The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-22 00:00:00

o the interference by the Ordnance with the fisheries in
[reland.

IRISH BILLS.

In reply to an Hox. MEMBER,
Mr. CARDWELL said that if the adjourned debate were
over early, he proposed to proceed this evening with the
Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, and the County Prisons (Ire-
land) Bill.

SAVOY AND NICE.
Sir R. PEEL—I really must complain of the disgracernl
way in which the Government is shirking the responsibility
attaching to them on foreign questions. The noble lord the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs said the other evening that he
would give an answer respecting the despatch from M.
Thouvenel, but neither the Foreign Secretary nor yet the
Prime Minister is in his place to answer the question of
which the hon. baronet the member for Carlow gave notice.
This is really a very lax and improper way to treat the
House of Commons and the public on subjects of immense
importance. (Hear, hear.) The Government seems to
think that because the Emperor Louis Napoleon has chosen,
in spite of the most solemn engagements, to annex the pm.
vinces of Nice and Savoy, the ruatt..r is at an end. But
wish to know from some member on the Treasury bench
when we may export to hear some expression of opinion
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the noble lord at
the head of the Government, because I happen to know
that a despatch has been received, and the noble lord dis-
tinctly stated that he would to-night give some assurance
respecting its contents.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—What I understood my noble friend
the Foreign Secretary to say was that when the despatch
was received he would communicate its contents to the
house. lam not aware that the despatch has been received,
and therefore I do not see that he could have been expected
to attend merely on the chance that my hon. friend, or some
other person, would put a question, of which no notice what-
ever has been given, on a subject of such great importance.
I really do think the severe censure which my hon. friend
has bestowed on the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment and the noble lord the Secretary fer Foreign Affairs
has been, quite undeserved.
Sir R. PEEL—Allow me to explain. The noble lord
said distinctly he was expecting an answer from M. Thou-
venel, and in this day's paper it is stated—(" Order
Sir John Acton has given notice of a motion, and has been
treated in the same way. It is really too bad ; the thing
has occurred 20 times.
Lord J. MANNERS—The right hon. gentleman is in
error in supposing that no notice was given to the noble
lord. (Hear.) The hon. member for Carlow placed on the
paper a question which he wished to address to the Foreign
Secretary.
Sir G. G. LEWIS—What I said was that no notice of
this question was given to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Sir R. PEEL—The other day I gave notice.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—I am quite aware that notice of a
question on a different subject has been given ; but the com-
plaint made was that the noble lord is not here to answer
the question put by the hon. member.
EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA).
The adjourned debate on this question was resumed by
Lord STANLEY, who said, in rising to speak on the
subject of the Indian army, I would, in the first place, as-
sure the house, and it is certainly not necessary for me to
assure my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for
India, that nothing is further from my ideas, or, I hope,
the habits of my political life, than to come forward in op-
position to a measure proposed by the Government simply
because I happen to sit on this side of the house—(cheers)
—or because the plan which he has introduced is different
in many respects from that which I myself intended 12
mouths ago to propose. I know, probably better than most
members of this house, what are the difficulties of Indian
administration in the present day ; and I know also how
great is the intricacy and perplexity of this particular ques-
tion, involving as it does a vast variety of consi lerationf,,
both political and military. And I will readily r.d-
mit, also, that, although the permanent interest affor,ted
and the principles involved are the same new as they
were at the time when I was responsible for the conduct
of Indian affairs, still, as far as the immediate facility
of dealing with this question is concerned, the events of
the last twelve months have made some difference. Hold-
ing that opinion, if I could have agreed—if I
could even have acquiesced in the principle of the bill
which my right hon. friend has introduced, I certainly
should not have been withheld from doing so by any
wish to maintain appearance of consistency with the opi-
nions which I endeavoured to promote last year; the only
consistency in such a case that I should value would be a
consistent determination at every time to do that which,
under the circumstances of the moment, was most for the
interests of the empire. (Hear.) But, having been for some
months responsible for the settlement of this question, hav-
ing been a member of the Indian Army Commission of 1858,
having during the last two or three years ascertained either
orally or from written documents what is the opinion of
almost all those who are competent to form a judgment, I
think it would be not merely showing a want of earnestness
and candour, but it would be an act of political cowardice in
me if I were now from any motive whatever to hesitate to
express the opinions which I honestly entertain (Hear.) I
do not think it is an unreasonable proceeding to support an
opinion which I formed on taking office, and which in office
I endeavoured to carry out, and I do not think it is unrea-
sonable to endeavour at least to secure in this house a fair
and full consideration for opinions which are entertained by
the Governor-General of India, and by men so conversant
with Indian affairs as Sir J. Lawrence, and Sir J. Outram,
and which are shared in by the whole of the permanent In-
dian Administration in this country. (Hear.) Before I en-
deavour to state what this question is, perhaps the house
will allow me to mention in a few words what it is not,
and what it is popularly supposed to be. My right hon.
friend, while admitting for him the unpleasant fact that

