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

Bill be motia : ther bils'° five mina. oned to •il:n IP ; Poi t the a s t riei ;ht be 'Snttalsij motion ski , , 0 ing it cote m a fo rt iotion v„,„ Bight • course' t y t of lemen- rw i n the 0 as soil le l)t ' rs o f the UNIT, he et ;e the forward post poP t e vided )wed to : oncor , J f the 101„1 t would AO" an , henr) kr the P 5l ought t° and deci6e s ide 0 i the " Mf' 1 fide--; 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 more conspicuous than the name which is borne by the Gallant Officer who commanded in the battles of Meeanee and Hyderabad. I believe that those who hear that name, stimulated by the example of their prede - essors, will continue to exhibit the same courage and resol'u'tion in their country's cause, and that that motto which they bear on their shield --.' Heady, aye roar' y,"—will be not only their metto, but the ebeirpeeteristic of their con duct. Sir, the gallant officer—Sir Charles Napier —when he weeealled upon to take the coin- Maud, be el attained the age of sixty-two years. assumed it when shattered in the service of his Petintry ; and it is to that gallant spirit, controlled and directed—it is to the example Met 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 of Meeanee and Hyderabad. — (near, hear,) Time 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 he fool-hardy.—to the superficial they may appear the result of a lucky chance; but, however desperate they. ally appear, when undertaken and superintended wit,,a combination of such skill, experience, and per sonal prowess, as was brought to bear on the command of the Briti s h army on the Indus—however desperate attch 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 coiflict, 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 weuld give rise. tut I think it is impossible to peruse the papers, hod to consider the position in which Sir C. Napier was Plated, without coming to a conclusion, not only that the wisest c mrse which Sir Charles Napier could tak e was the encountering at once the enemy without delay, but that if he had pursued any other eintree, the safety of the army would have been corn- Promised.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) It is difficult to say what might have been the result if any other course had been pnrstiel ; but it' 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 Ameer: to congrega e their forces, in determining at once to bring his forces of 2,500 men, or, to speak more pr Deily, 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 Irseane arrived at the mouth of the Indus. It ee ,'s of no use for Hon. Members to speculate as to what "ng'ht 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, Lore Auckland having determined upon the advance into Affghanisten, sent a force from Bombay under the cons 'nand of Sir John Keane, for the purpose of entering into some negotiations with the Ameers, or of e making Si n d e t h e b as i s of his military operations, Keane, Auckland, describing the operations of Sir John Aearie, gives this account of the conduct and the inten tions of the Ameers. (The Right Hon. Baronet then t ead an extract from the dispatch of Lord Auckland, stating .that every artifice was reiorted to by the Ameers to arrest and impede the movemlnts of the army, while they were making the most fulsome professions of friend - ip and devotion.) Sir John Keane himself said that. Sinde had assumed such an aspect that it took the first Vace in the operations of the army. If Lieutenant f?astwiele had not been extremely prudent, he would h ave been exposed to exactly the same attack which had berm made on Major Outram. Sir *John Keane said that on the 20th of January t he treaty was given to the Ameers. On the 21st they desired to have it postponed ; on the 22d they said that • ! e h eY could not determine whether they would accept Vie treaty or not ; on the 23d their troops were assem bled on all hands, and then the reply of the Ameer swa s, .nat the treaty must be sent back, as they would not Si gn it. In 1839 they pursued precisely the same Co urse which they attempted to pursue in 1843 ; they made the same professions of friendship and C'''nfidence, stating that they wished further time for C onsideration, whilst every hour was bringing fresh troop s to their assistance ; and four days imeing elapsed,. It o ," their -preparations being completed, they say that t he treaty cannot be signed ; that the Embassy may a taY or go as they pleased, but that the Ameers could give them no pledge of safety, having no control over . Ere Beloochees. St r John Keane said, " the whole coun t'- in front and rear of us is now aroused and under at h l4 , and troops are flocking from all parts to the Ca pital." Under these circumstances, he requested that assistance might b' sent to him as soon as possible. hY did not the Ameers then attack the British army h i ec ause Sir Willoughby Cotton, with a large force under h s command, was coming towards Hyderabad. — (Hear, b t e . a r.) Shah Soojah's troops took possession a Place from which the Ameers' troops had withdrawn, and Sir J o h n K eane on th e o pp os ite bank was medi tatinge the adoption of a course precisely similar to that Virstied b Sir Charles Napier. On the 31st January, r henry I ottinger finding that he was supported by rn an immense force, told them he could make no a b atement cof his ter ms , and used these words to them, b:holeJd a shot be fired the whole of your country shall S eiZed, and yn u s h a ll be dispossessed of it." The Ameers finding four or five battalions of British Infantry 8 1 ) Posed to them on the Ist of February, signified to t e, k li enry Pottinger that they were ready force of to his terms ; but had there been only a °f 2 ,000 or 2,500 men opposed to them, notwith "'Tiding their e del us i ve professions of friendship, it was wh h 'g hl yProbable th at t h ey would have attempted to over "ln the British force. Sir Charles Napier, however, Was not in the position of Sir John Keane and Sir Wil tyle'tghbY Cotton ; he had but 2,500 men to oppose to : Ameers, and, in my opinion, there is conclusive . Prof that if he h a d p ause d one d ay —if h e h a d a t j a lPfel to retreat--if he had not, in fact, taken that r etir ee w hi ch his own wisdom, combined with his expe 111.!hee and military skill, dictated, not one day would .elapsed before the army would have been cut off; 04 if the glory of the British arms had not been sullied disasters would have occurred which, following the disaster aster. at Caubul, would have involved consequences °f which it would have been very difficult to foresee the duac•,l i ssue. —(Hear, hear.) Sir, in estimating the con - e ra ' of Sir Charles Napier, I do not think the chief ts !'" is due to him for military skill or personal valour; wis tl e l!dr the chief praise is due to him for the judgment f "' 11 he displayed in so critical a position. Knowing how earf u l • - s of 4 , might have been the consequences of a repetition his disaster at Caubul, he had the moral courage ek e own responsibility to act in opposition to the acl anti which he had received, and to commit both the army th e his own reputation to the fate of war, and it is for e n i h rhibition of moral courage which he made in deter es n .g upon the attack, that I think Sir Charles Napier in g )Qe rY entitled to our thanks.