The Press. — London, England, 1856-03-15 00:00:00

regretted 1 Ministe- in proposed provision '1 in no of stated powers bill were that He ; of in. and un- any reasonably managed bo /as one that ied, to itro- counties There ' the be of founded. of ler force coun estab- expenses :ith measure Ivasion le a )bett, and THE PRESS. 1854-55," entered into a lengthened explanation of his conduct while in command of the fleet during the former year. The gallant admiral first alluded to the circumstances connected with his appointment., and asserted that he was sent into the Baltic with an ill-manned, inefficient fleet, without pilots, without charts, and with contradi c t or y or d ers from the Board of Admiralty, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the First Lord of the Admiralty. Quoting largely from the correspondence which passed between him and Sir James Graham, and drawing attention to the frequent cautions from that right hon. baronet against " rash mea sures," against " the madness of rushing head long against granite walls," and generally commend ing the prudence the gallant admiral had shown, Sir Charles Napier read passages from his own let ters to prove that after a careful survey and due consideration on the 18th of July, he proposed the fitting out a squadron of gun and mortar boats, as the only effectual means of destroying Sweaborg, to which Sir J. Graham replied, " that with 50,000 mPn and 200 gun-boats he might do something." On the 22nd ofJuly, atter his visit to Cronstadt, he sent home a plan for attacking the place. The Admiralty re plied that they had confidence in his judgment; they were aware that he had offered battle to the enemy, but it would be of no avail to attack an im pregnable fortress ; that he must bear in mind that the great object was to render the Russian fleet use less. Then came the affair of Boniarsund, and the reported capture of Sebastopol. Upon which out came orders to attack Sweaborg ; and this was the origin of the difference between him and the Admi ralty. Hitherto the Admiralty had been all caution. The moment the famous Tatar arrived with news of the capture of Sebastopol, they urged an immediate attack on Sweaborg. Directly the truth about Sebas topol was known, they telegraphed to him "on no account to attack Sweaborg, but to send the big ships home." Then, when the people at home cried out about the little the fleet had done, the Admi ralty insisted that he might have attacked Abo or Sweaborg successfully with the means at his command, purposely misquoted a passage in Gene ral Nielt's report to support this view, wilfully misinterpreted the gallant admiral's own report, and finally censured and then dismissed him from his command. The gallant admiral concluded by claim ing, as a matter of justice, that a committee should be appointed to investigate the subject and pronounce sentence upon his conduct. Admiral WALCOT, though not wholly approving of the motion, was willing to second it. Sir CHARLES WOOD entirely disapproved of the motion. It was unprecedented and mischievous. It was a question upon which the house ought not to be called on to interfere. It would be inconsistent with the good of the service ; and he contended that Sir Charles Napier had not shown the slightest ground for appealing to the house from the judg ment of his superior officers—the Board of Ad miralty. Sir J. GRAHAM rejoiced to have at length the op portunity of meeting Admiral Napier face to face and replying to charges which had been so long promul gated and so often repeated in other forms and places. Remarking upon the heavy accusations piled up against himself, Sir J. Graham charged Admiral Napier with making an unwarrantable use of official correspondence, public and private, observing that the documents were not merely quoted in the speech just delivered, but had been long before shown to miscellaneous acquaintances, and left for weeks together in the hands of the editor of a newspaper. On one charge, preferred in a published letter, that the Admiralty were not sincere in 1854, or serious in 1855, in wishing to cripple Russia, he was ready to join issue before any tribunal that could he appointed to try the question. He denied that he had sponta neously offered the command of the fleet to Sir C. Napier. Sir Charles Napier had applied for it, and urged various reasons why it should be conferred upon him. He (Sir James Graham) had hesitated long before he recommended the appointment of the gallant admiral—particularly on the score of advanced age—as the gallant admiral had himself expressed very decided opinions about the unfitness of admirals above sixty years of age. Respecting the condition of the fleet, Sir James replied to the allegations made against the manning of the ships and their fitness to go into action ; and he accused Sir Charles of charging several captains, high on the list, with being unfit for command, and proposing to send them home with dis grace, though he would not be so ungenerous, he said, as to produce Sir Charles' confidential letters on th e sub ject. Proceeding to the question regarding Sweaborg, Sir James stated that the whole difference between Sir Charles and the Admiralty was attributable to the neglect of the former, who, on the 30th of May, wrote that Sweaborg was unattackable by land or sea, but did not make a personal reconnaissance of the place until so late a period as the 24th of September, General Jones having, after such a reconnaissance, reported to Sir Charles in favour of an attack of the place on the 27th of August. In conclusion, Sir J. '+.'