The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-14 00:00:00

ground for the appointment of a committee to review the
campaigns of the last two years.
Admiral WALCOTT-1 merely seconded the motion : I
aid not say a word as to the vote I should give. (Laughter.)
'beg it may be clearly understood that my vote will entirely
depend upon the answer the right hon. baronet the reember
for Carlisle may give to the gallant admiral's charges.
Sir C. WOOD—I must beg to say that when a member
of this house—
Aettniral WALCOTT—Oh, I did not know that that was
the rule. (Order.) Mr. Speaker Sir—l really was not
sensible that such was the case. (Laughter, and cries of
" order.")
Sir C. WOOD—When an hon. gentleman gets up and
seconds a motion it implies that ho considers the motion
one that ought to be made. The gallant admiral must be
aware that if he had not seconded the motion it would at
once have fallen to the ground. However, I am glad to
Bee that even the gallant admiral who seconded the motion
does not approve of it. (Laughter.)
Admiral WALCOTT again essayed to explain, but he
was prevented by the cries of "Order," and the advice of
.11r. Spooner, who sat near him.
Sir C. WOOD, in continuation, observed that it really
did very mach strengthen the opinion he entertained, that
lie ought to resist the motion when he heard the only
person the gallant admiral could find to second it—which
be did certainly in not very complimentary ternis
avow that he came forward only because he did riot like
to see a brother officer adrift, and that he did not, in feet,
approve of the motion. (Hear.) He agreed entirely with
the gallant gentleman when he said it was not deeireble
that the men of the sword should be made subject to the
men of the pen ; but ho thought likewise that it would not
be desirable that the conduct of men of the sword should
be investigaied bye committee of thst house. (Hen , hear.)
There were a great number of things which a committee of
that house might very properly inquire into; but such a
committee would not bo a very convenient tribunal before
which to bring the behaviour of a gallant officer, or the
conduct of a campaign. (Hear.) If the hon. and gallant
admiral would move a vote of censure on the right hon.
baronet, or would move to impeach him, as at one time he
seemed not indisposed to do, such a oourse would be open
to him ; lout an investigation before a select committee
*would not by any means ne a necessary preliminary to such
a step. He (Sir C. Wood) would ask the house whether,
with the exception of a correspondence which ought never
to have been read at all, the gallant gentlem an had brought
forward one single reason that would justify his inetion ?
The gallant admiral had never been censured. Hs had
been directed to haul down bis flag on his return from the
service on which tie hod been sent, as other admirals had
done before him, and at Admiral Dundas bad done last
Year. During the debate on the navy estimates last ses-
aion the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) had expressed
in pretty etrong terms his approbation of the conduct of the
Baltic fleet ; and when honours worn distributed it was not
the Government's fault that the gallant admiral lied not,
received his share. (Hear.) Ho (Sir C. Wood) could not sit
down without saying a few words in vindication of as gallaet
an officer as ever stepped, and upon whom the hon. gentle-
man (Sir G. Napier) had made an unjustifiable attack—he
meant General Jones. (Cheers.) If there was one person in
ber Majesty's service who he might say was more genera,
than another it was that distinguished officer, who ftem the
time when he was the leader of the forlorn hope at Battajoz
down to the present day, had never been wanting in the
service of his country. (Cheers.? The gallant admiral, re-
ferring to the operations in the Beltic lastyeer, complained
of Admiral Dundas for leaving part of his eet at Cron-
stadt while the rest of his force was bombarding Sweaborg.
But surely it was as necessary in 1555 to leave a strong
force before Cronstadt to prevent the Russians sallying
forth as it was in 1854. (Hear.) The gallant admiral bad
underrated the number of gun-boats Sweaborg—there
were et) instead of 15 ; and those were wore than suffi-
cient for the destruction of Sweaberg. The mischief had
been in the faulty construction of the mortars. It was said
that a mortar ought to stand 500 rounds, whereas those
which had proved the most durable were some which had
been used in the last war. One that had been used at
Algiers had stood .100 rounds; whereas mortars of more
lilodern construction had become unserviceable after being
fired 100 times, or even fewer. (Hear.) He (Sir C. Wood)
'lid not agree that the honour of the British Navy had
been at all- imperilled; nor did he consider that a corn-
Mateo of the House of Commons would be necessary for
its vindication ; for, although the caution—the gallant
officer opposite (Admiral Walcott) said wisdom—of the
Russians had prevented it from reaping eclat, there hail
never been a campaign in which every rank in the service,
from the admiral down to the cabin boy, had behaved
with more gallantry. (Cheers.) Viewing, then, the ap-
pointment of a committee as uncalled for and even ridicu-
lous, he hoped the house would, by a vote as nearly una-
nimous he possible, reject the motion. (Cheers.)
. _

