The Sun. — London, England, 1856-03-14 00:00:00

ground for the appointment of a committee to review the campaigns of the last two years. Admiral WALCOTT-1 merely seconded the motion : I aid not say a word as to the vote I should give. (Laughter.) 'beg it may be clearly understood that my vote will entirely depend upon the answer the right hon. baronet the reember for Carlisle may give to the gallant admiral's charges. Sir C. WOOD—I must beg to say that when a member of this house— Aettniral WALCOTT—Oh, I did not know that that was the rule. (Order.) Mr. Speaker Sir—l really was not sensible that such was the case. (Laughter, and cries of " order.") Sir C. WOOD—When an hon. gentleman gets up and seconds a motion it implies that ho considers the motion one that ought to be made. The gallant admiral must be aware that if he had not seconded the motion it would at once have fallen to the ground. However, I am glad to Bee that even the gallant admiral who seconded the motion does not approve of it. (Laughter.) Admiral WALCOTT again essayed to explain, but he was prevented by the cries of "Order," and the advice of . 11r. Spooner, who sat near him. Sir C. WOOD, in continuation, observed that it really did very mach strengthen the opinion he entertained, that lie ought to resist the motion when he heard the only person the gallant admiral could find to second it—which be did certainly in not very complimentary ternis avow that he came forward only because he did riot like to see a brother officer adrift, and that he did not, in feet, approve of the motion. (Hear.) He agreed entirely with the gallant gentleman when he said it was not deeireble that the men of the sword should be made subject to the men of the pen ; but ho thought likewise that it would not be desirable that the conduct of men of the sword should be investigaied by e committee of thst house. (Hen , hear.) There were a great number of things which a committee of that house might very properly inquire into; but such a committee would not bo a very convenient tribunal before which to bring the behaviour of a gallant officer, or the conduct of a campaign. (Hear.) If the hon. and gallant admiral would move a vote of censure on the right hon. baronet, or would move to impeach him, as at one time he seemed not indisposed to do, such a oourse would be open to him ; lout an investigation before a select committee *would not by any means ne a necessary preliminary to such a step. He (Sir C. Wood) would ask the house whether, with the exception of a correspondence which ought never to have been read at all, the gallant gentlem an had brought forward one single reason that would justify his inetion ? The gallant admiral had never been censured. Hs had been directed to haul down bis flag on his return from the service on which tie hod been sent, as other admirals had done before him, and at Admiral Dundas bad done last Year. During the debate on the navy estimates last ses aion the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) had expressed in pretty etrong terms his approbation of the conduct of the Baltic fleet ; and when honours worn distributed it was not the Government's fault that the gallant admiral lied not, received his share. (Hear.) Ho (Sir C. Wood) could not sit down without saying a few words in vindication of as gallaet an officer as ever stepped, and upon whom the hon. gentle man (Sir G. Napier) had made an unjustifiable attack—he meant General Jones. (Cheers.) If there was one person in ber Majesty's service who he might say was more genera, than another it was that distinguished officer, who ftem the time when he was the leader of the forlorn hope at Battajoz down to the present day, had never been wanting in the service of his country. (Cheers.? The gallant admiral, re ferring to the operations in the Beltic lastyeer, complained of Admiral Dundas for leaving part of his eet at Cron stadt while the rest of his force was bombarding Sweaborg. But surely it was as necessary in 1555 to leave a strong force before Cronstadt to prevent the Russians sallying forth as it was in 1854. (Hear.) The gallant admiral bad underrated the number of gun-boats Sweaborg—there were et) instead of 15 ; and those were wore than suffi cient for the destruction of Sweaberg. The mischief had been in the faulty construction of the mortars. It was said that a mortar ought to stand 500 rounds, whereas those which had proved the most durable were some which had been used in the last war. One that had been used at Algiers had stood .100 rounds; whereas mortars of more lilodern construction had become unserviceable after being fired 100 times, or even fewer. (Hear.) He (Sir C. Wood) 'lid not agree that the honour of the British Navy had been at all- imperilled; nor did he consider that a corn- Mateo of the House of Commons would be necessary for its vindication ; for, although the caution—the gallant officer opposite (Admiral Walcott) said wisdom—of the Russians had prevented it from reaping eclat, there hail never been a campaign in which every rank in the service, from the admiral down to the cabin boy, had behaved with more gallantry. (Cheers.) Viewing, then, the ap pointment of a committee as uncalled for and even ridicu lous, he hoped the house would, by a vote as nearly una nimous he possible, reject the motion. (Cheers.) . _ and gallant officer, not in thh beat of debate, but in a let ter addressed to the editor of the Ttates, on the 10th of January in the present year, raises a substantial issue,- which I should bs most happy to see tried before any tri bunal. He says : I ask, ♦►ore the Government sincere in their wish to cripple Russia in 1854, and were they serious in 1855, for certainly no one judging by their :tedious can think so ? (" Hear, hear," from Sir G. Napier.) Now, that is a point fairly raised and' broadly stated, and certainly nothing could be more satisfactory to me, if it were possible, than that it should be fairly examined. Again, the honoltrable and gallant officer has expressed his opinion, first stated in his letter to Mr. Ironsi•ies, and repeated to-night, that my correspondence with him contains proof of treasons of which I have been guilty. A more grave accusation could not be brought nstalust any man, and certainly I am under a difficulty, the Government refusing an inquiry as to the course which, consistnitly with my public duty, it is open for me ,to take. I think, as the matter now stands, it is an exceptioual case, and, although most reluctant to read my own private letters, which I think are my own pro perty, yet,.in present circumstances, I deem myself corn pslied to trouble the house with some extracts from my correspondence with the hon and gallant officer. It will be open to him to assent to my using his answers if he thinks fit. S.r C. NA.PIER—Erso everything you like. (A. laugh.) Sir J. GRAHAAI —But before I proceed to this point I shall refer to what fell from the bon. and gallant officer with respect to the evidence which he said I gave before the SJirastvi , lCequasittee relative to the use of private letters. With the permission of the house I shall read a portion of that evidence. There was a private letter writ ten by me on the 25th of October, 1854, to Admiral Dun das, who was then in command of the Blach Sea fleet. That letter was made a public document by being referred to and quote,: in a despatch to Admiral Dismiss, (Intel Admiralty, 28th of December, IS5i, which I read before the Sebastopol Committee, at the same time stating that I should not have felt myself at liberty to use the private 1 tter of the 25th of October had it not, by the despatch of the 28th, been made a public document, and had I not re ceived the sanction of the noble viscount at the head of the Gr,varnment. The chairman then askA— You state that you would not have felt yourself at liberty to use it if it had not been made a public docunvnt by the despatch of the 28th ; but is not any private document relat ing to public matters public ?--I conceive not ; I conceive that no person has a right to usa .a private letter without the consent of the writer, whether that gentleman be in office or out of it. (Hear ) Is not that a private letter of your own ?—The letter of the 25th of October was a private letter, written by me to Admiral Pandas, but I should not have used that letter had it not been made public by the despatch which I have just read. Nor if it related. to public matters?—Certainly not ; should not consider myself at liberty, with reference to the conduct of admirals with whom I corresponded on an occa sion like this, to make use of my private correspondence. This extract from my evidence will show the value of the statement made by the hon. and gallant officer that I de- Maroc( before the Sebastopol Committee that private letters might be made public documents at the will of tho Ad miralty. _ _ Sir C. NAPIER—You wero so reported in the news- Sir J. GRAHA?J—So much for the evidence before the Sebastopol Committee ; and to the principle there laid down I have already tod the house it was my wish to ad here, were not the circumstances of this case very peculiar. I have shown the house the use already made of my pri vate correspondence, without my consent, by the hon, and gallant officer. I hate told the house that I would be glad to have this question referred to any tribunal, with the whole of the correspondence, public or priave ; but the house had heard objections from official authority—the head of the Admiralty—to the institution of any such in quiry, and new it only remains for me in vindication of the truth, to which the hon. and gallant officer attaches so much importance—(" Hear, hear," from Sir C. NAPIER) and to avoid that special pleading which the hon. and gallant (officer is ro anxious to avoid—("Hear, hear," from Sir C. NAPlER)—though perhaps I should have little diffi culty- in proving, were I to refer to the report of our pro ceedings last year, that such artifices are not unknown in the debates of this house—to read, with the permission of the house two or three of my private letters addressed to the honourable end gallant admiral. (Hear.) I shall commence with the circumstance which attended the appointment of the gallant admiral to the command of the Baltic fleet at the commencement of 1854. The hon. and gallant officer is most anxious that truth should be stated unreservedly in the matter. lan sorry thus early in what I have to address to the house to state that a misunder standing on a matter of fact exists between the hon. and gallant admiral and myself. If I did not misapprehend him, I think he stated that I promised him the command of the Baltic fleet in November, 1853. Am I right in so understanding the hen. an , : gallant officer? Sir C. NAPIER—The facts aro these :—The right hon. baronet wrote to me in February, 1834, that he had ap pointed Admiral Fanshawe to the command of the Ameri can station, and that it was his intention—l quote from memory—to keep we at home lest a war !night break out, anti if there should be no war to send me to Sheerness. I saw the right hon. baronet the next day, and put this question to him, "Am I to understand you to mean that I am not to go to America because, in the event of war, you intend to appoint me to a command in the Baltic. and in the event of uo war to send me to Sheerness ?" His reply was, "'Yes." Air J. GRAHAM—The house must have observed the 4 illieulty experienced by the hon. and gallant member for Southwark in finding a seconder for his motion. The hon. and gallant officer ou the third bench (Admiral Walcott); With that generosity that belongs to his profession and to his personal character, said he could not boar to see a hrether officer adrift and not throw him out a tow-rope. (Rear, and a laugh.) Sir, if the hon. and gallant member for Christchurch had not come to the assistance of the hoe. and gallant member for Southwark, my impalse would have been to second that motion—(cheers)—for, after all that h as p asse d, I am g l a d t o meet him here face to face. (Rear, hear.) Accusations against me have been gravely Preferred, frequently repeated, made immediately ou the tettuee of the gallant admiral to this house, and from day 1 ) ° day postponed, until we have arrived at the Easter re cces; and this motion, so formally announcei, has never been made until this night, although upon occasion of motions for going into Committee of Supply it was open to the hon. and gallant officer to have brought it forward. Noy*, Sir, nothing Would have prevented mo from sup ?uting this motion except the declaration of the right 'lon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, matte upon his official responsibility, that the appointment of this committee would be inconsistent with the interests of the public service. As far as my personal wishes and honour are concerned, it would bo the greatest possible satisfaction to ine that this committee should be ap poiriteid ; that every scrap of paper I ever addressed to the hon. and gallant admiral should be produced before the committee ; and that I should give evidence before the t on - mitt-Jo as well as the gallant admiral. