trograde movement necessary; the first we had made in India. Our authority with native states was affected; some, Nepaul, Bundelkund, Gwalior, each having an army of 30,000 men, manifested a disposition to shake off our yoke; the whole country was looking to the issue, our supremacy was thought to be drawing to an end. The Ameers evasively placed restrictions on the navigation of the Indus, and showed designs of returning to the old system. There was moral evidence of their treachery, not such perhaps as would satisfy an English court of justice, but such as must be acted on in India unless our power is to be endangered. Under these circumstances, no other course was open to the Indian Government but that which had been taken.

Sir Charles Napier's conduct he should have to speak of on a future day:-"I shall only say, on this occasion, that if he had taken the advice that was offered him,-if he had trusted the Ameers, as the noble Lord recommends; if he had separated himself from his army, that army which was led to victory alone by the unparalleled circumstances in which it was placed, in having at its head a man who not only set them the example of personal courage and physical energy, but of profound military and political skill, as well as of devoted fidelity to his country;-if, Sir, he had acted otherwise than he has done, not one of them would have escaped." The immediate restoration of the Ameers to liberty would be incompatible with the peace of India. The ultimate form of Government for Scinde was still a matter of consideration. But in the mean time 24,000l. a year was to be

expended for the service of the captive Ameers: no parsimony would prevent reasonable indulgences-and it was in contemplation to remove them to a more distant part of India, where less restraint would be necessary.

Lord John Russell agreed that it would be difficult to affirm this motion. He could not undertake the responsibility of giving a vote which might involve consequences so dangerous to the peace of Scinde. Still the suddenness of these Indian events, and the height from which the Ameers had fallen, entitled them to every possible indulgence. As to the policy of Lord Ellenborough, the papers had been too recently printed to have given him an opportunity of forming a mature opinion; but confidence in Lord Ellenborough had certainly been somewhat shaken by that nobleman's own changes of opinion on the subject of the territorial limits of India. Two things, however, he would say, that Sir C. Napier could not have acted otherwise than he did; and that he must question the opinions thrown out by Sir R. Peel on the subject of the law of nations. He could understand an extreme case, which might justify such a course as Lord Ellenborough had taken with respect to Scinde; but he could not accede to the notion of invading a country for the sake either of improving its Government or of advancing the march of civilization.

Sir R. Peel explained his meaning to be simply that there were Indian cases in which the European rules of international law would not apply. That could have been the only ground of Lord Auckland's measures.

Mr. Hume said he would vote for the motion, though he should have liked it better if it had gone further. He condemned the seizure of Scinde as utterly discreditable to the British character.

Mr. V. Smith was glad to see the general sympathy of the House for those unfortunate princes. He was endeavouring to proceed, but was silenced by the universal impatience of the House.

Lord Ashley replied, and the House divided

Against the motion, 202; for it, 68: majority against it, 134.

On the 12th February, motions were brought forward in both Houses for the thanks of Parliament to Sir Charles Napier and the army employed in the operations of Scinde. The vote was proposed by the Earl of Ripon in the Upper House. The Noble Lord introduced his motion by a statement of some of the principal fea tures of the campaign.

"In the early part of last year, when Sir Charles Napier.held the command of the British forces in Seinde, he was called on by the Governor-General to aid in furthering certain negotiations with the Ameers. He received information that while the Ameers were treating, they were busily engaged in collecting troops; and to hasten the negotiations to a satisfactory issue, Sir Charles moved forward from Sukkur upon Khyrpore. The Ameers had retired from that place into the desert; believing that there they should be safe. To refute them, the General advanced and captured the fort of Emaum Ghur. Thence he proceeded towards Hyderabad, the capital of Scinde; but waited for some days at Killaunee. While he was there, on the 15th FebruVOL. LXXXVI.

ary, occurred the attack on Major Outram's residency, between Hyderabad and the Indus. With a handful of troops, Major Outram defended the residency against the attack of 8,000 undisciplined but courageous and determined Beloochees; and eventually he escaped with the loss of only ten or twelve men. Sir Charles Napier now felt it necessary to make a more determined adyance. With a force not exceeding 2,800 men, [in fact it did not much, if at all, exceed 2,000,] he encountered the enemy, 22,000 [or rather 25,000] strong, at Meeanee; the Beloochee army being protected in front by a deep watercourse, on either flank by a jungle, and on the right by a village.