and gallant officer, not in thh beat of debate, but in a let-
ter addressed to the editor of the Ttates, on the 10th of
January in the present year, raises a substantial issue,-
which I should bs most happy to see tried before any tri-
bunal. He says :
I ask, ♦►ore the Government sincere in their wish to cripple
Russia in 1854, and were they serious in 1855, for certainly
no one judging by their :tedious can think so ?
(" Hear, hear," from Sir G. Napier.) Now, that is a point
fairly raised and' broadly stated, and certainly nothing
could be more satisfactory to me, if it were possible, than
that it should be fairly examined. Again, the honoltrable
and gallant officer has expressed his opinion, first stated
in his letter to Mr. Ironsi•ies, and repeated to-night, that
my correspondence with him contains proof of treasons of
which I have been guilty. A more grave accusation could
not be brought nstalust any man, and certainly I am under
a difficulty, the Government refusing an inquiry as to the
course which, consistnitly with my public duty, it is open
for me ,to take. I think, as the matter now stands, it is
an exceptioual case, and, although most reluctant to read
my own private letters, which I think are my own pro-
perty, yet,.in present circumstances, I deem myself corn-
pslied to trouble the house with some extracts from my
correspondence with the hon and gallant officer. It will be
open to him to assent to my using his answers if he thinks
fit.

S.r C. NA.PIER—Erso everything you like. (A. laugh.)
Sir J. GRAHAAI —But before I proceed to this point I
shall refer to what fell from the bon. and gallant officer
with respect to the evidence which he said I gave before
the SJirastvi,lCequasittee relative to the use of private
letters. With the permission of the house I shall read a
portion of that evidence. There was a private letter writ-
ten by me on the 25th of October, 1854, to Admiral Dun-
das, who was then in command of the Blach Sea fleet.
That letter was made a public document by being referred
to and quote,: in a despatch to Admiral Dismiss, (Intel
Admiralty, 28th of December, IS5i, which I read before
the Sebastopol Committee, at the same time stating that I
should not have felt myself at liberty to use the private
1 tter of the 25th of October had it not, by the despatch of
the 28th, been made a public document, and had I not re-
ceived the sanction of the noble viscount at the head of
the Gr,varnment. The chairman then askA—

You state that you would not have felt yourself at liberty
to use it if it had not been made a public docunvnt by the
despatch of the 28th ; but is not any private document relat-
ing to public matters public ?--I conceive not ; I conceive
that no person has a right to usa .a private letter without the
consent of the writer, whether that gentleman be in office or
out of it. (Hear )
Is not that a private letter of your own ?—The letter of
the 25th of October was a private letter, written by me to
Admiral Pandas, but I should not have used that letter had
it not been made public by the despatch which I have just
read.

