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

fica-
,r of

vod
take
Is of

MS

de.
army
was
shell
lers)

de-
ch
fore
vent►

this
stets

f this
Ilant
mo o
s of

ballaut sir, I say, that in the record of
.• 14 ilitary and ravel, I am justi-
talreiLass--t:rtiing tl 111,1,re is -11,0 name which will stand.
eonspiciteus than the name hich is borne by the
41 4nt °Meer who commanded illw the battles of Meeanee
tale; ElYdri'dhad. I believe that those who boar that
,irlltt oftimulated by the example of their peed° C3SOI'S,
i 4 tinue. to eehillit the saute cour igo and r, solution
I)„their country's cause, and that that motto which they
°ear on their shield ' Reads', aye ready,"—will be net
InlY their metto but the characteristic of their con-
te'a!Lnt officer—Sfr Charles Napier
1,1,114, n NvaseattAl upon to take the corn-
Ile nal attained the line of sixty-two.
e,„ assumed it when shattered in the service of his
errsdltrY ; and it is to that gallant spirit, controlled ant
it; ected—it is to tie example that he set to the troops,
41);rit17:1 nS it didsc-onfidence in their commander, that
'olan3t mainly attribute, in my opinion, the success of
1" arms in the actions of Meeanee and Hyderabad.--,
lt ear' hear') they
quality of actions mainly depends
taTtle the character of those who superintend and under-
Ihee &ern. The aliens which have been performed by
to ;)ll'Aers of that family, may appear to the pusillanimous
tl;err:,,settoiteslitirdv —to the eoperlicial they may apFeatti:
of a, lucky chance; but, however despera
tri'd '''aY appear, when undertaken and superintended
konti4 cornbinatiou of such skill, experience, and per
Of a eitf!'ess, as was brought to hear on the command
eislhs sariti.ll army on the Indus—however desperate
nil actions neve appear when undertaken by ordinary
ties, rthey are' reconcilable with the soundest calcula-
thale' Prudence when directed by such men as Sir
to FS Napier.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, there is one rfill-lit
coaildukell I am particultilv desirous of adverting. 1.
had
toshi,"° imputed to Sir -Charles Napier that he
thou? 8011ght coeflict, that he had needlessly brought
ritish army in contact with the force of the Ameers,
~alenaht whether any praise which we could bestow on his
*et • wou'd compensate for the panful reflections t?
1.18 j" „such a conviction in hie own mind w, old give
sett t utit thank it is impossible to peruse the papers,,
like.; consider the position in which Sir
.C. Napier is es.'
fluted consider without coming to a conclusion, not only
takket the wisest c nurse which Sir Charles Napier could
without as the encountering at once the enemy
route "lay, but that if he had pursued any other
lleset' the safety
been
lt t
of the army would have corn-
,lesed•—(Rear, hear, and cheers.) It is diffiu course
had beet Might have been the result if any othert,r_
tens een Pursued ; but if there be any man whoen
elltneek doubt as to the policy of the coarse which e
t 43, es NaPier pursued, in not permitting the Ameers
'Arinciell-egye their forces, in determining at once to
Ng' is forces of 2,500 men, or, to speak more pr,
fates of 2,000 men against a force seven or eight
the a their number, I ask him only to rear
aut Jfteoee°4ll,,t, of what passed in 1839, at the time when
4 of -"11 •&eane arrived at the mouth of the Indus. It
kihtn(: Ilse for Hon. Members to speeulate t.o what
have been the effect if Sir Charles Napier h_a.d
Joh'ltiz.Wll his troops. If they read the testimony of Sir
41aelle,''eane, as to what was the actual conduct (tithe
write;',„"l 1839, they must be convinced that Sir
he Aeapier had no alternative but at once to front.d
kteellager that stared him in the face. In 1839, Lord
awnsanl:l;(l haring determined upon the advance into
Tan(l4,-,-;St"1, SPIlt fore from Bombay under the cop-
Sir Jo'in Keane, for the purpose of entering
kak ;can: negotiations with the Ameers, or of
t.
reik),"ilide the basis of his military operations,
eaa"exland, describing the operations of Sir John
tieee-'egives this account of the conduct and the inten-
te4 the Ameers. (The Right Hon. Baronet then
