The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-05 00:00:00

upon that subject may have arrived in time to allow of an at-
tack being made."
SIR W. PARKER T() NAPIER— Dec. 3, 1840.
_ .

" Your opinion on the result of an early and vigorous at-
tack has been verified."
SIR C. ADAM TO NAPIER,.

" The board have written to Sir R. Stopford their admira-
tion of your intrepid and useful services, and to hoist a red
pennant."

SIR C. ADAM TO NAPIER.

" I am most happy to express to you the pleasure I feel at
your receiving the Commandership of the Bath."
MOTTO TO NAPIER—Oct. 7, 1810•

" I congratulate you on thm success of your operations on
the coast of Syria, in which your zeal, judgment, and ability
hare been conspicuous."
Silt R. STOPFORD TO NAPIER—Noy. 6, 1840.

" I do not apprehend that a difference of opinion implies
a censure upon either party, as I cannot allow infallibility of
anybody. That I differed in opinion from you is true, but
that thereby a censure was intended is without foundation.'
No man knows better than the noble lord at the head of
the Government the hand I had in the affairs of Syria, and
I trust the noble lord will state his opinion as to the share
I had in the business. The following letter I received from
Sir W. Parker :--

" Sherstone Lodge, Dec. 3,1.840.

" My dear Napier,—Most heartily do I Congratilate you
and your brave companions in arms on the reduction of St.
Jean d'Acre. Your opinions on the result of au early and vigo-
rous attack have been verified to the letter, and accomplished
in a manner most triumphant for our profession and the ge-
neral interests of Europe. I need not add that I have been
delighted that a becoming acknowledgment of your own ener-
getic and successful services has been manifested by the Go-
vernment in your advancement to the first class broad pen-
dant and. the Commandership of the Bath, which has been
nobly won, and, I trust, will be long worn by you in health
and every possible enjoyment. I trust, also, that promotion
and rewards to the officers of the squadron generally will be
liberally bestowed.
" Believe me, my dear commodore,
" Always faithfully yours,
" W. PARKER, Rear-Admi_raL
" Commodore Napier, *Ste."

I shall be able to show that Sir R. Stopford did not disap-
prove of my conduct. When the fleet was before Acre, I
went on board Sir R. Stopford's ship ; Capt. Boxer and
others were there also. At the time there was a coldness
between Sir R. Stopford and myself,originating in my con-
stantly urging him to do what he did not deem proper to
be done. In one of his letters Sir R. Stopford strongly ad-
vised me po-
the
to return as soon as possible, after arming

