The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING„JANUARY 29, 1862.

THE TR EMI AFF«ZIi.

-.-
FURTHER OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE.
(From the London Gazette of last Evening.)
FOREIGN-OFFICE, JAN. 28.
Copies of correspondence with her Majesty's Minister in
the United States :--

EARL RUSSELL TO LORD LYONS.
Foreign-office, January 23, 1862.
My Lord,—l mentioned, in my despt.tch of the 10th
instant, that her Majesty's Government differed from Mr.
Seward in some of the conclusions at which he had arrived ;
and that I should state to you on a future occasion wherein
these differences consisted: I now proceed to do so.
It is necessary to observe that I propose to discuss the
questions involved in this correspondence solely on the
principles of international law. Mr. Seward himself, speak-
ing of the capture of the four gentlemen taken from on
board the Trent, says :—" The question before us is whe-
ther this proceeding was authorised by and conducted ac-
cording to the law of nations. This is, in fact, the nature
of the question which has been, but happily is no longer at
issue. It concerned the respective rights of belligerents and
of neutrals. We must, therefore, discard entirely from our
minds the allegation that the captured persons were rebels,
and we must consider them only as enemies of the United
States at war with its Government, for that is the ground
on which Mr. Seward ultimately places the discussion. It
is the only ground upon which foreign Governments can
treat it.
The first inquiry that arises, therefore, is,'lts Mr. Seward
states it, "Were' the persons named, and their supposed
despatches contraband of war ?"
Upon this question her Majesty's Government differ en-
tirely from Mr. Seward.
The general right and duty of a neutral Power to main-
tain its communications and friendly relations with both
belligerents cannot be disputed. " A neutral nation," says
Vattel,* "continues, with the two parties at war, in the
several relations nature has placed between nations. It is
ready to perform towards both of them all the duties of
humanity, reciprocally due from nation to nation." In the
performance of these duties, on both sides, the neutral nation
has itself a most direct and material interest; especially
when it has numerous citizens resident in the territories of
both belligerents; and when its citizens, resident both
there and at home, have property of great value in the ter-
ritories of the belligerents, which may be exposed to danger
from acts of confiscation and violence if the protection of
their own Government should be withheld. This is the
case with respect to British subjects during the present civil
War in North America.
Acting upon these principles, Sir William Scott, in the
case of the Caroline,t during the war between Great Britain
and France, decided that the carrying of despatches from
the French Ambassador resident in the United States to
the Government of France by an United States' merchant-
ship was no violation of the neutrality of the United States
in the war between Great Britain and France, and that
such despatches could not be treated as contraband of war.
"The neutral country," he said, "has a right to preserve
its relations with the enemy, and you are not at liberty to
conclude that any, communication between them can par-
take, in any degree, of the nature of hostility against you.
The enemy may have its hostile projects to be attempted
with the neutral State, but your reliance is on the integrity
of that neutral State, that it will not favour nor participate
in such designs, but, as far as its own councils and actions
are concerned, will oppose them. And if there should be
private reasons to suppose that this confidence in the good
faith of the neutral State has a doubtful-foundation, that is
matter for the caution of the Government, to bo counterac-
ted by just measures of preventive policy; but it is no
ground on which this Court can pronounce that the neutral
carrier has violated his duty by bearing despatches, which,
as far as he can know, may be presumed to be of an inno-
cent nature, and in the maintenance of a pacific con-
nection." And he continues, shortly afterwards :
It is to be considered also, with regard to this
question, what may be due to the convenience of the neutral
State; for its interest may require that the intercourse of
correspondence with the enemy's country should not be
altogether interdicted. It might be thought to amount
almost to a declaration that an Ambassador from the enemy
shall not reside in the neutral State if he is declared to be
debarred from the only means of communicating with his
own. For to what useful purpose can he reside there with-
out the opportunities of such a communication? It is too
much to say that all the business of the two States shall be
transacted by the Minister of the neutral State resident in
the enemy's country. The practice of nations has allowed
