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

regretted
1 Ministe-

in
proposed

provision
'1 in

no
of
stated

powers
bill were

that
He
; of
in.

and
un-

any
reasonably

managed
bo-
/as
one

that
ied,

to
itro-

counties
There
' the

be-
of
founded.

of
ler
force

coun-
estab-

expenses
:ith
measure

Ivasion
le
a

)bett,
and

THE PRESS.

1854-55," entered into a lengthened explanation of his
conduct while in command of the fleet during the
former year. The gallant admiral first alluded to
the circumstances connected with his appointment.,
and asserted that he was sent into the Baltic with an
ill-manned, inefficient fleet, without pilots, without
charts, and with contradictory orders from the Board
of Admiralty, the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, and the First Lord of the Admiralty.
Quoting largely from the correspondence which
passed between him and Sir James Graham, and
drawing attention to the frequent cautions from
that right hon. baronet against " rash mea-
sures," against " the madness of rushing head-
long against granite walls," and generally commend-
ing the prudence the gallant admiral had shown,
Sir Charles Napier read passages from his own let-
ters to prove that after a careful survey and due
consideration on the 18th of July, he proposed the
fitting out a squadron of gun and mortar boats, as
the only effectual means of destroying Sweaborg, to
which Sir J. Graham replied, " that with 50,000 mPn
and 200 gun-boats he might do something." On the
22nd ofJuly, atter his visit to Cronstadt, he sent home
a plan for attacking the place. The Admiralty re-
plied that they had confidence in his judgment;
they were aware that he had offered battle to the
enemy, but it would be of no avail to attack an im-
pregnable fortress ; that he must bear in mind that
the great object was to render the Russian fleet use-
less. Then came the affair of Boniarsund, and the
reported capture of Sebastopol. Upon which out
came orders to attack Sweaborg ; and this was the
origin of the difference between him and the Admi-
ralty. Hitherto the Admiralty had been all caution.
The moment the famous Tatar arrived with news of
the capture of Sebastopol, they urged an immediate
attack on Sweaborg. Directly the truth about Sebas-
topol was known, they telegraphed to him "on no
account to attack Sweaborg, but to send the big ships
home." Then, when the people at home cried out
about the little the fleet had done, the Admi-
ralty insisted that he might have attacked Abo
or Sweaborg successfully with the means at his
command, purposely misquoted a passage in Gene-
ral Nielt's report to support this view, wilfully
misinterpreted the gallant admiral's own report, and
finally censured and then dismissed him from his
command. The gallant admiral concluded by claim-
ing, as a matter of justice, that a committee should
be appointed to investigate the subject and pronounce
sentence upon his conduct.
Admiral WALCOT, though not wholly approving of
the motion, was willing to second it.

Sir CHARLES WOOD entirely disapproved of the
motion. It was unprecedented and mischievous. It
was a question upon which the house ought not to
be called on to interfere. It would be inconsistent
with the good of the service ; and he contended that
Sir Charles Napier had not shown the slightest
ground for appealing to the house from the judg-
ment of his superior officers—the Board of Ad-
miralty.

Sir J. GRAHAM rejoiced to have at length the op-
portunity of meeting Admiral Napier face to face and
replying to charges which had been so long promul-
gated and so often repeated in other forms and places.
Remarking upon the heavy accusations piled up
against himself, Sir J. Graham charged Admiral
Napier with making an unwarrantable use of official
correspondence, public and private, observing that
the documents were not merely quoted in the speech
just delivered, but had been long before shown to
miscellaneous acquaintances, and left for weeks
together in the hands of the editor of a newspaper.
On one charge, preferred in a published letter, that
the Admiralty were not sincere in 1854, or serious in
1855, in wishing to cripple Russia, he was ready to
join issue before any tribunal that could he appointed
to try the question. He denied that he had sponta-
neously offered the command of the fleet to Sir C.
Napier. Sir Charles Napier had applied for it, and
urged various reasons why it should be conferred
upon him. He (Sir James Graham) had hesitated
long before he recommended the appointment of the
gallant admiral—particularly on the score of advanced
age—as the gallant admiral had himself expressed
very decided opinions about the unfitness of admirals
above sixty years of age. Respecting the condition
of the fleet, Sir James replied to the allegations made
against the manning of the ships and their fitness to
go into action ; and he accused Sir Charles of charging
several captains, high on the list, with being unfit for
command, and proposing to send them home with dis-
grace, though he would not be so ungenerous, he said,
as to produce Sir Charles' confidential letters on the sub-
ject. Proceeding to the question regarding Sweaborg,
Sir James stated that the whole difference between Sir
Charles and the Admiralty was attributable to the
neglect of the former, who, on the 30th of May, wrote
that Sweaborg was unattackable by land or sea, but
did not make a personal reconnaissance of the place
until so late a period as the 24th of September,
General Jones having, after such a reconnaissance,
reported to Sir Charles in favour of an attack of the
place on the 27th of August. In conclusion, Sir J.

