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

ave gone through it carefully, that he had any confidence I
in taking Sweaborg with a fleet alone. All he said was, if a
certain additional force, which he pointed out, were en-
trusted to him, he was confident success would follow. I
think I have answered the statement of the right hon.
gentleman. (Hear, hear,) But, supposing Sir C. Napier
had submitted a plan for taking Sweaborg, he was acting
in alliance with the French, and it was necessary for him
in the operations in the Baltic, to have the concurrence of 1
the French admiral. (Hear.) The council of war that was
held unanimously decided that no operations in theßalt
could be undertaken with the resources they had, after the
taking of Bomarsund. I may state to the house that after
the taking of Bomarsund, the French marshal, Baraguay
d'Hilliers, being there, the French general t
of engineers,
Niel, being there, and the French admiral being there, they e,
took into their consideration General. Jones's report. on
some plan of military co-operation which he had
submitted
for the taking of Sweaborg. The French marshal, the
French general of engineers, and the French admiral con-
demnecl that plan. It was, therefore, out of the questieu.
It required the co-operation of the French soldiers. The
French marshal condemned the plan, and would not allow
his soldiers to be used for any such purpose, as he believed
they would certainly be defeated, or at least that great loss
would ensue. Well, after the French military force had
gone, and when General Jones's plan was entirely out of
the question, out came an order from the English Govern-
ment, ordering Sir C. Napier to call a council of war to
take it into consideration. Why, the means of carrying
it into effect were absent—the French army was gone ; and
what seems so very strange is this—that the Government
in England should have been so ill-informed of the move-
ments of the French army, that after it had left the Baltic,
and when General Jones's plan, therefore, was no longer
practicable, they should have ordered Sir C. Napier to call
a council of war to take into consideration that very plan.
That council was not—it could not be—held. Another
council of war, subsequently ordered, sots held, at which
the French and English admirals were present. They de-
aided that no operations with the fleet alone could be un-
dertaken against Sweaborg, and that, indeed, it would not
be advisable at that season to engage in any operations at
all against any fortified place on the Russian coast. Now
what is remarkable is, that the two generals of engineers
reported how Sweaborg was to be taken ; but I want to
ask the gallant naval officers in this house whether it is
reasonable that these generals should be allowed to control
the conduct of admirals—whether they are fit persons to
judge how admirals shall place their ships or carry on
naval operations? But what made this particular case still
more difficult to poor Sir C. Napier was this—that the two
generals were diametrically opposed to each other, and
there was no person who so condemned the plan of Gen.
Jones as Gen. Niel. It is also a remarkable feature about
the case that Gen. Jones's plan, which may be called the
military plan, was condemned by the French officers
of the military service as well as by the French admiral ;
while General Niel's plan, which was the plan for taking
Sweaborg by ships alone, was condemned by the French
admiral. So we have the sailor's plan condemned by the
highest naval authority, the French admiral ; and the sol-
dier's plan condemned by the highest military authority,
the French marshal ; while poor Sir C. Napier was cen-
sured by the Government because he did not, somehow or
other, go in and take Sweaborg. (Laughter.) I am con-
vinced that Sir C. Napier has not been fairly treated.
(Hear.) If he had permitted himself to be goaded into some
desperate enterprise, such as the attacking of a strong for-
tress like Sweaborg with a fleet alone, we should have had
a greater disaster in the Baltic than, perhaps, any that has
been even contemplated at Sebastopol. (Hear.) I think
that Sir C. Napier has as well deserved the thanks of this
house for his conduct in the Baltic as Admiral Dundas has
for his conduct in the Black Sea. (Cheers.) Ido say that
$ sic gallant officer, finding everybody complimented, every-
body eulogised, and knowing that he has done his duty to
his country to the best of his ability, has a right to com-
plain that something like a reflection has been cast, not
only upon him, but also upon the officers who served under
him. Ido hope that he may still receive that justice to
which he is fairly entitled. I trust that we may have this
correspondence in full, and it is my firm persuasion, unable
.as I now am to go through these papers, that if they be
placed fairly before the public, and in the hands of hon.
members, an opinion will be formed that Sir C. Napierhas
done his duty, but that the Government, disappointed in
the success of the Baltic expedition, have endeavoured to
make it appear that it leas the fault of their admiral.
