The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-30 00:00:00

ODESSA.

Mr. SCOTT rose to move an address to the Crown for
copies of the instructions relative to the attack on
Odessa given to the Commander-in-Chief in the Medi-
terranean and Black Sea, and copies of, or extracts
from, all correspondence relating thereto. He did
not think he was making this motion too early, or
that it would prove detrimental to the public ser-
vice, because if any mistake had been committed
in respect to Odessa it was only right the pub-
lic should know where the blame rested.
The war was costing us soa:ething like 800,0001. a
week, or 110,0001. a day, and it was only right that we
should know that everything had been done to cripple
the enemy in his important town of Odessa. The pos-
session of Odessa by Russia unmolested had been
of great service to her. It had enabled
her to supply her forces in the Crimea
with provisions and reinforcements; and although
it was a mere commercial town just before the com-
mencement of the war, its fortifications had since been
so extended and improved as to render it far less preg-
nable now than it was this time last year. It was true
I our fleet in April last destroyed the outer fortifications,
destroyed 12 ships and took 13 transports, besides re-
leasing several English ships which were in the port at
the time, but instead of following up the attack with
landing, the fleet was ordered off, in order that the
city might be saved, and the Emperor of Russia was
left to reconstruct, repair, and strengthen those
fortifications of Odessa which the fleet had shown to be
most open to attack. The importance which Russia at-
tached to Odessa could not lessen his own authority, but
might be traced in that famous edict of the Emperor of
Russia which directed the inhabitants to set fire to the
place in the event of the allies attempting a landing, and if
Russia attached so much importance to Odessa, he
wanted to know why the Government thought so slight-
ingly of it as to leave it free from attack after the use-
less bombardment? That was his justification for making
this motion, and he could anticipate no good or suffi-
cient reason why it should be refused. Our fleet re-
mained - idle for very many weeks in the Black
Sea before the cholera broke out, and he wanted to
know, for the sake of Admiral Dundas, how it was that
Odessa was not taken. He might be told that Admiral
Dundas had a discretionary power, but he wanted
to know if that discretion was shackled in any
way, and that could only be ascertained
by producing the instructions that the Admiralty sent
to the Admiral while in command of a large fleet, and a
force of some 12,000 men. Either Odessa ought to have
been blockaded or dismantled ; or, again, it might have
been occupied by some of our troops and guarded
by some of our ships ; and some explanation
was due to the public as to why neither of those alter-
natives was adopted. It was said that Odessa was
spared from motives of humanity, but this mode of car-
rying on the war had been as detrimental to hu-
manity as it was useful to the enemy, because it had en-
abled Russia to slaughter our men wholesale, whereas had
Odessa been taken, the Russian army never could have
been removed to Sebastopol. Since then, as the policy of
sparing Odessa had been so fatal to our gallant soldiers,
it was only due to the admiral, to the survivors, and tol
the public that some information silo= us given o t the
first operation of the war, which was the bombardment
of Odessa.
Mr. BENTINCIC seconded the motion.

Sir C. WOOD said the same reason which would in-
duce him to oppose the motion would compel him to
abstain from going into detail. The demand which the
hon. member made was one which could - not be com-
pleted without disclosing to the enemy the possible
intentions of the commander in tt e Black Sea and his
future operations. It was bad enough that the corres-
pondents of newspapers should disclose the position of
affairs with the Allies in the Crimea, but the hon. mem-
ber proposed to go still further, and to have
made known to the enemy the very letter of the
instructions which had been issued to our admirals. The
time might come when the information could be safely
given, but while hostilities were pending it would
be exceedingly mischievous and dangerous to the public
service to accede to the proposal of the hon. member.
Mr. MITCHELL denied that the Russian troops in
the Crimea were carried through Odessa. They came
from Bessarabia and the north of Russia, and it would
have been going out of the way bad they been carried
through Odessa. He contended that all had been
done with Odessa that it was possible for us to accom-
plish. Had we destroyed all the defences and fortifica-
tions of Odessa, could we have done more ? Certainly,
we might have occupied the place, but to do that we
must have been prepared with a force of 50,000 men.
Sir G. PECHELL was at a loss to understand what
end was to be obtained by assenting to this motion. If
it was to vindicate the honour of Admiral Dundas it was
wholly uncalled for, because that gallant admiral was
one of the ablest officers in the service, while events had
proved that he had done all that he could with the
fleet at his disposal. •
Mr. A. STAFFORD said the defence of Admiral
Dundae was to be found in the speech of the First
Lord of the Admiralty. He knew of his own know-
ledge that the Admiral was prepared to submit to attack
and criticism if the Government thought the produc-
tion of his despatches would not be detrimental to the
public interest.
Mr. SCOTT said it was not his intention to press
his motion to a division. He disclaimed all intention of
wishing to cast obloquy on, or to impugn the conduct of
Admiral Dundas.

Lord PALM FAISTON declared that nothing had come
to the knowledge of the Government which could jus-
tify any imputation on the gallantry or conduct of