The Sun.
London, England, 1855-09-17 00:00:00

but feel that, in the consideration of my conduct,
more than naval questions are involved.
As long as we have a superior fleet in the Baltic,
we protect the shores of England from insult and
desolation, our commerce from ruin • we retain
Sweden and Denmark in their neutrality.
Behind that fleet there is nothing ; no naval, no
military reserve at home to defend our coasts ; no
fortifications, adequate. to protect our ports, if at
any time, through any disaster arising out of a
most dangerous and little known navigation, or out
of the accidents of treacherous and tempestuous
weather, or out of an attack on forts, which, with.
whatever caution and judgment it might •be con-
ducted, and whatever more or less of success might
attend it, must be expected to result in the trip.
pling of many Of the ships engaged, our Baltic fleet
should, under circumstances of great temporary
disadvantage, be brought into action with the very
powerful fleet of the enemy, and in that action
should sustain defeat, in three weeks from that
time a Russian fleet, full of troops, might be on
our coasts, and even as the Dutch once were on
the Thames. _ _ _

I did not think, and I do not think, that for any
chances of success which wore ever within my reach
I should have been justified in incurring that risk.
I afforded the enemy frequent opportunities of en-
gaging the fleet in open sea. There I knew that
the chances of war were equal, and that even if
not fully successful (but I justly expected full suc-
cess), I must so cripple the enemy's
.fleet as to
make it incapable of further enterprise. These
opportunities of equal battle the enemy declined,
and many I gave them of unequal battle they de-
clined also. I did not think myself justified in
engaging, with such means as I had at my disposal,
forts first, and a fleet afterwards ; and it was not
so easy,
choose a fine day at the end of October, when the
as their lordships seemed to think, to
Cronstadt fleet would be frozen up, and Sweaborg
open. And I say deliberately, that Ido not think
that anything short of a reasonable expectation of
complete success, not against the forts only, but
against the fleet within them, would justify an at-
tack by ships, upon such forts as those at Swea-
borg ; and so thought the French admiral, whom.
their lordships have necessarily included in their
censure. And had the marshal of France not sailed
with his army, he also must have been included in
their dissatisfaction, that Sweaborg was not at-
tacked before he sailed. I never would,
_under
pressure from without, and against my own better
judgment, advise an attack upon forts like that
which lately failed at Sebastopol.
If their lordships should be of opinion that with
the means at our disposal we ought to have made
an attack on Sweaborg, it is for them to test the
correctness of their opinion by submitting my
conduct, for not advising it, to the judgment of a
court-martial. I repeat, that it would be most
gratifying to me there to explain and justify all
my proceedings ; and I can truly say that, on re-
flection, I am more satisfied with myself for having
resisted the instigations I received, to do what I
felt to be wrong, than for the various measures in
which I succeeded, and for which I had their lord-
ships' approbation.—l have the honour to be, Sir,
your obedient, humble servant, _ _

CHAS. NAPIER, Vice-Admiral.
To the Secretary of the Admiralty.
The letter which follows is from the Admiralty,
and is an answer to the above. It will be seen
that it takes no notice of the demand of the gallant
Admiral for a court-martial on his conduct.

Nc. XXIX.

Admiralty, an. 8,.1855.

I am commanded by my Lord; Commissioners of
the Admiralty to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the sth instant. _

Their lordships awarded to the officers and men
serving under your command at the capture of
Bomarsund such promotion and rewards as your
statement of their services seemed to merit, con-
sidering that the operation was a combined oue,
in which the French army, as well as the French
fleet, bore a conspicuous part.
The approbation of the Board has been notified
to Captain Watson, and to the officers and seamen
under his immediate command, for the bold and
successful manner in which they maintained the
blockade of the Gulf of Finland, in the presence
of a superior force of the enemy, long after the
commencement of severe frost, when the fleet
under your orders had retired to Kiel.
I am to add that their lordships have already
expressed to you their sense of your exertions during
your late command in the Baltic, and no censure
has been conveyed on any point requiring further
investigation.—l am, Sir, your most obedient ser-

vaut,

W. A. B. HAMILTON.

Vice-Admiral Sir Charles Napier, K C.B.
Finding that he applied in vain to the Admiralty
for a court-martial on himself, Sir Charles, with a
manliness and regard for his own character which
exceed all praise, made application to the Duke of
Newcastle, then Minister of War.

[No. XXX.]
MERCHISTOUN, HORNDEAN, Jan. 5, 1555.
My Lord Duke,—NVhen I went to the Baltic I
was under your Grace's orders, and I carried them
out, iu conjunction with my colleagues, to the best
of my ability, and my conduct was much approved
of by the Government up to the fall of Bomarsund.
I concurred with the French Admiral, the Mar-
shal of France, and the French General of En-
gineers, in repudiating the plan of General Jones
for attacking Sweaborg, which, if carried into exe-
cution, would have ended in inevitable disaster,
worse even than Sebastopol.
The French General was made a Marshal of
France ; the French Vice-Admiral, a full Admiral ;
Brigadier Jones, a Major-General ; and I have
been censured, deprived of my command, and
obliged to ask for a court-martial to justify my con-
duct. Is this justice my Lord Duke ?—I have the
honour to remain, your Grace's obedient servant,
CHAS. NAPIER, Vice-Admiral.
To his Grace the Duke of Newcastle.