Admiral BERKELEY said he coulilnot regard the posi-
tion in which he stood with anything like a comfortable
feeling. (A laugh.) Hon. gentlemen might laugh, but if
they would wait a moment he would tell them why. He
bad long enjoyed the friendship of Sir C. Napier, which
had been cemented by their services together. He had
constantly been under the command of Sir Charles
Napier, had formed the highest opinion of his talents
and of his energy, and had always esteemed him as a
friend. (Hear, hear.) 'He considered, therefore, that
he was placed in a painful position, *hen his duty, as
one of the lords of the Admiralty, compelled him to stand
up and find fault with and condemn the friend whom
he would so willingly have supported. (Hear.) The hon.
and learned gentleman who spoke list had been arguing
upon private documents and public documents, and he
(Admiral Berkeley) might also have provided himself with
such documents if he had conceived it possible that private
letters would have been brought forward without the con-
sent of their writers. (Hear.) Besides that, he had looked
upon the motion more in the light of an attack upon the late
First Lord of the Admiralty than on the board generally.
As the friend of Sir C. Napier ho had been consulted by
the late First Lord of the Admiralty, not only with re-
spect to the public letters but to the private letters ad-
dressed to Sir C. Napier, and he had told that gallant
officer over and over again that if any fault should be found
with hiss in the house or out of it for not attacking Swea-
berg or Cronstadt he would stand up as his defender.
Could it be possible, then, that having a knowledge of both
the public and private letters addressed to Sir C. Napier,
he should be likely to consent to anything like a censure on
his gallant friend's conduct? (Hear.) He denied that the
Board of Admiralty ever censured the conduct or manage.
ment of the fleet before Cronstadt or Sweaborg. (Hear.)
The case lay almost in a nutshell. It was this. Sir Charles
Napier, who could use his pen as well as his sword, found
that there existed a strong feeling in the country because
nothing had been attempted against the two fortresses he
had named, and he then suddenly changed the tone of his
correspondence with the Admiralty, and endeavoured to
throw upon them that responsibility which he ought to
have borne himself. (Hear, and oh, oh.) He was sorry to
say that he had received the memorial which had been
placed in the hands of many other hen. members, which
contained a very unjust attack on two individuals, and he
must say lie little expected such an attack from an indivi-
dual who must have known what their conduct had been.
Sir C. Napier said in that paper, " Your petitioner has been
informed that there worn two candidates for the command
who had seats at the Admiralty. One was refused the com-
mand, the other was not. Surely they cannot be impartial
judges of the conduct ofyour petitioner." When he (Admiral
Berkeley) was a candidate for the office along with Sir C.
Napier himself, Sir J. Graham knowing his (Admiral Berke-
ley's) anxiety to go to the Baltic, put this straightforward
question to him, "Do yon think Sir Charles Napier is a
proper man to go to the Baltic !" Did he (Admiral Berke-
ley) say that he was a fitter person himself ? No ;he told
Sir James Graham that if Sir Charles Napier went he
should be too happy to go second under him. (Cheers.)
The other admiral to whom Sir Charles Napier referred
(Admiral Dundas) had been appointed to the command.
When he (Admiral Berkeley) applied for that command,
Sir James Graham told him that he could not go, as his
services were required at the Admiralty, and Admiral
Dundas, who never applied at all, was chosen by his right
hon friend, at his (Admiral Berkeley's) request. (Cheers.)
