Cabinet had been opposed to the amalgamation of the local and the Queen's regular army. The whole weight of authority was in favour of continuing a local force. Even the Secretary of State six months ago must have been hostile to the measure he now proposed. Mr. Rich discussed the objections to the scheme of amalgamation on the one hand, and those alleged against the maintenance of a local army on the other, insisting that the reasons for not recruiting this army were futile, and that an efficient regular force of 80,000 men could not be maintained in India without deteriorating the general body of the British army. Sir De Lacy Evans complained of the manner in which this important question had been brought before the House without the necessary information. From the portion of the papers recently produced, the question, he said, wore in many respects quite another aspect, especially with reference to the opinions of Lord Clyde and Sir William Mansfield, and the insubordination of the local troops, who, he thought, had experienced hard measure. They had been imbued with the conviction that justice was on their side. The alleged foundation for this legislative measure was the bad conduct of these troops; but the papers hitherto furnished did not bear out the plea. The House had been led to believe that the whole of the local force had disappeared, and that, if continued, it must be re-created; but the remaining local troops numbered 17,000, and, in his opinion, so large an European army as 80,000 men was not required in India-50,000 or 60,000 would be sufficient. A most important point was the con

stitutional question-the power of the Horse Guards. He had no doubt that the prospect of a large amount of military patronage had something to do with the change that had come over the Government. In conclusion, he observed that, if the measure itself were unexceptionable, the manner in which it had been introduced would justify the House in rejecting it. He moved that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. M. Milnes seconded the mo tion. The House, he said, was totally unable to decide this question at the present moment, and till it had a record of the opinions of the Indian Council, he should assist in arresting the progress of the Bill. In its present condition, and except in cases of emergency, our Indian empire might be secured, he thought, mainly by a local force. The mutiny in that force furnished, in his opinion, an insufficient reason for abolishing it; the measure must rest upon the question whether it was necessary largely to increase the European force in India. He believed the object in view could be obtained by a well-organized and well-disciplined local force.

Mr. Torrens and Colonel Dunne addressed the House in opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Ayrton said, now the papers were before the House, which put the subject in the most clear, concise, and full light, he could understand why Sir C. Wood had changed his opinion. It had never been understood that he was formally to consult his Council; he had obtained from them all the information he desired, but he had acted, as it was intended he should act, upon his own responsibility. The mode in which this measure

was introduced had been objected to; there should be a perfect scheme, it was said; but it was unnecessary for the House to have all the details before it. Many objections to the proposed change were founded upon mere suppositions of some wrong about to be perpetrated. He justified the change: the conduct of the local troops, he contended, had been mutinous, and evidence of their indiscipline was upon record. The change would operate no injury to the officers; and as to the objection that officers could not be induced to remain in India, he insisted that they would remain or return according to the inducements held out to them. He believed that if the present system of a local service and a general service were to go on for some years, the result would be most injurious to the condition of the local officers, and that the proposed change would conduce to their general interests. The bugbear of the Horse Guards had been conjured up; but he did not believe in the power of the Horse Guards to do the mischief that was supposed. It was very much at the command of the Secretary of State for War, and in India, so far from its power being enhanced, it would rather be diminished. He believed that the maintenance of a local force would raise up local prejudices and local views, which would become paramount to other considerations.

Mr. H. Seymour, after replying to the concluding remark of Mr. Ayrton, explained the reasons, including the mutilated state of some of the papers, why, in his opinion, the House should not be then asked for a vote on this question. His great objection to the Bill, he

said, was that it really transferred the Government of India from Calcutta to London and to the Horse Guards, in diametrical opposition to the opinions of the highest Indian authorities. The patronage of the Horse Guards must be increased by the change, and the House ought to know what the increase would be, and the extent of the limitation to be put upon the Governor-General's power. If the arguments for and against a local army were equally balanced, the wisest course was to leave things as they were.

