The Sun.
London, England, 1856-01-14 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 1356.

It is positively stated that the reply from
Russia, transmitted through Count STACKELBERG,
to the Austrian Propositions is of an evasive
character, probably intended to lead to new and
protracted negotiations. She does not, it is said,
altogether reject the conditions offered, but there
are portions thereof to which she has given a de-
cided negative. The first point objected to re•
lates to the rectificatio❑ of her frontier with Tur-
key in Europe, by which she should surrender a
portion of her Bessarabian territory, commencing
in the vicinity of Chotym, and following the line
of mountains which extend in a south-easterly
direction, and concluding at Lake Sasik. The
territory thus ceded would, of course, form a por-
tion of the Danubian Principalities, now occupied
by Austria, and respecting which new questions
may be ventilated before the troops of FRANCIS
JOBRP/I evacuate the position in which they have
hitherto exercised despotic power, ruling with a
rod of iron. Not even to conciliate Austria, how-
ever, will Russiayield the slightest portion of her for-
mer acquisitions, no matter howreeently or unfairly
obtained. Although she nominally assents to the
freedom of the Danube and its mouths, she
seems resolved to maintain her place as one of the
riveraine, or river-bordering states, so that she
may always retain a pretext for interference. It
is almost unnecessary to say how completely the
value of the paper conditions would be neutralised
if such were the case, and that no " material
guarantee" were given for ,their observance. In
the obstinate refusal to remove the probable, in-
deed we may say the almost certain, cause of
future complications, the obstinate and 'perverse
adhesion of Russia to the traditional policy may
be discerned. It is manifest that she has not
yet profited sufficiently by the painful lesson so
sharply administered in the Crimea and at Kin-
burn ; and it is, therefore, doubly incumbent on
the Allies not to abate the slightest particle of the
far too moderate demands put forward through
the agency of Austria.

She has also, it is said, rejected the additional
or sth Article, which was added to the Proposi-
tions ac the suggestion of the Western Powers,
and under which a stipulation against the recon-
truction of Bomarsund, or threatening demon-
strations against the Scandinavian Powers,
would be added to the compact. This is
also significant. It proves that, notwithstanding
the Treaty so recently effected with Sweden,
Russia still intends to maintain a menacing atti-
tude against her nearest neighbours on the Baltic
seaboard—a state of affairs that would render
any settlement that might be effected of a merely
temporary character, and lead to a speedy re-
newal, of hostilities, under far less favourable
terms for the Maritime Power.% If Austria be
true to the professions and promises she has
made this refusal must completely break up the
arrangement. Russia must have well known that
France and England could not possibly have ac-
ceded .to any teams which' left the Boluarstthil
question in abeyance. The concession of the
wain points in which Austria is interested, while
there. is a peremptory refusal to accede to the
very moderate and reasonable requests relating to
the Baltic side, can only be regarded as an artful
attempt to detach Austria from the side of the ,

Western Powers by playing on her selfish pro-
pensities, so well known to be her weak side.

It is asserted that with these exceptions the
rest of the ultimatum has been accepted, some
slight modifications being introduced in the stipu-
lations respecting the neutralisation of the Black
Sea. Russia is also willing to restore to Turkey
Kars and the territory she has won in Asia during
the last campaign ; but in return she expects to
receive back the strong places and territories now
occupied by the Allies. That is to say, Sebastopol
is to be given back to Russia, ready to be again
converted at a brief notice into " a standing
menace " to Constantinople and Europe. Kin-
bourn, too, the entrance to Nicolaieff, and Kher-
son, should also be surrendered ; so that Russia
could, without infringing any of the conditions,
construct a formidable war navy, ready to enter
at any moment the commercial Euxine, where
it would be completely irresistible in conse-
quence of the absence of any competing force.
Eupatoria and Kertch, the entrance to the Sea of
Azoff, should also be yielded up ; and, for all
these important concessions, Kars is considered an
ample equivalent ! Verily, modesty does not ap-
pear to be a weakness that can fairly be imputed
to the CZAR or his advisers.

Now, then, will Austria act under this virtual
rejection of her proposals It is said that
she will remain true to her present engagements,
and will not receive the counter propositions.
Nous venom ! Time will tell. But we must con-
fess that we cannot believe that Austria will,

under any possible combinetd.ln of circumstances,
adopt a manly or straightforward course, or join
heart in hand in the noble cause in which the
Allies have for some time been engaged. She may
withdraw her ambassador from St. Petersburg,
but that is very different from drawing the sword
and co-operating zealously and energetically with
the opponents of Russia. We have seen teo
much of her dedgery and duplicity to suppose that
she will, even at the eleventh hour, change her
traditional course and adopt a generous and manly
policy.

