The Sun. — London, England, 1855-03-09 00:00:00

am. env . ; daY I - . - ; 32 31 "" E 5 iO I`~ gi 10Si fi r Si 31 16 15i ... ... iii i' ' I 3 5 59 5 ~.P 2 11 1 0 . SO 2,61 ( rOTC 44 1 s" , ice ref' . 1 te° of 10 0 bl ltl oe c, e o 0 ' e o t P i s r ll ' of eei t ri•or"t' ,o ' 1) `•rog l • roc' ) 01 te i for n t ie; X , • ,lov i , r lf Pe : C' 0 0 1 er , 31001 e I.ol° s l P 4 l ' l , , ''eg - • 0 a o r pu tl • l i t ° egoile t e 51)' e, t , A o j )" ' the vi be in to 0 le' „ 0 1 4e v it' ve e fig the ers P r c bes e ip eo wig r ty boder led' ' fl s of thet,„t ll o 4 3 1.! oc,; (tar cp the l je l , 01 0. ,lePTb v dov . ; 3 o c . e s °r 6 e j e ll d 5,0 of e for •pi 97 y 99 ris I of , s t „ l eo' rei4r,l THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 9 1855, IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. "U SE OP COMMONS—YESTERDAY. it L •4. B ULLER prese n t e d a p e titi on f rom a p l ace et to Peashire, praying for the repeal of the newspaper P. SERJEANTS. me Grie NORTH wished to inquire if the Govern er,. woleld reconsider their decision not to allow those th e of of regiments of militia who are pensioners from re e e e"qa„ Y, and who have volunteered to accompaey their le; • i' e tt upon foreign service, to count that foreign kre.,t,owards increase of pension. th'EEL said the Government could not assent to 'Proposal of the honourable And gallant colonel. k r a S ICK LIST IN THE CAMP. tepy LtIEAMLEY-MOORE asked the Under-Secre 44;at W ar, if any• order had been issued from the te e " 'name to the army in the Crimea, stating that they most be on the sick list fourteen days before etist e ln e aY be removed from camp ; or if any such order k r e in th e caw_ p , and by whose authority ? . 13 EEL was quite ignorant of such an order. e„. SHERBURN HOSPITAL. for the tr°-(:)WRRA.Y asked the Secretary of . State eb.".'e Department whether it was the intention f of tierb °'"Y Commissioners to propose a nee scheme for fe e ,c,tiaje Hospital, in tee county of Du:qrs.:el ; and, to i . ward, the any, a n d wh a t, pi-egress had, been rnar 0 w ard s approval of such scheme; the mastership f tse,r'hPltl having been vacant more than a year, nearly f2, !!"ta r e' v log elapsed since au Inquiry by the i comm "ea, al'asect Ts, and vacancies having, in tie mean - ''leae?l'eurred among the recipients of the charity, 4 It h ad 4 e , been imposs,ble ta fill up ? 41 41 * ‘ - *REY said a new scheme ad been prepared, " 4 1(1 b e shortly promulgated in h due frm. 04, THE NEWSPAPER STAMP. " °ll fri . a'Wek-N.—l wish to put a question to my right Nit„,7°( l the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Great in ters-"'eneis felt throughout the country among 114 ctr,, Publishers, and newspaper proprietors from the , t ,'lste, a ,,'"Y which prevails as to the bill before the Muse "hi t° the newspaper stamp. I wish to ask my ke it ;°°. friend when it is the intention of the Govern % " c) Proceed with that bill—(hear)—and if he will a, d ge that it shall be taken the first of the orders of tra t k li as it is a matter which will probably lead to a Th u of of discussion! e t ,a t' t e'IIitNCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—The Efir e ukl at whiCh I have commenced the duties of `ira ° e -ee of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will render 'lla rclBs ible for ru to proceed with that bill to-morrow. till t:es ll - °t bad time to make myself . master of theiffi- tieeTJeet which is involved in it. With the permission t ' ll Fs," l4B e, I will move the postponement of the order r tte t. l next week, and then I shall be prepared to 1k collage which I intend to pursue. t• eee,— understood that the Government jtsi i . V4 Fraley kto the right hon. member for L'h, t "'„eh to forty rd his notice on the subject of educe 7,tee et.would suggest that Monday next be appointed eLaierigaoeellor of the Exchequer. The ~' " ALM ERSTON.—Of course the engagement Nar, e , wi the right hon. b a ro ne t th e mem b er f or 'k'cor andth my right hon. friend the Ohancellor of • .0 0 tr uer giv es hi s not i ce cont i ngent on the discus hiebeing Nueation over early enough for him t o statement with regard to the newspaper 1 4 :1 T e. 11180 .N . . —ls it not desirable to fix a day when e"-e l P e aPer Stamp Bill will proceed with certainty ? e 'verYbody is kept in suspense when it is placed tnht ,°tioe likely to occupy the whole night. I,glisia,'-ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—I 1 1 . : 4 tirs - ci e l ° ?e n Friday next . the . day I shall propose to fix )r Ussion. If it is convenient to the right t1 1 , 14 , Y e er e r ,o, I will try to make that statement before 13 f'T:• 11'40 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES. s-eSI''WOOD moved fora select Committee to in tart e - the best means of affording to the nation a fa se t -C1,,u41 Participation in all the advantagcs, whicl ire d - n 'essaril of an ecclesiastical or spiritual clue : in,. 4) e i a - e t be public Y schools and universities of Eng la 'relent], and of improving the educational ;"ia l t - „, e t bose great seats of learning, with a view f Tt i t „ 4 , vei l " their course of instruction in con.cr -141!"e1:44 t he requirements of the public service. °q,, 4 ,,, u niher rem i n d e d th e h ouse o f w h at was d one ;, 4 11 last session, when a vote was passed r• e' ~,e o elissenters to study in private halls ; but Protestant dissenters were entitled : 41 %; °t a cme privilege as the members of the Zer;,;`tellVa d. For that purpose he thought the `fle's ( " 4 ese l 'ltisi n worship used by the house might be 41,4,1R14 -l iatroduced into the Universities, and then ' - , 4l4 tio e it a s tild be open to students of almost every de : tot% tip 4 t might be said that this question would be 11 14 P 91 4 O P the Oxford Commissioners under the new treleete - s e did not think it would while there were ; r e ps enforced in tb.e universities which ought to be k ' ' qtl e ,lia t ,', l " ll ,,t which the Ministers . themselves would nut I kti.ty w‘rirerefepa they might be well f ri a la c d t e v, a as s , ubject for e this committee. The the edu kic!l",ii, 7at the universities had an eye too much to le ri tfir e •"ereas, if it were made more practical aert 4.ebd bet I would be more advantageous for tae coui try. 11'4,4:11 believed inany of the disasters which had I v ., our army Alma, Ilikerman, and Be ' I ce 4 Would have been avoided, if the young men who I k lq e ,cl it bad received a more practical university- n Modern languages and modern science e4tb!eerne quite of as Much import nee as an \ languages and ancient science, and it was ) 41 tial for the int erests of the count r y th a t ti lt lit 41 '`te 4 tll ._a,, c el ! of thaintd e higher cl asses s h ou ld be maden oe with those two b r a nc h es o f euucatio • ' motion wou l d facilitate the attainment of L e et ; it w as couched in precisely the same term: tr, % 41,c,, e , 1 ate Sir R. Peel had used when speaking spur; • j c t ." ° ,f Openin universities and whilst . et k 4t i e no an actof t tardy justice to g a large portion 'e'tl;-et''refitrity there could be no doubt that it would ; tl r mmote education amongstan important class of L e „ !t e e; ll . ' tl e4 t -'l4 seconded the motion, as one who hail exe„,,':" at Eton and Cambridge, and knowinl 'le ''c've l ance the great room there was for tt (I f tr)e t tit In those - great institutions. The Cel li els ; v0, ° . 11 'night be safely thrown open to pis ' s's: r t 'reub m ii 'le the system of education which prevailed dated' l e. ° aohoola might be vastly extended d and im te°l4 i ns ," best authorities of the ay . were of Ol t e i' ll tl i -j aarld the time bad arrived when it wasth o e t leseteeetee Land the as it would be the interest . • 'Yr to make the change shadowed forth in the iii , : 44 d lll A " i i °n• tro l lesti --41ERSTON said this was a most intere.st lhr • e ey r „, -°11 ) and ought deeply to entertain the attention %PIN pi e ' of the house. No one could dispute 1 40 1 ; 1 42 ° f abolishing as much as possible re . ligio h ns , k t ,'°ll - , e3 in the universities, but he was afraid k: 4 ,vit t ll not calcented to accomplish the . object, ove Velp likely to lead to those modern impr f the 114sqeocation which the mover and seconder of ox. tei ll e Posed. The commission acting under k I, lite l :Nor, ' er4 tY Act had full power to make many of d t a ln, ,v" sliggested ; while, with regard t Cambri e e, tai i 'etp °4l d be broueht in this session exten n 1 , ) a folleivereity, mutatis mutandi, the same . provisions eared tfe t ',,ite in the expired act, and therefore it a bir'e 1, 14 t a select committee would be a waste or tee The Was no necessity for a committee to freed Which prevailed at the universities ; they known to the hon. member who had ma d de r 1 ,,, 4 ,%v",,,, •° , and if the commissionsra acting under i re:l it ',,, e aeures did not attempt to apply a remedy, e deal old be open to the honourable mem tt.„-ho,i With the subject in a future bill. With regard 1 / 1 f RI there waq no denying that there was great 4 ' 4°l t in'Provement in the system of education al de ad 4 , 1 1- the m, but he should be sorry to erec , - °r classical languages sacrificed to a stul ' e Practical character—while he doubted 3 -,l e t 4 bon could be male good Latin and Greek besides becoming well versed in French, or 4 ,, e , t alan, and mathematics, w ithin the brier hPtip • ""x• years (Hear, hear.) That would be i 51,14 t oo much ; but, nevertheless,. he knew Yre 4 er wn khosvledge, that at Harrow the modern kfc l 4 t ;:tiii b l ad been introduced into the studies, and 'S ""Pe that example would be followed by other see eeselea,se ' 4 4 ` l' eti k h °E•E was surprised to find this motion Y gentleman of Eton. Our public schools k eas id ht e I ce d some of the most distinguished men who rii tl e .4 Parliament, and that fact, he thought, was fr,,P•ee'',t answe r to this motion. '4ll laN kti ' L L reminded the house that when the present f ee ti -e e ti , was formed the noble lord at the head o "S ) 'Oil ll-re ntrient that , its various members were h re- ) l 4; for sufficient liberality." (Hear, a Niel,' noble lord had not displayed that sufficient I t h iell ought to . satisfy the house or the th "Y, this question lay . in a nut shell. 'se -U niversities were national institutions , e "e s Were not ; if they weee, they ought to "ti 4" to all parties in the State, and made l'i f l i : o 7 l 4 4 g l ive tiva i ntage. It as upon that ground that in fav w our of the motion. 41°ti c'n Iva ' s v tl o i t e e n withdrawn. ' fir f t r. B IrtSTOPPAGES FROM WAGES. moved for leave'to bring in a bill eto ppages from wages in the hosiery mann- G. Iver 4 f BEY opposed the motion. ns h words fro m severa l h on . mem b ers , e er e di vided. The numbers were -kw he 13 1)1. A %le °t t . ...........- ................ 