tion which occupy the attention of those responsible for the safety of our Indian Empire. There are one or two points, however, on which something further may be said. The tendency of every economical or popularity-hunting Government is to cheapen or reduce its army. Such reductions are comparatively easy; for they are certain to be defended and approved by people who have had no military training and no military experience. In the case of India, there has been a tendency on the part of English financiers to view with favour any proposal for a reduction of European troops in that country, and even to speak of a withdrawal of a portion of them in the event of European complications.
Very different was the view taken by one of the most far-seeing statesmen that ever ruled in India, the late Earl of Mayo. He thought it wrong, indeed, to compel the people of India to contribute one farthing more to military expenditure than the safety and defence of the country absolutely demanded. He declared that a large reduction of the Madras Army was necessary, inasmuch as it was impossible to tax India for the support of a force which had been declared by the highest authorities in the Presidency to be far beyond local requirements, and which from its composition was unreasonably expensive. At the same time he wrote (September 9, 1869): '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
