The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-04 00:00:00

40A,
APRIL 4, 1850.

manner, anti speaking with admiration of the order
and discipline of my squadron.
One would have supposed that an unprejudiced
man would have been satisfied; but Sir Francis
Baring was quite the reverse.
I think, Sir, I had a right to know from the First
Lord of the Admiralty from what circumstances he
had. formed his opinion of me ; but this he thought
proper to declino replying to, observing, at the same
time, I was my own enemy, and had I accepted
the command at Cork I should have been now in
Lisbon. _ _

I now thought I had a clue to his conduct to me,
and I observed that, if it was owing to my letters on
the sr :'e of the navy to the Prime Minister, I had
not another word to say on the subject ; to which he
replied, " he would say no such thing."
So, then, Sir, it appears is is my professional repu-
tation that is doubted, and still, Sir, inconsistent as it
may appear, had I accepted the Cork command I
should have been now in Lisbon.

I did not accept the Cork command, because, after
being Commander-in-Chief of the Channel squadron
I could not descend to a Port-Admiral's station with-
out a ship and almost without a boat. But, even had
I•accepted the Cork command, how could I have been
sure that I should not have been told, that I already
had a command and could not expect another ? Such
things have happened before, and most probably the
tame interest that got the command of the Channel
squadron now would have got it then. •
I conceive, Sir, that I have been treated with great
indignity, and I told Sir Francis Baring respectfully,
and I tell their Lordships respectfully also, that a
Fist Lord of the Admiralty has the power to de-
grade and dishonour an officer when he pleases, and
that he has carried it out to the fullest extent towards
me ; that I had been affronted and insulted ; and if
he would read the records of the Admiralty he would
not find that an officer of my rank and service had
been so treated. _ _

I appeal to their Lordships for protection ; I appeal
to them to state their opinion of me, to bring before
the First Lcrd a statement of my services (they are
at the board), and show him that he has been deceived.
The honour of an officer is like a woman's virtue—it
must not be breathed upon. The First Lord of the
Admiralty has breathed upon mine, and may breathe
it to his Ministerial colleagues and ruin me for ever.
Had Lord. Auckland entertained such an opinion of
me—had Lord Palmerston entertained such an opi-
nion of me, would they have written me such letters ?
Would Lord Auckland have written to say that dur-
ing the rebellion in Ireland he would sooner see me
there than any other officer in the service; that all I
had done and proposed doing would be approved of;
and that I enjoyed his entire confidence? Would
his colleagues and their secretary have written to me
as they did ?
Would the Prime Minister and three of his col-
leagues have paid me a visit at Portsmouth had they,
doubted my discretion ?
Would her Majesty• have honoured me with a
visit on board the St. Vincent unless I had enjoyed
the confidence of her Government ? And ,finally,
would Lord Auckland and the Admiralty have dined
with me on board the St. Vincent and accompanied
me to St. Helens, had they not entertained the
highest opinion of my character ?
The senior naval officer has al ways been supposed
to be the confidential adviser of the First Lord, and
Should he be disposed to go wrong, is supposed to
keep him right ; but the senior Naval Lord, as far as
I could understand from him, disavowed having more
to say than any cf his colleagues; his position, he
said, was not the same as Sir George Cockburn's
or Sir Charles Adam's—his rank and service did not
give him the same authority. It is therefore that I
appeal to your Lordships.
From what sources Sir Francis Baring could have
drawn his opinion of me lamat a loss to know. It
could not have been from official letters, for they are
till in my favour, nor could it have been from letters
I showed him,and extracts of which he may again
see. It could not have been from his colleagues, for
they could not have told him one thing and me an-
other. It surely could not have been from the
scurrilous attacks of a correspondent of a morning
paper, who lam sorry has too easy access to the
private rooms at the Admiralty ; if so, Sir, the repu-
tation of no officer is safe.
I have tke honour to be, &c.,
CHARLES. NAPIER.

To the Secretary of the Admiralty.
P.S. I also beg to enclose letters of Sir Francis
Baring himself, expressing his opinion of me, likewise
of Lord Melville, the late King, Sir Charles Adam,
Sir William Parker, and Lord Minto.