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the hon. and gallant admiral is no doubt a very good judge of the relative strength of fleets and their positions, but he must permit me to say that he is not an equally good judge of strong language. (A laugh.) The gallant l i dmiral com menced his speech by promising to deliver himself with temper, with moderation, and justice; and I shall not be wrong if I read the charges which the gallant admiral contained in one speech, but teat a very long one. Th e following, then, are the charges which the Pliant admiral says I am guilty upon :—Political c oveardice—(" Hear," from Sir Charles Napier) — that I have written from the Admiralty letters so jesuitical that ,to other pe rson cou ld h ave put them on paper—that the honour of an officer is not safe in my hands—thet I have been guilty, in his opinioe, of treason [Sir C. NAPIER— " I mover said so"]—that I was never in earnest in the Mia mian war—that the Emperor Nicholas might have been at 'the head of the Admiralty with more advantage to British Interests than myself [Sir C. NAPIER rose to explain, but b eing met by a cry of " Order !" resumed his seat]—that I desired to make the gallant officer a victim, and that I was "thy of conduct unworthy of a gentleman. (Hear, hear.) ilesse are the charges which the gallant admiral has pre ferred against me after deliberation, and after announcing Is det erm i na ti on t o use n o l a nguage that was not charac terised by temper, by moderation, and by justice. (Hear.) ' 4, w, Sir, I Should like to call the attention of the house to the use that has been made of my private correspondence With the gallant officer. (Hear.) The house will remember hat I took exception to the course pursued by the hon. and 'earned member for Wallingford (air. Malins) in a former session with respect to this subject. I complained of the un "xPeeted use made on that occasion of public despatches ~",eithkeld by the Government on the ground that. their pub deation would be injurious to the public service, and of e private letters, written with, certainly, the utmost confi dence at the moment, to an officer employed in an ar limns "mmand—produced without consulting the writer of those otters, or obtaining his permission—the lettersgarbled also la the order of time, and their production open to every possible objection which could be taken to the use of pri t ate correspondence. I have every confidence in the cor rectness of the view which you, Sir, take of the rules of the 4 " 3 xese, and I am satisfied, after having sat here for a long VIZ* and having had much experience in debate , that there ints been no such use in former debates of public or pri :tate despatches, and that, if an appeal had been made ' 4, you, Sir, any such use of private despatches and public letters would not have been allowed. After all that has occurred, I think it is necessary that I should 0 511 the attention of the house to a further use that zies been made of this private correspondence. I hold in my hand an extract from a newspaper—the Sheffield Free Alva—which contains a correspondence that, with the Permission of the house, I will now read. Mr. Ironsides, resident in Sheffield, makes a proposition, at a public Meeting there, " that Mr. Roebuck be requested to move the appointment of a committee to inquire into the Baltic e xpedition of last year." He proceeded to state that he had heard such a deectiption of the 1 tters between Sir James Graham and Sir Charles Napier that he had written to Mr. Grant, the editor of the Morning Advertiser, who, he was informed, had them in his possession, to send them t o hits. Mr. Grant replies thus to Mr. lionsiden Sir J. GRAHAM, continued— I have by me the copy of a letter written by myself to the hen. red gallant officer on the 11th of February. The hon. and gallant officer was very instant iu his application to me for the appointment to this command. I have his letters here ; but shall not use them unlesi he presses me to do so. He urged me very much to give him the appointment ; he held out many inducements why I should do so, intimating among other things that his p o p u l ar it y i n th e service was such that his appointment would lead to an early influx of sailors to the fleet ; and he adduced many reasons why, both on account of public grounds and personal merit, the dernmand was due to him. I declined upon more than one occasion an interview with the gallant admiral, and he complained of my reluctance to see him as inconsistent with the respect' which I then felt for him. Upon the 11th of February, therefore, I wrote to him this letter— Sir C. INIAPTER—Read the letter of the 24th of No vember. Sir J. GRAFIAM—I have not that latter here, but tho hon. and gallant officer is at perfect liberty to road it if be plqases. I will read my lettor of the 11th of February in answer to the applications which he made to me, urging that the appointment should be given to him. It is as fol lows : Admiralty, Fob. 19, 1854. My dear Sir Charles,—The appointment to the command of the North Pea fleet is a very serious affair, and cannot bo de cided in a hurry. While the question is pending there is no use in discussing it with you; and this is the reason why I have avoided a personal interview, not intending to mark any want of respect, but desirous to prevent any needless disap pointment. War is not declared ; uo fleet is yet assembled ; and no final arrangements are at present concluded. In these circumstances it is not in my power to make any communica tion to you at this moment. Vice-Admiral Sir C. Napier, K.C.B. Se matters stood on the 11th of February. In the perform ance of my duty, however, having consulted with my col leagues in the Cabinet, and taken her Majesty's pleasure with respect to the appointment, I notified to the gallant admiral, somewhere about the 23d of February, that he had been selected to that high command. I had an inter view with the gallant admiral somewhere about the 23d of February, and intimated that circumstance to him, and upon the ?4`.11 of February the impressions which wore 'produced by that interview were conveyed to the gallant admiral in the following letter : Admiralty, Feb. 24, 1854. My dear Sir Charles,—The conversation which I had with you yesterday has left on my mind the painful impression that the means which the Admiralty has provided for fitting out and manning the North Sea fleet are, in your opinion, insuf ficient for the occasion and unequal to an encounter with the Russians on fair terms. I have done my best to provide a force which I consider adequate to the duty to be performed ; and any exertion which this board considers necessary will be made without intermission. You urged ou me the propriety of offering boanty, of transferring the seamen from the Queen's yacht to the flag-ship, and of inviting the gentlemen of England to t)rego their summer's amusement on the sea and to lay up their yachts; Tees. are signs of distress, which I consider impolitic and unnecessary, and which I cannot sanction. If you are dissatisfied with the preparations that have been made and are in progress, and if you have not entire confi dence in the strength of the combined forces of France and England, you had better say so to me at once, and decline to accept a command which, in your opinion, would not re dound to your honour or to the safety of your country. It will be far better that yon should refuse tho offer of this c'mainand Clan undertake it with any such misgivings. I have marked my confidence in you by offering it ; if you decline it on account of the insufficiency of the means which will be placed at your disposal, I must endeavour to make some other arrangement as soon as possiblo. yV Without a goodwill and hearty concurrence, this board and the Commander-in• Chief of the Baltic fleet cannot walk well together. • I am, yours very faithfully, J. LG. GRAHAM. Vice-Admiral Sir C. Napier, K. C.B. Now, sir, to that letter I received. an answer from the gal lant admiral, which I have here ; bnt it is his letter, not mine, and whether I shall read it to the house depends upon the wish of the gallant admiral. Sir C. NAPlER—Certainly ; read it; and the letter of the 24th of November also. Sir J. GRAHAM continued,--T have already sail that I have not that letter. I will no w read the gallant admi ral's answer to mine of the 24th of February. It is as follows ;-- London, Juno 11,_ 1855, Dear Sir, I bad in my possession for six weeks the whole ' c orrespondence —not copies, but the originals--vrhich passed 'between Sir James Graham and Sir Charles Napier, from the starting of the Baltic expedition last year till its return, but I returned it to Sir Charles Napier a mouth ago. Sir Cl.ar:os s Pontaneously placed the documents in my hands—which I I,, ed not say are of infinite importance—on the understand ,"tg that I should not allow them to go out of my sight. I bad, however, no prohibition as to showing them to iriends, and, had you chanced to call on mo while they wera iu. wy Possession, I should have had much pleasure in showin them to you. •I have no hesitation in saying that, if I have any idea of what evidence is, these letters would buffice, with other facts of undoubted accuracy, to convict Sir James Graham of treason. -Yours truly, 18, Albema-le•street, Feb. 24,1854. My dear Sir James,-1 'thought it ray duty to point out to you what I thought the best w a y of manning . the fleet, to in sure a-great, glorious, and speedy victory over the Russians. I never made difficulties when service was requir,d, and after a long life spent in honour I am not going to mako them now. I should colisider.myself a coward and unworthy of holding JAMES GRANT. ;her Majesty's eommission were Ito decline any service, be it eve-Lrosrod desperate. Charles declined service, no "m or. I, narti °la the receipt of this letter Mr. Ironsicles writes to Sir cuhurly after the confidence you placed in m or, shall , Charles Napier, refers to the statements of Mr. Grant, and means at my disposal, will do all I can for Mks Sir Charles to let him have the letters. In reply, Sir Charles Napier sends the following letter to Mr. Ironsides : of my Queen and • Merchistoun, Ilorndean, June 17, 1855. glory country, which shall not be tarnished in my hands ; and I certainly have Sir, - Mr. Grant has told you the truth. I did not e t i le bt h it o , n w ol i t t t h . a t u h t e i no apprehension of failing give either in good will or h ear t y concurrence with the Board of I t a y m . , my dear Sir Jam es , very faithfully g t those letters to him to publish, because I might have been accused of giving my plans of attack to the enemy ; but , Admira When it i s de ci d e d no t t o a ttack the parts I pointed out, and