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

guilt would fall on their heads. But at all events, if that
were not so, of this he was pursuaded, that even if the past
were beyond our power, the future in a certain degree wa,
within our control, and by withholding that vote of thanks, he
believed that it was in their power to read a great and useful
moral lesson to those NNlte in future should have command
over our fleets and armies, and those in whose hands were

placed— the destinies of India.—( Hear, hear.) These were
the views, and these were the sentiments—not, he could as-
sure them, lately adopted, not willingly obtruded on the
House, for he had felt his task a most painful one—but those
were the views, and those were the opinions, which had
led him to conclude that the vote of thanks proposed
that night ought not to be assented to by the House.
He confessed that it had been with great hesitation that he had
made up his mind to abstain from taking that course which
in the first instance he had been disposed to do, namely, that
of following the precedent set by Mr. Huskinson—moving the
previous question, and taking the sense of the House on the
motion. This was what he had been strongly inclined to do,
and if he had anticipated the remotest hope of the House going
with him in this amendment he undoubtedly would have
moved it. But as he knew that such was not the feeling of the
House—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—he was perfectly well
aware that such was not the feeling of the House, but he had
not been deterred by that consideration from doing what he
believed to be his duty. But having every reason to believe
that this was not the feeling of the House, he did not wish to
provoke discussion upon a question upon which it would be
invidious to divide.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted that he had
sufficiently discharged his own conscience—he trusted he had
sufficiently performed that duty which he felt to be incumbent
upon him, by thus fully stating his opinion to the House, and,
having done so, he would leave the matter in their hands with-
out proposing any amendment.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. VERNON SMITH said, he did not rise for the pur-
pose of adding his humble testimony to the gallantry of Sir
Charles Napier. That was obvious to the commonest under-
standing. He, however, could not entirely agree with the
motion before the House. He agreed with his Noble Friend in
what he had stated, and he fully coincided with the Noble Lord
in saying that his duty had been a most painful one. He (Mr.
Smith) was fearful that the brilliancy of Sir Charles Napier's
achievemcn's ha i el .zzled the House, and had made them blind
to his diplomatic conduct in this matter. The Right Hon.
Gentleman, in introducing this motion, had himself alluded to
the diplomatic character of Sir Charles Napier, and he had not
defended it. He (Mr. Smith) could not but express his regret
at the detestable doctrine which was laid down by the Right
flon. Gentleman the other evening, considering the state of
the Punjaub, the approaching anarchy of all our relations in
India, and the disposition of the Governor-General himself,
who was ever willing to proceed without regard to consequences
in any war. He (Mr. Smith) was unacquainted with Major
Out-ram; but he had no scruple in saying that justice had not
been !one to that officer. He would take three instances in
which he felt that Major Outram had been treated r.ith injustice.
The first was in what his Noble Friend, the other night,
termed the foot-notes to the papers upon the subject. He
believed this was the first instance in which such notes had
been introduced, and he deeply mistook the character of Sir
Charles Napier—for generosity always accompanied bravery—
if that Gallant Officer had authorised the publication of those
notes. His next instance was the publication of an inclosure
in a letter of Sir Charles Napier. In the same letter Sir Chas.
Napier requested the Government to burn the inclosure, or at
least to re-word it ; and yet that inclosure had been published
to the country without being rewarded in any way whatever.
The conclusion to which he should come, upon reading those
three letters, was that Major Outram had not been dealt fairly
with. Had Major Outram been a civil officer the course pur-
sued toward him would have been quite different. Although
the action at Hjderabad might have been very glorious, yet he
knew few things which showed more gallantry than the de-;_
fence of his own regiment.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. V.
Smith) thought that there could not be a higher testimony
borne to the merits of any man than that which Sir Charles
Napier bore to Major Outram upon the subject of his work
upon fortification. It was true that Sir Charles Napier had
risked his own life; but he also risked those of his men. Major
Outram's course was to preserve peace, without, at the same
time, the slightest relation to the preservation of his own life.
That Gallant Officer's instructions were of an extremely limited
nature, and he (Mr. Smith) thought he acted as any spirited
man would in refusing to accede to them to the letter.

