The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-31 00:00:00

FORTIFICATIONS.

On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned de-
bate, on the motion for going into committee on the
European Forces India Bill,
Mr. HORSMAN said that he had given notice of a
question relative to the subject of the national fortifications
to the noble lord at the head of her Majesty's Government,
and that nobb lord was not in his place. (Gries of " Order,
order.")
The SPEAKER explained that the hon. member was
out of order. A question was before the house altogether
different from that to which he addressed himself.

Mr. HORSMAN said he would put himself in order, and
conclude by moving that the house do now adjourn. He
repeated that he had given the noble lord (Palmerston)
notice of his motion, and considering the importance of the
question—a question to which the national mind
was most anxiously directed—he certainly thought the
noble lord should have been in his place to answer his (Mr.
Horsman's) question. He believed the general impression
at the conclusion of the debate last week on the subject of
the national fortifications was, that it would have been one
of the first subjects brought forward this evening, instead
of which there were several other questions on the paper
which had precedence, and which were likely to occupy fur
some time the attention of the house. The question of na-
tional fortification had derived additional importance from
what the noble lord said the other evening in bringing this
matter forward ; and he might state that he (Mr. Horsman),
and he believed the majority of the house, fully concurred
in what had fallen from the noble lord on that occasion.
(Hear.) He thought, under the circumstances, that what
the noble lord stated would have been followed by a course
of action which the public safety demanded. (Order.)

•
The SPEAKER again called the hon. member to order.
The circumstance of the hon. member having given notice
of a question to a Minister of the Crown did not entitle
him to ask that question when an order of the day was laid
before the house.

Lord PALMERSTON expressed his regret that he had
been detained later from the house than he expected that
afternoon, but he was in his place before the order
of the day was moved, though the honourable member
(Mr. Horsman) did not perceive him. He was as anxious
as that hon. member to come to a decision on the subject
of the national fortifications, but the house was engaged in
the consideration of a question of considerable im-
portance. He appealed to the hon. member and
his friends to assist him on the present occasion in for-
warding the public business, so as to enable them to expe-
dite the discussion of the question to which ho (Mr. Hors-
man) referred, by discontinuing the opposition to the regu-
lar order of the business of the house. (Hear.)
Mr. lIORSMAN said that under the circumstances he
would not press his motion, and the subject then dropped.
The debate was then resumed by

Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR on the following motion :
" That it be an instruction to the committee that they have
power to make provision therein that all appointments to
military commands in India (the commands in chief abaci
excepted), and all staff appointments, whether military,
naval, or medical, bo vested in the Governor-General in
Council and other constituted authorities in India." He
said his remarks would be certainly brief, as he had no wish
to prolong the discussion. His hon. friend who moved this
amendinent and hiniself were of opinion that it was not