Nor if it related. to public matters?—Certainly not ;
should not consider myself at liberty, with reference to the
conduct of admirals with whom I corresponded on an occa-
sion like this, to make use of my private correspondence.
This extract from my evidence will show the value of the
statement made by the hon. and gallant officer that I de-
Maroc( before the Sebastopol Committee that private letters
might be made public documents at the will of tho Ad-
miralty. _ _

Sir C. NAPIER—You wero so reported in the news-

Sir J. GRAHA?J—So much for the evidence before the
Sebastopol Committee ; and to the principle there laid
down I have already tod the house it was my wish to ad-
here, were not the circumstances of this case very peculiar.
I have shown the house the use already made of my pri-
vate correspondence, without my consent, by the hon, and
gallant officer. I hate told the house that I would be glad
to have this question referred to any tribunal, with the
whole of the correspondence, public or priave ; but the
house had heard objections from official authority—the
head of the Admiralty—to the institution of any such in-
quiry, and new it only remains for me in vindication of
the truth, to which the hon. and gallant officer attaches so
much importance—(" Hear, hear," from Sir C. NAPIER)
and to avoid that special pleading which the hon. and
gallant (officer is ro anxious to avoid—("Hear, hear," from
Sir C. NAPlER)—though perhaps I should have little diffi-
culty- in proving, were I to refer to the report of our pro-
ceedings last year, that such artifices are not unknown in
the debates of this house—to read, with the permission of
the house two or three of my private letters addressed
to the honourable end gallant admiral. (Hear.) I shall
commence with the circumstance which attended the
appointment of the gallant admiral to the command of the
Baltic fleet at the commencement of 1854. The hon. and
gallant officer is most anxious that truth should be stated
unreservedly in the matter. lan sorry thus early in what
I have to address to the house to state that a misunder-
standing on a matter of fact exists between the hon. and
gallant admiral and myself. If I did not misapprehend
him, I think he stated that I promised him the command
of the Baltic fleet in November, 1853. Am I right in so
understanding the hen. an,: gallant officer?
Sir C. NAPIER—The facts aro these :—The right hon.
baronet wrote to me in February, 1834, that he had ap-
pointed Admiral Fanshawe to the command of the Ameri-
can station, and that it was his intention—l quote from
memory—to keep we at home lest a war !night break out,
anti if there should be no war to send me to Sheerness. I
saw the right hon. baronet the next day, and put this
question to him, "Am I to understand you to mean that I
am not to go to America because, in the event of war, you
intend to appoint me to a command in the Baltic. and in
the event of uo war to send me to Sheerness ?" His reply
was, "'Yes."

