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

THE SUN, !: LONDON, WEDNESDAY 2EVENING,! AUGUST B, 1860.

tended for vagrant children, there vaas no similarity between
them and reformatory schools.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE supported the bill, and contended
that it was most desirable to transfer the control mf these

schools from a body who were incompetent to one that was
quite efficient to manage them.
Mr. LOWE said that in reality these schools were of a
iv)enal nature, and therefore would be more properly trans-
ferred to a department that had to deal with criminals than

be allowed to remain under the control of a department
which was purely of an educational character.
Mr. MONSELL opposed the bill. He considered that
as the children in these schools were convicted of no other
offence than vagrancy, they should not be placed in the
same position as those who were confined in reformatories.
Mr. HENLEY regarded these industrious schools as a

branch of the reformatory system, and therefore that they
would be more efficiently worked by the Home-office than
a merely educational body.
Mr. BLACK bore testimony to the benefits of these
schools in Edinburgh, and deprecated their being united
with institutions of a criminal character, which might have
the effect of tainting with crime those who in these schools
might be trained up to be good citizens.
Lord E. HOWARD thought the distinction between
poverty and crime should be rendered as wide as possible,
and he hoped the Government would ponder carefully be-
fore making the proposed change.
After some further discussion the clause was agreed to.
The sitting was suspended at 20 minutes to 3 o'clock.
The house resumed at 6 o'clock.

There were four questions on the paper, but they were all
postponed in consequence of the absence of the Ministers
to whom they were to be addressed.
EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL.

Sir C. WOOD moved the third readinpof this bill.

Mr. DODSON called attention to the somewhat remark-
able fact, that until a very recent period Lord Clyde and a
number of those who were now in favour of the present
measure, had supported the maintenance of a local force in
India. Lord Canning, Lord Dalhousie, and Lord Ellenbo-

rough, three of the past Governors of India, had also bees

in favour of a local army. Even the right lion, gentleman
the Secretary for India had changed his opinion in the same
way, but the reason for that sudden change he had not yet
explained. The right hon. gentleman said the mutiny had
led him to change his opinion, but then as lately as August
last he had expressed himself in favour of a local army, al-
though the mutiny had then been long known. With regard
to the bill itself, he thought the patronage proposed to be
given to the Horse Guards was far too extensive. Last year
the value of the commissions at the disposal of the Horse

