The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 343, 13 February 1856, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Wednesday, February 12. The attention of the English public has been again painfully attracted to the dispute between Sir James Graham and Sir Charles Napier. The latter has, in self-justification, published the correspondence between himself and Sir James to which he had before frequently alluded. The duplicity of this statesman has exceeded all his former dishonesty ; he appears to have attempted to sacrifice Sir Charles Napier to suit his own purposes. But the Old Admiral was the last man in England whom he could have thus treated with impunity. The following article from the 3/orning Chronicle will give some idea of the impression produced: — " When Sir Charles Napier first commenced his outcry against the late first Lord of the A'hnirahy, he betrayed so much passion and made his charges so incoherently, that a hasty opinion was formed to his disadvantage. Sill, events pleaded for him more eloquently than he bad done for himself, and Sir James Graham stood condemned by the irresistible logic of the gun and mortar boats oft" Sweaborg. Sir Charles Napier, however, was not satisfied with the conclusion arrived at by the salient common sense of (he British people. Re insisted on a more solemn and searching inquiry, and a more formal verdict, nor would he accept the condonation offered by Lord Palmers [on in the shape of the Order of'the Bath. The public will probably think that the gallant admiral was right in bis determination, although there will be many whu will stoutly maintain that in the manner of carrying itoui'be has been wrong. By one bold step be has broken tbe spell cast around him by bis astute and unscrupulous adversary. He no longer writhes wrathi'ullv in bondage, muttering half articulate threats, and laying about him Sun-on like, in dumb frenzy. Once more on bis own element, and a bee agent', he has poured in a broadside on bis enrmv which' will shatter the fortress of hi- ( ..,i,! security. •Sir James Graham, this time, lu>s caught a Tartar. His. life has been "one long fight~\vith se.f sought foes." and he has met with'several heavy falls. Mr. Thomas Duiicoml.ii left upon us reputation intd'tce^.le marks of his prouess: but that repuiation, such as it was. survived the shame of seli-coni icteu complicity in the Bandiera case, and in the ..|.«mn. r of private letters i He present matter is one of more weight and gravity, affecting the honour o{ n greaTm-Uion and even calling into question tbe 'efficacy of a sy.-tem of (io.onnm.-iii winch can permit such con.iuct with impuuiiv. We question if ever m the annals of the country thcic has !,,-«,, „ >«•'!« t«mble exposure of mi,;is„ :r i;.l incapacity arro.rt.no.., and .»<,,,„;<>..>, ,!,,„ lh at contained :•''';•:-' J*'";.':*";;. *»;. >< .»••«■ 0,,!,,u,, j„-t made P'd-^bysu- Clliu , ( , Nil! , siii ._ „,„. ■{ l;(viiifr s() «'■■'! jn,„. idly l() |„, „.,.,._ Sl#l) _. (|| . n]i[(:h wi^ "'; I,i:,'',\!'''' i M«-,'S I r(:- l arleswillbe,.enM,red '■>any ( M, l , il; m.i„ l)l , r s 1 ,„,, Hut d.spe.ate f:,,; l , ■•',^,,■,:'■ :'^r v:,: ,0,,"-'n-" s-..- i.. m „s I v "'"" '■■■■'■f'^ »:» .:nid,i ( ,.r B,r Caries I *»im-y under the cold ancubus of ofiicial

secrecy, or the oust did of society, which enables a man' to dictate to a recipient of a letter the use he shall make of that communication. Me could shoot at his antagonist from behind a safe n treat, which he supposed would never be stormed. But where is the limit to the use of this word "private?" Buyond the "My dear Sir Charles," there is nothing whatever in these letters of die ex-Lord ol the Admiralty to distinguish them from ordinary despatches ; and no one who has carefully perused them will fail to perceive that they were intended to have, as indeed they did have, a direct and important effect on (lie public conduct of Sir Charles Napier, as the admiral in command of the Baltic fleet. Before Sir Charles is blamed, Sir James must he absolved, by the e-stablishnient of his claim to private property in public documents. v Tin-si! letters of Sir James Graham more than bear out the vehement hut somewhat incoherent charges of Sir Charles Napier, to the effect that during the early part of the Baltic campaign of 1854, the former was incessantly urging the admiral ' not to attack stone walls/ while towards the close, and when the Government was becoming1 unpopular at home, he was 'goaded on' to do the very thing he had been warned against, and was ultimately made the scape»oa', not merely of the general sins of the Ministry, but also of the particular ones of the Admiralty. On the Ist of .Uav, for instance, we find Sir James Graham writing to his ' dear Sir Charles' that he ' by no means contemplates an attack on Cronst.rlt or Swealiorg,' having a great respect for stone walls, and no fancy for running even screw liue-01-haitle ships against them.' l Because the public are rash and foolhardy,' Sir Charles is told,' lie must not risk the loss of the fleet in an impossible enterprise.' Sir James ' believes that Sweaburg and Croustadt are all but impregnable by sea, and that none butavery large army can co-operate successfully.' Finally, if Sir Charles ' has none but naval means at, his di«pos:il. he must pause long and consider well before he attacks.' 'Ihe Russian';,' he is told, ' will wait till he has crippled himself by knocking his head against their forts,' and then attack him.