Air J. GRAHAM—The house must have observed the
4illieulty experienced by the hon. and gallant member for
Southwark in finding a seconder for his motion. The hon.
and gallant officer ou the third bench (Admiral Walcott);
With that generosity that belongs to his profession and to
his personal character, said he could not boar to see a
hrether officer adrift and not throw him out a tow-rope.
(Rear, and a laugh.) Sir, if the hon. and gallant member
for Christchurch had not come to the assistance of the hoe.
and gallant member for Southwark, my impalse would
have been to second that motion—(cheers)—for, after all
that has passed, I am glad to meet him here face to face.
(Rear, hear.) Accusations against me have been gravely
Preferred, frequently repeated, made immediately ou the
tettuee of the gallant admiral to this house, and from day
1)° day postponed, until we have arrived at the Easter re-
cces; and this motion, so formally announcei, has never
been made until this night, although upon occasion of
motions for going into Committee of Supply it was open
to the hon. and gallant officer to have brought it forward.
Noy*, Sir, nothing Would have prevented mo from sup-
?uting this motion except the declaration of the right
'lon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, matte
upon his official responsibility, that the appointment of
this committee would be inconsistent with the interests of
the public service. As far as my personal wishes and
honour are concerned, it would bo the greatest possible
satisfaction to ine that this committee should be ap-
poiriteid ; that every scrap of paper I ever addressed to the
hon. and gallant admiral should be produced before the
committee ; and that I should give evidence before the
t on-mitt-Jo as well as the gallant admiral. (Hear, hear.)
Sir, the hon. and gallant admiral is no doubt a very good
judge of the relative strength of fleets and their positions,
but he must permit me to say that he is not an equally
good judge of strong language. (A laugh.) The gallant
lidmiral commenced his speech by promising to deliver
himself with temper, with moderation, and justice; and I
shall not be wrong if I read the charges which the gallant
admiral contained in one speech, but teat a very long
one. The following, then, are the charges which the
Pliant admiral says I am guilty upon :—Political
coveardice—(" Hear," from Sir Charles Napier)—that I
have written from the Admiralty letters so jesuitical that
,to other person could have put them on paper—that the
honour of an officer is not safe in my hands—thet I have
been guilty, in his opinioe, of treason [Sir C. NAPIER— " I
mover said so"]—that I was never in earnest in the Mia-
mian war—that the Emperor Nicholas might have been at
'the head of the Admiralty with more advantage to British
Interests than myself [Sir C. NAPIER rose to explain, but
being met by a cry of " Order !" resumed his seat]—that I
desired to make the gallant officer a victim, and that I was
"thy of conduct unworthy of a gentleman. (Hear, hear.)
ilesse are the charges which the gallant admiral has pre-
ferred against me after deliberation, and after announcing
Is determination to use no language that was not charac-
terised by temper, by moderation, and by justice. (Hear.)
'4,w, Sir, I Should like to call the attention of the house
to the use that has been made of my private correspondence
With the gallant officer. (Hear.) The house will remember
hat I took exception to the course pursued by the hon. and
'earned member for Wallingford (air. Malins) in a former
session with respect to this subject. I complained of the un-
"xPeeted use made on that occasion of public despatches
~",eithkeld by the Government on the ground that. their pub-
deation would be injurious to the public service, and of
eprivate letters, written with, certainly, the utmost confi-
dence at the moment, to an officer employed in an ar limns
"mmand—produced without consulting the writer of those
otters, or obtaining his permission—the lettersgarbled also
la the order of time, and their production open to every
possible objection which could be taken to the use of pri-
t ate correspondence. I have every confidence in the cor-
rectness of the view which you, Sir, take of the rules of the
4"3xese, and I am satisfied, after having sat here for a long
VIZ* and having had much experience in debate, that there
ints been no such use in former debates of public or pri-
:tate despatches, and that, if an appeal had been made
'4, you, Sir, any such use of private despatches
and public letters would not have been allowed. After
all that has occurred, I think it is necessary that I should
0511 the attention of the house to a further use that
zies been made of this private correspondence. I hold in
my hand an extract from a newspaper—the Sheffield Free
Alva—which contains a correspondence that, with the
Permission of the house, I will now read. Mr. Ironsides,
resident in Sheffield, makes a proposition, at a public
Meeting there, " that Mr. Roebuck be requested to move
the appointment of a committee to inquire into the Baltic
expedition of last year." He proceeded to state that he
had heard such a deectiption of the 1 tters between Sir
James Graham and Sir Charles Napier that he had written
to Mr. Grant, the editor of the Morning Advertiser, who,
he was informed, had them in his possession, to send them
to hits. Mr. Grant replies thus to Mr. lionsiden

Sir J. GRAHAM, continued— I have by me the copy of
a letter written by myself to the hen. red gallant officer on
the 11th of February. The hon. and gallant officer was
very instant iu his application to me for the appointment
to this command. I have his letters here ; but shall not
use them unlesi he presses me to do so. He urged me
very much to give him the appointment ; he held out
many inducements why I should do so, intimating among
other things that his popularity in the service was such
that his appointment would lead to an early influx of
sailors to the fleet ; and he adduced many reasons why,
both on account of public grounds and personal merit, the
dernmand was due to him. I declined upon more than
one occasion an interview with the gallant admiral, and he
complained of my reluctance to see him as inconsistent
with the respect' which I then felt for him. Upon the
11th of February, therefore, I wrote to him this letter—
Sir C. INIAPTER—Read the letter of the 24th of No-
vember.

Sir J. GRAFIAM—I have not that latter here, but tho
hon. and gallant officer is at perfect liberty to road it if be
plqases. I will read my lettor of the 11th of February in
answer to the applications which he made to me, urging
that the appointment should be given to him. It is as fol-
lows :

Admiralty, Fob. 19, 1854.
My dear Sir Charles,—The appointment to the command of
the North Pea fleet is a very serious affair, and cannot bo de-
cided in a hurry. While the question is pending there is no
use in discussing it with you; and this is the reason why I
have avoided a personal interview, not intending to mark any
want of respect, but desirous to prevent any needless disap-
pointment. War is not declared ; uo fleet is yet assembled ;
and no final arrangements are at present concluded. In these
circumstances it is not in my power to make any communica-
tion to you at this moment.
Vice-Admiral Sir C. Napier, K.C.B.