After a desperate resistance, the position of the enemy was stormed, with great loss on their side, little on ours; and a quantity of military stores fell to the share of the victors. The Ameer of Khyrpore had still a reserve of troops, which was reinforced by the fugitives from Meeanee; making in all 20,000. Sir Charles Napier, having effected a junction which increased his force to 5,000, went forward in two days to attack this new army, near Hyderabad. The Ameer was entrenched behind two nullahs, or dry ditches, with ramparts behind to protect his rear. With brilliant gallantry, the British attacked, first the right, and then, almost simultaneously, the other flank. Our loss in the two victories was about 500 men; and several officers of distinction in the Indian army were slain; attesting the desperate valour with which the enemy fought. Of the conduct of the British non-commissioned officers and men it was almost needless to speak-it was known with what spirit and un[D]

broken discipline they fought. The Native troops of the East India Company displayed the courage and admirable discipline for which they were distinguished. He moved that the thanks of the House be given to LieutenantGeneral Sir Charles Napier, for the skill and gallantry with which the military operations in Scinde were carried on, and for the decisive victories with which they were crowned; and that the thanks of the House be also given to the several officers of the army serving under Sir Charles Napier for their gallantry, zeal, and meritorious conduct; and that similar thanks be given to the non-commissioned officers and privates of the army, both Native and British."

The Earl of Auckland seconded the motion, declaring that, more splendid victories had never been achieved in India, not even excepting Plassey and Assaye.

The Duke of Wellington, in the strongest terms, complimented Sir Charles Napier. He never knew an instance in which a general officer showed in a higher degree all the qualifications which were necessary for enabling him to conduct great operations. The march to Emaum Ghur was one of the most curious military feats which he had ever known to be performed, or had ever perused an account of, in his life. The Duke also mentioned with warm approval the act of a British officer, who, in the hot season, rode forty miles and back again, to obtain fresh orders from Sir Charles Napier at a difficult juncture; a proof of the general confidence in Sir Charles Napier, and of the unbounded zeal of his of ficers.

The motion was agreed to unanimously.

Sir Robert Peel made a similar motion in the House of Commons. With the policy of the war, he said, the motion had nothing to do. Sir Charles Napier acted from instructions of the GovernorGeneral; and for that policy the civil power in India, and not Sir Charles Napier, was entirely responsible. He sketched the course of military operations in Scinde; remarking that the victory, both at Meeanee and at Hyderabad, was mainly to be ascribed to the example set by the personal intrepidity of the leader. It was most fortunate that, at such a crisis, the command of the British army should be committed to one of three brothers who had grafted on the stem of an ancient and honourable lineage that personal nobility which is derived from unblemished private character, high honour, and repeated proofs of valour in the field. "Sir, each of these three brothers learnt the art of war under an illustrious commander, during the whole of those memorable campaigns of which one of them has been the faithful, impartial, and eloquent historian. The exploits of those three brothers during the whole of those campaigns entitle them to the gratitude of their country. In almost every action of the Peninsular war they gave proofs of their military skill and valour. In the actions of Corunna, of Busaco, of Ciudad Rodrigo, and during the operations of the Pyrenees, they proved that there was no British officer more prodigal of his blood in the cause of his country than was each of those brothers. In the page which records a recent naval action, emulating in the ac

complishment of victory by most inadequate means the glories of St. Vincent-a victory by the moral effect of which a dynasty has been changed-we find that the name of the commander is "Napier." Even in a more circumscribed sphere of action, when last year it became important to vindicate the law before a misguided multitude, the man who at the head of six constables attacked hundreds of people, and made more prisoners than the numbers of his own men, also bore the name of " Napier." The motto on the family shield, "Ready, aye ready," was the characteristic of their conduct. When Sir Charles Napier was called upon to take the command of the British army in Scinde, he had attained the age of sixty-two, with a body shattered in the service of his country; but his unwearied spirit, controlled by military skill, inspired unparalleled confidence in those whom he commanded. "The actions which have been performed by members of the family of Napier may appear to the pusillanimous to be fool-hardy-to the superficial, the result of lucky accident; but, how ever desperate they may appear to have been, they have been undertaken, and the difficulties surmounted, by a combination of such skill, experience, and personal valour, that however desperate such actions may appear when undertaken by ordinary minds, they are reconcileable with the coolest cal culations of prudence when conducted by such men as Sir Charles Napier." To show that Sir Charles had not needlessly entered into hostile operations, Šir Robert Peel referred to the blended pretence of friendship and treacherous violence which Sir John Keane experienced