—(Cheers.) In detail "At tee action of Meettnee, Sir Charles Napier said, th'e one time, my Lord, the courage and numbers of bur enemy again, the 22d, 25th, and 12th Regiments ti m e'eavily 'in that part of the battle. There was no the to be lost, and I sent orders to the cavalry to force lahtlrylg e h .x t of the enemy's line. This order was otherr egi ecuted by time 9th Bengal Cavalry, and a et in "t h The de:ails shall be after e ards ateA, tha t u for the struggle on our right and centre was at. Ile r time so fierce that I could not go to the left." seas emained at the post of danger, beteeling that the time hi s e tt ° p i ne when, whatever might the consequences of do his necessity for an example of personal devo others' part, was so great that he must leave to tir e tne account which it might be necessary to • te n ; and there (lid that Gallant man stand, within l • or leve , 4., fifteen yards of the water-course in which, I be .. tr e ,, s 7.s the whole force of the enemy, cheering on his • sibie' fo e Y an example of valour which made it impos infi ee „,"_any man in that army to resist its contagious Atia nt ie, and impelled all, like their gallant corn eervie'er, to devote their lives to their country's * — (Loud cheers.) Sir, I think it is un - e eess e e 'Y for me to trouble the House with further details. th e tri r.tas.king them to place upon record their sense of can H arY services of the army and its commander. eth er 'Pon them for no expression of opinion on any I%l, 4l P:int connected with the operations in Sinde; but, Iyhat ;,,,ats Clone owhat w as ac hi eve d by th ese troops, looking to lheYby every man on those two days, I think t hat f o b e disposed t o come to a unanimous resolution Jestl y e ci seeh expl o it s t h e th an k s o f thi s H ous e are ‘vere nee—(Chee rs .) With respect to some who with t Zgaged in that battle, we must mingle 'that of .' expression of our gratitude to them and rehtt . our deep sympathy with their friends • an i e ens- The dispatches of Sir Charles Napier merit or t Vtistly ascribed to individuals much of the terish a h le ese Victories. He has left, I believe, an am t i s wino! record of the exploits which they performed. s ehie of impossible to lament deaths so glorious as m erits . thos e which have occurred in these engage - !r! a me: -Tear, hear.) He speaks of one gallant officer l ids far/7 r w hich; if anything can give consolation to sol ace wilie,nd relations, must prove to them the highest 11 „ean be offered to them under their heavy ' the says "I have deeply to regret the loss seAvej brae and exCellent Capt. Barrett of the 9th Light th e fwallY',7„h_O.fell honourably in the midst of the battle; also loathtin"! Lieutenant Smith, of the Bombay Artillery. the e reas ' u rPasesed and desperate valour he galloped to hill, t,, of the battle, and rode up to the top of the tffect- see b sir, his guns would bear with the greatest lie ut the performance of that act he lost his wthneere could be no inscription on his tomb we sh arable all than this.—(Hear, hear.) I trust, Sir, hi,. now proceed to bestow upon those gallant ' C Z the Confer ; o _ol -st reward which a grateful country can nation d t . t. We shall allow you, Sir, as the organ of the the officersc to express to Sir Charles Napier, and to and miC en tinder his command, to the Euro— ean and 1 lo west t , ra n k , who Shared men of the highest and of the net are i nveste . ared on those days a common danger, we shall eoneluded vith a l ed COnve common lory that to them all midst loud che3e*(r)su.)a-s-- gem ent of t iro ug h am Pehlie gratitude. our 4gan, the acknow . Peed( of the 11' he to sany Lord JOIIN (The Right Hon. Baronet USeElst. said that, after the eloquent te too.o second the motion Wit Hon. Gentleman there was little left for few nights ago to state his opinion Pi . , the 'flora ce OCCaSI a yed in extricatin before the Howse.—(Haar, military skill which Sir Charles our age ° L a d and it was roo m the perilous Aapier dig 1 . anself and the array under his " I nnland for !)o!tio n in which they were plated; Pretsions necessary him then to give additional ex f Even those who differed in respect _o_ T at p : t h o is t °}ll.)sinic7l;duct which was of a political character Std met O s a k i eond uet e milita r y : I th, t ae a pti d:n i,ige ir r e_ ti th ee ffil il t l eh , ver e . tdted courage, and persevering % au - Hear, bear.) At an ad ' You oirrour and ene r ir of • men could dig South. P ay more of those quaaties— rnE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRETARY 13, 1844. (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 second• ing the motion.—( Loud Cheers. ) The Sega): te. 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 course, 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 froin Sir Charles Napier. It was most painful to him, because he could fairly say that the Right Hon. Baronet could not more admire than hi u the military skill displayed by Sir Charles Napier. In short, during that decisive campaign which took place, lie had an opportunity of showing some of the ;greatest qualities which could distinguish a military commander.—( 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 polities. 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 course of policy decided upon by Lord Ellenborcugh. The House might re member that the speech of the Right lion. 