The Admiralty replied to my letter, that it was no
part of their duty to enter into the question of why
the First Lord should doubt my discretion—adding,
that they doubted my judgment and discretion not
only in publishing my letters, but in writing to
them and sending inclosures.

Merchistoun-hall, Jan. 6, 1850.

Sir,—l have to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter cf the sth, it:forming nie that their Lordships
do not consider it their duty to enter into the ques-
tion as to the reasons of the First Lord for doubting
my discretion.

I should have thought, that when a civilian was
placed at the head of the Admiralty, who knew no-
thing of the service or the officers in it, it was the
duty, and should be the inclination, of the naval
officers to set the First Lord right if he formed an
erroneous opinion of the character of an officer ; but
as their Lordships think different, I must submit, and
consider Sir Francis Baring has formed his opinion
of me from what he has read in the Morning Herald,
which gives me the right of doubting both his justice
and his judgment, and leaves the question op;:ri be-
tween himself and me.

As for their Lordahips' opinion that I have shown
sufficient proof of want of discretion and judgment
in publishing the letters I have done, I beg to observe
that it is quite a different question. In so doing I only
followed the example of the two Senior Naval Lords
and a late Secretary of the Admiralty, all of whom
published—one a pamphlet disapproving of the way
in which the navy was manned, for which he lost his
seat at the Admiralty (while the Secretary, who re-
plied to him, kept his) • the other a letter to Lord J.
Russell on the retired lie, and an anonymous letter
besides. Ido not say they showed either want of dis-
cretion or judgment, and the Prime Minister did not
think so, as he appointed both of them to their present
places, independent of the above reasons. I did think
it high time that an effort should be made to put a
stop to the wasteful expense and blunders that had
gone on for many years, and I do hope my letters will
be the means of drawing public attention to what I
have set forth, and of correcting the abuses that exist
in almost all the departments of the navy.
Their Lordships have thought proper to mix up
with the letters I have published an official letter
which I have written to them, with enclosures, which
they have brought under their general censure. Their
Lordahips will pardon me for taking that letter en-
tirely separate from the others.
I have been accused of want of discretion by the
First Lord of the Admiralty. I have already told
their Lordships, had it been in consequence of my
letters, I should not have said one word on the subject,
and there the matter should have rested ; but this Sir
Francis Baring did not admit, and, moreover, re-
asserted his opinion after reading my testimonials.
May I ask their Lordships what I was to do—it was
impossible to leave the matter where it was. Nothing
was left for me to do but to appeal to their Lordships
and send my testimonials. Their Lordships accuse
me of want of judgment and discretion in so doing.
If their Lordships mean to infer a breach of confi-
dence in my sending extracts of letters regarding my
own character—if that is their Lordships' charge, I
repel it as strongly as an officer of my rank is justified
in repelling an unjust charge.
Had I been brought before a court-martial for an
offence, there is not one letter that I would not
have been justified in showing, and they would have
all appeared in the public papers.
I am not under trial before a court-martial, but I
am under trial before their Lordships ; and I conceive
myself fully justified in sending my credentials to my
masters and judges, where they are, or ought be, as
secure in the archives of the Admiralty as they are
in my own possession:
Their Lordships are perhaps not aware that a cir-
cular of the Ist of February, 1846, invites officers to
send copies of any private letters of such superior
officers, or other persons, wherein services are espe-
cially referred to, up to the 31st of December,
l 845. All mine are there up to that date ; and I
presume what was right in 1845 cannot be wrong
in 1849.
I have the honour to remain your obedient servant,
CUARLES NAPIER.
John Parker, EA., Admiralty.

Receipt of letter acknowledged.

12, Ryder street, Jan. 22, 1850.
My:Lord,—Your Lordship is no doubt aware that
I have publixhed several letters to your Lordship on
the state of the navy. The First Lord of the Admi-
ralty addressed a letter to me, disapproving of my
having done so, and finished by telling me he had-a
high opinion of my professional character, but doubted