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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 29, 1860.

the better government of New Zealand, and for the =zap-
ment of the crown lands.
The bill was read a first time.
REPORT OF THE FORTIFICATIONS COMMIS-
SION.

The Earl of DERBY repeated a question which he had
put on a former evening, as to the course which the Go-
vernment meant to take in pursuance of the recommenda-
tions of the commission on fortifications. He hoped that
the noble earl (Granville) would be prepared by to-morrow
or by Monday at the latest, to inform the house whether
it was the intention of the Government to bring forward
any measure in connection with that subject during the
present session, more especially as regarded the security of
oux naval dockyards and arenal,i., also when tlle 374t4;30-
for that purpose would laia t)etite thu other

•
Bari G RAN VILLE said he had stated on the former
occasion that he was not aware of the course proposed to be
taken by the Government in the other house ; but he woull
make a point of ascertaining; and he hoped that by the be-
ginning of next week he should be able to give an answer
to the noble earl's question.

The house adjouined at teu minutes after 7 o'clock.

ITOIJSE OF COMMONS.--(YESTERDAY.)
The SHARER took the chair at four o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. GETTY took the daths and his seat for Belfast.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the Leeds Township Bill were
considered and agreed to, and the bill was ordered for third
reading.
The amendments to the following bills were considered
and agreed to :—Mid Wales Railway ; Newcastle-upon-
Tyne and Carlisle Railway, and Port Carlisle Dock and
Railway, and Carlisle and Silloth Bay Railway and Dock
Companies; Stockport, Disley, and Whaley Bridge Rail-
way.

The gilkenny Junction Railway Bill was read a third
time and passed.

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the Sunday
Trading Bill, in favour of the Census Bill, against the
clause requiring declaration of religious profession in the
latter bill, against the Highways Bill, in favour of amend-
ment of the Poor Laws, &c.

VESSELS, TONNAGE, &c.

Mr. HORSFALL moved for a return showing the num-
ber of vessels and tonnage entered inwards and cleared
outwards at each of the twelve principal ports of the United
Kingdom; also, the official and declared value of imports,
for each of the said ports, during the year 1858 (in con-
tinuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 173, of Session 2,
1859.) —0 rdered.
THE PAUPER MARY CARTER.

Mr. LANIGAN moved an address for copies of a letter
(and its enclosures) addressed by the Under Secretary of
State for the Home Department, on the 19th day of June,
1860, to two justices of the St. Pancras division, respecting
the removal of Mary Carter from the parish ofikt,T4lncras
to Ireland, and of the reply from the clerks to the Atid jus-
tices.—Ordered.