4tetiopa,nt.extract from the dispatch of Lord Auckland,
toy, s: Ll"' every artifice was resorted to by the Ameers
41e,,,4t and impede the movements of the army, while.
%hie "ere making the most fulsome professions of friend-
-444:11,4 devotion-.) Sir John Keane
.himself said that
V 44 bath assumed such an aspect that it took the first
Oste,a the operations of the army. If Lieutenant
Vt,te had not been extremely prudent, he would
iaieh -1."11 exposed to exactly the same attack
the -te been made on Major Outram.
e estts ;little said that on the 20th of January
was
‘4e3 ") h given to the Ameers. On the 21st they
, ave it soned ; on the 22d they said that
bthie treo°lll4 not termdine whether they would accept
e or not ; on the 23d their troops were assem-
hiltt ()0111,11,1.1 hands, and then the reply of the Ameer swas,
l' t 4 "'eat). must be sent back, as they would not
%lir T
e en 1839 they pursued precisely the same
they% whieh they attempted to pursue in 1843
,()11ficif,113„it(le the same' professions of friendship andf
t'asei,""ee, stating that they wished further timef fresh
1-1,?,0e5-treat,i,°n, whilst every hour was bringing!
rsee d ,
their their assistance ; and four days having
ts Preparations being completed, they seaaypthat.
kialkeoeatY cannot be signed ; that the Embassy may
ifittil_trhaei as they pleased, but that the Ameers could
e, hn° Pledge of safety, having no control over
e()eeees S r J hn Keane said," the whole coun:
irmlt and rear' of
- is now aroused and under
41)4' 11,1111 troo s Ofltv,k..
41.. P.
_are
.oc lances, all parts to the
he requested that
eellstahy tten these circum
be sent to him as soon as possible.
Iceettose t the Ameers then attack the British army
1,4 ,„ "31r Willoughby Cotton, with a large force under
plr-I.lt/nd, was coming towards Hyderabad.—(Hear,
elseS Soojah's troops took possession
e,frena which the Ameers' troops had withdrawn,
ItiligTniln Keane on the opposite hank was meth-
irstie'eue adoption of a course
precisely similar to that
is •
bY Sir Charles Napier. On the 31st January,
tie lean 'lace Pottine•er finding that he was supported by
inlinense°force told them he could make no
ho"Tnt of his terms, and used these words to them,
oseizea shot be fired the whole of your country shall
and you shall be dispossessed of it: The
etlllesenie-res 3 finding four or five battalions of British Infantry•""i them on the Ist of February, signified,
to
to m,,Retiry Pottinger that they were ready
fors,"",,nlit to his teems ; but had there been only a
4ite•i' 2,000 or 2,500 men opposed to them, notwith-
hit,e4,"ng their delusive professions of friendship, it Was
>whY probable that they would have attempted to over-
Se!on the British force. Sir Charles Napier, however,
100 not 'lot in thetosition of Sir John Keane and Sir Wil-
111,thby Cottone he had but 2,500 men to oppose to
leeeitneers, and, in my opinion, there is conclusive
tsitlq than if he had paused one day—if he had at•
t laed t • •
N. retreat—it he had not, in fact, taken that
t,terttse which his own wisdom, combined with his expe-
%lee and military skill, dictated, not one day would
and4irethlapsed before the army would have been cut off;
e• Iga f tl •tish arms had beeiew ) IC ri
"r gwouldo have occurred which,not following sullthed ()If Q. at Caubul, would have involved consequences
al i:sh ine-- t would have been very difficult to. foresee the
ttitt (11ear hear.) Sir, in estimating the con•
ea reef Sir Charles Napier, I do not think the chief
zhteltattihsethd,euechtoichfim for military skill or personal valour;
praise is due to him for the judgment
of4fel tn"lsPlayed in so critical a position. Knowing how
tl the gat have been the consequences of a repetition
e h ersaste
e, is r at Caubul, lie had the moral courage
lee which responsibility to act in opposition to the ad-
lea
tit,`, his nl."e had received, and to commit both the army
to npigeon
reputation to the fate of war, and
in
is for
'ltlcin of moral courage which he made in deter-
-7allec'tliP°ll fiene attack, that I think Sir Charles Napier
rallyth entid to our thanks.-(Cheers.) In detail-
he action
tate t: of Meeanee, Sir Charles Napier said,.
