situations, free agents and responsible human beings, may they never enjoy the savage satisfaction of being tyrants over the many, in revenge for submitting to be the slaves of the few!

Let us examine more narrowly the doctrine and proposition of Sir E. Paget; the "sort of spirit of independence” referred to, is that shewn on the occasion of the half-batta order in 1828, in the memorials to the Bengal government and Court of Directors, praying for its rescinding, and pointing out the hardship and injustice of it, and which, I believe, the home authorities would now rescind if they saw any means of backing out of it with honour.

66

I will examine a few of the documents before me. The artillery at Dum-Dum state that they address themselves to principles of necessity, humanity, and policy," and that they participate in the "feelings of dismay" which the half-batta order created;-the Cawnpore division of artillery express their "surprise and alarm;" the Sirhind division their "painful amazement;" the 1st Regiment, "the deepest feelings of regret and anxiety;" the 7th, their "alarm;" the 9th, their "deep despondency;" the 11th, "distress and dismay;" the 25th, the "utmost disappointment and regret ;" the 27th, "deep and bitter mortification;" the 35th, their "gloomy prospects;" and the 54th, their "despair;" the Saugor division of the army, their "consternation;" and the Rajpootana field force, their "feelings of grief, distress, and general alarm.” I am not going to enter into the merits of the half-batta question; I merely quote the foregoing expressions in reference to Sir E. Paget's statement; that they do not affect the discipline of the army, a perusal of the evidence before the Military Select Committee of Parliament, now sitting, would shew; for numerous general officers* have

Dalbiac, Scott, Smith, Pritzler, Nicolls, Reynell, &c., thought the discipline of the native Indian army extraordinary.

spoken in the highest commendatory terms of the Indian army. It is absolutely necessary, however, to consider if such a measure would be acceptable to the officers of his Majestys service, and in order to do so, let us observe how the two armies are officered.

HIS MAJESTY'S ARMY. The king's army averages 100,000 men, including those in the colonies, ordnance, staff, and all extra corps, to which is attached a complement of five thousand officers below field rank; and 2,329 officers above the rank of captain on the effective list.

In the king's army there are nearly 550 general officers (field marshals included), and only 137 regiments of horse and foot; there is, in fact, a sufficiency of commanding officers for nearly every regiment in Europe; the artillery, engineers, and marines,

are

HON. COMPANY'S ARMY.

The Honourable Company's army amounts to about 200,000 men, not including the invalid or veteran corps, to which are only attached 4,120 officers below the rank of field officer, and but six hundred and eighteen above it!

In the Honourable Company's army there are no more generals or colonels than there are regiments; consequently there is no half pay list, no sinecures, and no pensions under twenty-five years service, while the general servitude of the army is thus shewn : five

* Retired officers not included in this list; these tables are derived from "Facts and Documents relative to the Indian Army," recently published in India.

are like the Indian army gradation corps.

five lieut.-generals from fifty to fifty-eight years: eleven majorgenerals from forty-eight to fiftytwo years: five colonels from forty-eight to fifty years: seventyeight lieut.-colonels commanding regiments, from thirty to fortynine years: ninety-nine ditto from twenty-five to forty-six years: ninety majors twenty-two to thirtyone years four hundred and ninety-five captains from twenty to twenty-seven years and nine hundred and ninety lieutenants from eight to twenty-one years!

Bearing the circumstances in mind, that the constitution of the two armies is totally distinct; that the one is a service of seniority, and the other of purchase and favour ; * that the officers of the former require long local experience, an intimate acquaintance with the languages of the troops under their command, with their peculiar manners and

The latest return which I have before me, demonstrates how much the king's army is a service of favour more than merit, or even wealth. Could such an unjust system be kept up on the amalgamation of 100,000 with 200,000 men?

State of General Officers in the King's army.-On the 1st of January 1829, there were field marshals, 6; generals, 92; lieutenant-generals, 212; and major-generals, 220. Total 531.

Of the field marshals, three are princes of the blood royal, one a foreign prince, one a duke and prime minister of England, and one an earl. All (six) are colonels of corps, and knights of the Bath ; five have foreign orders of knighthood.

Of the generals, sixty-two are colonels of corps, twenty-seven are knights of the Bath, fifteen have foreign orders of knighthood, eighteen are peers, and six are members of Parliament.

Of the lieutenant-generals, fifty-eight are colonels of corps, fortyfour are knights of the Bath, twenty-four have foreign orders of knighthood, thirteen are peers, and eleven members of Parliament. Of the major-generals, nine are colonels of corps, thirty-eight are knights of the Bath, seventeen have foreign orders, eight are peers, and five members of Parliament.

customs; while those of the latter, until they attain a field rank, have nothing to acquire but the usual drill of a regiment; how, it may be asked, referring to these important circumstances, are the two services to be amalgamated? Either the number of officers must be increased in the Company's army, or they must be reduced in the King's. Even as matters now stand, a Company's officer in India can scarcely, if ever, supersede a king's officer, while the latter may in a great variety of ways take precedence of the former. If the armies were blended, would it be right still to subject the honourable feelings of a Company's officer to the deep insult of seeing his junior in years, in talent, and in experience, placed over his head ?* Would he, with that "sort of spirit of independence" which characterizes him, quietly acquiesce in such ungenerous and unjust treatment? Moreover, is it reflected that in the monstrous proposition to make the Indian army a "royal colonial army," the whole regulations of pay would have to be revised and increased† in India, unless the equally absurd doctrine, that an officer can live cheaper in India than at Ceylon, Mauritius, or Jamaica, be also advocated? Indeed, at present, the king's officer receives less pay

By existing arrangements, the general staff and brigadier commands are held in too great a proportion by the king's officers in India, if the relative number and standing servitude of each be considered:

King's Officers.

E. I. Company's Officers.

To shew the necessity of increase, I quote the monthly expenses of an officer in a favourite branch of the service, and who, before he receives a farthing of pay, must disburse about 1,500 rupees for his outfit.

Abstract

in Calcutta than he would be entitled to at any of the before-mentioned colonies! This will be apparent from

the following statements:*

The pay of a lieutenant of

seven years' standing is chosen for comparison,

PAY and ALLOWANCES of the KING'S ARMY in INDIA and in

the COLONIES.

Ceylon.

Calcutta.

Lieuts. Monthly Pay and Rs. 210-4 Rs. 170-12

Allowances

Excess in Ceylon.

Rs. 39.8

Thus we see that, notwithstanding the greater distance of India from England,† the more oppressive nature of the

Abstract shewing the Aggregate Amount of the Monthly Expenditure of a Second Lieutenant of Artillery in Bengal.

The detailed estimates are given in the "Facts and Documents,"

published in Calcutta by Messrs. Samuel Smith and Co.

+ Jamaica, for instance, being within six weeks' sail instead of six months, from England.