The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-09 00:00:00

SIR C. NAPIER AND SIR R. ;PEEL.

TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sir,—l beg to send you my reply to a letter re-
ceived from Lord Palmerston, dated Dec. 1,
refusing me an investigation into my conduct, in
consequence of Sir R. Peel's statements. I also
send a letter to Lord Palmerston, enclot;ing th.
Grand Duke Constantine's reply to my letter to
October
Imperial Highness, dated the 29th of Octob
last. C. NAP lER.

" No. I.
" SIR C. NAPIER TO LORD PALMERSTON.
"Merchietoun, Dec. 5, 1856.
"My lord,—Your lordship tells me that yon have wit.
nessed with great pain ' the discussions that have taken
place bets, een me and the Board of Admiralty, both in and
out of Parliament, as well as the attacks made by me upon
Sir J. Graha,-n on a public occasion.' But, my lord, if
you have felt p sin on that occasion—provoked as I wan
by Sir James Graham and his Board—how ranch more
pained must you have been to witness the unprovoked at.
tacks made upon me by a member of your Lordship's Go.
vernment on two public occasions.
" Your Lordship tells me that ' you have always main-
tained, when professionaNy employed iu 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 I have performed. Yon highly respect .the„
noble qualities, of which, in my professional career, I have
given such frequent proofs. But you have seen with Sin.
fereireengriefyou
niamy conduct on shore things which my best
claim to be one of them) could not witles
without deep regret.
" How much more poignant, then, my Lord, mast have
been your ' grief,' and how much more deep your regret'
to witness the conduct of Sir Robert Peel—a Lord of the
Admiralty, a member of your Government—in attacking
au old officer, double his age, who had served his country
honourably for upwards of 50 years, had several times 30.
eeived the thanks of Parliament, and had even been highly
lauded in Parliament by the hon. Baronet's own father.
" Your Lordship must also remember th. t in attacking
me he attacked the French Admiral, my colleague ; and la
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-
cause ' 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 responsiblo situation in which I was
placed as commander-in-chief of the Baltic fleet.'

" The fleet I commanded, your lordship obserfes, ' 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 oome out to give sue battle.
But the fleet under Lay command was not sufficient for the
double purpose of attacking the stone batteries of Cron.
stadt, and afterwards encountering with success the Rus.
sian fleet.

"Tour 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 seriously
damaged, and my fleet, after such an action withlth• bat.
teries, would probably not have been in a situation to
encounter the Russian fleet. The consequence of such e
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 England.•
" You therefore think that, 'in the then existing state
of things I acted with sound judgment in refraining front
attacking the batteries of Cronstadt with the fleet under
my command; and that in pursuing this course I beet per•
formed 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
private letter to me when I was still in command of the
Baltic fleet; and that this is the opinion you have inva•
riably expressed to all with whom you have communicated
at any time on the subject.'
" I feel highly gratified that you entertain so high an
opinion of my public services in general, and particularly
of my conduct before Cronstadt. But I do not think,
after what has rassed, that even your good opinion will
clear me in the eyes of the world.
" It was stated by Admiral Berkeley, in 1856, that it
was my fault Cronstadt was not attacked.

"It has been stated at one public meeting, in presence of
one of your colleagues, by Sir itobert Peel, another Lord of
the Admiralty, that, ' had I done my duty, Cronstadt
would have been crumbled to dust.'

" This was confirmed at another public meeting, and it
was stqed by Sir R. Peel, that what he had said at
Stafford 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 H. Peel's opinion, my lord, on naval matters is not
worth much ; nor, indeed, on any other. His want of judg-
ment 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
decision, and grant me the investigation I request.

" I have, &c.,
" CHARLES NArIER.
" The Right Hon. Viscount Palmerston."

" No. 11.
" Sin C. NAPIER TO LOAD PALMERSTON.
" Merchistoan, Dec. 7, 1856.

" My Lord,—Since writing to your lordship, on the sth
of December, I beg to mend you a copy of the Grand Duke's
reply to me, just received.
" It is for your lordship to judge whether a member o f
your lordship's Government, who has endeavoured to ruin
the reputation of an old officer, is fit to be one of his mas-
ters; and yourlordskip may perhaps be able to ascertain
who the ' highest authority' is to whom Sir R. Peel al-
luded in his speech.

" I have, &c.,
" Cnenwis NAFIER.
" The Right Hon. Tiscount Palmerston."

"No. 111.
" SIR C. NAPIER TO THE IND DUKE CONSTANTINE.
" lif GRerchistoun, Oct. 29, 1856.
" Sir —I beg to send to your Imperial Highnessa speech
of Sir R. Peel—a Lord of Ad
the miralty—la which lha
accuses me of not doing ley duty before Cronstadt.
I also send your Highness my letter to him, and two
to Lori Palmerston.
"I think I have distinctly stated what passed between
your. Imperial Highness and myself relative to Cronstatit ;
which oertainly does not agree with what Sir R. Peel
states.
a passed
med e betweenwith
an
" I shall make no apology to your Imperial Highness for
writing to you. Your Highness is a frank, openhearted
wita
sailor. I therefore request you will be pleased to inform
yourme H whetherghne
Highness
andha mvecyosrerlefewtlyhesn tatedwhat p
you
honoured
interview, and whether, as stated by Sir Peel if I had
attacked Cronstadt, I would have crumbled it into dust.
" I have the honour,
"CHARLES NAPIER, Vice-Admiral.
" His Imperial Highness the Grand llake Constantine. 7

" No. IV.
"LIR (RAND DUES CONSTANTINE TO SIR C. NAPIER.
"St. Petersburg, 13th (25th)Nov.Nor. 1856.
"My dear Admiral —ln answer to your letter of the
29th of October, I willingly affirm that you have quite
exactly reported the conversation I had with you concern.
ing Cronstadt.
" With regard to Sir 11. Peel's statement, I consider it
necessary to say that I spoke to him but once, viz., at hie
official presentation in Moscow ; and that not a word eon.
cerning Cronstadt—not even the name itself—was men.
tioned by either of us.
" Yours affectionately,
CONSTANTINE.
" Sir Charles Napier, Vice- Admiral."