96 _ 3B It'lk 4 rity agai ns t th e bill lio;: 4 1 ;- 1 AND THE BALTIC FLEET. ki,,ta ros . e to . call the attention of the NeNttelei" o val operations in the Baltic, under Vice- JeNO4,,, eharles Napier ; and to move for a copy of any lerilineee,'4ce Which had passed between the Board of %I• 6 1 : °r ally member of her Majesty's Government, 4 % 4 ' 4 Th::4le3 Napier, since the 20th day of December ~!:,° t ice he had given was one involving consi t::"nt, 1 "` ' r e)? great importance, and he had, on that , the lesitated to become the organ of bringing it be "e- But the question involved considerations 4 0 114 ht t, t4 it of the public service, inve . lving . as it did the }:to•hilleet,,,,,,"blie servants and the discretion of the Go h° :t b a mat' of the highest importance, that, sth requeste d un dertake to bring the matter s hot, t o ket q Z• 'e he did not feel himself at liberty to decline ltlvitbish Sir Se must be aware of the circumstances nu . I - Napier was appointed to command the °ft out arether more than a year ago. In February t,Ceeeverement having determined to equip air t te ly , t oeest fleet trl oT Groat Britt which io, it was admitted, had eve . prottoded to robot foi 0 the command the most distinguished officer that could be f?und in the .kVavy List. The Admiralty was, at that pe riod, presided over by the right lion. gentleman tho mem ber for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), the presentPrime-Minis -ter being "the - SeCretary .of State for the Home Depart ment. Upon the right hon. gentleman more particularly devolved the duty of selecting the commander of the fleet. The nation looked with intense anxiety to see who would be selected to command the Baltic fleet, and it received with great approbation the announcement that Sir C. Na pier was selected to that command. The Gcvernment of that day were so proud of the selection, and were so as sured that the man who had been appointed would be bailed with universal joy, that the event was celebrated by that well-known dinneito th gallant admiral at the Re form Club. The propriety of that dinner had been a good deal discussed, and it was not his intention to renew that discussion. lie should not discharge his duty, how ever, without saying that the dinner was presided over by the present Prime Minister, that it was attended by the then First Lord of the Admiralty, the Chief - Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and by many members of the House of Commons sitting upon the Ministerial benches. At that dinner the members of the Government present ex pressed their satisfaction at the choice thtv had been male. He would read to the house one passage from the speech of the present Plinio Minister on that occasion. Lord Palmerston said : "As bearing on that point (the fitness of appointing Sir C. Napier), I cannot refrain from repeating an observation which was made to me by a very discriminating, calm-minded friend of mine, who passed some time in the East at the period to which I have adverted, who saw a great deal of my gallant friend, and who, when he came to town, visited me to give me an account of what he had observed in the East, which, considering the position I then held, he thought might be interesting. When I mentioned to him my gallant friend (Sir Charles Napier), , and praised his enterprise and boldness, his daring and his intrepidity, this gentleman said, Yes, all that is very true, but there is another quality which Sir Charles Napier possesses, which is as valuable as any of these, and as important an ingredient in his success. I never saw a man in my life who calculated so many moves, before hand.' Now, gentlemen, when a man can calculate his moves beforehand and has, to execute those moves, the spirit and genius which are possessed by my gallant friend, I think any country that places its fate and fortune in his hands may feel confident of success." (Laughter.) Sir James Graham, on the same occasion, speaking in a still loftier strain, said:— " I will not weigh the precise ingredients of valour. My gallant friend was distinguished for remarkable daring and bravery ; but even then, in the early part of his career, he verified that praise which my noble friend has said was awarded to him at a later period—he constantly looked seve ral moves beforehand— and, in my humble judgment, he is not only a gallant, but I must add that I look upon him as a discreet commander. He possesses my entire confidence, and I have rejoiced in the opportunity on a great occasion of commending him to the approbation and choice of my Sovereign. That selection I believe has been approved by the country. I believe also that it is approved by the pro fession ; and, although the propelling power of the fleets may be changed, although naval tactics may be altered, yet he goes forth the commander, not of a pressed body of men, but of volunteers for this splendid service. All these things may be changed, but one thing is unchanged—that is, the gallantry and power of command of my gallant friend. He does not go forth under auy hypocritical pretence of con ducting a religious war, but to assert the independence of Europe, to maintain the balance of power, and to resist— and, I hope, successfully to resist—as lawless a spirit of aggression and of reckless aggrandisement as ever disgraced any country. My gallant friend says when he goes into the Baltic he will declare war. I, as First Lord of the Admi ralty, give him my free consent so to do. I hope that that war may be s' , ort, and that it may be sharp. lam sure that, guided by my gallant friend, it will be decisive; and although politics are excluded generally from the naval pro fession, yet we, as Reformers, may be proud that the honour of the British flag in the Euxine and the Baltic is intrusted to two such champions as Admiral Dundas and Sir Charles Napier. (Laughter and cheers from the Opposition.) They will prove true to their country in the last extremity, and I sincerely hope the time may not be far distant when you, perhaps, will kindly invite me again to celebrate the return of my gallant friend. This evening is an evening of happy augury. When we Beat meet I hope it will be to celebrate a brilliant success." Now the gallant admiral so selected, having been proclaimed to Europe and to the world as the fittest man to sustain the honour of England, having hoisted his flag, and having re ceived the approbation of the Government almost every day while in command of that fleet in the Baltic, instead of being invited to a dinner upon his return to celebrate his success, was met by that right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Graham) with contempt and contumely, and was dismissed from his command. He did not bring this forward as a personal question, but one involving the honour of public servants, and the house would agree' with him that Eng land could not insult her most gallant servants without proclaiming that the Government had either been short sighted in the selection of the officers to command the fleet, or else, if they had been farsighted in the selection, it was a most unworthy acknowledgement that a man should receive such a reward at the end of his period of service. The admiral's appointment having thus been in augurated he proceeded to the Baltic. And here he might state the difficulty he felt in bringing this subject before the house, lost he shou7d have to refer to anything calcu lated to impair or injure the public service. It was not easy, in so complicated a correspondence, at all times to - steer clear of such difficulties; but, in submitting those documents to which he should refer, he would, as much :is possible, avoid reading anything which was calculated to give any information to the enemy or which con. rained anything detrimental to the public service. He found the correspondence, both pablic and private—that was to say, the correspondence written by the Board of Admiralty awl by the First Lord of the Admiralty in his individual capacity—expressing to the admiral the most :narked and unequivocal approbation of his conduct from the day he sailed, down, at all events, to the month of Sep tember. When the house considered the difficulties with which that gallant admiral had to contend—that, although he quitted these shores -with the most powerful fleet which England ever sent forth, he quitted them with undisci plined men, with men who had no experience in war, with chips which had never beep eng,iged, and had before him a eavigation the most intricate which any part of the world presented—he thought the house would see that tho gallant officer, having kept his entire fleet without disaster, and lone all that the Government expected of him, and more, was entitled to a receptim very different to that which awaited him. (Hear.) It would b 3 necessary to refer to :tune letters written by the First Lord of the Admiralty he his individual capacity to the gallant admiral. It might be said they were private letters. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.) Ho had maturely considered that subject, and he thought he should satisfy the house that these were not private letters. He could not regard a letter written by one public officer to another public officer upon the public service. and calcnlated to influence the actions of the officer to whom it was addressed, as a private communication. (Hear, hear,-from the Opposition.) Sup posing, for example, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his individual capacity, had written to the commander of she fleet a request not to delay attacking Cronstadt beyond the Ist of June—he was only putting a case ; as no such thing occurred—and, contrary to his own judgment, the admiral resolved to make that attack and failed, woulel not the gallant officer be at liberty• to read the letter which was calculated, and did, in point of fact, influence his conduct, if that conduct were called in question? (Hear.) He could not think that any one would deny that proposition. But he had a precedent for reading these letters. It suited the right hon. gentlemen and the noble lord sitting opposite to appoint &committee, com monly known as the Stafford Committee, to inquire into the conduct of a gentleman, who was a most distinguished ornament of that house, in the management of the dock yards and other matters. The question arose whether letters written by the First Lord of the Admiralty, by the Lords f the Admiralty, and by the Secretary to the Admiralty, in their intlividul capacity, were to be read before that committee. The committee, which was presided over by a distinguished authority, the noble lord the member for Totnese (Lord Seymour), resolved that all those private communications were to be produced. No person who was examined was allowed to protect himself by saying any Letter he had received was a private letter, or that any conversation between himself and another public eervast was a private conversation. He thought the decision of a competent tribunal, that such communications were not private communications, was sufficient to justify him in the course ho was about to pursue. (gear.) The house need not fear that because he had a great many documents he was about to read them in extenso. He would make selection of a few passages which bora out the general pro position he had to sullmit to the house. He had shown the circumstances under which Sir C. Napier was ap pointed to the fleet, the auspices under which he left the s . ores of England, and the manner in which operations in the 13.1Itie were conducted. He was desirous of showing that those operations - were carried on to the entire satisfac tion of the Government, and for that purpose ho would read a few passages from the letters of the right hon. ba ronet. It should be remembered that Sir C. Napier left England in the middle of March. On. the 10th of April the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle wrote stating : " That he was entirely satisfied with his (Sir C. Napier's) proceedings. Neither Lord Clarendon nor himself had anti cipated the passage of the Belt by the fleet, expecting that the admiral would have waited at the mouth of the Cattegat until he received orders to enter the Baltic," The letter proceeded to state— " He had judged wisely ; the time gained was precious, and the passage of the Belt in safety was a most successful exploit. He was instructed to establish a close blockade of the Gulf of Finland, and to intercept the trade of Revel and. Riga. The right. hon. baronet said be would rely on the gal lant officer's prudence not to be knocking his head against stone walls prematurely or without the certainty of a groat success, or the fair prospect of some object being attained worthy of the risk and loss which, in attacking fortresses with ships, were serious and inevitable." He would show that at a subsequent period all this pru dent advice was departed from, and that the Government, which refrained during spring and summer—when it was the fitting season to attack stone walls, if they were to be attacked at all—expressed their desire that the stone walls should be attacked when winter hurricanes and boisterous weather had also to be encountered. Oa the let of May he again writes : " I have read ted your letter of the 19th off _the en trance o{th© Finland. I am glad that you decided not to proceed to Sweaborg. The weather is still broken the - channel