CHAPTER VII
LORD MAYO'S MILITARY POLICY
The Mutiny of 1857 left on the hands of the Government of India two great armies—a vast shattered wreck of Native Troops, and a European Force, fewer in numbers, but admirably equipped, hardened by a fierce struggle, and organised on the basis of constant readiness for war. In the year preceding that memorable lesson, the Native army had numbered 249,153 men; the European regiments 45,522. The teaching of the Mutiny resulted in the reduction of the Native army to nearly one-half, and in the increase by over one-half of the British troops. In 1862, after all apprehension of renewed hostilities had disappeared, and the armies rested on their new peace footing, the Native force consisted of 140,507 officers and men, the European troops of 75,337. Under the vigorous Government of Lord Lawrence from 1864 to 1869, as the civil administration grew more effective, and the country settled down into assured internal tranquillity, it was found possible to make further reductions, which left the Native army on the 1st April, 1869, at 133,358 of all ranks, and the European force at 61,942.
This was the situation when Lord Mayo reached Calcutta. But exactly a fortnight after his arrival, the Duke of Argyll, as Secretary of State for India, penned a Despatch which gave a fresh impulse to questions of Indian military reform. His Grace pointed out that notwithstanding the numerical decrease in the forces since the Mutiny, the expenditure on them had increased from 12¾ millions sterling in 1856-57 to over 16 millions in 1868-69. He also referred to the fact, that while a new and costly system of police had been organised, the expectations of army retrenchment based upon it had borne no fruit. The Despatch concluded with a hope that the Viceroy would devise means to bring down the army military expenditure in India by a million and a half sterling.
Lord Mayo found that army retrenchment might be effected by two distinct lines of approach,—by economy in the military administration, and by numerical reduction of the forces. Each of these subjects again divided itself into two great branches, the former into retrenchments in the Staff, and retrenchments in the Army Departments; the latter into reductions in the European troops, and reductions in the Native army. He ascertained that retrenchments aggregating £79,000 were possible without any sacrifice of efficiency in the Staff and the Military Departments; and he stringently carried them out. But when he came to reductions in the European troops and in the Native army, he found that the questions involved were of a more complex character; and as his views on these points have been sometimes misunderstood, I shall endeavour to state them in his own words.
As regards the European troops, he believed that he had not one man too many in India. In a private letter to one of Her Majesty's Ministers, after urging his plan of retrenchment, he writes thus: 'One thing, I implore, may not be done, and that is the removal of a single British bayonet or sabre from India. We can, I believe, reduce our military expenditure by a million, without giving up one of the little white-faced men in red.' 'We are strongly impressed with the belief,' he wrote, in his public Despatch a few weeks later, 'that we have not one British soldier too many in this country. We should most strongly object to any reduction of their number, because we are convinced that such a step could not be taken without endangering and weakening authority, one of the mainstays of British rule.'
Nevertheless, he proposed to reduce the charges for the European troops by half a million sterling. This, too, without decreasing the total rank and file by a man, or the pay of either officers or men by a shilling. He proved that a chief cause of the increased military expenditure, of which the Secretary of State so justly complained, arose from the fact that European regiments in India had gradually declined from their full effective strength, so that a larger number of separate regiments were required to give an equal total of fighting men. He proposed, by strengthening each regiment, to keep the same total of fighting men, and to reduce the number of separate regiments. He would thus get rid of the costly organisation of eleven extra European regiments, and of the heavy drain on the Indian Treasury which the needless number of regimental headquarters involved. The rank and file would be slightly increased, the pay of officers and men would remain the same. The Indian military authorities believed that efficiency would not be lessened, while the abolition of the superfluous regimental headquarters and similar charges in the British cavalry and infantry alone would yield an annual saving of £297,220. A corresponding, but not quite identical, reform in the artillery would add a further saving of £271,542 sterling a year. Total saving in European troops, £568,762.
In Lord Mayo's minutes on proposed retrenchments in the Native army, two considerations constantly came to the surface. First, that the lengthy, exposed frontier of Northern India, with the fierce elements of internal disquiet within it, rendered any substantial reduction of either Native cavalry or Native infantry in Bengal impossible. Second, that the separate esprit de corps of the Madras and the Bombay Native armies would resent reductions which fell exclusively upon them, and left the Bengal Native army untouched. The Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief were most anxious to avoid wounding the amour propre of any one of the three gallant bodies of men who make up the Native army in India; but their paramount duty—a duty which ranked above all local considerations—was so to shape their reductions as not to impair the defences of British India.
After long and earnest discussion with his military advisers and the Local Governments, Lord Mayo submitted the following proposals to the Secretary of State.