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 had exercised power and responsibility 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 exercised a separate discretion in the affair of Major Outran), 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 not 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 for his bravery. Hut 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, lie 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 had made upon his mind ; and this his in dividual opinion was greatly strengthened when lie 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 lie 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 passed 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 Parlia 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 with 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 toe 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 ceul4 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 enunciated by the Right Hon. Baronet had been acted on in earlier days—if it had been the precedent at so many times, and on so many occasions— why were they to push it on one side, or break through it now. Let them remember the 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 nossess'ons and the honour of our name 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 military talents—burning for an occasion to display them—panting 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 difficulty, 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 negotiations" for 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 officer 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 fleets 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 currence. 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. lie agreed with the Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, in the surprise he had ex pressed at what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. The Right Hon. Baronet said there was an uncontrollable principle which le,i to the gradual absorption by civilised and powerful States of the dominion 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. lie (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. lie 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 Ittissians quartering them selves upon their barbarous neighbours, or of France encroach ing upon Algiers . He firmly believed that if this " unoon 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 doctrine. He was anxious to show the effect of the words used by the Right Hon. Gentleman, 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. Gentleman. The House should beware how they gave any encouragement to a .repeti tion of such events as those which had lately occurred in Sinde. tie believed that by giving the vote of thanks they would be teaching military and naval officers that when they were en-. gaged in negotiations,- if by their own conduct the negotiations failed, and a conflict unfortunately resulted, they had only to succeed—they had only to display valour when the contest had actually commenced, and then that House and the country would not scrutinise with very close eyes the justice of the means by which the conflict was produced. That was the lesson they were reading to naval and military officers by adopting the vote of thanks proposed. He for one looked with feelings of anything likesatisfaction even at those brilliant battles of Meeanee and Hyderabad. Brilliant in a military point of view they undoubtedly were • hut he could net help fearing that , in the e y e of the Almighty, they were stained with guilt, or unnecessary and wanton blood shed. lie believed that .if they dhen_ thanked those by whom these betties Lad teen fou g ht, that s portion of that guilt would fall on their heads. But at all events, if that were not so, of this he was pursuaded, that even if the past were beyond our power, the future in a certain degree wa , 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 NNlte 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 sure 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 led him to conclude that the vote of thanks proposed that night ought not to be assented to by the House. He confessed 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, namely, 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 had sufficiently discharged his own conscience—he trusted he 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 not 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 achievemcn's ha i el .zzled 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 flon. Gentleman the other evening, considering the state of the Punjaub, the approaching anarchy of all our relations in India, and the disposition of the Governor-General himself, who was ever willing to proceed without regard to consequences in any war. He (Mr. Smith) was unacquainted with Major Out-ram; but he had no scruple in saying that justice had not been !one to that officer. He would take three instances in which he felt that Major Outram had been treated r.ith 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 inclosure in a letter of Sir Charles Napier. In the same letter Sir Chas. Napier requested the Government to burn the inclosure, or at least to re-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 him would have been quite different. Although the action at Hjderabad 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 H ARDINGE 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 lion. 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 intrigue 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 lion. 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 him during the Penin sular war,-1 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 hisdirection 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 I 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 I am also convinced that if his life had been sacrificed the batle 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 itne 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 Hyderabad, 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 5,5;00 men; this encouraged him to adopt the course which he had done so successfully, and I do think that the brilliant 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 political measure.—( Loud cheers.) The papers offered the fullest proof that that was the case. In page 503 of the first blue book they had Major Outram's ac count of the conference that had taken place. The Arneer 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 Rooitum Khan had resigned the durbar of his own free will. On the following day they ( the Ameers) merely protested against the demand cif 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 the friend of England, but that he was helpless among his own family, and he told him to listen to the advice of Ali Monrad ; _ . and in the letter at page 418, he (Sir C. Napier) wrote to Lord Ellenborough that Roostum 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 embarrassed the Gallant General, if he meant to pursue a peaceable course. At page 483, in writing to the Governor-General, he said that the conviction opened upon him, that the system which appeared to him as the only one to follow was to take the chief power, that the next step was to secure the exercise of that power for his (Roostum Khan's) brother, and that if he succeeded in doing that, that he would persuade Roostum to place himself in Ali Mourad's hands. From that passage and others it appeared that he (Sir G. Napier) had 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 persuaded the:old man to resign into his brother's hands.