is not clear of ice, and your force is not yet con, centrated. A safe anchorage within the Gulf of Finland would seem to me your greatest and most pressing necessity. I had hoped that Port Baltic might be available for this pur pose, but if it be commanded from the shore, or if for any other reason you reject it, still I trust that you will be en abled to establish and to hold a close blockade of the Gulf of Finland, and to cut off the communication by sea between Sweaborg and Cronstadt. Your force, I hope and think, will be large enough to render the escape of any Russian squadron from the Baltic impossible, and to leave us quite at ease; in England, although we may have no large rcserveready on Our own shores. It will be best in the first instance to feel your way, and to make good your hold in the Gulf of Finland. When I say this I by no moans contemplate an attack either on this or that place (mentioning two places) I have a great respect. for stone walls, and have no fancy for running even screw line-of-battle ships against th m. Because the public here may be impatient, you must not be rash ; because they at a distance from. danger are foolhardy, you must rot risk the loss of a fleet in an impossible enterprise. I believe both to be all but impregnable from the sea; Sweaborg, more especially ; and none but a very large army could co-operate by land efficiently. If, then, you have no means except naval at your command you must pause long and consider Well before you attempt any attack on the Russian squadrons. in their strongholds, and I, am afraid they are much too cau tious to come out and meet you. Had you been weaker, they might .have done so ; now, they will wait and watch 'an opportunity in, the hope that you will seriously cripple your force by knocking yotr-head'againSt their fortfi, when they may take you at a serious disadvantage, and inflict a fail NM Pah coneitltritiono nand not in over. looked by you. I recall th=m to your mind, lest in the eager desire to achieve a great exploit, and to satisfy the wild wishes of an impatient multitude at home, you should yield to sonic rash impulse, and fail in the dis charge of one of the noblest of duties, which is the moral courage to do what you know to be r4ht, at the risk of being accused of having done wrong. It is enough to present this view to your deliberate attention ; you will reflect on_kand I am certain that your judgment will not err." lb (Mr. Malins) did not read those letters for the purpose of blaming the advice that had been given. On the con trary, he conceived it to be a sound advice to give, and a good adiiice for the admiral to follow ; but he complained that all that advice which was given at a certain period was departed from, and the Government thought fit to quarrel with the admiral because, having adhered to this advice during the summer and apart of autumn, he did not think fit at their suggestion to depart front it when winter set in. On the 15th May he writes as follows : - " If anything can be done you will discover the best moans of doing it ; but no rash experiments must be tried which do not hold out a reasonable prospect of success. lam anxious to hear your opinion and intentions when you have looked at Swcaborg and entered the Gulf of Finland. I am afraid that the Russians will not pluck up courage and come out to meet you." On the 20th June he writes : " I am well pleased with all your operations; and the con centration of your force at the entrance of the Fulf of Fin land, in a safe harbour where you can command fresh water, appears to me a judicious operation. I conclude that you will leave a squadron before Helsingfors sufficiently strong to prevent the escape of the Russian squadron skulking within the harbour, and proceed with the rest of the com bined fleet to the neighbourhood of Crousta:lt, which I am afraid you will find unassailable. If the Russian fleet will not come out to meet you, and if you find that you cannot reach them, after having well reconnoitred the works, and ascer tained what it is possible and impossible to do, your return to the more open sea below Helsingfors would appear to be a judicious measure, every necessary precaution being taken to prevent toe reunion . of the Russian force now divided at Cronstadt and Helsingfors. lam well aware of all the diffi culties of your position, and of the impossibility of triumph ing over an enemy who will not fight you on fair terms, but you will discipline our fleet, and make our officers and men ready for any service. It is a disgrace to Russia that she dare not show a ship in her own waters, and that she is driven to seek for safety under the shelter of her fortresses. It would be madness to play her game, and to rush headlong on her granite walls, risking our naval superiority with all the fatal consequences of defeat, iu an unequal contest with wood against stone, which in the long run cannot succeed. I had reliance on your prudence, which was doubted. Your brilliant courage was proved long ago. You willnow show to the world that you possess a combination of those great virtues which are necessary to make a consummate commauder-in-chief." On the .27th of June ho again writes as follows: " I am glad you have gone upto Cronstadt to see with your own eyes what it maybe possible to do there. Whatever man can do I am certain will be done by you ; and if you are re strained by a sense of duty from embarking iu any desperate enterprise, en your return to Baro Sound you shall receive full instructions from me respecting an attack upon the Aland Islands." Now he thought that correspondence distinctly showed that from the time Sir Charles Napier left England down to the end of August, he received through the right hon. baronet the unqualified approbation of the Government. He would now proceed to see whether anything took place after that period to disentitle the gallant officer to the same unqualified approbation of the Government. On the 20th of June, the admiral had been directed to make a report upon the practicability of taking Sweaborg, and the admiral himself, on the 20th of June, made a report to the Government, enclosing another report of Admiral Chads agreeing with his own, on the subject of such an attack. Both admirals agreed as to the particular mode of taking the fortress, and they both agreed that if proper appliances were afforded them, and the attack were made at the proper season of the year they should have no doubt whatever as to the success of the operation, but they both agreed that the season of the year must not be beyond autumn. (Hear, hear.) New after the fall of Bomarsund, viz. on the 4th ofSeptember, the French fleet sailed from the Baltic and returned to France, but the French fleet remained there until the 19th of Sep tember. About the middle of that month Government were desirousof obtaining the opinions of the Englishand French admirals as to the practicability of taking Sweaborg, and accordingly Sir C. Nayier was requested to hold a con- ference with the French Admiral and consider what could be done. A plan for the purpose had been submitted to the Government by a distinguished engineering officer, namely General Jones, and another plan by a distinguished French engineer, namely General Niel, and the English and French admirals were desired to hold a conference and take those plans into consideration. Accordingly a consultation was held on Board the Duke of Wellington, the admiral's ship, on the 12th of Sept., which was attended by three English admirals, the French admiral and the French vice-admiral, and having considered the plans, they agreed to a report, which the house would not expect him to read, but they all unanimously agreed in this, that the season of the year was too late to admit of such an operation being justifiably un dertaken. That report was forwarded to the Admi alty by Sir Charles Napier on the 12th of Sept. ; but soon after, the Admiralty, feeling some anxiety on the subject, again wrote to Sir Charles Napier raquesting that a second oonsultation might be held; and accordingly Sir Charles Napier again wrote to the French Admiral, requesting his at tendance on beard the Duke of Wellington to reconsider the details of the plans, The French admiral, however, de- Clined to attend. 4 He stated that he had already given his opinion, and his mind was made up upon the subject. This was on the .Bth of September; on the 19th the French fleet returned to France, and now of course the position of Sir Charles Napier became *try much altered to what it had been in the middle of June, when he had the assistance of a powerful French army and a powerful French fleet. The French admiral having declined to at tend the second conference, Sir C. Napier held a consulta tion of his own admirals ore the 19th or 20th September. The council of war, if he might so term it, was held on board the Duke of Wellington, and it consisted of Sir C. Napier and three other admirals, two of whom had at tended the former conferences. these admirals considered the plans for taking Sweaborg, and again the same conclu sion was come to, namely, that the sea-on of the year was tee late for undertaking the operation. In the meantime Sir C. Napiorhad been directed. to make a reconnaissance of Sweaborg, and having done so he sent home a detailed plan for an Ate& on that fortress, which if adopted the gallant admiral felt no doubt would be successful, provided it was put in force at the proper time. Tnat very plan was being adopted at this very moment, but it was to be carried out under the direction of another adlniral. On • the 25th of September Sir C. Napier, having been left only with the English fleet, communicated his plan of attack to the Ad miralty • and now came the point of difference between him Lndthe Admiralty. Sir C. Napier declared that he should have no doubt of the success of his plan, provided it was undertaken in the proper season; he would not go into its details, but there could be no question about it that it was not the intention of the admiral that it should be adopted that year, but in this or the succeeding year. The Admiralty, however, forgetting their former advice not to risk the fleet against stone walls, and finding that the admiral had been far more cautious and far more prudent in such matters than the Government them selves, determined that he should have nothing but ob loquy cast upon him, instead of being received, on his re turn home, in the flattering manner that had been antici pated by the right hon. baronet the first lord at the Reform Club banquet. (Hear.) The admiral had distinctly pointed out that neither of the plans was practicable at a season of the year . when you could not depend upon the weather.; but the Government appeared, about the be ginning of October, to have received information about the fall of Sebastopol, which they seem to have credited, at the time determined that something should be attempted in the Baltic, and accordingly the admiral was directed to commence an operation which had been reported imprac ticable even - while the French army and the French fleet were there. (Hear, hear.) The operation was to have been carried on by the English fleet alone, and he wanted to know what could be said of the prudence of a Govern ment who would venture to give such instructions? We had then in office a Government who had found England honoured and proud of her position is the world ; but their misnagement had since reduced her to a state that he doubted whether any man could feel any great pride in calling himself an Englishman. (Oh, oh.) He heard de risive cheers from the other side of the house, but, he re peated it, that the want of judgment, the want of fore st„;ht, which had been displayed in the conduct of the war had lowered the character of England in the eyes of the world. (Hear, hear.) We did not know at present who was really to blame for all this, but he hoped the com mittee whose proceedings had been made public mainly by the advice of the right hoe. baronet the member for Carlisle, would enable us to discover to whom we were indebted for the disastrous