pulation about Sidon. I hold in mY hand an importan
paper which showed how unfit Sir B. Stopford was for the
command he held. The hon. and gallant member read the
document which appeared to be an order to him to send the
marines on board the ships, and also to embark the Turkish
troops if he thought they could not defend themselves. I
was then directed to leave the whole ,of the inhabitants of
the Lebanon to their fate. The house might easily believe
that I opposed that to the utmost of my power. On arriving
at Acre the officers all assembled on board Sir R. Stopferd's
ship. Capt. Boxer had the ear of the admiral, and a great
deal of jealousy existed among the officers. The admiral
told me he had talked the business over with Capt. Boxer;
that he would shift his flag to a steamer ; that the three
of er steamers would tow- three ships ; and, after placing
them against the batteries, would return and tow in three
more. Such a scheme appeared so inconsistent with the
safety of the fleet, and so unlikely to be successful, that I
pointed out the objections to it. Capt. Boxer replied, " We
nave EeAled the whole questionwith Admiral Stopford, an,l,
commodore, it is of no use for you to interfere." I rumi-
nated on the matter that night, and went en board Sir R.
Stopford's ship in the morning, and said that I conceived
it to be my duty, as his second in command, to tell him
that if three steamers were sent to tow three ships against
such fortifications as those of Acre they would fail. I ask
you too look at the Radon and say whether the officer in
command had not been blamed for attacking with an in-
ferior force. What would have been the use of leaving six
or seven sail idle, and attempting to do the work with
three ships, with other three ships to take their place ? To
prove that I must have been tight, Sir R. Stopford at last
adopted my plan, and gave up thi attack by vessels towed
in bythe steamers. Capt. Henderson was then on board;
but he and many others to whom I might have appealad
are now no more, and I am left to defend myself .with the
little evidence I have been able to procure, without the
benefit of those official resources which the hon. and gal-
iant admiral has. I told Capt. Henderson to inform Sir R.
S topford of the fact, that towing in ships and returning for
Others would take the steamers two hems. At that time
touring was not so quickly done as it now is. After it was
decided that towing should not take place, it became a
quee.-ion how the ships were to go in. The wind at the
time was from the southward. The squadron was ordered
to get sander weigh, which they did in a helter-skelter sort
of a wanner. I do not cast any reflection on the office's, for
the helter-skelter was caused by the desire to get into ac-
tion. l'be weather fortunately became calm. No plan or
system had been laid down. i remember Capt. Fanshawe
urging mg to get on as fast as possible. My reply was,
" Acre ought either to be attacked properly, or not at all.
It is not a place to be trifled with, and ought tobeattacked
in the way I proposed." The wind then changed to the
northward. It was appointed for me to anchor on the
south-west angle of Acre. Capt. Fanshawe was to pass and
anchor ahead of me. Ido not know what orders were given
to the other officers. The rule in anchoring in successionwas
for one chip to drop anchor, and for the next ship astern to
pass outside and anchor ahead. When the wind changed
to the northward it was necessary to decideimmediately as
to what was to be done., I immediately decided not to at-
tempt to go southward and anchor on the north-west, be-
cause the ship could not well have got to her anchoring
station between the south and north-west angle of Acre.
The admiral sent to me to know what I was doing. I re-
ported I was going northward. I desired the master to
pass a small battery of four guns, and anchor me alongside
of the strongest part of the walls of Acre, and not against
the weakest part, as stated by the right hon. baronet.
Along the curtain I believe there was a battery of 10 guns.
After I let go my anchor the whole order was reversed. If
the mode of anchoring as adopted by Sir S. Hood and
Sir J. Saumarez was good against ships, it was equally
good against stone walls and batteries. I never was more
astonisueu ch.o wawa I the Princess Charlotte let go
her anchor astern of me, and the Thunderer and /3.llcw-
plion du the same. There was no time for me to make a
signal, for the ships would have ben at anchor before the
signal. could have been hoisted. It was the duty of the com-
•mander-in-chief, who. was outside in a steamer, to make
the signal. I believe he made a signal for the Thunderer to
get under weigh. Nelson's maxim was; "No ship can do
wrong in anchoring herself alongside the enemy." I
anchored alongside the strongest pert of the wall, and not
half way, as the right hon. hart. insinuated. I took up my
position to the north, which was the proper position to
occupy, while the other divisions of the fleet went to the
' southward, and Capt. Baldwin Walker anchored his vessel
outside of the rest. I have entered into these details in or der
to vindicate my character, which has been so unjustly as-
persed by the right hon. gentleman the late First Lord of
the Admiralty ; and perhaps the house would permit me,
for the same purpose, to read a letter which I hold in my
hand, hewing date the 2d of April, and which was written
by Capt. Hastings, a well-known and distinguished naval
officer. It is as follows :

" United Service Club, April 2, 1856.
" My doar Sir Charles,—Sinee my conversation with you
last evening, I have endeavoured to bring to my recollection
some of the circumstances of the attack on the. Fort of Acre
on the 4th November, 1840.
" the division under your orders attacked the western
face, and that in which was the Edinburgh, the southern one.
At the moment of weighing anchor the wind veered to the
northward, and necessitated a change in the mode of attack.
" Instead of running and anchoring under the batteries
-from the south, you were obliged to perform the operation
from the north. This caused some little misunderstanding ;
the ships anchored astern of you, instead of in line ahe:d.
I remember also that the southern division was thrown into
-momentary confusion by Sir Robert Stopford hoisting the
signal to follow the Powerful. It- is probable, in this case,
that the signal officer omitted to hoist the divisional flag.
I mention this .to show how easily mistakes may arise, and
that they should not always be attributed co the commander-
in-chief, or to the commander of a division. ,
" It is difficult to recollect all the facts of a feat of war
which tcok place 16 years ago ; yet rn4in facts are engraven
on the 'memory, not to be effaced. Your exertions during
that short campaign were patent to all, and greatly contri-
buted to the rapid success which was obtained—a success of
the greatest moment,- when the public feeling in France at
' that moment is taken into consideration.
"Nor is this my opinion only, but that of the majority of
the fleet with you, and under the orders of Sir Robert Stop-
ford.
" As a proof of this assertion, let me call to your remem-
brance what took place on your return from Alexandria to
Marmorica. As you passed into the bay to' take up your
anchorage, each ship—at least, a large •majority of the ships
—spontaneously cheered you, and with a heartiness not often
' exhibited even by seamen.
" Believe me, very truly yours,
F. D. HASTINGS, Captain.
" Sir Charles Napier, 1C.C.8."