Let not the Allied Governments then abate a
single effort or a single precaution in the futile
expectation either of a permanent and honourable
peace, or of Austrian co-operation. Should they
do so, they will only deceive themselves. Their
motto in dealing with Russia and Austria shDuld
be " blessed are they who expect little, for they
shall not be disappointed."

It is striking to notice the reluctance of Eng-
lishmen to blame their Admirals. Unlike the
fickle and exacting Republicans, who anticipated
our naval exploits in the waters of the Egean,
aad who " cut off the heads of some to en-
courage the others," and went no doubt to a cruel
extreme, we seem reluctant, on the other hand,
to wound even the feelings of the Admirals who
have disappointed us. It may be questioned,
indeed, whether a word of direct censure would
have been heard had not Sir CHAS. NAPIER'S pen
been so much more active than his sword. Perhaps
our navy has so long been our idol that we unwil-
lingly admit it can have failed. We may be secretly
willing rather to believe that Baltic fortresses are
impregnable to marine assaults than to suppose
that our NELSONS and RODNEYS have left no sue.
cessors. Unluckily, however, Puseyisin in prac-
tical matters like the command of a fleet is an
impossibility. Successors of the Apostles, endued
with all the powers of Apostles, may be created by
the magic touch Episcopal, albeit they may want
every visible mark of apostolicity. Their humble
docks can believe their power to regenerate and par-
don us poor sinners, and the faith, says the priest,
is enough. The Admiralty and the QUEEN herself,
however, cannot emulate the Episcopate. The
official successors of our historical Admirals have
indeed been numerous enough. The Admiralty
and the Government of the day have duly eonse-
crated them to the service of England's naval
honour, but the magic powers are wanting.
Official holin?ss will do for those who can believe
in it ; but office in the navy is not believed to
confer naval genius. Works are required of
Admirals, and it is useless to appeal to faith.
We who pay the 20,000,0001. recognise successors
of DRAKE and NELSON in those only who do the
work of DRAKE and NELSON.

Like the mass of ourcountrymen, however, we are
slow to enter into the question of our Baltic cam-
paigns ; the deeds of our favourite Admirals were
certainly not done there. The first went out, with
hopes on the part of some of us, that his very
name would frighten Russia into a peace. Her
ships, no doubt, did fly like mice from the cat,
where it WAS no easy task to reach them ; but
except the episode of the semi-military business
of Bomarsund, not a single naval feat in the
Baltic added during 1854 to the fame
of the British Navy. The nation was,
no doubt, very much disappointed. It seemed
inclined, notwithstanding, to lay the fault any-
where rather than ou an Admiral ; nor can we
resist the conviction that the ability of Sir JAMES
GRAHAM could, had he wished, have provided a
very different armament for his Commander in
the Baltic. One thing is certain, that between
the Admiralty and the Admiral the hopes of the
country came to the ground, and it must be
owned that they bore the heavy fall with won-
derful elasticity.

It was universally expected that 1855 would
show the difference between WOOD and DIINDAS,
and their predecessors, GRAHAM and NAPIER.
There were two differences. A much larger and
more costly fleet, with some mortar-boats on the
one hand, and that between the affairs of Bomar-
sund and Sweaborg on the other. Both expedi-
tions kept our owu shores in safety, and almost
destroyed the marine commerce of Russia ; but
one destroyed a great outwork of Russian ambi-
tion, and captured 2,000 priso3ers the other
destroyed all that was inflammable of a more
important port, leaving it, however, to
become much stronger by next spring ;
it certainly does not appear as if the far more
costly expeditionof 1855 effected so much as that
of 1854. Both, however, have done next to no-
thing compared with their cost ; had we merely
kept guard at the Sound, and nothing more, it
might have paid better, especially if we had in
consequence done our naval work more thoroughly
in the Black Sea.

We do not wish to enter into the debates
between Sir CHARLES NAPIER and the Times,
or to decide between the views of nume-
rous correspondents of the Press. One
thing, however, must be confessed by all impar-
tial observers, that the naval genius for the occa-
sion
has not yet appeared. The courage and
I the skill, too, in details of service of our naval
1 commanders and seamen must be undoubted. The
IRussians, at least, dare not meet them, even
when allured by inferior numbers. But the one
thing has been quite wanting. Who will believo
that, one of our great Admirals of former wars
would have sailed about the Baltic with two
such fleets for two summers and have done, or
attempted no more ? Genius displays itself most
in novel conditions. Where routine bravery and
routine perceptions fail, the divining glance of
native genius perceives and plans what is hidden

_

to good but ordinary vision. To us it seems in-
credible that there should not be in our navy
younger and unpromoted men who could teach
their official superiors a lesson—men who would
find the way up to St. Petersburg, and who with
the materiel ready for next spring would lay in
ruins every Russian fortification in the Baltic.

