The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-13 00:00:00

Ipo❑ the Baronet posing Ills n ient ~.ith for nu,t hoe Bert reel) co - a3tit - ;• made cow ►ad reason d soon be ) sanction 1. Baronet the second iether the .o be exa• is to con. e thought at all be h evidence number of -laws, and hrouglic.)nt s pecifying I in w hat ffence was tether the i d was e. t, or to re s that par' • er nely I °l n ature 0 r the Cal. session • 000 frame . !e done t° last CO is to theta. nrnission • the fullest z.omplai neel ~ as tha . .., L ' s appolli. BILL. of readinge ) ut by th ord, at the hether it, w he w 'herewooby t ' an ted . fro!: ie places for on i d adool ,oliVerlieric he question ?ridrn e , "t apd tleraan ,P in a d e. vsits aght it d for a b° I ler in til l; a l it for the inciple, 9•11,e b e fore tu view of til e the ;,lealan S a n iore Lpital Wash* as 0 01(1 0 li rsalinlY " "nsW e h w h i_ enl One if er to. inv e it yearS• oa j ad be 11 ;r o us m iseln e ag ia td bee' , 710 Frien" lie f* not b c ,,; fi re h goo• Rlgl lt )' su er * r aetr c i for c osi t be to %pen cil ' At moneP n i e to eXan4 3.- - °P e D e 30 A t tO Cag oo eti o riOgi o t-t0 lug . th° t to o t Aso fl of of u o tV t Id m e el. iPepirdif 00 1 ' 45 7 0 " 75 00' 4 he 00 14 eil 513 1 of 110 0 6 t here Wit the a Gall3..ebt i 4 to , rel e pre , were Mr. lIUME—Then I shall move that the Bill be read this day six months. Sir R. PEEL said he had brought his motion for ward, as he understood that there was no other business O the paper that would occupy more than five minutes. lIUME said the Bill could be postponed to a fu ture day. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said it was important t hat t his Bill should be brought forward, as there were at resent actions pending which might be tried at the assizes, which would commence next Saturday. Mr. CHRISTIE wished to kno..v, as his motion stood next to the Gaming Penalties Repeal Bill, whether, if tat Bill wer e postponed, !he motion following it could e ,,postponed also. thanks w as to b e propose d, t o take that motion before t he l Order o f th e D a y.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. e ntleman had, therefore, taken the proper course. At present there was no motion for the postponement of the Order of the Day. i Lo rd 3 . RUSSELL entirely concurre d in the rule lust laid down ; but he must say that it was somewhat 111. eglaar to go half way through the Orders of the Day Sad then go on with a motion of thanks.—(Hear, hear.) Sir PEEL—I did it on the assurance that th ere " a s 11 0 Order of the Day that would take any time. It Was not his fault that he had not brought forward this t actica l at the usual time. After a few words from Mr. HAWES, Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said he would postpon e the r eading of the Bill till Wednesday, provided it was i !enerally understood that he would be allowed to bring " on first that day, I r. M. GIBSON, for one, could not concur in any -r tangenaent which would take preedence of the motion of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), for it would be a m eat extraordinary thing, in the middle of an adjourned deb ate, to introduce a new subject.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. CHRISTIE t h oug h t t h e O r d er of the Day for re ading the Gaming Penalties Repeal Bill ought to be r ead for the purpose of postponement. The SPEAKER then put the question, and declared that th e , 4 Ayes" had it. Several Hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the ° llse here exclaimed, " No ; the Noes had it."—(Loud sushter.) e SPEAKER, after a pause—l think the " Ayes" hash it.—(Renewed laughter.) t he H on . M em b ers o n the Ministerial side—' Noes have it."--(Continued laughter.) The SPEAKER—Then strangers must withdraw. _ strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and upon rr re -admission we found that there would be no divi !on until after the vote of thanks to the army engaged 4 the operations in Sinde had been disposed of. 411 A.NKS' TO SIR CHARLES NA.PIER AND THE -" No, ARMY ENGAGED IN SINDE. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Durham, de ree ia log the passing of a vote of thanks to the army t - h a ' 3t rle• The first reason the . , petitioners urged was in a large number of the Britisn troops had perished that war ; and next, because they (the petitioners) ceinsidered that the House of Commons would be de prived A • • y o , r its title to that of a Christian Senate if such a p r ayed were passed by them. The petitioners therefore th e that, for the honour of the British Parliament, d e vote of thanks would be either negatived or with /I:a:1n. He should state before sitting 'down that this of "tto n was signed by no less than seventeen ministers reli g i on. L„ Sir B• PEEL—Sir, I rise to more that the thanks o f this ouse be voted to the British Army and its Gallant eri llillander, for the services rendered, under the most th b l eat and trying c i rcu mstances, upon the banks of I t o ti e '4lls ? and which army, under the greatest difficul tes, exhibited the utmost good discipline, and main th„ d---nay, even exalted—the high character which ti British army has always supported, and which en thanki'h army of Sinde, and its Commander, to the high hs of the House.—(Cheers.) Sir, with the-policy of li,.,naeasure, in the carrying out of which . that army wir engaged, I have nothing to do on this occasion— ee ether it was justifiable to exact from the Ameers a to of their territory, in lieu of the tribute already t o is, in my opinion, a question which ought I `Pe altogether forgotten in this matter.—(Cheers.) now only call the attention of the House fop,' condirt and merits of the gallant men who per to-Zed the first duty of the soldier, namely, obedience Li t "vful authority; and the mode in which they exhi 4(ied that obedience entitles them to the public acknow ta lent for which I now ask.—(Hear, hear.) The G„ a nt Commander got his instructions from the fr o - rnor-General, and also had his authority the ex-Governor-General. Sir , I shall be pre paredvi n ,,, on the proper occasion, if need be, to tl,.. e ` e ate the instructions which were given, but, upon I siipent occasion, in conformity with the usual course, Si n " altogether abstain from introducing any discus- Sir - , 1 11 3 0n the policy Of the operations.—(Hear, hear.) tahl the information which has bc!ai recently laid on the wh ie e h of the House, and the degree of public attention Si n e has been directed to the present operations in elieve me from the necessity of entering into any deta il pl o , with regard to the measures which led to the ern ! t ar te e f ut of the British army on the banks of the Indus. s e l f _ or granted that every gentleman has made him laj,„ 4ufficienfly master of the papers which have been I , ee " before the House by the Government, to obviate the th at ess L i tY for any such detail. The House will recollect about the month of September, 1E42, Sir Charles q' was spier , directed to take the command of the British eo„? Sinde. The active operations in which he was twrged extend e d ove r a period which was included be en the Ist of January, 1843, and the latter end of a.r e h • In the same year. That period of three months I:3l,4et4lrit,iteio s u t s he battle of Meeanee and the battle of HYcler -0.. battles, The t wo which are the most prominent M contem pl a ting that campaign—the two f le s of M eea nee and Hyderabad — were fought under ar th e different circumstances. In the battle o f Meeanee, first reort of Sir Chas. Napi er, makes the force op it(i):ed the British arms about 22,0 00 men; he reckons force t. 2,800 men. I have good teas "' tielietvoe that ue a "holl'ehis overrated the amount of the treeanßritish force which lie commanded at the battle of w as ee, and that he has underrated the force which N apier.) .opposed to him.—(Bear, hear, from Sir Charles ; ‘ ,..1 3 . 1e r-) I believ e it would be more consistent with arms to state that the number of British trooPs under ti r _at the battle of Meeanee was 2,000 men, and that 'Phe force oPp osed to them amoanted to 25,000 men. Iv or of the Ameers consisted of men trained to t2o:o,l;,.;:ineagt natural power and of desperate resolution, po teh l ell full credit was given in the admirable dis it trees of C. Napier. That force—let us consider td the original estimate as amounting to Was ° l i nen—occupied a very formidable position. It du r i Ptaced in the dry bed of a water-course, which O o t r the inundation of the Indus is filled with water. Wo ods ° flanks o f t h e enem y were a village and two of the thi n ks of the country. The position was defended by, lia e h fifteen pieces of artillery, and against Ch i • force 2,500 men at the utmost marched for jtig lit erPo eir se of defending their lives, and support ofacOuntry's greatness.—(Cheers.) In the battle eeiv e 3 ,i' 6 rabad, the force of Sir Charles Napier had re .,B°l:ne addition. He had called to his aid two or at6,ooo'egiments, and the British force may be estimated bon,mnen, while the force opposed to him consisted ' 4 41 1 " 4 0,000 men. No greater proof of the courage Whi eh e solutio n of the Ameers can be given than one that is adduced i n t h e dispatch of Sir Charles Napier , Qhe es "Pcul the approac h o f the British army, the Beloo *iththat evidence of valour which is considered, % ad w - h e i s Pect to European armies, the most decisive, i t hy ont eh corresponded to actual conflicts with the tOop s t ' ep After discharging their fire-arms at the rushed f Sir Charles Napier, the gallant Beloochees bit th . rota the water-course in which they had taken the ell ' Position d attacked . the British troops .. with 0 sword s md 9 h.s thi, g sloelds with which they were prosaded. 0 - I, l flie be more decisive than the testimony 4,0 tho se • opposed his army, and I think on w e of their conduct shows that native 11 the a s supported by considerable military skill t b a t P t a i r e t s of the . leaders, (Hear, hear.) Sir, in those . ]rose d , , notwithstanding that there was such an im- Propol4proportion of force, the small band of British rtion maintained . the ' character of their country. Was eltr, hear. ill he first . battle, %vheFe . the disparity partl y e e a t t s " a t, the l force consisted of British troops and here w as u P°3's, and it is most gratifying to think that th,, vs. ° disproportion of valour between the Sepoys t heirL ofC , 4 _ l.° PeanS that, animated by the example of Anal , both Sepoys and Europeans showed an e ti,, a - "? of courage and determination. But, at the thvegreateajustiee requires that we should not overlook fiyd c ause of victory The victories of Meeanee and t he era bad are h, ed to eac in my opinion, mainly to be e was the exariaplis set by that gallant officer re sponsible for the issue of the conflicts. g il t such a hear.) It is most fortunate that ~it,;11, th e cr isis, and under circumstances of so much h :c'cL to en _ e°ll3 mEutd of the British army was cora th'n th e st y of the three brothers, who have engrafted prix personal of an ancient and honourable lineage, irt:rate character which is derived from unblemished teat,tl t he sated from the highest sense of honour, and "qe th e i r proofs of valour in the field, which have l ei l t tlltry , , ;tames conspicuous in the annals of their ra t the g art °l7 * — (Cheers.) Each of these brothers in shi eb the who of l war under an illustrious commander. eln one c f 4 , eof those memorable campaigns, of luent d es "'era has been the faithful, impartial, and h e tltle t h em eriber, the exploits of those three brothers gar') almoste gratitude of their country.—(Hear, 'a Pro o f s o every action of the Peninsula they . , t 4, at c o 2 their military skill and valour. In the ac orhtturie77ll2a, Civitta Vecchia, and Cuidad Rodrigo, c c , et' was 'le operations of the Pyrenees, no British t „ntry , t,zore prodigal of his blood in the cause of his erred . A . tha n w ere each of the officers to whom I have 41 ,ancl of ( , 4r, hear.) Sir, the officer who had the there Don e "r Indian army bears a name, than which atel tai e the records, ore conspicuous in the bright pages which fire ' a la of hi : e :rds, whether in the military or the naval we• sirhie, ountry, of desperate and successful war inr4t_P We read the account of a naval action, and eattbi the course of five minutes, with a force Of u fi ,alour-... e—e to co w . erat.