Do. you think the seamen of the fleet would have, upon a
dark and rainy night, thus come on board their ships to
cheer me if they thought I was open to such charges as
those which the right hon. baronet has advanced ? I have
hare another letter, which I have received from the master
of the vessel which I had.the honour to command at Acre,
and to which perhaps the house will also have the kindness
to listen. The writer says :

" Deptford, March 31, 1856.
"My dear Sir Charlps,—ln reply to your note of the
25th instant, requesting me to state all I remember about
' Acre,' I beg to state that on the evening previous to the
attack, when you came from the flag ship, you told me that
the plan arranged for the next day by the commander-in-
chief was Oa', three steamers ware to tow in Powerful,
Princess Charlotte; and Bellerophon ; the same three
steamers were then to go back ann bring in three more. I
remarked the chances would be in favour of our being sunk
before the second three could be brought in. You then sent
for the late Capt. Henderson, who, in reply to a question
from you, said that not less than two hours should be reck-
oned upon for getting the second three ships into action.
Youtheu went to the flag-ship, and I went sounding and buoy-
ing for the remainder of the night. In the morning you told
me that the plan of attack had been altered ; that Powerful
was to lead and anchor off the first bastion, the other ships to
pats us, and anchor in succession, each covering the other,
similar to Lord Nelson's attack at the battle of the Nile. This
is certainly as I understood it ; whether we went in by the
north or the With channel, the plan was to be the same.
When we came abreast of the first bastion, I asked you if we
were to anchor there; and you said no, that there did not ap-
pear vins'enough in it to make it of importance. Yon di-
rected me to pass to the next guns, and anchor as close as the
depth of the water would permit. This was dome, and I was
never more surprised in my life than I was to see the Princess
Charlotte anchor astern instead of passing us. I suggested to
you to make the signal for Revenge to come in and anchor a-
head of us. You objected to this, saying that you could not
make signals with Commanders in-Chiefs ship so close to you,
with his flag flying, who must see the necessity of it as w:11 as
yourself. Ultimately this signal was made, and Capt. Craw-
ford conveyed Your wishes to Capt. Waldegrave as to the
position he should take up. •
" I forgot to say that, on the morning of the attack, the
master of the flag-ship and myself were sent to the Vesuvius
to sound, and try the north channel, the wind at that time
showing every indication of coming from the northward.
After we came' back we went to the flag-ship, and made our
report of there being a good channel with a leading wind.
"This is all I remember of what occurred. Some things I
uiay have forgotteia, but what I have stated is to the best of
my recollection.—l remain, dear Sir Charles, yours very
faithfully " E. J. PEARS.'
I have also a letter from the commander of my ship, to
which I should wish to call the attention of the house.
The letter is as follovis :
" Royal Hospital, Greenwich, April 3, 1856.
"My (lear Sir Charles,—ln answer to your questions rela-
tive to A cra, so long a time has elapsed that I can only do so
, to the best of my xecollection.
1 " I have always been under the firm conviction that you

were most zealously anxious for the attack on Acre. The
shift of wind which forced your division to attack from the
north, instead of the original plan of battle from the south,
reversed the- order of attack, which may have led to some
misconstruction of orders by the ships astern ; but I have not
the slightest hesitation in stating that it was your firm con-
viction that the ships of your division would have anchored
ia succession ahead of the Powerful. By this mode of attack
the anchored ships would protect the advancing ships, which
in my humble opinion is a subject of vital importance to the
protection of ships and their crews.
" You question—whether I have read what has been said
in Parliament within these last few days on the subject of the
battle of Acre ? My answer is, I have been so fully employed
I have not read a newspaper for some days, and I am very
glad I have not, as it gives me the opportunity of answering
your questions free of bias.
" In the hope that you are better to-day,
" Believe me, my dear Sir Charles, yours faithfully,
" P. LIANDET."
I commanded a ship daring the greater part of the last war,
and I believe I took a greater number of batteries than any
other officer, except, perhaps, Admiral Coiling wood and one
or two other . I took an island upon the coast of Naplt.s
with two ships, and without the loss of a single man. The
right hon. baronet, the late First Lord of the Admiralty,
may say, " But why did you not perform similar achieve-
ments in the Baltic ?" lly answer to him is, that there is
a widedifference between doing that which, though difficult,
is feasible, and that which it is absolutely impossible to
accomplish. (Hear.) I must now obierve that I wrote to
Sir B. Walker, expressing a wish that he should furnish
me with his opinion with reference t) the mode in which
I had acted at Acre, and to that request I received the
following reply :