'+.'.'

245

Graham said he had been called a friend of Russia,
but, if treason was charged against him, the matter
ought not to stop there. He, however, defied any
one to say that any effort had been omitted by him to
give the utmost possible latitude to naval efforts both
in the Baltic and in the Black Sea.
Sir M. F. BERKELEY retaliated very severely upon
Sir Charles Napier, imputing to him want of nerve,
decision, firmness, and discretion. Admiral Berkeley
also alluded in the most personal and disparaging
terms to Sir Charles Napier's conduct at Acre.
Captain SCOBELL complained of these personalities,
and defended Sir Charles Napier. If Sweahorg
could have been taken in 1854, why was it not taken
in 1855?

After a few words by Mr. MuNTz,
Mr. NV. LINDSAY pointed out the inconsistency of
Sir M. Berkeley, holding so mean an opinion of Sir
Charles Napier's conduct before Acre, in concur-
ring in his appointment to the command of the
Baltic fleet.

Mr. MAu's joined in this sentiment, thinking that
both Sir J ciraham and Sir M. Berkeley were open
to the reproach or appointing an officer to a high
command for which they acknowledged they knew at
the time he was not fit :

It must still be fresh in the memory of many hon.
members that a year ago the tight hon. gentleman, though
then, as now, First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, came
down to that house and surprised them all by declaring
that it had been the proudest object of his own ambition to
command the Baltic beet; but that he felt it to be a duty
to his country to withdraw his own claims in favour of the
man who was on all hands admitted to possess the highest
qualifications for the post. Surely these were inconsisten-
cies that required explanation. Sir• James Graham had
not explained how he could consistently direct Sir Charles
Napier, when the French army and fleet had left, ►o do
sittgle•handed at the end of October that which he had
admitted th e combined fleets were unequal to undertake
in the middle of September. Great injustice had been
done to the gallant admiral who had been charged with
not making a proper reconnaissance at Sweaborg in May,
and with not taking proper measures to destroy that
fortress in the autumn of NM. The best answer to that
was, that what the gallant admiral was blamed for not
effecting in October, 18.54, was not even achieved in the
campaign of 185.5.

Mr. OSBORNE observed that if Sir Charles bad
personally reconnoitred Sweaborg earlier than he
did there would have been time to send out gun-boats
and mortars for the attack. This was an error in
judgment on his part, and he had evinced a want of
discretion in ever bringing his case before the public.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER replied to Admiral Berkeley's
personal attack, and declared upon his word of
honour that he bad never told Admiral Stopford not
to attack Acre. In bringing forward his motion he
had done what he thought proper for the defence of
of his character. Not one of his allegations had been
answered, either by the ex First Lord, the existing
First Lord, the First Naval Lord, or the Secretary cf
the Admiralty. He was content to let his case rest
on the letters he had brought forward. In conclu-
sion, the gallant admiral withdrew his motion.
PRUSSIA AND THE CONFERENCES.

Mr. DISRAELI, on Thursday, said :
I wish to ask the noble lord a question &So respecting
the Conferences at Paris, the answer to which, how-
ever, I believe will not violate the rule of which he has
very properly reminded the house. The question I
desire to put is one of a very important character, referring
as it does to the relations between the Court of Berlin and
the Conferences of Paris. Will the noble lord be good
enough to inform the house whether it be true that
Prussia has been invited to attend the Conference, that
she has accepted that invitation, and that two distin-
guished diplomatists, one of whom is a personage not less
eminent than the First Minister of Prussia, are about to
visit Paris for the purpose of attending the negotiations?
(Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON : I am afraid, sir, that I can only give
to this question exactly the same answer as I made to the
last. ( A laugh.)
Mr. Disalaci: I beg permission, sir, to offer a word in
explanation. I, of course, do not object to the noble lord
refusing to answer my inquiry, but I cannot conceive that
his reply to the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Bowyer)
at all applies to my question, which was one of a very
different character from that of the hon. member. There-
fore I would request the noble lord entirely to decline
giving me any answer, instead of offering me one which in
no way refers to the interrogatory which I put to him.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON : I beg the right hon. gentleman's
pardon, but he asked me whether the members of the
Conferences have invited, or are about to invite, Prussia
to join in tl e negotiations, and whether the Prirae Minis-
ter of Prussia is about to go to Paris in order to be 'pre-
sent at the Conferences. My answer was, that I declined
to give any information as to what the Conference aie
about to do, and of course it is not competent for me to
state whatthe Prussian Prime Minister contemplates doing.
(Hear.)