-- as directed by the utmost skill tic r i Et minutes rap.ete with the enemy—in the course k er " of St. - v . Signal victory has been achieved, the e e efrt That have been revived, and by the 4 7 ti _a pl ate. ut ~t p lt victory a change in a dynasty has Of 1 1, We fi nd " . r we read the account of such an limi apier at the commander bo r e the name o c d 14 %ir tlila and eir cueer s.) Nay, even in more th _ r i n di catio eumseribed operations, we have %h e ° last y ear, it us L of bravery. When, in the course of iii _ tyret w apthte a misg ui d ed t o it f uci th: w tt h t a m t t s im th po e rt i a n n h c e e ren to t ma ul the .„,___ am, and of the civil power when directed 1 - 7 11 ' valotm''' uus ness of right and by consummate skill 4 4 one in that c i ale i , _on a more limited sphem, atta c k e d part p . t e o d: vh wlth he si w x a c s o o n p s p ta o b se leo d, tha thi - li n k th e nieu rn w o h re of he wiaim. ten luauwho d, I could not help ttt In g, that them : co nmsetan d e WWc this oeurageous example " Skj civil law bw On value of z... LI.. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, FEBRALARY 13, 1844. Napier.—(Cheers.) Sir, I say, that in the record of gallant exploits, civil, military, and naval, I am justi fied in asserting that there is no name which will stand mire consoicuous than the name which is borne by the Gallant (I:ficer who commanded in the battles of Meeanee and Hyderabad. I believe that those who bear that name, stimulated by the example of their prede essors, will continue to eehibit the same courage and resolution in their country's cause, and that that motto w'ich they bear on their shield—" Ready, aye ready,"—will be not only their motto, but the c haracteristic of their con duct. Sir, the gallant officer—Sir Charles Napier —a-hen he wascalled upon to take the com mand. had attained the age of sixty-two years. He assumed it :v: en shattered in the service of bis country ; and it is to that gallant spirit, controlled and directed—it is to the example that he set to the troops, inspiring, as it did confidence in their commander, that we must mainly attribute, in my opinion, the success of our arms in the actions f Meeanee and Hyderabad. — (Hear, hear,) The quality of actions mainly depends upon the character of those who superintend and under take them. The actions which have been performed by members of that family, may appear to the pusillanimous to be fool-hardy.—to the superficial they may appear the result of a lucky chance; but, however desperate they may appear, when undertaken and superintended with a combination of such skill, experience, and per sonal prowess, as was brought to bear on the command of the British army on the Indus—however desperate such actions may appear when undertaken by ordinary minds, they are reconcilable with the soundest calcula tions of prudence when directed by such men as Sir Charles Napier.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, there is one point to which lam particularly desirous of adverting. If it could be imputed to Sir Charles Napier that he had rashly sought a couffict, that he had needlessly brought the British army in contact with the force of the Ameers, I doubt whether any praise which we could bestow on his valour would compensate for the painful reflections to which such a conviction in his own mind would give rise. But I think it is impossible to peruse the papers, and to consider the position in which Sir C. Napier was placed, without coming to a conclusion, not only that the wisest course which Sir Charles Napier could take was the encountering at once the enemy without delay, but that if he had pursued any other course, the safety of the army would have been com promised.—(Hear, hear, anti cheers.) It is difficult to say what might have been the result if any other course had been pursued ; but if there be any man who enter tains a doubt as to the policy of the course which Sir Charles Napier pursued, in not permitting the Ameers to congregate their forces, in determining a', once to bring his forces of 2,500 men, or, to speak more pro perly, of 2,000 men against a force seven or eight times their number, I ask him only to read the account of what passed in 1839, at the time when Sir John Keane arrived at the mouth of the Indus. It is of no use for Hon. Members to speculate as to what might have been the effect if Sir Charles Napier had withdrawn his troops. If they read the testimony of Sir John Keane, as to what was the actual conduct of the Ameers in 1839, they must be convinced that Sir Charles Napier had no alternative but at once to front the danger that stared him in the face. In 1839, Lord Auckland having determined upon the advance into Affghanistan, sent a force from Bombay under the com mand of Sir John Keane, for the purpose of entering into some negotiations with the Ameers, or of making Sinde the basis of his military operations, Lord Auckland, describing the operations of Sir John - Keane, gives this account of the conduct and the inten tions of the Ameers. (The Might Hon. Baronet then read an extract from the dispatch of Lord Auckland, stating that every artifice was resorted to by the Ameers to arrest and impede the movemants of the army, while they were making the most fulsome professions of friend ship and devotion.) Sir John Keane himself said that Sinde had assumed such an aspect that it took the first place in the operations of the army. If Lieutenant Eastwick had not been extremely prudent, he would have been exposed to exactly the same attack which had been made on Major Outram. Sir John Keane said that on the 20th of January the treaty was given to the Ameers. On the 21st they desired to have it postponed ; on the 22d they said that they could not determine whether they would accept the treaty or not ; on the 23d their troops were assem bled on all hands, and then the reply of the Ameer swag, that the treaty must be sent back, as they would not sign it. In 1839 they pursued precisely the same course which they attempted to pursue in 1843 ; they made the same professions of friendship and confidence, stating that they wished further time for consideration, whilst every hour was bringing fresh troops to their assistance ; and four d tys having elapsed, and their preparations being completed, they say that the treaty cannot be signed; that the Embassy may stay or go as they pleased, but that the Ameers could give them no pledge of safety, having no control over the Beloochees. S'r John Keane said, " the whole coun try in front and rear of us is now aroused and under arms, and troops are flocking from all parts to the capital." Under these circumstances, he requested that assistance 'night be sent to him as soon as possible. Why did not the Ameers then attack the British army ? Because Sir Willoughby Cotton, with a large force under his command, was coming towards Hyderabad.—(Hear, hear.) Shah Soojah's troops took possession of a place from which the Ameers' troops had withdrawn, and Sir John Keane on the opposite bank was medi tating the adoption of a course precisely similar to that pursued by Sir Charles Napier. On the 31st January, • Sir Henry Pottinger finding that he was supported by such an immense force, told them he could make no abatement of his terms, and used these words to them, " Should a shot be fired the whole of your country shall be seized, and you shall be dispossessed of it." The Ameers finding four or five battalions of British Infantry opposed to them on the Ist of February, signified to Sir Henry Pottinger that they were ready to submit to his terms ; but had there been only a force of 2,000 or 2,500 men opposed to them, notwith standing their delusive professions of friendship, it was highly probable that they would have attempted to over whelm the British force. Sir Charles Napier, however, Was not in the position of Sir John Keane and Sir Wil loughby Cotton ; he had but 2,500 men to oppose to the Ameers, and, in my opinion, there is conclusive proof that if he had paused one day—if he had at tempted to retreat—if he had not, in fact, taken that course which his own wisdom, combined with his expe rience and military skill, dictated, not one day would have elapsed before the army would have been cut off; and if the glory of the British arms had not been sullied a disaster would have occurred which, following the disaster at Caubul, would have involved consequences of which it would have been very difficult to foresee the final issue. —(Hear, hear.) Sir, in estimating the con duct of Sir Charles Napier, I do not think the chief praise is due to him for military skill or personal valour; I think the chief praise is due to him for the judgment which he displayed in so critical a position. Knowing how fearful might have been the consequences of a repetition of the disaster at Caubul, he had the moral courage on his own responsibility to act in opposition to the ad vice which he had received, and to commit both the army and his own reputation to the fate of war, and it is tor the exhibition of moral courage which he made in deter mining upon the attack, that I think Sir Charles Napier especially entitled to our thanks.--(Cheers.) In detail ing the action of Meeanee, Sir Charles Napier said, " At one time, my Lord, the courage and numbers of the enemy against the 22d, 25th, and 12th Regiments bore heavily in that part of the battle. There was no time to be lost, and I sent orders to the cavalry to force the right of the enemy's line. This order was very gal lantly executed by the 9th Bengal Cavalry, and another regiment of horse. The details shall be afternards stated, for the struggle on our right and centre was al that time so fierce that I could not go to the left." He remained at the post of danger, feeling that the time was come when, whatever might be the consequences of his fall, the necessity for an example of personal devo tion on his part, was so great that he must leave to others the account which it might be necessary to give ; and there did that Gallant man stand, within ten or fifteen yards of the water-course in which, I be lieve, was the whole force of the enemy, cheering on his troops by an example of valour which made it impos sible for any man in that army to resist its contagious influence, and impelled all, like their gallant com mander, to devote their lives to their country's service.—(Loud cheers.) Sir, I think it is un necessary for me to trouble the House vvi- h further details. I am asking them to place upon record their sense of the military services of the army and its commander. I call upon them for no expression of opinion on any other point connected with the operations in Sinde; but, looking to what was achieved by these troops, looking to what was done by every man on those to o days, I think they will be disposed to come to a unanimous resolution that for such exploits the thanks of this House are justly due.—(Cheers.) With respect to some who were engaged in that battle, we must mingle with the expression of our gratitude to theme that of our deep sympathy with their friends and relations. The dispatches of Sir Charles Napier wisely and justly ascribed to individuals much of the merit of these victories. He has left, I believe, an im perishable record of the exploits which they performed. It is almost impossible to lament deaths so glorious as some of those which have occurred in these engage ments.—(Hear, hear.) He speaks of one gallant officer in a manner which, if anything can give consolation to his family and relations, must prove to them the highest solace which can be ()tiered to them under their heavy affliction, He says, "I have deeply to regret the loss of the brave and excellent Capt. Barrett of the 9th Light Cavalry,who fell honourably in the midst of the battle; also the fall of Lieutenant Smith, of the Bombay Artillery. With unsurpassed and desperate valour he galloped to the front of the battle, and rode up to the top of the hill, to see where his guns would bear with the greatest effect, but in the performance of that act he lost his life." Sir, there could be no inscription on his tomb more honourable than this.—(Hr, hear.) I trust, Sir, that we shall now proceed to bestow upon those gallant men the highest reward which a grateful country can confer ; that we shall allow you, Sir, as the organ of the national voice, to express to Sir Charles Napier, and to the officers and men under his .eonnnand, to the Euro pean and the Sepoy, men of the highest and of the lowest rank, who shared on those days a common wager,and are invested w ith a common g lor y , that t o th em a l } w e shall convey, through you as our or g an, the aeknoW , jedgement of public gratitude. (The Right Hon. Baronet concluded amidst loud cheers.) Lord JOHN RJJS.SELL said that, after the eloquent speech of the Right Hon, peetleman there cvas little left for him to say but to second the motion Were the House.