Se matters stood on the 11th of February. In the perform-
ance of my duty, however, having consulted with my col-
leagues in the Cabinet, and taken her Majesty's pleasure
with respect to the appointment, I notified to the gallant
admiral, somewhere about the 23d of February, that he
had been selected to that high command. I had an inter-
view with the gallant admiral somewhere about the 23d of
February, and intimated that circumstance to him, and
upon the ?4`.11 of February the impressions which wore
'produced by that interview were conveyed to the gallant
admiral in the following letter :
Admiralty, Feb. 24, 1854.

My dear Sir Charles,—The conversation which I had with
you yesterday has left on my mind the painful impression that
the means which the Admiralty has provided for fitting out
and manning the North Sea fleet are, in your opinion, insuf-
ficient for the occasion and unequal to an encounter with the
Russians on fair terms.
I have done my best to provide a force which I consider
adequate to the duty to be performed ; and any exertion
which this board considers necessary will be made without
intermission. You urged ou me the propriety of offering
boanty, of transferring the seamen from the Queen's yacht
to the flag-ship, and of inviting the gentlemen of England to
t)rego their summer's amusement on the sea and to lay up
their yachts;

Tees. are signs of distress, which I consider impolitic and
unnecessary, and which I cannot sanction.
If you are dissatisfied with the preparations that have been
made and are in progress, and if you have not entire confi-
dence in the strength of the combined forces of France and
England, you had better say so to me at once, and decline
to accept a command which, in your opinion, would not re-
dound to your honour or to the safety of your country.
It will be far better that yon should refuse tho offer of
this c'mainand Clan undertake it with any such misgivings.
I have marked my confidence in you by offering it ; if you
decline it on account of the insufficiency of the means which
will be placed at your disposal, I must endeavour to make
some other arrangement as soon as possiblo.

yV
Without a goodwill and hearty concurrence, this board and
the Commander-in• Chief of the Baltic fleet cannot walk well
together. •
I am, yours very faithfully, J. LG. GRAHAM.
Vice-Admiral Sir C. Napier, K. C.B.
Now, sir, to that letter I received. an answer from the gal-
lant admiral, which I have here ; bnt it is his letter, not
mine, and whether I shall read it to the house depends
upon the wish of the gallant admiral.
Sir C. NAPlER—Certainly ; read it; and the letter of
the 24th of November also.
Sir J. GRAHAM continued,--T have already sail that
I have not that letter. I will now read the gallant admi-
ral's answer to mine of the 24th of February. It is as
follows ;--

London, Juno 11,_ 1855,

Dear Sir, I bad in my possession for six weeks the whole
'correspondence—not copies, but the originals--vrhich passed
'between Sir James Graham and Sir Charles Napier, from the
starting of the Baltic expedition last year till its return, but I
returned it to Sir Charles Napier a mouth ago. Sir Cl.ar:os
sPontaneously placed the documents in my hands—which I
I,,ed not say are of infinite importance—on the understand-
,"tg that I should not allow them to go out of my sight. I
bad, however, no prohibition as to showing them to iriends,
and, had you chanced to call on mo while they wera iu. wy
Possession, I should have had much pleasure in showin them
to you. •I have no hesitation in saying that, if I have any
idea of what evidence is, these letters would buffice, with other
facts of undoubted accuracy, to convict Sir James Graham of
treason. -Yours truly,

18, Albema-le•street, Feb. 24,1854.
My dear Sir James,-1 'thought it ray duty to point out to
you what I thought the best way of manning. the fleet, to in-
sure a-great, glorious, and speedy victory over the Russians.
I never made difficulties when service was requir,d, and
after a long life spent in honour I am not going to mako them
now.