—(The Hon. Gentleman here read the the passage. Until that apparent inconsistency was cleared up, he (Mr. Mangles) must state, for h►s 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 irreconcilable statements respecting Roostum Khan's flight from his brother. At pages 485, alluding to that flight, Sir C. Napier wrote that Meer Roostum 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 again, at page 495, he wrote to the Governor-General—(the letter was dated the 7th January)—that he had run away because Ali Maurad had induced him to do so; and yet, in a proclamation, dated Ist January, which the Gallant General had issued to the Ameers and people of Sinde, on the occasion of the flight of Roostum, he stated that he had that night heard that Meer Rookum had solemnly given up the durbar to his brother, Ali Alourad. Now he (Mr. Mangles) said, with great reluc tance certainly, but still it was the case—that those statements appeared to him impossible to reconcile. He believed that the Ameers would have submittedquietly and peaceably,not willingly certainly, but under the pressure of our superior force, they would have submitted quietly to all we had demanded of them, on their own account, had 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 would 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 tified in trespassing on the time of the House at any length, but as he was well acquainted with Sir C. Napier, and had important professional relations with him, he hoped the House would give him its attention while he made a few observations. —( Hear, hear.) He was glad the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland did not mean to divide the House on the sub ject, but be much regretted the observations which he made, as they_ would be likely to deprive, in the eyes of that distin guished officer, the subject of the present motion, the vale which an unanimous vote would otherwise have. The Noble Lord admitted that if Sir Charles Napier had not acted as he had done another serious disaster would have befallen the Bri tish arms. The Noble Lard alluded to the circumstances which had brought affairs into that position in which Sir C. Napier had found them ; but that Gallant Officer had nothing whatever to do with them. He found an annotation made by Sir C. Napier on the 17th of October, in which he said that it was not for him to consider how they came to occupy Sinde— he had only to consider the position in which they now stood. It seemed to him that some Hon. Members misunderstood the the nature of the treaty of Hyderabad. That treaty was made on the bth of February, 1839, and was ratified on the llth 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 Ameers was dissolved, and Sinde was brought by it within the sphere 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, and the other the opera tions which succeeded. Sir C. Napier 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 treaty.) These were the justifications of Sir C. Napier, in proceeding as he did to enforce the terms of the treaty. There was enough in that treaty to justify Sir C. Napier in proceeding as he 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 wan 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 having 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 Outram, and delayed one hour longer, he would have been lost, for it was likely the Ameers would have obtained an additional force of 50,000 men. So distinctly did he perceive the diffi culties in which Majour Outram 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 bat 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 h e pl ace :) in the front of the battle. He had no reserve ; he attacked with a combination of all his torte, 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. Ile 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"—hid 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 . yyhat 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. HAWES 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. Ile 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 blond. 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 Haat 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. Bat onet 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 some n o part, a t r h t , e and he theoccur ren ces Rightin which Hon. Baronet his galia gallant was relative ignorant h a s taken of hoped the House would permit him to mention there 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 drat 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 !—(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 i 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 than Marshal Soult.—(Cheers,) When he returned to England he obtained permi.sion to join the at my in Spain, under the Duke of Wellington, and they first heard of him at the pas sage of the Donn), where he had a horse shot under him. He was afterwards at Busaeo, 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 ;on 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 f a ll."—( Loud cheers.) The words were hardly t 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'Onor, where, for once, he escaped without a wound. He was then at Bidassos, where. though he escaped again, he had 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 is country than Sir C. Napier did for the island of Cephalonia. They next 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 tes 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 sa well described the whole of his conduct there, from the time lie 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, and the manner in which he had performed them.— ( Hear, hear.) They had nothing to do with the policy that dictated these movements, but only with his conduct as a general officer in the command of an army. If the policy was bad, let them try and punish him, if they pleased; but as a general officer, he was sorry that the Noble Lord had touched on the question of policy at all. In the first reports that came home of the battle of Meeanee he said that he had 2,800 men to meet an enemy 20,000 strong. But on examining the army it was said that he had 2,090 men. He, however, had it from Sir Charles himself that he had only 1,700 bayonets, and that the whole number of his force only amounted to 2,000 . The number of the enemy was stated at 22,000 ; another report gave it as 25,000; but he (Commodore Napier) knew that it amounted to 39,000 men.