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

fflAu*i L L

LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1844.

In the noun- of. Lords 'a Bill entitled, "An Act for
the Amendment of the Law of Imprisonment for
Debt" was read a first time on the motion of Lord

COTTENIIAM.

The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a Bill
for altering the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts.
The Earl of RIPON moved that the thanks of the
House be presented to Sir CHARLES NAPIER and the
officers and men under his:command, for their gallant
and successful operations in"Sinde.
Lord AUCKLAND seconded the motion.
The Duke of WELLINoToisT followed, and paid the
highest tribute of praise to Sir C. NAPIER. For his
strong expressions of approbation we must refer our
readers to the report, with this short emphatic extract
from the Noble Duke's speech:_" I must say it was
one of the greatest feats it ever has been my good
fortune to peruse, and it was completely successful."
The motion was agreed to unanimeusly.
The Marquis of NORMANDY laid on the table his
motion relative to Ireland, whichhe brings on this
evening. -

The Earl of CLARENDON put some questions to the
Earl of ABERDEEN relative to Spain, and the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs answered in terms for which
Lord CLARENDON expressed his gratification. The
House then adjourned.
In the House of Commons, after the presentation
of petitions, and questions to the Members of the
Government, for which we refer to the report, the
Factories Bill was read a second time.
On the Order of the Day for the third reading of
the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, Mr. Huang ob-
jected to the prinCiple of the Government -borrowing
money for such purposes from the Bank ofEngland, and
moved that the words " Governor and Company of the
Bank of England be struck out." On a division the num-
bers were—for the Bill, 145, and against it 70. A

provision was adopted, by which the Bank should
not lend more than 220,0001., and the Bill was
passed.
The second reading of the " Racing Penalties Re-
peal Bill" was postponed, until the motion for a vote
of thanks to the Sinde army was disposed of
Sir ROBERT PEEL then brought forward his mo-
tion for a vote of thanks to Sir CHARLES NArtEa. and
the other :officers and soldiers engaged in the ope-
rations in Sinde.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL followed the example of Lord
AUCKLAND in the House of Lords, and seconded the
motion—high tributes to the gallant army of Sinde.
For the speeches made on the occasion, we must, for
want of space, refer to the Parliamentary report. A
division took place, when there were for the vote of
thanks 164, and against it 9.

Mr. CHRISTIE then moved for a Select Committee
to consider the expediency of the presence of stran-
gers at debates, &c., which was opposed by the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. After a few words
from several Hon. Members, the House divided, when
the motion was negatived by a majority of 47.
The other business on the paper was then disposed
of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to One.

The speeches, in both Houses of Parliament last
night, on the affairs of Sinde, may be regarded as the
most interesting of the session. The question was,
not whether we had a right to occupy that country,
whether we had a right to open the navigation of the
Indus, and form a strong boundary to our Indian
possessions on the west—but was simply confined to a
vote of thanks to the gallant men , who had upheld,
and, as some speakers well entitled to judge, said,
surpassed,even the renowned valour of British troops. Of
course Sir CHARLES NAPIER was the great object of
attraction. He was the life and soul of the battle;
he led his men on under difficulties unparalleled, in-
spired every officer, soldier, and camp-follower, with
his daring spirit, and achieved a victory which casts
all others in India, however remarkable, into the
shade. With what exultation this Gallant Officer,
who bears a name so celebrated in the history of
the country, will read the tribute conferred on
him by such a man as WELLINGTON. " I
must say," said his Grace, "that on giving the
fullest consideration to the operations, I have never
known an instance of a general officer who had shown
in a higher degree all the requisite qualifications to
enable him to conduct great operations. Sir CHARLES
NAPIER had manifested the utmost discretion and
prudence in the formation of his plans, the utmost
activity in perfecting the preparations necessary to
success, and, finally, the utmost zeal, gallantry, and
science, in carrying these plans and operations into
execution." Such a tribute from a veteran General,
so little inclined to praise even the most gallant
actions, and so well qualified to judge both
of operations in India and Europe, may compensate
for all the vile calumny and the wicked reproaches
which have been heaped by certain parties on the
head of this distinguished member of the NAPIER
family. The speech of Sir ROBERT PEEL was in the
best taste. It was, as might be expected, more pro-
lix than that of the Noble Duke, but it entered into
details which will be read with the highest interest.
He paid just compliments to Sir CHARLES NAPIER,
and did ' not forget his illustrious brother,
who, as some say, has written the best
history of the Peninsular war, but who, while
doing justice to a brave enemy, has not for-
gotten the merits of his countrymen. In adverting
to the deeds of the NAPIERs, he seemed to direct his
speech to a Member of the House who has rendered
his name immortal on the Syrian coast, and the way
in which he associated him with his illustrious rela-
tives, and combined the deeds of a family so remarlf-
able, elicited the loudest cheers from every part of the
House. This was only an act of tardy justice. But
for the utmost skill, zeal, activity, and gallantry of
another Sir CHARLES NAPIER, the battles which com-
menced at Beyrout and ended at St. Jean d' Acre
might have been protracted for another year, and in-
volved the world in a general war. These praises
are well bestowed, and they will be responded to by
every friend of his country. On the origin of the
war in Sinde we have nothing to add. We have ever
taken the same view of the subject. We main-
tained, in opposition to all our Contemporaries,
that it was a war in self-defence ; that the free
navigation of the Indus was absolutely ne•
cessary for the security of the vast In-
dian territories under British dominion; that
the plan which has been carried into effect was in-
finitely preferable to the occupation of Affghanistan ;
and we now rejoice to find that we are not singular in
our opinions. It is the greatest achievement of the
present day, and in that opinion both Whigs and
Tories agree.