—( Hear, hear.) lie took occasion a few nights ago to state 44 opinion of the moral courage and milit ary tan"ld which Sir Charles Napier displayed in extricating.himsethe army under his comman d from the iieM9ns position which they were placed; and it was not necessary for la4l then to give additional ex. pressions of his opinion. Even those vlr differed in respect must admire Fa ilit aF Y skill, exalted courage, aniti)erseveltsg to that pert of his conduct which was of a palit,i e s). phpacter conduct of the Gallant Ogcer.—( Hear, hear.) At an at& vanced age he evinced all t he rigour and enero of nith. more of those coAtis— Perhaps few young men could display (Cheers) —and to which were superadded, in an eminent degree, in the person of Sir C. Napier, skill, judgment, and talent,—( Hear, hear.) He felt very great pleasure in seconds ing the motion.—( Loud Cheers. ) The SPEA E a having put the motion, Lord HOWICK said it was with the most infinite regret that he felt himself under the necessity of opposing that motion in which the Right Hon. Gentleman called upon the House to concur.—Marks of disapprobation.) It was painful to him to take this coarse, but he felt it to be his imperative duty to do so, and lie felt bound to state to the House the grounds upon which, in his opinion, the thanks of the House ought to be withheld from Sir Charles Napier. It was most painful to him, because he could fairly say that the Right Hon. Baronet enuld not more admire than hi n the military skill displayed by Sir Charles Napier. In short, during that decisive campaign which took place, he had an opportunity of showing some of the 'greatest qualities which could distinguish a military cemmander.—( Hear, hear.) The prompt decision and energy —the undoubted bravery—the consummate military skill—and beyond all, that power which particularly appertained to dis tinguished commanders, which belonged to superior minds, he meant that of infusing that spirit into the hearts of his men with which he himself was animated.—(Cheers.) In all these encomiums he most cordially concurred with the Right Hon. Baronet, but it was utterly impossible for him to think that Sir Charles Napier was not a General only.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Baronet said that this motion had nothing to do with politics. The Governor-General, it was said, was responsible for all the measures adopted, and Sir C. Napier was merely called upon to carry into effect the coarse of policy decided upon by Lord Ellenborough. The House might re member that the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet was not throughout consistent, for a few minutes after he said that it was not his military skill he so much admired, that Sir C. Napier had exercised judgment and wisdom—in fact, that Sir C. Napier bad exercised power and resronsibility of a very different kind from mere generalship. He found, on reading the Indian papers, that Sir C. Napier was, in a letter from the Governor-General, dated 26th August, 1842, entrusted with civil as well as military power. It was quite plain that Sir C. Napier had exereised a separate discretion in the affair of Itiajor Outrun, and a very sound discretion it proved to be. The Noble Lord proceeded to read other extracts from the Blue Book, proving that Sir Charles Napier had exercised a power independent of the Governor-General ; and in the policy in volved in the exercise of that power he (Lord Howick) could rut at all agree. In the case of Lord - Keane, it was perfectly com petent for all parties to agree, for though they disapproved of the Affghanistan war they might concur in thanking Sir John Keane tor his bravery. But with Sir C. Napier the case was far otherwise—he was placed at the head of a large force, with directions to effect a certain object, by peaceable means if he could—if not, by force ; and, in fact, he was equally responsible as the Governor-General for all that took place in Sinde. Such being the case, it was utterly impossible for him to concur in the motion. A great deal had been said about the treachery of the Ameers. Treacherous they certainly were, and cunning and vindictive; but who made them so? Was it not ourselves? —( Hear, hear.) And was it not the policy pursued by Sir Charles Napier in Sinde which made those strong measures afterwards so necessary ? This was the impression which a perusal of the papers bad made upon his mind ; and this his in dividual opinion was greatly strengthened when he found that those persons who possessed the best means of giving a correct notion of the state of affairs in that country concurred with him in the view he had taken. When he found by these letters that Sir Henry Pottinger and Major Outram took the same view that he did, he felt perfectly satisfied that there was not merely strong ground, but an absolute justification for the opinions he entertained. In a little work, too, written by Captain Eastwick, which had lately been published, and which was remarkable for the strong ability, the high tone of morality which pervaded its pages, he was further justified in the posi tion he had taken up. He said, "As an independent man giving an independent opinion, I consider, that Sir C. Napier's ignorance of the language, manners, and habits of the natives, his want of experience of the native character, and, above all, his total want of sympathy—(Hear, hear ) —with the unfortunate Ameers, as the main cause of all the fatal events which took place." In the opinion here quoted from Captain Eastwick's volume he (Lord Howick) entirely concurred. At the same time he knew the difficulty of forming anything like a correct judgment on matters of this kind, especially by men like himself, personally unacquainted with affairs in the East. He should feel he was not justified in giving expression to his own opinion, were it not justified by the opinions of men really competent to the duty. Nor would he now ask the House to adopt the course he propounded to it, could it be supposed that, in so doing, they must necessarily pass judgment against Sir Charles Napier. But he denied that such would be the effect of following the suggestions he now offered. Hon. Gentlemen might be surprised at the opinions which he now expressed; but he (Lord Howick) thought he could make the principle which governed him more clear to the House, by referring to what actually pissed in another transaction. He believed Honourable Members gene rally would admit that the battle of Navarino was, as a feat of arms, highly honourable to the British navy, and that the skill and valour of the officers and men on that occasion had never been surpassed.—( Hear hear.) The Administration of that day, however, did not think fit to propose the thanks of Perlis liament on that occasion. They determined not to do so, and indeed commented on it with strong disapprobation. Amongst others who now sat on the bench beside him, the Right Hon. Member for Nottingham ( Sir J. Hobhouse), then the Member for Westminster, came forward, and proposed to the House to vote its thanks to Sir Edward Codrington and his gallant companions in arms. The Government, on that occasion, opposed the motion. Mr. Huskisson, at that time Secretary of State for the Colonies; and War, moved the previous question ; and, after a lengthened debate, the motion was w:th drawn without a division. The position taken by Mr. Huskisson that they should be particularly careful in voting thanks for events growing out of an accident, lest officers in command should create tee easily accidents which might afford them op portunities of distinguishing themselves, and so getting honours they would otherwise not have the chance of obtaining—that was the ground taken by Mr. Huskisson. What was the ground taken by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), who formed part of that Administration ? After agreeing in the position taken by Mr. Huskisson, the Right Hon. Baronet ad vanced the principle, that except in a declared war, the thanks of that House never had been, and never ought to be voted for any victory our arms obtained. Amongt the instances in sup port of his argument, the Right Hon. Baronet had brought forward that of the battle of Toulouse, where the thanks of Par liamend were withheld from Lord Wellington, because the war had actually terminated, although the hostile commanders could neither of them be aware of that fact. A battle so fought was to be considered a misfortune, and there fore no matter how gallant the bearing and conduct of the troops might have been, thanks could not be proposed in that House. The principle then was, that for a battle after peace thanks could not be given—and for a battle—a victory—without a declaration of war—as at Navarino—thanks could not be voted. Why, this was just the position in which the gallant officer, Sir Charles Napier, had placed himself. The words of the gallant officer, in one of the dispatches under his own hand-writing, were—" War has not been declared, and I do not think it necessary to declare it."—( Hear, hear.) Now, if the great and wholesome rule s e ai a nd r de l oenr or days — if r y e s Fka i nt f hy i troolicuca:dhs occasions — why t ww h h. e y L wereettprecedenthtehmey remember at so enunciated by the Right Hon. Baronet had been acted on in spou sh manyi t t the times, nmoens posi tion of Sir Charles Napier. It was referred to him to decide whether military operations were to be commenced or not—on him it depended whether there was to be a collision with the Ameers or not. ' To Sir Charles Napier great military ;means were given, and he was directed to obtain whatever might be requisite to the safety of our possessions and the honour of our naive without resorting to arms. With such instructions, and without deeming it necessary to declare war, he had com menced war, and now it was proposed to that House to vote thanks to him. He asked the House to act on the principles laid down by Mr. Huskisson and by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)—to act now, so that, in after times, similar results should occur as seldom as possible. Let them consider how important this was in India, where it was necessary, in the case of Sir C. Napier, and had frequently been necessary before, and would frequently, no doubt, be neces sary again, to entrust negotiations to Generals at the head of large armies. Was it possible to doubt that when a brave and enterprising General, conscious of his high talents—burning for an occasion to display them—pantin military g for distinction—surrounded by officers, all animated by the same spirit as himself—commanding a gallant and eager army, in which he placed implicit confidence—was it in human nature to expect that such a man, so circumstanced, treating with Oriental rulers, with whom deceit and procrastination were habitual, and finding that they were drawing their proceedings to a most interminable length—was it possible that such a man, so circumstanced, would not feel a strong disposition rather to cut the Gordian knot of such interminable negotiations with the sword, than disentangle them with patience and forbear ance?