—(Cheers.) He 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 on 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 nullabs 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, but the spirit which animated the man was communicated even to the horse—(Cheers) —and carried him through it. But nothing could have done it except great excitement—the, same sort of excitement as he felt in hunting in the fields of rLeicestershire.generally L ter ) He believed it was g admitted,t(hataughh.ad Sir Ch ar l es N ap i er wa it e d twenty-four hours longer b efore he m ade the attack, he would p n e have been surrounded by 59,000 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, was a sufficient justification of his gallant relative for having fought the battle when he did. He would now make a few observations on the speech of the Noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, and he must say that he greatly differed from him. The Noble Lord said that Sir C. Napier must have been a diplomatist, since he corresponded with Major Outram, though he did not follow the Major's advice. Now be begged to say that he approved as much of the diplomacy of his noble relative as he did of his fighting propensities.—( Laughter. ) Ile went to Sinde 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. Bat the Blue Book showed that Lord Ellenborough apprrred of what he had done, and if if he 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 mili tary officer alone. and he thought the Noble Lord would have shown more wisdom had he deferred any remarks on the general 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 far were they to be allowed to go on plotting ? Were they to be allowed to plot to cut our throats, for instance ?—( Laughter.) That was to him a sort of thing which he could not at all understand.— ( Laughter. ) Then the Noble Lord brought forward a letter of Mr. Eastwick's. But had Mr. Eastwick any responsibility? —( Hear, hear.) It was easy for him to say, after all was over, that had Sir Charles Napier done this or that, things would have been otherwise. But if anything had gone wrong, was Mr.lEastwick in any way respon s ibl e ?—( Hear, hear. ) Had Sinde been an ord;nary climate like that of Europ", and had his gallant relation an army of 10,000 men, it might be perfectly right for him to temporise and go on slowly, but when they knew that in the intense heat of the climate of Shade one week or fortnight might destroy a whole army, he sholld like to a'k, could any commander of an army in such circum stanees defer his movements ? The Noble Lord also made a comparison of the battles of Meeanee and Hyderabad with the battle of Navarino, )Now, 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. Codringten because the battle of Navarino was an accident—an " untoward event " in fact. Sir Edward Codringtan 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 blaze..—(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 Ameers 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? Was he to retire? What was he to do? Why, the only thing he had•to do was to fight, aad he (the Gal lant Commodore) thought if he had not done that he ought 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.) lie felt sure that if the Noble Lord was in the Residency he would say, " 1 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 sail there was great military means. What means ? Two thousand men. What means had the Ameers? Thirty thousand men. The Noble Lbrd 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 tight against 30,0(X) men with 2,000 men.—( Laughter and cheers.) And then the glory—where was the glory ? The glory or 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 whe 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 hack 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 Sinde— 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 cote 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 cheering.) Mr. BING4IAM 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. Baring) was not conscious of having, done so. General Napier was not in the situation of responsibility to Major Outram. He certainly had received certain advises 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 t.: ibuted 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 Howick. 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 make 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 fin. 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 Of4cer (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 ; bet 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 com 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 Ho Ise 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 put 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 blouse, 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 origin. He meant to cast no slur on General Sir Charles Napier ; far from it; but he felt that many officers had not 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. Ile 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 vet declining to follow it, he (Mr. Crawford) should give him an opportunity of prov ing his sincerity by now 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 ►n 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 and 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 /louse on the " previous question." Dr. BOWRING could not agree to The motion before she Houle, as he disapproved 'bf all oressive war, and he could not honour its instruments.— 'ries of" Divide.") Lord PALMERSTON—As the ouse is going to divide upon this question, Sir, I wish to state, in a few words the grounds upon which I found my intention to give the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman my most cordial and warm support.