" Admiralty, April 3, 1856.
"My dear Sir Charles,—l am placed in a very painful
position in having to answer questions put to me by friends,
who have made statements in the House of Commons which

are at variance ; but, however disagreeable, I am bound to
reply to them to the best of my recollection. With respect
to that part of your letter in which you say, ' You must
surely remember we were all persuading and urging him (Sir
R. Stopford) to go to Acre repeatedly,' I cannot call to mind
any conversation I had with him on the subject ; but Sir R.
Stopford told me, on mere occasions than one, that you were
opposed to an attack on Acre. As far as my recollection
serves me, my impression was, and is, that you were anxious
to advance into the interior at the head of the army, and con-
duct the land operations; and I am bound to state that, at

the commencement, we were all greatly indebted to you, as
the success on shore was owing to your great exertions.
With reference to that part of your letter in which you state
that Sir Robert informed you that he intended to remove his
force from the coast before the bad weather set in, I can only

say that he made the same communication to me, on which
occasion I asked him to supply us with anchors and cables,
which he consented to do, for I felt that we could not aban-
don the mountaineers who had joined the Sultan's cause, and

had been armed. You were strongly opposed to the ships
being towed into action at Acre by the four steamers, :.nd I
think you were right, for only four could go in at the same
time, and those, of course, would have had to bear the brunt
of the action before the others could have got in; but not
having anchored where the admiral wished, you ought, I
think, to have made the signal fa. the ships astern to plss
on.—Believe me yours very faithfully,
" B. W. Wetan.

"Vice-Admiral Sir C. Napier, K.C.8., dm.
" I am very sorry to hear that you have been so unwell.
" B. W. W."
Now, is it to be said that because I counselled a particular
line of action before the decision to attack Acre had been
arrived at, that when that decision had been pronounced I
hesitated for a moment to act upon it ? (Hear, hear.) The
fact is, I was then as much inclined to make the attack as
any one could be. There is another accusation brought
against me—and Heaven knows that was needless, because
the charges preferred against me are sufficiently numerous
already—to the effect that I was not at Acre when it was
evacuated. It is true I was not there at the time, because
it was my duty to be at the north-east angle, and I knew
nothing whatever about the evacuation until Sir B.
Walker, who, from his position, had become acquainted
with the fact, had taken possession of the town. Besides
I do not think that there would have been any very great
merit in being the first to take possession of a place which
had already surrendered. I shall now proceed to inform
the house what took place between Admiral Stopford and
myself after the capture of Acre had been effected. Sub-
sequently to that event I went on board the steamer in
which Admiral Stopford had hoisted his flag, and so per-
fectly conscious was I that I had done my duty, and had
placed my ship in the proper place, that I at once observed
to him that I hoped he was satisfied with the position I
had taken up. He answered gruffly, " No, I was not, you
ought to have gone to the south-west." I felt myself so
aggrieve I by this reply of the admiral that shortly after I
let his ship I wrote to him, begging that he would appoint
a court-martial to investigate my conduct, but to that re-
quest he refusal to accede, at the same time apologising for
the expression which he had used in my regard. That
apology I did not think was couched in terms which
ought to induce me to accept it, and the consequence was
I refused to look upon 4t as satisfactory. Captain Stewart
and some other captains afterwards came to beg and en-
treat that I would not, by insisting upon having a court-
martial, be the cause of serious dissension in the fleet, and
tkat I would be satisfied with the apology which Admiral
Stopford was prepared to make. My reply was, that I
would accept no other than an apology which I considered
proper under all the circumstances of the case. Admiral
Stopford did afterwards make that apology, and it was to
the following effect :
"My dear Sir,—l do not apprehend that a difference of
opinion implies acensnre upon either party, as I cannot allow
infallibility to anybody. That I differed iu opinion with you
is true, but that thereby a censure was intended is without
foundation.—Believe me, dear sir, yours truly,
" Commodore Napier, C. 8." " ROBERT STOPFORD.

