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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 13, 1844.

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 who!e great drama intJ two periods—the one
including the occupation of Sinde, and the other the opera-
iions which succeeded. Sir C. Napier was chosen to carry
into effect the terms of the treaty, aril he took the command
of the troops. When he arrived in the country, he conversed
Nith the Ameers on the subject of the treaty, and he immedi-
ately reported to the Governor-General that several infrac-
tions of the treaty hod 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 nut enter
into the argument of the old man or the young mail who
figured in Sinde—(Laughter)—but Ira re(ted 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 5;),0)0 men. So distinctly did he perceive the diffi-
eaFies in which Majour Outram was placed, that while
he (Major Outrain himself) assured him he had noth,ng
to fear, the Gallant General saw grounds for great
apprehension, and he determined upon advancing.—( Hear,
hear.) They bal the testi xony 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 wall by reputation, and his defence of his residence
was a very distinguished one. Having said this much in justifi-
cation of the•conduet of his Gallant Friend, he hoped the House
.wonll 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 troop(, his dependence was
moat upon this corps, which he placed in the front of the battle.
He had no reserve ; he attacked with a combination of all his
force, artillery, infantry, and cavalry. That coml(ination was
apparent in both battles, and had he not adopted this system it
would have been scarcely possible to have succeeded. He
contended that not even the victories of Lord Clive, who laid
the foundation of their military and political power in India,
not even the splendid exploits of the Cornwallises, the Moires,
and the Wellesleys—not even the first great battle of the. " Hero
of a hundred fights"—had conduced more to the reputation of
their arms than these actions. Their empire in India was only
raised by military power; he (lid not ask what took them first
to India; their first places of occupation were trading stations ;
but they could never have been able to have held them but for
the military force. The present actions had confirmed their
power in India, and were, therefore, not less deserving the
thanks of the House than the actions of the illustrious men he
had alluded to.

Mr. B. HAVES said he did not intend to go
,into the
general policy of the occupation of Sinde ; but he thought
there was no precedent for a vote of thanks on the present
occasion, inasmuch as there had been no declaration of war.
We committed the aggression in the first instance, by invading
the territory of Sinde. We then attempted to enforce one
treaty, and set aside another already existing. He must say,
therefore, it would be hard to find a precedent for a vote of
thanks, under such circumstances. He did not wish to detract
from the military reputation of Sir C. Napier. If they were
:nerely called on to thank him, as a General Officer, for a
brilliant exploit, he should feel it his duty to do so. But Sir
Charles was vested with the supreme political command of
Sinde, as well as that of the army. The diplomatic agents
were all removed, and Major Outram was placed entirely under
Sir C. Napier. Had Major Outram's advice been followed,
these battles would not have been fought. It had not hitherto
been the practice to give the thanks of the House for one soli-
tary brilliant exploit ; but, lately, it had become the custom to
do so,—thereby lessening its value. Sir C. Napier had shown
a disposition to carry on his negotiations by force, and if the
House passed this vote of thanks, it would be establishing a
dangerous precedent, one of setting aside the rules of negotia-
tion, and resorting at once to the sword,—thus giving a pre-
mium to war and blood.

