The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-03-14 00:00:00

THE BALTIC FLEET.

- -
Sir C. NAPI Ell:moved for a select committee to inquire into 0,1
proceedings of the Baltic fleets in 1854 and 1855. , hon•
gallant gentleman commenced his observations by referring ti
past services, •tatinz that he had been in the service fifty-std
sears, during which time he had commanded fi.ets and arm'es,
had endeavoured to do his duty, and he then proceeded to relate :he
circumstances connected with the Baltic expedit on which lie cots-
mended in 1954. Passing over the ce'ebrated reform club dinner+
some of the speeches at which, he said had raised the country t°
such state of expectation, that had he brought the I'm (rfr
Nicholas home, the people would not have been sati fiel unless de
hsd brought St Petersburg too. He allude I to the imperfect
unsatisfactory manner in which the fleet wat manned, and th°
ability and energy which had been displayed by the officers in reduc•
ing the mixed crews to a state of discipline. For this, and roe the
successful navigation which he had accom.lished under ver
unfavourable citcumstances, he expected thanks, but 1 is proceed-
ings had been severely commentel upon. The gallant genii:Ml
alluding to and detailing incidents in the Bal is Expedit.on, rea
letters from Sir James Graham, dated June and July. 1854, recone
mending him not to run the fleet against s'one walls, int.rlol
that he should nut attack Cronstadt or Sweaborg, wh ch were rate
by the hon. baronet to be almost impregnable, and expressing ntire
silence upon tus (,ir C. Napier's) imprudence as .sell as ga InntrY
These I-tiers were, he admitted, to some extent of a private C
ter, but they rel .ted to matters of public interest, and he t
himself justified in reading them on that oc anion. He mew—,
the destruct on of Bomarsund. which he had 'been commen,t(l
by the Admiralty, and afterwards entitling to the orders
he had receives in August t, return home, the obj-ctions of the
French admirals to leave the Baltic, and the public meetings to which
that circiunstiine, gave rise. he comp'ained that Sir James Gratodl
had fastened the blame, that Sweaborg was not ta':en, upon lii n, iA
order to appease the public, and to cover his own political purposr.,
He c. mmented upon the fact, that the English Admiralty

eh irae"
4“,t1g14

the impression th it the French fleet had not been ordered horn"
when `ir James Graham communicated with him as to ri:e It !:1;
bility of taking Sweaborg. and stated that he (Sir C. Napicr) ni
s.en the despatch dated August 30, ordering the Fr.,nch
back to Chet bourglUpon receiving the orders to which he referreu,
he imm diately:sent his r ailiing vessels some, and after they i a i VI!!
he rec,ivrd an order from the Admiralty, who d d not seem to to

aware of the French Admiral's orders to send away his sailing
sels, but they were far on:the road home. He stated distinctly to th,a
Admiralty that noth.ng could be done against Sweaborg in tha
year, and that opinion was shared in by the French Admiral. and
he complained that the Admiralty and Sir Jas. Grahatn on that
acceunt were ready to throw him overboard. He also comp a Oda
that Sir Jame.' Graham had mis-translated a French despatch .1'
had misconstrued his report upon the second reconnoissot
Sweaborg. in order to rain him. 111 his opinion Sir J. G ahar
never serious its the Russian war, as he wrote to prevent tit,
from making any attack in the manner they ought, and direct-
attacks should be made when it was so late in the year

it inpossible to carry out the order. He did not comp
was not sent to th • Baltic ag +in, buthr thought he ha-' c

ptainef theman- er of his dismissal, for though the Ad rit
that they had no cause to censure his conduct, yet he cc
the tone of their correi ondenee. They charged hitn with r

ntilltheyretu ed to grant acort-tivirttal to 'nquire into ti

He did not condemn the Admiralty for not sen ing c
in 1854, when the war commenced, but he charged