Guards was no less than £1,271,250, and now it was pro-
posed to add to it all the patronage of the Indian service.
He did not mean to say the Horse Guards was more cor-
rupt than any other body of the same kind, but he felt that
it would not be for the benefit of the public that the Horse
Guards should possess the large patronage they did by the
present bill. Even if the alaigamation,of the Indian and
British armies were desirabTe; the time proposed for that
amalgamation was ill chosen. Ho admitted that this was an
Imperial question; but then they ought not to look upon
India as a mere military colony like Algeria. No, we ought
to regard India as an important branch of our dominions,
from which we could obtain tea and cotton and sugar, and
such like articles, for the advantage of the mother country
and the benefit of India.
Mr. VANSITTART said that lati looked upon the Royal
troops as being the cause of our success in the recent mu-
tiny in India. The hon. gentleman then read an extract
from a letter from Major-Gen. Williams, to show that Delhi
was taken by the Royal troops; and that Lucknow was
saved by those troops.
Sir' 11. WILLOUGHB Y said that both the local and
Royal troops behaved well in the unfortunate mutiny which
took place in India. Although the bill before the house was
a short one, it was also a very important measure. The bill
was different now from what it was when first brought be-
fore the house, and that was chiefly owing to the amend-
ment carried by his right hon. friend the member for Ox-
ford (Mr. Henley), by which the rights, privileges, and
promotions of the local army in India were to be continued
to them. Now he wanted to know how the amalgamation
hero indicated was to be carried out, and how the finances
of India were to be made use of in the matter. He begged
also to notice the observations made by the right hon. gen •
tleman the Secretary of State for India (Sir C. Wood). lie
alluded to the remark made by the right hon. gentleman,
viz., that the council did not like to part with their power.
This expression had given offence to the council, and he
hoped the right hon. gentleman would take an opportunity
of giving an explanation on the subject. The hon. gentle.
man then said that they had greatly increased the debt and
obligations of India, and if they were to look upon this as
an imperial question, it was very possible the natives of
India might so regard it, by declining to meet the taxation
to be imposed to carry out this new arrangement for getting
rid of the local army. It was a matter of astonishment that
Lord Clyde could have published a letter stating that the
officers of the Indian army were dissatisfied, without having
that which he did not profess to have, unquestionable infor-
mation and authority on the point. Surely the object of the
House of Commons should be to do all that they possibly
could to induce the men of that local army to remain at their
posts and discharge their duty. (Hear, hear.) The bill,
notwithstanding its great defects, and the weighty objec-
tions entertained against it, had, he admitted, done some
good in leading to the consideration and recognition by
the Home Government of the claims and services of the
distinguished officers of the local army in India. His opi-
nion was, in conclusion, that the house should insist upon
one-third of her Majesty's army in India being composed
of a local force, a combination and arrangement which ho
was satisfied would not only have the effect of averting
danger, but of giving satisfaction. (Hear, hear.)
Sir E. COLEBROOK E thought the question as to the
composition of the Indian army was one upon which the
intelligent portion of the Indians might fairly be consulted.
With regard to the officers who would be affected by the
proposed change, he did not see, notwithstanding the gua-
rantees which the Government alleged they were prepared
to give, that the results would k satisfactory to them.
They had seen the army of Benglii fall into a state of col-
lapse, and that that of Bombay had also become seriously
affected ; and he thought that great jealousy was likely to
result from the proposed change in its operation. They
had seen, for instance, that severe criticisms had already
been indulged in at the expense and to the prejudice of the
officers of the Sepoy army. They had heard that Lord
Clyde had expressed an opinion that officers of that army
were not qualified to command the troops of her Majesty's
regular army. Now, he must say that, in his opinion, it
was not judicious in the Commander-in-Chief to so express
himself. (Hear.) The officers and men of both services
should be fairly and impartially treated, and properly con-
sidered. The Duke of Wellington, who was an authority
upon this subject, expressed himself in a different manner,
and, in giving his opinion, said whether the local European
troops be amalgamated with her Majesty's regular army or
not, no change should take place in the form of the Indian
Government. He (Sir E. Colebrooke) looked upon the
local European army as a most important force. They
were all young men, and were, from being acclimatised,
more healthy than the men in her Majesty's regular regi-
ments. Then, again, he did not see any marked difference
between the soldiers of the local European force and the
regiments of the line; and if there were any, it was cer •
tainly in favour of the men of the local European force.
They enlisted for the service in India, and, becoming
attached to the country, they had not that longing
for horse that regiments of the line naturally had, and
they had in their favour, also, the recommendation of being
thoroughly acquainted with the country. • He considered
them a most important force, and that great danger was to
be apprehended from the Government scheme submitted to
the house for disbanding them as a distinct force, and amal-
gamating them with her Majesty's regiments of the line.
(Hear, hear.) The question to be considered was, did the
European forces in India combine for any unlawful purpose.
He contended they did not do so, and that Lord Clyde him-
self exonerated them. Such charges ought not to be lightly
made in this house, because those against whom they wore
made felt them most keenly. It was a grave matter to ac-
cuse 25,000 men of treason, when there was no ground what •
ever for such an accusation. He implored the house not to
pass the bill if they valued their Indian empire.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE charged the right hon. gentle-
man the Secretary of State for India with keeping back or
suppressing papers connected with the bill, and he should
therefore move that it be read a third time that day six
months. "Why were they compelled to keep an army of
80,000 men when the finances of India could not afford it i
They sent a gentleman to that country, who, by the finan-
cial system he introduced, displeased all classes, and would
do no pied. An income tax was brought forward, but he
wished to be informed how it was collected. That verb
morning they had news which ought to point out to then
the danger of tampering with native troops. He maintained
that the expenses which the bill would entail on Indio
-would be enormous. It was only the other day that the
women and children of two regiments sent out to join their
husbands and fathers, cost the country £22,000.
Mr. J. B. SMITH seconded the motion, and observed
that there was some mystery about this bill, especially ao
the Government had so suddenly ohanged their minds. He
believed the principal reason was the alleged mutiny of the
European forces. He thought it a measure of hasty legis.
lation, and if authorities were to be relied on, he believed
the opinion of such a man as Lord Ellenborough deserving
of every consideration, even though opposed to Lord
Cl 3 de's. He had no doubt that if it had been brought for-
ward at an early period of the session, it never could have
passed.
Mr. T. G. BARING contended that because a bill was
brought in at the end of June instead of May, it was no
reason why it should be rejected. It was amply discussed
in all its stages, and when there was a very full attendance
of hon. members. It was not the fact that the opinions of
the members of council on this subject were not before the
house. If the dissents of the members of the Council of
India were not submitted to the house before the second"
reading of the bill, the fault was their own, and not that of
the S. dietary of State for India. There was no truth what-
ever in the statement that the authority of the Governor-
General of India would be diminished by this bill. There
was nothing in the measure which took away one iota of
patronage in the staff appointments from the Governor-
General of India. On the subject of expense they had the
authority of an eminent actuary that the amount of the ac-

tual change caused by the amalgamation would not be more
than £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 offieers. 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 sod—
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 this 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 he 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 the 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 large 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. Horaman'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 F. 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 255, Such an addi-
tion of Is. per quarter would, he contended, be doing jus-
tics to the manufacturers cf malt in this country, and
wculd 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 foi eign 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
wade from malt. The average price of barley was 425. per
4uarter ; 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, making a total of 48s. Bd. per quarter. The price
of barley was 2s. 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 Continent 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 ls. 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 front 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 aceede 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 en 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 indigenous.; it was conducted on a

large scale, the production was familiar to the habits of the

people, and so long as it was conducted with skill and capi-
tal, the home producers had nothing to fear from foreigners.
_ _