cretary of State, so that two successive ministers had acted
towards the council in a similar manner. (Hear, hear.) It
therefore should be known that no formal resolution of the
Council of India was necessary. Another objection which
had been made was against the way in which the bill was
brought in. Now, he (Mr. J. G. Baring) was of opinion
that it was more respectful to the house to bring in the bill
first, and then go into the consideration of the details. Then
there was the objection that the plan proposed by the Go-
vernment would cut off_ thethe supply of officers for the mili-
tary, civil, and other occupations. He was at a loss to un-
derstand upon what ground that objection was taken, as he
could state the authority of Sir Patrick Grant and other
Officers who had a real knowledge of the qualitications ne-
-6;46Qy for oitleers serving. in India, that there would be no
difficulty in getting officers from the line well qualified for
the various duties for which they would be required. (Hear,
hear.) He thought there could be no career which held out
greatsr inducements to an ambitious young man than the
service in question. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member then
cited:the instance of Sir Herbert Edwards, who had himself
raised levies and commanded them, and afte' referring to
other instances, he asked whether young men would not be
glad to have opportunities of distinguishing themselves as
Edwards had done. (Hear.) There were ahout 2,500 offi-
cers in the local army of liengal, and of these about 1,000
held civil and other appointments, while only about 150 offi-
cers of the line held such appointments, but not one of them
.
was a civil appointment of any impoTtence. He thought
that the officers of the local Bongal army had a right to
those appointments; but what he wished to say was tllat
at present these inducements did not exist for the line. As to
the training of officers he had the authority of Si.r Thomas
Munro and Sir C. Napier, and other officers, for saying that
the essential thing was that an officer for India should
have his training in an European regiment in India. Now
when officers had received that training they would then
have to study the native language of India. There was
scarcely an officer there who did not study the native
language, and none would be put upon staff appointments
till they had passed an examination in the native language.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Taunton (Mr. Mills)
asked why they should change the system, which hal not
failed ; but gentlemen who made such statements could not
have read the evidence which was taken before the com-
mission in which the 'present mode of appointing staff
officers was condemned. (Hear.) Tho officers to be con-
nected with the future Indian army would be selected for
their talents, and its organisation the same in every respect
as that adopted at home. It was urged against the bill that
it would diminish the power of the Governor-General of
India, but that was a mistake. The Governor-General at
present had nothing to do with the appointments in the
army. He stood in the same relation to India as the Crown
did in this country. He controlled the expenditure, had
the power of appointing commanders in certain districts,
but all that would remain the same as it did at the present
moment. The staff appointments would be made in India.
The Commander in-Chief in this country will have no
power to appoint generals of brigade, and only ten divi
sional generals would be placed at his disposal. At pre-
sent a double staff had to be kept up in that country, but
when the new regulations proposed by the bill came into
force, the adjutant-general would be appointed in this
country, and the quartermaster found in India.
The Horse Guards would not, as it was said, have an
unlimited patronage placed at its disposal, because, as
he already said, the Government of India would alone-
decide upon these questions. The authority of Lord Corn
wallis was quoted against the proposed amalgamation of
the India with the Queen's army, but the opinion so given
was promulgated after the short experience of a few months,
for that nobleman arrived in India in the autumn of 1786,
and the minute quoted was dated in the early part of 1787.
But in 1790, when he acquired a great deal of Indian e pe-
rience, he proposed the plan now proposed, and would have
gone out to carry it into effect as Governor-General of India
had not the then Court of Directors interfered and prevented
his appointment. Sir John Shawe, afterwards Lord Tyne-
mouth, another eminent Indian authority, was of the same
opinion, that European troops serving in India should be
relieved after a very few years. The principle of the bill
was that European troops should be managed on European
principles, and Indian troops according to the custom of In-
dia. The additional expense would only be about £114,000,
from which they must deduct the expense now incurred of
a double staff amounting to £20,000 a-year, and he need
hardly say that if they could secure an efficient force in a
country like India, with a revenue of £38,000,000, a few
thousand pounds additional ought not to make any differ-
ence.

