in which they had been produced, could
be received. The Secretary for India could do no executive
act, except after communication with the council. He might
overrule them, but he must communicate with them. In
all other acts which another Secretary of State, say the
Secretary for the Colonies, could do by himself, the Secre-
tary for India must communicate with the council. Should
the majority of the council decide on any such question the
minority might then record their protests, or should the
Secretary of State overrule the whole council, then all or
any of them might record dissent. But to entitle them to
record a protest or dissent, some question must have been
proposed and discussed by the council. The words of the
23d clause of the act were, in his opinion, conclusive on that
point. But the question decided, in the present instance,
was a question decided by tie Cabinet, whether they should
introduce a bill for the reorganisation ef the Indian army.
It was not a question to be decided by the council, or upon
which the Secretary of State could act by himself, it was
not a question which could be brought before the council
for decision, and against the decisions of which the council
could protest. The late Government came to a decision
upon the subject of the Indian army, and his
noble friend
the late Secretary for India did not consult the council, and
he was right in not doing so. He (Sir C. Wood) did not
consult them in the official sense which would enable
them to record a protest, because ho did not think
they were entitled to be consulted in such a manner.
But on the 16th of May the Cabinet decided upon intro-
ducing the bill, and on the 17th of May he stated the fact
to themtembers ef the council. He said that according to
the constitution of the Indian Council no member of it was
entitled to register on the council book a protest againsta
resolution of the Queen's Government. But he subse-
quently offered to place the question before the council in
such a manner as would enable the members to record any
protest they might think fit. That opportunity they did
not avail themselves of, the opinion seemed to be that it was
too late, that they ought to have been consulted before. He
repeated his offer, pressed it upon their consideration, but