The Press.
London, England, 1856-12-13 00:00:00

NO. 1.-SIR C. NAPIER TO LORD PALMERSTON.

Merchiatoun, Dec. i, NH.
My Lord,—Your lordship tells me that you have wit-
nessed with great pain " the discussions that have taken
place between me and the Board of Admiralty, both in
and out of Parliament, as well as the attacks made by me
upon Sir James Graham on a public occasion." But, my
lord, if you have felt pain on that occasion—provoked as I
was by Sir James Graham and his Board—how much
more pained must you have been to witness the unpro-
voked attacks made upon me by a member of your lord-
ship's Government on two public occasions.
Your lordship tells me that "you have always main-
tained, when professionally employed in executing instruc-
tions under your department, that you had full reason to be
satisfied with my judgment and discretion; and you are
bound to say that you estimate the great services which
professionally 1 have performed. You highly respect the
noble qualities of which—in my professional career—l
have given such frequent proofs. But Sou have seen, with
sincere grief, in my conduct on shore, things which my
best friends (and you claim to be one of them) could not
witness without deep regret."
How much more po.gnant then, my lord, must have been
your " grief," and how much more deep your " regret," to
witness the conduct of Sir Robert Peel—a Lord of the Ad-
miralty, a member of your Government—in attacking an
old officer, double his age, who had served his country
honourably for upwards of fifty years, had several times
received the thanks of Parliament, and had even been
highly lauded in Parliament by the hon. baronet's own
father.

Your lordship must also remember that in attacking
me he attacked the French admiral, my colleague; and in
so doing must have given offence to the French nation—
our ally.
Your lordship will permit me to observe that you do not
put the case sufficiently strong. The attacks were made at
public meetings, it is true; but they were made by Sir
Robert Peel, a Lord of the Admiralty, a member of your
lordship's Government, and in the presence of one of your
colleagues !
Your lordship thinks no investigation necessary, be-
eause " you consider my conduct to have been judicious
and proper, and to have been founded on a correct
sense of my public duty in the very responsible situation
in which I was placed as Commander•in•Chief of the Baltic
fleet."

The fleet i commanded, your lordship observes, " was
perfectly sufficient, when reinforced by the French
squadron, to have enabled me to give a good account of the
Russian fleet if it had come out to give me battle." But
the fleet under my command was not sufficient for the
double purpose of attacking the stone batteries of Cron-
atadt, and afterwards encountering with success the Rue•
aian fleet.

Your lordship further observes, that " if I had attacked
Cronstadt, whatever the result might have been to the
Russian batteries, my ships would have been so serioisly
damaged, and my fleet, after such an action with the bat.
teries, would probably not have been in a situation to en•
counter the Russian fleet. The consequence of such a
state of things might have been a naval disaster, or the
temporary ascendancy of the Russian fleet, not only in the
Baltic, but in the North Sea, and on the coasts of Eng.
land."

You therefore think that, " in the then existing state of
things, I acted with sound judgment in refraining from
attacking the batteries of Cronstadt with the fleet under
my command ; and that, in pursuing this course, I best
performed the important and responsible duty which I
had undertaken."
This, your lordship says, " is your opinion now--was
your opinion at the time—and it was so expressed in a pri•
vate letter to me, when I was still in command of the
Baltic fleet; and that this is the opinion you have invari-
ably expressed to all with whom you have communicated
at any time on the subject."
I feel highly gratified that you entertain so high an
•pinion of my public services in general, and particularly
of my conduct before Cronstadt. But Ido not think,
after what has passed, that even your good opinion will
clear me in the eyes of the world.
It was stated by Admiral Berkeley, in 18.50, that it was
my fault Cronstadt was not attacked.
It has been stated at ,me public meeting, in presence of
one of your colleagues, by Sir Robert Peel, another Lord of
the Admiralty, that, "had I done my duty Cronstadt weuld
have been crumbled to dust.''

This was confirmed at another public meeting, and it
was stated by Sir R. Peel that " what he had said at Staf-
ford was approved by the 'highest authority.'" This has
gone forth to the remotest corners of the earth.

The " highest authority " could not have been your
lordship, after what you have written to me. It could not
have been her Majesty. Therefore I think the country
has a right to know who this " highest authority " is.
Sir Hobert Peel's opinion, my lord, on naval matters is
not worth much ; nor, indeed, on any other. His want of
Judgment is proverbial, but his position gives him weight.

The course he has pursued reflects little credit on your
lordship's Government; and be assured, my lord, that he
is not the Samson to pull down the pillars of the State
and crush the Administration beneath its ruins.

I therefore trust your lordship will reconsider your de.
vision, and grant me the investigation I request.—l have,
dec., dc., CHARLES NAPIER.
The Right Hon. Viscount Palmerston.

THE PRESS.