The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-22 00:00:00

The Scurry Stakes (Handicap) of 3 sons, each, with 20

added. T,Y.C,

Ticket-of-Leave (Snowden) 1
Pr me Minister
Corona (Challoner) 3
The following also ran :—Prologue, Gaygirl, Rapparee ,
Bayonet, Vigo, Pompey filly, and Stitch-in-Time.
Betting-3 to 1 agst Prologue, 4to 1 each agst Ticket-
of-Leave and Vigo, 5 to 1 agst Corona, and 6 to 1 agst Gay-
girl,--Won by half a length, the same distance separating
the second and third.

ACCEPTANCES for the
Two miles

GOODWOOD STAKES.
and a half.

Yrs st lb
Starke
Blue Jacket
Gaspard 4 8 8
Gladiolus
Magnum 4 8 0
Comforter
Aston 4 7 13
Eskdale
Petra
Satelite
Tunstall Maid
Riseber
Horror 3 7 9
Lo ett 4 7 8
Ben Webster 3 7 7
Marine
Royal Sovereign 5 7 5
Avalanche 3 7 3
Claire . 4 7 2
Rattlebone ... 3 7 0
The Brewer
Weatherbound 3 6 11
Wallace 3 6 11
Howth
Stapleton
Convivialist
Cheesecake

, Yrs st lb
Winkfield
Druid 3 6 7
Wanderer
Volunteer ..
Danae
Pitman
Flitch
Rajah Breoke 3 6 2
Bumble Beo 4 6 2
Conscript
Edmund Kean 3 6 0
Gridiron , 3 6 0
Dulcibella
Parmesan 3 5 12
Optimist
Volatore 5 5 12
Mavourneen .. 4 5 10
Tocher
The Baronet 3 5 10
Feodorowna .. 3 5 9
Philomela
Neoptolemus 3 5 4
b. f. by Surplice—
Beeswax . 3 5 0
Lucknow
Urania . 3 5 0

THE INDIAN ARMY.

If there be any public man whose career ought
to shield him from the imputation of factious
motives it is assuredly Lord Stanley. We are not
paying an idle compliment, but asserting a fact
any unprejudiced person will at once endorse, when
we declare that there is not a member of the House
of Commons who speaks less with a view to party
objects, and more with a comprehensive regard of
his country's interest, than the member for King's
Lyn'. There have been times, we have perceived,
when the noble lord has carried this scrupulousness
to an excess, and when the cause of his party has
suffered from his repugnance to lend himself to any
proposition that might bear the complexion of a
party move, and from the delicacy with which he
treats his political opponents. It i 3 in some degree
the good fortune of Lord Stanley's position that he
is enabled to pursue such a line ; for there are ob-
viously occasions when the leader of a party must
incur the charge of factiousness if he will be true
to his principles. But in respect of judgments,
unbiassed by political connection, but based rather
on knowledge and mature thought, no one in the
lower house can claim a higher standing than his
lordship. This being undoubtedly the case, per-
haps no one need be astonished at the reckless
charges brought against Lord Stanley by the
"leading organ" of yesterday. They, perhaps,
did not transgress the limits of fair discussion
far a partisan purpose. They might have been
applied, without eliciting surprise or indignation,
to the tricksters whose whole life is an intrigue
for office, its pride, its patronage, and emoluments; but
they were utterly out of place when directed against
a nobleman whose sole career has been a consistent
refutation of them ; and we can only suppose that the
Ministry is so feeble, so insecure, and so doubtful of its
supporters, that in the fear of another adverse majo-
rity, which might result in a complete breakdown,
it was thought necessary to give the word to the
'limes to convert Lord Stanley's expression of an
opinion in opposition to the Government scheme
for the reorganisation of the Indian army, into a
factious desire to embarrass or displace the Ministry.
Now, of course, the time will come, when the
present Cabinet, like all its predecessors, must
collapse from its own inherent weakness, and, if
rumour is correct, that time will not be long
coming. But only the strong imagination
of the Times could have construed Lord Stan-
ley's speech of last night into a cut and
dried attack upon the Ministay, only the blind
partisanship of the " leading organ" could have in-
spired so injudicious and uncourteous a charge
against one of the best informed and most con-
scientious of our Indian statesmen.