(Cheers.) Now why, after all I have stated to the house,
are accusations brought against me such as those which
the right hen. baronet the member for Carlisle has pre-
ferred. Admiral Stopford might have been wrong. I say
that his plan of towing up the ships was wrong ; and the
question is one which I should confidently leave it to any
committee of naval officers to decide. Why, I would also
ask, if the right hon. gentleman the Naval First Lord of
the Admiralty deemed that my conduct at Acre was open
to censure, did he advise his colleagues to send me out in
command of the Baltic fleet —a fleet of vast magnitude,
and destined for a dangerous and an arduous service ?
Yet the right hon. gentleman did recommend his colleagues
to give me the command of that fleet. Nay, more, he was
himself anxious to go out as my second in command. I
have it in his own waiting. (Hoar.) Is it not somewhat
hard, then, sir, that an officer who has had testimony such
as I have adduced borne to his professional character should
be so foully aspersed ? (Hear.) But in addition to the
documents which I Sieve read to the house, I have a letter
from Sir Alexander Cochrane, complimenting me upon the
services which I rendered at Martinique. When I was
engaged in the Portuguese service, too, and where, I may
say, it was of vast importance to settle the question between
Don Miguel and Donna Maria by a single coup, I, with
three frigates, ran on board and took a considerable fleet in
about ten minutes. (Hear, hear.) I have letters from the
right hon. gentleman the Naval First Lerd of the Admiralty
giving me the highest praise, and stating that he would
stick to me to the last, and yet the right hon. gentleman
has dared to state that I was not fit to command the Baltic
fleet, and that I lost all nerve while in that position. It I
did lose all nerve, as the right hon. gentleman has asserted,
the treatment which I experienced at the hands of him and
his colleagues was the cause. (Hear.) My susceptibility is
great. I have long been accustomed to praise. I therefore
find it difficult to support censure. (Hear.) I wish the
right hon. gentleman had been sent out in command of the
second expedition to the Baltic. He was the officer who
signed the letter ordering me to attack Sweaborg, and he
did so knowing, as must have been the case, that at that
season of the yeare—the month of October—it would be per-
fectly impossible to carry the order into effect. When I
was relieved from the command of the fleet—and I may say
that under no circumstances would I again have served
under a Board of Admiralty by which I was treated as the
right hon. baronet and his colleagues treated me—a fleet
much superior to that which I had under my control was
sent out. It was entrusted to the direction of Admiral
Dundas, a member of that very board which had found
fault with me for not taking Sweaborg. Has he succeeded
in accomplishing that which I was censured for not having
achieved? But it is unnecessary to enter further into this
matter. I have explained my case to the house, and to
the country I leave. it to say whether I am justly open to
the accusations which have been heaped upon me.
Admiral BERKELEY said that if the hon. and gallant
admiral who had just spoken Tied not so pointedly alluded
to him, he should have felt it to be unnecessary to address
a single observation to the house. He believed that hon.
members must allow that the evidence which had that
evening been adduced by the right hon. gentleman the
member for Carlisle, in support of the statement which
upon a previous occasion he had made with respect to the
capture of Acre, was perfectly conclusive. The hon. and
gallant gentleman who had just sat down had appealed to
the house as to the injustice which had been done by the
accusations which had been brought against him; but he
(Admiral Berkeley) should also ask the house whether it
was fair that he should have been obliged for the last ten
days or a fortnight to labour under the imputations which
went so far, almost, as to say that the truth was not in him?
The hon. and gallant admiral seemed extremely touchy
whenever his own character was concerned, and he ought
to consider 'that others, as well as he, had a reputation to
maintain. The hon. and gallant admiral had asked why he
(Admiral Berkeley), being aware of his conduct at Acre,
had recommended his colleagues to send him out in corn-
mend of the Bahia fleet? Now, in reply to that question,
he might state that he should never have mentioned the
subject of Acre at all were it not for the abuse which the
hon. and gallant admiral had thought proper to lavish upon
him and the board of which he had the honour to be a
member. In a speech which the gallant cflicer had made to
his constituents he had been pleased to recapitulate all the
distinguished services which he had rendered to thecountry
anti had endeavoured to show how great had been the in-
gratitude with which he had been treated by him (Admi-
ral Berkeley), as well as his right hon. friend the member
for Carlisle. In the speech in question the hon. and gallant
officer had made use of these words :—" I was the person
who struck the final blow which put an end to the campaign
in Syria." Now, the hon. and gallant officer must be aware
that he (Admiral Berkeley) bad denied a similar statement
made in a pamphlet which was attributed to the hon. and
gallant officer, and which statement had, upon his (Admi-
ral Berkeley's) suggestion, been corrected. The gallant
admiral then had taunted him, holding the opinion which
he did upon the subject, with having sanctioned his ap-
pointment to the command of the Baltic fleet. He himself
had been an honest and fair candidate for that command,
and had be taken advantage of his position as Senior Naval
Lord to induce his right bon. friend the late First Lord of
the Admiralty not to appoint the gallant admiral to it, he
felt that he should have been acting a part at once ills-
honourable and unmanly. More than that, although he
would maintain all he had said • with regard to Acre,
still he maintained that it was an error in judgment ; and
because a man committed an error in judgment in one
action that was not to do away with the high character
he had obtained in the service. (Hear.) He would not
follow the hon. and gallant admiral in what he had said
about Sir Robert Stopford, the captains rf the fleet, the
attack upon Acre, and all that had passed. Those things
had been discussed over and over again, and once teo often.
The hon. and gallant admiral said that he could pro lute
letters from him (Admiral Berkeley) praising anal lauding
a tho whole of his conduct in the Baltic. He admitted it
: freely. (Hear.) He admitted that knowing his previous
character, knowing his energy in former actions, he had
put lull and complete confidence in him, and he had ex-
' pressed that in hit letters. It was not until Sir Charles's
return from the Baltic, when he heard what was stated by
captains in the fleet, thathe could wholly and solely change
his opinion. When-he did change that opinion it became
his duty not to recommend that the hoe. and gallant
officer should be re-appointed to his flag; but he would
take upon himself to say that there never was a Board of
A ItnirAlty that took more pains to soften the hlinuling