—( Cheers. ) I cannot allow myself to consider this motion as one involving in any degree whatever any polit►cal 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 involve 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.) I 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 an 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 Charles 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 itlaitity in the two cases. The battle of Navarino was an accidental conflict which took place between our fleet, a combined fleet, anti the fleet of a nation with whom we were not at war, and with whom we did not afterwards become at war We remained upon terms of peace with the Sultan, and Par liament stated that its thanks could not be voted for the victory, on account of the conflict having been an accidental one. We did not wish to disturb our peaceful relations with Turkey by adopting a proceeding which would have been exceedingly dis courteous to the Sultan. But no man will say that we were not at war with the Ameers. If that is not war which begins with a battle, and ends with dethronement, I certainly am at a loss to know what war is. lam sure the Ameers would not at all be disposed to acquiesce in the interpretation my Noble Friend has given of the transactions which have taken place. I give this vote my most cordial support, reserving myself as to any opinion I may entertain with regard to those political ques tions with which the late transactions have been connected. Mr. 0. STANLEY would not take part in the division, but he would take that opportunity of saying, that in his opinion the letter of Sir Charles Nanier to the Ameers of Sinde, had greatly tarnished the laurels of that gallant officer.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") Strangers then ordered to withdraw, and the Honsc di vided, when the numbers were— For the motion 164 Against it Majority PRESENCE OF STRANGERS AT DEBATES. Mr. CHRJSTIE rose to bring forward a motion respect- ing the propriety of the House recognising the presence of 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 roc to move for a Select Com mittee, to consider the expediency of recognising the presence of strangers at debates, and the publication of debates, under the pleasure of the House; and to consider and report what regulations may be necessary. He said, he would at once have concede.; 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. He fully appreciated the feeling of the Hon. Gentleman opposite, in the necessity of foregoing other subjects, when the vote of thanks carried 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 ef 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, oh," from the Ministerial benches, and "Hear" from the Opposition) —with 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 possible 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 House ; the other was directed against publication gene rally, and declared that whoever printed and published the pro ceedings &c., 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 ment, 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 for the purpose of using the resolutions, originally passed in o der to screen itself from the view of the people. 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 Howe of Commons —that no news-letter, &c., should presume to iutermeddle with the debates or other proceedings of that House. Similar ' complaints were frequently made in throe 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 House. There was some plausibility in the arguments urged in support of these resolutions, namely, that the accounts which went forth of the proceedings in the House were inaccurate. In the year 1735 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, Sir W. Pulteney, and Sir 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, loosed very like making them accountable without doors for what they said within (The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read extracts from several speeches delivered on that occasion, together with the resolutions adopted by the House.) The effect of these reso lution was not to stop publications—on the contrary, news papers and magazines which had previously . given the reports 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 Magazine, which for a long time had 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 in 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 mad. 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 occasion, 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, viz. the inaccuracy of the reports, and the inconveniences arising from want of accommodation for strangers, now existed, he would be 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 be necessary on certain occasions, and of State policy, that their discussions 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 similar occasions of preventing their publication. He merely 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 lished the rcports 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 Con stitution, 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 terrors 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 and 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 an 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 about to dismiss a magistrate from the Commission of the Peace. He 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 Hon. 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 Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, but he was riot able to discover the object he had in 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 Hon. 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 he 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 orders had no reference to the admission of strangers to the gAllery, but only to those strangers who were found in the body of the House, and he believed that no 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 imme diate consequence would be, that complaints would be made re specting the accuracy of the reports, and they would have discussions upon the accuracy or inaccuracy of debates. The public now had all the information they required given quickly, 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 considered 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. DUNCOMBE 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 the House. That was not his object. He retained the power of excluding strangers on any particular occasion. What he proposed was, that a Committee sbould 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 Hon. 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 speeches in both Houses. Suppose the individuals who made those speeches had denied that they made them ? flow could 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 on as evidence. Suppose those speeches had been denied, how could they have been proved ? They 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 you 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 s preach 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 which it was placed at present. Mr. WILLIAMS agreed with the Hon. 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 rules were nightly violated. Why, what were the speeches in the House of Commons meant for but for the public? He believed the most eloquent speech from an Hon. Member never yet con verted a single vote. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, if in the course of the many long and eloquent ad dresses he had made, in the course of his long experience by them he had ever converted a single vote ?