—( Hear, hear.) They all knew how strong was the passion for military glory in the breast of the soldier; knowing that, could they doubt that a General, in the situation he had described, was placed in a position of great dilliculty, and of great trial ? Could they believe that there would not be a strong bias upon his mind to bring the matter in dispute to a bloody termination ? If this were so, was he (Lord Howick) not justified in appealing to the princi ple so well laid down by Mr. Huskisson ? He would quote the language which had been used by Mr. Huskisson, and in doing so, he would substitute the words " unfortunate n eg otiations " fur the word " accident," and he would ask them whether the passage of Mr. Huskisson's speech was not strongly applicable to the present case. Mr. Huskisson said, "Be cautious before you create a precedent of thanks for events which grew out of unfortunate negotiations, lest the °Geer looking to the single benefit conferred upon him by receiving such thanks should cherish a disposition to create failures in negotiations, by which consequences might result which the country might have to regret." He (Lord Howick) would ask whether the principle of Mr. Huskisson's argument was not strongly applicable-- aye, applicable with increased force, to the case ,be fore them ; because an accident occurring in Europe between two Beets of civilised Powers must be of comparatively rare occurrence, but in India Generals must be engaged at the head of large armies, and such events must be of frequent oc eurrence. He confessed that he thought this question derived additional importance from what passed on a former evening. He thought that what fell from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course of the debate last week, made it pecu liarly imperative upon that House to beware how they did any thing which might tend in the remotest degree to encourage for the future in India a system which he must call unscru pulous aggrandisement. He agreed with the Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, in the surprise be had ex pressed at what had fallen from the Right Hen. Baronet, The Right Hon. Baronet said there was an uncontrollable principle which led to the gradual absorption by civilised and powerful States of the dominlon of their weaker and more barbarous neighbours, and that the laws of nations, such as they were understood in Europe, could not be strictly observed in India. He (Lord Howick) must say that this was- a doctrine against which he for one should most decidedly protest. He could not believe that this uncontrollable principle was so far clear to us now as to be looked upon with favour. He could not find that they had been applied by other nations as an excuse for their conduct. If this principle could be applied, it might be advanced in justification of the Russians quartering them selves upon their barbarous neighbours, or of France encroach? ing upon Algiers. He firmly believed that if this " uncap. trolable principle" were to be admitted, that such would be the encroachments of the French on the African shore, that the Cabinet of the Right Hon. Baronet would think itself war ranted in interfering. He protested against the cicctrine. fie was anxious to show the effect of the words used by the Right 800, eentleinan, because he did not attribute to the Right Hon. Baronet anything but a want of caution.—( Laughter. ) He could not' help thinking that these had been incautious words of the Right Hon. 6entleman, The House should beware how they gave any encouragement to a repeti tion of such events as those which had lately occurred in Sinde. fie believed that by giving the vote of thanks they would be teaching military anti naval officers that when they were en gaged in negotiations, if by thejr own conduct the negotiations failed, and a centici unfortunately renlied ? they had only to .succeed—they had only tO (lisp* valour when the contest had actually commenced, and then that House and the country would not scrutinise with yes y close eyes the justice of the means by which the conflict was KOtlersissl. That was the lesson they were reading to naval and military ofilderi by adgpting the vote of thanks proposed. He for one looked with feelings efitilythltlg lAseeis i tisfaptken even at those brilliant battle s of M eeanee a nd Hyderabad, tirilal4 in a military point of v i ew th ey undoubtedly were ; but he could not help fearing that, in the eye of the Almighty, they were stained with guilt, or unnecessary and wanton blood shea. b hottley h elieved that if th ey th en th an k e d th ose by 1 whom thOs been fought, that a portion of that •iRE , guilt would fall on their heads. But at all events, if that were not so, of this he was persuaded, that even if the past were beyond our power, the future in a certain degree was within our control, and by withholding that vote of thanks, he believed that it was in their power to read a great and useful moral lesson to those who in future should have command over our fleets and armies, and those in whose hands were placed the destinies of India.—( Hear, hear.) These were the views, and these were the sentiments—not, he could as strre them, lately adopted, not willingly obtruded on the House, for he had felt his task a most painful one—but those were the views, and those were the opinions, which had t e a him to conclude that the vote of thanks proposed that night ought not to be assented to by the House. He con'essed that it had been with great hesitation that he had made up his mind to abstain from taking that. course which in the first instance he had been disposed to do, ntmely, that of following the precedent set by Mr. Huskinson—moving the previous question, and taking the sense of the House on the motion. This was what he had been strongly inclined to do, and if he had anticipated the remotest hope of the House going with him in this amendment he undoubtedly would have moved it. But as he knew that such was not the feeling of the House—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—he was perfectly well aware that such was not the feeling of the House, but he had not been deterred by that consideration from -doing what he believed to be his duty. But having every reason to believe that this was not the feeling of the House, he did not wish to provoke discussion upon a question upon which it would be invidious to divide.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted that he bad sufficiently discharged his own conscience—he trusted be had sufficiently performed that duty which he felt to be incumbent upon him, by thus fully stating his opinion to the House, and, having done so, he would leave the matter in their hands with out proposing any amendment.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. VERNON SMITH said, he did not rise for the pur pose of adding his humble testimony to the gallantry of Sir Charles Napier. That was obvious to the commonest under standing. He, however, could net entirely agree with the motion before the House. He agreed with his Noble Friend in what he had stated, and he fully coincided with the Noble Lord in saying that his duty had been a most painful one. He (Mr. Smith) was fearful that the brilliancy of Sir Charles Napier's achievemen's ha i &ix:led the House, and had made them blind to his diplomatic conduct in this matter. The Right Hon. Gentleman, in introducing this motion, had himself alluded to the diplomatic character of Sir Charles Napier, and he had not defended it. He (Mr. Smith) could not but express his regret at the detestable doctrine which was laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman the other evening, considering the state of the Punjauh, the approaching anarchy of all our relations in India, and the di,position of the Governor-General himself, who was ever willing to proceed w ith ou t regard to consequences in any war. He ( Mr. Smith) was unacquainted with Major Outram; but ho had no , scruple in saying that justice had not been done to that officer. He would take three instances in which he felt that Major Outram had been treated with injustice. The first was in what his Noble Friend, the other night, termed the foot-notes to the papers upon the subject. He believed this was the first instance in which such notes had been introduced, and he deeply mistook the character of Sir Charles Napier—for generosity always accompanied bravery— if that Gallant Officer had authorised the publication of those notes. His next instance was the publication of an inclose/re in a letter of Sir Charles Napier. In the same letter Sir Chas. Napier requested the Government to burn the inclosure, or at least tore-word it ; and yet that inclosure had been published to the country without being rewarded in any way whatever. The conclusion to which he should come, upon reading those three letters, was that Major Outram had not been dealt fairly with. Had Major Outram been a civil officer the course pur sued toward hint would have been quite different. Although the action at Hyderabad might have been very glorious, yet he knew few things which showed more gallantry than the de fence of his own regiment.—(Hear, hear.) He ( Mr. V. Smith) thought that there could not be a higher testimony borne to the merits of any man than that which Sir Charles Napier bore to Major Outram upon the subject of his work upon fortification. It was true that Sir Charles Napier had risked his own life; but he also risked those of his men. Major Outram's course was to preserve peace, without, at the same time, the slightest relation to the preservation of his own life. That Gallant Officer's instructions were of an extremely limited nature, and he (Mr. Smith) thought he acted as any spirited man would in refusing to accede to them to the letter. Sir HENRY /I A 1113 INGE rose and said—Sir, although I differ from the Right Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, yet, as the Noble Lord has announced his intention of not di viding the House upon this question, I shall not occupy your attention for a long period of time, yet I must say the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and that of the Noble Lord, do not at all justify the attack which has been just now made upon Sir Charles Napier—( Hear, hear)—and I ask, in confir mation of my opinion, had not many of the Ameers joined in the intrifsue alluded to by the Noble Lord, and taken a promi nent and evident part a gainst Sir Charles Napier ? I might cite many cases where, although there has been no dis tinct declaration of war, yet in which the commander of an army was perfectly justified in attacking the enemy. The Hon. Gentleman may say that Sir Charles Napier was wrong and Major Outram right, but I think that, if there is one sub ject more than another in which Sir Charles Napier displayed high moral courage, decision of character, and dis cretion, it was in the attack upon the enemy to which the Hon. Gentlemen alluded. The Noble Lord has said, that he made his statement with great pain, and for this statement I am willing to give him the greatest credit, because I believe him to be most sincere in his convictions and conduct, yet I must say, that if there be one thing more than another, which shows valour combined with discretion, it is the conduct of Sir Charles Napier. During many years of my life, I had the honour and pleasure of serving with h im during the Penin sular war,—l have watched his career, and Ido sincerely be lieve that a better soldier does not exist than he. With respect to the military exploits of that gallant General, in his direction of the army in Sinde, I must say the same as I have done upon a former occasion, that for the greatness of mind, the determination and success evinced by the course he pursued, that] shall fear lessly appeal to every officer and soldier in the Sindian army, and I feel conscious that they will attribute to him a master mind, and lam also convinced that if his life had been sacrificed the battle would have been lost. I think, Sir, there are few things that could afford a stronger proof of the merits of a man than this. I feel assured that, although Sir Charles Napier may be now sixty-two years of age, and has already received many and serious wounds in the service of his country, yet that his spirit and energy are able to accomplish what would be too much for many a younger man.—(Hear.) When he first found it ne cssary to attack the Ameers he displayed all that energy which was necessary, and which in the greater number of cases could alone be expected from a young man. And again, when I find him in that undertaking, displaying all that judgment and experience so peculiar to him in taking the step he did, when he found the conduct of the Ameers to be such as to render it unsafe tor him to remain longer, I must most certainly and decidedly dissent from the opinions expressed by the Honour able Gentleman opposite. But I need not confine myself to one point in Sir Charles Napier's life; in every instance where he has been before the public he earned the same honourable fame. Look at the affair at Hyderibad, when the order of the day was no quarter on the part of the enemy. Sir C. Napier's conduct upon that occasion was such as to display the talents of a great General, combined with the highest sense of humanity. For this reason, I think that, having the safety of the army in his hands, the fact of his deciding against the opinion of Major Outram, was one of the brightest actions of his life.—( Hear, hear.) The two cases were very different. At Hyderabad he had received reinforcements which raised his army to nearly 5,t 00 men; this encouraged him to adopt the course which he had done so successfull y , and Id o thi n k th a t th e b r illiant mea sure he then adopted, is such as, under all the circumstances of the case, to entitle him to the esteem of every high-minded and honourable man in the kingdom.