to neutral States the privilege of receiving Ministers from
the belligerent States; and the use and convenience of an
immediate negotiation with them."
That these principles must necessarily extend to every
kind of diplomatic communication between Government and
Government, whether by sending or receiving Ambassadors
or Commissioners personally, or by sending or receiving
despatches from or to such Ambassadors or Commissioners,
or from or to the respective Governments, is too plain to
need argument; and it seems no less clear that such
communications must be as legitimate and innocent in
their first commencement as afterwards, and that
the rule cannot be restricted to the case in which diplo-
matic relations are already formally established by the resi-
dence of an accredited Minister of the belligerent Power in
the neutral country. It is the neutrality of the one party
to the communications, and not either the mode of the
communication or the time when it first takes place, which
furnishes the test of the true application of the principle.
The only distinction arising out of the peculiar circum-
stances of a civil war and of the non-recognition of the in-
dependence of the de facto government of one of the belli-
gerents, either by the other belligerent or by the neutral
Power, is this—that " for the purpose of avoiding the diffi-
culties which might arise from a formal and positive solu-
tion of these questions, diplomatic agents are frequently
substituted, who are clothed with the powers and enjoy the
immunities of Ministers, though they are not invested with
the representative character, nor entitled to diplomatic
honours.t. Upon this footing Messrs. Mason and Slidell,
who are expressly stated by Mr. Seward to have been sent
as pretended Ministers Plenipotentiary from the Southern
States to the Courts of St. James and of Faris, must have
been sent, and would have been, if at all, received; and the
reception of these gentlemen upon this footing could
not have been justly regarded, according to the law
of nations, as a hostile or unfriendly act towards the
United States. Nor, indeed, is it clear that these
gentlemen would have been clothed with any powers, or
have enjoyed any immunities beyond those accorded to
diplomatic agents not officially recognised.
It appears to her Majesty's Government to be a necessary
and certain deduction from these principles, that the con-
veyance of public agents of this character from Havana to
St. Thomas, on their way to Great Britain and France, and
of their credentials or despatches (if any) on board the
Trent, was not and could not be a violation of the duties of
neutrality on the part of that vessel ; and both for that rea-
son, and also because the destination of these persons and
of their despatches was bona fide neutral, it is in the judg-
ment of her Majesty's Government clear and certain that
they were not contraband.
The doctrine of contraband has its whole foundation and
origin in the principle which is nowhere more accurately
explained than in the following passage of Bynkershoek.
After stating in general terms the duty of impartial neutra-
lity, he adds :—" Et sane id, quod modo dieebam, non tan-.
tum ratio docet, sed et turas, inter omnes fere gentes recep-
tus. Quamvis enim libera sint cum amicorum nostrorum
hostibus commercia, usu tamen placuit, ne alterutrum his
rebus juvemus, quibus bellum contra amicos nostros in-
struatur et foveatur. Non beet igitur alterutri advehere ea,
quibus in bello gerendo opus habet ; ut aunt torment%
arma, et quorum pra3cipuus in bello usus, miltes. Optimo
jure interdictum est, ne quid eorum hostibus subministre•
mus ; quia his rebus nos ipsi quodammodo videremur
amicis nostris bellum facere."¢
The principle of contraband of war is here clearly ex-
plained ; and it is impossible that men, or despatches,
which do not come within that principle, can in this sense
be contraband. The penalty of knowingly carrying con-
traband of war is, as Mr. Seward states, nothing less than
the confiscation of the ship; but it is impossible that this
penalty can be incurred when the neutral has done no more
than employ means usual among nations for maintaining
his own proper relations with one of the belligerents. It is
of the very essence of the definition of contraband that the
articles should have a hostile, and not a neutral, destina-
tion. " Goods," says Lord Stowell,ll going to a neutral
port, cannot come under the description of contraband, all
goods going there being equally lawful. The rule respect-
ing contraband," he adds, "as I have always understood
it, is that articles must be taken in delicto, in the actual
prosecution of the voyage to an enemy's port." On what
just principle can it be contended that a hostile destination
is less necessary, or a neutral destination more noxious, for
constituting a contraband character in the case of public
agents or despatches, than in the case of arms and ammu-
nition ? _ _