The anxiety felt throughout England and Ireland,
as to the result of the Irish State trials, is now raised
to the very highest pitch, in consequence of the
partial ascertainment of the views of the jury in re-
gard to their verdict. Not having finally decided as
to the wording of that verdict at midnight on Satur-
day, and the judges having doubts (needless, as it
appears to us) whether they could receive a verdict
at all, on Sunday, the jury were locked up till yester-
day morning, when they will put the matter beyond
doubt, so far as they are concerned.
The conclusion to which the jury had come on
SatUrday night was as follows :
On the first count
On the second .. No finding.
On the third
Duffy, guilty.
D. O'Connell, J. O'Connell,
Ray, Gray; Steele, Duffy,
and Barrett, guilty.
On the fifth D. O'Connell, Ray, Steele,
Duffy, and Tierney,
guilty.
On the sixth
On the seventh . All but Tierney guilty.
On the eighth No finding.
On the ninth
On the tenth
nell, Ray, Gray, Steele,
Duffy, and Barrett,
guilty.
On the eleventh
If the jury do not alter their opinions, the words
"no finding," as now given in by them, will be altered
into " no verdict" on those counts, or into "not guilty ;"
for one of the jury stated that there was no dif-
ference among them, and it was merely as to the
wording of the findings that they had any doubt.
Let us look; then, at the probable result of this day's
proceedings.
The first and second counts charged the nine tm-
versers with seditiously conspiring to create disaf-
fection among the people—to excite hatred and con-

On the fourth,

tempt of the Government—to cause jealousy and ill-
will among certain classes, particularly the army—
to bring the legal tribunals into disrepute—and to
effect changes in the law by a demonstration of phy-
sical force. Upon these counts the jury have come
to no verdict, and they may be therefore taken as not
proved and unsupported. Not guilty will probably
be the verdict as to these counts.

The third count charges the same objects of con-
spiracy as the second, with slight variations. On this
count, three are found guilty.
The fourih count charges the same objects, but
lays the conspiracy at different times and places. On
this count, seven are found guilty.
The fifth count charges less generally the same
objects, and on this count, five are found guilty.
The sixth charges a seditious conspiracy to procure
changes in the law, by means of intimidation and
physical force. On this there is no finding, and not
guilty will probably be the verdict.

The seventh count charges the procurement of
large numbers of the peoPle to meet together at
various placesovith intent, by the display of num-
bers, to procuie changes in the law. On this, all but
Mr. TIERNEY are found guilty.

On the eighth and ninth counts, "no finding" will
be most likely turned into " not guilty."
The tenth count charges the establishment of
courts to bring into disrepute the legal tribunals of
the country, and on this, seven of the traversers are
found guilty.
The eleventh charges seditious publications prid
songs, and the delivery of unlawful speeches, and
here again, " no finding" is equivalent to " not guilty.'!
There will, therefore, probably be a verdict of
guilty upon five counts, and not guilty upon six I
counts of this indictment.

And now commences the retest difficulty. What