--( Hear, hear, and cheers.) I can scarcely conceive a position which was attended with more difficulties than that in which Sir C. Napier was placed, and I don't know one man in whose hands the honour of the British army could be more safely entrusted than in those of Sir C. Napier.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. MANGLES said he should detain the House as short a time as possible. He thought there were no such de mands made by Lord Ellenborough as those which, on the part of Sir Charles Napier, led to the war, which he con sidered was merely a po litical measure.—( Loud chee rs. ) The papers offered the fulle s t p roo f t h a t th a t was the case. In page 503 of the first blue book they had Major Outrank's ac count of the conference that had taken place. The Ameer said he objected to the new treaty proposed, but still that he would subscribe to the treaty on the condition that Meer Roostum Khan were stored to his rights. The Commivioner said that Roostum Khsn had resigned the durbar of his own free will. On the following day they (the Ameers) merely protested against the demand cf the,Governor General ; and then a long discussion ensued about Meer Roostum's affairs much the same ashad taken place on former occasions. ( The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read several passages from the blue book in support of his position, and went on to contend that Sir C. Napier's own cor respondence supported his views on the matter.) On the 18th of Dec. Sir 'C. Napier said to Roostum that personally he (Roostum Khan) was th e f r i en d of England, but that he was helpless among his own tamtli?'. and he told him to listen to the advice of Ali loured; and in the letter at page 418, he ( Sir C. Napier) wrote to Lord Ellenborough that Roestum could do nothing, and he did not like that, as it would embarrass him very much. Now , he (Mr. Mangles) could not see how that could have e mbarrassed the Gallant General, if he meant to pu rsue a Peal course. At page 483 , in writing to the Governor -Genera , abhe said that the conviction opened upon him , that the system which appeared to him as the only one to fell ow was to ta ke the secure the chief power , that the next step was her, and exercise of that power for his (Roostum Kh ans) that if he succeeded in doing that , tha t he would Roostußoostumto place himself in Ali Mourad's hands. r ' in had passage and others it appeared that he ( Sir G. Nader) b_poroter;utandaet persuaded the old man to trust himself in his brother s hands, and thereby extorted from him the resignation of the Sove reignty. There were other passages equally clear in which Sir C. Napier formallydenied that he had pe rsuaded the:old man to resign into his brother's hands.—(The en. Gentleman here read the the passage.) Until that apparent inconsistency was cleared up, he (Mr. Mangles) must state, for his own part, that he never would consent to a vote of thanks to Sir C. Napier. He was also strengthened in that purpose by the equally irreconcilabli statements respecting Roostum Khan's flight from his people of Sinde, on the oecasinn brother. At pages 485, alluding to that flight, Sir C. Napier wrote that Meer Reostum was a timid man, and had fled from his brother, from an apprehension that he ( Sir C. Napier) wished to make him a prisoner and aga i n , at page 495, he wrote to the Goveraor-General—(the letter was dated the 7th January)—that he had run away because Ali Mowed had induced him to do so ; and yet, in a proclamation, dated Ist , January, which the Gallant General had issued to of the flight of night heard that ]Herr Roostum had solemnly given up the durbar to his brother, Ali Mourad. Now he (Mr. Mangles) said, with great reluc tance certainly, but still it was the case—that those statements tlthoeoAsturnmee,rhseanstdatedthat he had that appeared to him impossible to reconcile. He believed that the Aroeers would have submitted quietly and peaceably ,not willingly superior force, they certainly, bot under the would have submitted pressure of our quietly to all we had demanded of them, on their own account, bad peaceable means been adopted for that end. But as the conduct of Sir Charles Napier towards them had brought matters into such a state as that they could not be managed without cutting the knot with the sword, he woelyl not be a party to passing him a vote of thanks. Sir H. DOUGLAS said that, after the splendid speech of the Right Hon. Baronet in proposing the vote of thanks to Sir C. Napier, and after the concurrence of the Noble Lord the Member for London in that motion, he would not be jus btiofitedasinhtereswpaus at any length, , he hoped the House j. w Napier, and had s w in e il o ac n t q h u e ai t n im te s d owritthheSill; him, a few observations. Noble Lord the Member ; a th ei e er ey h e a s 4 onfotthaacttoas4l:moTql would g t i m portant ohhiamr. i)t s professionalanta t te nt ion relations niaoso wg Ihaidle with thh ee h m i for Sunderland did not mean to div;c l ,: , the fip uce op th p s op. ject, but he much regretted the observation s which he made, as they t4 would ad it be 4 l ikely e fy $ : i . d p e h lt a r distin guishedive, officer, the subject of the present motion, the valu f which an unanimous vote would otherwise have. The Noble Ind done another tertglis 44 4 0 w rg the ri tish arms. The Noble Lord all uded to . the i„,mat„„a which had brought affairs into that position in which Sir C. Napier had found them ; but that Gallant Officer had nothing He found an a nn ot a tion made by w si h r a c te . ve N r ia4 to je d r o o w n i t th he th l r th . of October! in which he said that it is e`hu tl-.eunptler hots they . ' cant o occupy eto Sink — ha hiji 061 y te qn siclefthp position iii rimy ilbod: It seemed fo him that some on. gerghefi the nature of the treaty of Hyderabad. That treaty was made on the sth of February, 1839, and was ratified on the Ilth of March, 1839, by Lord Auckland ? but 'not till the month of July in the - same year on the part of the Ameers. By that treaty the confederacy of the Arruvra was dissolved, and Sinde was brought by it within the sphe re of their Indian policy; and even some important places were surrendered by it. This treaty divided the whole great drama into two periods—the one including the occupation of Sinde, mid the other the opera tions which succeeded. Sir C. Nap;er was chosen to carry into effect the terms of the treaty, and he took the command of the troops. When he arrived in the country, he conversed with the Ameers on the subject of the treaty, and he immedi ately reported to the Governor-General that several infrac tions of the treaty had taken place on the part of the Ameers. (The Hon. and Gallant Member here read extracts from the reports of Sir Charles Napier, complaining of infractions of the !mtg.) These were the justifications of Sir C. Napier, iii proceeding as he did to enforce the terms of the treaty. There was enough in that treaty to justify Sir C. Napier to proceeding as be did; and the last treaty to which the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last referred, only rendered more strin gent the terms of the treaty of 1839. He would not enter into the argument of the old man or the young man who figured in Sinde—(Laughter)—but he rested the defence of his Gallant Friend on the violation of the treaty of Hydera bad, and he was justified in taking every proceeding, even the havinz recourse to arms, to enforce the terms of that treaty. He would add his testimony, as a military man, to the brilliant achievements of that Gallant Officer, and he be lieved that if he had acted upon the advice of Major Outrani,' and dela)ed one hour longer, he would have been lost, for it was likely the Atneers would have obtained an additional force of 50,000 men. So distinctly did he perceive the diffi culties in which Majour Outran] was placed, that while he ( Major Outram himself) assured him he had nothing to fear, the Gallant General saw grounds for great apprehension, and he determined upon advancing. —( Hear, hear.) They had the testimony of Major Outram himself to show that he had been deceived, for shortly after hostilities commenced by attacking his own regiment. Major Outram, he knew, was entitled to the character of a brave soldier ; he knew him well by reputation, and his defence of his residence was a very distinguished one. Having said this much in justifi cation of the conduct of his Gallant Friend, he hoped the House would permit him, as a military man, to make a few observa tions on the battle of Meeanee and a few others. There was a great disparity of force; he had only one British regiment, and though he relied on his other troops, his dependence was mo't upon this corps, which he placed in the front of the battle. He had no reserve ; he attacked with a combination of all his force, artillery, infantry, and cavalry. That combination was apparent in both battles, and had he not adopted this system it would have been scarcely possible to have succeeded. He contended that not even the victories of Lord Clive, who laid the foundation of their military and political power in India, not even the splendid exploits of the Cornwallises, the Moiras, and the Wellesleys—not even the first great battle of the Hero of a hundred fights"—had conduced more to the reputation of their arms than these actions. Their empire in India was only raised by military power; he did not ask what took them first to India; their first places of occupation were trading stations ; but they could never have been able to have held them but for the military force. The present actions had confirmed their power in India, and were, therefore, not less deserving the thanks of the House than the actions of the illustrious men he had alluded to. Mr. B. HA WES said he did not intend to go into the general policy of the occupation of Sinde ; but he thought there was no precedent for a vote of thanks on the present occasion, inasmuch as there had been no declaration of war. We committed the aggression in the first instance, by invading the territory of Sinde. We then attempted to enforce one treaty, and set aside another already existing. He must say. therefore, it would be hard to find a precedent for a vote of thanks, under such circumstances. He did not wish to detract from the military reputation of Sir C. Napier. If they were merely called on to thank him, as a General Officer, for a brilliant exploit, he should feel it his duty to - do so. But Sir Charles was vested with the supreme political command of Sinde, as well as that of the army. The diplomatic agents were all removed, and Major Outram was placed entirely under Sir C. Napier. Had Major Outram's advice been followed, these battles would not have been fought. It had not hitherto been the practice to give the thanks of the House for one soli tary brilliant exploit ; but, lately, it had become the custom to do so,—thereby lessening its value. Sir C. Napier had shown a disposition to carry on his negotiations by force, and if the House passed this vote of thanks, it would be establishing a dangerous precedent, one of setting aside the rules of negotia tion, and resorting at once to the sword,—thus giving a pre mium to war and blood. Commodore Sir C. NAPIER said, he rose under no ordinary feelings, to return his thanks to the Right Hon. Baronet for the eloquent manner in which he had brought forward the services of his g Ilant relative, and for the honour he had done himself, by speaking of him in a manner which he certainly did not expect. The Right Hon. Baronet had mentioned the services of his gallant relative, beginning at the battle of Corunna, and following him through all the operations in the Peninsula. But the Right Hon. Baronet was ignorant of some of the occur rences in which his gallant relative had taken part, and he hoped the House would permit him to mention them here, as the question under discussion was a vote of thanks to be given to him. At the battle of Corunna it was perfectly noto rious that, when leading on the 50th Regiment, it being the first time he was in action, he advanced far beyond his men, something stopped them, and, while trying to bring them on, he was surrounded by a French corps, was cut down by a sabre stroke, was pierced in the back by a stab, was shot in the leg by a ball, and had two of his ribs broken by a musket shot ! Now he really thought that this was a dose enough for any man 1—( Cheers and laughter.) He was then taken prisoner and conveyed to the quarters of Marshals Soult and Ney, by whom he was carefully nursed, and restored to his family without an exchange. He was sure that there was no man, either in England or France, who would more rejoice at hearing of the exploits of his Gallant Friend in India th an Marshal Soult.