tion of the European army in India, it was impossible, he said, to exclude from view the native army, which would suffer in its character by the removal of a local European force, and would become a refuge only for those European officers who could find no other employment. He had never heard a satisfactory answer given to the objection that, by the removal of a local European force, the Indian Government would lose the valuable assistance of some thousand European officers immediately attached to the local Government. He thought, and this was the opinion of Lord Canning, that it would be difficult to get Line officers properly qualified to stay in India; and young men, new to that country, could scarcely avoid giving offence to the natives. Great stress had been laid by Sir C. Wood upon the mutinous spirit exhibited by the discharged local European force; but it must be remembered that that force had been recruited by men hastily enlisted in this country and imperfectly disciplined, and he challenged proof that troops of the Line, placed in the same circumstances and influenced by the same feeling, would not have acted in the same manner. He read testimonies given by various officers of Indian experience in favour of the military qualities of the local European army, observing that, for high commands in India, there was always an opportunity of getting from the local service the best men. The jealousies and rivalry between the two services had been insisted upon; but the officers of the local army had been excluded from certain professional advantages enjoyed by the other service. This had naturally created a sense of injustice; the removal

of the cause would banish the effects. It had been argued that the locking up a large European force in India was inconvenient; but he denied that the local force was "locked up ;" it had been and might again be employed, in time of war, beyond the limits of India.

General Peel stated the grounds upon which he had come to a perfectly different conclusion from Lord Stanley. He had changed his opinion upon this question; he could not get over, he said, the fact of the mutiny among the local Europeans, and there were other reasons (which he detailed) that had contributed to the change. He was convinced that there would be no lack of qualified Line officers for continuous service in India; and as to the expense of maintaining a single army, he agreed with Sir C. Wood, that the most efficient force was the cheapest, and did not see why the expense should be greater than at present. He gave his cordial support to the motion for leave to bring in the Bill.

Colonel Sykes contended that the grounds assigned by Sir C. Wood for the amalgamation of the two European armies were not founded on facts. He palliated the alleged mutiny of the local Europeans, suggesting instances in which regiments of the Line had made a stand against what was deemed injustice, and he read strong testimonies to the character of the local army. He insisted upon the question of expense, the constitutional question, and the question of patronage, as furnishing reasons why Sir C Wood should not persevere in his measure.

Mr. Peacocke spoke in favour of

pean force in India, and deprive the Indian Government of a large portion of the power which it possessed over the appointment of local commanders.

Mr. T. G. Baring defended Sir C. Wood against the charge of not having consulted the Council of India in this matter, which, he observed, was a mere technical objection, the opinions of the members of the Council being known and before the House. He justified, likewise, the manner in which this question had been brought under the consideration of Parliament, and then proceeded to discuss in detail the objections to the abolition of a local European force in India, insisting that there would not be the slightest difference in training and education for the InIdian service between the officers of the local force and those of the Line. The plan sketched out by Sir C. Wood, it was said, would interfere with the power of the Governor-General of India; but he denied the force of this objection, and denied also that the change would augment the patronage of the Horse Guards. An opinion had been attributed to Lord Cornwallis in favour of a local force of Europeans in India; but Lord Cornwallis, in 1794, had actually submitted a plan for the amalgamation of the two forces. He called upon the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Baillie complained that the House should be called upon to decide this question, when it was admitted by the Government that they had not decided upon the details of the plan of amalgamation they proposed to carry out. In considering this question, as regarded the interests of our Indian Empire, he expressed his

belief, founded upon reasons which he explained, that the expense attending the proposed change had been very much understated by Sir C. Wood; and he suggested that, if the Bill passed, the War-office would deal with a large amount of Indian revenue, which would be exempt from the check of a Parliamentary revision, and his opinion was that the War-office was one of the worst-managed departments in the public service. He asked whether the Government had calculated the number of men to be maintained in this country for the relief of the corps in India and the colonies. He advised the House to reject this Bill, in order that it might have before it a Bill containing a distinct plan of amalgamation.

Sir H. Verney argued in favour of the maintenance of a local army. The latter, he thought, were disposed to treat the natives with more consideration than the Queen's officers-which circumstance was of no small import

ance.

Sir J. Elphinstone was of opinion that, in a question of high policy like this, the opinions of civilians were entitled to more weight than those of military men, whose reasons for doing away with the local European force were founded upon a transaction which had been exaggerated into a mu. tiny. He contended that the men had preferred only just and proper claims, and that they had never gone beyond insubordination. India was to be held by European troops, in his opinion 80,000 would not do, and there must be an annual relief of 10,000 men. Great improvements might be made, and the condition of the men ameliorated, without doing

If

away with the local army altogether, and incurring the heavy drain of human life which would be the consequence. He opposed the Bill.

