Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

men as Mr. Gladstone, Sir James Graham, Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, Lord Stanley, Sir John Pakington, and Mr. Bright, for the standing orators at the India House, we cannot see how the interests or the ears, whether of India or of England, could suffer by the change. But, in point of fact, the House of Commons has ample power to discuss Indian subjects at present; and the only check upon the use of this power, hitherto, has been the apathy with which such discussions have been invariably received. Henceforth, of course, all that will be changed, and discussion on India will be plentiful enough. But, as inquiry is extended, it will become the more and more needful that responsibility shall be fixed; and this not in relation to one class of subjects only, as at present, but in respect to all. As to those who profess a fear of such discussion, we cannot sympathize with them. The view might suit a hired writer on the other side of the channel; but seems very much out of place when emanating from the subject of a free state. If the control of Parliament could injuriously affect the efficiency of our Indian administration, it must be equally injurious to the efficiency of the administration of every other department of the state; for, of course, such control would be carried no farther in the one case than in the other. In no department would the legislature dream of invading the functions of the executive by taking from it what properly belongs to it alone.

Knowing, as we believe we do most thoroughly, what the Indian government really is, and the causes which have reduced it to its present condition, we have no hesitation in saying, that the greatest of all wants in regard to it, is the want of that publicity and amenability to public opinion which Parliamentary discussion alone affords. India requires, above every thing, that the truth should be known, and that its government and their acts should be brought face to face with the light. If the present mode of administering India be what thé Directors and their surporters represent it, they can have no reason to dread that publicity, to which is subjected the administration of every other department of the state. The greater the misrepresentation of their opponents, the more effectually, in that case, will that misrepresentation be exposed. Every attack on them will recoil upon the authors of it, and they will stand out grandly before the public, no longer, as they now profess to be, the victims of calumnies which they cannot meet. say profess; for there have been no persons more indefatigable, of late years, than the Directors and their civilian protegés in writing up the Indian administration, in the press.

We

Thus the governors and the governed will have equal cause to be thankful; and we can see no reason why that ordeal should not be granted to the former, which they must desire equally with the latter, if they think that their past and present measures can stand the public gaze. If, on the other hand, the Indian government is such as must give way under such a test, that is all the more reason why it should be subjected to it, if the interests of public justice are to be allowed any weight. That the Directors feel conscious that open discussion would be fatal to them, may be surmis ed, from the manner in which they have ever sought to evade inquiry in the House of Commons, and from the fetters which they have placed upon the Indian press.

But we are asked on every side, what can Parliament know about India having never been there? To this we might reply by asking, how many of the Directors or Presi dents of the India Board, past or present, were ever in India; and how many of those who do the work in Leadenhall Street and Can→ non Row We might also ask, when Mill the historian was in India, and many others who have produced volumes showing the deepest knowledge of all that relates to that great empire? We need not, however, meet the question by others of this kind. Happily what Parliament can know about India, may be more directly gathered from its own proceedings, and published papers and reports, from the days of Edmund Burke to the present time. Should a perusal of these be not sufficient to satisfy the querist that Parliament can know every thing about India that is necessary to be known about it, when it chooses to devote its mind to the task, we would in turn ask him whether, on the subject he is best got up in, he could himself produce a tithe so large a fund of written lore? It would indeed be an absurdity to suppose, that a body which contains within it so many of the finest intellects in the nation-men who have mastered the highest problems in science, literature, commerce, jurisprudence, and politics of every branch-should be unable to solve the few and simple questions relating to a rude and primitive social organization, which, apart from the Hindostanee terms so unnecessarily employed by those who write about it, has nothing in it to puzzle even a boy at school. It is too late to begin to frighten people here with stuff about the mysteries of Indian government, now that the farce has become exploded in Hindostan. We do not suppose that any one will question our own knowledge of the matter, however much he may differ with us as to our views; and we hereby assure the pub

lic that there is no mystery whatever in it, on the sacred word of an adept.