THE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE CRIMMAN
TARTARS.
Lord PALMERSTON, on Thursday, in reply t) Mr.
Holland as to what would be the positon of the
Crimean Tartars in the event of peace being estab
Lished, said :

IVIAncH 15, 1856.
rott6ings In Vat-Hamad.
__-
POLICE BILL.
' Sir GEORGE GREY, on Monday, in moving the
second reading of this bill, took the opportunity to re•
state his reasons for introducing it, as well as tc
pcint out the nature of the provisions contained in
the bill, and to explain the modifications he proposed
to make in it. The right hon. baronet, quoting s
vast number of facts relating to the local provision
for the police force, and its general inefficiency both in
quantity and quality, not only in small boroughs but
in larger ones named by him, argued that the inter.
vention of the Legislature was urgently required tc
secure an effectual provision for life and property
Sir George Grey then traced the operation and intii.
sated the principle of the bill, submitting that nc
undue invasion was contemplated upon the system oi
local self-government. Some modificat'on he stated
had been made in the measure since its first intro.
duction. Among others, the compulsory powers
assigned to the Home Secretary under tne bill were
not to be made applicable to municipal boroughs.
Mr. C. FORSTER moved, as an amendment, that
the second reading be deferred for six months. He
objected to the principle as well as to the details of
the bill. The principle of centralisation was still in-
corporated in its provisions—a principle repugnant
to the institutions and habits of England.
Captain ScosEtr. seconded the amendment, and
stigmatised the bill as imperious, tyrannical, and un-
English.
Sir H. STRACEY supported the bill.
Sir G. PECHELL opposed the bill, as it tended tc
expand the principle of centralisation.
Mr. PACKE defended the bill, which in his opinion
neither infringed municipal rights nor contained any
clauses of which the boroughs might reasonably
complain.
Sir J. WILMSLEY thought that, as the Government
had yet given no proof that they could manage their
own affairs better than the corporations managed
theirs, any interference with the rights of the bo-
roughs and the principle of local self-government was
not justified. The measure was a false step, and one
from which the Government should retire.
Colonel SMYTH recommended that the bill should
be withdrawn and another substituted.
Mr. BENTINCK suggested, as an improvement, that
a minimum number of policemen should be named,
founded upon the number of inhabitants in the re-
spective districts.
Mr. W. J. Fox joined in the recommendation to
the Home Secretary to withdraw the bill and intro-
duce another, confining its operation to counties. It
was admitted on all bands that the police in counties
stood in need of improvement and extension. There
was no evidence of dissatisfaction as regarded the
police of boroughs.
Mr. HENLEY insisted that the bill went much be-
yond the recommendation of the select committee of
1853, on whose report it was professedly founded.
From a comparison of facts, scattered over many
years and counties, he inferred that the condition of
districts where there was no rural police was rather
better than that of other districts in which the force
had been established, with respect to the visible
amount of crime. The advantage being so doubtful,
be did not see why it should be forced down the
throats of a reluctant community.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE believed that the changes to
be effected by the bill had been much exaggerated.
The only alteration contemplated, even in the coun-
ties, amounted to little more than the general estab-
lishment of a rural police, under the inspection of the
Government, in return for which part of the expenses
was to be defrayed from the public exchequer. With
regard to the boroughs, the operation of the measure
would be of still slighter character. He supported
the bill.
it Mr. J. B. SMITH could not agree with the second
reading. The measure was a direct assault upon the
principle of self-government, and he deeply regretted
that it should have proceeded from his (the Ministe-
rial) side of the house.
Mr. RICE maintained that there was no invasion
attempted in the bill of the rights or liberties of the
boroughs. Borough members were frightened at a
shadow.
Mr. Deedes, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Cobbett,
and Mr. Knight opposed the bill; Mr. Cayley and
Mr. Warner supported the second reading.
Sir GEORGE GREY, in reference to the suggestion
that the measure should be withdrawn, stated that he
could not take that course.
On a division, the numbers were—
For the second reading 259
Against it lO6
Majority for the second reading . • 153
THE BALTIC FLEET.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER, on Thursday, in moving
" fur a select committee to inquire into the opera-
ti°us of the British fleet in the Baltic, in the years

Sir, it is invariably the practice in the case of a war in
the course of which the army of either country have occu.
pied the territory of the other, that, if there should subse-
quently be a pacific agreement between the parties, an am-
nesty is granted to all subjects who may have been in any
way committed in the course of the hostilities. I cannot
have the slightest doubt that an agreement of that sort,
binding on all the belligerents, would form part of the
tipulations to be made in case of re-establishment of peace
b y the pending negotiations. (Hear, hear.)