Mr. Gregson gave an opinion on the whole, in favour of the amalgamation, but he thought that inducements should be held out to officers to remain in India and to acquire the native language.

Colonel Sykes spoke at some length in favour of keeping up a distinct local army, which, he said, might be recruited to 30,000 men, without touching the resources of a local army.

Sir J. Smith remarked that the question involved three pointsexpense, efficiency, and discipline. There was no reason to anticipate economy from the abolition of the local army. With regard to efficiency, the local army sent more men into the field in proportion to its number than the Line; and as to discipline, he read testimony to show that the reported ill-discipline of the local army was not well founded. Looking to the state of Indian finance, he hoped that means would be taken to keep down the numbers of the European force.

Major Parker, having been an officer of Sepoys, thought the demand for European troops had been much exaggerated, and that a smaller number than that proposed,

quartered in healthy cantonments, would suffice.

Sir. C. Wood maintained that the papers now produced had confirmed the statement he had made in introducing the Bill, and he proceeded to notice and answer the objections made in the course of the debate, vindicating himself from the charge of inconsistency, founded upon his speech of last year, and justifying his exclusion of certain passages in confidential letters, included in the papers laid before the House. He had, he said, communicated fully and freely upon the subject of the local army with the members of the Council; but, the question being one which the Secretary of State could not decide himself, it had received the decision of the Cabinet, which had resolved that a Bill should be brought in. The matter had, there fore, not come before the Council in such a shape as to entitle them to record their opinions. Resolutions of the members had been placed in his hands, but the Cabinet had determined that they could not be received. He would, however, give the Council an opportunity of producing them, so that they might be recorded. In conclusion, Sir C. Wood said:-"I have been taunted with bringing in a paltry measure, but I am surprised at that charge. The commissions of Indian officers, and all questions of pay, purchase, and promotion, are settled, not by an Act of Parliament, but by the Indian Government. But I thought it right and necessary to take the opinion of the House of Commons upon the subject to make them share the responsibility of this measure, and become parties to the proceedings of the Government --and therefore VOL. CH.

I introduced this Bill. The same result, however, might have been attained without coming to Parliament, and, under those circumstances, the only object being to obtain the concurrence of Parliament, I thought the shorter the Bill in which that assent was obtained the better. It would have been impossible to introduce all the details of promotion and exchange into an Act of Parliament. The general principle of the alteration proposed by the Government was a simple one, namely, that there should be no local European army; that the European force in India should be part of the Queen's general army; that the staff corps should be formed partly from the present Indian officers, and partly from the line officers, and that ultimately all the native regiments should be officered from the staff corps." He reiterated his statements as to the expense of the projected change, the supply of officers, and other disputed points, observing that he had not heard any arguments which had changed his opinion.

After some further discussion, in which Mr. A. Mills and Mr. Horsman took part, Sir De Lacy Evans' amendment was negatived without a division. The numbers upon the motion for the second reading were as follows:

Aves. Noes.

Majority

282 53

229

Upon the committal of the Bill, various amendments were moved by members opposed to the prin ciple of the measure, with a view to limit its operation and preserve certain rights of patronage and contest to the Government in India [N]

but they did not obtain the concurrence of the House. Among other propositions,

Sir J. Fergusson moved a Resolution, "That 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 submitted to the consideration of Parliament." He insisted that, unless the House knew the means by which it was proposed to carry out this gigantic scheme of centralization, they ought not to assent to the further progress of the Bill. He reiterated arguments, and cited authorities, repeatedly urged against the abolition of a local European army, contending that it would impose a very large additional charge upon the revenues of India, and that the retention of a considerable regular force there might impair the resources for national defence at home. The mutiny, the sole reason assigned for the measure, he insisted, had been exaggerated, and was employed as a convenient plea for carrying out certain views.

This Resolution was negatived by 88 to 50. The minority opposed to the Bill, however, still tried various means to defeat it, Sir J. Elphinstone moving the adjournment of the House, which was seconded by Sir E. Colebrooke.