Commodore Sir C. NAPIER said, he rose under no ordinary
feelings, to return his thanks to the Right Hon. Baronet for the
eloquent manner in which he had brought forward the services
of his g llant relative, and for the honour he had done himself,
by speaking of him in a mariner which lie certainly did n st
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
the Right Hon. Baronet was ignorant of some of the occur-
rences in which his gallant relative had taken part, and he
hoped the House would permit him to mention them here,
as the question under discussion was a vote of thanks to be
given to him. At the battle of Corunna it was perfectly noto-
rious that, when leading on the 50th Regiment, it being the
first time he was in action, he advanced far beyond his men,
something stopped them, and, while trying to bring them on,
he was surrounded by a French corps, was cut down by a sabre
stroke, was pierced in the bark 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 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 Sault.—( Cheers,) When he returned to England
he obtained permission to join the at my in Spain, under the
Duke of Wellington, and they first heard of him at the pas-
sage of the Douro, where he had a horse shot under him. He
was afterwards at Busaco, as an amateur.—( Laughter.) He
(Commodore Napier) was also there as an amateur himself.—
(Cheers.) At Busaco his gallant relative was shot through
the nose and jaw while by his side, and fell into his (Commo-
dore Napier's) arms—(Cheers.)---he himself bore him from the
field.—(Cheers.) He was a man of heroic courage, but pos-
sessing also the coolness so requisite in a soldier, and he well
remembered that while watching the movements of the armies,
he observed to his gallant relative that lie was dressed in his,
red coat—that he had lon the uniform of his regiment, though
the staff wore blue. He told him that he was doing wrong—
that he would be marked out, and that he ought
to put on his cloak. He said " No ! it is the
uniform of my regiment, and in it I will stand or
fall."—( Loud cheers.) The words were hardly pro-
nounced before he was struck; he fell into his arms,
and he bore him off the field. As he bore him away they met
the Duke of Wellington, and, the spirit of the soldier being
strong within him, though the frame was weak, he took off his
hat and cheered, saying " I cannot die at a better moment."—
( Cheers.) In the surgical operation he underwent afterwards
(hce
hheeelrds him
After
t eh irl eh thee recovered
bail
he showed the same courage
extracted, and he minded it no more than if it had been a tooth
drawn ; he said not a word.--;.) was
he was present at the battle of Fuentes D'Onor, where, for
once, he escaped without a wound. He was then at Bidassoa,
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 it as in Spain, was quite as
hard. They next found him as a civil officer in the
island of Cephalonia, and it was well known man ever
or t
did more, in a civil situation, f that no
of
ahe improvement
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
knowledged he was—( Hear, hear)
—he
h s was , and as he
believedac-
knowledged 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 th
ere was considerable difficulty.
—(" Hear, hear," from Sir Robert Pee 1 ) Ile 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 33 well described the whole of
his conduct there, from the time he took the command, that
it would be neceaary for him to say but even. 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 f d them.—
per orme
( 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 2,000 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 30,000 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.
Hit now same 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 Leicestershire. (Laughter.) He believed it was
generally admitted, that had Sir Ch4,es Napier waited
twenty-four hours longer before he made the attack, he would
have been surrounded by 50,000 or 60,000 men. One of the
Ameers admitted, on the evening in which the battle was
fought, that 12,000 fresh troops were assembled in the neigh-
bourhood of Hyderabad. This,
he thought, 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.) He 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. But the Blue Book showed that
Lord Ellenborough approved of what he had done, and if
if he was wrong in so doing, the blame must rest with Lord
Ellenborongh, 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.[Eastwick in any way responsible ?—( Hear, hear. )
Had Sinde been an ordinary 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 Sinde
one week or fortnight might destroy a whole army, he should
like to ask, could any commander of an army in such circum-
stances defer Isis 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. lie said that a vote of thanks was re-
fused to Sir E. Codrington because the battle of Navarino was
an accident—an " untoward event " in fact. Sir
Edward Codrington went .to Navarino, where ships
were lying of different flags and nations, manned by barbarians,
amongst whom a single musket fired would kick up a general
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
hating 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 lie had to do was to fight, and 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 Chance:lor of the Exchequer could fell. When the
Aineers assisted the 13eloochees 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 for
declaring war against France ?—( Hear, hear.) He rather
thought the gentlemen of the House of Commons would be of
'hat opinion.—( A laugh.) He felt sure that if the Noble
Lord was in the Residency' he would say, " I am sure, Sir
Charles Napier, it is high time for you to come and defend
me." He would be anxious to put an end to the state
of uncertainty and danger in which he found himself.
The Noble Lord sai I there was great military means. What
means ? Two thousand men. What means had the
Ameers? Thirty thousand men. The Noble Lord talked
a great deal about glory, and of the impropriety of encourag-
ing too great a desire for military exploits, in order to obtain a
vote of thanks from the House of Commons. He did not ap-
prehend there would be a great many amateurs who would be
willing to fight against 30,000 men with 2,000 men. —( Laughter
and cheers.) And then the glory--where was the glory ?
The glory of running the risk of getting all their throats cut.
The Noble Lord talked about the danger of allowing a mili-
tary, man to transact diplomatic. affairs. He (Sir C. Napier)
had been in her Majesty's service a long time, and he must
certainly say that it was a very dangerous practice for him whs.
had laid aside the sword, to take up the pen. Let them go
back to Constantinople—they had a diplomatic agent there.
But how are our affairs managed by him ? Why the flea came
back with its tail between its legs.—(Laughter.) Sir John
Moore was of opinion that these men always got the countries
they represented into scrapes. When they took up the pen
they d.d not know how to wield it, having been so long accus-
tomed td the sword. They had a diplomatic agent in Sinde—
what did 'se 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 per.,
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 whome -vote was proposed, and who had
acted similarly, he would have been just as ready to testify his
conscientious approbation of his conduct.—(Loud and pro-
longed cheering.)
Mr. BINGHAM BA RING 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 net conscious of
having done so. General Napier was not in the situation of
responsibility to Major Outram. He certainly had received
certain advices from Major Outram, but he was not bound to
follow his instructions ; and in his (Sir Charles Napier's) letter
to the Governor-General, he certainly justified himself for not
following the course recommended by Major Outram. Sir
Charles Napier entertained a different opinion, and that
opinion he followed upon his own responsibility. No blame
could be attributed to Major Outram—no blame could be at-
ts 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
v
s
n
d
ocot di
Codrington,
of:acanl
unonAertiianulgoto.
irpttpnl eorma,cpcl
ni
yootbithnsteoi
ionadsrnt
tsneoseth.dtwhoi
eaonmannntst t
fiobl(ows
tyytArhei
Accordingmt, lbaAnhi r
cetiat
hr,lsg:oe i
cllhvnocreaoaundr
declarationttdssi
oihk
tn)oboei.
principles
sm:speoel Tnaetr
the
happecnoewnri
manner
Napier,
otoiceeanhnahsss
repseee
wnnpheßmtt
brr
vocfsooi
fehl
must ad
take
.:rees
ri
at
they
dn.
ookhhofibnaoytyd.Edward
ithanksGen-
tlemanabb thatthanks
eoektins,
placee
d
w er
e
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 fur Sunderland. We were engaged
in a war—in a war recognised by all the usual formalities—and
which had been preceded by a regular declaration—and having
no reason to know that peace had been agreed on, the Duke of
Wellington fought one of his hardest battles, and gained one of
the most brilliant of his victories. The country heaped honours
upon him, but Parliament did not vote thanks. But the Hon.
and Gallant Officer ( Sir C. Napier) said that we had voted
thanks to armies for services in India and China, in connection
with wars which had not been preceded by any declaration.
Now, in Affghanistan there had been a declaration of war ;
but in the case of China there was this distinction, that the
power of peace or war, of remaining at the one or com-
mencing the other, was not vested in the military 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
House 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 ilowick)
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.") Ile (Mr. Crawford) for one
felt strongly the force of those arguments which had been
used, and others which had not been used, in reference to the
question then before them. He felt that the House, by such
votes as that now proposed, identified itself in some degree
with the origin of the causes of these wars. He did not
wish to identify himself with such wars as those in India,
and China, and he thought the House should always limit its
thanks to such wars as they could approve of the 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. He could never approve such wars as those which
had lately taken lilac% 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 new moving the "previous question."—
( Cheers. )