Mr. H. BAILLIE reminded the house that the Govern-
ment took 12 months to consider the present measure, and
afterwards produced a very imperfect plan, and had not
as yet decided on the details. The measure proposed was
one fraught with the most galling injustice to the officers
of the Indian army. He (Mr. Baillie) believed his right
hon. friend the Secretary of State for India would not
willingly be a party to it, but they would rather see the
question settled by that house than leave it in the hands
of any Government. The expense of conveying troops to
India was enormous, and while there they cost double
that of a native force. Colonel Tulloh, an officer of ex-
perience, in his evide ce before the commission for the
organisation of the army, was of opinion that 80,000 Euro-
pean troops sent out to India would cost £150,000, exclu-
sive of the officers, whose expenses were enormous. The
system was a most dofeetiva one in relation to the number
of men in the service; and if the Indian Council were to re-
monstrate against it, the right hon. gentleman the Secretary
of State for India would say—" Mind your own business,
and do not interfere in matters which do not concern you."
The country was fixed with a sum of fifteen millions a-year
for the maintenance of the army, yet there was no depart-
ment worse managed than the War Department. But if
the matter rested there it would not be so serious ; it was
now proposed to unite the Ordnance with the War Depart-
ment. Could anything be more injudicious ? Let the house
reflect upon what it was proposed to do by the proposed
scheme. It was proposed to add 80,000 men to the army,
which, with the men stationed in the colonies, would amount
to about 115,000 men ; and to keep up a standing army of
that kind they should keep up at least 35,000 men a-year in
this country. The result of the proposed change would in
time, he believed, be that regiments should in future, as
formerly, remain twenty-five years in India, to which even
a system of negro slavery would be preferable. He asked the
house to reject this bill, as a measure by no means suited
as a remedy for the requirements of the case. And
the house should bear in mind that the most distin-
guished Indian officers, and Queen's officers, and states-
men, and well-informed men at home, were in favour
of the maintenance in India of a local European army.
Then, looking to the general officers who commanded
the Indian army. He would take Sir William
Gomm for instance. Sir William Gomm was,Com nander-
in-Chief of the army in Bengal, and when he was retiring
from his command he issued an address paying the highest
tribute to the army which he had commanded. He would
take another authority—a distinguished Indian officer—Sir
John Lawrence. That gallant officer passed the highest
eulogium on the Indian army, and recommended that it
should be maintained as a local force. He might also refer
to the authority of Sir James Outram on the question; and
it was well known that the Duke of Wellington entertained
the highest opinion of the local army in India. The hon.
gentleman here read an extract from the written opinion of
the Duke of Wellington of the Indian army, in which he
stated that the men wore brave, and that there was no in-
stance wherein any one of them had disgraced himself in
the field. It was clearly fhe opinion of the Duko of Wel-
lington therefore that frequent changes of the troops were
not desirable. The house would no doubt be disposed to
attach a high value to the opinion of Lord Clyde, but he
much feared that that great and gallant officer had allowed
himself to be prejudiced by those around him. If Lord
Clyde had written home that he would not entrust a divi-
sion to an Indian officer, he must have done so in ignorance
of what Indian officers had done. But he could not have
forgotten the names of Sir James Outram and Sir Archdale
Wilson, who had accomplished the most astounding results,
nor could he have forgotten those either of Nicholson or of
Hobson. (Hear.) The question was one, however, to be
solved with calmness and deliberation and a due regard to
the mutual interests of England and of India, with a view
to the permanent welfare of our Indian empire, and in that
spirit he trusted it would be approached.
Sir H. VERNEY said that having come to a conclusion
directly contrary to that of the right hon. gentleman the
Secretary of State for India, he desired to state the grounds
upon which his opinions were-founded. He would ask the
house, in the first place, whether this question was to be
looked at as a question of patronage simply, without refe-
rence to the great interests of the Indian army. One of the
principal questions involved in the subject before them was
that connected with English officers who had taken service
with the Indian Government. Mr. Wilson expressed his
entire concurrence in the opinion of the President of the
Council in reference to English officers; yet he was by no
means disposed to disparage the native army; and he forci
bly pointed out the contrast between the manner of treatmen

of officers of the Queen's army and the Company's officers.
The selection of proper officers for service in India wasamost
important consideration, for the treatment of the natives
by the officers was a fertile source of discontent among
them. When Sir W. Peel was asked his opinion concern-
ing the cause of the mutiny, he replied that he saw enough
to cause a mutiny every day in the want of consideration
with which the young officers generally treated the natives.
(llear.) As regarded the term of service, and the cost of
sending men home, the house should remember that it would

not be a question of sending home a whole regiment, but of
sending home every man as soon as his time of service was

over. Entertaining those opinions,_ he_ felt it his duty to
give to the bill all the opposition in his power.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said in India, the local army
was the link of connexion between the line and the native
army, and as we could not do away entirely with the latter
we should preserve that necessary link of connexion. Would
you depend upon mercenary troops to supply any deficiency
in this country's resources ? He thought that would be an
unsafe forco to place reliance upon. For these reasons he
would cordially support the amendment.
Mr. VANSITTART said the present time was the most
favourable opportunity for amalgamating the two forces
into one. Many eminent men were of that opinion, and
advocated the fusion of the two armies. Being convinced
that legislation was necessary, he should, in accordance
with the recommendation of the right hon, and gallant mem-

ber for Huntingdon, vote for the second reading of the
bill.