down of that flag than was taken by the board to which he
balonged. The hon. and gallant admiral was not only
thanked for his service 4, but ha was thanked precisely in

the same words that Lord Howe was thanked for his vie-

tory of the Ist of June ; and yet be complained that he
was not thanked sufficiently. Had he kept quiet, his cha-
racter would not have been damaged so much as it had
been by his divulging private letters, and compelling him
(Admiral Berkeley) in his official capacity to speak that

Which he would much rather have left unsaid.
Mr. LINDSAY had listened with much attention to the
debate, and had been much grieved by the right hon. baronet
going back for 16 years, in order to attempt to rob the
gallant admiral of that which was dear, and must ever be
dear to him. He had attacked him for his want of moral

courage. Why, the commonest sailor that trod a deck did
not want moral courage. (Hear.) But the hon. and gal-
lant admiral had given a most triumphant answer to the
char.es brought against him that evening. He had made a

very good finish of his case ; and it waswto be hoped they
should hear no more of it in that house. (sear.) If the

statements of Sir. J. Graham were correct, was it not ex-
traordinary that immediately after the siege of Acre Sir
C. Napier should have received the thanks of,that house,
and should have been decorated by his Sovereign with
various honours ? Another point had been sufficiently an-
swered. If Sir J. Graham, holding a very responsible
position, which he held at a most critical moment, knew
(and he ought to have known), or supposed, or had reason
to suppose, that the charges he now made against Sir C.
Napier were correct, why did he appoint him to the high
and responsible position of the command of the Baltic
Fleet ? ([rear.) Sir James said he did not know of them
then. But he ought to have known of theel ;it was his
duty to have known of them before ha appointed the gal.
laut adudtal to a command where the honour of England

was at stake, and a great number of lives were placed in
his hands. If he had taken the same pains as he had be-
. _ .

stowed within a short time back in getting up these charges
—a matter of far less importance to the country than the
appointment to the command of the Baltic fleet— ho must
have known all that he knew now. Had he not with him

at the Board Admiral Houston Stewart and Sir Baldwin

Valker, whom he now brought forward as witnesses against

Sir C. Stapler, at the very time when he appointed Sir
Charles to the command of the Baltic fleet ? If he did not

make full inquiry, not only as to the 'courage, but the

abilities of the gillant, admiral, he had neglected his duty.
Mr. MALIN'S having given his best attention t.) the
statements on both sides, was of opinion that the gallant
admiral had proved that there was not a shadow of founda-
tion for the charges made against him on the subject, and
had showed th 6 impropriety of the conduct of those who
had introduced this subject to the attention of the house.
He thought the conduct of the late First. Lord of the Ad-
.. .

