The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDOA, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 21, 1858

RE-ORGANISATION 07 THE INDIAN

ARMY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SlR,—The attention of Government—that of the
Royal Commission appointed by it—but especially
that of a vast body of the people of Britain, being
called to the reorganisation of. the Native Indian
Army, I venture to make a few remarks on it. In

doing so I must, in the first place, say that it never
was my lot to serve in India, and I will not, there-
fore, presume to give any opinion on various points
which may be considered as placing that army
on a different footing from European armies ; but
will confine myself to a few facts, as respecting our
Portuguese allies at the commencement of the
Peninsular War. It will, of course, be remembered
what the state of that army was in the beginning
of 1809. During that year it took little part in
the great operations under Wellington, except an
elite body of them, which did good service ; first
under Colonel Trat, in the north of Portugal, after
the rout of Soult from Oporto, and afterwards
under Sir Robert Wilson, at the Battle of Talavera.
Their main force had been left in Portugal for
organisation under Marshal Beresford. In the
campaigns that followed the system adopted was
this—a Brigade of Portuguese troops was usually
attached to two Brigades of British, and right well
did they always do their work to the end of the
war. Would not a plan somewhat similar to this
be likely to succeed, if adopted with regard to a
new-formed Indian Army ? Our regular army in
India being at this moment called 100,000 men of
all arms, could not it be thereby reduced to—say
70,000—thus liberating 30,000 troops who have
fought and suffered so severely, so long and so suc-
cessfully ! This number might also be greatly re-
duced after a time.

Another word, Sir, on the point. Raise 100,000
native troops—unite them judiciously in every pos-
sible way and place, with even 50,000 British troops,
and there would be no fears for our sway in India.
—I am, faithfully yours,
_ _

AN OLD SOLDIER.
The Welch Hills, Dec.. 20, 1858.

LONDON BRIDGE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

am an old inhabitant of Southwark, and
well remember the dangers for many years affecting
life and property in connection with the narrow
arches of old London-bridge. I remember, too, as
a matter of course, the present bridge being built,
and often contrast the destruction of life and pro-
perty under the old bridge with the comparatively
small inconveniency of the present magnificent
structure.

But the bridge is inadequate to the traffic, never-
theless, and some remedy must ere long be found.
Sidney Smith told us long ago that it would re-
quire some bishop to be killed on a railway before
duo precautions were taken to guard against acci-
dents. The same, perhaps, may be said of the
perilous traffic over London-bridge ; but this is no
reason why, in endeavouring to flee the ills we have
we should incur others which will be worse. We are
now in danger of this. I remember that when the
present bridge was built, painful excitement was
created by the settling down which took place on
the eastern side, through the widening of the
bridge, without adequately strengthening its foun-
dations ; and yet this very absurdity is now
proposed. As a practical man, I am con-
vinced, that however pretty it might look
to have an outside pathway alongside the
bridge on either side, they would not only
destroy the fine massive appearance of this noble
bridge, but the structure itself would be im-
perilled by such excrescences. The free opening of
Southwark-bridge is the legitimate remedy for the
over-crowding of London-bridge ; but in any case,
the efforts of all who would preserve the structure
from such pitiful tinkering as that to which I have
alluded, should be directed towards the diversion
of the traffic from that particular spot where it is
now most concentrated. At present the overbear-
ing mass of traffic tends to the south-eastern corner
of the bridge. Here steamboat companies seize
upon the public stairs for private monopoly, at the
expense of the public good. Here railway com-
panies build their termini, and here pedestrians and,
fruitsellers, cabs, omnThuses, and vehicles of all
sorts, congregate in alarming disorder. To remedy
this should be the object of all—and yet we are
actually threatened with a perpetuation of the
nuisance in increased force. The Thames Conser-
vators (?) now threaten us with large floating
piers, fixed upon piles. occupying the inner
arches, both at the City and Surrey ends of
the bridge. The public must be alive to this move-
ment. Once before the nuisance was attempted at
the Surrey side, but law, as the guardian of the
public right, removed it. Renewed efforts in the
same direction are being made, not only setting
law at defiance, but interfering with the founda-
tion of a bridge which has cost a million and a half
of money. To block up the arches is to contravene
mie of the most important purposes of its erection.
Their width and freedom are essential to the safety
of life and property in navigating the river. If
unanswerable evidence as to the truth of my re-
marks be asked for, what better testimony can be
adduced than that of Sir John Rennie, as reported
to the Court of Common Council on Thursday last
That the structure, after the lapse of 23 years,
having attained its final bearings, it would be
injurious to do anything which might have a ten-
dency to disturb it, and other means should be
adopted -to give increased accommodation to the
traffic."

Hoping that public attention may be called to
this important subject,