Sir WM. RUSSELL was of opinion that the bill was
a good one, because it would have the effect of acclimatising
their troops, and making them acquainted with the
habits of the people of India. As to the expense, it had
very little weight with him, because he believed the ad-
vantages to be derived would far outweigh any such con-
sideration. In his opinion, 50,000 European soldiers and
50,000 natives would hold that country against the world. As
to the officers of the Indian army, they were, to his own
knowledge, a highly educated and distinguished body, with
who: those of the Royal army would be glad to associate.
Sir M. FARQUHAR thought that the Council for In-
dia ought to have been consulted with respect to the plan
now proposed, bectrjtse they were not only men of great ex-
perienco:of India, but of European renown. Re could not
understand why it was the right hon. gentleman brought
it forward ; because, so late:as the autumn of last year he
was entirely opposed to it. He did not mean to institute a
comparison between the local army and the regiments of the
line; but he asked, was it desirable to do away with the
local army, ewi amalgamate them with the regiments of
the line ? In his opinion it was by no means desirable to
effect such an amalgamation,
Colonel PERCY HERBERT said the bill was one
which would tend to consolidate more firmly our empire in
India, by preventing combinations among the governed, or
at least dealing with them more easily if they should occur,
and for these reasons he should vote against the amend-

Mr. C. BUXTON said if they passed this measure at all
they should have an assurance from the Government that
the appointment of officers should not be left in the power
of an individual, thousands of miles distant, but in the
hands of the Governor-General, who was responsible for
the government and the welfare of India. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN said the house had a right to complain
of the course adopted by the promoters of this bill, in not
laying before them all the papers and information upon the
subject ; and they had a still stronger right to complain that
the Government should attempt to make so great, impor-
tant, and vital a change by a vague abstract resolution He
did not believe that in the whole history of Parliament
there was any other instance of Ministers of
the Crdwn making such a propcsal. Because the question
was one of great difficulty—because it was one with
which the Secretary for India had been unable to
grapple because it was one on which he was
entirely beaten—because he knew he could not devise a
measure for carrying out the change, the right hon. gentle..
man therefore said, " I will shirk the House of Commons,
I will dodge the House of Commons, I will degrade the
House of Commons into abandoning its functions, and I
will get it to pass an abstract resolution." By that means
all the difficult and delicate complications on which depend
the peace and the safety of the Indian Empire were to be
entrusted to the legislation and the discretion of the Horse
Guards—(hear)—which of all the departments of the State
was the most incompetent to deal with a question of mixed
military and political institutions, because it had a direct
interest in every change which the bill proposed to make.
(Hear.) Two years ago Parliament had passed an act
transferring the Government of India from the Company to
the Crown. It was a hasty, ill matured, and incomplete
measure. (Hear, hear.) At that time Government found
it impossible to give them any information upon this point
of the organisation of the army, upon which the whole
transfer of power depended, (Meer, hear.) The Secretary
of State for India in introducing the measure had told
them that it was all contained in one resolution, but that
in the execution a great many details would have to be con-
sidered, and tbat if hon. members would look into the
papers on the table, they would find a letter addressed to
himself by an eminent Indian officer, in which he recom-
mended that those details should be referred to a military
commission. The right hon. gentleman did not even tell
them whether it was his intention to adopt that recom-
mendation. He told them nothing, but they were to pass
a vague general resolution. But let them suppose that
this novel method of dealing with difficult, intricate, and
important subjects had been adopted earlier in the ses-
sion, how much time would have been saved—whether
beneficially or not was another question. Suppose the
noble lord the Foreign Secretary had framed his Reform
Bill on the same model, and simply said in his bill,
" Whereas it is expedient the Parliament of Great Britain
should be reformed, be it enacted therefore that it shall be
reformed." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He supposed in
that case the details as to the removal of the franchise and
the redistribution of seats, all the real and practical ques-
tions, would have been referred to a commission of old Whig
gentlemen who would have settled them to their own satis-
faction, if not to that of the country. In this case, the Sec-
retary for India having shown the helpless and almost
culous ignorance in which he was with regard to what would
follow, was content to throw everything over to a commis-
sion, that commission having the power to revolutionise
the whole GovernMent of India. What ground had been
assigned for this great change ? The Governor-General
was against it. Lord Clyde and Sir W. Mansfield would
be found, in their earlier letters on the subject, to be most
decidedly against it. The late Secretary for India was op-
posed to the measure, and the Council of India was also
against the change. Upon what new and strong ground,
then, did the right hon. gentleman base a measure to which
he himself was opposed last year, when he brought forward
and carried the act he now proposed to repeal ? He (Mr.
Horsman) put it to the house, if the right hon. gentleman
had not made the mutiny of the local European army as the
sole cause for this change of opinion, and the sole justifica-
tion for introducing this bill, which would establish in India
not only a divided authority) but a double Government of
the worst character. One of the greatest and wisest men
connected with Indian affairs, Lord Metcalfe, gave this
warning :—" Our hold of India is so precarious that a little
mismanagement may endanger it, and our downfall may be
short work. When that commences it will be rapid, and
the world will wonder more at our loss than of our con-
quest of the country." (Hear, hear.) If to-night the
house adopted the exceptional proceeding ',proposed by the
right hon. gentleman it would be the first fatal step to-
wards the accomplishment of that wise prediction. (Cheers.)
Mr. S. HERBERT said his right hon. friend who had
just sat down was not prepared to offer any opinion as to
the policy or impolicy of amalgamating the local with the
Imperial army of India, and yet he complained of the Go-
vernment for introducing a measure in which a decided
opinion was expressed. He said the Government had not
given sufficient information ; he went further, he said the
Government had suppressed information. (Hear.) The
Government had put on the tables of the house the papers
moved for in February this year. They were presented on
March the 22d, and printed on the 23d. That did not show
any desire on the part of the Government to withhold in-
formation.

