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

SIR C. NAPIER AND THE ADMIRALTY.
(From the Times)
TO THE EDITOR OF THU TIMES.

Oct. 15, 1849.
My dear Sir Charley,—With reference to our con-
versation on Friday, I am desirous that on one point
there should be no mistake. As I told you, I feel no
personal annoyance at your letter. Official men are
fair objects of attack, and there is nothing for which
personally I can, or of which I shall complain. On the
other hand, I hope I made it clear that I disapprove
officially of your correspondence. I wish no mistake,
as I consider that you have set a most unfortunate
example to the naval service, in having, with your
rank and position, written in the newspapers such
attacks on those to whom her Majesty has intrusted
the administration of the navy. •
I feel bound to say this,And say it with much re-
gret, as
.I entertain a high opinion of your professional
character, and only doubted your discretion.
I am, my dear Sir Charles, yours very truly,
Rear-Admiral Sir C. Napier. F. BARING.

Merchistoun-hall, Oct. 17, 1849.
My dear Sir Francis,—l have received your letter
of the loth, and am glad you feel no personal annoy-
ance at my letters. None was intended. I did not
exactly understand—though now I do—that you offi-
cially disapproved of my correspondence ; and as your
letter is not marked private, I take it I am to consider
it official. You say I have set a most unforturate
example to the naval service in having, with my rank
and position, written in the newspapers such attacks
on those to whom her Majesty has intrusted the ad-
ministration of the navy. In reply to this, I beg to
observe that it is bad measures—not men—that cost
the country enormous sums, that I have attacked;
and I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that a naval
officer on half-pay is interdicted from publicly
pointing out what is wrong in the management
of the affairs of the state, any more than a civilian
or a military man. The late Lord Melville pub-
lished a letter to Lord Mulgrave on affairs con-
nected with the navy. Sir John Barrow wrote,
when Secretary to the Admiralty, a severe critic on
Captain Crawford, for giving a true account of the
strength of the Russian navy. Captain Berkeley,
when a Lord of the Admiralty, in a pamphlet disap
proved of the undermanning of the navy, and lost his
place like an honest man. Sir John Barrow replied
to his pamphlet, and kept his place like a courtier.
Sir Edward Codrington published a pamphlet on his
recal from the Mediterranean. Captain Plunkett has
published much on the navy, and done a great deal
of good. Admiral Bowles publishes. Whether all
these gentlemen, and many more, were in favour of
or against the Government, I shall not inquire—the
principle is the same ; but he that boldly points out
their faults is the honester man of the two.

Lord John Russell published in the newspapers his
f.imous letter from Edinburgh that brought him into
place for a day. The Marquis of Anglesea published
a letter when Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and was
removed ; and the Duke of 'Wellington, Commander-
in-Chief of the army, wrote his celebrated letter on
the defenceless state of the country. How it found
its way into the papers I neither know nor care;
there it was, and a great pity it Was not attended to.
After these examples, it is not just to say that I
nave set an unfortunate example.
You sat in the House of Commons when I did, and
you must be aware of my unwearied exertions to
correct the errors they were committing; and had my
advice been followed, hundreds of thousands of pounds
would have been saved to the country. From the
House of Commons I went afloat, and while there,
both publicly and privately, pointed out all the mis-
takes committed, but to no purpose, for at the
mo-
tnent I write we are blundering on as much as we
before did; our experience has done no good; and
unless we change our system I see no prospect of
amendment. What is doing in one dockyard is un-
doing in another; nay, more, what we are doing in
one part of the same dockyard we are undoing in an-
other part. Hid I been in Parliament I should have
made the same statements that I have now done, and
the First Lord of the Admiralty would have scarcely
ventured to have said, " I was setting an unfortunate
example."