yours, ' To that letter I immediately returned the following CIIAILLES NAPIER When there is no danger of publication, I shall go to Lord P almerston, and ask him if he will give the papers to the My dear Sir Charles, -- I ,d d l o slp n vea o is t .atc a ee n , ticipate that I shall I g° use use ; and if he refuses, I shall thou publish them, whatever rep l y ;s the consequence to myself. I have no hesitation in saying, • yucinudtehritsake come an na n d ' ; t a s i e n r v t i c h ° a t ; the an d h o when r ask of had I done what Sir James Graham wished me to do, plainly yoffoueretdo the country and of the flag might be safely confided 13xpressed in letters both public and private, I should have lost her Majesty's fleet ; and I think Sir James Graham de- Your apparent distrust of the means which I could yo'l he impeachment for goading me to do in the winter what your disposal was the sole cause ofsome uneasiness on my place att,. ne was advising me not to do iu the summer.. Roebuck was Your note has dissipated all doubt and apprehension, and ar I ':' successful with his Sebastopol Committee that he ought to shall be most happy to see you at tho Admiralty to-morrow at take up the Baltic. Sir James Graham has been publicly ac I 1 o'clock, when wa will discuss the airangements which it e,,llaed by me of perverting my letters and of endangering the , willbe necessary to make. were fleet, and that accusation ought not to lie dormant. I am, my dear Sir Charles, yours very faithfully, K.c j . . B ß . R. G. GRAHAM. _W:re lin Parliament it should not sleep for 24 hours. Ido I I It t think it right to send you the papers, but would be glad Vie. Admiral Sir Charles Napier, co show them to you had lan opportunity. --Yours truly, : Now, Sir, I shall frankly tell tho house why I hesitated Cues. NAPIER. long before I cdvised my colleagues and her Majesty to 'he bon. and gallant officer is the best judge of whi.t appoint the gallant admiral to that command. I did liesi nt of s l ee p thi s quest i on may h ave d epr i ve d him, but tate long, ho and I will tell the house th e reason w h y. The his..ort tho appearance of the house during the delivery of house will retnemher that on a former eveni ng th e ga l lant ru speech I d o no t thi n k hi s s l ee pl essness ex t en ded to aJmiial talked very cont cropt ueuely of coastguardamen, 1 't , Y hon. m em b ers p resen t. (A l ang h.) I wou ld jus t ob- w ith b a ll h ea d s an d spectac l es . (" H ear, b ear, " from Sir i t'o, before proceeding further, that in the unlimited C. NAPIER.) Now, Sir, I had the honour of some pr i vate P u blication enj o y e d by the hon. and gallant officer be has acquaintance with that gallant officer very many years „,,adranced. one charge both against myself and against the ago, and landsman as lam and ignorant of nav a l a ff a i rs, as Qfore rnment with which I was connected, that, if it were 1 - 1 0 av be, I had imbibed v er y ranch the opinion from hi m . Pro ( 411 ,, • sistent with th e p u bli c interei.t,, Ido think might u ith eself,that after 60 no admiral was really so efficient in tim e • PrletY be investigated f a committee. The lacn. of war as he himself might desire to be—certainly not so lee a brother rope. (Lan& sod to second mall'. (Hear.) disappoint. )or either of in the mem. incurred it. ith the right gbt to Mora and proper in the itel acies of the the forti fica its ought to ad therefore not having azalea forte, at the means who had he (Sir dying to that the not laid he had 1 officers at which entury's ) Last ited ex- or Wal- Dpinions riuch to gentle )gretted LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 14. 1856. THE SUN. efficient as he himself had been. 'lf I am not mistaken, I have heard the gallant officer say in early youth that he • would never think of going to sea after he was CO years of ago. That was in conversation, bet when I first went to the Admiralty the hon. and gallantofficer was so good as to ex tend to me his advice, I bail almost sail hie " tuition," in the important °Mee to n ilich I was raised.unexpectedly in 1331, and great with the pen as well as with the sword, the hen. and gallant officer has published frequently and largely. I hold in my hand a book wrtton by the gallant officer with the high sounding title of " The. Navy," which contains a series of letters written by Admiral. Sir C. Napier, and edited by the highest literary authority, his relative, Ma jor-General Sir NV. Napier, to various First Lords of . the Admiralty. including Lnd Melbourne, the Delve of Clal rence, Lord "Althorpe, myself— an humble individus among such company—the Earl of Mint°, Lord J. Russell, the Earl of Ellenborough, Lord Pelmereton, Sir R. Peel, and though last, not least, the Editor of the limes. Now, this is in i 831. It is n private communication, no docu ment of doubtful authority, uncertain in its use, and not deliberately given to the public, but it is a letter addressed to myself on May 17, 1831, and the gallant Admiral says— Rely upon it, sir, that the generality of men of GO years of age are not fit for captains ; as admirals, there is greater scope for the mind, and the signal for exercise will show him what ships aro in order and what aro not. But most men of that age are too old for dash a,n , l enterprise. Lord Nelson fought the battle of the Nile at 39, Copenhagen at 42, and was killed at 47. Had he been 70, you would probably not have hoard of either ono or the other. When a man's body begins to shake, the mind follows, and he is always the last to find it out. (A. laugh.) . That was written by the hon. and gallant officer in the vigour of comparative youth and in a time of pc tog ; but now time a !venue, and what continues to be the opinion of the hon. and gallant officer? Here is a letter to the late Mr. Hume, dated the 23th of February, 1837. He repeats the proposition which he offered to me as to Nelson : Fought the battle of the Nile at 39, Copeahagen at 41, and was killed at 47. Had he not been an admiral till 69, I much doubt whether you would have either heard of the battle of the Nile or Copenhagen ; and the battle of Trafalgar. most certainly, would not have been fought in the manner it was. (" Hear, hoar," from Sir C. Napier.) Will the lion. and j gallant gentleman say, : 4 hear, hoar" to the next passage ? ' There i- a great difference between the command of a fleet and a seat in the House of Commons. (Laughter.) A man of (3'd may talk to the house for two or three hours—(laughter) though exposed to the wit, the sarcasm, A:11 the yawns of his opponents, and still preserve his nerve and power of ora tory much beyond that ago. (A laugh.) Then c , nAs an allusion to trying circumstances which are all foreseen by the hoe. and gallant officer : But an admiral, in command of a' fleet, has not only hie enemy to look after, but he has charge of that fleet among rocks, shoals, lee-shores, stories, aed tempests; anl it re quires youth and health to support him in all hisd:fficulties. (Hear, hear.) But it does not stop here. As time ad vances the hon. and gallant officer addresses his opinions to the Naval Commission appointed in 1339. Full of honest zeal for the sei7viee the Dame of Welliegton presided over that commission, and the bon. and gallant officer addresses a letter to the secretary. He says this of Lord Nelson— that bright example rightly cherished in the recollection of every naval officer and every grateful Englishman : • Lord Nelson fought the battle of the Nile at 39, Copen hagen at 41, and Trafalgar at 47; many men of his age would have done the seine thing ; but I doubt whether Lord Nelson himself, between 60 and 70, would have attempted either the Nile or Copenhagen ; and most certainly, at that time of life, he would not have fought the battle of Trafalgar in the way he di 1. tfo died at 47, leaving a brilliant example to folio .v, but which example will never be followed by one man in a hundred, unless he has youth on his side." (Cheers.) These were very solemn warnings, and from my early acquaintance with the hon. and gallant gentleman, before the close of the French revolutionary war, I was aware, by contrasting his ago with my own, that ho had passed the awful limit of 60 years, so dangerous to the pub lic service. (Laughter.) But if the doubt of what, for the public service, it was prudent to do had not arisen, there was in this very book a totter to another Mint Lord of the Admiralty, having a personal bearing on the appoint ment of the hon. and gallant officer. In a letter to Lord Minto, dated March, 1837, be says : A man made an admiral at 40, in constant employment, with good health, good nerves, and of an active, enterpris'ng character, may hold good till 64 or upwards ; but a man who has been on shore for a considerable number of years, unac custmued to commend, must have his nerves so much relaxed that it is quite impossible he can command a fleet with the energy that is necessary at the commencement of a war ' • he may do wellonough in peace, but war is quite another thing, and war will surprise us one day or other ; and, depend upon it, my lord, if we meet with reverses, there will be such a flame lit up throughout the country that the Lord have mercy on the First Lord-of the Admiralty for the time being. (Laughter.) I think the house will agree with me, after what I have read of the solemn warnings administered to myself, to the 31i'itary Commission, and to First Lords of the Admiralty its times of peace, that we were justified in hesitating before wo recommended our colleagues to give the hoe. and gallant officer the appointment. But, sir, those difficulties having been one by one overcome, I had to consider, in concert with the hon. anti gallant officer, when appointed to the Command, the objections he had taken to the manning of the fleet. The hon. and gallant officer, with laud ableforeeight and prudence, thought that a Russian fleet of 28 sail of the was a force net to be despised. Whoa pressed te enter the Baltic with 12 sail of the line and a large number of zero ws, though the Russians had no screw ships, he more than once represented that the force was inade quate. He stated that the fleet wee very ill-manned. Now -sir, I do not deny that the hon. and gallant offiser pressed upon me, in the interviews to which I have referred, the propriety of issuing a proclamation based upon an Act of Parliament which I hart the honour of introducing. But no such proclamation could have been issued, with offer of bounty on the ono hand, without compulsory service on the other, if within the time limited sailors did not come in. I was not prepared at the commencement of the war, before the necessity had been demonstrated, to urge the Government directly or indirectly to sanetiou compulsory servizes. I had the Desistance of my right his. audeeal lent friend the First Naval Lord of the A luairalty—as sistance for which I can never be sufficiently grateful, and which, I think, censtitutes a debt of gratitude on the part of the public. The exertions of my righthen. and gallant friend, which were unrecnittitt.:, convinced mo that if a fair trial were given, without a shade of compulsion, the fleet would be manned. I resisted the pro laueation. I resisted the offer of double bounty, intimately counected as it was with compulsory service. The fears of the gallant admiral were not realised. The hopes and expectations of the Beard of Admiralty were not disappointed, and my right hon. anti gallant friend succeeded in manning the British fleet in a time incredibly short. (Cheers) Iu pass ing, I will say that I admit the wisdom of the objections which wore taken early by the hon. and gallant officer to the proclamation in question, and, feeling the force of those objections, in 1851 I myself proposal a modification of it, to which the house was pleased to give its assent, and the objectionable per ion of the law is now altered. (Hear.) After the Ratio fleet was named for the Baltic service, the