The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-20 00:00:00

THE NEW INDIA BILLS.

Mr. VANSITTART said that the bills which had been
referred to by the hon. member for Hertford were very im-
portant, and he thought the Secretary of State for India
could entertain no reasonable hope of passing them this

session.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said that all persons yfho paid
attention to the affairs of India were filled with the greatest
alarm at the policy that was being pursued by the Secretary
of State for India. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the
question of India was settled last year, till the house could
see how it could work. But now the Secretary of India
was bringing in a set of bills, one relating to the transfer of
stock, another to the army, and so forth, whilst as yet no
financial statement with regard to India had been made.
He should certainly oppose the proposed new measure with
all the means in his power. It was flying in the face of a
grea - settlement ; and he had no confidence whatever in the
present administration of India; for the right hon. gentle-
man was acting in direct opposition to his council, amongst
whom were men of the most eminent position and of the
highest integrity. (Hear, hear.)
THE EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL.
Mr. HORSMAN said he hoped he had not heard cor-
rectly that it was the intention of the Government to pro-
ceei with the Indian Army Bill the first thing to-morrow
(this day). He supposed the right hon. baronet knew that
papers had been moved for and ordered, and were now wait-
ing to be printed. This was the condition of the house on
the subject of Indian legislation. They had heard of the
rights of a minority in that house; but the fact was, that
they were forced to a division the other night by the right
hon. gentleman himself, because the right hon. gentleman
said that he had not those papers ; and upon a question of
veracity—or, rather, not of intentional veracity, but of fact
—he kept them dividing till a late hour in the morning. The
right hon. gentleman then told the house over and over
again that he had not those papers, and gave them to un-
derstand that they were ordered to be printed, and that the
fault lay entirely with the printer. Between the divisions
he repeated the statement, which was re-stated by the Home
Secretary on the right hon. gentleman's authority, and he
believed by the Secretary for War also. He believed the
Home Secretary stated that it was the fault of the printing
committee.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he had no knowledge what-
ever of the general circumstances of the case. He merely
stated what were the general duties of the printing com-
mittee.
Mr. HORSMAN said that was precisely what he had
said. The right hon. baronet the Home Secretary spoke
entirely on the authority of the Secretary for India. He had
no knowledge, of course, himself, of the circumstances. He
believed the Secretary for War followed. Under the impu-
tation of proceeding factiously, however, they persevered in
asking for the papers. It now turned out to be the fact that
these papers had been for months in the office of the Sec-
retary for India. Three days before, according to his own
admission in that house, when the papers were asked for
by the hon. member for Poole (Mr. D. Seymour), 'Owes
made known to the Indian department that the papers
were in the hands of the Military Secretary, and he was de-
sired to forward them. That was three days before those
divisions took place between which the right hon. gentleman
told the house he had no knowledge respecting the papers.
Every pains had been taken to expedite their production.
As soon as the Act of 1858 passed the Commander-in. Chief
proposed
that the Indian army should be placed under the
Horse Guards, and a correspondence ensued. On June 28
the right hon. gentleman told him (Mr. Horsman) that he
need not move for the papers, as they did not exist. He
(Mr. Horsman) told him he knew they wore in existence:
He pressed the right hon. gentleman, he insisted, be warned
him ; he knew they. were in his office. The right hon.
gentleman told him (Mr. Horsman) he hsd spoken to the
Secretary at War, and asked him whether they were in his
office, and he told him they were not. That correspondence
consisted of a letter from Gen. Peel, then Secretary at War,
of Aug. 10, 1858, inclosing a letter of the Duke of Cam-
bridge, from the Horse Guards, to Lord Stanley, who was
then President of the Board of Control. Lord Stanley re-
plied to those letters on Aug. 23. Gen. Peel wrote again;
and then Lord Stanley eubmitted the whole question to the
law officers of the crown, and their opligo4 was laid before