Sir HENRY H ARDINGE rose and said—Sir, although I
differ from the Right Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down,
yet, as the Noble Lord has announced his intention of not di-
viding the House upon this question, I shall not occupy your
attention for a long period of time, yet I must say the speech
of the Right lion. Gentleman, and that of the Noble Lord,
do not at all justify the attack which has been just now made
upon Sir Charles Napier—( Hear, hear)—and I ask, in confir-
mation of my opinion, had not many of the Ameers joined in
the intrigue alluded to by the Noble Lord, and taken a promi-
nent and evident part a gainst Sir Charles Napier ? I might
cite many cases where, although there has been no dis-
tinct declaration of war, yet in which the commander of an
army was perfectly justified in attacking the, enemy. The
Hon. Gentleman may say that Sir Charles Napier was wrong
and Major Outram right, but I think that, if there is one sub-
ject more than another in which Sir Charles Napier
displayed high moral courage, decision of character, and dis-
cretion, it was in the attack upon the enemy to which the
lion. Gentlemen alluded. The Noble Lord has said, that
he made his statement with great pain, and for this statement
I am willing to give him the greatest credit, because I believe
him to be most sincere in his convictions and conduct, yet I
must say, that if there be one thing more than another, which
shows valour combined with discretion, it is the conduct of
Sir Charles Napier. During many years of my life, I had
the honour and pleasure of serving with him during the Penin-
sular war,-1 have watched his career, and Ido sincerely be-
lieve that a better soldier does not exist than he. With respect
to the military exploits of that gallant General, in hisdirection of
the army in Sinde, I must say the same as I have done upon a
former occasion, that for the greatness of mind, the determination
and success evinced by the course he pursued, that I shall fear-
lessly appeal to every officer and soldier in the Sindian army,
and I feel conscious that they will attribute to him a master-
mind, and I am also convinced that if his life had been sacrificed
the batle would have been lost. I think, Sir, there are few things
that could afford a stronger proof of the merits of a man than
this. I feel assured that, although Sir Charles Napier may be
now sixty-two years of age, and has already received many
and serious wounds in the service of his country, yet that his
spirit and energy are able to accomplish what would be too much
for many a younger man.—( Hear.) When he first found itne-
cssary to attack the Ameers he displayed all that energy which was
necessary, and which in the greater number of cases could
alone be expected from a young man. And again, when I
find him in that undertaking, displaying all that judgment and
experience- so peculiar to him in taking the step he did, when
he found the conduct of the Ameers to be such as to render it
unsafe tor him to remain longer, I must most certainly and
decidedly dissent from the opinions expressed by the Honour-
able Gentleman opposite. But I need not confine myself to
one point in Sir Charles Napier's life; in every instance where
he has been before the public he earned the same honourable
fame. Look at the affair at Hyderabad, when the order of the
day was no quarter on the part of the enemy. Sir C. Napier's
conduct upon that occasion was such as to display the talents of
a great General, combined with the highest sense of humanity.
For this reason, I think that, having the safety of the army in
his hands, the fact of his deciding against the opinion of Major
Outram, was one of the brightest actions of his life.—( Hear,
hear.) The two cases were very different. At Hyderabad he
had received reinforcements which raised his army to nearly
5,5;00 men; this encouraged him to adopt the course which he
had done so successfully, and I do think that the brilliant mea-
sure he then adopted, is such as, under all the circumstances of
the case, to entitle him to the esteem of every high-minded and
honourable man in the kingdom.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
I can scarcely conceive a position which was attended with
more difficulties than that in which Sir C. Napier was placed,
and I don't know one man in whose hands the honour of the
British army could be more safely entrusted than in those
of Sir C. Napier.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. MANGLES said he should detain the House as short
a time as possible. He thought there were no such de-
mands made by Lord Ellenborough as those which, on the
part of Sir Charles Napier, led to the war, which he con-
sidered was merely a political measure.—( Loud cheers.)
The papers offered the fullest proof that that was the case. In
page 503 of the first blue book they had Major Outram's ac-
count of the conference that had taken place. The Arneer said
he objected to the new treaty proposed, but still that he would
subscribe to the treaty on the condition that Meer Roostum
Khan were stored to his rights. The Commivioner said that
Rooitum Khan had resigned the durbar of his own free will.