bore neeeeinte, my Lord, the courage and numbers ot
k against the 22c1, 25th, and 12th Regiments
the e to b, 137 in that part of the battle. There was no
lauttight to in
and I sent orders to the cavalry to force
°I the
enemy's line. This order was very gal-
/tihinlenteetrtted by the 9th Bengal Cavalry, and another
`e d, for by the
The details shall -be afters ards
lete tiai the struggle on our right and centre was a.t,
liehim.,:eol4loaeto:do.
atfiteirleeepotshtat
of Idacnoguelrd, not go to the left.
feeling that the time
the sec hatever might be the consequences of
ts pnaecret,ssvvi,tays fos,r) an example of personal devo-
great that he must leave to
le.4itiittto;4tretiteett atieteeorettnt which it might be necessary to
did that Gallant man stand, within
trot!, as teine Yerds of the water-course in which, I be-
siet a",,e who!e force of' the enemy, cheering on his
rtfifoe any example of valour which made it impos-
-411,4'14, tlYnn.,tan in that army to resist its contagious
Orrice to t` impelled all, like their gallant coin-
devote their lives to their country's
et:sary fo'r lid cheers.) Sir, I think it is un-
the 44tin ate to trouble the House wit h further details.
e leilitarg there
t to Place upon record their sense of
14}141114NnYtfervi,ces of the army and its commander.
eleal ''or no expression of opinion on any
they
to ~Zileeteti with the operations in Sinde.; but,
'nee Itas eo'nt was achieved by these troops, looking to
b net? by every man on those two days, I think
e Posed ",11Ntl,„ at
r_,streb smsee to come to a unanimous resolution
Zire w nee, exploits the thanks of this House are
;NI enga (Cheers.) With respect to some who
'gilt the te.,,eti in that battle, we must mingle
'd '44 of o--PrQssion of our gratitude to them
roof deep
, sympathy with their friends
t'44 arid ju.'• Tire dispatches of Sir Charles Napier
treeef these stly ascribed to individuals much of the
At j'l,a,bil„ re_Vletories. lie has left, I believe, an im-
Nswanost el'urd of the exploits which they performed.
tree', of theluijossible to lament deaths so glorious as
g'se--(ts"se which e in these engage-
hi it IN.. h_. las e occurred
t ft,4ler sebiebeti) He speaks of one gallant
.I,oanything can give consolation
oft tropleh3;l/Ind rela'
highest
-ell can " as, must prove to them
b file se,e offered to them under their heavy
o'B4 rave and) s, "I have deeply to reret the loss
we ettir,whi) fell
„excellent Capt. Barrett oft the 9th Light
tat Lie mlnourably in the midst of the ba.ktle ; also
hill111:13Ur °tenant Smith, of the Bombay Artillery.
reat oP,eassed and desperate "valour he galloped to
tfr.n'to SPe the battle •
where b• , and rode up to the top of the
'fe out is guns would bear with the greatest
blot , the
perforrnane of that act he lost his
thillottteWhe"ahll,r4es et°llll2,,d ,be no inscription on his tomb
th ail now - tnis.—(Hear, hear.) I trust, Sir,
(etre e le.„thes proceed to bestow upon those gallant
Net 1.; that t reward which a grateful country_ct.aine
`4,41 vc,. we shall all
Ace -I"e, to ow you, Sir, as the organ of
rs km • press to Sir Charles Napier, and to
ow and the nit under his command, to the Etirc,-
Isatal atreratak, W'leesPha)r-1 ,men of the highest and of the
e sere ink, ee on those days a common danger,
etes ail e,tl ith a „flin
et,es%i,t, ‘ey, ,1 son glory, that to them all
A,leltidelef public
_17.1. you as our organ, the acknow
tetsre tor
ct!tilde. (The Right Hon. Baronet
Qcli of 't tIN
.Rus,,..ti_eers)
lctos,4lle Flight said that, after the eloquent
4.41.
t)e_ 4:10
ot tekoo
zios ecee:arrio, znottlieomn abne
ftohreer
the House.—
(letifteaforr,
t4tia_r rage
atlaAfeiy.nights ago to state opinion
k44,.(itrl fr'Yea la
__x.cical elf and
tah'heicahrrabyirunCdhearrhleiss
4tllvis ~41 the
to tl'ous riecePses:rn_ "o.altion in which they were placed;
Eve" those who differed in respect
itit4h,tt opinion! forEy him then to give additional ex-
%III dmit, tt);_ is. conduct
illtimtuct
of military skill' hick was of a political character
few lie e e xalted courage, and persevering
141•141 ainlleaendt
&.--.( Hear, hear.) At an ad-
. 1°44 Men 's
could ed. vig lanur and energy of youth.
py more of thoze qualities—