Mr. Seward seeks to support his conclusion on this point
by a reference to the well-known dictum of Sir Wm. Scott
in the case of the Caroline, that " you may stop the Ambas-
sador of your enemy on his passage ;"¶ and to another dic-
tum of the same judge, in the case of the Orozembo, that
civil functionaries, if sent for a purpose intimately con-
nected with the hostile operations,"*.* may fall under the
same rule with persons whose employment is directly mili-
tary.

These quotations are, as it seems to her Majesty's Go-

* Vattel, book iii, cap. 7, s, 118.
The Caroline (Chr. Rob., 461) ; cited and approved by
Wheaton ("Elements," part iv, cap. 3, sec. 22.)
+ Wheaton : "Elements," part ill., chap. 1, sea. 5
Bynkershoek : Quasst. Jur. Publ.," lib. 1, esp. 9.
The Imina, 3 Chr. Rob., M.
¶ The Carolinel6 Chr. Rob., 468.
0 PIO ()Numb(); 6 chi., 13,0., 434.

vernment, irrelevant. The words of Sir W. Scott are, in
both cases, applied by Mr. Seward in a sense different from
that in which they wore used. Sir W. Scott does not say
that an Ambassador, sent from a belligerent to a neutral
State, may be stopped as contraband while on his passage
on board a neutral vessel belonging to that or any other
neutral State; nor that, if he be not contraband, the other
belligerent would ha've any right to stop him on such a voy-
age. The sole object which Sir Wm. Scott had in View was
to explain the extent and limits of the doctrine of the in-
violability of Ambassadors, in virtu:), of that character; for
he says : •
"The limits that are assigned to ' tho operations of war
against them, by Vattel and other writers upon these sub-
jects, are, that you may exercise your right of war against
them wherever the character of hostility exists. You may
stop the Ambassador of your enemy on his passage, but
when be has arrived, and has taken upon him the func-
tions of his office, and has been admitted in his representa-
tive character, ho becomes a sort of middle-man, entitled to
peculiar privileges, as set apart for the protection of the
relations of amity and peace, in maintaining which all
nations aro in some degree interested."

There is certainly nothing in this passage from which an
inference can be drawn so totally opposed to the general
general,tenor of the whole judgment,' as that-,an Ambassa-
dor proceeding to the country to which he is sent, and on
board a neutral vessel belonging to that country, can be
stopped on the ground that the conveyance of such an
Ambassador is a breach •of neutrality, which it must be if
he be contraband of war. Bir W. Scott is here expressing
not his own opinion merely, but the doctrine which he con-
siders to have been laid down by writers of authority upon
the subject. No writer of authority has ever suggested that
an Ambassador proceeding to a neutral State on board one
of its merchant ships is contraband of war. The only writer
named by Sir William Scott is Vattel,* whose words are
these : " On pent encore attaquer et arreter ses gens" (i.e.,
gens de l'ennemi) " partout of on a la liberte d'exercer des
actes d'hostilit4. Non seulement done on pent justement
refuser le passage aux Ministres qu'un ennemi envoye
menletseetrsraCintse permissionm6mets'ils entrepren-
dans les liens
nd'eanuttdrenapSaosusevrersaeinorsete; on
dont on est maitre."
And he adds as an example the seizure of a French Am.
bassador, when passing through the dominions of Hanover
during war between England and France, by the King of
England, who was also Sovereign of Hanover.
The rule, therefore, to be collected from these authorities
is, that you may stop an enemy's Ambassador in any place of
which you are yourself the master, or in any other place
where you have a right to exercise acts of hostility. Your
own territory, or ships of your own country, are places of
which you are yourself the master. The enemy's territory
or the enemy's ships are places in which you have a right
to exercise acts of hostility. Neutral vessels, guilty of no
violation of the laws of neutrality, are places where you have
no right to exercise acts of hostility.
It would bo an inversion of the doctrine that Ambassa-
dors have peculiar privileges to argue that they are less
protected than other men. The right conclusion is that an
Ambassador sent to a neutral Power is inviolable on the
high seas, as well as in neutral waters, while under the
protection of the neutral flag.
The other dictum of Sir William Scott, in the case of the
Orozembo: is even less pertinent to the present question.
That related to the case of a neutral ship which, upon the
effect of the evidence given on the trial, was hold by the
Court to have been engaged as an enemy's transport, to
convey the enemy's military officers, and some of his civil
officers whose duties were intimately connected with mili-
tary operations, from the enemy's country to one of the
enemy's colonies, which was about to be the theatre of those
opeiations, the whole being done under colour of a simu-
lated neutral destination. But as long as a neutral Govern-
ment, within whose territories no military operations are
carried on, adheres to its profession of neutrality, the duties
of civil officers on a mission to that Government and within
its territory cannot possibly be " connected with" any
" military operations" in the sense in which these words
were used by Sir William Scott, as, indeed, is rendered
quite clear by the passages already cited from his own judg-
ment in the case of the Caroline.