On the following day they ( the Ameers) merely protested against
the demand cif the. Governor General ; and then a long discussion
ensued about Meer Roostum's affairs much the same ashad taken
place on former occasions. ( The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded
to read several passages from the blue book in support of his
position, and went on to contend that Sir C. Napier's own cor-
respondence supported his views on the matter.) On the 18th
of Dec. Sir C. Napier said to Roostum that personally he
( Roostum Khan) was the friend of England, but
that he was helpless among his own family, and
he told him to listen to the advice of Ali Monrad;
_ .

and in the letter at page 418, he (Sir C. Napier) wrote to
Lord Ellenborough that Roostum could do nothing, and he did
not like that, as it would embarrass him very much. Now, he
(Mr. Mangles) could not see how that could have embarrassed
the Gallant General, if he meant to pursue a peaceable
course. At page 483, in writing to the Governor-General, he
said that the conviction opened upon him, that the system
which appeared to him as the only one to follow was to take the
chief power, that the next step was to secure the
exercise of that power for his (Roostum Khan's) brother, and
that if he succeeded in doing that, that he would persuade
Roostum to place himself in Ali Mourad's hands. From that
passage and others it appeared that he (Sir G. Napier) had
persuaded the old man to trust himself in his brother's hands,
and thereby extorted from him the resignation of the Sove-
reignty. There were other passages equally clear in which Sir C.
Napier formallydenied that he had persuaded the:old man to resign
into his brother's hands.—(The Hon. Gentleman here read the
the passage. Until that apparent inconsistency was cleared up,
he (Mr. Mangles) must state, for h►s own part, that he never
would consent to a vote of thanks to Sir C. Napier. He was
also strengthened in that purpose by the equally irreconcilable
statements respecting Roostum Khan's flight from his
brother. At pages 485, alluding to that flight, Sir
C. Napier wrote that Meer Roostum was a timid man,
and had fled from his brother, from an apprehension that he
(Sir C. Napier) wished to make him a prisoner ; and again, at
page 495, he wrote to the Governor-General—(the letter was
dated the 7th January)—that he had run away because Ali
Maurad had induced him to do so; and yet, in a proclamation,
dated Ist January, which the Gallant General had issued to
the Ameers and people of Sinde, on the occasion of the flight of
Roostum, he stated that he had that night heard that Meer
Rookum had solemnly given up the durbar to his brother,
Ali Alourad. Now he (Mr. Mangles) said, with great reluc-
tance certainly, but still it was the case—that those statements
appeared to him impossible to reconcile. He believed that the
Ameers would have submittedquietly and peaceably,not willingly
certainly, but under the pressure of our superior force, they
would have submitted quietly to all we had demanded of them,
on their own account, had peaceable means been adopted for
that end. But as the conduct of Sir Charles Napier towards
them had brought matters into such a state as that they
could not be managed without cutting the knot with the
sword, he would not be a party to passing him a vote of
thanks.
Sir H. DOUGLAS said that, after the splendid speech of
the Right Hon. Baronet in proposing the vote of thanks to
Sir C. Napier, and after the concurrence of the Noble Lord
the Member for London in that motion, he would not be jus-
tified in trespassing on the time of the House at any length,
but as he was well acquainted with Sir C. Napier, and had
important professional relations with him, he hoped the House
would give him its attention while he made a few observations.
—( Hear, hear.) He was glad the Noble Lord the Member
for Sunderland did not mean to divide the House on the sub-
ject, but be much regretted the observations which he made, as
they_ would be likely to deprive, in the eyes of that distin-
guished officer, the subject of the present motion, the vale
which an unanimous vote would otherwise have. The Noble
Lord admitted that if Sir Charles Napier had not acted as he
had done another serious disaster would have befallen the Bri-
tish arms. The Noble Lard alluded to the circumstances
which had brought affairs into that position in which Sir C.
Napier had found them ; but that Gallant Officer had nothing
whatever to do with them. He found an annotation made by
Sir C. Napier on the 17th of October, in which he said that it
was not for him to consider how they came to occupy Sinde—
he had only to consider the position in which they now stood.
It seemed to him that some Hon. Members misunderstood the
the nature of the treaty of Hyderabad. That treaty was made
on the bth of February, 1839, and was ratified on the llth of
March, 1839, by Lord Auckland, but not till the month of