.' 245 Graham said he had been called a friend of Russia, but, if treason was charged against him, the matter ought not to stop there. He, however, defied any one to say that any effort had been omit ted by him to give the utmost possible latitude to naval efforts both in the Baltic and in the Black Sea. Sir M. F. BERKELEY retaliated very severely upon Sir Charles Napier, imputing to him want of nerve, decision, firmness, and di s cretion. Admiral Berkeley also alluded in the most personal and disparaging terms to Sir Charles Napier's conduct at Acre. Captain SCOBELL complained of these personalities, and defended Sir Charles Napier. If Sweahorg could have been taken in 1854, why was it not taken in 1855? After a few words by Mr. MuNTz, Mr. NV. LINDSAY pointed out the inconsistency of Sir M. Berkeley, holding so mean an opinion of Sir Charles Napier's conduct before Acre, in concur ring in his appointment to the command of the Baltic fleet. Mr. MAu's joined in this sentiment, thinking that both Sir J ciraham and Sir M. Berkeley were open to the reproach or appointing an officer to a high command for which they acknowledged they knew at the time he was not fit : It must still be fresh in the memory of many hon. members that a year ago the tight hon. gentleman, though then, as now, First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, came down to that house and surprised them all by declaring that it had been the proudest object of his own ambition to command the Baltic beet; but that he felt it to be a duty to his country to withdraw his own claims in favour of the man who was on all hands admitted to possess the highest qualifications for the post. Surely these were inconsisten cies that required explanation. Sir• James Graham had not explained how he could consistently direct Sir Charles Napier, when the French army and fleet had left, ►o do sittgle•handed at the end of October that which he had admitted th e combined fleets were unequal to undertake in the middle of September. Great injustice had been done to the gallant admiral who had been charged with not making a proper reconnaissance at Sweaborg in May, and with not taking proper measures to destroy that fortress in the autumn of NM. The best answer to that was, that what the gallant admiral was blamed for not effecting in October, 18.54, was not even achieved in the campaign of 185.5. Mr. OSBORNE observed that if Sir Charles bad personally reconnoitred Sweaborg earlier than he did there would have been time to send out gun-boats and mortars for the attack. This was an error in judgment on his part, and he had evinced a want of discretion in ever bringing his case before the public. Sir CHARLES NAPIER replied to Admiral Berkeley's personal attack, and declared upon his word of honour that he bad never told Admiral Stopford not to attack Acre. In bringing forward his motion he had done what he thought proper for the defence of of his character. Not one of his allegations had been answered, either by the ex First Lord, the existing First Lord, the First Naval Lord, or the Secretary cf the Admiralty. He was content to let his case rest on the letters he had brought forward. In conclu sion, the gallant admiral withdrew his motion. PRUSSIA AND THE CONFERENCES. Mr. DISRAELI, on Thursday, said : I wish to ask the noble lord a question &So respecting the Conferences at Paris, the answer to which, how ever, I believe will not violate the rule of which he has very properly reminded the house. The question I desire to put is one of a very important character, referring as it does to the relations between the Court of Berlin and the Conferences of Paris. Will the noble lord be good enough to inform the house whether it be true that Prussia has been invited to attend the Conference, that she has accepted that invitation, and that two distin guished diplomatists, one of whom is a personage not less eminent than the First Minister of Prussia, are about to visit Paris for the purpose of attending the negotiations? (Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON : I am afraid, sir, that I can only give to this question exactly the same answer as I made to the last. ( A laugh.) Mr. Disalaci: I beg permission, sir, to offer a word in explanation. I, of course, do not object to the noble lord refusing to answer my inquiry, but I cannot conceive that his reply to the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Bowyer) at all applies to my question, which was one of a very different character from that of the hon. member. There fore I would request the noble lord entirely to decline giving me any answer, instead of offering me one which in no way refers to the interrogatory which I put to him. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON : I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon, but he asked me whether the members of the Conferences have invited, or are about to invite, Prussia to join in tl e negotiations, and whether the Prirae Minis ter of Prussia is about to go to Paris in order to be 'pre sent at the Conferences. My answer was, that I declined to give any information as to what the Conference aie about to do, and of course it is not competent for me to state whatthe Prussian Prime Minister contemplates doing. (Hear.) THE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE CRIMMAN TARTARS. Lord PALMERSTON, on Thursday, in reply t) Mr. Holland as to what would be the positon of the Crimean Tartars in the event of peace being estab Lished, said : IVIAncH 15, 1856. rott6ings In Vat - Hamad. __- POLICE BILL. ' Sir GEORGE GREY, on Monday, in moving the second reading of this bill, took the opportunity to re• state his reasons for introducing it, as well as tc pcint out the nature of the provisions contained in the bill, and to explain the modifications he proposed to make in it. The right hon. baronet, quoting s vast number of facts relating to the local provision for the police force, and its general inefficiency both in quantity and quality, not only in small boroughs but in larger ones named by him, argued that the inter. vention of the Legislature was urgently required tc secure an effectual provision for life and property Sir George Grey then traced the operation and intii. sated the principle of the bill, submitting that nc undue invasion was contemplated upon the system oi local self-government. Some modificat'on he stated had been made in the measure since its first intro. duction. Among others, the compulsory powers assigned to the Home Secretary under tne bill were not to be made applicable to municipal boroughs. Mr. C. FORSTER moved, as an amendment, that the second reading be deferred for six months. He objected to the principle as well as to the details of the bill. The principle of centralisation was still in- corporated in its provisions—a principle repugnant to the institutions and habits of England. Captain ScosEtr. seconded the amendment, and stigmatised the bill as imperious, tyrannical, and un- English. Sir H. STRACEY supported the bill. Sir G. PECHELL opposed the bill, as it tended tc expand the principle of centralisation. Mr. PACKE defended the bill, which in his opinion neither infringed municipal rights nor contained any clauses of which the boroughs might reasonably complain. Sir J. WILMSLEY thought that, as the Government had yet given no proof that they could manage their own affairs better than the corporations managed theirs, any interference with the rights of the bo- roughs and the principle of local self-government was not justified. The measure was a false step, and one from which the Government should retire. Colonel SMYTH recommended that the bill should be withdrawn and another substituted. Mr. BENTINCK suggested, as an improvement, that a minimum number of policemen should be named, founded upon the number of inhabitants in the re- spective districts. Mr. W. J. Fox joined in the recommendation to the Home Secretary to withdraw the bill and intro- duce another, confining its operation to counties. It was admitted on all bands that the police in counties stood in need of improvement and extension. There was no evidence of dissatisfaction as regarded the police of boroughs. Mr. HENLEY insisted that the bill went much be- yond the recommendation of the select committee of 1853, on whose report it was professedly founded. From a comparison of facts, scattered over many years and counties, he inferred that the condition of districts wh e r e there was no rural police was rather better than that of other districts in which the force had been established, with respect to the visible amount of crime. The advantage being so doubtful, be did not see why it should be forced down the throats of a reluctant community. Sir W. HEATHCOTE believed that the changes to be effected by the bill had been much exaggerated. The only alteration contemplated, even in the coun- ties, amounted to little more than the general estab- lishment of a rural police, under the inspection of the Government, in return for which part of the expenses was to be defrayed from the public exchequer. With regard to the boroughs, the operation of the measure would be of still slighter character. He supported the bill. it Mr. J. B. SMITH could not agree with the second reading. The measure was a direct assault upon the principle of self-government, and he deeply regretted that it should have proceeded from his (the Ministe- rial) side of the house. Mr. RICE maintained that there was no invasion attempted in th e bill o f t h e r i g h ts or lib ert i es o f t h e boroughs. Borough members were frightened at a shadow. Mr. Deedes, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Cobbett, and Mr. Knight oppo se d the bill; Mr. Cayley and Mr. Warner supported the second reading. Sir GEORGE GREY, in reference to the suggestion that the measure should be withdrawn, stated that he could not take that course. On a division, the numbers were— For the second reading 259 Against it lO6 Majority for the second reading . • 153 THE BALTIC FLEET. Sir CHARLES N APIER , on Th urs d ay, i n mov i ng " fur a select committee to inquire into the opera- ti °us of the British fleet in the Baltic, in the years ---".- 4. , w