Royal Albert, a three-docker, was in the year 185 t named for service in the Black Sea. That ship went out as the flag-ship of a gallant officer in no resp set .infe rior, either in experience or judgment, to the hop. and gallant admiral opposite—(hear)—from Sir C. Napier) ; and I would propose to the hon. and gallant officer whether he means to say the Royal Albert, manned by volunteers after the Baltic service was supplied, was unfit for the service, or unfit to be sent into battle by a British Board of Admiralty ? (Hear, hear.) So much for, the objections to manning the fleet. (Cheers ) The next point taken by the lion. and gallant admiral was, that the ships were aunt to go into action. He has read part of his letters in which ho made use of expressions more than once, that there were in the fleet under his command ships unfit to go into action. The Beard of Admiralty called upon hint as a poiat of duty to specify those shipe—" to specify" whatwere the words used in the letter addressed to him. flow did he meet that request ? He went off about discipline being improved by exercise. The Admiralty re quested that a report of the state of the ships should be returned to the Admiralty, pointing out such defect.; as were the subject of complaint, and he gives as an excuse for rot sending home the list that it was not easily pre pared. (Hear, hear.) The hon, anti gallant officer talks in respectful terms of the enptains under his command. Though I have that correspondence. I will not be so un generous as to read to the house and give to the public the confidential communications suede by the gallant admiral with respect to the conduct of several captains, some really at the top of the list, - in which he declared, giving their names, that he thought them unfit for their com mands, and that it was hopeless for them to try to amend; anti in which he proposed to me that he should be at liberty to make signal, in presence of the whole fleet, "Go home! You aro no use to me here." I resisted so harsh a measure. (Cheers.) I have the letters hero. I will not be so ungener ous as to produce them. If I did produce them they would create a degree of illwill against the hon. and gallant mem ber such as I am sure he could not confront. (Hear ) I will net betray names. It walla confidential communica tion to me. It is very easy now to eey that the captains were first-rate officers. The private communications to me respecting these first-rato officers boar quite an• ether interpretation, and I state positively that, whatever the hoe. and gallant member may now find it convenient to say in public, those were not the representations which he made to me in private. (Cheers.) I stated to him that I would support his authority to the utmost, but I was not prepared to sanction the ships being sent homes the ships and crews being efficient. I stated then if he would gravely and specially report to the board that he thought coetein captains should be superseded, I teed so much re liance upon his justice and authority that his wishes should be met, but it must be by superseding the officers anti not by sending the shim aud crews home. (Cheers ) Now, sir, another point made by the hon. and gallant Member was, that there were no pilots on board the fleet. I am speaking from a recollection, perhaps, not so perfect as of those who have more ready access to official documents, but I think my right hon. and gallant friend, who was my colleague, will confirm mo that groat exertions were made. [Sir C. NAPIER —" I said so."] The best pilots, and those best acquaiuted wide the navigation of the Baltic, wore sought out by the Admiralty bag before the war was de clared. [Sir C. NAPIER—" I said so."] I am glad the hon. and gallant officer makes that admission. I thought ho said there were no pilots competent to lead the fleet to its scene of action. Sir C. NAPIER—I sail that, when we arrived at the Gulfs, the greater part of the pilots wanted to go home, and did go home. There were only eight left, and we found them good for nothing. I say so still. Sir J. GRAHAM—The hon. and gallant officer referred to a particular ship, tbeMonarch. Now, on board the Mo narch was a person who had made 60 voyages between Hull and Cronstadt, and who bad for four years been master of a steamer plying between Cronstadt and Sweaborg. In addi. then to that, in the month of February or March, the moment the Baltic was open, a steamer of war was fitted out by the Board of Admiralty, and communications made to the Trinity-houses of London and of Hull—a precaution of the recommendedn naval a s t rhose Trinity-houses were sent through the Cattegat, through aboutiano a unexampled t o t s i t u tl experiencediefo mer history m the Sound, into the Baltic, for the very purpose of making themselves masters of the navigation. I do give the hon. and gallant officer the highest civilise for the able manner in which ho led a numerous fleet of ships of very great draught of water through the Great Belt into the Baltic, a most difficult operation. I ascribe—not exclu sively, for I am disposed to give him the utmost credit for his skill and ability on that ore tsion—but I ascribe a large portion of that success to the ability and knowledge of the pilots who were placed on board his ships. Now, sir, I have been blamed for recommending caution to the hon. ~and gallant officer, and he rather taunts Joe with having restrained 'his ardour when he first went into the Baltic, although he also charges me with goading him on as winter approached. (" Hear," from Sir C. Napier.) Allusion has been ensile f o an important circumstance by the hoe. and gallant officer who unwillingly seconded the motion — and I do not know whether he withdraws his support, for he seconded it under a misapprehension; but he reprobates the signal made by the gallant admiral to hie fled* When was that signal made? It was made on the day when t"e declaration of war arrived, and nith the permission of the house I will read the words of the signal. It ran thus : " Lads, war is declared, with a bold and numerous enemy to meet. Should they offer us battle, you know how to dis pose of them ; should they remain in port, WO must try and get a them. Success depend§ on thequicktregs and preci sion of your fire. Also, lads, sharpen your cutlasses, and the day's your own." Now, contrast that signal with the signal of the great model of the navy--so regarded by the hon, and gallant officer himself and so regarded by his fellow-countrymen ; contrast that signal with Nelson's signal on the morning of the battle of Trafalgar, " &Wield expects that every man will do his duty,"—that memorable signal which has become house hold wends—the exhortation of every British parent who sends forth his son into the world,no matter what. his avoca tion may be. Contrast that signal with the signal made by the hon. and gallant admiral, and then you will have the • measure of the diffsrrence between Nelson and the groat hero of the Baltic. I think that was a signal which led the fleet to expect a most daring enterprise—that even skulking behind fortresses under cover of strong batteries would he of no avail to the enemy; they were to be led to the attack, they were to sharpen their cutlasses, and he promised the day should b 3 their ciern I can only tell the hon. and gallant officer that my political cowardice was such that. , l was alarmed at his signal. I feared some very rash undertaking was ab "it to commence, and I thought it prudent to tell the gallant admiral that we did not wish or intend to send him on any desperate service, and I theught it my enty to restrain his honest zeal. That was only the :commence Lei t of the Baltic campeign. 'Eels b. iege the to the hon. and gallant ofilcei's despatch, dated Kisy 30, from Hango Heal, in which he says that he teiuks, upon reference to the plans, that Sweaborg is un .attac'eable eiVier by land or sea. The hon, end gallant ()dicer told the honse to remember dates. I also beg the house to rememb r dates. Tisis report is dated May 30. Now, the house will reeiemb er the hon. and gallant offieer road a part of a direction from the Admiralty in the au tumn of I'=sl, wh. n the matter was brought in question, in which ho was re peed.° I to report to the Admiralty when he should have made la personal reconnaissance of Sweeborg, what was the ship in which it was made, and on what day it was made, and what was the nature of the reconnaissance. The bon, and gallant officer did not read the answer in full, he will excuse me for saying he has evaded that answer n'together. He admits that on the 30th of May, when he made that report, he had not been nearer than eight miles. Sir C. NAPIER—I had not been there at all. Sir J. GRAHAM Ex , ctly en. The hon. and gallant officer said do the 30th of May that Sweaborg was unat taokable by sea or by land—bs being within eight miles of the plaice, and not having gone close in to reconnoitre. Sir C. NAPIER—I was not within 100 miles of it. Sir J. GRA.HAM— The gallant officer was distinctly asked by the Board of Admiral"! whether he had been close to Swea borg on the 3 lth of May. Sir C. NAPlER—Because I had got the gout. - Sir J. GRAHAM—This is what he stat es on the 13th of November :—" I beg to acquaint their lordships when the port and works of Sweaborg were inspected by me. I beg to inform them I anchored off Sweaborg on the-12th of June, close to the outer shoals, about eight miles off. All the bea cons wore removed, and it was impossible to approach nearer. I sent in the m,ster of the fleet and two steamers to search for a passage. I intended to inform mys,elf the next day by a further examination, but the French fleet appeared, and I proceeded to join them"—not after a personal reconnaissance, but with the plans and charts of Sweaborg in his bands. [Sir C. NAPIER—" No such thing."] I quote the words of the hon. and gallant admiral. It is for him to contradict if lam wrong in saying that he never closely reconnoitred Sweaborg until the 231 of September. ("Hear," from Sir C. Nem:a.) Does the hon. mil gallant gentleman admit that I Sir C. NAPIER—Yes. Not so close. Sir J. GRAHAM—WeII, then, if the hon. and gallant offi cer had, on the 13th of June, gone in and made a personal reconnaissance, as ho did on the 23d of Sept., in company with General Jones, and had made in May that report to t'os Admiralty which he did make on the 2 ith of Sept., it would have been•quito possible for the Admiralty in the course of that summer, or before the close of the autumn, to send out all the appliances which he might ha ve deemed to be requi site. (Hear.) I ascribe the whole difference which ,has arisen between the hon. and gallant officer and the Board of Admi ralty to his neglect in not making a personal reconnaissance of Sweaborg until so late a period as Sept. 24. That brings me to another point. The hon. and gallant officer has thought fit to impute motives, and has said that the change of views on the part of the Admiralty with respect to an attack, upon lier..laborg was caused by the . delusive expectations which ware raised by the false report of the fall of Sebastopol. Now, he likes dates. General Jones's report was received at the Admiralty on Sept. 4, ene:osed without comment in an official letter from the hon. and gallant admiral. The report was dated August 29, the reconnaissance having taken place on the 231, and the plans of attack bore date August 25. The Go vernment had selected Sir H. Jones to go out as a military assistant to the hon. and gallant officer in the various opera tions which rev expected to take place, he being an officer of the highest merit and experience, and one upon whose ooinion the utmost reliance could be placed. That gallant offiaer having closely reconnoitred Sweaborg on the 29th of August —a duty which the hon. and gallant gentleman op posite, although he was the naval commander-in-chief, ap pears up to that time to have altogether omitted—expressed the strongest possible opinion that a plan which ho described in detail, but which I am sure the house will not expect me to repeat—a plan for a combined operation of sea and land furces to the extent of 5,000 men—would ho felt confident lead to success, and that in seven days. That report was re aeived ou the 4th of September, and I regarded it as being of so much importance Lhat, on the 9th of that month, after the Cabinet had been consulted on the subject, I ordered it to be referred to a council of war. Marshal Baraguay d'Hilliers and General Niel, two of the most distinguished officers in the French service, had, unlike the gallant admiral opposite, considered it their duty to male.d a close personal reconuais ancc of Sweaborg, and they aamo to a conclusion not quite identical with that arrived at by General Jones—but to the conclusion that au attack made with sufficient boldness, by naval means alone, without the co-operation of a military force, could be successful, and indeed that the fortress would not hold out for more than two hours. That was the opinion of two distinguished military officers after a close reconnais sance, and in tho absence of any naval reconnaissance, and upon that opinion the Government, acting in perfect concert with the Government of Franco, ordered the matter to be referred to a council of war. It is said that the views of the Admi ralty .hanged with the fluctuation of affairs in the Black Sea, and were influenced by a supposed success at Sebasto pol. Now, the hun. and gallant admiral likes truth, and fortunately dates sometimes are useful in establishing the truth, Sir C. NAPIER.