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

obvious that if they were not able to praise Sir Charles
Napier very highly it was not because they were not
disposed to do full justice to him. At the dinner at the
Mansion-house, Sir C. Napier stated that he had been sent
to the Baltic without pi ots and without proper char
Now, there were nearly a hundred persons. in the fleet who
had been more or less pilots, and in the flag -ship there
were no less than seven pilots. (Hear.) As to the charts,
they were so accurate that the gallant admiral had himself
in his despatches borne testimony to their accuracy. They
were the best charts which the Government could procure,
and were, in fact, the best charts in existence. (Hear.)
So far as ho knew, Sir Charles Napier had but one enemy is
the world, and that enemy was himself--(hear, hear)—and
he had done so much to destroy his reputation, that the
reputation of no other man could have survived it. (Hear.)
Mr. MURROUGH said when!it was stated that Sir C.
Napier had in his fleet a large number of pilots and a
sufficient supply of charts, it ought, in justice to the gal-
lant admiral, to have been added, that the pilots were so
utterly unacquainted with the navi,,,o.aton they had to
superintend that they were dismissed, and that the charts
provided by the Government were so faulty that a great
part of them were sent home, and those which were used
by the officers were obtained by themselves and purchased
at their own expense. The country had come to the con-
clusion that it was a matter of convenience to the Govern-
ment to remove Admiral Dundas from one position and
put him in another, and the only way to do that was to
get rid of Sir Charles Napier. (This observation was re-
ceived with loud laughter, called forth by the honourable
member having fallen into the error of supposing that the
• Admiral Dundas who had been appointed to the command
of the Baltic fleet is the officer who recently returned from
• the Black Sea. Mr. Murrough was not at first aware of
the cause of the laughter ; but, when it was explained to
him, he consoled himself with the remark, " At least, it is
• one of the family.") He thought that the least the house
could do was to grant the papers which had been asked
• for.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL 'said the case, as pre-
sented to the house, seemed to him to lie in a very narrow
compass. The hon. and learned member for Wallingford
(Mr. Melina) grounded it upon the fact that Sir Charles
Napier had been dismissed and censured, and said it was
dne, as'a matter of justice to the character of that dis-
tinguished officer, that the correspondence which had
taken place since a certain period should be brought before
the house. The foundation of the case was Sir C. Napier's
having been dismissed or censured, or both. Now, as he
(the Attorney-General) understood the facts—and not
having seen the statement of the gallant admiral he had
had no means of becoming acquainted with them except
from this discussion—Sir C. Napier, upon his return to
this country, instead of being continued in his command,
received from the Admiralty an order to haul down his
flag. That was called a dismissal ; and further it was
said that the letter implied a censure upon the gallant
officer. In the first place, he apprehended that this was
no dismissal of Sir Charles Napier—(hear)—that his com-
mand had terminated in the ordinary course of things.
The fleet which he had commanded had been called home
and dispersed. It had ceased to be a fleet, and with the
termination of its existence as a fleet terminated also,
in the natural course of things, and according to the
universal practice of the Admiralty, the eornmand of the
officer who had been at its head. He received a letter,
which it might be was rather curt than courteous, but
which it appeared to him (the Attorney-General) was in
the usual form in which the Admiralty called upon an
officer to haul down his flag. It was clear, therefore, that
the facts did not constitute a dismissal, and that the letter
did not amount to a censure. But suppose the gallant
admiral had been dismissed, was the executive Government
of this country, acting on behalf of the Crown, to be told
that if it ceased to have full confidence in the capacity of
an officer it was not justified in recalling him? (Hear,
hear.) What could be more difficult or more delicate than
to determine whether an officer was entitled to the full
confidence of the authority which employed him? Surely
it was within the province and within the duty of the
Board of Admiralty, at any time if it thought proper, to
recall an officer; and though the recall might imply a cer-
tain amount of distrust, it might not imply a want of con-
fidence, it did not necessarily involve a censure. He ap-
prehended that an officer who was recalled was not war-
ranted in demanding an inquiry or a court-martial. The
recall amounted to nothing more than an expression that
the Government had no confidence, not in his courage,
that might be undoubted—not in his qualities as a see-
man, those might be unquestioned—but in his discretion,
in his energy, or in some one or other of those qualities
which went to constitute a great commander, and in which
a man might be to a certain extent deficient, and yet
might be a most distinguished and meritorious officer.
Here it did not amount to that. The gallant officer was
not recalled ; his command terminated with his fleet
and it must be in the sole province of the executive to
say whether er not a command should be continued to
an officer. (Hear, hear.) As for censure, the letter
contains none, and the hon. and learned gentleman who
made this motion had himself read a letter in which the
Admiralty expressed their satisfaction with Sir C. Napier.
Of what, then, did he complain? Why, that he was not
again sent to the Baltic. (Hear) It was said that the
papers now asked for involved nothing the publication of
which would be detrimental to the public service. He (the
Attorney-General) was informed that this was a complete
mistake. Sir Charles Napier, thinking that his merits had
not been sufficiently recognised, entered into a discussion
of the subject, and a correspondence ensued, in which he
was told that the question whether or not the attack upon
Sweaborg ought to have been made was fully gone into ;
and the house was told, both by the late and by the present
First Lord of the Admiralty, that this correspondence went
into details the publication of which would be most pre-
judicial to the public service. (Hear, hear.) Those who
supported this motion having failed to make out that Sir
Charles had been either dismissed or censured, he asked
what there was in the position in which the gallant officer
stood in relation to the Admiralty arhich could justify the
production of documents which could not be produced
without detriment to the public service ? Had he in any
letter or despatch from the Admiralty been censured for
want of courage, of conduct, or of adorn regard to the duty
he had to perform, he would have been entitled to an in-
, quiry, and if be could not obtain it in the ordinary way
be would have had a right, as every Englishman had, to
.appeal to the great inquest of the country. As it was, ho
thought that no case had been made out for the production
of these documents.