And if the charge was unfounded, the grounds on
which it was based, and the arguments by which it
was supported, were equally blundering and dis-
honest. The Times would have it believed that
Lord Stanley was pitting " his own judgment"
against the unanimous opinions of all the great
military chiefs, and, in fact, all the authorities
upon the matter. But nothing could be more
unfair than this inference. When the report of
the select committee was published, although the
majority were in favour of the uniting of the two
armies, the minority, composed of men of certainly
larger Indian experience than their opponents, ex-
pressed their dissent, and reported in favour of a
local European force. The Times produces a goodly
array of names in support of Sir C. Wood; and we
have always been of the opinion—for a long time
not in general favour—of the majority of the com-
mittee, But, after all, it is a question of evidence;
and this is so evenly balanced that to charge a man
with faction or vanity because he adheres to his con-
victions is virtually to prohibit all freedom of dis-
cussion. " Lord Stanley," says the 'limes, "is not
the man whom one willingly sees allowing himself
to be mane the organ of narrow prejudices, profes-
sional superstitions, and personal jealousies." But
who are the authorities on whose evidence Lord Stan-
ley bases his views P Sir H. Lawrence is one. If there
is a man whom the Times has delighted to honour
within the last two years, that man is Sir Henry
Lawrence. For months it never tired of recount-
ing his praises to a not unsympathetic audience.
He was the saviour of our Indian empire, the one
Indian statesman, the one individual who united
within himself' the highest administrative capacity
and powers of organisation with the profoundest
knowledge of the wants of India. Yet the opinions
of Sir Henry Lawrence, who was then pointed out
as worthy of any prize the Crown could bestow,
are now stigmatised as tne results of "narrow pre-
judices, professional superstitions, and personal
jealousies." Admirable consistency truly! It only
required a fling at Lord Stanley's " confidence" in
agreeing with such a prejudiced, superstitious, and
jealous authority to complete the exposure of snail
paltry want of candour.
Had the Times written for the sake of truth,
instead of in support of a tottering Whig Govern-
ment, we should probably have had a display of the
indecision which it exhibited at the time of the
issue of the report ; and there is certainly evidence
enough to justify such indecision. Sir John Malcolm
is an authority whose warning few Englishmen
who are acquainted with his experience and
thoughtful character would be disposed to disregard:
He expressed himself clearly in favour of a local
force. Lord Canning's policy has been frequently
impugned in our columns, but he cannot be accused
of prejudice, superstition, or jealousy; and his
testimony is highly important in facts, and alto-
gether unfavourable to the separation of the two
forces. Sir James Outram and Sir Bartle Frere,
also, men high in position and repute, are on
Lord Stanley's side. Yet all this evidence the Times
quietly ignores whilst reproaching Lord Stanley for
his " confidence " in opposing his own judgment to
that of Sir Wm. Mansfield, Lord Clyde, and Sir
Hugh Rose. Far be it from us to oppose the dictum
of those distinguished generals. We share their
in
hwaelitg.
a i
century opinions, and we are disposed to repose the greatest
trust in the testimony of men like these, who led
both the local and the Queen's troops to so many
evidence one
weighing
gy
against
mvicaytorsieets.
the But
estthat of three years campaigning without "ennoune-
ing a perilous paradox.'
It must be confessed that Lord Stanley's argu-
ments deserve a better introduction to the public.
It was impossible to listen to them without feeling
that they were the well considered reasonings of a
most painstaking mind, and that they merit the most
earnest attention of the legislature. The undoubted
result of the amalgamation will he a considerable
extension of the authority of the Horse Guards, and
unless the boundary line between the powers of the
Governor General and the Commanderdn-Chief is
very distinctly demarcated there must be great
chances of a collision. Then, again, Lord Stanley
urges that it is quite impossible to foresee the effect
the certainty of continual service in India may have
?pun the applications for commissions in her Ma-
jesty's army. But we are not aware that their
exists at this moment any great difficulty in
filling all vacancies in regiments under orders
for India. On the contrary, we believe that the
increased chances of promotion and the higher pay
are, to the majority of officers, great inducements,
and that no paucity of candidates is to be appre-
hended. On the whole it must be admitted that the
discussion provoked by Lord Stanley's opposition
will result advantageously to the country. Differ-
ences of opinion must arise on a matter of such vast
importance, and it would be a most injurious view
to take of the House of Commons to suppose that
the expression or withholding of its opinion on a
question of such momentous interest is to be regu-
lated by the exigencies or con venience of a Ministry.
After wasting two or three months in discussing the
Reform Bill we surely can afford to spend an even-
ing or two in the consideration of a scheme on
whose good or evil results so much depends the
safety of our empire.—Morning Herald.

The Bombay Gazette of the 24th ult. says :--
6, Mr. Thomas Chisholm Anstey has been sworn in, before
Sir Joseph Arnould, as a member of the Bombay bar."