In connection with this part of the subject it is necessary
to notice a remarkable passage in Mr. Seward's note, in
which he says, " I assume, in the present case, what, as I
read British authorities, is regarded by Great Britain her-
selfas true maritime law, that the circumstance that the Trent
was proceeding from a neutral port to another neutral pert
does not modify the right of the belligerent capture." If
indeed the immediate and ostensible voyage of the Trent
had been to a neutral i)orctik'h,el !intimate and-real ilesti6-
nation to some port of the enemy, her Majesty's Govern-
ment might have been better able to understand the refe-
rence to Bri, ish atuthorities contained in this passage. It
is undoubtedly the law as laid down by British authorities,
that if the real destination of the vessel be hostile (that is,
to the enemy or the enemy's country), it cannot be covered
and rendered innocent by a fictitious destination to a neu-
tral port. But if the real terminus of the voyage be bona
fide in a neutral territory, no English, nor, indeed, as her
Majesty's Government believe, any American authority
can be found which has ever given countenance to the doc-
trine that'either men or despatches can be subject during
such a voyage, and on board such a neutral vessel, to bel-
_ _ .

ligerent c;ptUre as contraband of war. Her Majesty's Go-
vernment regard such a doctrine as wholly irreconiileable
with the true principles of maritime law ; and certainly
with those principles as they have been understood in the
Courts of this country.

_
It is to be further observed that packets engaged in the
postal service, and keeping up the regular and periodical
communications between the different countriei of Europe
and America, and other parts of the world, tho Ugh -in the
absence of treaty stipulations they may not be exemptq
from visit and search in time of war, nor from the penalties
of any violation of neutrality, if proved to have been know-
ingly committed, are still, when sailing in the ordinary and
innocent course of their legitimate employment, which con-
sists in the conveyance of mails and passengers, entitled to
peculiar favour and protection from all Governments in
whose service-they are engaged. To detain, disturb, or
interfere with them, without the very gravest cause, would
be an act of a most noxious and injurious character, not
only to a vast number and variety of individual and pri•
vats interests, but to the public interests cd neutral and
friendly Governments.
It has been necessary to dwell upon these points in somt
detail, because they involve principles of the highest im-
portance,
and because if. Mr. Seward's argument were
acted upon as sound, the most injurious consequences
might follow.
For instance, in the present war, according to Mr.
Seward's doctrine, any packet ship carrying a Confederate
agent from Dover to Calais, or from Calais to Dover, might
be captured and carried to New York. In case of a war
between Austria and Italy, the -conveyance of an Italian
Minister or agent might cause the capture of a neutral
packet plying between Malta and Marseilles, or between
Malta and Gibraltar, the condemnation of the ship at Trieste,
and the confinement of the Minister or agent in an Austrian
prison. So in the late war between Great Britain and
Francs on the one hand, and Russia on the other, a Russian
Minister going from Hamburg to Washington, in an Ame-
rican ship, might have been brought to Portsmouth, the
ship might have been condemned, and the Minister sent to
the Tower of London. So also a Confederate vessel of war
might capture a Cunard steamer on its way from Halifax
to Liverpool, on the ground of its carrying despatches from
Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.
In view, therefore, of the erroneous principles asserted
by Mr. Seward, and the consequences they involve, her
Majesty's Government think it necessary to declare that
they would not acquiesce in the capture of any British
merchant ship in circumstances similar to those of the
Trent, and that the fact of its being brought before a Prize
Court, though it would alter the character, would not dimi-
nish the gravity, of the offence against the law of nations
which would thereby be committed.
Having disposed of the question whether the persons
named and their supposed despatches were contraband of
war, I am relieved from the necessity of discussing the
other questions raised by Mr. Seward, namely, whether
Capt. Wilkes had lawfully a right to stop and search the
Trent for these persons and their supposed despatches ;
whether that right, assuming that he possessed it, was ex-
ercised by him in a lawful and proper manner; and
whether he bad a right to capture the persons found on
board.