—( Laughter.) Hon. Members were very much is the position of a Northern Mem ber, who always supported Ministers, and who, on being asked by one of his constituents if the speeches upon the Opposition side of the House did not sometimes alter his o pinions, said lie, "my opinions, but r ever my votes."—( Lan' of titer. The House should feel much obliged to the g entlemen press for the very clear, frill, impartial, and correct accounts which they gave—the great literary talent and tact displayed by them, as well as the great labour and persevering exertion which their aro cations required.—( Hear, hear.) Ile was sure no Member could deny that their constituents had not a right to. know what passed in that House. The Noble and Learned - if ember for London proposed bringing forward a motion regarding the state of Ireland to-morrow night, which was of the awry first importance, and which would be regarded with the grrsatest in terest by the country at large. Suppose when the Noble Lord stood up, another Honourable Member stood up also and moved the exclusion of strangers, and that those columns in the newspapers usually occupied bg Parlia mentary debates were on the following morning blatuks, would rot Hon. Members cut a pretty figure before the c.ssintry ( Laughter.) He repeated that it was absurd and inconsistent that, at the caprice of any Hon. M em b er , t h e country m i ght be deprived of that information which they so eagerly expected, and to which they had a just right. Ho entirely agreed with the Hon. Gentleman, and only regretted that a motion had not been made for directly rescinding so absurd a rule.—(Rear. ) If any Hon. Member exercised the privilege of expelling strangers from the House for a few nights in succession, he felt sure the Right Hon. Bart. would be the first to move for the rescinding of the order. Sir GEORGE CLERK did not at all agree with tshe Hon. Member who had just sat down, and thought no inconve nience ressulted from the present rules. The only occasion on which the suppression of the debates occurred, 24 re . porters and others being ordered to leave the gallery, was on thr motion of Sir Charles Yorke on moving for an for into the Walcheren expedition, and the reason given for that was the legitimate one, that many parties would probably he implicated in the statements that would be made in the course of the debate. As to the proposition for the House to author ise the publication of its reports by its own reporters, instead of quietly conniving at the way in' which they now reached the public, he could not see the vali dity of it. Th e re p or t s w ere now given with extraordinary rapidity and great accuracy, and were thf y to follow the suggestion, and have their own reporters, he was satisfied it would tend most materially to cripple the freedom of debate in that House, and give no advantage either to them selves or to the public. Dr. BOWRING said he should vote for the motion simply on the ground that it was absurd, and indeed indecent, t• keep constantly before their eyes a law which the Speaker himself, and every Member of the House, was daily in the habit of vio lating. The SPEAKER stated to the House that the rule which empowered any Member to notice the presence of strangers ia the House, and enforce their removal by the Serjeant-at- Arms, was not dependent on the sessional orders. The fact was, it was a right inherent in the House. The sessional order was applicable only to those galleries and parts of the House used by Members of it.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. CHRISTIE would, therefore, on the intimation of the Speaker, beg leave of the House to amend his motion by leav ing out the words affecting the right to exclude strangers from the gallery, and confine his motion to an authorised publi• cation by the House of reports of its debates. The House then divided— For the motion Against it Majority CUSTOMS' FRAUDS. -47 Mr. WALLACE moved that the evidence taken in the last session of Parliament, respecting the frauds which had taken place in the Custom-house department in London, be laid on the table of the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had intended to move for a Select Committee, with a view to the examinaticn of the evidence, in order to ste what ought to be published, and what ought not. Mr. BARING wished to know when information would be laid before the House with respect to the charges of a grave nature that had been brought against the Commissioners of Customs. Lord G. SOMERSET said the Members of the Com mission appointed to inquire into the Customs' frauds were preparing their opinions on the subject, and as coon as these were laid before the Treasury, the information wou'd be laid before the House.—The motion was then agreed to. On the motion of Mr. TIIORNELY, the following !Stem ben were appointed as a Select Committee on Public Peti tion3:—Mr. Thornely, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Lord Courtenay, Viscount Duncan, Captain Jones, Mr. Cowper, Mr. Pusey, Mr. Edward Buller, Mr. Buckley, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Owen Stanley, Mr. Cripps, and Mr. Villiers Stuart. Mr. PAKINGTON postponed his Bill to define and re gulate the periods of holding Quarter Sessions in Cities and Boroughs, till Feb. 2!. The House having disposed of the other Orders of the Day, adjourned at a Quarter to One o'Clock. CENTRAL CRI %lINAL COURT. OLD COURT. • Thomas Frost, 31, a person in the employment of the Post office, was indicted for stealing a sovereign, the moneys of the Postmaster-General, Lord Lowther. The Attorney-General, Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Adolphus, appeared for the Crown ; Mr. Wilkins was instructed for the defence of the prisoner. The circumstances under which the charge was made against the prisoner have been very recently laid before the public. In consequence of some suspicion that was enter tained of the prisoner, a-marked sovereign was placed in a letter, which was addressed to some person-in the City-road, and this letter was given to the prisoner among higletters for delivery. It never came to hand; and upon an officer going to the prisoner's lodging, he found the marked sovereign in the possession of the prisoner's wife, who, it appeared, had received it from her husband. Mr. WILKINS took some technical objection to the indict ment, which being over-ruled by the Court, he said it would be useless for him to attempt to struggle against the facts as proved, and he must, therefore, leave the prisoner to the mer- ciful consideration of the Court. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was ordered to be transported for seven years. Tto:nas Dunnett surrendered to take his trial upon an in- dictment for misdemeanour. Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Adolphus conducted the prose cution, which was framed in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Seamen's Act, and Messrs. Clarkson and Ballantine appeared for the defendant. The offence with which he was charged was that, being the master of a merchant-vessel, called the Sarah Charlotte, he had unlawfully left three seamen, named Wilkinson, Gilds, and Clive in a foreign country, without the consent of the- Consul, these seamen having been shipped on board his vessel, under an engagement that he should bring them to England. It appeared that the three men were shipped at Guayaquil, to go to Bahia, and from thence to some port in England. The men were very ill, and one of them was in a mast filthy state, and they were, in fact, unable to do any duty on board; and, on the arrival orthe vessel at Bahia, they all went ashore, and were anxious to remain there, on the plea that they were too ill to do duty, but the surgeon refused to give a certificate to that effect, and, upon this the Consul declined to grant the certificate required to justify the captain in leaving the men ashore, but he did sign a certificate to enable him to take three fresh men on board his ship in their place. For the defence it was urged that these men had, in point of fact, deserted the ship, and that it was not the captain's fault that they . were left behind. It was - also argued that the Consul's giving permission to the captain to take three fresh men on board was tantamount to 'a permission to leave the others behind. Witnesses were called, who proved that the men were in the state described. and also that one of them was unable to do the least work on board the vessel. The defendant also received an excellent character. Mr. SHEPHERD, in reply, said that there was no intention to impute any moral culpability to the defendant, but, at the same time, the Statute in question was one of very con siderable importance, and tended to the protection of seamen engaged in the mercantile marine of the country. He sub mitted that the evidence showed that the Statute had been infringed, and that the defendant must be convicted upon the present indictment. Mr. Justice CRESSWEEL having summed up, the jury-e -turned a verdict of Guilty, but at the same time strongly re commended the defendant to mercy. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, in passing sentence, said that offences of this description involved very different degrees of guilt. In some cases very great cruelty and injustice might be perpetrated towards seamen, by leaving them in a foreign country without any resource, and in others the offence might be of a very venial character. The present case, he thought, came within the latter class, and although the jury had found him guilty and the Court would have to pass judgment upon that verdict., yet the defendant would leave the Court without any stain upon his character. The de fendant was then ordered to pay a line of 5/. to the Queen. The fine was immediately paid, and the defendant was then discharged from custody. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL'S—YESTERDAY. CHESTER CIT. 15 to 1 agst Mr. Collett's Cattonite 15 to 1 agst Mr. W. I)awson's Merry Andrew 15 to 1 agst Mr. Sharratt's The Prior—taken 15 to 1 agst Mr. T. A. Milbank's Sir Robert-46 to It. 20 to 1 agst Mr. Bristow's Pharaoh 20 to 1 agst Mr. Stephenson's Freedom 25 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Martyr 30 to 1 agst Mr. Plummer's Alice hawthorn—taken, and afterwards offered. • 30 to 1 agst Mr. Gough's Greenfinch—tk, and aft offered 40 to 1 agst Mr. Minor's President—taken. 11 to 1 agst Jamie Forest and Freedom—taken 15 to 1 agst. Alice Hawthorn and Nutwith—taken Although the three principal favourites stand at the same price, there was a slight difference in the degree of estima tion in which they were respectively held. The Prior clearly had the call of Merry Andrew, who, backed rather freely at 14 and 15 to 1, had a slight advantage over Sir Robert; the latter had several friends, and figures in a Much more favour able position than he did a week ago. Cattonite was not in demand. Of the other favourites, Freedom alone made any advance. DERBY. 11 to 2 agst Scott's lot—take 6 to I 10 to 1 agst Col. Peel's lot 11 to 2 agst Mr. John I)ay'sThe Ugly Buck—take 6 to 1 8 to 1 agst Mr. Crockford's Rattan 16 to 1 agst Mr. Lichtwald's Leander 16 to I agst Col. Peel's Orlando—taken 20 to 1 agst Lord Maidstone's Cockamaroo—t 22 to 1 25 to 1 agst Mr. Quin's Loadstone- 7 -taken 25 to 1 agst Mr. Itowes's T'Auld Squire 33 to 1 agst Mr. Watts's Voltri 33 to I agst Col. Peel's lonian—taken 40 to 1 agst Mr. PaVtle'S Vat colt—taken 50 to 1 agst Sir R. Ilulkeley's Bebington 50 to 1 agst Mr. .1. Osborne's Mount Charles 100 to 1 agst Col. Peel's Zenobia—taken 5 to 1 agst Scott's lot and Mohnt Charles—tak to 2001. 1100 to 100 agst Cockamaroo and T'Auld Squire 500 to 400 on Campunero agst Apprentice The betting just touched upon the two leading faYourites, and, without affecting the Buck's position, served to prove that Rattan stood in higher favour than he did this time last week ; 5 to 4, however, was still offered between the two. Leander at one time receded to 20 to 1, but his party came out with several ponies and fifties, choked off the layers, and reduced the offers to 16 to 1 ; such we have quoted as his price at the close; but we can scarcely ven ture to affirm that it is exactly correct. 16 to 1 was taken about Orlando, and 1,000 to 45 would not have been refused about Cockamaroo. 1.000 to 40 was laid agst Loadstone, 1,000 to 30 agst lonian, 2,000 to 50 agst the Vat colt, 1,000 to 20 agst Apprentice, the takers willing to go on; 1,00 to 20 agst Mount Charles, 2,000 to 35 agst. Bebington, 2,000 to 20 agst Zenobia, a nd 10 and 11 to 1 (in hundreds) agst Col. Peel's lot. Running Rein is quite out of the betting. SALE OF HUNTERS. The late Marquis of Hastings' Minters were sold yester day, by Messrs. Tattersall , at the following prices 50gs; Fidget,,l4Ongasei,B6oragsnd;y, P24(ep)gpse;,..coßrunf,usfilgiss; I;sabella. Gam bler, ' 140 gs; Ishmael, 7'4gs; Councillor, 62 ,, 5; and Peacock; 42rgs. ' van Sergeant's Father Mathew and Railroad, hunters. tap . were also sold, the first for 96gs, and the other for 650.5. MR. CHRISTOPIIT.R.—It is thought that Mr Chr:s tc,pher, in his urgent letter to the Lincolnshire land holders and monopolist i'a few days allrric — flifku 16' renew his hint about " ducking" the Anti-Corn-law Leaguers. What a pity I—From a Correspondent,