right that a Governor-General of India should hold office

on such terms as that it should be in the power of the Sec-

retary of State for India at any time to transfer the power

of the Governor-General to the Commander-in-Chief or to

the Ho se Guards. It did not appear to him, if the Secre-
tary of State wished that power to remain, that he would
entertain any objection to this amendment. The interference
of the home Government with that of India had led to the
greatest evils. The Affghan war itself was undertaken in
opposition to the views of all Indian experience. Another
question, that of annexation, was one which had been en-
tirely supported by the home Government. He should sup-
port the proposal for instructions moved for by his hon.
friend, and he earnestly hoped that the Secretary fe4, India
would consent to its adoption.
Col. SYKES said he wished to correct a misrepresenta-
tion which had been made of what he had said the other
night on a particular point. He had written one or
two letters on the subject to the papers, but no notice had
been taken of his communications. What he said was that
the sth Dragoon Guards had refused to charge the rebels in
Ireland in 1799. What he was represented to have said was
that the Guards had joined the rebels. As this statement
had led to some remark on the part of that gallant corps,
ho wished to set himself right on the subject. The simple
proposition at present before the house was whether the
Government of India, civil and military, was to be placed
under the Secretary of State for India, or was to be shared
by the Secretary for War and the Horse Guards. A
very strong opinion on the subject had been delivered
by Mr. Willoughby. Equally positive were the opi-
nions of Lord Elphinstone and Mr. Freer. The opinion
of Mr. Freer also was in favour of a centralised authority.
There could not be complete control in the Governor-
General if it was participated in by the Commander-in-
Chief and the military authorities at home. Soon after
the passing of the India Government Act the Duke of Cam-
bridge had made a demand fir the transfer of authority over
the Indian army to the Horse Guards, though that depart-
ment was already overwhelmed with business. This was
very properly resisted by Lord Stanley, then Secretary of
State for India, and he rejoiced to know that the noble lord
still entertained the same opinion. After alluding to the
disasters of Cabul, the hon. and gallant gentleman described
the efforts made under Sir George Pollock to retrieve those
disasters, and the steps which he took to quell the dissatis-
faction then existing in the army. He was only enabled
to do this by a knowledge of the prejudices and supersti-
tions of his troops. Had the same tact and consideration
been shown prior to the late mutiny, that mutiny would
never have been heard of. He had proof of this in the cor-
respondence which took place with respect to the events at
Umballah. It was most essential that the authority should
be retained in the hands of the Governor-General. At pre-
sent there were 4,980 British officers in the local army.
These must all die off in the course of nature; and all that
patronage would be thrown into the hands of the Horse
Guards, as well as the appointment of the commander-in-
chief, the generals of division, adjutants, quartermasters-
general, and inspectors of hospitals. At present 145 offi-
cers of the line were employed on the staff. Had the army
been under the Horse Guards the whole of those vacancies
would have been filled up, and a proportionate increase of
charge made to the Indian revenue. (Hear, hear.) The
proposed change would give rise to repeated collisions be-
tween the Governor-General and the officers of the army in
India, who would receive orders direct from home, and act
independently of the Governor-General. Much had been
made of the bugbear of two armies. This was not so. They
were all under the authority of the Queen, though not under
the direct authority of the Horse Guards. It would be as rea-
sonable to say that the marines and the regiments of the line
at home formed two armies. It was only a question whe-
ther the royal orders should be sent to India through the
Horse Guards, or through the Secretary of State for
India. If faith were kept with the officers of the Indian
army, amalgamation would be impossible.
Sir C. WOOD said that the hon. and gallant gentleman
had put a construction on the act which no one ever dreamt
of before. It was not at all proposed that there should be
any reduction of the native army. The hon. member for
Poole was quite mistaken in his views as to the origin and
effect of the Affghan war. In each of the three cases of policy
which his hon. friend said had been condemned by the Go
vernment in India and forced upon them by the home Go-
vernment, it was the policy of the Government in India
that had been carried out. In other cases their policy had
been rejected, and he had himself stopped the annexation of
Oude when it had been recommended to him.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR had said "condemned by Indian
statesmen."
Sir C. WOOD—If his hon. friend refused the name of
statesmen to the Governor-General and Council of India he
had not a word more to say on that subject. Perhaps his
hon. friend would exclude from the name of statesmen all
those who did not agree with himself. (Laughter.) With
regard to the changes which it was said the bill would
effect, there was not a word in it to show that it would ope-
rate those changes. The staff appointments were necessa-
rily made by the Government in India. They were made
upon the recommendation of the Commander•in-Chief.
The bill made no alteration in that respect. There were
indeed certain officers of the Queen's army sent out to India,
but he contended it was most beneficial to India that such
appointments should be made. If that had not been the