An Hon. MEMBER—Where are the papers?
Mr. S. HERBERT—Ask the officers of the house. The
Government have laid them on the table and ordered them
to be printed, and if hon. members have not received them
the-Government are not responsible for that. (Oh.) Last
year a pledge was given that this subject should be brought
under the consideration of the House of Commons, There-
fore, there was time enough for consideration, and the
Government could not be fairly accused of taking the
house by surprise or passing the bill by a smuggling
process. Why, if the Government had any suchin-
tention, they could have effected their object without
coming to the House of Commons at all. But the Go-
vernment thought it would not be proper to make
the alterations proposed by this bill without taking
the opinion of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) The
right honourable gentleman said that they were going to
incur heavy expenditure for India, although it was a fact
that that expenditure must be paid, not out of the taxes
of this country, but India. Now, he could not see how
that was to be done, for in India they could refuse to pay,
and they could refuse to accept any officer they might not
approve of. The whole thing and power were in their
hands ; and the Horse Guards had no power whatever over
the outlay, not even to the amount of a single sixpence.
The right hon. gentleman said that they were in this
country going to vote half a million of money for barracks
in India; but that was not the fact, and he could not con-
ceive how any man could have laid hold of any such absurd
idea as that. (Hear, and laughter.) What additional power
had the Governor-General got in this matter? Not one
jot. If the right hon. gentleman were to write to the Secre-
tary of State for India, or to the Horse Guards, on such a
subject, he would probably get a reprimand. The Governor-
General was a despot in India ; and he must continue to
be so if he intended to preserve India and to maintain their
power. He confessed, that of all the subjects which had
over come under his consideration, he had never found one
which was so beset with difficulty and in which he had so
much trouble and anxiety in coming to a conclusion. He
said, frankly and solemnly, that his bias in the first instance
was in favour of a local army—(hear)—which he believed
would sup/Ay the public service, civil and military, with
better and more qualified men than the Queen's army. lle
believed that it was important that for the preservation of
the Indian Government we should have men of that class.
He had tried to look in an independent and impartial manner
at this subject, and had consulted authorities which were not
likely to be biassed in their feelings upon it. His right hon.
friend opposite read a letter the other night from Lord Mel-
ville, in which he stated that the opinion of that distinguished
man was in favour of a local army. Now, he (Mr. S. Her-
bert) would also mu' opinions expressed by the Dukeof Wel-
lington of a contrary tendency. Ho found that in 1828 he
expressed opinions about the local army which were not so
favourable as hon. gentlemen supposed, The right hon. gen-
tleman here quoted from the evidence given by the Duke of
Wellington before a Parliamentary committee, wherein his
grace said that it would never answer to make the Queen's
officers a colonial corps, and that there was a great difference
between them and the officers of the local army. He en-
treated the committee to lay aside the plan which they pro-
, posed altogether. And with regard to the local army, he
said that whatever the description of troops, their efficiency
depended much upon the character and bearing of their offi-
cers. His right hon. friend also quoted Lord Clyde as in
favour of a local army. Now, that was not so. For whatever
Lord Clyde's opinion might formerly have been, he certainly
had changed his mind. A great many hon. gentlemen had
spoken with great lightness of the mutiny ; but those who
originated the mutiny had not themselves taken any active
part in carrying it out. And one noble lord who took part
in the debate said the mutiny was exceptional, But how

