The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-25 00:00:00

LIIIER .\Nl► LORI► MALMESBURY.

Wettminster, Jaw 21, 1&52.

m% Loup,--'..klr. Searlett** two last despatches of
jutl aed June 11 re,pcctively, addrts,,ed to your lord-
Ad printed sad published, require from me some

ace
Tile tint contlins two assertions at variance not only with
b.. the publobtd official document., but also with Mr.
6,,,,kr•;, own tinsious lotAtelllt its.
the stature and exteot of nip sons " injury," and the
fat that it woo not brought on by " his own indiscretion,"
61, 4,i,e .hown from Mr. Searlett'a former despatches and
ohne,.
kNo. I, contains 13 extracts from the various
Pr•a•' .1 documents and evidence, demonstrating
•
tec, things. TWO conelnsive one is Mr. Scarlett's own,
few letter t" the Duke of Casigliono, March 18 (page
1,7 "thin Correspiindenee"), which declares that •• now
Lvish nce conclusively establishes that a most wive-
vista eutrage was (outwitted on Can unarmed and unottend•
yr.:dolt sulleet.”
fury post. indeed, *cents with thew• truth..
It •ill be there too that his '• indiscretion" consisted in
▪ a question, upon receiving • blow from a noised
sat , as tons cause ; and that his " injury " was nearly
ea:
qr. searlett cannot now be permitted to adopt the Aut-
nati sewn• in pr. I, Tenet to that of the Court of Inquiry
bet its sworn t tarn., the court, too, in which Mr. Scar-
k" Owed hi...iuntryinan's case. and whom (whittle° hail
r, rt., teed het saneti.so.
Salt tontrootetury udiciol statement. cannot now affect
Vu nal sterns 0: the case, sat Call OH.) itll.l to injure the
noilean in those who so ice in.i.ttntly woke them.
Th, only material point requiting any Attention in Mr.
feorlett'S wound despatch is the visit of Lord Frederic Kerr
bed sir John Orde to my sun, with the important rmillts
iMend..l to be boast' upon it. Now, the following facts
sad is thing more Are demonstrated. Their interview
si;!. Mr. Er.kine Mother, on the third day alter his wound,
at Vac hospital; tint, conning ou A mission without having
&Aland it; their not receiving an explanation from him,
because none was asked, though the proposed basis of
future operations, but which Sir John lithe believes would
have been given if they had asked it ; mud Mr. E. Mather's
declaration, in the confidence of a private conversation,
against r.esiving an apology for an outrage so inezeumble,
sod a loch Melt threatened his lite.
In tluettlotion of this matter, And in proof of the above
vo:ement, I log to refer your lordship to Sir John t,rde..
kurtr of February 2lst, sin weeks after the "mission,"
m; an account of it (page Uti); to Mr. Erskine Mother's'
leihr to Mr. riCathit on the subject, date February 20, not
in the printed correspondence, a copy of which I enclose
(No. 21_,• and his letter of February 19th to Earl Granville,
which Mr. Scarlett rimmed to torward to his lordship, but
wlo.'o, I pet mime, i. now in the Foreign office, though not
the colvecpondence."
Mr. Erskine Mother in refusing an apology from a
Frm.o who had tweety destroyed him, did what justice
n• void.
'1 his person, as far as 1 can ascertain, never once came to
the hospital to inquire whether his victim was alive or
Wad. An apology trim such a quarter would have been
uniwiegless.
Whatever we may do for offences or insults, we do not
net ive apologies for malignant and deadly injuries,—we
punish them tor the sake of justice and of society, and, in
casts like this. tor national purposes.
Ibe to suggest that when ex parte official statements
are published, that in Justice, such replies as may have
been given and are in existence, as pointed out in this
ante, 'loud receive from your lordship the same con.
satiation.
1 have the honour to remain, my lord, your lordship's
most obedient humble servant, JAMES MATIIEII.
the Right Hum the Earl of Malmesbury,
(der Majesty's Secretary of State ter
Foreign Alfons, die., &c.