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

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 sufficient 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