in Scinde in 1839, when it was necessary to crush the Ameers by determined measures; the difference being, that instead of eight or ten thousand men under his command, Sir Charles Napier had but two thousand five hundred. For the moral courage with which he determined to act in opposition to the advice of Major Outram, who counselled him not to advance, he was pre-eminently entitled to praise. For the heroes who had fallen, no epitaph could be more honourable than the mention made of them in Sir Charles Napier's despatches.

Lord John Russell seconded the motion, applauding the moral courage which Sir Charles Napier had exhibited, and congratulating the country on the more than youthful vigour which in his advanced years that officer had displayed.

Lord Howick expressed much regret at being compelled to interfere with the unanimity of the House. It was, however, impossible to forget that Sir Charles Napier was not General only; but that every step that was taken against the Ameers, was virtually taken and determined on by him, to whom the Governor-General had delegated authority in the matter. He agreed with Sir Robert Peel, that had Sir Charles Napier followed the advice of Major Outram, the most disastrous consequences must have ensued; but, from a careful consideration of the papers, he could not help coming to the conclusion that it was the arbitrary way in which the Princes were treated, after Sir Charles Napier took the management of affairs in Scinde, that led to the battle of Meeanee. In a speech recently published by Mr. Eastwick, there appeared strong

ground for considering that "Sir Charles Napier's ignorance of the language, and his want of sympathy with the Ameers, was the main cause of the evil result of his negotiations." Not being more conversant with the affairs of the East, Lord Howick felt unequal to pronounce an opinion upon the question before the House; and for that reason he could not agree to the motion. He illustrated his objection by a reference to the past. Mr. Huskisson and his colleagues opposed a vote of thanks to Sir Edward Codrington and the officers engaged at Navarino, because that battle originated in an "accident;" and to give thanks would cherish too easy a disposition to create such accidents, which might lead to disastrous consequences. Thanks were withheld from the Duke of Wellington for the victory of Toulouse, because the war had already terminated, although the Generals on either side were not aware of the fact. But in the present instance, as admitted by Sir Charles Napier, war had not even been declared. It was the more necessary to watch that infringement of rule, since Sir Robert Peel's avowal of the "uncontrollable principle" at work, which caused civilized states to absorb barbarous states; a principle which might induce France to extend her dominion on the northern coast of Africa, and one which must be strongly protested against. Brilliant as were the victories of Hyderabad, he regarded them as stained by needless bloodshed. He knew that the sense of the House was against him, and therefore he should not propose any amendment; but having discharged his conscience from any participation in the vote, should

leave the matter in the hands of the House.

Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Hawes, and Mr. Charles Wood, concurred in the view taken by Lord Howick. The motion was also opposed by Mr. Mangles, who charged the conduct pursued towards the Ameers with inconsistency and harshness. It was supported by Sir Henry Hardinge, Sir Howard Douglas, and Mr. Bingham Baring.

Commodore Charles Napier, in his own blunt and amusing manner, supported the motion, with some anecdotes of General Sir Charles Napier's exploits in times past.

"The number of bayonets which Sir Charles Napier mustered at Meeanee was really only 1,700, while he had reason to know that the enemy counted not fewer than 30,000. The only wonder was, that the British force had not been driven into the Indus. The General praised the manner in which the officers rallied the men: he never said that he was the man who rallied the Sepoys when their ranks were broken. The nullah at Hyderabad was forty feet wide and seventeen feet deep: Sir Charles Napier, mounted on his horse Red Rover, was the second to ascend the bank. It was inconceivable how it could have been done. The excitement in the men carried their very horses through, and their exertions went even beyond hunting in Leicestershire. Had Sir Charles Napier waited twenty hours longer, he would have been surrounded by fifty or sixty thousand men; for one of the Ameers admitted that on the evening after the battle there were twelve thousand fresh troops in Hyderabad. The case was not at all to be compared to that of Navarino, which was rightly