Sir Henry Willoughby protested against the measure, which, he said, settled nothing, while it unsettled a great deal, the House being kept in the dark as to the details of this important question. Whatever the denomination of the European army in India, he rema:ked, it would be the Queen's army, and the best authorities

thought that a portion of that army should be localized in India. The constitutional aspect of the question ought, in his opinion, to lead the House to the same conclusion, and they must not shut their eyes to the cost of dispensing with a localized force, which would be most fearful. Localized regiments, moreover, could best bear the action of the sun.

Lord Palmerston urged Sir. J. Elphinstone to withdraw his motion, about which, he remarked, Sir H. Willoughby had not spoken one word. If the majority was not to prevail, and if the minority resorted to all the devices which the forms of the House allowed, in order to defeat a measure by delay, it would be impossible for Parliament to carry on its constitutional functions.

The opposition to the Bill, however, was resolutely maintained by Mr. Malins, Lord C. Hamilton, Colonel Sykes, Colonel Dunne, and other Members. Mr. Vansittart, on the other hand, supported the Bill, and

Colonel P. Herbert noticed various misapprehensions into which the opponents of the measure had fallen. There was nothing in the Bill, he said, that would alter the appropriation of the military patronage in India, and there would be no interference with the prerogative of the Governor-General. He corrected some mistakes of Colonel Sykes, in particular as to the power of the Commander-inChief to order home any regiment he pleased from India. It was precisely because he wished to strengthen the hands of the Governor-General that he hoped this Bill would pass.

Mr. Henley moved to insert the

following proviso at the end of Clause I Provided that the same or equal provision made for the sons of persons who have served in India, and the advantages as to pay, pensions, and allowances, privileges, promotion, and otherwise, secured to the military forces of the East India Company by the Act of the 21st and 22nd years of the Queen, cap. 106, shall be maintained in any plan for the re-organization of the Indian Army."

To this Sir C. Wood made no objection, and the Bill, which, in fact, consisted of but one clause, passed through Committee.

The second reading was moved in the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll on the 10th of August. The noble Duke urged the necessity for passing the present measure, which had been carried by an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons, consisting of all political parties, and he therefore did not expect any great opposition from their Lordships. At some length he pointed out that the proposed change of combining the relatively speaking small European forces of the late East India Company with the regiments of the Line was far less extensive than it would have been, had the Government decided on establishing an European force in India totally distinct from the regular army.

Lord Ellenborough strongly protested against the Bill, as one of a very dangerous character. It would destroy the efficiency of the European army in India, as it would be impossible to obtain under the provisions of the present Bill, such a class of officers as had been trained under the old system. The Bill, too, was not

in accordance with the proclamation issued to the natives of India on the transfer of that country from the East India Company's rule to that of the Queen's.

Lord De Grey and Ripon supported the motion at some length.

The Duke of Cambridge had considered this question with the greatest care, and, having consulted many military men in whose opinions he placed the highest confidence, had come to the conclusion that this great question should be settled in the mode proposed by the Government. could not agree with Lord Ellenborough that the proposed change would in any way deteriorate the future class of officers; in his opinion, it would rather add to the efficiency of the service. One of the advantages which would arise from the present Bill was, that a large body of well-tried officers would be added to the officers of the British army, and obviate a difficulty which occurred in the Crimean war concerning the employment of Indian officers. In conclusion, he vindicated the Horse Guards from alleged possible abuse of patronage and in reference to the treatment of Indian officers, who, he asserted, had met with the most considerate treatment, and had, in fact, obtained the greatest share of public honours.

Lord Derby was sorry he could not entertain the sanguine expectations of either the Duke of Argyll or the Duke of Cambridge as to the results of this measure. One great objection to it was the conflict of opinions on the subject, especially as all those persons connected with India wished to preserve the present state of things, and only those connected