Mr. BROTHERTON seconded the motion.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said it was most important that a great
country like this should bestow its grateful thanks on meri-
torious and gallant officers in a free, generous, and ungrudg-
ing spirit. It would have been much fairer, far more noble
in the Noble Lord ( Howick) and his friends to have met the
motion by a direct negative, rather than have attempted, as
they had done, to pare it down, and throw discredit on the
motives and actions of the chief parties in the transactions.
The Noble Lord brought forwaid his precedents, but, to his
( Mr. Escott's) mind they were precedents which did
result positionPeel)energy
ao :nt
el tai
des valour
fboua
not at all apply. The circumstances of the case
i
were altogether unprecedented. Sir Charles Napier's
rnt
battle
thisre
ocuferd"
votephe unprecedented.—(
ceeoedfud,.tnehdnhaeti
thanks
kdhs.
_i?m energy Hear,
ahary unprecedented—and valour,fdhorear .
"military auntdwo
ope-
rations hheaee.t
le Lord,
ra:n.ot, odtnshsooisfnet
hwSeihnioT
motion
or'
agreed dT
referredhs withe
bwi
temor
"military
the
troaer
rdyt se.
sot
pi
testimony
were the terms in which the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R.
tary skill and valour of General Napier and his troops—the
operations"
oNn toso:t
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.
lie trusted, however, the Hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr.
Crawford) who was always consistent and straightforward in
his conduct in that House, would test the sentiments and
sincerity of the Noble Lord and his few friends, by dividing the
House on the "previous question."
Dr. BO WRING could not agree to the motion before she
House, as ho disapproved of all zressive war, and he
could not honour its instruments.— Cries of" Divide.")
Lord PALM ERSTON—As the House 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 political
considerations. I look upon it simply as a proposal to confer
upon most distinguished merit the thanks of this House, which
arc 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.) 1 see that the must 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 Co 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 cannot see any
identity in the two cases. The battle of Navarino was an
accidental conflict which took place between our fleet, a combined
fleet, and 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 wi,h 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 Napier to the Ameers of Sinde, had
greatly tarnished the laurels of that gallant officer.—(Cries of
" Divide, divide.")
Strangers then ordered to wsithdraw, and the House
videil, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it

