The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-28 00:00:00

THE SUN; LONDON; THURSDAY EVENING: JUNE oil nom

Hugh Urquhart, severely ; George Longden, dangerously;
Robert McCrea, slightly.
JUNE 12.

3d Foot—Privates John Arkroyd, dangerously ; William
Quornley, slightly ; Duncan Mcßae, slightly.
18th Foot—Serjeant John Hobbs, dangerously ; Cor-
poral John Maddigan, dangerously ; Privates Peter Mull-
halley, dangerously ; Thomas Fragon, dangerously ;
Thomas Farrelly, slightly ; Festus Toole, dangerously ;
William Fulham, slightly ' • Daniel Buckley, dangerously ;
Patrick Sullivan, dangerously ; James M`Dermott,
47th Foot—Serjeant William Tomlinson, severely ;
Privates Richard Blake, severely ; Patrick Byrne, se-
verely ; Patrick O'Donnell, slightly ; Michael Carroll,
slightly.
49th Foot—Lance-Corporal William Varley, slightly.
90th Foot—Private John Rice, dangerously.
97th Foot—Corporal Denis Hagan, slightly ; Lance-
Corporal William Grundey, slightly ; Privates Edward
M`Genniss, dangerously; William Doad, dangerously ;
Thomas Hanley, severely; Ralph Ball, severely; Patrick
Coyle, slightly.
2d Battalion Rifle Brigade—Private John Bats, slightly.
Royal Artillery—Gunner James Cowan, slightly ; Alfred
P. Gardiner, slightly; Robert Burnside, slightly.

to that of the officers of Royal Marine Artillery who
have been lent to this squadron during the same period.
I have, &c.,
(Signed) E. M. LYONS, Captain.
Rear-Admiral Sir Edmund Lyons, Bart., G.C.8.,

Commander-in-Chief.
ROYAL ALBERT.

Ist Launch—Lieutenant J. D. Curtis ; Mr. It. M. Blom-
field, Acting Mate.
2d Launch—Lieutenant T. M. S. Pasley ; Mr. H. C .
Lees, Mate.

SIR CHAS. WOOD AND MI?. LINDSAY.

The following letter has been addressed to a contem-
porary :
Sir,—Sir Charles Wood speaks better than I do ; he
had also the advantage on Friday night of having ~he
last word, and the further advantage of speaking es a
Cabinet Minister, presumed, ex officio, to be thoroughly
acquainted with the facts, and to speak the truth end
nothing but the truth. I therefore fear that many mem-
bers of the house and a portion of the public may have
come, somewhat hastily, to the conclusion that he is in
the right and that I am in the wrong.
I have been most anxious to put in a rejoinder to Sir
Charles Wood's reply and counter-charges, and thought
I had found an opportunity of doing so this evening, on
the motion of Mr. MalMs ; the Speaker, however, in-
formed me that I was precluded by the rules of the house,
and I therefore addressed this letter to you. I pledge
myself, on the earliest opportunity the rule of the house
will permit, to meet and disprove every charge and im-
putation cast upon me by Sir Charles Wood ; until then
I claim that the house and the public should suspend
their judgment, and in order to show that I have fair
grounds for the claim, I will take two or three of the
accusations against me, and show how dishonestly I
have been dealt with by those whose position ought to
have taught them what I hope to teach them ere long—
that honesty is the best policy.
I will first take the case of the Robert Lowe. I stated
that she bad been absurdly ordered by the Admiralty to
proceed to Newcastle, on her way to Portsmouth, in
order to take in 12 tons of combustible stores for the
Crimea. Sir Charles Wood states that the quantity
to be taken in amounted to upwards of 50 tons. A
letter, however, in my possession from Sir James
Graham, dated October 25, 1854, " insists that
the Robert Lowe shall be ready to proceed to New-
castle to take in 12 tons of combustible stores."
Surely, therefore, it is not my veracity, but the correct-
ness of Sir James Graham's statement of the quantity of
stores that is at issue. My real point is, however, not
touched by the question of the number of tons ; it was
the absurdity and extravagance of sending a vessel of
1,300 tons so far out of her way to ship so small a
quantity of stores, at a time when the troops which were
to sail in her were so urgently wanted before Sebastopel.
The next case is that of the Columbia, a steamer of
2,400 tons. I stated that she was ordered to come
round from Glasgow—first to Deptfoed,eto be surveyed;
that the owner objected to sending her thither ; that they
next proposed that they should proceed to Liverpool for
survey, to which the owner also objected, as exposing
her to unnecessary risk and causing unnecessary outlay,
inasmuch as the surveyor could come to the ship at
Glasgow at the cost of a few pounds. In proof of the
correctness of this statement I hold letters from the Ad-
miralty, dated the Bth and 9th of June. Sir C. Wood
asserted, by way of reply, that the reason the vessel IN as
required to come to Deptford or Liverpool was, that she
was to be fitted there, because another vessel, previously
fitted in the Clyde, bad been very badly done. Survey-
ing and fitting are distinct things ; it would be reason-
able that the vessel, after she had been surveyed and
accepted, should be sent wherever the Admiralty pleased
to be fitted, but it was utterly unreasonable that she
should be sent all the way to Liverpool or Deptford in
order that the Government inspector might there decide
by his survey whether the Government would have the
ship fitted or would have nothing to do with her. I
stated, further, that the European was hired to the
French Government, because her owners were disgusted
at the difficulties raised by the Admiralty. Sir C. Wood
assured the house that she was rejected because her height
between decks was not sufficient to allow her to take in
horses, for which a height of 7 ft. 6 in. is required.
Now, the height between decks in the European is
7ft. 61 in., as may be proved by actual measurement,
the height of the Oneida, to which Sir Charles Wood
refers in his speech, and which was taken up by the
Government a short time before for the conveyance of
horses, is only ift. 4in. From this it follows that the
comparative merits of Sir Charles Wood,a_veraaity and
mine may be ascertained by a foot rule ; and I ask for
no greater favour than that they may be submitted to
that practical test.
I cannot expect you to spare me space to say more.
I think I have said enough to show that Sir Charles
Wood's answers have been evasive, unfair, and I might
say dishonest ; and I pledge myself, as soon as the forms
of the house will allow, to prove that he has in regard
to my coal contracts stated what was incorreet —that the
ships he named were not unseaworthy —that a ship was
ordered from Deptford to Woolwich for survey—that the
owner of the Tynemouth did not state what was untrue—
that that ship did proceed to sea within one hour of the time
when thelast of the Government stores were on board and
that the circular written by Mrs. Chisholm and signed
by me, by the perusal of which he endeavoured to excite
the merriment of the house, was a matter which re-
dounded as much to my credit as the case of the ship
which bears my name, and by mention of which Mr.
Drummond had previously endeavoured also to amuse
the house at my expense.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
June 26. W. S. LINDSAY.