case, India would have been deprived of the services of such
men as Lord Clyde, Sir H. Rose, Sir W. Mansfield, and
Sir Hope Grant, and nothing would be so detrimental to
the Queen's service in India as anyproposition which would
deprive India of such experienced men as these. He there-
fore believed that the proposition of his hon. friend, if ope-
rative at all, would prove mischievous, and if inoperative it
would be unnecessary.
Mr. RICH would recommend his hon. friend to withdraw
his instruction, and allow the discussion to be concentrated
on the proposition of the hon. member for Ayrshire.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE seconded the recommendation,
and hoped the house would support the appeal of the hon.
member for Ayrshire. His right hon. friend must be very
simple if he thought they would be caught by the statement
that the bill contained nothing on the subject of the ap-
pointments, when the quarrel they had with him was that
it did. (Hear.)
Mr. MILNE S then allowed his instruction to be negatived
without a division.
Sir J. FERGUSSON then rose to move " that in the
opinion of this house it is inexpedient to proceed further
with legislation respecting the European troops in India
until the whole plan of the Government for the regulation
of the military force of that country shall have been sub-
mitted to the consideration of Parliament." He believed
that the proposition of the right hon. gentleman now before
the house was but part of a gigantic scheme of centralisa-
tion, which had for its object the transferring from Calcutta
to London the transacting of all the business of India.
Much of the Indian business might be well and usefully
transacted here, but he did not think that the army or the
civil service of India could be appropriately managed out
of India. In this question were involved the questions of
the stability of our Indian empire, the renown of their arms,
the fame of England, and the future welfare of both Eng-
land and India. In deciding upon this question the house
was bound to consider the mode of recruiting for the Indian
army, how they could best promote the efficiency of the
army in India; they were bound to consider the financial
questions involved in the proposed change, and also the
effect it might have on the national safety. But above all
they were bouxd to consider what plan the Government
proposed to substitute for the system about to be swept
away, and which had worked well for so many years.
He did not believe the Parliament would have ever
conferred such extensive powers on the Secretary of
State for India if it was believed that they were not to be
consulted on the changes which it was proposed to make in
the government of that country. Heretofore the Governor-
General and Council of India exercised supreme command
over the civil and military authoilties of India. Colonel
Durrand, a member of the Council in India, said that if they
stripped the Governor-General of the command of the army
he would no longer possess that respect and authority which
it was so desirable he should possess in the eyes of Asiatic
nations, and that the late events in India proved the expe-
diency of having distinct armies and systems. He should
ask the house to consider this as a question of finance, and
the Government had previously to introducing this change
consulted a very eminent actuary for the purpose of ascer-
taining what additional expenses would be required, and
papers had been presented to the house showing the com-
parative expenses of the system, and he pointed out that the
expenses of the Queen's troops in India would be much
greater than those of :the local army, and the result was
that an army of 80,000 would cost £460,000 a year, and if
only one-third were Queen's troops it would cost £lBO,OOO
a year. But he (Sir J. Fergusson) should confess that he
saw no necessity for maintaining so large a force in India
as 80,000 European troops. In the plan proposed by the
Government the house must be prepared to sanction a very
large increase of expenditure, but after all the great ques-
tion was as to the efficiency of the army. It was said on the
one hand that the troops got less efficient by the climate,
and on the other hand that ,hey got acclimatised. He be-
lieved that in both these arguments there was some truth ;
but he believed that the men who had lived there for some
years knew better how to take care of themselves than
those who had just arrived out. Two years ago the Indian
army had been quoted as the perfection of organisation, and
what could have occurred in the meantime to work such a
change in public opinion as to wipe away all recollection
of their great services ? There could be no doubt that
the staff in India had been promoted much more by merit
in the company's service than in that of the Queen. That
was necessarily an important paint in considering the ques-
tion of military effic:cncy. One great advantage of main-
taining. a local army in India was that it ensured the ser-
vice of officers specially trained for the duties they had to
perform. The Indian army was thus commanded by men
who knew India, and who looked to the country as the
scene of all their advancement. He (Sir J. Fergusson) ven-
tured to submit that if this bill passed, the house were en-
titled to know how the Government proposed to deal with
the question of guarantees, and unless some plan were laid
upon the table, the house were fairly entitled to demand
further time for consideration. (Hear, hear.) .The Go-
vernment asserted that events which had occurred since
the 10th of August last had induced them to change their
minds in reference to the maintenance of a local army, but
long before the 10th of August they must have been cogni-
sant of every fact connected with the discontent which had
manifested itself in the Indian army. The two letters