There remains to be considered the final objection to the abolition of the Company, that the patronage cannot safely be intrusted to the minister of the Crown. We do not know how this ground can be tenable, where the government is free, and the minister after all but the servant of the people, and the creation of their choice. But, allowing every weight to it, there are still plenty of ways in which the patronage may be disposed of without giving it into the minister's hands. We have shewn this in our article on the Indian Revolt, in the preceding number of this Review, we need not therefore go over the same ground again. But to leave it as it now stands, the private perquisite of the Directors, is contrary to every principle of political ethics, as these are here understood. Irresponsible power is totally unknown to the constitution of these realms; and nothing can be more irresponsible than the exercise of the patronage of India by the Directors under the existing plan. Before the abolition of the Company as a trading body, and the transfer of the revenue of India to them in trust merely for the Crown, there did exist responsibility on their part, as we have in preceding pages shown. There was the responsibility to the proprietors, and there was the responsibility involved in their own dividends being contingent on the good or bad use they put it to. It was because there was responsibility on their part, while there was none on the minister's, that the patronage was left to them instead of being given to the Crown. The same cause, as we have before argued, that then operated to the exclusion of the minister from this patronage, should equally operate to the exclusion from it of the Directors now. On one of the horns of this dilemma the defenders of the present irresponsible exercise of patronage by the Directors are placed. Either the great principles on which the whole government of this country is founded are false; principles which we have shown to have been strictly adhered to in the Indian legislation of Lord North, Lord Liverpool, and Mr. Pitt; or the existing mode of dealing with the Indian patronage, which is utterly irreconcilable with them, is totally indefensible, and must be swept away. Into the mode in which that patronage has been used or abused by the Directors, we have no desire to enter; it is sufficient for us to show that the leaving it in their hands is contrary to every principle which good government involves. But those who imagine that in practice no evil has resulted from it, lie under a great mistake; for, notwithstanding the great men that have occasionally sprung up under it, there never was state patronage more

unblushingly jobbed away, and turned into money or into money's worth. If exceptional instances were sufficient to prove the goodness of a system, then nothing could be more excellent than that which, in the century preceding the Revolution, threw the patronage of all the offices under the monarchy, into the laps of the titled harlotry of France.

We have finished our task-we have concluded our argument—and must leave the issue to the national good sense. If the views we advocate are well-founded they will not fail to find acceptance; and we desire not to see them received with favour if they be the reverse. To ourselves personally it is immaterial what the result may be; whether the government of the Company be continued, or whether it be overthrown. The only interest we have in the matter appertains equally to every one within these realms. Against the Directors individually we have nothing to allege, but that they have done what probably almost every one else would have done that had been in their place. We do not suppose that, personally, they are either better or worse than other men. In every class of life, irresponsible power is corrupting; and we have no right to expect that they should prove exceptions to the rule. It is because it is corrupting that the constitution has imposed such strict limits upon the power of the Crown; and all that we desire to see is, that an immunity from responsibility shall not be accorded to the rulers of India which is denied to the ministers of the Queen. Indeed, there is far more reason for these restrictions in the one case than in the other; because the ministers have, at any rate, a large stake in the country, and are amenable to public opinion here. But the Directors have no stake in India, and all the organs of public opinion there they have summarily put down. That act, designed to strengthen and perpetuate their power, has really brought down on them their doom. Bad as were their antecedents, it was impossible to submit to this. It was an outrage on the most cherished of our institutions-it subjected us in the face of Europe to a burning disgrace. It was an avowal that the worst maxims of continental despotism were not too bad to find favour with them; and that they were ready to parade Englishmen, despite of all their boasted freedom, with the collars of serfdom on their necks.

But there are no evils in this world without their compensating good, and this outrage upon public decency will be the last. Strenuously as the Directors are exerting themselves to secure the aid of the public journals of England on their side, there have been few that have thought fit to degrade themselves by the acceptance of such ignominious work, No public