( Cheers)—and to which were superadded, in an eminent
degree, in the person of Sir C. Nap'er, skill, judgment, and
talent,—( Hear, hear.) He felt very great pleasure in second•
ing the motion.—( Loud Cheers. )
The SPEAKER 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 w'isieh 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
de so, and he felt bound to state to the House the grounds upon
which, in his opinion, the thanks of the House ought to he
withheld from 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 a the military skill displayed by
Sir Charles Napier. In short, during that decisive campaign
which took place, he had an opportunity of showing some
of the ;greatest qualities which could distinguish a military
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 politics. The Governor. General, it was said, was
responsble for all the measures adopted, and Sir C. Napier
was merely called upon to carry into effect the cosine of policy
decided upon by Lord Ellenborough. The House might re-
member tint the speech of the flight Hon. Baronet was not
throughout consistent, for a few minutes after he said that it
was not his military skill he so much admired, that Sir C.
Napier had exercised judgment and wisdom—in fact, that Sir
C. Napier hail 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, 1892, 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
Outram, 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. But with Sir C. Napier the case was
far otherwise—he was placed at the head of a large force, with
directions to effect a certain object, by peaceable means if he
could—if not, by force ; and, in fact, he was equally responsible
as the Governor-General for all that took place in Sinde. Such
being the case, it was utterly impossible for him to concur in
the metion. 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 he found that
those persons who possessed the best means of giving a correct
notion of the state of affairs in that country concurred with
him in the view he had taken. When he found by these letters
that Sir Henry Pottinger and Major Out-ram took the same
view that ho did, he felt perfectly satisfied that there was not
merely strong ground, but an absolute justification for the
opinions he entertained. Jo 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 sash
would be the effect of following the suggestions he
now offered. Hon. Gentlemen might be surprised at the
opinions which he now expressed ; but he (Lord H °wick)
thought he could make the principle which governed him more
clear to the House, by referring to what actually passed in
another transaction. Ile believed Honourable Members gene-
rally would admit that the battle of Navarino was, as a feat of
arms, highly honourable to the British navy, anti 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. llobhouse), 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 wlth-
drawn without a division. The position takers by Mr. Huskisson
that they should be particularly careful in voting thanks for
events growing nut of an accident, lest officers is command
should create tee easily accidents which might afford them op-
portunities of distinguishing themselves, and so getting honours
they would otherwise not have the chance of obtaining—that
was the ground taken by Mr. Huskisson. What was the ground
taken by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), who
formed part of that Administration? After agreeing in the
position taken by 'Mr. Huskisson, the Right Hon. Baronet ad-
vanced the principle, that except in a declared war, the thanks
of that House never had been, and never ought to be voted for
any victory our arms obtained. Amongt the instances in sup-
port of his argument, the Right Hon. Baronet had brought
forward that of the battle of Toulouse, where the thanks of Par-
iiamend were withheld from Lord Wellington, because the war
had actually terminated, although the hostile commanders
could neither of them be aware of that fact. A battle so
fought was to be considered a misfortune, and there-
fore no matter how gallant the bearing and conduct
of the troops might have been, thanks could
not be proposed in that House. The principle then was,
that for a battle after peace thanks could not be given—and
for a battle—a victory—without a declaration of war—as
at Navarino—thanks could not be voted. Why, this was just
the position in which the gallant officer, Sir Charles Napier,
had placed himself. The words of the gallant officer, in one of
the dispatches under his own hand-writing, were—" War has
not been declared, and I do not think it necessary to declare
it."—( Hear, hear.) Now, if the great and wholesome rule
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
;means
were or not. To Sir Charles Napier great military peens
were given, and lie 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 s'rong disposition rather to
cut the Gordian knot of such interminable negotiations with
the sword, than disentangle them with patience and forbear-
ance ?—( Hear, hear.) 1 hey 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 ~sere 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 thin question derived
additional importance from what passed on a former evening.
' He thought that what fell from the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite, in the course of the debate last week, made it pecu-
liarly imperative upon that House to beware how they did any-
thing which might tend in the remotest degree to encourage
for the future in India a system which he must call unscru-
pulous aggrandisement. He agreed with the Noble Lord, the
Member for the City of London, in the surprise he had ex-
pressed at what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. The
Right Hon. Baronet said there was an uncontrollable principle
which led 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 se far clear
to us now as to be looked upon with favour. He could not
find that they had been applied by other nations as an excuse
for their conduct. If this principle could be, applied, it might
be advanced in justification of the Russians quartering them-
selves upon their barbarous neighbours, or of France encroach-
ing upon Algiers . He firmly believed that if this " uncun -
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 hail 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.
