The Press. — London, England, 1855-09-08 00:00:00

846 But in all professions, good sense, and a capacity for making large allowances for cir cumstances, are indispensable requisites. Under every form df Governtiihnt a com mander must expeCt ttl suffer !dine ann4- ante. He must alwOrs 130 prepared 1.0 niebt the anxious vigilanqn bf his litiiiie Adminis tration, and he shoulti be ready tb render wi temper a su ffi cient answer to objtctip4s urg, against his proceedings. After ciifeftilly red - ing the correspondence so indecorously pub• lished by him, we are forced to say that Sir CHARLES NAPIER had not more to complain of that way than must be expected by any other Admiral. Thus it is plain that Sir CHARLES made no allowance for the position of the Government as the summer wore away. The people recol lected the Reform Club banquet, and they did not forget the gallant Admiral's fierce and hopeful demeanour. They expected wonders, but no triumphs were achieved. The wits of Paris jested about " the Baltic promenade." The public became displeased, and the Cabi net began to fear the consequences. Perhaps they had gone too far in checking the Ad miral ? Well, they would try again. And accordingly they required a second recon naissance of Sweaborg ; and in the letter from " Kiel, Oct. 27," the Admiral voluminously explains all the difficulties before him. He bad previously, on the 25th of September, sent him a report on Sweaborg, which Sir JAMES GRAHAM (Letter, No. 3) declares " appeared to " be entirely at variance with the opinions pre " viously expressed by Sir C. NAPIER." This part of the correspondence (to be found in the Times of Monday last) is of great importance. Sir JAMES GRAHAM says : " I certainly under " stood you then (25th Sept., 1855) to say " that if you had mortars, rockets, and Lan " caster guns, you considered Sweaborg as " sailable by sea. In May you declared it to be " unassailable by sea or land, and the Admi " ralty did not send you the appliances which " you declared to be wanting, because they " believed from your account that they would " be useless against a place which you pro " flounced to he impregnable." Now, we should like to see that report of September2s before pronouncing "certainly" on this grave point. Yet enough is before us to see that both the Admiralty and Sir CHARLES NAPIER wavered considerably. "Beware of stone walls " was the order of the day during the summer, and then, as the public became sore, the tone was changed, and it is evident that both the Admiralty and Sir CHARLES NAPIER wished that " something Should be done." We think that we can convict both the Coali tion and the Admiralty of wavering and of vacillation in their respective judgments. Thus, without taking into account the direct charges on that head already cited from Sil JAMES GRAHAM, it is most unfortunate for the sake of the Admiral that at the start he was stringently questioned by the First Lord as to his readiness in undertaking the com mand. In his letter of February 21, Sir JAMES GRAHAM complains of " the painful im " pression left upon him" by his conversations with Sir C NAPIER. Tho option was then given to the Admiral, " Either take the com " mend, or decline it on the ground of insuf " ficiency of the means." In answer Sir CHARLES wrote a vaunting letter, " I should consider " myself a coward, and unworthy of holding " her Majesty's commission, were I to decline " any service, be it ever so desperate. Lord " Nelson never," &c., &c. Brave words ! But it looks unfortunate that afterwards our naval commanders should require goading to en counter peril. There are times when a great nation would heartily forgive a glorious error, and there is a point of circumspectiveness which neither generals nor admirals are ex petted to attain. It was admirably remarked by Sir JAMBS GRAHAM, in his letter of October 17, " War is not conducted without risks and " dangers, and prudence consists in weighing " them, and firmness in encountering them." Yet the tone of that well-penned paragraph is scarcely in unison with all the cautions of the early correspondence ; as, for example, when, under date of May 1, Sir JAMES wrote, " Because the public here may be impatient, " you must not be rash; because they at a " distance from danger are foolhardy, you bii\i..... THE PRESS. " must not risk the loss of a fleet in an impos- I " sible enterprise." 1 The hectoring trine in which Sir CHARLES finally proceed Is .111,,iin his superiors to ac. comit wila a flail mistikke. It enabled them lb til take titit Admk at 111 gkievous disadvantilifb; and it , iampel b,d tat to share the unpoilui larity dt the Cll inet. They had from the first lt . made it grieviiiii till *ciliation as to , tlitti extent nresistali6 W lilt they were likely tI3 encounter by land ti 4 sen, and the Admiral came in for his flil iortion of discredit In the latter instance the error was entirely his own. We are deeply pained in thinking of his personal conduct in this unhappy affair. His conduct at the present tune is actually inde cent. It is that of a vulgar agitator, and it must inevitably cloud his character. His tone of defiance, and contempt for all the conventions of society, exhibits a most muti nous spirit, and injuriously contrasts with the dignified conduct of other admirals when in difficulties. There can be no question but that Admiral NAPIER has seriously com promised his personal character, and we are sorry for it. His unauthorised publication of all Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S letters is contrary to social decorum, and even to fair dealing between man and man. So far from proving, the case attempted to be made by Sir C. NAPIER, the letters in many respects indicate how serious were the doubts about his discre tion ; and those doubts have since by himself been shown to be warranted. In a vain effort to uphold his assailed reputation as a great naval commander, he has tarnished his own personal fame. The Reform Club hailed him uproariously by anticipation as a bombarder of Cronstadt ; but the Admiral has done more, for he has blown up himself. It would be imitating the fault committed by Sir C. NAPIER if we were to discuss at length the conduct of Sir JAMES GRAHAM. An ex parte case is made against him by Sir C. NAPIER, and social confidence