Mr. Kinnaird also opposed the measure. He thought that the Indian Council had not been treated in the way that Parliament intended, the question not having been submitted to their judgment collectively till the Cabinet had decided upon it.

Mr. Vansittart cordially supported the second reading. He considered the present time singularly favourable to the measure of amalgamation, which was calculated to allay jealousy and discontent.

Sir W. Russell also supported the Bill. The chief objection to a local army was the almost total impossibility, in a climate like that of India, of maintaining a high state of discipline. All feelings of jealousy between the two armies would be removed by their fusion, and he did not see why there should be more difficulty in obtaining officers for the Queen's army in India than for the Company's European force. If the If the native army were reduced, as he strongly recommended, an army of 50,000 Europeans would be sufficient.

Sir W. Farquhar, after commenting upon Sir C. Wood's change of opinion, appealed to the despatch of Lord Canning, who had the advantage of knowing the sentiments of men of great local experience.

Colonel P. Herbert supported the Bill. He asked what would have been the condition of the Indian Government if, in the late strike, which he called a mutiny, of the European troops, the whole or a

large part of the mutineers had consisted of local forces. In the Royal Army, if insubordination broke out in a particular regiment, it could be removed from India.

Mr. Buxton urged the dissent of the Secretary of State's Council as well as of the Council of Calcutta, including Mr. Wilson-from this Bill. He also cited the autho rity of Lord Ellenborough, Lord Canning, and Sir John Laurence, and observed that both the late Government, and the present Government, until this year, had been favourable to a distinct local army. He argued upon financial, sanitary, and other grounds, against the Bill.

Mr. Horsman observed, that, no doubt, the question as to the expediency of maintaining a local European army was very important, and one on which authorities were very much divided. But there were two preliminary questionswhether the House was fairly treated in not having before it all the necessary information, and whether it was prepared to adopt a novel mode of carrying out so great a change, involving questions of principle and details, not by a well-considered legislative Act, but by an abstract Resolution,

the beginning and end of all Parliamentary proceedings upon a measure that would transfer to the Horse Guards a large amount of patronage, and revolutionize the Government of India. In examining the reasons assigned by Sir C. Wood for a change of policy upon this question, connected with the mutiny, he charged him with disingenuousness, and with abusing the confidence of the House. stated, of his own knowledge, and pledged himself to prove, that there were documents on the sub

He

ject produced as complete, which were only extracts, important passages having been taken out of them. He complained of details of the Government scheme which had been kept back, but which were of great constitutional importance. There was the question of patronage, of the influence, power, and authority that would be given to the military department, and there was the question of expense. These were points which involved the question, whether there should be one supreme head or a double Government in India, and the House was simply asked to repeal an Act of Parliament, without any plan, and against the unanimous protest of the Council of India.

Mr. S. Herbert, in reply to Mr. Horsman, denied that the Government had withheld information, or that the House was asked to adopt an abstract Resolution; the subject before the House was a Bill. He vindicated Sir C. Wood and the Horse Guards against the insinuations of Mr. Horsman, declaring that there was no intention whatever of altering the relations between the Horse Guards and the Governor-General of India. With respect to the question of a local army, he confessed that he had had great difficulty in arriving at a conclusion; his bias had been in favour of a local army; but he had at length become convinced that the measure of the Government afforded a satisfactory solution of the question. One of the reasons which had swayed his opinion, as it had materially influenced that of Lord Clyde, was the fact of the mutiny in the local corps. He discussed the arguments and opinions for and against the maintenance of a local European force,

and upon the question of health and acclimatization, he cited the evidence of scientific men, showing the destructive effects of long exposure to a tropical climate. He replied to the objection of Mr. Horsman, founded upon an apprehension that the Horse Guards were going to take all the Indian patronage, and gave explanations to show that the Horse Guards would not obtain the vast amount of patronage he supposed.

Mr. Rich moved the adjournment of the debate, which was negatived on a division by 262 to 83.

Other motions for adjournment followed, which were resisted by the Government and rejected by increased majorities, but the minority persisting in opposing the progress of the Bill, Lord Palmerston yielded, and the debate was adjourned. On its being resumed a few days afterwards,

Mr. Rich observed that the question at issue was, whether that organization of the European army in India should be continued, which had subsisted successfully almost from the time of our possessing a substantial power in that country, or the local force should be cashiered and superseded by Her Majesty's troops of the Line. This radical change might be wise and necessary; but the question was a most important one, and the measure ought to be called for by considerations of magnitude, and justified by the opinions of the wisest statesmen and the deliberate judgment of the duly-constituted authorities. But, on the contrary, the Governor-General of India and his Council were unanimous against the measure; so was the Council of the Secretary of State for India, and the late