the members of his council were unanimous in their oppo-
sition to this plan, threw out a hint that it was not within
their department. Ido not quite understand the meaning
of that phrase as applied to the Council for India, be-
cause they have no power in connection with military ad-
ministration, except that of giving advice to the Secre-
tary of State, which he may either take or reject. But,
whatever may be the meaning of my right hon. friend,
it is undoubtedly an idea commonly entertained out of
doors as well as to some extent in this house, that the
point at issue in dealing with this question is a contest be-
tween the Military Department and the Indian Adminis-
tration, in which the subject of patronage is involved. Now,
this is, in my opinion, entirely a mistake. The question of
patronage and that of organization are altogether distinct,
and if the house should think it desirable that that which
was recommended in the first instance by Sir J. Lawrence,
and which subsequently received the sanction of the noble
lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in a debate in this
house two years ago—namely, to open altogether to com-
petition first, appointments in those local India regiments
—should be carried into effect, the proposition is one which
it appears to me might just as easily be acted upon, even
though no change in the organization of the Indian army
took place; as if the plan for amalgamation were realized.
If, upon the other hand, the house should, upon grounds of
general policy, deem it expedient that the two armies should
be amalgamated, and should be of opinion that, considering
the Indian Administration pays for the maintenance of the
existing local troops, it ought to have some voice in the first
instance, in the appointment of officers, it would be quite
easy to retain the patronage of which I am speaking in the
hands in which it is at present placed, while in all other
respects the fusion of the local with the Queen's troops
might be complete. I am not recommending that plan,
although I believe it has been entertained. All I would
add with reference to the question of patronage and amal-
gamation is that, whatever opinion may have been pro-
nounced with respect to it by the Indian authorities, that
opinion is one which is wholly free front all suspicion of
being dictated by personal motives. (Hear, hear.) I
have alluded to one of the prejudices which exist on this
subject, but there is a second—for I cannot call it anything
else but a prejudice—which is sometimes openly put for-
ward, but which more frequently underlies men's thoughts
than it appears upon the surface, and which is in favour
of the maintenance of a single as opposed to a double army.
We are repeatedly told that it is an " anomaly"—that
is the word used—to keep up a separate military orga-
niza+ion under the same power, and subject to the same
authority, on the part of Parliament. We in England,
however, are broken in to anomalies, whether we like there
or not ; but, if there be any anomaly in the case, it is not
the maintenance in India of a specially Indian army, but
our tenure of India itself. In the present instance, how-
ever, the house must bear in niud that we have no prece-
dent and no parallel to guide us. You cannot reason from
the case of a colony as to the decision at which you ought
to arrive ; for India is not a colony in the ordinary sense of
tphreevwinoered.; ilttismnaoyt
maesreettalpepmreenptri;atiet.iyc_aune dheasridgnlya
own I
law am
laws,
bteedcanalleedma-
paNivrearienhitasselhf,eeanitheaoyllhedthate. aplpnedlila sse isatpwenssoene whichr
s
he
her ownfinances, and her own system of civil administration.
She maintains an armed force
numbering no less than
300,000 m, n, and of two anomalies it is surely the less that
that force should stand apart
than that it should be made a
portion of another force, which is separated from it by a
distance of half the globe, and which in point of number is
greatly inferior. Now, the plan which my right hon. friend
proposesits
simplest p ut
ftehrem issueand onßothfiasr,
questionno doubt,o famalgamation
mayb
econ-
veniently
in
discussed by the house. This disadvantage, how-
ever, attends upon the proposal of my right hon. friend,.
that we have not before us—at least not in a shape which.
.would enable us to come to any decision with respect to
AT-the scheme by which he proposes to carry his
object into effect. (Hear, hear.) He asks us simply
to declare that no further recruiting shall take place
for the local army in India a proposition which is
almost equivalent to an abstract resolution that the main-
tenance of such army is inexpedient. But, while my right
hon. friend asks us to pledge ourselves to that extent, ho
dues not call upon us to come to a decision as to what we are
to substitute for the existing system. (Hear, hear.) If we
take the plan of amalgamation proposed by Sir W. Mans-
field, or any other person conversant with the subject, ant
endeavour to point out the difficulties inherent in io, my
right hon. friend would very fairly tell us that that was not
his scheme. *Well, wo ask you, what is your scheme ? My
right hon. friend answers,---‘, I am not calling lap= you to
decide ur on the details of any scheme ; all I seek at your
hands, is to a Lynn the principle, that a local apaly in India