—Yee, when they are properly stated. Sir J. GRA.HIM.—The opinion of Generals Baragnay d'Hilliers and Niel was received ou the 11th of September, and on the 12th the order was sent to reconsider the whole question, and the hon. and gallant admiral was reminded in that despatch that the destruction of Sweaborg had alwaysbeen regarded by her Majesty's Government as a matter of the utmost importance ever since the commencement of the war. Now, with regard to the views of the Government being changed by events in the Crimea. Why, Sir, as I have said, this order was sent en the 12th of September, and the British army did not land in the Crimea until the 15th, and the battle of the Alma was not fought until the 20th of that month. Now, let us consider the question as regards the plan proposed General Jonas. General Jones writes : " After a careful reconnaissance, the only mode which appears to present itself with any prospect of success, is by a heavy bombardment from a combined operation by land and sea." (Here follows the plan.) " The above is merely an outline of what is possible, practicable, and of easy (me. cution." "Should every thing prove favourable, the opera tion ought not to occupy more than seven or eight days." " The close of the summer may, probably, be considered the best time for bombarding Sweaborg, as the winter following close on the destruction of the public establishments and buildings would preclude the possibility of repairing or re building them during a northern winter." On the 24th of September the gallant admiral was induced, by the representation of a military officer, to examine the fortress himself for the first time, and General Jones accom panying him, says, in the strongest manner, that he— " Sees nothing to indtcs him to alter his opinion as to the nature of an attack, with a view to the destruction of the arsenal and tstablishments," These reports of a general officer do not appear to have been very acceptable to the gallant admiral, for afterwards, when Gen.. Jones, who had taken part in the operations a;ainst Bomarsuncl, requested the gallant admiral to allow h iu steamer to reconnoitre Cranstadt—and a more modest re quest could not have been made—he was peremptorily re fused, and upon that refusal Gen. Jones asked for permis sion to return to Eneand. All this, however, is merely in passing, and I wish now to say a word or two about Bomar sand. Do I rightly understand the hon, and gallant admi ral when I believe him to say that be did not wish for the assistance of any military fot,ce in attacking Bomarsund ? Sir C. NAPIER—That is what I did say. Sir J. GRAHAM-1 should be sorry to road any private letters addressed to' me by the hon, and gallant gentleman without his permission. Sir C. NAPIER—Yon are perfectly at liberty to raid any letter if you read it all. SirJ. GRARAM—Very well; I will, then, road two ex tracts from letters addressed to me by the gallant admiral. The house will bear in mind that the gallant admiral now states that he did not nuke the ec operation of a laud force at Bomarsund. Now, on the 10th of June, 1854, ho writes to me : " I have anticipated you about the Aland Islands. Sulli van has made a complete survey of them, and been up to Bomarsund, which he finch very stroeg, but requiring a large land force to attack it." " There is a large harbour, quite laud locked, where the whole fleet could anchor; but there is not room alongside the batteries for ships enough to attack it without a laad force. If Sweden would come forward it would be different ; or if you can send a laud force of 10,000 men it could be done." (Hear.) That was on the 10th of June, and the gallant ad miral evidently considered the subject fore deeply, and on the 12th he again writes : " Capt. Sullivan returned after having made a complete survey of Bomarsund, which he reports is very strong. He was well received on the islands by the inhabitants. By all accounts the garrison consists of 2,203 men. It is a solid granite work of two tiers of guns, supported by three round towers, and he does not think there would be water enough for large ships, and not room enough for such a force as would be adequate to reduce it; but a laud force could be sent to great advantage, supported by the ships, aid there is a secure harbour which would hold all the fleet. I 10,0.10 men could be spared I think it might bo reduced, which would be a great triumph, but no time should be lost." (leer.) Now, in consequence of that letter of the gallant ad miral, more than 10,000 men were sent in order to render success in the attack upon Bomarsund certain, as the gallant admiral expressed the opinion that an attack might succeed if supported by 10,000 troops. Now, sir, lisputos like this, between British admirals and British genera with reference to attacks upon forts, I am sorry to say, have taken place before, and the present is not the first occasion upon whick British admiral has abused a military colliague. I will just read to the house a passage from modem history, which shows what was the nature of the quarrel which took place between Admiral Vernon and General Wentworth, ou the oc casion of the siege of Carthagena. Lord Stallion in writing of Admiral Vernon, says : " He became a great favourite with the multitude, who were, like himself, impatient for peace, and prone to consider the noisiest patriot the most sincere. On the breaking out of the war he was appointed an admiral and commander of the West Indian squadron by the very ministerwhom he had as sailed, from the same concession of popular camour which had produced the war itself. Ho was undoubtelly a good officer, so far as courage, enterprise, and experience can constitute that character ; but he was harsh and haughy to hi s i nferiors, untoward with his equals, mutinous and raling to all placed above him in authority." (Laughter.) The character given of him by borate Walpole is that he was an unwise, brawling admiral, Those reputation wrs greater than his courage, and whose courage was far greater than his skill. Unfortunately these quarrels be tween admirals and generals are not uifenquent in the military and naval annals of the country. jut leaving tkese historical recollections ; IMP/ UOW to t% Mop point —mooted again to-night by the hon. and gallant member for Christ church (Admiral Walcot)—of whether stone walls are or are not really assailable by ships ? Now, the bright example of the Agamemnon in the attack upon Fort Constantine leads . . me to thin that, with skill and groat courage, it is possible, unier special circumstances, to attack stone walls and for tresses with ships, though, it is a perilous operation. - I am left, however, in perfect uncertainty as to what is the delibe rate opinion of the hon. and gallant officer (Sir C. Napier) on this subject. Writing on the Bth of January in the present year a letter to the Times, from which I have already quoted— Sir C. NA.PIER—I wrote no letter of that date. Sir J. GRAHAM—The hen, and gallant officer's memory is vary treacherous as to what has occurred lately. (Laughter.) This letter was written on the Bth ofJanuary,lBs6, and pub lished in the Times on the 10th of that month. [Sir C. Nartzit —" Oh, yes ; I remember."' The hon. and gallant officer said he did not write a letter of that date; but a little reflec tion has taught him that ho is wrong. This letter enters fully into the question as to the attack on stone walls by ships, and here is the result of his long experience—not, re member, contained in a speech, but in a letter deliberately written. He says :—" I served 15 years last war, and it never was the custom for ships to approach batteries at all." That is the assertion in the letter. Now I think my noble friend at the head of the Government is somewhat under a misap prehension with reference to the advice given by the hon. and gallant officer as to the attack on Acre. I have heard it said that successful attack was owing to the advice given by the gallant officer. Now, on inquiry, lam assured, that the reverse is exactlytrue —("hear," and laughter)—that the gal lant officer counselled Admiral Stopford not to attack Acre, and upon the very grounds stated in his letter to the Times that he had served 15 years last war, "and it was never the custom for ships to approach batteries at all." (Hear.) Now, the hon. and gallant officer is a great writer. I have read some of his letters published in a large volume, but he has published two volumes on the Syrian war and the attack on Acre ; and in that history, vol i., p. 213—(a laugh)— where he .endeavours to engross to himself a large portion of the praise duo to that gallant exploit, I find the following passage. Will the house remember that on the Bth of January he says it was never the custom in the last war for ships to approach batteries at all, and then listen to the following ex tract ? " I had frequently been engaged with batteries last war (laughter) —and, I believe, was the only officer in the Equadron who had ever commanded a ship in action against stone walls --(renewed laughter)—and the system I followed—(Yon see, he seemed to have had a regular system of attacking stone walls with ships —" the system I followed] was the one I had always been accustomed to. It was the p'an followed by the leading ship at the battle of the Nile ; and I am not awaro that Lord Nelson found fault with Sir Samuel Hood for an choring abreast of the - leading ship ; and if that is the tactics to be followed in aVackini; a line of ships, it is certainly the same that ought to be followed in attacking a line of stone walls." (Cheers and laughter.) Well, now, this is not all. I must re fer again to the volume from which I have already quoted, for a letter addressed by the hon. and gallant officer to my noble friend at the head of the Government, and in that letter the hon. and gallant smear, in the year IR3B, enters with great ability upon the question of the attack of stone walls by ships. Recollect that be had declared Sweaborg to be unattackable by sea or lAnd. Now, I will read the whole letter : "My dear Lord Palmerston.