THE SCREW STEAM-SHIPS EUROPEAN

AND COLUMBIA N.

The following letter has been addressed to a contem
porary := _ _

Sir,--We notice from the report of Friday evening's
proceedings in the adjourned debate on administrative
reform that Sir C. Wood, in referring to the above-
named steamers, has fallen into two inaccuracies, which
we ask the favour of your allowing us, through your
columns, to correct.

With regard to the European, Sir C. Wood is reported
to have said that she was declined because " the height
in 'tween decks was not sufficient to allow her to take in
horses, for which a height of 7 feet 6 inches between
decks is required." The height of the European in
'tween decks is 7 feet 61 inches, being in excess of what
Sir Charles says is required for horses, though we are
aware that steamers with a less height have been taken
up for cavalry transports, and as he has referred to the
Oneid3, chartered by the English Government, we beg
to inform him that her height in 'tween decks is only
7 feet 4 inches.

The official at the Transport Board who furnished Sir
Charles with his " brief" for the defence en this occa-
sion must have his chief "advised" more in accordance
with facts on the next.

In endeavouring to explain as to the Columbiai Sir
C. Wood evades the point at issue, and endeavours to
make it appear that the object of the Admiralty in insist-
ing upon this vessel being sent round to Deptford was to
have her fitted up ; but our communication from the
Admiralty distinctly stated that such was for the pur-
pose of survey, and that the steamer would be taken if
approved. The survey was to the owners, of course,
the only important matter ; that over, and the vessel
ready, she then went on pay; and it was to them a matter
of complete indifference where she was fitted up. So far
from our objecting to send her to Deptford for this latter
purpose, in our desire to meet the Government in every
reasonable way, we offered to delay the steamer's going
on pay until her arrival at Deptford, provided she was
surveyed in the Clyde ; so that we should know that an
expense of nearly 1,000/. might not be sacrificed to some
equally valid objection as that now adduced for the re-
jection of the European.
We do not quite clearly understand whether the
warning remarks addressed personally to Mr. Lindsay,
with which Sir Charles prefaced his attempted explana-
tions, referred to the European and Columbian, as well
as to the other ships alluded to ; if they did, we beg to
state that neither Mr. Lindsay nor Mr. Gladstone has
been, directly or indirectly, connected with the two
steamers named, nor does the former "give directions
concerning them, or interfere in every possible way
with their management," and therefore it must have
been on public grounds only that the member fer Tyne-
mouth brought the matter before the House of Com-
mons on Friday evening. As the inaccuracies into
which Sir C. Wood has (inadvertently no doubt) fallen
in his reply to Mr. Lindsay's observations may make it
appear that the owners of these steamers, and not the
Government, were to blame in the loss of them to the
British service at a time when the latter does not
attempt to deny that cavalry transports are much
wanted, we desire the opportunity of putting our-
selves and our co-owners right in the matter. We
have no regret at the failure of the negotiations,
save that which every one must feel at the continued
perverse blundering of the Government officials.
Our pecuniary interests are not injured in the present
instance thereby, and an experience in the transport ser-
vice of both Governments has proved to us that the
satisfaction and comfort with which such tra,nsa,ctions
are carried out in their details are all in favour of the
French.

As an evidence of the business promptitude with
which that Government conducts its affairs we may
mention that within 48 hours after the offer of the Co-
lumbian was accepted she was surveyed and approved,
and tracings of the sections of the steamer forwarded to
Marseilles, in order that fittings might be at once pre-
pared and ready to put up on her arrival at that port ;
and, as she sailed on Friday last, we may expect that
within a month her first cargo will be delivered in the
Crimea, by which time, according to the proposition of
the English Government, she would only have been
ready to receive cargo at the port to which she might,
have been ordered fog such after fitting up at Deptford.
We are, &c.,
PATRICK HENDERSON AND Co.
Glasgow, June 25.