As regards Native artillery, Lord Mayo's Government followed out the accepted policy of dispensing with Native gunners, and his proposals were readily sanctioned by the Secretary of State. He abolished two Bengal batteries (namely the Eurasian Battery in Assam, and one light field battery of the Punjab Frontier Force); the Native Company of Artillery in Madras; and one Native company of artillery in Bombay. Total reductions of Native artillery, four batteries or companies; annual saving, £17,003.1
1 Sanction conveyed in Despatch from Secretary of State to Governor-General, No. 23, dated 27th January, 1870, par. 10.
Regarding the cavalry and infantry in the Bengal Native army, the Viceroy came to the conclusion (as demonstrated by his military advisers) that not a man could be spared. But with their consent he found that a considerable saving could be effected by reducing the number of separate regiments, and bringing up the strength of the remainder to a more efficient standard. He proposed, therefore, a reduction of one regiment of Bengal Native cavalry, and one of Bengal Native infantry, raising the rank and file in the other regiments so as to maintain the same total of rank and file in the Bengal Native army. Annual saving £27,200 a year.
As regards the Madras Native army, he acted on the decision of the Governor (Lord Napier of Ettrick), confirmed by the opinions of the Commander-in-Chief in India (Lord Sandhurst), and of Major-General Sir Henry Durand. 'In the Madras Presidency,' its Governor had written, 'it is my opinion that the cost of the army far transcends the wants of the country.' Indeed, Madras had for years sent her redundant troops, amounting to one regiment of Native cavalry and five of infantry, to do duty at Bengal stations. This proved to be an extravagant arrangement. Thus a regiment of Madras cavalry, with a strength of only 300 privates, cost £22,937 a year, while a regiment of Bengal cavalry cost only £21,963 for a strength of 384 privates.
The waste was intensified by the 'family system' of the Madras sepoys, who are accompanied by their wives and children—a system which may be suitable for a stationary local army, but which produces many evils if such corps are moved to other Presidencies. For example, the Commander-in-Chief had lately had to represent the difficulty which would arise with a Madras cavalry regiment, if the Bengal plan were enforced of sending it out into camp, in event of an epidemic of cholera. The Madras corps in question had only a strength of 202 fighting men at headquarters, and were attended by no fewer than 1296 women, children, and followers.
Lord Mayo proposed, therefore, that henceforth the Madras regiments should be kept to their own Presidency. This would enable him to reduce five regiments of Madras infantry, and one of Madras cavalry, then serving at Bengal stations (or a number equal to them). He also found he could safely dispense with three other regiments of Madras infantry. Another separate regiment of Madras cavalry would be saved by incorporating three into two. Total reduction of the Madras Native army—cavalry, 2 regiments (1 dispensed with, and 1 reduced by incorporating 3 into 2); infantry, 8 regiments reduced out of 40. Annual saving, £178,745.
The Bombay army proved to be more accurately adjusted to the actual demands upon it. But it was found that a small saving of £9,900 a year might be safely effected by reorganising the Sind horse into 2 regiments of 4 squadrons each, in place of 3 regiments with 3 squadrons each. As regards infantry, even when there were two Bombay regiments in China, the propriety of reducing two regiments had been raised. The Governor-General in Council, having regard to the return of the regiments from China, the strong police, the tranquil state of the Presidency, its limited extent and population, and the absence of any frontier requiring protection, except in Sind, now decided that four regiments of Bombay Native infantry might safely be spared, representing a saving of £67,719 a year. Total annual retrenchment from Bombay Native army, £77,619.
The burden of working these reforms fell on the Bengal Native army. It lost 2 batteries of artillery, 1 regiment of cavalry, and 4 of infantry (the total rank and file of its cavalry and infantry being neither increased or diminished); and it had the additional labour thrust on it of the six Madras regiments which were to be withdrawn from Bengal stations. This was inevitable. 'Influences of whatever kind,' wrote the Commander-in-Chief in summing up that part of the military policy of Lord Mayo's Government, 'all notions as affecting this or that Presidency, in short, all matters which could imply even the shadow of bias, were resolutely put on one side, and the interests of the country were alone considered.
'I am able to say that this was the spirit in which all the questions involved were argued in our long and arduous discussions.
'We had to weigh the necessities of those parts of India where war is an impossibility, and at the same time to consider those wide frontiers where war is always impending over us—in fact, where in one form or another it can hardly be said ever to cease.'
In submitting the above scheme to Her Majesty's Government, the Earl of Mayo believed that it would tend towards the practical efficiency of the Indian army. In this belief he had the firm support of the Commander-in-Chief (Lord Sandhurst) and the Military Member of Council (Sir Henry Durand). While strenuous for economy in the military administration, he grudged no expenditure required to place, and to maintain, the army on a basis of thorough practical efficiency. I am here stating both his own view and that of the eminent military advisers on whose counsel he acted. 'I have this year,' wrote Lord Mayo to a friend in 1870, 'without any suggestion from any quarter, pressed upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity that exists for immediately arming every European soldier and volunteer in India with a Snider rifle. I have, ever since the beginning of 1869' (when he assumed the Viceroyalty), 'pointed out the defective state of our artillery force, and recommended the immediate adoption of rifled guns. I never, therefore, let economic considerations interfere in cases of necessity. I have suggested nothing which, in my opinion, is calculated to diminish our military strength. But I do desire to reduce military expenditure by a very large amount. I firmly believe that there are forces in India which we should be better without, and that it is better to keep only those regiments in arms which would be useful in war.'