neglect for not taking in 1855 the precautions atigges,el by "wt
expedition of 1851, and 1i felt convi• ced that if the rrenarationt; tb,a_
h been made for 1856. had been made at the be,inning of the
1855, the war would have long since been brought to a EI or ay!
termination. He c ,nsidered that if he had done right in the 1;51",,`;
he had been treated unjustly, and if he had done wron, ,he 01-Ig"..
to be ply,ished for it, arid he a,ked the House to gran: him a s l c"
committee to enquire into the subject.
ci tea
Admiral WA LCOTT believed th a the Admiralty had

inadequa,e y f r the expedition of 1854, and urged that the eNreed
cane of the war of 1898-9 cave a test of the force that was requ,f,4
for the Baltic. II thow:ht, however, the B Itic expel Poie
been most suce,sf,il in blockading, and in keeping in d
Rus.iln fleet, which was one f.f the most serious injuries that cou

be inflicted on the flevt of an enemy
''''
Sir C. WOOD said that in the course of a quirter of a century
experience in 'hat Hou e, he tad never seen—he had never klwang
such a mischievous and pr judicial course taken as The n'''"ti, e
nubl'e of a se ret correspondence. With:regard to the motion "'

t a corn

honourabi and gallant gentleman, he did not think tha.
mittee of that House was a proper tribunal to inquire into the
c 0 et
duct of an offi.'er of Her Majesty's service. But putt ng asi ,e the se
col"..
correspondence, which oueht never to have been made pubic., he
tended that no case had been made for inquiry Into the cal lant ect7to.
rat's conduce He had not be n censured; he had brew called tile°4,oe
lover his flag on his return home from an expeelteon, ae %we
officers bad done before him, and as Admiral 'evades has "'zest
after him, but na charge whatever bad been publicly made aga'iias
him. As to the operations in the Baltic in ISA, he de iie:t .t oft
their was an insufficient number of gun boats, and stated his (grove
that the e were sufficient for the capture of Sweabourg. No Dino;
tation had been cast unon the British Navy In the present. War fee
the contrary, never had flee's displayed so much gallantry Ss., ea
as opportunity went, and, under the circumstances, he sa`ene
reason for granting •he enquiry moved for, by the hqu, and 84°- -
memeer for Southwark.
the
Sir J. GRAHAM said, had the motion not been sccond.4 beale
member for Chrieehu-ch, it world have been his impulse to "e-ed
seconded it, as he was glad of an opportunity to meet the he."°',l,4
gallant admiral's charges which had been made public. As aluee'tte
his honour and wish, the appointment of a Comm tier would '„1 d
given him the greatest Satisfaction, and he should have been !,,e1
that every scrap of paper addressed by him to Sir C. Napier 0,11;4
be there considered, Ind that he and Sir C. Napier slreed be "me.
to appear and give evidence In the c mmittee. The rie-11t iest
Baronet enumerated the charges which had been brought ag2.lte
him by Sir C. Napier, amongst which w re political cowardi,e. Ltoe
he was not fit to have the honour of au office In his ham"' et
treason he had committed to cover his own politica' actions, anloo
conduct unworthy of a gentleman, and this he mentioned to s 4e
that Sir .;C. Napier had not, as he said was his intention In'";ed
forward his case in a spirit of moderation. fie tend e,
the conduct f the gallant admiral, in m eking public ''oo
correspondence, and referred to a corresponde-.ce beto. 0(
a Mr. Ironside. of Sheffield, and Mr. Grant. the edV°T.ci tbs.
the Morning eldrertiser chewing that Sir C. Napier had place iate
original cerrespone, nee in the hands of Mr. Onnt, w:th instrucr,era
not to publish them, but wi how any prohibition as to showine °do.
to h a friends, which Mr. Grant had expressed his will nene4s CI for
As to the steement of Br C. Napier th it the tics t was inefecit'nvd.