namely, whether
The fifth question put by Mr. Seward,
Captain Wilkes exercised the alleged right of capture in the
manner allowed and recognised by the law of nations, is re-
solved by Mr. Seward himself in the negative.
I cannot conclude, however, without noticing one very
singular passage in Mr. Seward's despatch.
Mr. Seward asserts that " if the safety of this Union re-
quired the ...detention of the captured persons it would be
the right and duty of this Government to detain them."
He proceeds to say that the waning proportions of the in-
surrection, and the comparative unimportance of the cap-
tured persons themselves, forbid him resorting to that de-
fence. Mr. Seward does not here assert any right founded on
international law, hdwever inconvenient or irritating to neu-
tral nations ; he entirely loses sight of the vast difference
which exists between the exercise of an extreme right and the
commission of an unquestionable wrong. His" frankness
compels me to be equally open, and to inform him that
Great Britain could not have submittel to the perpetration
of that wrong, however flourishing might have been the
insHurrapepcitliyonalilndtahneg
captured might have been.
eSrollthh and however important the per-
sonsofostile collision on this subject has
been avoided. It is the earnest hope of her Majesty's Go-
vernment that similar dangers, if they should arise, may be

* Vatel, lib, iv., chap, 7, sec. 86.

averted by peaceful negotiations conducted iu the spirit
which befits the organs of two, great nations.
I request you to read this despatch to Mr. Seward, and
give him a copy of it.—l am, &c.,
(Signed)
LORD LYONS TO EARL RIMSELL.

RUSSELL.

Washington, Jan. 14, 1862.

(Re&lived January 27, 1802.)
My, Lord,—Tierce days ago, in obedience to- your lord-
ship's orders, I spoke to Mr. Seward-on the subject of the
plan adopted by this Government of obstructing the en-
trance to some of the harbours in the Southern States, by
sinking vessels, laden with stones, in the channels.
Mr. Seward observes that it was altogether a mistake to
suppose that this Plan had been devised with a view to
injure the harbOurs perthanently. It was, he said,
simply a temporary military 'measure adopted to
aid the blockade. The Goveininent of the United States
had; last 'spring, with a navy very little prepared for
so extensive an operation, Undertaken to blockade upwards
of 3,000 miles of coast. The Secretary of the Nary had
reported that he could stop up the " farge holes" by means
of his ships, but that he could not stop up the "small ones."
It had been found necessary, therefore, to close some of the
numerous small inlets by sinking Vessels in the channels.
It would be the duty of the Gov'etnment of the United
States to remove all these obstructions as soon as the Union
was restored. It was well understood that this was an obli-
gation incumbent on the Federal Government. At the end of
the war with Great Britain that Government had been called
upon to remove a vessel which had been sunk in the har-
bour of Savannah, and had recognised the obligation, and
removed the vessel accordingly. Moreover, the United
States were now engaged in a civil war with the South.
He was not prepared to say that, as an operation In war, it
was unjustifiable to destroy permanently the harbours of
the enemy, but nothing of the kind had teen done on the
present occasion. Vessels had been sunk by the rebels to
prevent the access to their ports of the cruisers of the United
States. The same measure had been adopted by the United
States in order to make the blockade complete. When the
war was ended, the removal of all these obstructions would
be a mere matter of expense—there would be no great diffi-
culty in removing them effectually. Besides, as had already
been done in the case of Port Royal, the:United States
would open better harbours than those which they closed.
I asked Mi. Seward whether the principal entrance to
Charleston harbour had not been recently Closed altogether,
by vessels sunk by order of this Government;; and I ob-
served to him that the opening of a . new pert, 30 or 40
miles off, would hardly console the people of. the large
town of Charleston for the destruction of their own har-
bour.
Mr. Seward said that the best proof ho could give me
that the harbour of Charleston had not been rendered inac-
cessible was, that in spite of the sunken Vessels,and of the
blockading squadrons, a British steamer laden with con-
traband of war had just succeeded in getting in.—l
hive, &c.,

(Signed) LYONS.,

TILE NAVY.

The Collingwood, 80 guns, late sailing vessel, con-
structed from plans made by Capt. Symons, has
been fitted with a pair of horizontal double-piston
rod engines, and has since been twice tried at the
measured mile off Maplin Sands. The engines are
of 490 nominal horse-power, the diemeter of the
cylinder being 631-; stroke, 3ft. ; . and nominal
revolutions 50. On the first trial., the vessel
attained an average speed of 10.415 knots per hour,
against a force of wind of 3. On her second trial,
which took place yesterday, she attained, with full
boiler power, an average speed of 10.462 knots ;
force of wind, 6 ; pressure of steam, 20 ; actual
revolutions, 65 ; vacuum 261 ; indicated horse-
power, 1,660; temperature in engine-room, 64 ;
draught of water forward, L 7 ft. 6in. ; aft, 21ft. sin. ;
and, with half-boiler power, 8.294 knots;
,revolu-
tions, 52 ; the pitch of the screw being 19ft. 3in.,
and the diameter l7ft. ; the results showing that
the second trial is of a much more satisfactory cha-
racter than the preceding one; - There were present
on the part of the Government, Capt. Schomberg,
of the steam reserve at Sheerness ; Mr. W. Price,
..._e inspector of machinery afloat ; and Mr. S. Towns
-
lid; foreman cireirgineersinlaer Majestrsiockyard
at Sheerness. The engines were in charge of Mr.
T. Scott, the manager of the firm of Messrs. Rennie
and Sons, who has had the superintendence of their
construction. The firm was represented by Mr.
G. B. Rennie.