—(Cheers,) When he returned to England he obtained permission to join the ai my in Spain, under the Duke of Wellington, and they first heard of him at the pas sage of the Douro, where he had a horse shot under him. He was afterwards at Busaco, as an amateur.—( Laughter.) He (Commodore Napier) was also there as an amateur himself.— (Cheers.) At Busaco his gallant relative was shot through the nose and jaw while by his side, and fell into his (Commo dore Napier's) arms—(Cheers.)—he himself bore him from the field.—(Cheers.) He was a man of heroic courage, but pos sessing also the coolness so requisite in a soldier, and he well remembered that while watching the movements of the armies, he observed to his gallant relative that he was dressed in his, red coat—that he had lon the uniform of his regiment, though the staff wore blue. He told him that he was doing wrong— that he would be marked out, and that he ought to put on his cloak. He said "No ! it is the uniform of my regiment, and in it I will stand or fall. "—(Loud cheers.) The words were hardly pro nounced before he was struck; he fell into his arms, and he bore him off the field. As he bore him away they met the Duke of Wellington, and, the spirit of the soldier being strong within him, though the frame was weak, he took off his hat and cheered, saying " I cannot die at a better moment."— (Cheers.) In the surgical operation he underwent afterwards he showed the same courage ; he held him while the bail was extracted, and he minded it no more than if it had been a tooth drawn ; he said not a word.—( Cheers.) After he recovered he was present at the battle of Fuentes D'Oaor, where, for once, he escaped without a wound. He was then at Bidassoa, where. though he escaped again, he bad two brothers wounded, and received his promotion. His next service was under Admiral Sir G. Cockburn. Here, though the fighting was not quite of so regular a . kind as in Spain, it was quite as hard. They next found him, as a civil officer in the island of Cephalonia, and it was well known that no man ever did more, in a civil situation, for the improvement of a country than Si r C. N ap i er did f or th e i s l an d o f Cephalonia. They neat heard of him as Commander of the District of the North of England, and, Radical as he was, and as he ac knowledged he was_( Hear, hear) —he believed that the Noble Lord then at the head of the Home Department, would tea tify that no man could have better commanded the army in that district at a time when there was considerable difficulty. —(" Hear, hear," from Sir Robert Peel.) He kept the whole of that district perfectly quiet, as much so as any man who was totally and perfectly on the side of the Government. —( Hear, hear.) He next came to what he had done in India. The Right Hon. Baronet had so well described the whole of his conduct there, from the time he took the command, that it would be neeeaary for him to say but every little on the subject. Still the House, he hoped, would excuse him if he dwelt a little complacently on his relative's services, mannera o a n d the th g e uestionof in which he had performed th em .— (Hear, h ear .) Th ey h a d no thi ng to d o w i t h t h e po li cy that dictated the se movemen t s , b u t on l y w ith hi s con d uct as a general offi cer i n th e comman d o f an army . If t h e po li cy was bad, let th em try an d pun i sh h i m, if they. pleased; but as a tfgThreohanmet the Sir number ulofi yhocer, lie was sorry that the Noble Lord bad touched policy at all. In the first reports that came home o f th e b attle of Meeanee he said that he had 2,800 men to meet an enemy 20,000 strong. B ut on examining the army it w as sa id t h at h e h a d 2, 0 0 0 men . H e, however, had it bChralroelfe number tu h hm i embseeenrl enemy oin t f h y a h t shaes for c ehsa stt stated eonlyd only a 1 t , a 7 m o 002 amounted e a y d o n;teo 2 t s, , 0 anotheroand. report gave it as 25,000; but he (Commodore Napier) knew that it amounted to 30,000 me n .—(Ch eers .) H e knew not in ancient or modern history anything like an officer with so small a body of men overcoming so enormous a dis parity of numbers. These 30,000 men were posted in a strong position; and in such a position he was perfectly astonished that the Ameers had not driven the English army into the Indus or anywhere else.—(Laughter.) The Sepoys were broken ou that occasion, and Sir Charles wrote home that they were rallied by their officers; but he did not state what was the fact, that they were rallied by himself.—(Cheers. ) He now came to the battle of Hyderabad ; there Sir Charles had a force of 5,000 men, and with the prestige of the former battle with him, he could have beaten a hundred thousand. The Ameers had the experience of their former defeat to teach them, and yet they were beaten there with more facility than at first. He had heard gallant officers in India speak of the nullahs of that country, and the one which Sir C. Napier carried was 40 feet broad, and 72 feet deep. His gallant relation was riding his horse " Red Rover"—(Laughter)—and when he came to the brink of the nullah, he started at the sight, bat the spirit which animated the man was communicated even to the horie—(Cheers)—and carried him through it. But nothing could have done it except great excitement—the sama sort of excitement as he felt in Imiting in the fields of Leioestershire, -- (Laughter.) He believed it was generally admitted, that had Sir Charles Napier w a it e d twenty-four hours longer before he made the attack, he would have been surrounded by 50,000 or 60,000 men. One of the Ameers admitted, on the evening in which the battle was fought, that 12,000 fresh troops were assembled in the neigh bourhood of Hyderabad, This, he thought, Ives a sufficient Justification of his gglant relative for having fought the battle when he did. He would now make a few observations on the mspueestchsaoyf that the be Nob i l r e ea L t o ly rd d , iff th e e re M d e fr m o b m er h f i o m r . Sa T nd h e e rl N an o d b , le an i d 6 h rd e said that Sir C. Napi er must have bean a diplomatist, since he corresponded wit h Major Outram, though he did not follow the Major's advice, Now he begged to say that he approved as much of the diplomacy of his noble relative as he did of his fighting propensities.—(Laughter.) He went to Snide with distinct and positive orders from Lord Ellenborough, and had he not carried out the instructions he received, he presumed that Lord Ellenborough would have found fault with him. But the Blue Book showed slog, PR I Ellenborough ePProve4 of wha t ha had done, and if if "ha was wrong in so doing, the blame must rest with Lord Ellenborough, and not with his gallant relative. They were here passing a vote of thanks to him for his conduct as a milt st h a r o y w o n fl in c o e r r a e r, l o i n ,4 e 0 . m a n b d a4 he b e t h d o r u re g i h r t e t d h an e y N r o e b ni l e a r l i f i r o d u erg: i g d e n h e a r sr a e l policy of the question till a future opportunity, which it seemed was to be afforded them. The Noble Lord admitted that the Ameers plotted against us. Now he should like to know what the limitation of plotting was? How fe l t* wpve they to be tc! go qq Ple'stir.g 7 Wore they to be allowed to plot to cut our throats, for instance ?_( Laughter.) That was to him a sort of thing which he eould not at all understand.— (Laughter.) Then the Noble Lord brought forward a 1041 of Mr. Eastwick's. But bad Mr, 4 1 4 1 04 all s —( Hear, hear. )jt was epy k i lns to say, after all was sayer, olkt I t oph4le l ?Samar dope this or that, things would have been Otherwise. But if anything had gone wrong, was 111r.IEastwick in any way responsible ?—( Hear, hear.) Had Sinde been an ordinary climate like that of Europe. and had his gallant relation an army of 10,000 men, it might be perfectly right for him to temporise and go on slewly t. hut When they knew that in the infense heat of the elltlsareof..*Mde rise webk or foriniglit"Mipi clestiOy n hop army, ha sheaga 111,Ce a;ii; coikt'arlY eoromguaer of au army in such circum stances' defer his movements? The Noble Lord also made a comparison of the battles of Meeanee and Hyderabad with the battle of Xavirino. Now t he should like to know, in the name of God, what resemblance the Noble Lord thought there was between those battles. He said that a vote of thanks was re fused to Sir E. Codrington because the battle of Navarino was an accident—an " untoward event " in fact. Sir Edward Codrington went to Navarino, where ships were lying of different flags and nations, manned by barbarians, amongst whom a single musket fired would kick up a general blast.—(Laughter.) A musket was fired, and a general blaze took place. But at the battle of Hyderabad, was that an acci dent there ? Why, the Ameere attacked the Residency with strong force ; Major Outram was obliged to retire, after having gallantly defended himself, and arrived at the camp of Sir Charles Napier. Now, under these circumstances, he should like to know what was Sir Charles Napier to do ? Was he to look idly on? Vas he to retire? What was he. to do? Why, the only thing he had to do was to fight, and he (the Gal. lent. Commodore) thought if he had not done that he oneht to have been hanged.--(Cheers and laughter.) The Noble Lord said there was no declaration of war. It was true there was no declaration of war, but it was not the custom to declare war now. They had been fighting from four to five years with China, and yet no declaration of war had been made Why ? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell. When the Ameers assisted the Beloochees was not that a sufficient de claration of war ?—( Hear.) If the French sent troops to Ireland, would not that be considered a competent reason fur declaring war against France ?—( Hear. hear. ) He rather thought the gentlemen of the House of Commons would be of that opinion. —( A laugh.) He felt sure that if the Noble Lord was in the Residency he would say, " I am sure, Sir Charles Napier, it is high time for you to come and defend me." He would be anxious to put an end to the state of uncertainty and danger in which he found himself. The Noble Lord said there was great military means. What means ? Two thousand men. What means had the Ameers? Thirty thousand men. The Noble Lord talked a great deal about glory, and of the impropriety of encourag ing too great a desire for military exploits, in order to obtain a vote of thanks from the House of Commons. He did not ap prehend there would be a great many amateurs who would be willing to fight against 30,0(0 men with 2,000 men.—( Laughter and cheers.) And then the glory—where was the glory ? The glory of running the risk of getting all their throats cut. The Noble Lord talked about the danger of allowing a mili tary man to transact diplomatic affairs. He (Sir C. Napier) had been in her Majesty's service a loog time, and he must certainly say that it was a very dangerous practice for him who had laid aside the sword, to take up the pen. Let them go back to Constantinople—they had a diplomatic agent there. But how are our affairs managed by him? Why the flea came back with its tail between its legs.—( Laughter. ) Sir John Moore was of opinion that these men always got the countries they represented into scrapes. When they took up the pen they d,d not know how to wield it, having been so long accus tomed to the sword. They had a diplomatic agent in Sind,— what did he do? Any man that took up the Blue Book would see that the diplomatist, so far from bringing things to an amicable termination, had, in endeavouring to settle matters with his pen, brought the army into jeopardy, and they had to be rescued by the sword.—( Hear, hear.) The two offices—diplomatist and general—ought not to be mixed up together ; and, thank God ! they had a General who relied upon himself sooner than the diplomacy.—( Loud cheers.) If it had been to any other man for whom the vote was proposed, and who had acted similarly, he would have been just as ready to testif / his conscientious approbation of his conduct.