The Express.
London, England, 1862-06-24 00:00:00

question may, however, be rednoefljo a very ample
form. Is it really meant to give up that command
of the Channel upon which we hays hitherto been
contented and proud to rely 1 Supposing
these fortifications to be earriad to oomph"-
tion, will any Minister oome down to Par-
liament and say that because we have
provided ourselves at a cost of 10 or 20 millions
with forts and batteries, we need not maintain in
the Channel a naval force capable of resisting and
defeating any naval force which can be brought
against it 1 We shall not believe that until we see
it. Certainly Lord PALMERSTON is not the
Minister to say anything of the kind. And if he
were, the public opinion of the country would in-
sist on having a full and sufficient protection in
its Navy. Every Minister will have to reckon with
this

LATEST INTELLIGENCR

I

ERE FRENCH 11l MEXICO.
A Farb' letter M the Nerd says The first
troops met to Mexico will be taken from Algeria,
as has been mentiobed, as they are already inured
to a hot climate. They will be directed, in the
first instance, to Martinique and Havana, whence
they will proceed to Vera Cruz, and be placed
under the orders of the commandant of that town,
M. Roze. The authorities have adopted the excel-
lent idea of arming and organising, under the
orders of French naval officers, 500 negroes (a race
that never suffers from the yellow fever), to be
employed for the police of Vera Cruz. That mea-
sure, however, is not new, as 400 had already been
similarly employed with great success."

(nom ova owl,

feeling, however many ARMSTRONG guns may
be mounted at the ports and on the coast. But
if we secure the decided and undisputed command
of the Channel, these tremendous fortifications
will be unnecessary.

Or Court.

OSBORNE, Jugs 23.

The Queen walked out this morning.
The Primer Hobanlobe will arrive to-day from the Con-

The Viceroy of Egypt, attended by the Hoe. Marks
A. Murray, honoured Lord Ashburton with his company at
dinner last evening at his residence, Bath House, Piccadilly.

A deputation from the United Society of Chemists and
bromism waited in deputation and transacted business at
the Home-office yesterday, to place the necessity of an
a:empties in favour of Chemists and Druggists serving upon
jstrses, in re lir. Hunt's Julie* Bill.
A deputation from the Vestry and Board of Guardians of
St. Giles, Camberwell, had an interview with the Right
Hon. Sir George Grey yesterday at the Home-oftice.
Despatches were received yesterday at the Colonial-
office from the gammon of the North American province'.

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY RVENING JUNE 24, 1862.

DRESS FROM PARIS.

PARIS, MONDAY &EMS.
The news at the indiperidance tbst the French
wore twice beaten before Puebla is contested by
the Patric. According to the Belgian journal the
discrepancy between General Zaragozs's despatch
reporting a repulse of the whole, or the main part,
of General de Lorencez's force on May 5, and the
statement in which the Monde and a correspondent
of the Times agree that the whole affair was merely
an imprudent reconnoissance pushed too far
by the impetuosity of the Zouavee, is to be recon-
ciled in this way : there were two engagements at
Guadaloupe on successive days, and the French
were as unsuccessful on the second day as on. the
first. The Patrie's answer is as follows :
Our private information makes no mention of this news.
We have before us Mexican journals to May 12. They
contain all General Zaragoza's reports or bulletins data
from Guadeloupe, and giving hoar by hour an account of all
the military events that occurred up to May 8. Now, none
of these reports or bulletins speak of a battle on the 6th,
and it is probable that if General Zaragoza had obtained
an advantage on the day after the sth he would not have
failed to mention it to his government. We may add that
in a bulletin of the 7th General Zaragoza gives some freak
details of the important part which (he says) the French
artillery played on March 5. _ _

This paragraph of the Patric is perfectly well
reasoned. But a misstatement in the premises,
which I am persuaded is not accidental, shows that
the conclusion is nothing worth. The Patric's
argument is strong to show that no battle was
fought on May 6, but that date is not to be found
in the indepenclance. The Patric puts May 6in to
the mouth of the Belgian journal in order to make
a groundwork for its unanswerable refutation.
What the indkpenciance says is that the reconnois-
sance alluded to took place on the day before the
battle ; that was doubtless an affair of small ka-
portance and General Zaragoza, in his report of
the battle of May 5, did not mention it. The
allusion of the Petrie to the important part
played on the Mb by the French artillery, is au
additional proof of the inaccuracy of the reports
that nothing occurred on that day but a rash
advance of an outpost of Zouaves.