lie 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 theywoefrethareandks proposed.ingtona
naval
and military officers by adopting the vote
He for one looked with feelings of anything like satisfaction even
at those brilliant battles of Meeanee and Hyderabad. Brilliant
in a military point of view they undoubtedly were ; but he
could‘s.ere stained net help
with
guilt,fearing that,
o r inun tnheec
eesys ea
royf tahned Awl ma
tgohnt y
b, tohoedy.
shed. He believed that if they then thanked . those by
whom those battles had teat fought, that a piton 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 pas,
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 who in future should have command
over our fleets and armies, and those in whose hands were
placed the destinies of India.—( Hear, hear.) These were
the views, and these were the -sentiments—not, he could as-
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 lie 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
Ilouse—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—be 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 eensc'ence—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 net entirely agree as ith the
motion before the House. He agreed with his Noble Friend in
hat he hail 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
achievements ha i dazzled 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 detestatle doctrine which was laid down by the Right
Hon. 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. Ile (Mr. Smith) was unacquainted with Major
Outram; but he had no scruple in saying that justice had not
been done to that officer. He would take three instances in
which he felt that Major Outram had been treated With injustice.
The first was in what his Noble Friend, the other night,
termed the foot-notes to the papers upon the subject. He
believed this was the first instance in which such notes had
been introduced, and he deeply mistook the character of Sir
Charles Napier—for generosity always accompanied bravery—
if that Gallant Officer had authorised the publication of those.
notes. His next instance was the publication of an 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 Hyderabad might have been very glorious, yet he
knew few things which showed more gallantry than the de-
fence of his own regiment.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. V.
Smith) thought that there could not be a higher testimony
borne to the merits of any man than that which Sir Charles
Napier bore to Major Outram upon the subject of his woik
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
rime, 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 HARDINGE rose and said—Sir, although I
differ from the Right Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down,
yet, as the Noble Lord has announced his intention of not di-
viding the House upon this question, I shall not occupy your
attention for a long period of time, yet I must say the speech
of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and that of the Noble Lord,
do not at all justify the attack which has been just now made
upon Sir Charles Napier—( Hear, hear)—and I ask, in confir-
mation of my opinion, had not many of the Ameers joined in
the 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
lion. 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 chtracter,.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,—l have watched his career, and Ido sincerely be-
lieve that a better soldier does not exist than he. With respect
to the military exploits of that gallant General, in hisdirection of
the army in Sinde, I must say the same as I have done upon a
lormer occasion, that for the greatness of mind, the determination
and success evinced by the course he pursued, that I shall fear-
lesslya n,i I
faepepl peal
conscious t o e v e rtyh officeryand i
will
soal
tdtirei rb
ui nt e t ht
toe
hSi imn d
ai a nm
aa
srtme
ry_,
mind, and I am also convinced that if his life had been sacrificed
the battle would have been lost. I think, Sir, there are few things
that could afford a stronger proof of the merits of a man than
this. I feel assured that, although Sir Charles Napier may be
now sixty-two years of age, and has already received many
and serious wounds in the service of his country, yet that his
spirit and energy are able to accomplish what would be too much
fur 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 occasioa 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
5030 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 Ameer said
he objected to the new treaty proposed, but still that he would
subscribe to the treaty on the condition that Meer Roostum
Khan were stored to his rights. The Commissioner said that
Iloostum Khan had resigned the durbar of his own free will.
On the folowing day they ( the Ameers) merely protested against
the demand cf the discussion Governor General ; and then a long
ensued about Mcer Roostum's affairs much the same ashadtaken
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 Roestum could do nothing, and he did
not like that, as it would embarrass him very much. Now, he
(Mr. Mangles) could not see how that could have 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 formally denied 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 his own part, that he never
would consent to a vote of thanks to Sir C. Napier. He was
also strengthened in that purpose by the equally 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
Mourad 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
Roostum had solemnly given up the durbar to his brother,
Ali Mourad. Now he (Mr. Mangles) said, with great reluc-
tance certainly, but still it was the case—that those statements
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 ho was well acquainted with Sir C. Napier, and had
important professional relations with him, he hoped the House
would give hint 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 he 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 valu
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 Lord alluded to the circumstances
which had brought affairs into that position in which Sir C.
Napier had found them ; but tl'at 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 sth of February, 1839, and was ratified on the 11th of
March, 1839, by Lord Auckland, but not till the month of