I should colisider.myself a coward and unworthy of holding
JAMES GRANT. ;her Majesty's eommission were Ito decline any service, be it
eve-Lrosrod desperate.
Charles declined service, no "m or. I, narti-
°la the receipt of this letter Mr. Ironsicles writes to Sir
cuhurly after the confidence you placed in m
or, shall ,
Charles Napier, refers to the statements of Mr. Grant, and
means at my disposal, will do all I can for
Mks Sir Charles to let him have the letters. In reply, Sir
Charles Napier sends the following letter to Mr. Ironsides :
of my Queen and •
Merchistoun, Ilorndean, June 17, 1855. glory country, which shall not be tarnished
in my hands ; and I certainly have
Sir, - Mr. Grant has told you the truth. I did not etilebthito,nwolittth.
atuhtei
no apprehension of failing
give
either in good will or hearty concurrence with the Board of
Itaym., my dear Sir James, very faithfully
gt those letters to him to publish, because I might have
been accused of giving my plans of attack to the enemy ; but ,Admira
When it is decided not to attack the parts I pointed out, and yours,
' To that letter I immediately returned the following
CIIAILLES NAPIER
When there is no danger of publication, I shall go to Lord
Palmerston, and ask him if he will give the papers to the
My dear Sir Charles,--I,ddloslpnveaoist.atcaeen,ticipate that I shall
Ig°
use use ; and if he refuses, I shall thou publish them, whatever reply
;s the consequence to myself. I have no hesitation in saying, •
yucinudtehritsake comeanna n d' ; t as ienr vti ch
°a
t; thean dh
o when
r ask
of
had I done what Sir James Graham wished me to do, plainly yoffoueretdo
the country and of the flag might be safely confided
13xpressed in letters both public and private, I should have
lost her Majesty's fleet ; and I think Sir James Graham de-
Your apparent distrust of the means which I couldyo'l
he
impeachment for goading me to do in the winter what
your disposal was the sole cause ofsome uneasiness on my place
att,.
ne was advising me not to do iu the summer.. Roebuck was
Your note has dissipated all doubt and apprehension, andar I
':' successful with his Sebastopol Committee that he ought to
shall be most happy to see you at tho Admiralty to-morrow at
take up the Baltic. Sir James Graham has been publicly ac I 1 o'clock, when wa will discuss the airangements which it
e,,llaed by me of perverting my letters and of endangering the
, willbe necessary to make.
were
fleet, and that accusation ought not to lie dormant.
I am, my dear Sir Charles, yours very faithfully,
K.cj..Bß. R. G. GRAHAM.
_W:re lin Parliament it should not sleep for 24 hours. Ido II
It t think it right to send you the papers, but would be glad
Vie. Admiral Sir Charles Napier, co show them to you had lan opportunity. --Yours truly, : Now, Sir, I shall frankly tell tho house why I hesitated
Cues. NAPIER.
long before I cdvised my colleagues and her Majesty to
'he bon. and gallant officer is the best judge of whi.t appoint the gallant admiral to that command. I did liesi-
nt of sleep this question may have deprived him, but tate long,ho and I will tell the house the reason why. The
his..ort tho appearance of the house during the delivery of house will retnemher that on a former evening the gallant
ru speech I do not think his sleeplessness extended to
aJmiial talked very cont cropt ueuely of coastguardamen,
1 't,Y hon. members present. (A langh.) I would just ob- with ball heads and spectacles. (" Hear, bear," from Sir
it'o, before proceeding further, that in the unlimited C. NAPIER.) Now, Sir, I had the honour of some private
Publication enjoyed by the hon. and gallant officer be has acquaintance with that gallant officer very many years
„,,adranced. one charge both against myself and against the ago, and landsman as lam and ignorant of naval affairs, as
Qforernment with which I was connected, that, if it were 1-10 av be, I had imbibed very ranch the opinion from him.
Pro
(411,,
• sistent with the public interei.t,, Ido think might u ith eself,that after 60 no admiral was really so efficient in time
•
PrletY be investigated f a committee. The lacn. of war as he himself might desire to be—certainly not so