—(Loud and pro longed cheerio... ) Mr. BINGHAM BARING vindicated the manner in which the papers relating to Indian affairs had been laid before the House. It had been said that the conduct of Major Outram had been placed before the House in an unfavourable point of view. He (Mr. B. ?taring) was net conscious of having done so. General Napier was not in the situation of , responsibility to Major Outram. He certainly had received certain advices from Major Outram, but he was not bound to follow his instructions ; and in his (Sir Charles Napier's) letter to the Governor-General, he certainly justified himself for not following the course recommended by Major Outram. Sir Charles Napier entertained a different opinion, and that opinion he followed upon his own responsibility. No blame could be attributed to Major Outram—no blame could be at tributed to Sir Charles Napier. After some further ob servations to the same effect, and reading some extracts from the Blue Book to justify his views, the Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst partial cheering. Mr. C. WOOD thought that the Hon. and gallant Com modore had unjustly censured his Noble Friend Lord Herrick. His Noble Friend had discharged a duty very painful to him, in declaring his opinion in favour of the course which he meant to pursue; but at the same time he gave the highest praise to Sir C. Napier for his military skill and courage, and that, too, from the beginning to the end of his speech.—( Hear, hear.) But his Noble Friend was of opinion that it was in this case impossible to separate the military from the political, and so it appeared to him (Mr. Wood). The present vote of thanks was utterly inconsistent, in the manner in which:it had been drawn up, to that which had been proposed to Sir Edward Codrington, and to those principles which had been on that occasion laid down by Mr. Huskisson and the Right Hon. Gen tleman opposite. According to the opinions professed by both these Members on that occasion, the present vote of thanks could not consistently be given to Sir C. Napier, for they were of opinion that a formal declaration of war must take place before a vote of thanks could be voted by that House. The Hon. and Gallant officer ( Sir Charles Napier) says that it is not the practice of later times to snake a declaration of war—where there was danger we fought at once, and so at once did away with the danger. On this principle he had ar gued war was commenced against Denmark. Toulouse, too, had been referred to. That was a strong case in favour of his Noble Friend the Member for Sunderland. We were engaged in a war—in a war recognised by all the usual formalities—and which had been preceded by a regular declaration—and having no reason to know that peace had been agreed on, the Duke of Wellington fought one of his hardest battles, and gained one of the most brilliant of his victories. The country heaped honours upon him, but Parliament did not vote thanks. But the Hon. and Gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier) said that we had voted thanks to armies for services in India and China, in connection with wars which had not been preceded by any declaration. Now, in Affghanistan there had been a declaration of war ; but in the case of China there was this distinction, that the power of peace or war, of remaining at the one or com. mencing the other, was not vested in the military corn mander.—( Hear, hear.) The rule of Parliament was that the person in whom centered the power of continuing at peace, or entering upon war should not be entitled to the thanks of Parliament. In all that his Noble Friend ( Lord Howick) had uttered he had borne the strongest testimony to the skill, intrepidity, and valour of General Napier, and every man under his command. The objections he had ad vanced were solely on the grounds of uniformity, and in con sonance with all previous precedents and principles. If the loose was prepared to disregard these, as he believed it was.— ( Hear, hear, hear)—it was but right it should know that in so doing it was acting in direct inconsistency with its own re corded decision. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said, it gave him no small surprise, after the speech of the Noble Lord ( Lord Howick) that he was not prepared to pet the House to the test of the sentiments which he had uttered, by bringing it to a division. —(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") He (Mr. Crawford ) . for one felt strongly the force of those arguments which had been used, and others which had not been used, in reference to the question then before them. He felt that the House, by such votes as that now proposed, identified itself in some degree with the origin of the causes of these wars. He did not wish to identify himself with such wars as those in India, and China, and he thought the House should always limit its thanks to such wars as they could approve of the o r i g i n . H e meant to cast no slur on General Sir Charles Napier ; far from it; but he felt that many officers had net fair play, for they were used almost like mere machines, and were often forced to engage in wars which they could by no means ap prove. He could never approve such wars as those which had lately taken place in India and China. Disapproving, as he did, of those wars—disapproving, as he did, the conduct of the Noble Lord (Lord Howick) in quoting the excellent precedent of Mr. Huskisson, and yet declining to follow it, he (Mr. Crawford) should give him an opportunity of prov ing his sincerity by new moving the " previous question."— (Cheers. ) Mr. BROTHERTON seconded the motion. Mr. B. ESCOTT said it was most important that a great country like this should bestow its grateful thanks on meri torious and gallant officers in a free, generous, and ungrudg• ing spirit. It would have been much fairer, far more noble in the Noble Lord ( Howick) and his friends to have met the motion by a direct negative, rather than have attempted, as they had done, to pare it down, and throw discredit on the motives and actions of the chief parties in the transactions. The Noble Lord brought forward his precedents, but, to his (Mr. Escott's) mind they were precedents which did not at all apply. The circumstances of the case were altogether unprecedented. Sir Charles Napier's position was unprecedented, his energy and valour, and the energy and valour of those under him, unprecedented—and the result of the battle unprecedented.—( Hear, hear.) But what were the terms in which the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) asked for this vote of thanks ? Why for "military ope rations in Sinde." These were the words. The Noble Lord, and those who agreed with him, all bore testimony to the mili tary skill arid valour of General Napier and his troops—the words of the motion referred to " military operations" alone— and where, then, was the ground on which they proposed their opposition should rest ? He was unable to account for their conduct, or to reconcile their practice with their professions. He trusted, however, the Hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Crawford) who was always consistent and straightforward in his conduct in that House, would test the sentiments and sincerity of the Noble Lord and his few friends, by dividing the House on the "previous question." Dr. BOWRING cou ld no t agree to the motion before she House, as ho disapproved of all oressive war, and he could not honour its instruments.— Cries of" Divide.") Lord PALMERSTON—As the ouse is going to divide upon this question, Sir, I wish to state, in a few wo r d s th e grounds upon which I found my intention to give the motion of the Right Hen. Gentleman my most cordial and warm support.—(Cheers.) I cannot allow myself to consider this motion as one involving in any degree whatever any political considerations. I look upon it simply as a proposal to confer upon most distinguished merit the thanks of this House, which are the greatest reward that can be conferred upon those who have bled in the defence of their country.—( Cheers.) I dis card willingly from my consideration all those topics which bivalve the question of whether the treatment of the Ameers was justifiable or not ; or whether the policy pursued by Lord Ellcnborough was or was not contrary to justice. I will not permit myself to look at the political transactions in India in which Sir Charles Napier was involved in his political capacity. —(Cheers.) 1 see that the most brilliant exploits have been performed by the British troops. These exploits are almost without example, both with reference to the disparity of the forces, and the results of the victories. I think there never has been a. occasion on which it would be more becoming in the House to mark its approbation of the skill and valour displayed. I say skill as well as valour, because I think that the sagacity Sir Chat les Napier, as shown in the course of his military operations —I mean military sagacity—was not less conspicuous than the bravery displayed in the action it. self. Now, my Noble Friend, and others on this side, con ceive that what took place at the battle of Navarino ought to prevent our agreeing to this motion. I eannot see any identity in the two cases. The battle of Navarino was an a.cidental conflict which took place between our Beet, a cornhinod feet, and the fleet of a nation with vain; we were not at war, and with whom we did rut afti.rwards become at war. We remai ne d u p on t erms o f peace with the Sultan, and Par li!tme'.lt stated that its thanks could not be voted for the victory, on account of the conflict having been an accidental owe. We did not wish to disturb our peaceful relations with Turkey by adopting a proceeding which would have been exceedingly dis courteous to Cesium. 'But no man will say that we were Nt ai. war with the Ameers. If that is not war what:; begins with a battle, and ends with dethronement, !, certainly am at a loss to know what war is. lam auze the Ameers would no t a t all be disposed to acquiesce in the interpretation my Noble Friend has given of tlse transactions which have taktq l pl ace . I give this vote my most cordial support, reserving myself as to any opinion 4 may entertain with regard to those political ques tiens with which the late transactions have been connected. Mr. 0. STANLEY would not take part in the divisioi;, but he would take that opportunity of saying, that in Pi opinion the letter of Sir Charles Napier to the hetineers of Sinde, had greatly tarnished the laurets of tlAt gallant officer.—(Cries s' Divide, of stratigere 'film ordered to withdraw, and the Honsc di vided, when the numbers were— Far the motion Against it Alajority ' PRESENCE OF STRANGERS AT DEBAfES4 ' Mr. CHRISTIE 5c3.9 bring --i 4 wern wan' respect- ing the propriety of the House recognising the presenoe • strangers in the House, when Mr. J. WORTLEY said that as he had the intention of moving the second reading of the Horse Racing Penalties Bill when the Orders of the Day were brought before the House, and had consented to forego that motion in order that he might not at all Interfere with the vote of thanks which was proposed, and so unanimously acceded to the army in Sinde, he thought he had a prior right to the Hon. Member who had just now spoken. The SPEAKER said that in the present instance Mr. Christie having a notice of motion upon the paper was en titled to precedence. Mr. CHRISTIE then rose t o move f or a S elect Com mittee, to consider the expediency of recognising the presence of strangers at debates, and the publication of debates, under th e pleasure of the House; and to consider and report what regulations may be necessary. He said, he would at once have conceded to the Hon. Gentleman opposite, only for the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the fact of his once be fore having consented to the postponment of his motion. H. fully appreciated the feeling of the Hon. Gentleman opposite, in the necessity of foregoing other subjects, when the vote of thanks serried this night was about to be proposed, and for this reason he concurred in the wishes of the Right Hon. Baronet oppo site. The subject of his motion was one which, if entered upon fully, could afford neither amusement nor instruction to the House, for the present practice was what they were to look to, and not to old precedents. The first point he should direct himself to was the manner in which the public press were affected. All that he wished for was, to sanction the reports generally, and confine punishment to mis-representation. He trusted that, though he had risen at that late hour of the night (eleven o'clock), the importance of the subject, and its delicate character with respect to the privileges of the House, would justify him in asking them to bear with him while he entered shortly into the history of the House of Commons—(" Oh, ob," from the Ministerial benches, and "Hear" from the Oppositions • —wills respect to the exclusion of strangers. The first resolu tions that occurred on the subject were to be found at the commencement of the Long Parliament. At the crisis of the great struggle between