has been vio lated. Under such circumstances gentlemen usually decline taking advantage of partial and improper revelations. The letters were on the whole well written, and some of them were particularly good, though not quite discreet. But, as we have intimated, under the circum stances, we decline to examine at present the proceedings of the late First Lord of the Admiralty in connection with the insurgent Admiral. PEEL UPON PALMERSTON. THE sayings and doings of Sir JAMES GRAHAM have attracted much attention this week. Three speeches in one day from an ex-Cabinet Minister, out of session, have been boons to the quidnuncs, and there is certainly material for reflection upon the Right Honourable Baronet's reticence, as well as his utterances. His first speech was upon peace and the horrors of war, his second was a panegyric on PEEL, and his third oration was on the toast of " The glory of our native land." On the first of those addresses we shall only remark that the dexterous speaker oracularly talked platitudes in sentences of ominous length, which, like the Silloth Railway, seemed never likely to find a terminus. But the speech in honour of Sir ROBERT PEEL was most remarkable in many ways. No man knows more of the traditional saws and sayings of Parliamentary leaders and skilful orators, and we surmise that in his pane gyric on the celebrated statesman Sir JAMES recollected the advice of Sir PHILIP FRANCIS— " Never praise any one in politics, except in " odium tertii." " I feel every day," said Sir JAMES GRAHAM, "more and more the loss of Sir "R. PEEL'S friendship." The Netherby Baro • net finds poor comfort in thinking of Lord PALMERSTON and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, or all the Whig families, with whom he was recon ciled. " Time has not abated my sorrow for " his loss," and many other sentiments to the same effect, must, in the minds of Whig Ministers, be anything but complimentary to the use they have made of their oppor tunities since the decease of Sir ROBERT PEEL. SATURDAY, Such matters might prove invidious in illus tration, and we leave Sir JAMES to settle his condoleiibth mitt cottildliiiitpts as he pleases. On one ihiportaiit 010 , fitwever, we must with Ail iiiiipect teriblbr him in emphatic con tradhOti; Si ' bath einAnAli stabiti that it would be " a Si • *tlillits qatstidtii a titiidless and uupro " fitt hpecdliticitl7 th discuss " What wood IliVe beeti MN bonduct of Sir ROBBIIT " PERI. (if alive) in existing circumstances?" We are astonished to find so clever a man as Sir JAMES GRAHAM saying, "He cannot pre " tend to say' what would have been the position taken by Sir R. PEEL. Does Sir JAMES GRAHAM forget the last speech ever spoken by the eminent statesman whom he so feelingly laments ? A copy of it lies before us as we write; and even at this distance of time we remember the calm emphasis with which many of its passages were delivered to an attentive House of Commons. We defy any one to read that most significant address and not come to at least one conclusion, that whatever course Sir R. PEEL might now re commend, that able man would never have endorsed with approbation the studied am biguity and irritating tone of the present Prime Minister in his relations with foreign Powers. Thus, let our readers recollect the way in which Lord PALMERSTON has vacillated during the last four years. At one period, before the fall of the Russell Cabinet, his Lordship left us without an ally, and even Royalty had specially to interfere to check his proceedings about despatches to foreign Courts. He was obliged to leave the Russell Cabinet, and then he intrigued against it. He took up a doubtful position on the flank of Lord DERBY'S Administration. With faltering steps he joined the Coalition, and left his colleagues to act as they pleased, while he busied himself in London sewers, and allowed his friends throughout Europe to circulate all sorts of rumours as to his secret designs. He sup ported Lord ABERDEEN in refusing a committee on the conduct of the war ; then he played fast and loose with the Peelites, while he pre tended to be ready to join Lord bERBY ; and afterwards, availing himself of the precipitate folly of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, his Lordship offered himself as man-of-all work to the Whig families, and opened the committee to the public, whip at the same time he derided all measures for stringent military reform. That is not the line of action in public affairs which Sir ROBERT PEEL would have followed. Sir ROBERT changed his course on public questions, and avowed it openly, but he never balanced himself like a tightrope-dancer in the Palmerstonian fashion. Whether he was right or wrong in his mode of acting we shall not hero discuss ; but PEEL had always a great public cause for his changes, while Lord PALMERSTON in his vacillations leaves events and measures to settle themselves, and is con tent to raise himself on the difficulties of the time. And thus on the foreign policy of the Pre mier, the peroration of the last speech of Sir R. PEEL reads like a vote of censure on the proceedings of Lord PALMERSTON. Observe the words of Sir ROBERT : It is my firm belief that you will not advance the cause of constitutional government by attempting to dictate to other nations. If you do, your intentions will be mistaken; you will rouse feelings upon which you do not calculate; and beware that the time does not arrive when, frightened by your own interference, you withdraw your countenance from those you have excited, and leave upon their minds the bitter recollection that you have betrayed them. It is plain that the statesman who spoke those memorable words could not possibly approve of the irritating line of foreign policy followed by Lord PALMERSTON. Our Premier hangs not baits to the " oppressed nationali ties ;" he hovers on the confines of Austria; he goads the phlegmatic German States; he makes the great military monarchies uneasy, and, after scandalous procrastination in raising the Scotch and Irish militia, Lord PALMERS TON becomes a Hotspur in enlisting the Foreign Legion. Is that the policy which Sir ROBERT would have approved ? Assuredly it is not; and to Sir ROBERT S opinion on Lord PALMERTON'S mode of using the servants of the eotnitry we think it right