could it be exceptional ? It was not prudent to speak lightly
of mutinies by armed men. He was not going now to enter
into considerations of the jealousies which existed between
the local army and the Queen's army. The question had
been fully discussed. He had heard that night reasons
against the amalgamation of the local army with the Queen's
army, and of the jealousies that existed between them. No
doubt if they looked calmly into both, they would find that
neither was free from faults. The question of discipline had
been referred to, and upon that part of the subject he would
read a statement to the house from experienced authority.
The right hon. gentleman here read an extract to the effect
that the Indian officer had to deal with a class of men who
were apparently the most docile soldiers they could have ;
but that was not the school in which an officer of the Queen's
troops could be trained. They had to deal with a race of
Anglo-Saxons, who were altogether different in their feelings
and habits. The good feeling that subsisted between the
officers and non-commissioned officers of the British army
was remarkable. True, the officers did not trust everything
to them, but they reposed the greatest confidence in them,
and the interests and comfort of the non-commissioned offi-
cers were well looked after by their officers. The most per-
fect friendship was kept up between them, and if the non-
commissioned officer became ill, his officer looked after his
comfort, tried to alleviate his condition, and even his offi-
cer's wife did not fail to feel an interest in him, and to have
him paid proper attention to. (Hear.) But, if English
officers were not able, as was 'alleged, to discipline the na-
tives, that was the natural result of the system. There
were various causes in operation in the Indian army which
tended to relax discipline. Sir Hugh Rose, for example, in
a letter written by him to the Adjutant-General, said, that
96 officers were then serving away from the staff of their
regiments. Now, how was it possible that discipline could
be maintained in anything like an efficient state under such
a system? He says, that those officers are drafted away to
fill civil employments, and that the Postmaster-General is
a medical officer, and the best men were those generally
taken away from their regiments. It had been said that the
Queen's officers would never consent to take the places of
the officers of the local army ; but, with the inducements of
the service they would, without doubt, not hesitate to seek
service in India. The right hon. gentleman here referred to a
letter written by Lord. Canning, in relation to the local army,
and said that great stress had been laid upon that letter by
hon. gentlemen in the course of the debate, as indicating
that Lord Canning was not in favour of the abolition
of the local army. Now, as he (Mr. Sidney Herbert) read
that document, he found many passages in it of a qualified
tendency. The right hon. gentleman here quoted several
passages from the letter of Lord Canning, and argued that
they showed he was not disposed to view unfavourably an
amalgamation of the local aray with the Queen's regiments
of the line. He then advertedro a letter which he had seen
in that day's Times, from General Hancock, proposing a
scheme for the disbandment of the local army, and a mode
of amalgamating them with the Queen's forces ; but he
must say that he could not approve of the plan proposed by
the gallant general, and viewed it as one that would be at..
tended with much expense, and that would fail to give satis-
faction. Sir Charles Trevelyan had expressed an opinion
favourable to the impression that the officers of the Queen's
forces of the line would speedily apply themselves to the
study of the native languages, and fit themselves for native
command. Others however said the Queen's officers would
never apply themselves to the study of the native lan-
guages. Now, what had been the system which had been
carried on ? Ho asked a gentleman who had recently come
from India, if he had formed an opinion on the subject of a