Majority —155
PRESENCE OF STRANGERS AT DEBATES.
Mr. CHRISTIE rose to bring forward a motion respect-

ins 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 rote of thanks which
was proposed, and so unanimously acceded to the army in
Sinde, he thought he had a prior right to the Hon. Member
who had just now spoken.
The SPEAKER said that in the present instance Mr.
Christie having a notice of motion upon the paper was en-
titled to precedence.
Mr. CHRISTIE then rose 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 of the subject, and its delicate
character with respect to the privileges of the House, would
justify him in asking them to bear with him while he entered
shortly into the history of the House of Commons--(" Oh, 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, pawed 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 House of Commons
—that no news-letter, &c., should presume to iatermeddle
with the debates or other proceedings of that House. Similar
complaints were frequently made in three subsequent years,
and resolutions were passed in support of the former ones.
In the years 1722 and 1723 the most stringent resolutions
I 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 1733 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 the debate 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, looked 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. 1111770 an attempt had been made to bring the
printers and publishers of debates before the bar of the House.
Strong opposition was made to those attempts by Mr. Burke
and others, who repeatedly divided the House upon the ques-
tion, and the ultimate result was that the House yielded its
consent to publication. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded
to read extracts from the speeches of Mr. Burke, Mr. Dunning,
and Mr. Fox, on that 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
discnssions 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 reports of speeches in Parliament, was liable to
an action, if they contained any libellous matter. Any
Member who sent notes of his speech, In order to ensure
accuracy, was in the same predicament. It was no less un-
just than inconsistent with the practical working of the 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 terrers
of the law of libel before them. He 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 lion. Gentleman concluded by moving for
a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.—( Cheers. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
listened with attention to the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down, but he was not 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 ad-
fidence,ibut he believed those standing orders bad 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 ihaccuracy 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 debates, 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 should be appointed
to inquire into the expediency of continuing the
the present anomaly of its being a breach of privilege to re-
port the debates of that House. At this moment, if those
gentlemen present should do him the honour of reporting his
observations, it would be a breach of privilege. The 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 ?
How 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 breach of privilege. If his Hon.
Friend only asked them to appoint a Committee to inquire into
the expediency of rescinding their order, and considering,
whether some alteration ought not to be made in this regula-
tion of privilege, he could not think what danger there could
be in a Committee. It could do no harm, if it did no good,
and would rescue the House from the anomalous position in
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-atrArms, 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-
drepses 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 in 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 opinions, " Yes,"
said he, "my opinions, but never my votes."—(Laughter.)
The House should feel much obliged to the gentlemen of the
press fur the very clear, full, impartial, and
caenett'
accounts which they gave—the great literary
as the great
and tact displayed by *ins well