writer, who was worthy of freedom himself, could descend to sing the praises of those who made his brother journalists in India slaves. The fall of the Company, therefore, will be unpitied and unwept. Those who have eaten its bread may show some sorrow for its extinction; and more will be felt by those who hold promises of appointments, or jobs of other kinds unfulfilled. But, beyond this narrow circle, there will be none to grieve for it; and the thoughts of all will be turned from the past to the future-from the rubbish that is to be removed, to the edifice that is to be built up. Our own view on the subject has been given in the last number of this Review, and to that we still adhere. The undivided responsibility of the Indian minister; the sole power in him of doing and ordering every thing that is to be ordered and done; the giving him a single voice in the distribution of such patronage as may be left to his department; or, at any rate, the sole nomination to those great offices to which the Crown and Company now nominate conjointly, and the sole power of recall; the strict limitation of the duties of the Board that is to assist him to the business of affording counsel and

advice; the power of altering the Board at pleasure, as in the Admiralty or any other similar department, when it is found that any members of it are men with whom the president cannot work; these all seem to us points essential to the efficient government of India; and without which it would be impossible to expect the minister to be answerable to Parliament in the fullest sense. With such complete responsibility established, we shall have no fear for the result. However difficult Parliament may find it to reach the gentlemen of the India House, it will be easy enough to place its finger on a minister who is ever in its presence, and whose tenure of office is dependent on its vote. Almost any thing may now be done or left undone, in regard to the government of India without the legislature being able to deal with the delinquency or neglect in any practical or efficient shape. But far different will the case be when the screen that now protects incompetency or abuse of power, shall be withdrawn; and the Indian department shall be as freely subjected as any other, to Parliamentary cognizance and Parliamentary control.

ARMY REFORM.

Report of the Commissioners appointed to consider the best mode of Reorganizing the System for Training Officers for the Scientific Corps.

Cursory View of the Present Crisis in India. By GENERAL SIR ROBERT GARDINER, K.C.B., Royal Artillery. London: Byfield, Hawksworth, & Co.

Question of Legislative Military Responsibility. By GENERAL SIR R. GARDINER.

Money or Merit. By EDWARD BARRINGTON DE FONBLANQUE. With Notes by SIR CHARLES E. TREVELYAN, K.C.B. London: Charles J. Skeet.

Army Reform. By J. F. B. G. Stuart, Printer, 38, Rupert Street.

The Reform of the Army. "National Review," October, 1857.

Report of the Army Purchase Commission.

Report of the Right Hon. Edward Ellice, M.P., Lieut.-general Edward Buckley Wynward, C.B., and Major-general Sir Henry John Bentinck, K.C.B.

For

THE faults imputed to the organization of the British army are so numerous that we are not surprised to find so many and such contradictory remedies proposed for the establishment of a better system. The strange thing is, that the most opposite remedies are frequently advocated by one and the same scientific reformer. instance, a writer in a recent number of that otherwise able periodical, the National Review, as a panacea for what he terms the "rottenness" of our regiments, recommends "opening commissions in the army to a larger proportion from the ranks;" and "would have such an examination of the boy candidate for a first commission, as

would ensure his having laid the foundation of a sound liberal education, such as our public schools impart;" and further, "would enforce a progressive examination in the various branches of professional knowledge, to precede each step of advancement from the ensigncy up to the rank of field-officer." Now, no two methods could be more opposed than the first and third of these; the second is that now in use. We have searched the evidence given before the Army Purchase Commission for some opinion on this alleged "rottenness" of our regiments; but find, to use the words of the report of the minority, that "all the witnesses examined

corps

upon the commission concur in opinion, which opinion is confirmed by the most distinguished foreign officers who have lately served in the field with your Majesty's forces, that a British regiment, as at present organised, is equal, if not superior, to similar any in the world." Indeed, until reading the National Review, we never heard this doubted; nor does the writer in that able periodical give one reason for, or one particle of evidence in support of his assertion. He enumerates a host of evils which occurred in the Crimea, but which resulted from an incapable government and an inefficient staff, not from the "rottenness" of our regimental system. So conclusive is all the evidence on this head, that we might here leave the matter, but that the writer gives an imaginative account of the career of an officer so totally opposed to all experience, and at variance with any real case, that it may not be uninstructive to examine the career of the ensign of the National Review, from the day he joined to that on which he obtained his company, as a specimen of the flagrant misrepresentation army reformers are apt to fall into. The passage is unique :