—l am very glad that it is your intention to communicate my letter to your colleagues ; since writing it, I observe the French are greatly strengthen ing their squadrdn in the Gulf of Mexico, and, from the nature of their armament, there cannot be a doubt but they intend attacking St. John de Ulloa. If they merely meant to block ade the Mexican ports, a frigate and small craft are by far the best description of force for that purpose; but line-of-battle ships and bombs [there is not much about gun-boats herol plainly indicate their inclination of attacking the castle and defences of Vera Cruz, "I have been twice there, and am quite certain, if they attack with [with what? why, with] boldness, they will take it. Many naval officers will disagree with me, but few know what ships can do, when well placed, against stone walls— (laughter)—Algiers for example. " Nobody thought the French would have forced the Tagus because Sir Charles Cotton did not do it after the battle of Vimeira— they did, and succeeded. " St. John do Ulloa is not so strong as St. Julian, and a ship can nearly touch the walls [it being prayed that at Sweaborg there is deep water close to the walls themselves], and the Ntexican soldiers are not fire eaters. (" Hear, hear," from Sr C. Napier.) " I know the afiniral —he is young and enterprising : if he take St. John d• Ulloa, Vera Crnz will be at his mercy, and they may probably make a second Algiers of it. " I write this to your lordship, because the castle is gene rally supposed to be [What ? like Sweaborg—the very words] unattackable by sea, and thinking so, your lordship might be lead astray." Just as the Board of Admiralty were " led astray" by the reports of the 30th of May. (Cheers, and laughter.) I now have to thank the house for the patience with which they have hoard me. Into this discussion I have been drawn most reluctantly. It is not of my seeking. Had it not been for the particular.circumstances of the c so, I should not have done what I have done to-night, in reading private letters. I am scrupulotsly fearful that I have transgressed in reading those letters, but the house in judging my conduct on that point will remember that the circumstances were very press ine.. (Hoar, hear.) Before doing so I took counsel with the house respecting the propriety of this proceeding, and I myself did not sco how snoh a course was well to be avoided. Sir, this house is always a friend of truth ; it dislikes special pleading ; and I think I have stated to the house openly and fairly what are the real facts of this case. (Hear.) One point only remains for me to touch upon. I am, it deems, the friend of Russia. The Emperor Nicholas himself, had be been at the head of the Board of Admiralty, could not have done more than I did to promote the interest of Russia Well, there are many witnesses upon the bench below me. (Cheers.) I will defy any one in this house to say that any effort was omitted by me. (Cheers.) Neither in the Black Sea nor in the Baltic may wo have been successful as we des! sired ; but in my conscience I can say that; whatever may have been our failures, they have not proceeded from want of exertion on the part of the Board of Admiralty. (Cheers.) With respect to preparations, I say distinctly that, if we had received the hon. and gallant officer's report of what was necesssary, in his opinion, for the attack of Sweaborg by naval means only in the beginning of June, it was quite in the power of the Admiralty to have sent out ouch a quantity of mortars as would either have sur ficed to plant on the islands occupied in the attack in 1855, or, placed is mortar vessels, would have aided the operations of the fleet in the manner recommende6l by the hon. and gallant officer, before even in his view the season would bare prevented the attack. Be that as it may, how ever, was I negligent in the intervening time f In concert with my colleagues I prepared in the autumn of 1854, to be ready to sail with the fleet in the spring of 1855, 26 gun boats, 22 mortar vessels, and five floating batteries, all built and ready for sea in April, 1855. By an agreement with the French Government an equal force of gun-boats, mortar yes eels, and floating batteries had been prepared and built by France ; and, in addition to four screw line-of-line ships, commonly called block-ships, we fitt e d fi ve o th er line-of- battle ships with high-pres'auie engines ; so that there were ready for attack in the Baltic in the spring of 1855, nine sail of the line, 2G gun-boats, 22 mortar vessels, and five floating batteries ; this number of gun-boats, mortar vessels, and floating batteries being doubled by the arrangement made with France. The hon. and gallant officer says that there is treason in it. .If that is his opinion this discussion ought not to stop here. (Hear, hear.) I have confronted the hon. and gallant officer this evening. lam ready to confront him anywhere ; and I defy him to prove the accusations which he has this night scattered with so much recklessness about him. (Hear.) Admiral BERKELEY said ho was sure the house would hear it with surprise when he stated a fact which had happened that evening, and which had hurt him more than he could possibly express. He had been in communication privately with the hon. and gallant admiral when ho first went to the Baltic ; but when he (Sir C. Napier) thought proper to enter into a public controversy with the Board of Admiralty, he (Admiral Berkeley) had thought it only proper to cease to write to him. Upon that the hon. and gallant officer wrote to him in these terms :—" My dear Berkeley,—Your letters are such a comfort to me, I miss them, pray continue to write." Ho (Admiral Berkeley) wrote back, " Dear Sir Charles,— I will continue my correspondenoi on the clear and distinct understanding that neither now nor hereafter, you will ever make a letter of mine public. (Hear.) The house, then might suppo-o that he was not a little Astonished to hear ono of those private letters read after such an agreement. (Hear) But the hon. and gallant admiral produced a second letter, and took credit to himself for not reading to the house, becauie he said ho (Admiral Berkeley) had committed him self. Now ho would toll the hon. and gallant admiral that fighting was not the only quality that was required of a Bri tish admiral. Ho must be a man of the world,—a man of an doubted honour ; and he must not do that which the world held to be a culpable thing, namely, exposing private COlTOS penance without the permission of the writer. The hen. and gallant admiral had so mixed up his private with his publics letters that it wa ; almost impossible to follow him, but Is would go straightforward, and tell the hon. and gallant admiral and the country, putting aside the whole of the cor respondence which had been read, that he (Admiral Berkeley) as the first naval advisor of the First Lord of the Admiralty, did not wish, had not advised, and would not have been a party to allowing his flag to be again hoisted in the Baltic while he had a seat at that board. (Hear, hear.) Ho would tell him why—because he was totally physically unfit. (Hear, hear.) His nerves were completely gene. (Hear, hear ) Now, don't let the gallant admiral or the house mistake him. He did not mean to say ono word against the undoubted cou rage of the gallant admiral. He did not mean to say that an old man would not stand to be shot at as well as any younger man, but the gallant admiral's own letters, which had been read by the right hon. member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) proved that ho was himself of the same opinion. But be thanked God. they had one bright example which was an excep tion to the rule in the Commander•in-Chief in the Black Sea. (Cheers.) Well, for the first time, soon after the hon. and gallant admiral got to the Great Belt it was evident from his public correspondence to the Admiralty, that he had a very great disinclination to enter the Gulf of Finland, and that when he got into the Gulf of Finland he had a very great in clination to get out of it. (Laughter.) It was very true that fogs did come on, and that the fleet was in some danger after leaving Elfanabben, and that the admiral was separated from his ships. Bit when the ships joined him the hon. and gallant admiral was heard to say with more force of truth than dignity of expression, " What a old fool I was to come up into this infernal hole, if I ever get out of it I will never come back again." The hon. and gallant admiral soon lost the confidence ofhis ewn officers, nor did he succeed in gaining the confidence of our allies. (Hear.) Squibs and earicatureswere flung about the fleets, and every one wishe I themselves in the Black Seainstead of in the Baltic. It was true, and he would do the hon and gallant admiral the justice to say that he had this from the officers of his fleet, and if he had said one word of what did not take place, those officers were in this country, the greater part of them at Spithead, or at Devonport. They would see the report of these proceedings to-morrow, and if he had said any single thing damaging to the gallant admiral, that was not borne out by facts, the greatest favour that any of those officers could confer on him (Admiral Berkeley), was to write and say that he had done se, and the hon. and gal lant admiral should have the most ample reparation. (Hear.) Among other things, the hon. and gallant admiral had said that ho had not had efficient pilots, or rather that he had - had extremely bad ones. Now on that subject, he begged to say that every exertion bad been made to provide proper pilots; that the master of the Trini'y-house had been consulted on the subject, and that by his recommendation persons had been obtained, who, he believed were fully competent to the duty. Again, the lion, and gallant admiral bad found fault with the charts ; but not only had he been provided with the Admiralty charts, but he also had supplied him llt e best Danish, Swedish, and Russian charts of the Baltic Sea ; and he might mention that the captains of the blockading squadron who had gone to the Baltic before the ice had broken up, and re mained there long after the fleet had left, exploring every creek and harbour, had expressed their admiration at the minute correctness of those charts. The honourable rid gallant admiral had stated that the ships were badly manned, badly disciplined, and not ready to go int o action. Now the contrary was the case ; the men were five feet eight inches in height, and all volmateers, no impressment Wing been reaerted to; and although in Ram ti mes aim during peace, had only two-thirds of their' complement, on this occasion the ships wore fully manned, Ho most dis tinctly charged the hon. and gallant admiral (Sir C. Napier) with having, through want of firmness and want of decision, caused the delay in the attack on Cronstadt. Acre had been referred to ; but all the facts of the case showed that the whole glory of that transaction was due, not to the hon. and gallant admiral, but to an hon. and gallant admiral deceased —Admiral Stopford. But if anything could tend more to lower the character of Sir Charles Napier = (sic)—as a British officer, it was this, that out of spite to the thou First Lord of the Admiralty and the Board of Admiralty, he had during a war with Russia, and for the purpose of gaining a little popu larity with the multitude, stated that the Admiralty had de prived the men of their just pay, and of all those indulgences to which' they were entitled. Such conduct was not9nly unbecoming, but it. was so bad, that if the hon. and gaflant admiral himself were in power, he would have struck any man off the list who had been guilty of it. The man who could so misconduct himself was not fit to govern others, nor was any man fit to command a fleet who did not know how to obey those whose duty it was to command him. (Hear.) Capt. SCOBELL could not sit to hear a man oppressed by the three-deckers of the Admiralty, without, simple tender as he was, opening a gun in his defence. The gal lant officer had been taunted with not bringing forward his motion quickly. Now ho had used all the diligence possible according to the forms