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

hare prawns and gun-boats attached to it. And he had no
doubt that we should hear of brilliant successes in the
Baltic. Let the house at any rate be persuaded 'that all
that British officers and seamen could do would be per-

farmed by the fleet about to sail. (Hear, hear.)
W Sir C. WOOD—I de not think it advisable for me to advert
in the slightest degree to the various topics introduced
sub-
ject the hon. and learned gentleman who has brought this
before the house. Certainly in my ri
never before known such a course pursuede,iaPnedrl have
think that
the house will not sanction with approbation the quoting
of extracts from private letters and official reports nothproh-
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
iroduced. It seems to nee utterly impossible, and quite
nconsistent with the interests of the public service, that
these letters should be produced—letters which discuss the
means, the possibility, and the mode of attacking the for-
tresses of Ramie. I, like the gallant admiral who has just
addressed the home, entertain the confident expectation
that all that can be accomplished by British valour, tem-
pered by discretion, will be done by the gallant fleet which
is now about to leave our shores. But I would ask any
gentleman in this house 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
monsly, and without a dissentient voice, agree that it is
Impossible these papers should be produced. It seems un-
necessary 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 expects
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 disaiter would have occurred. There was one expres-
sion used by the late First Lord of the Admiralty which hs
hoped would be withdrawn. The right hon. baronet said
be admitted Sir O. 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
opportunities, with that of any man who held her Ma•
jesty's commission. (Cheers.) It was to be hoped, there-
fore, that the right hen. baronet did not mean to impeat h
the valour of Admiral Napier when he said that it ha
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 call an arbitrary board
he had no hesitation in saying that it required a mots
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 t
the expression which he has referred to. If thatexpression,
'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 upus
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 an absurdity to iais.
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. gents
man as First Lord of the Admiralty wilt suggest to hi
mind some very good reasons why naval officers should nut
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
snore 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 willing to pair off the dinner at the Mansion-house
with the dinner 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
previously laid upon the table by the authority of the Cs)-
vernment, all I have to say is, that the motion before us
is for papers, and when a member submits 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,
and 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 now I am more distant than ever--(laughter)
—bat I understood the right hon. gentleman to commence
Ilia 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 vests
inconvenient to the public interests. That is a curt re-
-ply. (A laugh.) I wish to know whether it is not pos-
sible to produce papers sufficient to throw light upon the
matter as regards Sir C. Napier's complaints, and yet not
injure the public interests, by furnishing us with such
extracts as may be necessary for the first purpose, but
withholding, in accordance with the common practice,
those parts that are prejudicial to the interests of the
'country ? (Hear, hear,) Nothing is so common. No
'correspondence from the Foreign-office—ne public do .:u-
-anent whatever—is moved for in this house except with a
'complete understanding that only extracts should be pro-
duced if any portion of such horrespondence is injurious to
the public interests. I think that a similar rule might be
followed in this case, and when we remember that the cor-
respondence moved for dates only from the 20th of Decem-
ber, when Sir C. Napier hauled down his flag, and there-
Sore does not so immediately relate to the operations
in the Baltic ; that seems 'to be an additional reason why
we should not have any difficulty in agreeing to the pro-
eluction 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 understood by the
country at large that the Government is net satisfied with
his conduct. He demands inquiry. He has a right to de-
mand it in justice to his ewn 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 iss for inquiry. He is answered that
there is no ease for iavestigation. What resource is there
left to him but to come here ? I ask, are we, the repre-
sentatives of the interests and honour of England—if a
public servant comes to us and tells us that he has made
application in vain to the proper authorities, and has used
without effect the legitimate means of redress, and that he
only comes to us as a last resource, are we to turn upon
him and say, " Wewill grant you no redress—we will look
into no papers; it is very inconvenient to the country to
interfere between the Executive and the officers whom it
employs r It appears that we cannot take such a course
if we wish to discharge the duty which undoubtedly de-
volves upon us, to nee not only that the Executive is fairly
dealt with by its rAficers, but also that the public servants
are fairly treated by the Executive. (Hear.) There is such
a thing, when great expectations have been excited, and
when public cl;.sappointineat follows the want of success,
as shifting responsibility upon the public servants, and es-
caping freers that fair share of blame which the Executive
ought to hear. (Hear.) It is for us independent members
of Parliament to take care that unfortunate Administra-
tions dss not victimise faithful and zealous public servants
'who have endeaioured to discharge their duty, 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 one. 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 should 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 ne effect in inducing the Government to alter their
order, add 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
kis own judgment, contrary to the judgment of the French
admiral, and contrary to the judgment of the Englishgepe-
mel engineers ? The 3d of October was the day upon.
-which the news of the fall of Sebastopol eame 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-
ctrZ`-'nee "-the Russians to attempt any enterprise of more
num). hazard and daring at this precise moment."
(r 9. It
Alma ; eat it iaTeb4 said that referred to the battle of
discovered that Ba, extraordinary that as soon as it was
to see what va, m»tl was not taken, without waiting
lt of the instructions of the 4th of
October out
arther despatch on the 9th, to tell Sir
'C. Napier that
eluded for the seaterrtne_, may be considered as con-
fast as be can. Thai d',2,r.afrine him to come away as
French Seat was orderaXC4l"" sent by telegraph. The
when it was believed Sebaseerorto with Sir C. Napier
went the Admiralty discovered tt ham, but the mo-
t Sebastopol tam it was telegraphed to the Freuels sleet had not
up the Baltic and rejoin Sir C. INTaissei.,
no further
to go back
rations would be taken that year. This is ope-
rations
but I maintain it affords a strong presareptiot
there was a sort of giddiness came over certain persons rikiat
they fancied the Russians were demoralised and w
undertake any ° 'not,
"`at that precise moment," un gFe at en tmrerise ;
and that, therefore, those expeditions whichhadbeen
viously condemned were (Adored to be attempted. he;
right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle has endea-
voured to oast censure upon Sir C NapieTs because, having
first told the Government that Sweaborg was unassailable,
ia consequence of which they did not think it necessary to
:send out gun-boats and other appliances for the
_purposeof
taking a place that was pronounced impregnable, anti
having afterwards stated that it could be taken by the fleet
alone, he failed to accomplish that object, and therefore
misled and disappointed the Government. Am I accu-
rately repeating the right hoe. gentleman's statements ?
Sir J. GRAHAM—To some extent.
Mr. GIBSON—I have no desire to misrepresent the
right hon. gentleman, but I am sure he said that Sir C.
Napier in the first instance informed the Government that
Sweaborg was unaasailable. What wee the facts? Sir C.
Napier on the 30th of May received certain plans of Swea-
borg. He had not then inspected nor even seen it himself,
and as was his duty at the time, he forwarded those plans
to the Admiralty, with the observation that, according to
those plans, Sweaborg appeared to be unassailable. But
on the 20th of June, having had an opportunity of inspect-
ing Sweaborg, he submitted a plan for taking it—a plan
which required-a-doseription:of f0n:44,1,4th which- he was'
not then provided, and with which, if he had been re-
vidod, ho considered he should have been successful ; but
he never said is any part of that correspondence—and I