In consequence of the extensive repairs required
to be effected on board the screw steamer Pylades,
21, 1,278 tons, 350 horse power, at Chatham, the
fourth dock, in which she lies, is ordered to be
housed over, to protect the ship and the workmen
employed on her. The whole of her copper sheath-
ing, as well as a considerable portion of her plank-
ing, has been removed to enable the officials to in-
stitute a careful examination of the hull. The
result has been to show that many of the timbers
are in an exceedingly rotten condition, and that the
vessel generally is very unsound. She will be put
into a thorough state of repair, which will detain
her in dock for several months.
The screw steam-sloop Rosario, 11, 150 horse
power, having had some farther alterations effected
in her engines and machinery, has been taken on
another trial trip to the Nore, when her engines
were found to work far more satisfactorily,
The hired transport Berkshire yesterday went
down to Woolwich for the purpose of shipping war
stores for Cape Coast Castle. The Persia also ar-
rived at Woolwich yesterday, and commenced ship-
ping Armstrong 100 pounder guns and 600 tons of
shot for Bermuda.

The Ajax and Brunette have hauled off the T
pier at Woolwich to make room for three other
ships expected to-day, and have moored in the river
to fill in 1,000 barrels of powder, in addition to
their cargo of war stores, for Halifax.
The Tortoise and Sindbad, in the dockyard ser-
vice, yesterday arrived at Woolwich, laden with
naval stores. from Plymouth.

In consequence of the peculiar species of charge
required for the proof trial of the huge 300 pounder
Armstrong gun, recently received at Woolwich
from Elswick, and which still lies on the wharf, a
considerable delay has been occasioned. The first
trial, however, as a smooth bore will take place at
Woolwich in a few days, at the proof butt, with a
charge of 381 b of powder and a round 10 inch shot,
after which (if successful) the gun will be rifled on
Sir W. Armstrong's principle and undergo a second
proof for service.
Capt. Lambert has retired from the command of
the hired steam transport Adelaide at Plymouth.
Capt. Alan Gardener is spoken of as his successor.
The French gunboat Pelican, Capt. Palmer, from
Dartmouth, arrived at Plymouth on Monday.
From her Majesty's ship Medusa, which left the
British Commander-in-Chief on Jan. 5 for New
York, we learn that the destination of most of the'
ships on the West India station will be changed in
consequence of the pacific tone of the news from
Washington. The Mersey, 40, is ordered up to Ber-
muda ; the St. George, 86, carrying his Royal High-
ness Prince Alfred, is to return home immediately
in consequence of the death of the Prince Consort.
The Donegal, 100, is to sail for the Gulf of Mexico,
to fill the place of the St. George. The Conqueror,
100, will follow in the same direction. The Nile,
with the Admiral's flag, was at Bermuda, as well
as the Diadem, 32. The Hero, Aboukir, and Eme-
rald, recently despatched from England, had not
yet arrived at Bermuda ; in fact, her Majesty's shi
Donegal was the only ship of the Channel flee
which had joined Admiral Milne
The remainder of the large 22-inch bower cables,
from the factory of Messrs. Brown and Lennox,
manufactured for the iron screw frigate Defence,
Capt. Powell, C. 8., at Chatham, were shipped on
board yesterday. The six cables, each of which is
about 100 fathoms in length, were all subjected to
the most powerful hydraulic pressure at the testing-
house in the dockyard before they were shipped, the
work of testing the cables having been delayed
in consequence of the setting in of the late severe
frost, during which the cables could not be tried.
Each of the chains bore the required strain without
giving signs of any flaw.
The following appointments were made yester-
day at the Admiralty :—Captain • itiehard Vesey
Hamilton, to the Hydra; Lieut. John W. James,
to the Victory, additional for special service; Dr.