The results of the proposed reforms may be briefly stated thus. The Secretary of State sanctioned in full the first two sets of retrenchments, namely, in the Indian Staff and the Army Departments. But he did not see his way to adopt in their entirety either of the other two series of measures, namely, those which affected the British regiments serving in India, or the reductions of the Native army. As regards the former, Her Majesty's Government reduced the British cavalry by two instead of four regiments, and the British infantry by two instead of seven regiments; but without the corresponding increase in the rank and file of the remaining regiments, on which the Indian Government had so strongly insisted. As regards the Native forces, the artillery reductions were sanctioned; but the Secretary of State thought that the cavalry and infantry reductions bore too heavily on the Madras army. He proposed an alternative plan which would have broken up two regiments of Bengal cavalry, and one in each of the other Presidencies; with six regiments of Native infantry, two in each Presidency.
The Indian Government, on its side, did not think that the military requirements of Northern India, with its great frontier towards Central Asia, permitted of this arrangement being carried out, and suggested as a compromise the reduction of 3 regiments of Native cavalry (one in each Presidency), and 8 regiments of Native infantry (2 in Bengal, 4 in Madras, and 2 in Bombay). After a careful reconsideration, and having received the views of Lord Napier of Magdala (who did not on this point concur with the preceding Commander-in-Chief, Lord Sandhurst), Her Majesty's Government failed to see their way to accepting the compromise, and suggested a third scheme, which would have reduced the rank and file of the Native army to the extent of 9000 men equally in the three Presidencies. The Government of India believed, however, that such a reduction would be unsafe from a military point of view, and returned to the proposals which it had previously submitted. Thus the question remained at the time of Lord Mayo's death.
In his military measures, as in every other department of his Government, the Earl of Mayo lived long enough to carry out a large part of his proposals, but not the whole. His original plan would have eventually reduced the military expenditure by £948,253 a year. The portions of it adopted by Her Majesty's Government, and practically carried out, yielded an annual saving of £591,440.
The current administration of the army is conducted by the Commander-in-Chief, and to Lord Sandhurst and Lord Napier of Magdala belongs the credit of improvements in detail effected during Lord Mayo's rule. But to these improvements the Viceroy gave a liberal and strenuous support. 'Lord Mayo,' wrote a high authority on his military measures, 'hated waste, but knew that waste follows excessive saving no less than excessive expenditure. His object was to reduce what was superfluous in the army, but not to starve what was essential.' He advocated the economising of the health and vigour of the European troops by a system of sanataria and hill-stations, and one of his latest orders in the Military Department was to this end. 'To him also it is mainly due,' says the high authority above cited, 'that the troops in the hill-stations occupy quarters, or cottage barracks, which, while fulfilling every desideratum of health, comfort, and discipline, enable a whole regiment to be housed for a smaller sum than, under the old system of imposing but less comfortable structures, it would have cost to house three companies.' Wherever he went, one of the first things he wished to see was the hospital; and every sanitary requirement was sure of his liberal support.
To the difficult problem of making fit provision for the children and orphans of the British soldiers in India, he devoted much earnest thought; and, among other measures, appointed a committee with a view to the more efficient working of the noble bequest of Sir Henry Lawrence. A thick file of papers before me bears witness to his personal interest in the Lawrence Asylums. Regimental workshops, exhibitions, and every device for keeping alive the mental vitality of the British soldier under the strain of the Indian climate, found in him a constant friend. As regards improvements in efficiency, it may here be briefly stated that during his rule the Indian army was equipped with a better weapon, the artillery was furnished with the most approved rifled guns, and the cold weather camps of exercise, which now form so important a feature in the Indian military training, were inaugurated under his own eye. For these and for every other measure with a view to perfecting the Indian defences, the Earl of Mayo, however severe might be the strain of his financial necessities, found the requisite funds. He desired to avoid waste, but he was resolved above all things to secure efficiency; and he enjoyed a personal popularity with the army, both Native and European, such as few Governor-Generals of India have ever won.
'Every shilling that is taken for unnecessary military expenditure,' he wrote in 1870, 'is so much withdrawn from those vast sums which it is our duty to spend for the moral and material improvement of the people. I admit to the full that a complete and an efficient military organisation is the base and foundation of our power here. We are bound to see that every officer and man is fit for immediate service, and that every arm and every military requisite is maintained in a state of the utmost efficiency. I believe that in the proposals which have been made, these principles have been strictly adhered to.'
A single sentence of the last Despatch which Lord Mayo lived to issue on the subject of army reform will fitly conclude this branch of my narrative. 'We cannot think that it is right to compel the people of this country to contribute one farthing more to military expenditure than the safety and defence of the country absolutely demand.'