labour and persevering exertion which their avo-
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 Member
for London proposed bringing forward .a motion regarding the
state of Ireland to-morrow night, which was of the eiry first
importance, and which would be regarded with the greatest 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 by Parlia-
mentary debates were on the following morning blanks, would
not Hon. Members cut a pretty figure before the country ?-=-
( Laughter.) He repeated that it was absurd and inconsistent
that, at the caprice of any Hon. Member, the country might be
deprived of that information which they so eagerly expected,
and to which they had a just right. He entirely agreed with
the Hon. Gentleman, and only regretted that a motion had not
been made for directly rescinding so absurd a rule.-. ( ifear.)
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 *t all. agree with the Hon.
Member who had just sat down, aathought no inconve-
silence ressulted from the present rules. The only occasion
on which the suppression of the debates occurred, by re-
porters and others being ordered to leave the gallery, was on
thr motion of Sir Charles Yorke on moving for an inquiry
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 ea&
day of it. The reports were 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;aid he should vote for the motion simply
on the ground that it was absurd, and indeed indecent, to 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 Houle that the rule which
empowered any Member to notice the presence of strangers
in 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 37
Against it
Majority —47
CUSTOMS' FRAUDS.
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
exminaticn of the evidence, in order to see 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
,tu inquire into the Customs' frauds were
preparing their opinions on the subject, and as FOOD as these
were laid before the Treasury, the_ Deformation would be laid
before the House.—The motion was then agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. TIIORNELY, the following Mein-
ben were appointed as a Select Committee on Public Peti-
tions :—Mr. Thornely, Sir Robert ?lam, Inglis, Earl of
Arundel and Surrey, Lord Courtenay, Viscount Dental),
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. 21
The House having disposed of the other Orders of the Day,
adjourned at a Quarter to One o'Cloak.

CENTRAL CRI VIINAL 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 his letters for
delivery. It never came to hand ; and upon au 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. Wiraiss took some technical objection to the indict-
ment, which being over-ruled by the Court, he said it would
be useless for bins 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.
Tomas Bunnell 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,
Gibbs, 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 most filthy state, and they were, in fact, unable to do any
duty on board; and, on the arrival of the 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 lett 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 pub-
mitted that the evidence showed that the Statute had been
infringed, and that the defendant must be convicted upon
the present indictment.
Mr. Justice CRESSWEIL having summed up, the jury re-
turned a verdict of Guilty, but at the same time strongly re-
commended the defendant to mercy.
Mr. Justice CRESSWEIL, 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, be
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 fine of 51. to the Queen.
The fine was immediately paid, and the defendant was then
discharged from custody.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
TATTERSALL'S--YEsTERDAY.
CHESTER CUP.
15 to 1 agst Mr. Collett's Cattonite
15 to 1 agst Mr. W. Dawson's Merry Andrew
15 to 1 agst Mr. Sharratt's The Prior—taken
15 to 1 agst Mr. T. A. Milbank's Sir Robert-16 to 1 t.
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. Plutnmer'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 I agst Alice Hawthorn and Nutwith=—ba4sn
Although the three principal favourites stand at tlit-satne
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 1
10 to 1 agst Col. Peel's lot
11 to 2 agst Mr. John Day's The Ugly Buck—take 6 to 1
8 to 1 agst Mr. Crockford's Rattan
16 to 1 agst Mr. Lichtwald's Leander
16 to 1 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—taken
25 to 1 agst Mr. Bowes's T'Auld Squire
33 to 1 agst Mr. Watts's Voltri
33 to 1 agst Col. Peel's lonian—taken
40 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Vat colt—taken
• 50 to 1 agst Sir R. Bulkeley's Bebington
50 to 1 agst Mr. J. Osborne's Mount Charles
100 to 1 agst Col. Peel's Zenobia—taken
5 to 1 agst Scott's lot and Mount 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 favourites,
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 oft
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; 1,000 to 20 agst Mount Charles, 2,000 to'
35 agst Bebington, 2,000 to 20 agst Zenobia, and 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' hunters were ld Yes,ta:
day, by Messrs. Tattersall, at the following pTisoses:
(
250 gs; Fidget, 240 gs ; Brandy, 24.4's I"l"siti7sgglsal,elll;.
bler, 140 gs; Ishmael, 60gs ; gs ;
720; Councillor, 62gs ; t Railroad, hunters,
Father Mathew ant
and Peacock, 49,7
Captain Sergeant's
an
were also sold, the first for 96g d ttother for 65gs.

MR. CIIRTSTOPHER.--It IS thought that Mr. Chris-
topher, in his urgent letter to the Lincolnshire land-
.holden3 and monopolists a .few days ago, forgot to renew
his hint about " dikking" the Anti-Corh-law Leaguers.
What a pity l—frorn corosponclent.