local army, and he said "The opinion I have formed is this.
So long as you have a local army having a monopoly of all
places that were high and valuable, so long will that army
' be held in high estimation ; but if the officers of the Queen's
' army only once found those lucrative employments open to
' them, they will speedily evince a desire for service in India.
The right hon. gentleman here quoted from a letter written
' by Colonel Durant in 185). The hon. baronet behind him
had spoken of the advantages of a local army, as
it was not subjected to the drawback of not being acclima-
tised, but the authorities were against the oonclusion of the
' hon. baronet. He then quoted from statistics to support the
view in opposition to the hon. baronet's opinion. The posi-
' tion of the troops in India was frequently so different that
it was very difficult to institute a satisfhctory comparison.
He admitted, however, that upon the whole the health of
the local troops was superior to that of the European. Then
it had been argued that England might be so denuded of
troops as to be unable to furnish the necessary force to
India :—but it should be remembered that during the
mutiny the great and successful exertions which were made
to send the reinforcements to India, furnished the best
answer to that objection. He now came to a question which
was raised by the hon. member for Stroud, as to the patron-
age to be given to the Horse Guards, but he was entirely
mistaken in forming that opinion. The rights of Indian
officers were guaranteed by act of Parliament until the
present men died out. It was not intended in the case, then,
of the Indian officers, to make any change in the present
system. It was necessary to retain a certain number of
regiments where purchase would not be allowed. The
Duke of Cambridge said, and he knew something of the
matter, "if there be any increase of patronage, for God's
sake do not force it upon me." But he (Mr. S. Herbert)
could not for a moment be led to the conclusion that the
changes proposed were made with a view to a question of
patronage, either by the Secretary of State or by the
Indian Council. It was for the Secretary of State and the
Council to recommend appointments to the Commander-
in-Chief, and he hoped that would satisfy his right
hon. friend that he was in error in the conclusion he had
arrived at as to the increase of patronage to be given to the
Horse Guards. An objectionhad been raised that patronage
was placed in the hands of the Council which ought to be-
long to the Crown, but that objection was disposed of by the
provision which was made in the act that the patronage of
the Council was to be subject to the approval of the Secre-
tary of State. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn
(Lord Stanley) had stated that it was a matter of policy to
endeavour to attract men of high birth to enter the service,
but he (Mr. S. Herbert) thought there was no reason why
they should endeavour to hold out attractions to that par-
ticular class to enter the army. It was quite sufficient that
they could get good officers. He had shown that members
of the Indian Council and the Indian Government were
against having a preponderating local army, and he thought
it a wise opinion. It was said that the Queen's army would
mutiny under circumstances such as occurred to other forces
in India. It was no such thing, and he would give them an
example. Some time ago a detachment of that army was
ordered to China, and by some inexplicable mistake, the
officers were paid the usual allowances, but the men received
nothing. Well, did they mutiny ? No such thing. They
appealed to their officers, who told them some mistake had
been committed, which they would rectify, and having con-
fidence in them, they left the matter to them, and were
satisfied. That was the manner in which the Queen's troops
acted, and not like the local force in India, which deserted
them in their hour of need.
Mr. RICH moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord PALMERSTON hoped the house would decide on
the question that evening, and not adjourn it to a future