of the house—be had been unfortu nate in his ballotting, and was unable to bring forward his motion earlier. He had bean charged with reading private letters, but the late First Lord had read really private letters, while the gallant admiral had only read the letters of the First Lord of the Admiralty himself. The gallant admiral had to that day had his honour unquestioned ; it was not his fault that he was old; if he was deficient in nerve or limb why did the Admiralty appoint him? (Cheers ) It quite stirred him to find all the life of such a man raked up and thus subjected to scrutiny, As for the speech of the right hon, gentleman below him (Sir C. Wood) it was taken up with the reasons why he came to appoint the gallant admiral; it had nothing to do with Sweaborg or Cronstadt. He did not find that the army officers were criticised in the same way ; on the con trary, they were sheltered; army officers were defended by the Government, who did not shrink from falling foal of ono of the most distinguished officers of the navy. The amount of the insinuatioLs thrown out was that Sweaborg was not taken in 1851, If so, why was it not taken in 1855, when the force was mach larger I Mortars, guns, and, above all, screw steamers were furnished in abundance, and yet scarcely a shot was fired, and not one from the large ships. The Admiralty had sent out in 1855 one of their own men, cognisant of their own plans, and vet he had done far less than had been done in 1854. The gal lant officer had been most unfairly treated. He had ar rived at the close of his career when every man's fame was dear to him, and so his speech, of which the fault was being too clever, and which drew attention too much away from the point at issue, had been perverted and abused. He would sty that the fleet in 1854, badly manned, as all new fleets must be, had done more than the fleet in 1855. This bad manning of the fleet was owing to the insufficient bounty, and he (Capt. Scobell) could not see why the same rule was not applied to the blue jackets that was applied to the red. As to the men of sft. 8, why these wore not the men for the navy. Were pressed men over sft. 8 ? And ho should like to see which would execute the best manoeuvres—the long-legged sailors or the short•legged ones, The question was, whether they would examine the conduct of the fleet in 1854 and 1855, and he hoped that, when peace was arrived, the committee would be granted, and that the gallant gentleman would leave the house as an honourable untarnished Englishman. Mr. MUNTZ remembered to have heard from the right hon. gentleman below him (Sir C. Wood) that everything had been going on in the Baltic as well as it was possible to go on, and that everything had been done that it was possible to do. But now it appeared that the gallant admiral was charged with neglecting his duty. He left it to the house and the right hon, gentleman to reconcile his first opinion with the charges he now brought forward. Mr. LINDSAY 'said that the charge was that, on the order of the 4th October, the gallant admiral had neglected to attack Sweaborg. Now, it was precisely on the 4th of October that the false intelligence of the fall of Sebastopol reached this country, and he could conceive that the Ad miralty, flushed with the supposed success, had issued orders which, if the gallant admiral had followed, would have been at the loss of every ship under his command. Had the gal lant admiral acted on those orders he would in all probability have destroyed the English fleet. The right hen, baronet in making these attacks on the gallant admiral's conduct in the Baltic appeared to forget that in censuring him he also cen sured our Allies, It occurred to him (Mr. Lindsay) there was something wrong in the administration of affairs at the Admiralty, as exemplified by the contrary orders issued with reference to the gallant admiral's leaving Flange Sound. Mr. MALINS felt great pain at the course adopted by the right hon. baronet in collecting materials that night against the gallant admiral which should have incapacitated hime from being put in command of the Baltic fleet in 1851. The right hon. baronet at the Reform dinner took credit for hav ing selected the gallant admiral as the best to whom he could entrust the command of this fleet, and if the right hon. ba ronet's conduct in that respect was culpable, what could be said of the conduct of the naval lord (Admiral Berkeley) who had evinced such personal ill-feeling towards the gallant ad miral (Sir C. Napier)? If he knew at the time of the gallant admiral's appointment what he had stated that night of the gallant admiral's conduct at Acre, why did he concur in his sppoiatrnent to the Baltic fleet? The right hon. baronet by his speech had dexterously endeavoured to draw the house Irons the real question before them. He suggested to the gal lant admiral the propriety of his withdrawing this motion, and to rest the vindication of his character on the generosity of the English people, who would ultimately do him justice. Mr. OSBORNE said that this discussion was most nuforteu nate, and not altogether creditable to the house. But who was the cause of it t Tho late First Lord of the Admiralty had been charged with political cowardice, and as a traitor to the cause of his country, He knew his great exertions in the cause of his country; and was he to sit there and make no reply? Then, again, he (Admiral Napier) had said that the gallant Naval Lord of the Admiralty (Admiral Berkeley) had been charged as unfit to sit at that board. Was he also to sit quiet under this charge ? The hon. member for Tynemouth had spoken as if the order to attack Sweaborg had been pe remptory, but it was no such thing. The attack was ex pressly forbidden if found to be desperate, according to the ordinary chances of war. The matter was left entirely to tie judgment of the gallant admiral. Tho attack upon Acre as a question of naval science, and was that to unfit him for the command of a fleet 1 But the command of the fleet was a Cabinet question, and the gallant naval lord had nothing to de with it. The question was, had a reconnaissance been made of Sweaborg in sufficient time 1 It had not. Had it been made in May there would have been time to have sent out mortars or anything else that was necessary. He thought it was an error of judgment to bring this subject before the house, and he thought that in resorting to that stop it would have been better if he had had his eye loss upon Marylobono and more upon Sweaborg. (A laugh.) Sir C. NAPIER rose to reply. The gallant admiral de fended the course which he had adopted at Sidon and Acre. The right hon. baronet had not answered a single accusation that he (Sir C. Napier) had brought against him. Every one knew that the right hon. gentlemen was a special pleader of the first ability, and ho had prepared his case with great skill, but he had not given any satisfac`ory reply to the charges made against him. The right hon. baronet had said that if he (Sir C. Napier) had reconnoitred Sweaborg in May, all the appliances could have been sent out to him in time to attack Sweaborg that summer; but how could he have done this when he was not at Hauge till the 2d of June ? The right hon. baronet charged him with being unwilling to enter the Gulf of Finland, but how could this be so when, although with 12 sail of the line under his command, he only went in with seven ships in order to tempt the Russians out to fight him t On the 30th of May, when it was said that he had shown unwillingness to attack Sweaborg, he had never seen the place, and all he knew of it was from a plan which he bad obtained from a Swedish officer of engineers. Ile was off Sweaborg on the 12th of June, and, having anchored about seven or eight miles from the place, he prepared a report con taining a clear and accurate account of the manner in which the place ought to be attacked. On the 30th of the month he sent another and fuller report to the Admiralty, but they had never published it. The months of July and August were the only periods in the year when operations could be oared on in the Baltic with gun-boats and mortar vessels, and how could those have been supplied to him by. the Government even if they had resolved in June to forward them ? The right lion, baronet had charged him with having repeatedly applied to him for employment, but he had no recollection of having done so, and the right hon. baronet 'should have produced his letters if he had intended to make the charge. The right hon. baronet had endeavoured to turn him into ridicule, and had expressed his regret that such letters had ever been written him. But when an offi cer's character was attacked and a court-martial refused him, where was he to look for redress unless he availed him self of all the documentary evidence in his possession He thought the right hon, baronet had much more to answer for on the score of letters than be had, as he bad read private letters of his (Sir C. Napier's) alluding to officers serving in the Baltic fleet, whose names, although not given, were re ferred to in such a manner that many officers might suppose they were the. parties refer, ed to. True it was that he had made signals to the sailors on the declaration of war that , they should sharpen their cutlasses ; but that was no reason why he should go and i oeklessly throw away the fleet. Nel son never went into harbours to attack stone walls ; Corn wallis never did, nor Howe, nor Sir James Saumarez ; and certain he was that Sweaborg never would have been attacked by either of them—the look of it would have been enough. Tho right hon. gentleman knew as well as he did that the motion had been put off only because there had been no op portunity to bring it on. Tho fast, however, was, that the Admiralty said he was turbulent and insubordinate, and therefore lie was not sent back to the Baltic, so that if he had not been turbulent and insubordinate he would not have been unfit to command the fleet. He said he carried out his fleet into a sea never before navigated by ships of a size, without a pilot that knew anything of these waters, and the charts were exceedingly imperfect. In short, the right hon. gentleman had failed to answer any ono of the points which he had put to him, and ho had perverted his letters in order to damage him, or rather to cover his own mistakes at the Admiralty. Such was the conduct of a public officer. He thanked theliouse for the kindness with which they had lis tened to him. He would withdraw his motion, feeling satis fied that the country would read his speech, and see that he had been unjustly, unfairly, and improperly treated. The motion eras withdrawn. - DRAFTS ON BANKERS BILL. On the order of the day for the second reading, Mr. A. PELLATT said as this bill involved a matter of great importance, ho suggested that the second reading should be postponed until the 2d of April. Mr. AIASTERMAN also urged the postponement of the measure. After a few words from Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Hankey, the bill was postponed to the 2d of April. The house then adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock. [ADVERT/SEMEN - I%l A few more of the extraordinary cures without Medicine of ladigettion (Dyspepsia), Flatulency, Constipation, Nervous, Bilious, and Liver complaints, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, and Debility effected by Du Barry's delicious health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, are here given : Cure 52,422. -- Bridgehouse, Frimley, 3d April, 1854 .—Thirty-three years' diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement, deafness, singing in the ears, constipation, debility, shortness of breath, and cough, have been removed by your Revalenta Arabica. My lungs, liver, stomach, head, and ears are all right, my hearing perfect, and my recovery is a marvel to all my acquaintances.—J.cars Rour.ars, Wood Merchant. —From the Venerable Atcli deacon of Ross.