He was first committed to the instruction of the adjutant and the drill-sergeant, and taught to face to the right and to the left, to step out and to step short; the firelock and squad prepared the way for companies and battalion drill; and in less than a month he was reported to his colonel as "fit for duty:" his military education was far advanced.

turn as

He was then put on the roster for duty, and had his 66 orderly officer;" and, led about by the orderly sergeant, he hurried through the soldiers' barrackrooms at prescribed hours, visited the hospital and barrack-guard, and went through whatever other performances must be detailed by him in the form of a written report, which was exacted from him next morning by his colonel. He was placed on two or three courts-martial, to give him a knowledge of militrary jurisprudence; if in garrison, he mounted guard, varying the weary twenty-four hours by "turning out" and presenting arms to the field-officer of the day.

He was told that he must provide himself with two books-The Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Army, and The Regulation Field exercise Book; not that he was given to understand that he would be examined in these mystic volumes, or that he must necessarily read them, but that he must show them, as a proof of possession, at the general officer's half-yearly inspection. Every fine day he attended morning parade; and, when this was over, he put off his uniform and his military cares together, and amused himself as best he could, and tried to "kill time" till the bugles called him to the grand event of the day-the mess dinner. Here plate and glass, and mess-equipage in an excess, which looked as if they never could be intended for marching, a liberal messman, an accomplished cook, an expensive cellar, and the occasional presence of the regimental band-all combined to make the mess far too luxurious and expensive. It was ruinous to young officers of small private means: but a clique of young moneyed officers generally ruled there; and if the colonel of the regiment tried to curb this inordinate expense, and recommended economy,

he found himself in a minority, powerless as well aš unpopular; and, after a vain struggle, abandoned all but nominal mess control, and intrenched himself within his undisputed prerogative of the parade-ground and the "orderly-room."

The mess, abandoned to its own devices, became an imperium in imperio; and very often not only the conventional laws of this oligarchy were enacted and enforced, but even promotion, the purchasing of steps, the buying and selling of commissions, were canvassed and settled; and those who could not or would not contribute their quota to buy out old officers who stopped the way, soon felt that their rebellion against mess rule exposed them to dislike and persecution.

Money forced on the young officer, and he was quickly a captain; and now he began to feel some interest in his company. Probably he cared for its appearance on parade, the height and good looks of the men, the splendour of their well-furbished appointments, all that adds to its outward show; but he knew little, or rather nothing, of the wants or the habits, the characters or the discipline, of his soldiers.

Now, is this a true picture of a British officer? Could any young man of ordinary intelligence be three or four years with his regiment, yet "know nothing of the wants or the habits, the characters or the discipline, of his men?" Would any man sit on courtsmartial without making himself acquainted with military law? Does not a general officer, at his inspection, examine the young officer, and that, too, in a most searching manner? Is the mess of any one regiment in the service "abandoned to its own devices?" The whole portrait is so ludicrously overdrawn that it needs only to be exhibited in order to be condemned. One quotation more from the National, and we have done with that "Reformer." The sale of commissions, the writer insists, should absolutely cease :—

[ocr errors]

In justice to those officers who have purchased under the old system, government must refund, within a given period, the regulation value of their commissions to all who may then desire to sell out at once (probably few comparatively will choose to do this); but if they decline, and prefer enjoying their rank, their claim should cease also. Having once refused the offer, we can see no injustice in extinguishing the right to sell then and for ever. The service should no longer be sacrificed to personal convenience. Those officers who mean to make the army their profession will remain. These are the only valuable servants. On the other hand, the country can well spare many of a class which had much multiplied before the late war-we mean those young gentlemen who had entered the army without any intention of serving more than a few years, and who talked of the service as a "gentlemanly amusement" for the interval which it may suit them to pass in it. We do not deny that officers of this class, these birds of passage, will generally be distinguished as the most gallant leaders in action; the high courage, the "pluck" of their race, will make them as forward in the charge as in the fox-hunt; but they will not often submit to the drudgery and the irksome details of garrison and barrack life. Here they will be found inefficient and useless; and we may add, that in regiments of the line their expensive habits are a bad example to the poorer officers with

whom they must associate. Our army is too expensive. No officer can live on his pay. We know that the poor gentleman's son makes the best officer; but the habits of most of our regiments exclude him or ruin him.

