ADMIRAL SIR CHARLES NAPIER— QUESTION. (Hansard, 16 February 1855)

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM

If, Sir, it had been the pleasure of the House to go into Committee upon the Navy Estimates, it was certainly my intention, in the course of the few observations which it would be possible for me to address to the Committee, not to have passed altogether unnoticed the subject to which the hon. and gallant Member for the East Riding (Mr. A. Duncombe) 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 conducive to the public interest in an emergency like the present. To enter upon a complete analysis of the statement made by Sir Charles Napier would compel me to make disclosures of discussions which have taken place with that gallant officer in which the public interests are materially involved. It is impossible, consistently with my duty, to give that refutation to the statements of the gallant officer which it might be desirable for me to give without the production of correspondence and of despatches, interwoven with questions of naval preparations about to be resumed in the Baltic as soon as the weather will permit. It has certainly pleased that 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 in the slightest degree the interests of the profession with which I have the honour to be connected. It is quite true that the gallant officer stated, on the occasion in question, that he was sent in command of the Baltic fleet with ships' companies, badly manned and worse disciplined. The Board with which I am connected used their utmost exertion in the selection of officers to command those ships endeavouring to choose those 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, without exception, did use their utmost diligence, with the greatest success, to introduce the best discipline into the vessels under their command. 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 1471 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 adverted, 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 on whom the reflection is cast. The hon. and gallant Member who put the question refers to a speech I made at the dinner at the Reform Club when Sir Charles Napier undertook this command. I underwent due correction in this House on the subject of that speech, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I am not likely to make any repetition of the offence. I hope I have improved in prudence by that correction. It is asked whether, considering the language which the gallant officer condescended to make use of, 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 Sir Charles Napier was dismissed or not. My hon. and gallant Friend near me (Admiral Berkeley) assured the House that he had neither been dismissed from his command nor censured for the exercise of his power in the Baltic as Commander in Chief. Both these assertions were correctly made. Sir Charles Napier was not censured on account of any conduct pursued by him with regard to the fleet, but in his correspondence with the Admiralty he had recourse to the use of comments and expressions which were considered not to be consistent with the deference due to the authority under which he was serving, and strong censures were certainly passed on the use of those expressions. An hon. Gentleman, during the debate, asked whether Sir Charles Napier had been dis- 1472 missed? Sir, he was not dismissed. He was, at the close of the service upon which he was employed, directed to lower his flag—there are precedents for that course with reference to commanders in chief of the fleet—and certainly it is not the intention of the present Board—I know not what may be the course pursued by any future Board—to call upon Sir Charles Napier to rehoist his flag. I must 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 intention to allow him to dub himself a martyr as well as a hero; and, therefore, I have no intention whatever of advising the Crown to take any further notice of the matter.