the King and the House of Commons. every poss , ble expedient was resorted to for the purpose of protecting the privilege of the freedom of speech against the violent encroachments of Charles I. The House of Commons then passed two resolutions, one prohibiting any Member of Par liament from publishing his own speech without the consent of the Ilouse ; the other was directed against publication gene rally, and declared that whoever printed and published the pro ceedings Fee., of the House, should be reputed as a high offender and breaker of the privileges of Parliament and punished ac. cordingly ; and these resolutions, passed in the Long Parlia men', were upheld generally through all the Parliaments of the Protectorate. However, it was not till the middle of the reign of William and Mary a systematic struggle began fur the purpose of using the resolutions, originally passed in o der to screen itself from the view of the peop!e. In the year 1691, it was ordered on a complaint being made that a newspaper writer had given an account of the proceedings of the House of Commons —that no news-letter, &c., should presume to iiateirneJelle with the debates or other proceedings of that. House. Similar complaints were frequently made in three subsequent years, and resolutions were passed in support of the former ones. In the years 1722 and 1723 the most stringent resolutions that had yet existed were passed for the purpose of preventing the publication of what took place in that (louse. There was some plausibility in the arguments urged its support of these resolutions, namely, that the accounts which went forth of the proceedings in the House were inaccurate. In the year 1738 still more stringent resolutions were passed on this subject. The question was introduced by the Speaker, who informed the House that he saw with regret a practice pre vailing which reflected little credit on the House, he meant the publication in newspapers of what occurred in the House. In thedebate that ensued, among those who addressed the House. were Mr. Wyndham, Si r W. Pultency, a n d Si r R. 'Walpole, all of whom concurred in the view of the Speaker, and SirW. Pulteney went so far as to say, that the publishing of speeches of Hon. Gentlemen in that House, loosted very like making them accountable without doors for what they said withig. ( The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read extracts from . several speeches delivered on that occasion, together with the resolutions adopted by the House.) 7he effect of these rescs lution was not to stop publications —on the contrary, news papers and magasines which bad previously given th e report s of the House of Commons, continued to give those:reports. but gave fictitious names to the House of Commons. One magazine called the House of Commons " The Political Club," another reported the debates of the proceedings in Utopia ; and the Gentleman's Magesine, which for a long time bad the benefit of the industry and genius of Johnson, reported what it called the debates of the Senate of Lilliput. But the Standing Orders which now existed were first passed its 1705, with the view of preventing the inter ruption of the business of the House, and the inconvenience caused to Members by the presence of strangers from want of accommodation. These Standing Orders were not used to prevent the publication of the proceedings or debates of that House, and it was not until the beginning of the reign of George 111., that these orders were used to prevent pub lication. In 1770 an attempt had been made to bring the printers and publishers of debates before the bar of the House. Strong opposition was made to those attempts by Mr. Burke and others, who repeatedly divided the House upon the ques tion, and the ultimate result was that the House yielded its consent to publication. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read extracts from the speeches of Mr. Burke, Mr. Dunning, and Mr. Fox, on that ossoasion, all of whom were of opinion that the exclusion of strangers from the House of Commons was at variance with the spirit of the Constitution, and went on to contend that as neither of the causes which led to the resolutions passed for the exclusion of strangers, via. the inaccuracy of the reports, and the inconveniences arising from want of accommodation for strangers, now existed, he would ba allowed to ask for a Committee to consider of the expediency of recognising what had long been the practice. He did not wish to take away the power which Members now possessed of having the House cleared of strangers, because it might ba necessary on certain occasions, and of State policy, that their disenssions should take place with closed doors. With regard to the publication of debates, it was necessary the House should reserve to itself the power on simil ar occas i ons of preventing their publication. Ile me• ely threw out these observations in order that more experienced Members might work them into practical results. One objection which might be urged against the publication of debates was as to the accuracy of the reports. But he thought if the House emancipated itself from the difficulty that every publication was a breach of privilege, the competition of the different newspapers would ensure sufficiently accurate reports. The House could then exercise a more efficient control over misrepresentation. The reports would be free from general inaccuracies—they would be free from misrepresentation which the House would punish, and free from the exercise of political partial ty on the part of those who exercised the duties of reporters, At present every newspaper which pub. lisped the reports of speeches in Parliament, was liable to an action, if they contained any libellous matter. Any Member who sent notes of his speech, In order to ensure accuracy, was in the same predicament. It was no less un just than inconsistent with the practical working of the Cons etitution, that those who furnish reports of the proceedings of Parliament, or those Members of either House of Parlia ment who assisted in furnishing them, did so with the terrers of the law of libel before them. lie would not, at that late hour of the night, quote the stronger opinions given by Lord Denman anti Lord Campbell before the Committee which sat last session upon the subject, as to the propriety of making an alteration of the law of libel in reference to publication of debates. He would only, before he sat down, mention as instance of the inconvenience which might arise from the order of the House as it stood at present. He referred to the letter written by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, when also to dismiss a magistrate from the Commission of the Peace. lie stated as a ground for so doing the Ministerial declaration in both Houses of Parliament respecting the repeal of th union. This he could have known only through the reports of the newspapers, and it certainly placed him in a very strange . predicament. The lion. Gentleman concluded by moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.—( Cheers. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had listened with attention to the lion. Gentleman who had just sat down, but he was not able to discover the object he had is view in recommending the House to grant him a Committee to inquire into this subject. The Hon. Gentleman stated the ad vantages they would derive by altering the present rule, but under the existing system the public had every advantage which the lion. Gentleman endeavored to obtain for them by the publication of debates. The Hon. Gentleman founded his motion on the sessional orders passed at the beginning of every session, which directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to take every person into custody whom ho found in the House except by the order of the House. He spoke on this subject with great dif• fidence,lbut he believed those standing erders had no reference o the admission of strangers to the gallery, but only to those strangers who were found in the body of the House, and lie believed that so Member of the House would wish to have that order rescinded, and to have strangers in the body of the House. The Honourable Gentleman wished they would recognise the publication of debates in the House. They could not recognise the publication of debates, except through a person authorised to do so, and responsible for their accuracy. and if they did recognise the publication of debates, the immes diate consequence would be, that complaints would be made re specting the accuracy of the reports, and they would bar* discussions upon the accuracy or inaccuracy of debates. Tire public now had all the information they required given quietly, accurately, and impartially, and what more could be required ? If it were hereafter found necessary to restore the prohibition of publishing the debate, the question would more fully come on as one of privilege. The Hon. Gentleman thought that it ought not to be eonsidered a libel to publish anything said by a Member in that House. But a Member might have a state ment to make injurious to the character of individuals; and though it might be necessary for the House to have that in. formation, yet the press was not on that account to be justified in circulating it through the country and the world. Mr. T. DUNCOM BE said the motion of the Hon. Gentle. man was not to rescind the sessional order for the Sergeant -at- Arms to take up any stranger intruding into the body of th House. That was not his ,object. He retained the power of exeloding strangers on any particular occasion. What he proposed was, that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the expediency of continuing the the present anomaly of its being a breach of privilege to re port the debates of that House, At this moment, if those gentlemen present should do him the honour of reporting his observations, it would be a breach of privilege. The Hoe. Gentleman wished to rescue them from this continual breach of privilege, both of the presence of strangers, and the report ing their debates. He referred to the dismissal of the Irish Magistrates, which, he said, was founded entirely on the report of the spe ec h es i n b ot h H ouses. Suppose the individuals who made those speeches had denied that they made them (low cassia the Chancellor of Ireland have proved them ? He could not have called on the Right Hon. Baronet to prove that he made such or such a speech. In the State trials speeches made in that House had been produced, and commented ou as evidence. Suppose those speeches bad been denied, hew could they have been proved ? Tkey must have called the individuals making them, or by the newspapers, But the editors of the newspapers, in publishing those speeches, had committed a breach of the privileges of that House. If yott take advantage of speeches so made, you certainly ought to do away with this anomaly of a resolution, which makes any report of those speeches a breach of privilege. If his Hon. Friend only asked them to appoint a Committee to inquire into the expediency of rescinding their order, and considering whether some alteration ought not to be made in this regula tion of privilege, he could not think what danger there could be in a Committee. It could do no harm, if it did no good. and would rescue the House from the anomalous position in whiels it was placed at present, Mr. WILLIAMS agreed with the lion. Member who had just sat down in thinking the present rules of the House re garding the admission of strangers as an anomaly. The reporters were every night in view of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the other strangers in view of the Speaker, yet the roles were nightly violated. Why, what were the speeches in th of Commons meant for but for the public? He believed the most eloslneat speech from an lion. Member ne i s i 'e o r2L onet eerted a single vote. lie would ask the Righ t opposite, if in the course of the many dresses he had made, in the course - f te h;li g hi /7 and gexeliFerrui.eecncHteoa by y: them he had ever converted a si n g le bar,M e whobe r s always sve r were very ' uents :f the speeches anducpvohno, theon being Oppositionuked much .i!..thsetposs,ivtion of a Northern Mem. supported efts _ s not sometimes alter m y v h o i t s e o s. ti — ni u ‘ g ‘ h Y te e r s . ; ; said by de hey one e of h ,House opinions, constituents Tina House • should feel much but obliged ue to the gentlemen of the press for the . very clear, full, impartial, an d correct acc ounts whi ch they gave—the great literary talent and tact disp layed by them, ae well a s th e great