expedition to the Crimea, in the month of September. (Hear, hear.) The late Govern ment did not hesitate to risk the army by sending it to the Crimea, and in the same way they would have risked the fleet, had it not been for the prudence and foresight of the admiral. . (Hear,' hear.) Well, then, he thought he had brought this clearly before the house; he said the admiral was useless, unless he could be trusted—and if he could not be trusted, he ought not to have been appointed; but, according to their own showing, Sir C. Napier was the fittest man they could find for the command, and they ought to have had confidence in his judgment and discre tion. Because it was confessed that between Russia and England there was nothing but the fleet for a protection, and if that fleet had been lost, either by bad navigation or by operations that could not hope to be successful, there was nothing to defend us against the encroachments of Russia. Surely, then, the Government, after receiving a report from the admiral that the season of the year was passed for undertaking such operations, should have paused before they goaded on the admiral to attempt them ; but their misconduct had lost us the army, and they had re solved to lose us the navy if the admiral had been suffici ently pliable for their purpose. (Hear.) It was the pru dence and foresight of the admiral that averted the latter catastrophe ; and the country owed that distinguished officer too deep a debt of gratitude to admit of its being tolerated that the truth of these transrctions should be kept in the dark. The right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle told the house the other night that -"the admiral had not been dismissed—that he had not been censured— and although the admiral had proclaimed himself a hero, he could not allow Hm to proclaim himself a martyr. But it was not the admiral who proclaimed himself a hero ; it was the noble lord the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle who had pro claimed him a hero ; and unless he was a hero, he was unfit for command. The best evidence that he was a hero was his being selected to command the fleet ; and he could not understand how the right hon. baronet could have come down to the house and said the admiral had proclaimed himself a hero, and he would take care that he should not proclaim himself a martyr. But to proceed with his narrative. The admiral pointed out to the Go vernment that the season of the year was too late for un dertaking such an operation; but., the Government b e i ng under the impression that Sbastopol had fallen, nothing would do for them •but that something should be attempted in the Baltic. " We have taken Sebastopol," said they ; " only let us take Cronstndt or Sweaborg, and the country will then be satisfied of what we have all along been satis fied with ourselves, viz., that so powerful a Ministry never existed balm)." (A laugh.) But the admiral (lid not conform to their views—he could not consent to undertake an operation which the united admirals of France and England had disapproved of at the time. Everybody knew that September in the Baltic was equivalent to November in England, and that October was like December. Be sides, the navigation was the most dangerous iu the world; there were such rocks and shoals that the fleet could not go about anywhere without buoying its course, and yet the Government actually wrote on the 4th of October directing the admiral to attack Sweaborg, and on his writing home to say he could not depend upon the weather, the GoVern ment again wrote to him, saying, " You may choose your own day and opportunity." This was pot in a private let ter; 'it we's in a letter coming from "the Board of Mini raley to the admiral. If he had read such a thing in a corrovondonvo botwoon two business men, he iihnicl not have believed it, but here there was no room to doubt; theinstructions were to undertake in the winter that which could alone be accomplished in the finest season. The let ter of instruction did not specify the day on which the attack was to be made, but said it might be.made towards the end of October. It appeared to him to be almost in credible, but the correspondence was signed by the Secre tary to the Admiralty ; and could the house wonder that Sir Charles Napier, finding himself thus goaded on to an impracticable operation, should on the 10th of October write to the Admiralty, stating that, if he had lost the confidence of the Governme n t, he was perfectly ready to resign his command and return home. (Hear, hear.) At the same time, he declared that no opinion which prevailed at home should induce him to undertake an operation that was impracticable or unsafe, as he had had the honour of Englaudand the safety of the fleet committed to his charge. (Hear.) All this would be c l ear ly es t a bli s hed if he succeedd in his motion and the correspondence was granted. It was conducted with consummate ability on both sides. That it should be conducted with abillty on the side of the righthon. baronet the member for Carlisle was quite natural enough, but it was somewhat wonderful to find the gallant admiral evincing ability of the highest order in the correspondence, and showing that he was justas capable of protecting himself with the pen as the nation believed he had protected her with the fleet. (Hear.) The correspondence, it was true, was rather angry, but nevertheless he did not find anything in it which couldjustify the Government in reproving Sir Chas. Napier for having forgotten his duty; but, on the contrary, if they had allowed themselves calmly to consider the cir cumstances, they would Imo come to the conclusion that in taking the course he had done Sir C. Napier had not, only performed his duty to the best of his ability, but he had confirmed the character give* of him at the Reform Club dinner, as being a man who well caleulated his movements before he commenced operations. (Hear.) The correspond ence continued from the 4th of October down to the 6th or 10th of November, and then he found the admiral express ing a desire that it should br brougot to a termination — but he could not leave this part of the subject without read ine a single passage which occurre d i n a l e tter of the 31st of October. Not that he brought this question forward as an individual question—no, he brought it before the house rather as a matter of great national importance, because it was of importance to the country that her worthy servants should be worthily treated. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, he had read to the house the letter of the right honour able baronet the member of Carlisle, dated on the 25th of August, in which he expre sse d himself to the effect that the Admiralty were more than satisfied with Sir Charles Napier's proceedings. The house should bear in mind that Bomarsund had fallen on the 10th of August, and yet, notwithstanding that letter of the 25th of Au gust, the letter of the 31st of October declared the Govern ment to be dissatisfied with the admiral for not having followed up the successlof Bomarsund with an attack upon Cronstadt. (Hear, hear.) The true principle 'of carry ing on war was this. You selected your general or admi ral, and saying to him, " There is the enemy whom we wish to see destroyed," you left the operation to his die cretien. In the present instance the Government de parted from that principle in not only dictating the ope rations, but almost naming the day on which they were to be carried out. Why, what would be said to the Secre tary-at-War if it were found that he had rrritten to Lord Raglan to desire that he would take Sebastopol on the let of April next—(a laugh)—or any other day ? What would be said of a Government writing to a general to carry out a particular operation on a particular day, thereby setting aside the discretion of the general himself ? Would net his answer be, " This is a matter which necessarily you cannot possibly know so much about as myself, but if .you have not sufficient. confidence in me or my discretion as to the mode and time of carrying out these operations, I beg that yen will relieve me of this command. lam per fectly ready to return home r Now, that was precisely the case of Sir Charles Napier. The Admiralty wrote him a letter stating that they were satisfied with his reasons for not taking the fortress ; but, considering the con- ' flicting nature of the different reports recently brought be fore them, General Jones having declared that it could be taken in six days, w hile General Niel, the French en g i neer , was of opinion that it could be subdued in two hours, their lordships directed the admiral to make the attempt. The admiral, however, declines to risk the fleet at such a sea son, and then the Admiralty convey their regret to the admiral that an attack was net made upon Sweaborg im mediately after the fall of Bomarsund. Now, he appealed to the house whether any admiral receiving such a letter would not naturally feel he had lost the confidence of his Government, and that his command was no longer satis factory, especially as, up to the end of August, his entire proceedings had met with the approval of the Admiralty. That naturally produced great dissatisfaction in the mind of Sir Charles Napier, and the correspondence closed. Sir C. Napier returned to England, and arrived at Portsmouth on the 17th of December. As soon as the gallant admiral could make preparations, ho came up to London, and had an interview with the irst Lord of the Admiralty, from whom, considering the terms on which they had parted, he thought the gallant admiral might rely upon it that he would meet with a cordial reception on his return. He thought the gallant admiral might consider himself entitled to such a reception from what the right hon. gentleman, said only a month back in moving the navy estimates. So far from intimating any ground of di t s h sa e t r i i s g fa h c t ti h o o n n. at w g i e tht le h o m p proceedings eseai said, g o s no the h t e h gallante l6t ho f F e a b d r m u a i r r a y l " Bomarsund, a strongly fortified place, and one bearing n t m e a a r marks o e h f a g n r e i a n t t e e r n t e i x o t n e n t t o , p h u a s s h b t e h e a n t e s e y in s t p e i m e t e o t y f de r s t i t fi r e c y a t e i ( o l (Hear, hear.) The great naval arsenal of Cronstadt, close to the capital of Russia, was blockaded, and battle was repeat edly offered to the Russian fleet, and always declined. Up to the last moment, Sweaborg, which contained nine ships of-the-line, was also blockaded by a very inferior force, and, on the whole, never were naval operations more successful than were those there performed, and not a ship was lost. (Hear, hear.) That blockade of the Baltic, whatever may be said with respect to its imperfect character, was condudted with a skill and gallantry uever surpassed, and the pressure that was brought to bear on the navy was by no means small." So that the right hon. gentleman, iu moving tie navy es timates only an hour after the question had bean put to him by a gallant officer on that side of the house as to what was the quarrel between Sir Charles Napier and tho Go vernment—the right bon. gentleman repeated what the gallant admiral the Member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley) hal said a few nights befor--that Sir Charles Napier had neither beau recalled, dismissal, nor censured. ; but he thought he had now satisfied the house that that hon. and gallant admiral must really have forgotten for a moment what had passed, for the house could enter tain no doubt that Sir Charles Napier had been dismissed and also censured. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the gallant admiral's interview with the . First Lord of the Admiralty, of coarse, he had no written evidence, and could only rely upon the .statement made to him by the gallant admiral, which be could have no doubt was strictly accurate. He said that the gallant admiral having come home after carrying on those operations only a month before, as the right hon. gentleman stated to the entire satisfation of the country, considering that he had not lost a ship, and had gone out with the fleet in but an indifferent state of discipline, and, remembering what had taken place at his departure, had a right to expect, if ever any man had, a courteous and cordial reception on his re turn. Yet the gallant admiral assured him that on going to the Admiralty . he was received in a manner all but in sulting by the right hon. gentleman, who did certainly hold out his hand coldly to him, but said at once that he declined having any conversation with him on the subject of the operations. (Hear.) That was on the 22d of De -1 cember ; but be now proceeded to that which could admit of no doubt. The gallant admiral returned to thb Duke of -Wellington, at Portsmouth, where he next morning re ceived a letter, signed " R. S. Duddas" and " W. F. Cow per," amounting to a dismissal from his command. It was dated the 22d December, and was couched in the following terms : _ _ . Sir, —The Baltic fleet, 071 its return to port, being now separated in different harbours of Great Britain, and several of the ships which composed this fleet being under orders for service in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, you are hereby required and directed to strike your flag and come on shore," (Hear.) He had read to the house the whole of the letter. These were the kindly and encouraging te r ms in which the most distinguished naval officer of Great Britain was gre eted on his return from a great publi c s e rvice, which ho had conducted to the entire satisfaction of the Government. That the gallant officer should have been surprised, that ho should have been more t h a n surprised, that he should even have been disgus ted, he thought could occasion the house no astonishment. (Hear.) He wrote, not immediately, for he had been s o much t aken by surpriso that ho required some time for consideration, but he wrote on the 25th De cember to the Secretary of the Admiralty, as follows : si r ,—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of th e ir lordships' order, directing me t o s t r ike my flag ; and w ith reference to the same, I reque s t th e i r l o rdships will in form me whether I am to consider th a t m y command is at an end 1" This was speaking very distinctly to them. The house I would observe that the letter of the 22d was couched in terms which Wright be customary with the Admiralty—he did not know— all he could say was th a t th e y were terms in which he thought few of them would even dismiss domestic servant. (Hear, hear.) He was assured that it expect officer o b t e o u d was contrary to all usage ; he was assure d t h a t Si r J ames a in consequenceof the Baltic of fleetthe t i S n a u t n m a s r l e a z al wwhaern, uponheh ad hie s e r c e e tu ni r i : n I f v o i r n h te i r m ha to vi r n e g ra s a e i t h in th a e n re d , renderinghad iss permion to b e a b sen t un til it unsafe and impossible the season should permit t he resumption of o p era ti ons . That r e h s athe s s o have thought that the proper occasion would ha v e been when th e letteruld tender treated edne ; o Sir Charles erm similar s ire Charles Napier had that right , and he thought th e h ouse circumstances t s e manner h a i right which to o an would agree with him in one thing , that the lett ers o f th e Admiralty, like every other ste p take n in this war, were too lantfet.haTnhkeaytathsoiurgcht, Napierfit i n t h ; e he r e reply sh •was written to the admiral recalling the --oet—but no ; proper things were never to be done at the proper times, and all was too late. The gallant admiral's demand as to whether he was to consider this letter as insisting on the termination of his services was answered as follows : " Sir—With reference to your letter of yesterday's date, I am commanded by the Lords CommissiOners of the Admiralty to acquaint you .that the order which you have received, agreeably to custom, to strike your flag and come on shore is always given at the termination of a flag officer's command." And yet the gallant officer the member for Gloucester could come into that house..two months afterwards and say that the gallant admiral had not been dismissed —(hear, hear from the Ministerial bench)—and that was repeated a week afterwards by the right Lon. gentleman the mem ber for Carlisle. So that here was a great public officer, the commander-in-chief of the greatest fleet that England had ever sent forth, who had commanded that fleet to the entire satisfaction of the Government, and he believed of the nation, and who returned because operations could no longer be carried on, told in insulting tams to strike his flag and to come on shore—and, again, that this order was always 'issued on the termination of a flag-officer's command. Now, he thought that, unless they were to give up the present mode of understandingthe English language—unless this Govern ment. which had introduced so many new things, had intro duced alio some new langnageto direct the operations of the war, the house would adhere to the construction he put upon the letter of the 22:1 December, as equivalent to a dis missal of Sir Charles Napier. Yet, having dismissed him without uttering a word of compliment to his services, or the services of those who had manned his ships, they thought fit too late—that was on the 26th December—to attempt to repair the omission, for the letter went on to say, " and I am directed by my lords to take this opportunity"—why not have taken that opportunity ?—(hear, hear) . — to ex press to you the sense their lordships entertain of your exertions during the period of your service in command of the Baltic fleet." Now, the house would, perhaps, remem ber a debate that took place on a memorable occasion—a debate in which he (Mr. Mathis) had taken no part, though he would willingly have done so, but in which the Secre tary for-the Admiralty had addressed the house. Whatever else might be inferred from the speech tho lion. gentleman 6 then made, he saw one thin , very plainly ; that if the hon. gentleman were not out of ace, he expeoto4 yery soon to be, for the hon. gentleman had reverted to his old habits and found fault with everything, declaring that the army had been mismanaged, and everything had been misma naged, that nothing would ever come right until every thing that had been done should be undone; but, added the hon. gentleman, in a triumphant tone, nobody could find fault with anything done in regard to the fleet— everything was perfectly right in that department, and no one could get a word to say against it. The hon. gentle man, beyond doubt, did not know these things at that time, and he supposed must have thought that the ban of secrecy could be kept upon this correspondence, and that, from an apprehension that th e p u bli c serv i ce would be injured by divulging them, these things would be kept secret, for he thought if his mind adverted to this correspondence the hon. gentleman could not have anticipated so confidently that nobody could throw blame on what had been done at the Admiralty. No doubt he should be told, as the hon. and gallant member for Gloucester had told them, that Sir Charles Napier had shown a very bad example in going to make a speech at the Mansion-house, and that it was against all discipline. He (Mr. Malins) had no desire to conduct this case otherwise than in a perfectly candid manner, or to express approbation where approbation could but be_entertained. He thought that Sir Charles Napier had committed an error in making that speech, and going to the length to which he went ; but it had been made the subject of comment that he had said he took the'command of a fleet badly manned and worse disciplined, and some officars afterwards wrote to the papers to say that they were sure it could not be the admiral's intention to cast censure ou those who had served under him. Now he found from the letters that passed two months before, that Sir Charles Napier was thou remonstrating with the Government be cause they had not formally given their approbation to the officers serving under him, -to whose exertions they were indebted for the safety of the fleet, to whom they, were indebted for having brought back a disciplined fleet, after having taken out one that was undisciplined. Sir Charles Napier, in fact, said in' a letter written in November that he observed that on the return of the French fleet to France, the Emperor, in addressing his Legislative Chambers, tendered his thanks for the operation of th e French eet in the Baltic, that the services of the English navy had been equally worthy of commendation, that the exertions and merits of his officers deserved to be acknowledged, and that he regretted that not a single ex pression of thanks should have been tendered to them. What Sir C. Napier meant by the expression so much criti cised was, not that his officers were incompetent, but that the circumstances under which the fleet had been equipped' necessarily caused its discipline to be imperfect. He be lieved there was not a single captain in the fleet who had ever commanded a ship in the Baltic before, a circumstance which enhance 4 the difficulties a hundredfold ; whilst the fleet, being so large and powerful, had been manned has tily, and by men who were incapable of going aloft. He thought he had now shown the house that Sir C. Napier had been dismissed from his command in December, and not only dismissed but censured, and in his conviction it was for the interests of the public service that such a transaction should be brought under the notice of Parlia ment. He trusted that, in doing so, the house would be of opinion he had not misconceived his duty as a member of Parliament, but that he had succeeded in bringing it in a temperate and moderate manner before the house. He would not refrain, so long as he had the honour of a seat iu that house, from expressing disapprobation of the pro ceedings of any Minister when he thought disapprobation was deserved. He had ventured to express what he strongly felt—that the manner in which Sir C. Napier had been treated by the Board of Admiralty, and consequently by the Government of which the noble lord was at the head, was unworthy of this great nation. He submitted to the house that it was incompatible with the public service of this coun try that its distinguished servants should be treated with neglect and injustice—that they should receive reproach and disgrace where honour and reward were due. It was also his conviction that it was absolutely essential to the public service that these transactions should not be kept in the dark, but that the facts should be brought to light, in order that Parliament might judge as to their propriety. As the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle had told them in the admirable speech he delivered on the question, whether the committee now sitting should be open or secret, public reputations were not to be sacrificed in a secret com mittee in No. 17. He adopted the principle of the right hon. gentleman, that the reputations of our generals and admi rals were dear to the country, that they were the property of the country, and that an insult to them was an insult to every member of the community. (Cheers.) It was upon their skill and courage that we must rely for our defence, and if we could not find men worthy to command our flesh and armies, then England would indeed be reduced to a miserable condition. (Renewed cheers.) If, when we had found such men, and when the Government of the day pro claimed to us that we had found the most fitting man—if, because the First Lord of the Admiralty took a view that was not'in accordance with that of the commander of the fleet, the admiral was to be recei►ed on his return with ignominy, there was an end to all security for the efficient performance of the public service. When he found, there fore, that no other member of the house was disposed to bring this matter under their consideration, hehad felt it his duty not to shrink from bringing it forward, believing, as he did, that to keep such transactions in the dark would be attended with the greatest possible detriment to the public service in general. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman concluded by moving for copies of any correspondence which had passed between the Board of Admiralty or any member of the Government and Sir Charles Napier since the 20th December last. Admiral Sir T. HERBERT said—As a personal friend of Sir Charles Napier, and one who served under him on many trying occasions, I must beg to trouble . the house with a few words on the motion now before them. The gallant admiral the member for Gloucester told the house, a few evenings ago, that Sir Charles Napier was not dis missed from his command. Technically speaking he was not ; but he was removed from his command by ordering him to haul down his flag, and, to my mind, in a most dis courteous manner, unaccompanied as the order was by a single complimentary expression in commendation of the gallant admiral's management of the fleet while under his order:, Although I cannot approve of after-dinner speeches like the gallant admiral's at the Mansion-house, yet, after all Sir C. Napier's eminent services—many or them most brilliant, and such as to have called forth the admiration of such men as Lord Exmouth, Sir A. Cochrane, Sir Robert Stopford, Sir J. Guidon and other distinguished office' s I have too much respece.for my gallant friend, who was once my commander during some trying occurrences, not to hope that his statement will prove to be correct, and that he will stand well with his countrymen. With regard to the gallant admiral's conduct in the Baltic, I du not think that lie could have done more witu the force at his disposal than he did, and I firmly believe that it is to his cool judgment and wise discretion the country is indebted for the safe re turn home of our fleet; for had Sir Charles Napier been induced to have attacked either Cronstadt or S weaborg without the co-operation of a large land force, and the assistance of mortar-vessels and gun-boats of an easy draft of water—a force which appears to have been entirely neglected attaching to the fleet last year—my conviction is that the attack would have failed, and that his ships most likely would have been all disabled. (Hear.) Can the eulo , gium pronounced upon Sir C. Napier by the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle, at the Reform banquet, ever be forgotten? There the right hon. baronet not only congratulated the club on so thorough a Reformer having the command of the fleet, but galled that his confidence in him was so great that he had his (the First Lord of the Ad miralty's) authority to declare war, if he thought fit, upon his arrival in the Baltic. Now what has all this boasting and confidence come to ? That the right hon. baronet and the gallant admiral have fallen out, the admiral has been dismissed by Sir J. Graham from his command, and their unfortunate misunderstanding—which I much regret, as being prejudicial to .the public service, particularly to the discipline of the naval branch of it. However, the gallant admiral in common fairness ought to have an opportunity, somewhere, of vindicating his character. I have not seen any of Sir Charles Napier's correspondence with the right hon. baronet opposite; but if the correspondence asked for is refused to be produced merely on the score of being of a private character, it certainly does not come well from au Admiralty who made such liberal use of private and confidential correspondence in the inquiry of Mr. Stafford's dockyard appointment to refuse it. • Sir JAMES GRAHAM--I have great pleasure in assuring the house that it will not be necessary for me, in answering the hon, and learned gentleman, to detain them for anything like the length of time he has occupied in opening his case. For, sir, I have not come down here prepared to read extracts from public despatches, and much less do I come here prepared to read garbled extracts from such despatches. (Hear, hear.) Much less am I prepared toenter into the details of private conversations. I have not the advantage of holding in my hand anything like that brief of a confidential nature which has been put into the hands of certain members of this house. But at the outset of what I have to address to the house, I shall jest refer to the passage with which the hon. member con cluded his speech, when he ssid he was anxious to vindi cate the honour of this country. Now, sir, lam not de void of a desire to, vindicate the honour of this country, and I heard the honourable and learned gentleman, with the deepest regret, say, as I understood him, that the honour of this country, which was so dear to him, had been lost by the disasters which had befallen our arms. Now, sir, whether I look to the Black Sea or the Baltic, as to what concerns the navy, I am satisfied that the honour of this country has been maintained ; and as regards our army, I. know that all is not lost. (Hear, hear.) The honour of that army and the honour of this country, as I believe, are still intact. (Loud cheers.) We have never met the enemy on any one occasion in which our arms have not been victorious ; and whatever the suffer ings of our troops may have been, their exemplary patience, their gallantry, their good conduct, far exceed all my powers of praise—(chOers)— and in the presence of this house I am glad to declare that the honour of the country and its arms is safe. (Renewed cheers.) The hon. and learned gentlereart has commented upon an expression used by my noble friend at the head of the Government on an occasion to which he delights in referiing—that the highest proof of sagacity lies in looking several moves before one. New, I must plead guilty to a great want of sa gacity, for the moves made by the hon. and learned gen tleman on this occasion were not foreseen. I did not anti cipate that he would have thought it consistent with his duty to read extracts from despatches in his possession— public despatches of the highest possible importance, which the Government of this country has not yet been asked by the House of Commons to produce, and with regard to which it remains to be seen whether, when they are asked, they will think it consistent with their duty to the public to advise the house to sanction their production. Their discretion will be exercised by them ; what is due to myself, I will shortly endeavour to state to the house. The hon. and learned gentleman talks of the introduction of new things. Is there anything more no w, sir, with all your experience in that chair, have y ou seen or heard anything so unexampled as the course pursued by the hon. gentleman ? I have not culled from private letters, with out the consent of the writers of those letters, such extracts as, to use his own words, would maintain the view he takes of this case. If there is to be any production of these letters, let it be complete and entire. But, until that production shall have taken place, I trust the house will not form any opinio • • n from those extracts which the hon. and learned gentleman has called, in order to sup port the view ho takes of this matter. I said I did not expect the moves that have taken place. Had I been asked before this night whether I thought the day would come when Sir Charles Napier would put his case into the hands of a lawyer, sitting upon the opposite side of the house —would appear as plaintiff in a case charging the Government, of which my noble friend the member for Tiverton is the head, with having treated him, as the hon. and learned member has said, with insult and contumely-- I confess to you that nothing further from nay anticipa tions could possibly have occurred. But there is another part of the conduct of the hon. and learned gentletaan which, I confess, surprised me.. He referred to the dinner which took place at the 'Reform Club, for which, as have 1)eforo have done Nom, Kay e g m * I that I then committed an error which I was not prepared again to commit. No doubt, on the occasion which has been referred to, I said that if there was a banquet in honour of his return, and I was invited to attend toit, I should be prepared to do so in order to celebrate the brilliant suc cesses which were then anticipated. Well, I have received no such invitation—(a laugh) ;--and had I received that in vitation, the penishment to which I have referred was so severe, and I was so conscious of the indiscretion that I committed, that I know not whether I should have re peated it. (A. laugh.) Happily I have not been put to the test. It is true I stated on that occasion that I had the greatest opinion of tho proved and distinguished valour . of Sir Charles Napier, and I added that I thought he was also discreet. He has confirmed that opinion. Discretion, the better part of valour, has not been wanting to him. He has proved himself that consummate admiral whom I praised for his valour and discreetness. (A laugh.) I shall only say, in answer to another comment made by the hon. and learned gentleman, that private letters have been pro duced before committees of this house ; but then those were cases when an inquiry of a judicial character was in course of prosecution, and when it was the order of the house that persons, papers, and records should be produced. I think the house will perceive the difference between the production of documints before a judicial committee sanc tioned by the authority of this house, and the production of documents such as the hon. gentleman has produced to-night—partially and, as I should say, most unfairly— in support simply of an appeal to the house to say whether it is' consistent with the duty of the Government and the public interests at stake, that the whole or any part of them should be produced. (Hear, hear.) He has said, and quite correctly, that on the whole the conduct of Sir Charles Napier in reference to the command of the fleet up to the 24th of September was approved by the Govern ment. Certainly, it is a general rule that " a good work man does not quarrel with his tools ;" and yet it is true that the gallant officer, not at tho Mansion-house, but in an official letter, did state, that the fleet under his com mand was ill-manned and unfit to meet the enemy. On the receipt of that letter, the Admiralty called on the gal lant admiral to state the specific ships to which he applied that remark, and when so called on he failed to specify any ship. (Hear.) Ido maintain that the discretion exer cised by Sir Charles .Napier, in reference to attacks with an inferior force upon fortresses was, in the terms of my pri vate letter, " a w i se discretion." I have never quarrelled with the exercise of that discretion, and had he adhered to his assertion made early in May and repeated in July, that Sweaborg was unassailable either by land or sea, no one word of hesitation with respect to the prudence exer cised by him, either in writing or in speech, would have fallen from me. It is quite true that on the 24th of Sep tember, when he, for the first time reconnoitred Sweaborg close at hand, he did write to the Admiralty a despatch upon whisk I shall not further dwell, because I do not think it consistent, with my duty to enter i n t o d etails which would, if stated, materially alter the present aspeot of the case. It is said by the hon. and learned member that the appliances for that attack, as contemplated by Sir Charles ou the 24th of September, were not sent by the Admiralty. But on the 12th of May he said that this par. ticular fortress was unassailable either by land or sea, and, relying on the judgment of the gallant admiral, the Board of Admiralty thought it of practical use to send further ap pliances for the purpose of that. attack. It is also certain that a difference of opinion did arise between naval and military officers of the highest authority. Into that dif ference of opinion lam sure the house will not expect me to enter, beeause it bears directly upon. naval operations which have only been suspended for a short period, and are now about to be resumed. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman says he has looked at these papers care fully. lie is an equity lawyer. What does he think of the justice of a proceeding which calls upon me to defend my self with my hands tied behind my back, when, without a breach of duty, I cannot produce this correspondence, or even refer to it ? I have felt my sense of duty so strongly that I have not brought a paper down with me. I have only seen a paper prepared ex parte, and marked "confiden tial," containing extracts from both public and private des spatches. And yet this equity lawyer, who is so fond of fair play, after conning his case and speaking from a brief, comes down and makes an attack which he expects me to answer when I have Rot the materials, and when a sense of public duty, eve' if I had them, would absolutely forbid me to use them. (Hear, hear.) It is quite true that the letter of Sir Charles Napier _ of the 24th of September, with reference to the attack on Sweaborg, did present to the Board of Admiralty an en tirely different view of the subject from that contained in his former communication. It then appeared perfectly clear to them, even on the showing of Sir Charles Napier himself, that it was perfectly possible if the whole force then in the Baltic was reunited, to make an attack by the naval force alone on Sweaborg ; Use departure both of the English and French fleets was accordingly arrested. And then the hon. and learned member has not thought it un worthy to assign a motive for the instructions sent out on the 4th October. He said that accounts had then been received of the supposed fall of Sebastopol, and that, acting under the influence of the excitement which then pre vailed, the Board of Admiralty varied their instructions, and gave orders entirely different from what they had given before. I give the most positive denial to that statement. The new orders to which he has referred were sent out on the day after we received Sir Charles Napier's letter of the 24th of September, and if the hon. and learned gentleman will look at the close of the despatch of the 4th of October, I think that he will see that Sir Charles Napier was told that he must make no desperate attack; and that whethez he should attack or not was left entirely to his own discre• tion v Warning was given him that if the mi ens placed at his disposal were adequate, the country had a right to ex pect that everything that valour could do should be at tempted ; but that the decision as to the course which should be taken rested entirely with him. (Hear, hear.) If that passage is in the despatch, I must say that I think the hon. and learned gentleman has been guilty of a want of fairness and candour towards the Government in not reading it. (Hear.) Something has been said with re spect to au assertion made both by myself and nay gallant friend the member for Gloucester, that Admiral Napier had not been dismissed from the command of the fleet. It is quite true that on the whole the Admiralty had pc. ground for censuring Sir Charles Napier fur his conduct of the fleet, but it is not true that the Board of Adiniralt did not censure certain acts of Sir Charles Napier with re ference to the authority of the Government. On the con trary, they had more than once to warn the gallant admiral that the language and tone he assumed towal de the autho rity under which he served did not appear consistent with the subordination and deference due to the supreme autho rity under which he so commanded. Then, as to bip alleged dismissal. It is quite certain that admirals, hav ing performed similar services in the Baltic, have receiveu similar orders at the end of the autumn so to strike 0-lei! flags. Admiral Hope, who commanded in the Baltic iu 1812, was on his return ordered to strike his flag. It doe: not however, follow that, when an admiral is ordered t& strike his flag, ho may not be ordered to rehoist it. It rests with the authorities to decide whether the conduct of the officer in that command has been such as to entitle him to that confidence. And I do not think that it wilt redound to the efficiency of the service, or be conducive ti good discipline, or hive a happy effect on our forces, whe ther by sea or land, if this house should sit in judgment whether it is right that, at the termination of a naval campaign, they should again employ a particular offices or not. It is quite clear that Sir C. Napier, on the 24th of September, in writing this despatch with reference to future operations before Sweaborg, did takea course which insured him the command in the Baltic if that plan was adopted. But it was for the executive to determine whe ther, having regard to the whole conduct of the gallant admiral, it was desirable to reappoint him. I have had the honour of knowing Sir Charles Napier for a long pe riod. I have the greatest admiration of the gallantry he has displayed on many trying occasions. These are not empty words. On my responsibility, in the year 1353, I awarded to him a good-service pension, as a mark of the respect of the Admiralty for his past services. But I should be altogether unworthy of my place in this house, and of the office which I lately had the honour to fill, if I did not say that the tone, from a very early period, taken by Admiral Napier in commenting on his instructions was turbulent and insubordinate, and assumed a character which I should say was altogether inconsistent with his duty to the Admiralty, and that if the Admiralty had tamely submitted to it, and orderedhine to rehoist his flag, it would have set the worst possible example to the sere vice. I have now told the exact truth with regard to what occurred. I have not a partial° of unkind feeling to Sit Chas. Napier • on the contrary, I deeply regret what has happened. But again I repeat it, I think it will be a very great misfortune if the executive Government consent to the publication of this correspondence. If I had had any doubt before as to the propriety of ordering Sir Charles Napier to resume the command of the Baltic fleet, the course he has pursued since he was ordered to strike his lag—his language, to which I have before a lverted—his not having hesitated, when angry with me and the board under which he served, to produce documents of a most confidential nature—would certainly have removed any hesitation on that subject from my mind. (Hear, hear.) I now leave the matter in the hands of the house. They will decide whether this correspondence shall be produced. But never in my life was I more astonished at any course taken by an hon. member of this house than at that which the hon. and learned gentleman the member: for 'Wallingford has thought it consistent with his dignity to pursue on this occasion. lam certainly glad that it is not a member of the naval profession who has acted in this way. (Hear, hear.) As for the equity and love of justice of the hon. and learned member, it may be very good practice in the courts, but it will not, I think, satisfy the House of Com mons. (Cheers.) Admiral WALCOTT, after declaring that he was not influenced by any party feeling en this question, that be much regretted the course taken by Sir Charles Napier, in addressing the company assembled at the Lord Mayor's . banquet at the very time that his applica tion f o r a court martial did endernot enter enrin considerationteany a i bzu en of thetshsieAdmaa papers which d that he rs which had been referred to until they were all before the n t which ho u se—said that it was true tha t there was a very preva. lent impression that the achievements of the Baltic fleet magnificent however, this impression e had b eneont sent adequateot. toH e eean thought, agu was unjust. For there could be no doubt that a fl ee t de spatched to sea on so short a notice must have be en ill manned (as Admiral Napier had asserted), and b es id es it w that,sent, from it was fm necessarily inefficient in the seas to which being without an adequate number o f praum s or gun-boats adapted for s h a ll o w water. Ho believed, too, that it was quite erroneous to sup pose that ships could act successfully against stone walls. What had taken place at Bomarsund and on the naval attack of Sebastopol had shown the fallaciousness of the public expectation on this point; and he believed that if the Dey of Algiers had not been so cursedly afraid of our fleet—(loud laughter)—and allowed them to come unmo lested close under the batteries, that it was very doubtful whether Lord Exmouth could ever have gained the posi tion from which he operated so successfully. He certainly e far against h such athere fore, did not say that a fleet could not run int o S,b astopol or anything movement else; ben atthteenchdearNevsitwh srt ereetOssto. 1s fore, as he could judge, Sir Cha r l es N ap i er had exercised a wise discretion in net running the risk of crippli ng hi s fleet, and had fulfilled the ju s t expe ctations of the country. (Hear, hear.) With re s p ec t to the production of these papers he quite agreed that they ought to be wholly or not was s prudent rather t inclined n r produce u t coo deferau y at all before the h ouse . He could not say whether it world b o t f o th th em e authority; le u t n t of f i s the po i the right hon. baronet. As to the order to Sir Charles Napier to stake his flag, it was true it was conveyed in a curt way; but then the Admiralty were invariable' curt. (A laugh. Nor could he say that the order was either in itself a cen sure or a dismissal, or that it was not conformable to rule He did, however, think that, as the Admiralty said they were on the whole satisfied with his conduct, and at all events brought no charge against him, it would have been only a proper consideration for his feelings had they, in ordering him to strike his flag and come on shore, con veyed to him that fair and merited praise which the gal lant admiral's letter drew from the m two days la.ter. (Hear, hear.) ' He thanked God we had now a fine fleet at Spit head, ready to sail in a few days. A more efficient fleet could never leave these shores. It would possess one great advantage Which Pit C, Napieex fitlt would .NEWSPAPER ;tac 4 b 1 1 11 . - .ol4l4efts 0/0 1 4solikam4' have praums and gun-boats att. . doubt that we should hear of the - Baltic. Let the house at any rate\. al/ - that British officers and seamen cotti. _do ireald •bi formed by the fleet about to sail. (Hearear.)ll Sir C. WOOD —I de not think it advisablZa For nal) to salient in the slightest degree to the various topics introduced ba the hon. and learned gentleman who has brought this sub ject before the house. Certainly in my experience I have. never before known such a course pursued, and I think that. the house will not sanction with approbation the quoting of extracts from private letters and official reports not pro perly before the house, and relating to operations which may be repeated. I will only protest in the strongest terms. I can use against such a course, as for the first time in my experience, and I believe in the experience of the oldest member present, has been to-night pursued in this house. My right hon. friend has said that it, rests with the execu tive Government to say whether these papers should be produced. It seems to me utterly impossible, and quite inconsistent with the interests of the public service, that these letters should be produced—letters which discuss the means, the passibility, and the mode of attacking the for tressesu of It , tlieknetehrteagallant e who onthlent has optelcrt tem pered ijnosat addressed the Russia: hose that all that call he accomplished by British by discretion, will be done by the gallant fleet which is row about to leave our shores. Bat I would ask any gentleman in this holm whether it can conduce to the pub lic interest that the mode and the possibility of such attacks as those to which I have adverted should be now laid before them ? I apprehend it simply requires that statement to be made for the house to see that it is the duty of the Government to resist the production of these papers. I entertain the most entire conviction that the same opinion will be entertained by any hon. gentleman who hears that statement, and that the house will unani mously, and without a dissentient voice, agree that it' is impossible the.