the purpose, the right hon. I,aronet read a letter to -er Chats. eee„je
Feb nary 15, 1854, warning him that if he did not think fly: tri. be
which the Mini-tatty were able to place at his disposal ufficie• el
hs I better net accept the command, to which the gallant decor
replied,that he was willing to take charge of the exeedit on he' wet
desperate a d the Admiralty might riepend that thehoneur e,
w .u'd not tarnish in his hands. The right hon baronet pi:lc:reit
to real a number of letters addressed by Sir. C. Napier to cl,'"eioe,
authorities to the effect that a man over 60 was not fit to un"eeraitot,
the charge of a fleet and quoting the examp'e of Lord Nelson. 4ifie
whose vie. ories were-achieved in youth. This he referred to ides
cation of the course whi .h the Admiralty took in removinire „~tithe
Nattier from he command of the Heine fl-et. He ree:lV end
statements of Sir C. Napier that the fleet was ill manneat ee;e or
reference to the remark of the Gallant Admiral that time exeft,"e
be
tee officers w,lre, most successful in changing that stet or affair:. of
quoted a pr vete despatch from Sir C. Napier, complai!lr'e to,
seve al officers, high in command, and intimating that he wl
sent them borne as use:ess to him. With regard to the co,o'!,,pt
cats n he lens to the G slant Admiral at the comineleel'aal
Kof the B tit c expedition, recommendihg him n-1 to under, of
desrerate enterprise he (Sir J. Graham) said that in the
rtrat (1.46
the gallant officer to the filet upon entering upon eemm-e'
stated his willingness to embark in any service however dene to
Hence he though! Sir C. Napier might be vto
some nab step, he therefore thought it necceeieelaoe
p 1 ce a little restraint upon the laulable zeal of the "e,eet
officer. He denied that the intention of the Gover7oo4
with regard to 'he Raffle Expedition, was influene•d by o<oiers
in the Crina'a, and read a despatch from himself to Sir C. to,
before the English troops landed in the Crimea, ,`
of
Sw abourg as a' great point to be taken. As to th frog'.
Bomarsund the Right Hon. Baronet quoted two desittu'e,
,it tne
Sir C. Napier, dive.' the 12th of June, in which he stated ntil
,n,
itg
fortress contained shout 2,00) men, and asked for 10 niwt•h
having at the time fifteen sal. of the line at his command' e
which he theugte he might succeed In subduing the fort e4;`' mite
Right Honourabl • Baronet also quoted a number %,,,,cirg
d cuments written by Sir Cl. Napier, showing ex •nsl, els
in the con elet of the Gallant Admiral. anti en tic eliet
alluding to a statement of his in the la.t ear that-fo t-esse's ei b'
be attacked by sea, which, in recent letters the gallant edtrit',.
completely contradi led With regard to the charge ell'
J. Graham) was a friend to Russia, he repu :tat d the c
remarked the' while he was at the Board of Admiralty. n`
eiecten, either in the Black Sea or the Baltic, to carry e

ree• a

with t e

eatest sue'T

k ..K.F.LFY joined in the condemnation of thden:'i of
oats colrespondence. fie referred to the con 11
ns
Sir C. Napi r in the 13,1 tic, which h• cad had not been s,l,
to win the confidence of the British Fleet. or of our
charged 013 g ll'a t admiral with indiscretion in his sPeeendiscon-
Was calculated to render seamen in her Majes,y's set,' e tnari
tented, and mutinous, and con-luded with the remark, that
and be IS
who cannot govern himself, is unfit to govern a fi.et, a
not fitted to command. who has tint learned to obey.
Captain SCOIIF:1.1 de'e, ded th • conduct f Sir C. NlnfrimgAlfs
After some remarks from Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. W• s*a Li
Mr. MALINS, and Mr. B. OSBORNE,
Sir C. NAPI R repred. whhdrawing his motion. , neforol".
The Commissio era of Supply (Scotland) Bill, and tne
tory Seim ds (Scotland) Bill passed a stage. •
The Rouse adjourned at half-pad twelve o'clock.;

daction of