miralty was most blameable in this respect—that, after
appointing the gallant admiral to the command of the
Baltic fleet, and having prided himself upon the appoint.
meat, ho should, now that a difference had taken place be-
tween them, have gone back sixteen years, raked up by-
gone transactions, and endeavoured to show that the man
whom he had himself entrusted with the Baltic fleet had
behaved in a manner deserving of the severest censure. at
the taking of Acre ; for, if the charges of the hon. baronet
were subttantiated, they amounted to an imputation of
cowardice. No man's reputation was safe if it was to be
liable to attacks made under such circumstances and at such
a distance of time. The course which had been tak,n was
one calculated to inflict serious injury upon the public ser-
vice, and he hoped that these angry discussions might
cease, and that the three gentlemen who were now at va-
f iance would shike hands and forget their past differences.
Mr. ROEBUCK was pained to think that there should have
been any cl tference between two persons who were so well
worthy of the consideration of the house. When he found
the right hot'. baronet coming forward with his practised abi-
lity to make charges against the gallant admiral, he felt that
the gallant admiral would be at a loss. But he must confess
that when the gallant admiral sat down ho felt that the
practised disputant had been foiled. He saw the prac-

tired rhetorician had been at fault, and that the plain
and unvarnished, and unpractised statement of the gallant
admiral had completely triumphed. The hon. baronet had
ch aged the gallant admiral with want of judgment, and some-
thing like want of courage on the part of the gallant admiral
at Acre. Now, he would put it to the house whether those
chirges did not amount to this, that the gallant admiral did
not like the position assigned to him at Acre—that he took
means to get out of it, and that in doing so he threw the
fleet into confusion. Now he thought that the gallant admi-
ral had shown that he was prevented from taking up the posi-
tion assigned to him in consequence of the state of the wind.
Not being able to take up that pos tion, he went on, passed a
battery not strong enough to engage him, and cast anchor op-
posite another and stronger one. The real fault lay w.th the
gallant admiral the member for Gloucester, who did not take
his ship ahead of the gallant admiral the member for South
wark, but cast anchor too soon. These were miserable things
for the House of Comaious to be occupied with, and he put
it to the right Lou. baronet that it would be better i.o let
these controversies cease. lie certainly admitted that he had
himself expected more from the campaign in the Baltic, but
he attributed this to his own ignorance. He was quite ready
to admit that a man who had passed a long life in the service
of his country was more likely to know what it was possible
to effect than was he (Mr. Roebuck).
Mr. COWPER contended that Sir C. Napier had been
throughout the assailant in these controversies ; that it was
he who had set the example of attacking Sir J. Graham and
Admiral Berkeley ; and that they were amply justified in
defending themselves in the manner they had done. The
gallant admiral the member for Southwark neither satisfied
the expectations of the Admiralty who sent him out nor of
the country, nor of his own officers ; and yet no public cen-
sure was cast upon the gallant admiral, he was thanked
on hauling down his flags, and it was entirely duo to his
own indiscretion that these painful discussions had arisen,
(Hear, hear ) He thought that his right honourable
friend the member for Carlisle was amply justified in the
course he had that night taken by the line adopted by the
gallant admiral the member for Southwark, and by the
charges which he had chosen to cast upon him and the gal-
lant admiral the ihember for G.oucester.
Admiral WALCOTT referred to the reply of the hon. baro-
net the member for arlisle, and the gallant admiral the mem-
ber for Gloucester, to sir C. Napier's speech on a former
evening, and censured their dangerous tone. The hon, baro-
net then referred to certain letters in which the gallant admi-
ral had expressed an opinion that officers abo e 60 years of
age were not fitted for high command. Now, not only was
the case which the hon. baronet had made of these letters in-
cousisteut with the fact that the hon. baronet; knowing his
age, had appointed him to the command of the Baltic fleet,
but it was also inconsistent with the praise which he had
himself given to the gallant admiral hi that house, and with
the offer which the gallant admiral the member for Gloucester
had made to servo as second in command to Sir C. Napier.
He believed that the Baltic fleet of 1834 was not furnished
with appliances adequate to meet the expectations which the
ceuutry had formed of their exploits. He thought that they
did as much as the country had a right to expeet from them.
At the same time, he thought that Sir C Napier had brought
much that had taken place upon himself byhis conduct at the
Reform Club diner, which aroused expectations that could
not be realsed. However, Sir C. Napier returned from the
Baltic, but was not again sent out, in which he (Admiral Wal-
cott) thought the Admiralty did right, because the gallant ad-.
miral' s manner of addressing the Admiralty was not such as it
ought to be. The lion. and gallant admiral (Walcott) then
censured the conduct of Sir C. Napier since his return, cad for
his speech at the ld,nsion-house dinner. Ho condemned Sir
C. Napier for what he did at Acre, and his apology for it, and
said when ho anchored he should have hoisted the signal,
" pass onwards." The hon and gallant admiral said he could
not do it because the commander-in-chief was there, but he
(Admiral Walcott) would have disobeyed any order, if his
country's honour had been at stake, even if he had been
broke the next morning. He would not have cared for a
hundred commanders-in-chief on such an occasion. (Cheers )
Reverting to Sir C. Napier's conduct towards the Admiralty,
he again condemned it, and said that it was not right or the
Admiralty to stand in au inferior position, and that, if Sir
C. Napier felt aggrieve 1, he should lave demanded a court-
martial on his conduct. lie blamed the Admiralty for giv ng
Sir C. Napier a second vote of thanks, and said that he con-
sidered Sir J. Graham and Admiral Berkeley were much to
blame iu the matter, and that it was to be regretted that such
speeches as those hon. members had made should have been
addressed to the house.
The subject then dropped, and the house wont into com-
mittee of supply.
The following votes were agreed to :-
16,7831 for Government inspectors of prisons. •
415,960/. for Government p; icons awl convict prisoners.
161,595/. for the maintenance of prisoners; criminal luna-
tics, it.c.
25,485/. for the transportation of convicts.
236,605/. for convict establishments in the colonies.
ED UCAT