If your doctrine is correct, let us see what it would
lead to. A naval officer could not attend a public
meeting, or if he did, he must be silent if any naval
subject was broached. Should he stand for any place
as candidate, and be opposed by a person in office, he
would be prevented from stating his opinion how the
affairs of the country were carried on ; for I hold,
whether a man states his opinion in Parliament, in
writing, or on the hustings, it is exactly the same—
they are all made public by the press—and I only wish I
was in Parliament to state mine; be assured you
would not see them published in a letter. Your doc-
trine goes further, for if it is improper for a naval
officer to attack the measures of men whom her
Majesty has intrusted with the administration of the
navy, how much more.improper must it be to attack
the measures of men whom her Majesty has intrusted
with the administration of the country ?
In conclusion, you state you are bound to say what
you have done, and it is with much regret, as you
entertain a high opinion of my professional character,
and you only doubt my discretion. -,,kor the 4rst part
'of this I feel ranch obliged to you- -anal for the last
part am not at all angry, for if the First Lord of
the Admiralty doubts my discretion, it is most candid'
to tell me so,,for I then know what I have to expect,
and am not kept in the dark, and it gives me an op=
polatunity of removing that impression; for if I do
pot, he would be very wrong to employ an, officer on
whose discretion he could not rely.
How you could have formed such an opinion of me
I am at a loss to conceive, for it is not to be found
in the records of the Admiralty. If you examine
them you will find no proof of want of discretion in
the whole of my service, which lam proud to say
will bear comparison with that of any officer, and no
one can show more scars or fewer favours. Yours
was not the opinion of my esteemed friends Lord
Auckland and Lord Palmerston, neither was it the
opinion of any one member of your board, if there is
truth in man, which the scurrilous articles in a morn-
ing paper, the organ of the Admiralty, during the time
referred to, sometimes make me doubt.
I have the honour to be, yours, &c.,
CHARLES NAPIER.
Right Hon. Sir Francis Baring.

Merchistoun-hall, Dtc. 11, 1849.
Sir,—l have the honour of inclosing a letter I
have received from Sir Francis Baring, and the re-
ply ; it is to the latter part of his letter to which I
beg to draw their Lordships attention, in which he
says, "he has a high opinion of any professional cha-
racter, and only doubted my discretion."
When I heard that the Channel squadron was re•
organizing, and to be put under the orders of my
late second in command, it appeared to me that the
First Lord of the Admiralty by not re-appointing
me to the command of the squadron (which I held for
nearly two years to the entire satisfaction of Lord
Auckland and his colleagues) was carrying out an
opinion of me that would damage my professional
reputation ; I, therefore, lost no time in waiting on
Sir Francis Baring, to endeavour to remove the un-
favourable opinion he bad formed of me.
After expressing my surprise at his letter, so dif.•
ferent from those of his predecessor (Lord Auckland)
I handed him some of his Lordship's, Lord Palmer-
ston's, and the late Secretary's letters, extracts of
which I have the honour to inclose.

I did not think that, at this time of clay, it would
be necessary for an officer of my rank, after 50 years'
service, to show, like a youngster soliciting promotion
my credentials to a First Lord not long in office, and
who could have no idea of the feelings of an officer :
agentleman who had been brought up in quite a dif.
ferent line—had been a Lord of the Treasury, a Se-
cretary of the Treasuary, a Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and, finally, First Lord of the Admiralty.
Degrading, Sir, as I felt it, I did show Sir Francis
Baring my credentials, and their Lordships may
judge of my surprise when, after reading them care-
fully, he told me he would take a letter of Lord Pal-
merston's as a confirmation of his opinion, or words
to that effect.

The letter, Sir, to which he alluded was one from
Lord Palmerston, informing me of his having read in
some newspaper that I had not been following up the
views of the Government, which be regretted, as he
had answered to his colleagues for my discretion and
obedience to orders. This was followed by another
letter from Lord Palmerston, in reply to my explana-
tion, acknowledging his mistake in the handsomest

Sir,—For many years past I have been endeavour-
ing to correct the abuses in the British navy, parti-
cularly as regards our steam fleet. Finding little or
no attention paid to my observations, I, following the
example of many others, published in the Times se-
veral letters to :Lord John Russell, which brought
down on me a reproof from Sir Francis Baring. Con-
ceiving that I did not deserve such reproof, I beg to
inclose the correspondence which has taken place in
consequence, and which I have to request you will
publish in your valuable journal.
I think it unnecessary, and perhaps not right, to
send you the testimonials alluded to, but they are
much at your service, if you wish to see them. .
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
CHARLES NAPIER, Rear-Admiral.