—No. 32,836. —Three years' excessive nervousness, with pains in my neck and left arm, and general debility which rendered my life very miserable, has been radically removed by Du Barry's health-restoring Food.—ALEXANDER STUART, Archdeacon of Ross, Skibcrecu. In canisters, 51bs. lls.; 121b5., 225. The 12Ibs. carriage free, on receipt of post-office order. Barry du Barry an :and Co., - 77, Regent-street, Loudon ; Fortnum, Mason, . Purveyors to her Majesty, Piccadilly; also at 60, G church-street ; 33J and 451, Strand ; 4, Cheapside .; 6S,_ . t , Cornhill ; 49, Bishopsgate - street ; 55, Charing-eross 54, 1 U Loper Daker-otreot ;63 and 150, Pend .ritre• 1 a TALBOT'S DIVOTWE BELL. HOUSE OF LORDS, MABou 13. The house met at half-past 10 this day to hear farther evidence in support of the3petition of Mr. John Talbot for a divorce from his wife, Marianne. There were pre. sent—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord St, Leonard's, and Lord Monteagle. Mr. Talbot was represented by Mr. Serjeant Bytes and Mr. Honeyman, and they were opposed by Mr. Serjeant Wraugham, Mr. Edwin James, and Dr. Ball ; but Mr. Serjeant Merawether, who is to watch the bill on tie part of some of Mrs. Talbot's relatives, did not appear. To understand the position of the parties, it is reces• nary to repeat that the opposition proceeds mainly from Mr. and Mrs. Pagett, the brother-in-law and sister of Mrs. Talbot, who are prepared to contend that she is a victim of a foul conspiracy, ',lli& drove her to insanity. When the inquiry was resumed, the Lord Chancellor expressed a desire that the housemaid should be recalled. This witness had proved that she carried wine to Mel len, the groom, at the express eesire of Mrs. Talbot, and that she caw Malian and Mrs. Talbitjon the bed in Mr. Talbot's room in a position that left no doubt of the na ture of their intimacy : - _ B.li;Mooney, the housemaid in question, was, there fore, again placed at. the bar, and examined by th e L or d Chancellor' and Lord St. Leouard'e. She said—l broke two of the four bottles of wine. No one saw me. I don't know what kind of wine it was by the swell. E threw the br tken glass into the privy or water-closet outside the house, and wiped up the wine with my apron, and threw that also into the water-closet. My mistress heard of it the next morning. I was on good terms with the lady's maid, but we never sat together. She sat in the housekeeper's room. I never mentioned to her the sup• posed familiarities between Mullan an I my mistress ; but I once spoke to her of some shirts I got no for Mal ian. They were my master's shirts with new collars and wristbands for Mullen. Wh en I saw Mullen and my mistress I s iicl nothing, but drew back out of the room as quickly as I could. I was on good terms, the best terms with Mullen. I can't say that they saw me. My mistress quarrelled with me the next morning, and said if I d.d not do her work in the way she liked I must go, and I said, "Very well, Ma'am, I will go." Cross-Examined by Mr. E. James—l never had any conversation with Thomas Quirk, a shoemaker at Kelly's beer-shop, about it. I have often said to people who asked me that there was nothing in it. I never offered to be sworn upon a one-pound note that there was no truth about the reports of Mrs. Talbot ; but I did men. tion it to some persons after the first proceedings. The witness was then directed to be kept apart from others tiil witnesses were called to contradict her. The Rev. Mr. Collie, examined by Mr. S er j eant B yles —I am a clergyman of Church of England, residing Fermoy House, in ti e county of Cork I knew the Williamses intimately. La consequence of what I heard from them and my own wife on these matters I commu nicated with Mr. Crosbie, the elder brother of Mrs. Tel bot, and with Mr. M'Causland, the father of M rs . T a lb ot; but that was altogether kept secret from Mr. Talbot. The evidence of these transactions was objected to, and postponed, as not at present having reference to the charge of adultery, although it might be very im portant afterwards to rebut any case made for the de fence. The witness was, therefore, ordered to witly'ra , v. Bridget Queeney, the wile of a labourer at Mount Talbot, examined by Mr. Sergeant Beles—l was lane-, drymaid for half-a-year at Mount Talbot. Mullen slept over the laundry. I have twice seen my mistress r 4.0 to Mullen's room, and have heard theos talk and laugh together. The child went there for anything I knew. I was Pent to the carpenter's shop by Mrs. Talbot, and she sent the child with me, Mullen being then ie the room with her. This was only once. I left them there. I washed Mullen's shirts. My mistress asked me why I did not do up Mullan's shirts as well as say master's, and made me wash them over again. My mistress came twice in one day to see about it. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wranghans—l never knew my mistress to mind any servant but Mullan. She never saw the kitchen-boy do his room up or look to it• cleanlineen A Surveyor was here examined to show that the wit. ness could not have heard the laughing and talking she decribed in consequence of the position of the rooms in the laundry, but he admitted that voices could be heard. The probable accuracy of the statements of the wit- ness appeared to be carefully tested by the Lori 211.,n. teagie with little slips of paper used on a plan at the table of the house. The cross-examination of Bridget Queeney was resumed I did not leave my place ; I was dismissed. I told my mistress I hoped it was not say. thing wrong, and she said Mr. Talbot did not like my butter ; for I was dairymaid as well as laundrymaid. I never heard that I was charged it taking things to my relations in the village. I swear that. Patrick Carr.—ln July, 1851. I was a top sawyer at Mount Talbot. I know Mullan. In conleguanes of some thing I looked through a window and saw Malian end mistrals lying down on some straw on the back stsbl ; Doogan was with me. I went back and said nothing. Cross-examined by Mr. E. James—l was not exa mined before this. I gave this statement first to Mr. Smith, an attorney's clerk, who came down to Mom t Talbot about three or four years ago. I gave it after. wards in Dublin at the office of Mr. Adair, an attlrney. Mr. Finnerty, the steward of Mr. Talbot, paid for my going there. Smith was the first person I told it to. I am a married man, but I never told it to my wife, or any of the servants at Mount Talbout. - Smith. I swear, was the first person I told it to. I heard of the charge against Mrs. Talbot in 1852. I can give no aeoount of dates. I never told Finnerty about it or anybody else till I told Smith. Mr. Talbot was present when I told Smith. Doogan gave a statement at the fame time. Mrs. Talbot had a riding horse kept in the grand stable. What I saw was between 2 and 3 o'clock. r saw her first go into the grand stable, but I do not know if her horse was there. Mrs. Talbot wore a dark dress and a dark shawl. She had no riding dress on. I never saw her ride, but the horse was called hers. Milian went into the back stable first. I did not go to the window between the ash-pit and the stable until I saw mistress go into the back stable after Mullan. I went to the ash-pit to put a coal on my pipe, and then to the window of the stable. The coal was a pretence. Thera are stalls for six horses. Ido not know bow long Milian and my mistress stayed in the stable, for I went away at ones that I might not be noticed. When Mrs. Talbot went away I heard that she had been charged with adul tery. I have pot worked constantly for Mr. Talbot, but I work for him when he wants me. I have not ,one all his sawing. I was his tenant at the time this happened, but lam not his tenant now. I keep ao se .•ount of dates. times, or days, and cannot say when I first told it to Smith. Re-examined-1 nave been in America , and returned. in November last. I went there after I gave my evi dence to Smith. I went to America about a month after I saw Smith. Was in America about two years. I did not tell Smith I was going to America when be exa mined me. Patrick Doogan—l remember being with Patrick Carr at the stable. I saw Ainllan go to the hack stable, and then I saw Mrs. Talbot go to the grand stable, and follow Mulian to the back stable. I put a coal in my pipe, and then went to the window of the hack stable, and saw Malian and Mrs. Talbot lying. They were to gether. I did not see them for more than a very short time, for I west to the carpenter's shop. I was not be- fore examined in the ecclesiastical court. Cross-examined by Mr. E. Jamas—There were two or three ef the woo4n bars of the windows broken, so that I csuld see through. The space was between eight and aine inches. Yoo could Fee two stalls. I swear they ~ vere lying down in a stab. There were two windows; I c 1ti , ,1 see through both. Ido not know how Mn. Talbot was dressed, but she bad a ehar.vl and bonnet when she passed to the grand stable. Carr firsts said that we should go. Carr said he understood Mrs. Tal bot was on that design, and we said we would go and see. Ido not think I told my %%ifs. I think I first told it to Halloran. He knocked it out of me after the first trial, in the yard of Mount Talbot. I was a tenant of Mr. Talbot's at the time. I was after that examined by Mr. Smith. Carr was present. Halloran said he should riot wonder they knew something about it, and then he said he would go and tell Mr. Talbot we know something about Mrs. Talbot's conduct. He gave me nothing to drink. I know Martin Carrick, and have had some talk with him about it, but cannot say that I told him I had given a statement in Dublin that I could not swear to. I never told him, as a tenant of Mr. Talbot, I was afraid of being turned out. (Paper produced.) That is not my handwriting. I swear it. I did not sign a paper to Mr. Carrick. I read writing badly. I never read or saw the paper now in my hand. I signed a paper for Mr. Talbot, but not for Carrick. (The wit ness repeated his denial that he never saw the paper be fore, and he then wrote his name twice and at interval., on the desire of Lord St. Leonards and of Lord Brougham. Tile signatu res an d the paper were pre served for future production.) I never signed with a mark. Ido not keep my own accounts. I never had a paper read over to me by Carrick. I never mentioned it to any one but Carr, but we talked it over sure fifty times or more. lie-examined by Mr. Sergeant Byles—l have known Carrick fur five or Hix months. He is an under-agent, who had something to do with getting up the evidence. He ence gave me something to drink in a whisky-shop. If there was any paper exhibited to me at that whisky shop—if but there was anything signed I was drunk , _ do not recollect it ; nor do I recollect that he told me my evidence would not be of any use to him unless could swear that I saw 2ilu e allannytlhyih for in if with Mrs oevidence.. T :e: l bet. He never promised I swear that. t°P s . s i Fill w o Y f e t rh'ebsuatwl saaT:2llLrs°.rTiablbtOtLgoeGtneartdhes—stlabwleas noveort the pit. I could see her quite plain. Thes:..ing by place was ofas not a pit sunk in the ground, but supported wood. As it was near two o'clock the further proceeding was adjourned till to-morrow, in consequence of their lord. ship's attendance en the jurisdiction committee. It is understood that their lordships will not allowtlae case for the defence to be opened till some time after Easter, of which due notice will be given to counsel. The next sitting will be devoted solely to the hearing of evidence in support of the petition. A NEW TRANSLATION OF Tim Biniz.--The list of pe titions to Pariiarnetit just published includes one from a respectable congregation of Chri , ktians at Newington green, praying' for an icoproved version of the Bible, on account of the inaccuracies and errors with which the authorised version abounds. The petition was pro• seated by Mr. Heywood, M.P. ~~ ~. 1