° papers should be produced. It seems un neeessary to say a single word more in argument in sup port of that proposition ; for if its truth is not self-evident, no argument that I could use would strengthen it. (Hear.) Captain SCOBELL contended that Admiral Napier was placed at a great disadvantage from the undue expecta tions which were entertained by the country with respect to what could be, or would be, achieved by the Baltic fleet. He believed that it 'would have been quite impos sible for him to have attacked the Russian fortresses in the exercise of a prudent discretion. He thought also that if he was to have been removed from his command, the determination of the Admiralty might have been conveyed to him with more courtesy and consideration. (Hear.) He was convinced that if Sir C. Napier had attempted to force his way into any of the Russian ports in the Baltic a great disaster would have occurred. There was one expres sion used by the late First Lord of the Admiralty which he hoped would be withdrawn. The right hon. baronet said he admitted Sir C. Napier had shown that "discretion" which was " the better part of valour." (Hear.) They all knew what that meant. It was an unjust expression, for the career of Sir C. Napier would compare, considering his ~p portunities, with that of any man who held her Ma esty's commission. (Cheers.) It was to be hoped, there fore, that the right hen. baronet did not mean to impeach the valour of Admiral Napier when he said that it had been accompanied by a large measure of discretion. (Hear.) Sir C. Napier complained of the letter of the Admiralty ordering him to strike his flag and come on shore. The Admiralty did write curt letters • it was part of their system ; and while he would not edit an arbitrary board, he had no hesitation in saying that it required a more blind obedience than any other department of the Govern ment. (Hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM—I am extremely obliged to the hon. and gallant gentleman for having called my attention to the expression which he has referred to. If that expression, with reference to the discretion of Sir C. Napier, can bear the interpretation which my hon. and gallant friend has put upon it—and naval officers are rightly sensitive upon these points—l most willingly retract the expression— (cheers)—as it was not intended to convey any such impu tation. Far from it. It would be au absurdity to raise such an imputation, for the life of the gallant admiral falsifies it. (Cheers.) Mr. M. GIBSON—The right hon. gentleman, in his reply to the hon. and learned gentleman opposite said he re gretted that this question was brought under our notice by a lawyer. I think the experience of the right hon. gentle man as First Lord of the Admiralty wilt suggest to his mind some very good reasons why naval officers should not put themselves prominently forward in disputes between the Board of Admiralty and those whom they employ.. (A laugh.) I quite agree that it is unreasonable to revive any more the old dinner at the Reform Club, and think it was unnecessary for the hon. and learned gentleman opposite even to tell us of the dinner at the Mansion-house. I am wil.i.ng be pair off the dinner at the Mansion-house with the diuner at the Reform Club—(a laugh)—for, in that respect, I think the belligerents stand upon an equal footing. With regard to papers having been garbled, pri vate letters quoted from, and public documents of great importance introduced into this house without having been areviously laid upon the table by the authority of the Go vernment, all I have to say is, that the motion before us is for papers, and when a member aubmits a motion ques tioning the conduct of the Executive Government, he must make out a prima facie case; and for that purpose what can he refer to but documents ? Does the right hon. baronet dispute the accuracy of the quotations made by the hon. and learned member opposite ? No, he does not, but he questions the propriety of introducing such ex tracts; and I must say that he has shown a marvellous "discretion" in declining to go into those public papers, tad to meet the quotations of the hon. member opposite. (Hear, hear.) I could not collect exactly what the present First Lord of the Admiralty said. (A laugh.) I have been accustomed to sit a good way from the Treasury Bench, and row I am more distant than ever—(laughter) —but I understood the right hon. gentleman to commence his speech by stating that he did not intend to advert to the subject immediately under discussion, but would say generally that the production of the papers in question was inconvenient to the public interests. That is a curt re )ly. (A laugh.) I wish to know whether it is not pos sible to produce papers sufficient to throw light upon the ;latter as regards Sir C. Napier's complaints, and yet not injure the public interests, by furnishing ns with such )xtracts as may be necessary for the first purpose, but withholding, in accordance with the common practice, hose parts that are prejudicial to the interests of the ountry ? (Hear, hear,) Nothing is so common. No correspondence from the Foreign office—no public docu tient whatever—is morel for in this house except with a .emplete understanding that only extracts should be pro luccd if any portion of such correspondence is injurious to ;he public interests. I think that a similar rule might be &lowed in this case, and when we remember that the cor .-espondence moved for dates only from the 20th of Decem )er, when Sir C. Napier hauled down his flag, and there 'ore does not so immediately relate to the operations in the Baltic; that seems to be an additional reason why re should not have any difficulty in agreeing to the pro inction of that correspondence. But what is the position of Sir C. Napier ? Has a naval officer no redress in this country ? (Hear, hear.) He has been, say what you please, censured by the Admiralty. It is andersteod by the country at large that the Government is not satisfied with his conduct. Me demands inquiry. He has a right to de mand it in justice to his own reputation. He goes in a proper way to the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle, and asks for a court-martial. It is refused. (Hear, bear.) He next goes to the Prime Minister of the late, and also, I believe, to the Prime Minister of the present Government, and asks for inquiry. He is answered that there is no case for investigation. - What resource is there !eft to him but to come here? I ask, are we, the repro-• sentatives of the interests and honour of England—if a public servant comes to us and tells us that ho has made Application in vain to the proper authorities, and has used without effect the legitimate means of redress, and that he. July comes to us as a last resource, are we to turn upon him and say, " We will grant you ne redress—we will look into no papers ; it is very inconvenient to tho country to. interfere between the Executive and the officers whom it employs?" It appears that we cannot take such a course if we wish to discharge the duty which undoubtedly de waves upon us, to see not only that the Executive is fairly dealt with by its officers, but also that the public servants are fairly treated by the Executive. (Hear.) Thereis such a thing, when great expectations have been excited, and. when public disappointinent follows the want of success, as shifting responsibility upon the public servants, and es caping from that fair share of blame which the Executive ought to bear. (Hear.) It is for us independent members of Parliament to take care that unfortunate Administra tions do not victimise faithful and zealous public servants who have endeavoured to dischargetheirduty, and who are not responsible for any part of the failure that may have occurred. (Cheers.) I can assure the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle that my object in interfering in this matter is a public ono. Undoubtedly, I have for some time past had a personal acquaintance with Sir Charles Napier; but if I had not, having read the documents to which the hon. and learned gentleman opposite has ad verted, I shoal(' unquestionably have felt it my duty to take a part in this discussion. Let me now refer to the despatch of the 4th of October, to which the right hon. gentleman has alluded, and which was the first despatch that emanated from the Admiralty implying that they were dissatisfied with Sir C. Napier's proceedings, and goading him on to an attack upon Sweaborg. The right hon. gentleman says that the report of the fall of Sebasto pol had no effect in inducing the Government to alter their order, and to goad Sir C. Napier to making an attack upon Sweaborg. I hold the despatch in my hand. Undoubtedly, the word " Sebastopol" is not mentioned ; but 'what are the contents of the despatch, given, be it observed, as the reason why Sir. C. Napier should attempt a hazardous en terprise against Sweaborg with his fleet alone, contrary to his own judgment, eentrary to the judgment of the French admiral, and contrary to the judgment of the Englishgere ral of engineers? The .3tl of October was the day upon which the news of the fall of Sebastopol came to this coun try. The despatch from the Admiralty is dated the 4th, and it says; " Recent events in the Black Sea will not en courage the Russians to attempt any enterprise of more than usual hazard and 'daring at this precise moment." - (Cheers.) It may be' said that referred to the battle of Alma ; but it is very extraordinary that as soon as it was discovered that Sebastopol was not taken, without waiting to see what wass - the result of the instructions of the 4th of October, out goes another despatch on the 9th, to tell Sir C. Napier that all operations may be considered as con cluded for the season, and ordering him to come away as fast as he can. That despatch was sent by telegraph. The French fleet was ordered to reunite with Sir C. Napier when it was believed Sebastopol had fallen, but the , mo ment the Admiralty discovered that Sebastopol haul not fallen it was telegraphed to the French fleet not to go back up the Baltic and rejoin Sir C. Napier, for no further o i l: s e - - rations would be taken that year. This is inferenti a l lAA I maintain it affords a strong preonmP t' n that there was a sort of giddiness came over certain Pewrsoon7Bi t hat they fancied the Russians were demoralised and d not, had been whic h as and that, therefore, those expeditionsred to be attempted. 'Vas viously condemned were I " at that precise ntoment," undertake any great enterprise ; ordered member for Carlisle has elides- C Na ier, becaus e , h • youreL tight e g a e s n t t le t that Sweaborg was unassailable, first told the Government that Sir ph aving in consequence of which the y did not think it necessary to send out gun - boat s and other appliances for the pu r p ose o f taking a place that was pronounced impregnable, and aftrwards stated that it could b e t a k en b y the fleet ish that o bj ec t , an d therefore misled and disappointed the Government. Am I accu rately repgating the right hoe. gentleman' s statements? Sr J. GRAHAM—To som e ex t ent. alone, ho ho failed to accomplish Mr. GIBSON—I have no desire to misrepresent the right hon. gentleman, but I am sure h e sa id that Sii C. Napier in the first instance informed the Government that Sweaborg was unassailable. What werethe facts? Sir C. Napier on the 30th of May receiied'oertnin pleas of Swot. bor.'. He had not then insp ec ted nor evenseen it himself, and was his d u t y a t th e time, he. fcirivarded those 'plans to the Admiralty, with the observation that, according to those plans, Sweaborg appeared to be unassailable. put 'on the 20th of June, having had an opportunity of inspect s . i n & Sweaborg, he submitted a plan for taking it—a plan which required a description of force with which he was • -not then provided,- and -with which, if he had been pro vided, h e co ns id er ed he should have been successful ; but ho uffer Kid is }ay Put of that corxopondence—and I A - - 1 7 .7 , r 0 '~, ti