Lord PALMERSTON- Sir, I confess that this discus-
sion has been a source of great regret to me, and I think
it a bad example. (Hear.) Hon. members, who feel
themselves called upon to vindicate the character of a pro-
fessional man in this house, have in doing so read in the
course of their speeches documents which they call upon
the house to determine whether they shall be produced or
not. It is a sort of begging the question, which I think is
not the proper way of conducting a discussion in this house.
With regard to the motion, I think the house has come
pretty well to the conclusion that there are good reasons
why these documents which are called for should not be
produced. I shall undoubtedly give my vote against the
motion of the hon. and learned member (Mr. Malins). I
think the hon. and learned gentleman has made a mistake
in point of discretion, and in regard to the course which he
has thought fit to pursue. Another hon. and learned gen-
tleman has made a mistake of a different kind, and, led
away by the similarity of their names, has concluded that
the Admiral Dundas who is going to the Baltic is the same
Admiral Dundas, or a relative of the same Admiral Dundas,
who commanded the fleet in the Black Sea. (Laughter.)
The hon. and learned gentleman perhaps is not aware that
in this country, and especially in the northern parts of it,
there are many persons who bear the same name who are
not the same persons, and, in fact, no relations.
(Laughter.) I have had the pleasure and the honour of a
long acquaintance with the gallant admiral, Sir Charles
Napier, who is the subject of discussion, and admiring, as
I do, his professional and personal character, it would have
been a matter of sincere regret to me if he had been in the
position of a mart who had been censured and dismissed
for conduct pursued in an important command. I think
it has been clearly established that he has been neither
ono nor the other —that he has been neither censured nor
dismissed. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the hon. and learned mem-
ber quoted opinions expressed by me in a different room
to this—(laughter)—on the professional merits and distin-
guished qualities of my gallant friend, for so I must call
him. I retract nettling of those opinions, and I am proud
to say that I think the courage, professional skill, and
ability of my gallant friend, stand an high now as they did
at the moment when I made those observations. (Hear,
hoar.) It has been my fortune upon former occasions to
profit in an official capacity by the invaluable services of
Sir Charles .Napiee. He has rendered a most important
service by the able and distinguished manner in which
ho has performed his duty upon this occasion ; and it
is only duo to him to say that nothing had occurred,
in my opinion, in the course of list year which
sullies or diminishes that high character. (Hear, hear.)
Sir Charles Napier has rendered important services in the
command of the Baltic fleet. He showed greet skill and
ability in conducting that fleet through a most in-
tricate and dangerous navigation. He brought back that
magnificent fleet without any injury from a sea in which a
man of less skill and less judgment might perhaps have sus-
tained a serious and great disaster. He has secured the
country against all those evils which might have arisen if
the Baltic fleet of Russia had been permitted—either the
whole or part of it—to quit its ports and scour the seas. I
shall only repeat that the motion which is now made is one
which, in my opinion, the house ought by no means to
agree to ; but I wish it to be distinctly understood that in
negativing the motion I do not in the slightest degree im-
pugn the character of Sir Charles Napier. I think his
character stands as high now as ever, and that he will
always rank amongst the most distinguished men of his
profession. (Hear.)
Sir J. WALSH, amidst the impatient interruptions of
the house, said that in his opinion the result of the debate
must be highly gratifying to Sir C. Napier, who had been
placed in a situation of great hardship. He had displayed
the highest moral courage, which he was afraid her Ma-
jesty's Ministers had not done, in standing by and acting
upon his own:opinions. Under this impression, he trusted
that the hon. and learned member would not press his
motion to a division.
Mr. MALINS, in reply, said the noble lord at the head
of her Majesty's Government had made a statement which
must have taken the house by surprise, that he thought as
highly of Sir Charles Napier as ever he did, and that he
would repeat the opinions which he had expressed on a
former occasion, and that the country was under great ob-
ligations to Sir C. Napier for the services which he had
performed in the Baltic Now, whether he (Mr. Malins)
was right or not that "Sir Charles Napier was dismissed in
October, he supposed that there was no doubt that he was
now dismissed. Sir C. Napier was a party to one signal
victory, the taking of Bomarsund, and if the noble lord was
correct he was entitled to the thanks of Parliament. He(Mr.
Malins) had been taunted with being a lawyer, and an
equity lawyer. It was not as a lawyer that he had brought
forward this motion, but as a member of Parliament. He
came to the house as a representative of the people, and it
was net to be supposed that because he spoke from briefs
1); the morning that he spol.e from briefs in the evening
been said that h because he con-
''''°eredlitehabtt °augghretatthaendmot distinguished
treated in an unworthy officer had been
worthy and undignified manner. It had
letters, the
the object of thec'enieone
procleuh?..d set a bad example in reading private
.of which formed, in point of fact,
lon. He deprecated, however, the
adoption of a principle which
should forbid, in the case of
a distinguished officer, the ling of correiveendence which
eisrheir
not overstepped
and contended that,
tend to vindicate,
hh
in the peeent instance
I of prudence and discretion,
.had heard
euedr itohres ef boundsfect effects
from the Government as to thAeft4prrobvwaelFlaetteiptiphj
further cones-
( on public interests of the production oft
fehee.
I fence he had moved for, he should
on " it hie duty to
withdraw the motion.
The motion a-as then withdrawn.
The house then went into committee on the Purchasers
Protection against Judgments Bill, and the various clauses
were agreed to.
The Tea Duties Decline Suspension Bill was read, a third
time and passed.
the house adjourned at half-
The other orders of the day were then
past twelie o'e!cic
cy,spo.sed of, an