84 



if a saving of even a couple of millions, which is, perhaps, the 

 utmost that could be expected, be effected in these charges, its 

 effect on the foreign trade would hardly be appreciable.''^ 



^5 The question of military defence is one of paramount importance, and no one that 

 is not fully acquainted with the necessities of the case can venture to pronounce an 

 opinion on the charges incurred in connection with it. The unequal, and not quite 

 equitable, distribution of charges incurred in England, has, however, formed the subject 

 of complaint by successive Finance Ministers and by the Military authorities in India. 

 The opinions of many high authorities might be referred to in support of this statement, 

 but it will suffice here to quote those of Sir John Strachey and of the Indian Army Com- 

 mission of 1879, presided over by Sir Ashley Eden, and having among its members such 

 eminent military men as Sir Frederick Roberts and Sir Peter Lumsden. Sir John 

 Strachey, in his Finance and Public Works of India, says, "I know how the powers of 

 obstruction and laissez faire, both in India and in England, are apt to stop attempts at 

 army reform, and to frustrate efforts to diminish the immense military charges row 

 imposed on the country. I am not sanguine that we shall soon see them verj' largely 

 decrease, but that they ought to be decreased, there can be no doubt whatever. It is not 

 only in India that attention to the subject of military expenditure is required. The 

 Government of India has never concealed its opinion that in apportioning the charges 

 which have to be shared between the two countries, and when the interests of Indian and 

 English rate-payers have been at stake, India has sometimes received a scant measure of 

 justice. That feeling has been increased by the knowledge learned by the experience of 

 the past that in this matter India is helpless. It is a fact, the gravity of which can hardly 

 be exaggerated, that the Indian revenues are liable to have great charges thrown upon 

 them, without the Government of India having any power of efPectual remonstrance. 

 The extension to India of the numerous measures taken in England to improve the posi- 

 tion of officers and soldiers of the army was, no doubt, right and unavoidable, but the 

 fact that heavy additional expenditure has thus been incurred by India gives her a claim 

 to expect that no efforts shall be spared to diminish the charges which are unnecessary, 

 or (if which she bears too large a share." On some of the measures above referred to, the 

 Army Commission remarks as follows : " The phort-service system has increased the cost, 

 and has materially reduced the efficiencj^ of the British troops in India. We cannot resist 

 the feeling that, in the introduction of this system, the interests of the Indian tax- 

 payers were entirely left out of consideration We believe that the whole 



system of staff corps is radically unsound There can be no doubt that it has 



been the cause of serious financial embarassments Its practical working has 



a discouraging effect on the army and is ruinous to the State It involves a 



considerable expenditure for which there is little or no return We cannot 



fail to see that the substitution of local (European) troops for twenty or thirty thousands 

 of Her Majesty's British subjects would cause a saving of from £160,000 to £240,000, 

 but we feel that any such change would seriously disturb the military system of the 

 parent country and would deprive a great part of the British Army of the valuable 

 training which Indian service now furnishes. We think that the portion of the British 

 Army employed in this country should be organized and administered with due regard 

 to the interests of the people of India, and not for the purpose of supplying defects in 

 the system of Home defence, and, above all, that it should not be made the means of 

 obtaining, at the cost of India, advantages for the Army at Home, which do not directly 

 affect the interests of this country." The advance of Russia towards the Indian frontier 

 renders an augmentation of the means of defence unavoidable ; but this makes it all 

 the more necessary that the army should be organised on the most economical basis, con- 

 sistent with efficiency. Sir Charles Dilke, who has written (in his Problems of Greater 

 Britain,'] apparently with a full knowledge of the difficulties of Indian problems, says, 

 "when we contemplate the increase of the Indian Army in the event of Russia being 

 allowed to settle herself in Herat, we cannot do so without taking into view the desira- 

 bility of the creation of a separate army which is indeed forced upon us by financial 

 considerations. The present system is too ruinous to India to allow of a sufficient force 

 being kept on foot, and we shall court disaster unless we speedily change it, though 

 already, perhaps, too late to do so with safety. India, with an increased British force, 

 will be drained dry by the money asked of her for a system which is not suited to her 

 needs. When [ say a separate army, of course, I do not advocate a return to the old 

 Company's system. But the Home short service army and the army in India would he 

 under the same supreme authority of the throne. They would be alike in drill, exercise 

 and discipline, but separate in the existence of the two systems of recruiting, one for not 

 more than three years for Home service, and one for long service in India and the 

 Colonies." ,. 