The injustice of forcing a man to sell his commission, or to forfeit its value, is so manifest, that we apprehend in this country, where vested rights and legitimate expectations are so honourably respected, few would be found deliberately to endorse and support such an unequivocal robbery and gross breach of faith; but we must protest most strongly against the doctrine, that the country can "well spare" the services of that particular class of men who enter the army more for the distinction it confers, than from a desire to make it their profession. Why should a man make a bad captain because he has no ambition to be a general The effect of getting rid of all those who enter the army for a few years only, and who, if they did not enter the army would do nothing else—a class not to be condemned to idleness with impunity-would be to render promotion as slow as it is in the Indian army; and, if there be one point on which all conservatives and reformers are agreed, it is that facilities should be given for rapid promotion to the deserving. Were all officers for twenty or twenty-five years, or even for fifteen years, to remain subalterns, they could have no opportunities of proving their abilities except by competitive examinations, which could only test their intellectual powers, not the far more important moral, and indeed physical qualities, so necessary in an officer. As this result would be inevitable upon the adoption of the plan proposed by the above writer, it is clear that the class of officers defined as the one be "well spared," is, on the contrary, precisely the most advantageous to the army, and serviceable to the true interests of the country.

There can be no greater mistake than to believe that great intellectual powers, highly cultivated, are necessary for the perfect accomplishment of all the duties of a regimental officer. On this subject, the author of Army Reform-whose incognito we respect, but who, we can assure our readers, is perhaps the best authority in England on military matters— remarks "The fact is, that the duties of a regimental officer are so regular, so mechanical, and so immediately under the control and even eyes of the superiors, that, until the command of a regiment be attained, there is rarely an opportunity for one to exhibit superior qualities. An individual may be conspicuous for negligence or inattention; but the great mass will perform their duties in a way to give no occasion for any selection, up to that period, with justice."

If the advocates for the abolition of purchase think that that measure of itself would affect the advancement of officers, they have but to look to the artillery and engineers, where no purchase exists, to be undeceived. There are only three possible modes of promotion, that by purchase, merit, and seniority. Promotion by merit is practically impossible; for by whom is the merit of a particular officer to be tested except by the lieutenant-colonel of his regiment, and are we so sure that lieutenant-colonels would not promote by favour, and would give us more competent officers than we have at present?

As to promotion by seniority, the artillery and engineers offer a sufficient test to prove to us that, under such a system, few men could hope to arrive at the command of their regiment until they were past the age for active service.

In the artillery in 1854, out of the 222 captains 93 were above 35, and of 52 lieutenantcolonels, 45 were above 50, and 24 above 60 years old.

In the engineers, of 96 captains, 65 were above 35, and 23 above 45. Out of 25 lieutenant-colonels, 23 were above 50. In the brevet of 1841, no artillery colonel got promotion as major-general who was under 70 years of age.

Mr. de Fonblanque draws an opposite conclusion from the facts of the efficiency of the

corps.

We grant that under the present system they are efficient; on this head Sir Hew Ross's evidence corroborates the opinion we have always held. He observes :

Of one thing I can speak with confidence, that during the period that I have held the office of Adjutant-general, the officers received into the artillery from the Academy have generally, by their conduct, ability, and zeal in the performance of their duty, given the promise of high character, and of talent in their profession, and that the manner in which the various duties of the officers of the regiment have been performed, and more especially since the breaking out of the late war, has proved their energy, ability, and soldierlike spirit. I may also remark, that whilst there has been a tendency to detract from the merits and scientific attainments of the officers of artillery, there never have been wanting, during my knowledge of the regiment, men suited to the occasion.

I am borne out in this assertion by a reference to the Officers who have held command in the field, and other responsible positions incidental to the war, and by the evidence of those officers who have been suddenly called upon to fill the different situations as heads of departments, and who, under great pressure, by aid of the large means at their disposal, have succeeded in effecting improvements in mechanical and other sciences connected with their professions in the different departments, the want of which had long been recognized by their less fortunate predecessors, whom an unwise economy had deprived of the means to carry them out.

« ForrigeFortsett »