There was no pleasing some parties. If individuals thought
fit to find fault with a general or an admiral, the board or
theliGovernment were immediately condemned for not re-
calling such person, without giving them an opportunity of
defending themselves ; and now, forsooth, because the Ad-
miralty did not think fit to employ Sir Charles Napier
again they were to be held up to public scorn. (Hear,
hear.) Still professing the friendship which he had for-
merly entertained for Sir Charles N;lpier, but which had
been violated, he must say that—whether the paper was
granted or not—whether the case should be gone into here-
after or not—the worst thing that Sir Charles Napier could
do for his character as au officer fit to command a fleet was
to stir up this question, for the more he did so the worse it
would be for him. (Cheers )
Mr. WHITESIDE said if the house acted oath° doctrine
laid clown by the right hon. baronet (Sir James Graham),
there was no act of injustice, oppression, or iniquity tbat.
could not be perpetrated upon any officer in her Majesty's
service. It was said that the papers ought not to have been
referred to. But what was Sir C. Napier to do? He felt
that he had been insulted and aggrieved, and submitted
his case to the house. And why? He had asked the Ad-
miralty for an inquiry, but it was refused ; he then applied
for a court-martial. but it was denied him ; he then ap-
plied to the Prime Minister, who had been slumbering on
his seat during half the debate—(laughter)----but the noble
lord, saying something complimentary, refused to afford
him any redress. What was the complaint of Sir Charles
Napier? The gallant admiral was selected by the Ad-
miralty to command a most magnificent fleet on a great
occasion. Up to August he was covered with praises by
the Admiralty, and the same system of panegyric was con-
tinued until the 25th of September, when he sent an ela-
borate document, which had not been read, pointing out
two modes of discharging his duty. Now, how did it
happen that the board then tinned round and found it im-
possible to express any satisfaction with Sir C. Napier for
• the decision to which he came on a matter which properly
, belonged to him to determine. What was the conduct of
the gallant admiral? He respectfully submitted to the
Admiralty that the judgment which he had originally
formed was right, and that their construction of it was
- misunderstood, or perverted. On the 10th Oct. ho asked
• thew to withdraw certain insulting observations which had
been addressed to him, but they refused to do so. And
it now seemed that ho was not to get redress anywhere.
The right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Graham) was not so
very particular about the production of documents on
. a former occasion, when the conduct of ono of his
tolitical opponents was called in question. (Hear, hear.)
'he," thlsa
ey Pers now moved for were not private papers, nor
could in any way affect the public service, for they
were'L dated from the 20th Dec And what was the
objec-
tion to their production 7 The. right hon. gentleman (Sir
C. Wood) said their production by the Government would
be injurious to thesaraublic interest--
Sir C. WOOD
on Sweaborg, and
service. thetrhe papers disclosed a plan of attack
tot e public
. production might be detrimental
Mr. WHITESIDE said the terms of the motion excluded
all papers containing plans of
operations (Hear, hear.)
la to the understandine
The papers asked for were essential
of the case of Sir C. Napier. the G„
ernment expected
men to win victories and gain trio
rnPlui they must treat
their officers properly; and they could hardly Stipp that
gallant spirit would enter the Boors •
men of high and
tilo
when they were injured, they were to be denied the smylacleleisfi
modicum of justice. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COWPER said there
.w.tteesntah
after same
ert he objection 2 oto the
production of the letters written
before l)ecera•
bar as to the production of those writtenthat date
—because in the latter letters the previous letters were re
•d •-
cited, and matters were reproduced w h•hear )was
Hlc h
n ot es
e thou
c-
able to lay before the world. (Hear, • ght
the hon. and learned gentleman had broken public con d-
deuce in producing the statements of engineer officers as to
the capability of attacking the fortre,,ses—
Mr. MALIN'S said he had not referred! to the details of
any plan.
sir. COWPER said the honourable and learned gentle-
man had referred to the opinions of General Jones null
General Niel, and he would appeal to the house whether
such statements ought to have been produced at the Pre-
sent moment. Now with respect to the alleged dismissal
of Sir C. Napier. It was quite clear that the order which
hail been given was not JA dismissal, but the terminati
of his command of a fleet which, as a fleet, had cowed to
exist. (Hear.) The curt terms in which the communication
was conveyed wore exactly according to precedent ; and
when Sir Graham Moore returned from the Baltic in 1814,
precisely the same words were addressed to him. (Heir.)
The Admiralty ought to be the judges of the officers acting
under their command ; and in this case there was every
reason why the board should have looked with a favour-
able eye upon the officer whom they had selected, It was