He is also vvged not to overlook these considerations, lc-s!,ii) .-in easier desire to achieve a great exploit, ami satisfy the wild wishes of an impatient mnUitndp.he should yield to a rash impulse and so tail in the noblest duly of a commander —that moral courage which will do what is right at the risk of being accused of doing what is wrong. Throughout May and June there are letters in the same str.-i.iii ; and on the 11th of July Sir Charles is told that ' with 50.000 troops and 200 gun hunts ha nnirlit still do something before September, hut that on no account is hi-to make any r.ish attempt.' All through August, there are expressions of 'deliyl.t1 at the conduct of the gallant admiral, at his prudence and sound judgment ; and an early retreat (after Bomersuud) before the beginning of the winter, is complacently spoken of. He is distinctly advised, on tue 15th of August, that he would have been guilty of a ' miserable want oiiinviness, if yielding' to clamour, he had risked the loss of his and of many valuable lives.'

These expressions are sfrmx/ :mH distinct enough; iim l wliL-iher the Liters conveying such instructions were marked, 'private' or not, if Sir Charles iN'apier had disregarded them, lie' w.-ii.d Lave hrono-Iu on himself the particular cen mi re of iln-ir writer, ami t| H - disapprobation „f ) ns cuuiitrymeii. As it was, he reported lliai vviili a proper supply of l'uh and mortar boats, and above ail ..fluid forc-s ,v successii,] aiiack mifrlu be made on SwealH)r<r. Sir James was more iibcial m iuipeniiient anvice and sounding st-nnons than in pm -r mortar boats, and, with respect to troops'] as Sir Charles cpijrrainuiatitnHy cxi>rpsses it— ' they Ciime t«., l-.te—too many for Bomar.Mind too few lor Sivcahui'tr !'

by October, Sir James Graham bad «m n . jiletel.y clianjrf.,l },j s t >ue. 1., the meanwhile an ajriliiiion had bean commenced against the Aberdeen A,!,,,!,,^,,..,,;,,^ i,,,\v on the very brink <»l a precipice. With that rut,,- <lisrt"rj,nl of all "lonii «.nmi,|«raii<)i. R wbicb lias charaotcriserl the wnoie public career »f Sir J. Graham, he ii"w iii-ocmtllmJ to unsay .-vci-vibii,^ \ u , \ i;u] y y n ] ""nii" '! 1B l"-'-n...is einlu .n.mihs. A „.,),I v i-ni.M,t report t»f .1 J.rcnch cn-incr „fli,; , . r> which ,;,s ---uicd hv thoa.imirai,, hin.i.sl.od ..he „r . -iexi lorimpu.n^u, .Sir Cliarlos X.-.pic-r :. warn "«,f h- .. -c.-sary da:- !? r, iSir ( „I 1)(. s , „ »»»;■'••»•«" 5i,,,.« u ;i )i,, ,„,) his 111MV1 ,, i , 1 ,^,. 5s , () nsk even screw li, JU oi battle ship, agunm lh,iu

}„ s \iovt, he made as clean a sweep vound as ever be did on any Rreat political question, sacvi(icing the reputation of his ' Dear Sir Cliar'es' with the same ruthless selfishness as in former days he threw over all those sacral principles* m Church, State, and social economy, of which he then was the canting apostle. Bad enough in itself, hut the manner in which this audacious perfidy was perpetrated is still worse. To comprehend the Jesuitical double dealing-, the playing- with .voids, the mathematical meanness of the whole proceeding, the reader must go to the latter portion of the correspondence, which we have already published. As far as the mutter goes at present, Sir Charles Napier has completely made out his case.