On the vote for education,
Mr. WILSON said that, instead of asking for a vote of
450,0001. for education,.he proposed to ask lea; for 300,0001.
au account, leaving 150,0001. to stand over until after the
decision of the house on the resolutions of the noble lord the
member for the City of London on education.
Mr. MOWBRAY called attention to the Louse and pre-
mises known as Kiteller Hall ; he saw that,' by the estimates
of last year, 4,800/. were voted for it, but now, in conse-
quence of that institution being a failure, he wished to know
what it bad cost the country, and what sum was likely to be
realised for the premises?
Mr. WILSON said a similar return was ordered last year.
There would be uo objection to furnish it again. . It was im-
possible to state whit amount the premises might produce.
Mr. MOWBRAY asked what proportion the return for
these premises were expected to bear with reference to the
expenditure on the institution ?
Mr. WILSON said it was impossible to say.
After some further remarks from hon. members,
T'ue vote was agreed to.
In reply to a question from Mr. BARROW,
Sir G. GREY said that the gratuitous grants of books,
maps, &c., would be continued to adult schools so long as
they came within the conditions of the grant.
64,6351. was granted for the general management of the
department of science and art, and the schools in connection
with the Geological Society.
Mr. WILLIAMS expressed his dissent to the manner in
which this vote was distributed, and instanced a large sum
being entered for the agricultural colleges for teaching the
people to " buy and sell cattle."
Mr. BLACKBURN also objected to the vote. From the
return of the working of these schools, they appeared to be
a failure. He moved the postponement of the vote.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the hon. member, to be
consistent in his conduct, ought to oppose every vote for the
education of the lower classes. Education was to teach
people that that would bo useful to them in their passing
through life.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the vote be reduced to
23,905/,
Col. DUNNE said the agricultural schools had done great
service to the public. All that was required was that the
money should be well expended.
Mr. BARROW thought the vote ought to be reduced, in
order to cut off those excrescences which injured the cause
of education.
Mr. MOWBRAY said he found one item of 1,000/. for
teachers of neatness and cleanliness. (Laughter.) Now, he
thought, considering that they had teachers of all sorts pro,
vided, some of them might have embraced the teaching of
cleanliness and neatness without its being necessary to have
a vote of 1,0001. f.,r special teachers of those qualities.
Mr. KINNAIRD suggested to the Government the pro-
priety of reconsidering this vo e.
Mr. MACARTNEY complained of the number of the
higher-classed officers of this establishment. The vote had
been increased from year to year for these officers. The
amount for administering this vote was no less than 14,0001.,
being 1,000/. more than it was last year. The extrava-
gance of this establishment requited the whole system to be
revised.
Mr. PHILLIMORE characterised this vote as a job. Ono
item in it.wa-s " literary teachers to the literary teachers.'
(Loud laughter.) He thought the Government would do well
to reconsider the vote, which bore upon, its features such
strong marks of a job.
Mr. DISRAELI thought the vote required further con-
sideration. lie was not prepared to say that a model farm
iu Ireland was net calculated to be of advantage, although
he was opposed to model farms generally ; but in this case it
Was not a model institution, but a Parent institution, and it