day.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thought an adjournment ought
,o take place, the more especially as he had reason to know
that the Indian Council were against the Government on
this question. He believed the house was bound to see
that justice was done to the 6,000 officers and 15,000 Eu-
ropean troops which had been in the Company's service,
and would be seriously injured by this bill.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the adjournment ....... . .......... 83
Against it .......................... 262
Majority ...................... —179
Mr. SEYMOUR hoped the Government would not press
the bill on in the absence of necessary papers, and if they
did he should move the adjournment.
Lord PALMERSTON hoped the hon. member would
not persevere. There were other stages of the bill in which
members would have an opportunity of addressing the house,
and he hoped the bill would be allowed to proceed.
Mr. HORSMAN said papers had been moved for on the
17th February, which were not delivered until March, and
other documents were wanted. Under these circumstances
he hoped an adjournment would take place.
Sir J. PAT INGTON was for supporting the Govern-
ment, but he thought under the circumstances they ought
to consent to an adjournment.
Cel. SYKES moved for documents on the subject which
had not been as yet delivered.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the papers which were
in the hands of the printer could not be ready by to-morrow,
and he hoped there was no desire to postpone the bill until
that period when the House of Lords had determined they
would not enter upon the consideration of bills sent up
from this house,
A division then took place upon the question " that the
house do now adjourn"--
For the motion 5l
Against it
229
Majority ..
Mr. HENNESSY moved that the debate be now ad-
journed.
Lord PALMERSTON said he would consent to the
adjournment of the debate to this day. (No, no.)
Gen. PEEL thought there would be no advantage in an
adjournment of the debate for a few hours, as the paperse
would not then be ready. He recommended thatth
amoMment should be withdrawn, on the understanding
that before the next stage of the bill was taken all the papers
required would be produced.
Palmerston, Mr. Hursman, and Mr. Mills took part, the
After some conversation, in which Sir C. Wood, Lord
house again divided on the question of the adjournment of
the debate, when there appeared—
For the adjournment
9 10
Against
—147
Majority against
Mr. MILLS moved the adjournment of the house,
thmathhereN,v but they as prepared to
remain
nd
there A
a l‘siN
long S T a
s °
any a
should
recollect that there was to be a morning sitting that day,
PE R s
otheri em
and they ought to consult the convenience of the Speaker.
He recommended the house to assent to the adjournment
of the debate.
The motion for the adjournment of the house waq with-
drawn, and the debate was adjourned to this day.
Several hon. members pressed upon the Government ti
importance of doing all that lay in their power to have the

papers placed in the hands of members as soon as possible.
They were most essential to a complete and proper conside-
ration of the entire question.
MAIL PACKET SERVICE.
Mr. LAING asked the house to go into committee of
supply for the purpose of taking a vote for the mail packet
service, exclusive of the Galway packet service.
Colonel Dunne, Colonel Dickson, Mr. Hennessy, Mr.
Roebuck, and Mr. Williams objected, and the consideration
of the vote in supply was postponed until this day.
LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION (EDINBURGH) BILL.
This bill as amended was recommitted and considered.
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
ISLE OF MAN HARBOUR BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
PROFESSIONAL OATHS ABOLITION BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, but
Lord E. THYNNE objected to the consideration of the
measure at so late an hour—two o'clock. He moved that
the chairman report progress.
Mr. STEUART supported the motion, which was
agreed to.
The house adjourned at ten minutes past two.