Profoundly interested as the public are in the
inquiry at Rugeley into the alleged " poisoning
cases," and deeply concerned in the exposure
and prevention of the foul practice of poison-
ing, there is another inquiry at Rugeloy, aris-
ing out of the first, in which the public may
be expected to feel almost as profOund an interest
—an inquiry directed to the exposure, and we trust
the prevention, of a practice, certainly less foul,
but which, if left unchecked, is likely to be at-
tended by consequences of a nature so mischievous
and injurious as to warrant the deepest anxiety
and concern on the part of the community.
The practice to which we refer is that of letter
opening, and the circumstances which have called
attention to it are as follows :—While the inquiry
into the " poisoning cases " was pending, Mr.
GARDINER, the solicitor to the prosecution,
wrote to Dr. TAYLOR, to whom the analysis
in the case of the unfortunate Mr. COOK
was entrusted, narrating certain discoveries calcu-
lated to further his undertaking, and requesting
him, in case he found decided traces of poison, to
inform him (Mr. GARDENER) at once of the fact,
as he feared every hour's delay in apprehending
the party suspected would he, detrimental to the
ends of justice. With this request Dr. TAYLOR
very properly complied, and within two days
wrote a letter to Mr. GARDENER, stating that no
traces of strychnine, prussic acid, or opium, with
one or other of which drugs it was suspected Mr.
COOK was poisoned, had been detected, and also
offering sundry suggestions. This letter was
placed in an envelope, securely fastened, and posted
by Dr. TAYLOR himself, so that there can be no
quest'on, we should imagine, of its having been
posted in a proper condition. The accused party
became acquainted with its contents about the
same time as the gentleman to whom it was di-
rected, as was proved by PALMBR referring to them
in a letter to the Coroner. How came it to pass
that a confidential communication in the interest of
justice should have thus been perverted into an
instrument in the hands of the accused for the
defeat of justice ? Somebody must have played
the traitor. Who was it? Suspicion fastened
on Mr. CHESHIRE, the Postmaster-General at
Rugeley, and on Mr. GARDENER demanding to be
informed " how PALMER knew the contents of
his letter from Dr. TAYLOR ?" CHESHIRE, who,
it would appear, had been a sort of " chum" of
PALMER'S in racing matters, replied, "It (the letter)
was lying open upon the table. I looked at it
and saw there was no poison found. I was so
elated that I read that part of the letter, and told
it to Mr. PALMER"— adding, "It is the only
thing that I have done that is wrong throughout
the whole business," and subsequently inquiring
" what could he done to him for what ho had
done ?" The reader has now the gist of the affair
before him, and we should imagine will have
little difficulty in corning to the conclusion that
the envelope was broken open, designedly broken
open, at the Post-office.

What the precise culpability of CHESHIRE is we
do not undertake to say. He may have had no
desire to defeat the ends of justice, and, believ-
ing PALMER. an innocent man, may have only
felt a natural elation on discovering that
no criininating evidence had been elicited by the
analysis. Into this part of the affair we have no
intention just now to enter. This much seems
certain : lie violated his trust in a twofold man-
ner, by breaking open a letter--a most important
and confidential letter—and by communicating
its contents to another, and that other the very
individual from whose knowledge it was desirable
they should be kept. Is this sort of thing of fre-
quent occurrence, and what sort of assurance can
be held out to the corresponding public that their
letters shall be held inviolate ? Those are in-
quiries which everybody will feel disposed to
make, and which should have a prompt reply.
No Administration, it may be, can be so securely
guarded that knavery shall not find its way into
it ; but giving the Post-office the full benefit of
the admission, what care is taken that if
knavery enters the Post-office it shall not long
remain there undetected ? The public are deeply
concerned to know this, for the consequences of
a practice like CHESHIRE'S, extensively or fre-
quently followed, may be positively frightful.
Brave men have perished on the scaffold before
now by means of letter opening, and there is no
business in life that it may not be prejudicially
employed in. CHESHIRE was found out by sheer
accident ; the authorities of the Post-office can
take no credit for the discovery. Had PALMER
not betrayed his knowledge of the contents of the
letter in question, the Rugeley Postmaster
night, to all appearance, have gone on
opening other letters for his friends' use and other
uses, none of which it is likely would have been
good without much risk of detection. Mr. GAR-
DENER does not appear to have detected on the
envelope itself the least traces of its having been
tampered with. Is it impossible for the autho-
rities to do more than they have already done for
the protection of the public, and does all that re-
mains to be done rest with the latter ? Can the
Post-office authorities adopt no further measures
than to warn the public against the use of un-
sealed envelopes ? We are desirous rather of
satisfactory assurances at their hands for the

--- future than to convict then of negligence in the

past.