The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-17 00:00:00

SIR CIIAR,LES NAPIER.

Captain A. DUNCOMBE rose to put a question to the
right hon. baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty with
respect to the statements which had been made by Sir C.
Napier at a recent dinner at the Mansioa-house. The gal-
lant officer had been installed into office last year in a
more formal way than usual, by a dinner at the Reform
Club, at which the present First Lord of the Treasury and
the right hon. baronet were present. In the statements
he had made at the Mansion-house the gallant admiral had
passed some severe reflections upon the officers and men of
the fleet he commanded, and he added that during his
command he had received the most insulting and degrading
letter that had ever been written to an otncer. He was
aware that many of the statements to which he referred
had been contradicted by the gallant admiral the member
for Glocester, but that was only one assertion against an-
other, and it was due to the right hon. baronet, it was due
to the profession, and to the country to know upon which
side the truth lay, for if Sir C. Napier had stated that
which was not borne out by the facts, he had himself
pointed out the way in which he ought to be treated—
namely, struck off the lists. He wished to ask the right
Lou. baronet what course he intended to take with refe-
rence to the statements recently made by Sir C. Napier at
the Mansion-house.

Sir J. G RAH it had bean the pleasure of the house
to go into committee upon the navy estimates, it iwas cer-
tainly my intention in the course of the few observations
which it would be possible for me to address to the commit-
tee not to have passel altogether unnoticed the subject to
which the hon and gallant officer has alluded. In any course
which I may think it my duty to adopt, I shall certainly
adhere to that which I think will be the most con-
ducive to the public interest in an emergency like the
present. To enter upon a complete analysis of the state-
ment made by Sir Charles Napier would compel me
to enter into disclosures of discussions which have
taken place with that gallant officer in which the public
interests are materially involved. It is impossible, con-
sistently with my duty, to give that refutation to the
statements of the gallant officer which it might be desir-

able for me to give without the production olcorrespond-
once and of despatches, interwoven with questions of naval
preparations about to be renewed in the Baltic as soon as
the weather will permit. It has certainly been the wish
of teat gallant officer to heap personally upon me much
obloquy; it has been my duty to submit to the weight of
that obloquy, such as it may be, rather than to endanger
iu the slightest degree the interests of the profession with
which I have the honour to be connected. (Hear.) It is
quite true that the gallant officer has stated that he was
sent in command of the Baltic fleet with ships' companies
ill-disciplined and ill-constituted. The board with which
I am connected used the utmost exertion in the selection of
officers to command those ships who were best entitled to
the confidence of the profession. I have every reason to
believe that the commanding officers of the different ships
employed did use their utmost diligence, with the greatest
success, to introduce the best discipine into the ships they
commanded. (Hear, hear.) Sir Charles Napier, certainly,
in a despatch addressed to the Admiralty in the early part
of his command, did make an assertion similar to that
which on a recent occasion he repeated—namely, that the
ships were ill-manned and worse disciplined. The course
taken by the Admiralty was to call upon the gallant
officer to specify the ships to which he referred, and they
stated that none of the returns they had received made by
the officers after inspection, or of the accounts given by
the captain of the fleet of the different ships, sustained the
allegation that the ships were in that condition. Sir Charles
Napier was therefore called upon to specify those ships,
but, in answer to that demand, no such specification was
made, and the inference, therefore, I think, remains that
that allegation was, on the occasion to which I have ad-
verted, in the first instance hastily brought forward, and
I regret that it should have been repeated. No better
answer can be given to the allegation than the testimony
of the officers themselves. The hon. and gallant officer who
puts the question refers to a speech I made when Sir C.
Napier undertook this command. I underwent due cor-
rection in this house on the subject of that speech—(a
laugh)—and I can assure the hon. and gallant member that
I am not likely to make any repetition of it ; I have im-
proved .in prudence by that correction. (Hear.)- It is
asked whether, considering the language to which the gal-
lant officer condescended, any condign punishment is about
to be inflicted on him ? The hon. and gallant gentleman
is aware that Sir Charles Napier is now upon half-pay ;
and great license is allowed, and very properly allowed, to
the free expression of opinion on the part of any officer so
circumstanced. It has been somewhere debated whether
liSir Charles Napier has been dismissed or not. My hon.
and gallant friend near me assured the house that he had
fcit, been
zer dismissed from his command, and not censured
ror the
os f h.
ewer in the Baltic as commander-
in-cl'ief• Both Pcorr
ectly made. Sir
sued by his:spot censured on account of any conduct par.
deuce with treltitZard to the fleet, but in his cerrespon-
comments and expr alty he had recourse to the use of
be consistent with tlier which were considered not to
was serving, and :tefertnee due to the authority ho
made on the use of tllrse6 comments were certainly
gentleman asked whether A'ixrPZ,_aaions. An honourable
dismissed ? He was not digt,:Auer' rice Napier has been
was at the close
of the service upon which he seas
nerlotled directed to
lower his rfla© there are precedent:
rife with
aciaaeortainly
reference to commanders-in-chiefef thefloet-t
it is not the intention of the present board—
be the course pursued by any future board "tot
what may'
all pon Sir C. Napier to rehoist his flag. (Alaugh)
mustcu-say that the gallant officer in question has proclaimed
himself a hero. I have the greatest respect for his proved
gallantry upon many former occasions, but it is not my in-
tention to allow him to dub himself a martyr as well as a
hero—(a laugh)—.end I have no intention whatever of ad-
vising the Crown to take any further steps in the matter.
CONISIITTEE OF SUPPLY—THE NAVY
ESTIMATES.
The house then went into committee.
- -

.—... —.-
Sir 5. GRAHAM said—lt is now my duty, and I can
assure the committee ths.t I will I,ol'lollll it as Lt ieayrtS
pu.sible, to bring undcr their notice the 11.1,vy Eitiniate3.
In doing so, in the fir t instance, before vrep:.ocecii to vote
any sums for the charge of tha navy in the year about to
commence on the first of April next, it is my duty to put
into your hands two votes with reference to our past ex-
penditure. The first of these votes is for the sum of
79,000/., which is the amount due on account of excess on
expenditure upon the year ending on the 31st of March,
1854; and the second vote is a vote on account of excess
in the current year of the sum of 1,938,104/. upon the en-
tire sane voted in the course of tho current year, and which
tzonld become payable before the first of April next. Now,
r, I have viewed with great anxiety the trial of the eye-
tem upon which naval votes and accounts have been admi-