Moreover, the maltsters themselves were generallysatis-

fled with the arrangements which the Government had
made and which the committee had adopted. The hon.
and learned gentleman seemed to think that the difference
of ss. a quarter, which he said the British maltster lost,
was a difference they were bound to make good. Now
whether that was intended or not, he must say that it was
a doctrine to which, according to his hon. and learned
friend's argument, they could not subscribe. They had
nothing whatever to do with the cost of the manufacture or
carriage of malt, except what charges the maltster was
subjected to in the imposition of the Excise duty. But that
was not all. His hon. and learned friend said that the
foreign maltster could bring his malt to the British market
at a shilling a quarter less than the English maltster who
was in this country could. Now he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) thought that the facilities of toads and canals,
and of 10,000 miles of railways, would have given the
British maltster all the advantage over the foreign. (Hear,
hear.) It was strange that, after they had expended
£36,000,000 upon the : construction of railways, the
foreigner, who had to bring his malt across the sea, with
all the charges of shipping and so forth incident to his
venture, should be able to come into the British market
and sell his malt at ls. Gd. a-quarter less than the British
maltster, who was at home in his own market, and who,
not subject to such charges, could not bring it'to market at
a less cost than 2s. Gd. He (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) was bound to say that, after having heard his hon.
and learned friend's arguments, he must deprecate those dis-
cussions contrasting the British with the foreign malster.
If they had committed an error, that error had been in
asking the British maltster for the surtax. He could con-
vince his hon. and learned friend that the British maltsters
had all the advantages on their side, and he felt assured
that they were not dissatisfied. The cost imposed upon the
British maltsters was in conformity to the regulations as a
security for revenue. If they had dealt with the British
maltster, in the French commereial treaty, as they had with
the British distiller, he might, perhaps, with some eason,
say he had ground for complaint ; but with regard to the
foreign maltster coming into the British market in compe-
tition with him, he had nothing whatever to fear. A quar-
ter of barley made a good deal more than a quarter of malt ;
but if he were to allow ls. on it, he should only get ls. Gd.
towards the surtax. It was only 3s. 4d,, and he had ac
counted for ls. 6d. of it already. There was is. 10d. more
of it to be accounted for, and that was allowed as surplus.
The right hon. gentleman having referred to the hardships
to which the British distiller was subjected as com-
pared with the maltster, said they would be guilty of a
breach of faith if they were to accede to the proposal of his
right hon. and learned friend.

After a few words from Major PARKER and Mr. BASS,
The question was then put, when the house divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —37
The resolution was agreed to.
The report of the resolutions agreed to last night was
brought up and agreed to.
TITLES TO LAND (SCOTLAND) ACT (1858)
AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that at that late
period of the session it was absolutely impossible to give
this bill, and the following bills relating to the amendment
of the criminal law, that consideration which their import-
ance deserved.
Mr. JAMES was surprised that the bills were with-
drawn after thousands of pounds had been spent on a com-
mission.

Sir F. KELLY also expressed his regret that the bills
were withdrawn, but he was glad to hear they would be
brought forward again in the next session of Parliament.
Mr. MALINS concurred in the regret expressed by his
hon. and learned friend that these excellent bills were with-
drawn. There were 100 bills on the subject to be passed,
and if six or seven bills could not pass, what chance was
there of having 100 becoming law ? He trusted in future
the noble lord would not allow valuable time to be lost in
the beginning of the session in useless reform bills.
Lord PALM ERSTON regretted that the bills were with-
drawn, but at that late period of the session it was impossible
to du otherwise. There was no intention of abandoning the
principle of consolidation, because a great deal of time, la-
bour, and raoney were txpended on the subject, and it would
be a pity to abandon it. It would be a question next session
whether it might not be better to rofer them to a select com-
mittee rather than a committee of the whole house, but
that was for further consideration.
After a few words from Mr. DEEDES the order was dis-
charged.
The following orders were also discharged :—Malicious
Injuries to Property Bill—committee ; Coinage Offences
Bill—committee ; Accessories and Abettors Bill—commit-
tee; Forgery Bill—committee; Larceny, &c., Bill—com-
mittee ; and Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill—committee.
The Lords' amendments to the Police and Towns Im-
provement (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill were considered
and agreed to.
The order for the second reading of the Emblements (Ire-
land) Bill was discharged.
The order for the second reading of the Law Improve-
ment (Ireland) Bill was discharged.
The adjourned debate on the further consideration of the
Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment Bill was
adjourned to Thursday.
The house adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.