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

.NEWSPAPER

;tac 4
b 1111.-.ol4l4efts 0/01
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 whoonthlenthas
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
~pportunities, 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 oil:se--
rations would be taken that year. This is inferential
lAA I maintain it affords a strong preonmPt' n that
there was a sort of giddiness came over certain Pewrsoon7Bi that
they fancied the Russians were demoralised and d not,
had been which 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, because,h •
youreL
tight
egaesntt le
t that Sweaborg was unassailable,
first told the Government that
Sir phaving
in consequence of which they did not think it necessary to
send out gun-boats and other appliances for the purpose of
taking a place that was pronounced impregnable, and
aftrwards stated that it could be taken by the fleet
ish that object, and therefore
misled and disappointed the Government. Am I accu-
rately repgating the right hoe. gentleman's statements?
Sr J. GRAHAM—To some extent.
alone, ho ho failed to accomplish
Mr. GIBSON—I have no desire to misrepresent the
right hon. gentleman, but I am sure he said 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 inspected nor evenseen it himself,
and was his duty at the 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 inspects.
in& 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, he considered he should have been successful ; but
ho uffer Kid is }ay Put of that corxopondence—and I
A - -