The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-03 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING. sEPTEMBER 3, 1853.

PERSECUTION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS BY
THE CHINESE INSU.RGLOI

The Univers publishes the following letter from
M. Maresca, Apostolic Administrator of Nankin,
dated Shanghai, the Bth June, of persecutions•by
the Chinese insurgents against the Roman Catho-
lic Christians:—

"The insurgents arrived on the Bth March before the
walls of the town of Nankin, and established their camp
in 28 divisions. They dug mines under the walls anct
filled them with gunpowder, and on the 19th partially
blew them up, together with the eastern gate. Imme-
diately after a signal was given, and they rushed some
to the breach and others to the wall with an impetuosity
which alarmed the defenders. In their first attack they
made themselves masters of the town. The mandarins,
who were not able to escape, were seized and put to
death. On the 20th March, the insurgents spread
through the town, and carried everywhere terror and
death. A venerable old man, chief of the Christianp,
was killed in his house with his eldest son ; his second
son was grievously wounded, the third was carried off
captive, and the youngest ran away. On the same
day, four other Christians fell in the mglee. On the
21st March, the family Tseu, the wealthiest and most
distinguished amongst the Christians, were driven
from their house, which the insurgents required for
their chiefs ; and thirty-one members of this family
were confined in a neighbouring house, and were
there burned to death. Two young men, belonging to
the same family, aged 17 and 18, who were absent when
their relatives were burned, have just arrived at Shang-
hai, after having begged their way—a distance of from
70 to 80 leagues. Five other members of the same
family were also absent at the execution of the 31, but
it is not known where they have gone, nor what has be-
come of them: All that belonged to the. Christian com-
munity of Nankin, church, ornaments, money, and
papers, were deposited with the family Tseu, and conse-
quently all are entirely lost. The same day, several
persons entered the chapel of the town, where the
Christians were assembled, and recited the prayers of
the holy week. They forbade prayers on the knees, and
wanted the Christians to recite, seated, the new prayer
of Tien-Fou. The Christians replied that they were
Catholics and did not know any other religion. It was
notified to them that if, within three days, they did not
decide on obeying, they would all be decapitated. On
the 24th March, some wretches entered the chapel, and
attempted to do violence to some young Christian women,
but they were soon obliged to leave, and since then there
have been no attacks of the kind. In the afternoon a
new summons was made to adore Tien-Fou ; a new
refusal was given by the Christians ; and new me-
naces followed. On the 25th of March, the Christians
were adoring the cross, according to the custom, on
Good Friday. The insurgents entered all at once,
crying and menacing ; they broke the crucifix, over-
threw the altar, and then wished to have their prayer
recited-- at the same time presenting the Christians with
books in which it is written. A catechist took a re-

ligious book, the Explanation of the commands of God,
and presented it to one of the chiefs. He hastily exa-
mined it, and returned it, saying, Your religion is a
good one—ours is not to be compared to it ; but the new
Emperor has given his orders, and you must obey them
or die.' After summonses, which were repeated in vain,
the soldiers seized the Christians and tied their hands
behind their backs. The women and children exhorted
the men to suffer with a good heart for their faith. They
were bound and ill-treated in their turn. All being thus
bound, the men were told that they ;would be conveyed
before the tribunal of the Emperor to hear their sen-
tence ; the women and children followed them, and all
went gaily. When they arrived at the tribunal they
were kept for some time in outer rooms ; and then some
officers presented themselves and told them, on the part
of the Emperor, that, as they would not obey, they were
all condemned to death, and were to be executed at the
Western Gate. They were sent off to the place of execu-
tion ; but at the door of the tribunal an old man, who was
unable to walk, was beheaded. The others arrived toge-
ther at the designated place—they were about one hun-
dred in number. New demands were made upon them
to do as they had been desired, but they constantly re-
plied, 'We are Christians !' Many threats were made,
but no one was executed. Towards the evening all
were brought back to the town, and conveyed to a
great store, which was formerly the church of Nan-
kin. They there passed the night with their hands bound
—and some were attached to columns. One succeeded
in unbindining himself, and in escaping. The day after
new threats were made, and some blows were given.
On Eastern day all expected to die. Some officers en-
tered the place, and asked if they would recite the
prayer. Some said, `You should 'kill them all, for they
will not obey !' but another answered, 'No—for in that
case they would go to heaven, and would have what
they desire; whilst we should be guilty of sin !' How-
ever all the Christians remained firm and yielded no-
thing. Some women especially, and even some children
cried, ' Kill us all, that we may be martyrs and go to
heaven !' Some of the soldiers, despairing of being able
to subdue the courage of the women, and no doubt
not having orders to kill them, opened the doors of the
store-house, and forced them to leave with their children.
They all went to the chapel, where they have since re-
mained with the children ; they are between 70 and 80
in number. The men remained in the store with their
hands more tightly bound than on the first day.
On the 28th March some young men, fatigued with
suffering and dreading new torments, persuaded
themselves that they might recite the famous prayer,
because it contains nothing contrary to the dogmas of
our holy religion. After having protested that they in-
tended to remain Catholics, twenty-two recited the
prayer, and were immediately unbound ; but the others
declared that they would die rather than recite it before
they knew that it was good ; and some of them in con-
sequence were cruelly beaten. Since then those who
wavered Lave felt greatly humiliated, and regret that
they did not imitate the firmness of their brethren and
the courage of the women and children. Whilst the
women and children remained in the chapel without a
single man to assist or protect them, the men were or-
dered to serve the insurgents either as soldiers or la-
bourers. Ten of them who were taken to fight against
Tseu-Kiang took advantage of an obscure night to leave
their ranks and run away. They have come here to re-
count to us what they witnessed. It was on the 14th
April that they succeeded in escaping. Since their depar-
ture from Nankin they have heard it said that the insur-
gents have sent a good many women and children out of
the town. The bridge of the great canal is said to have given
way beneath the crowd, and more than a thousand per-
sons are said to have been drowned. We are not aware
whether any Christians left on that occasion. We have
also received news from Yang-Tcheu. On the Ist April
the rebels entered the town without meeting with any
resistance. However, they committed the same horrors
as at Nankin, and the Christiana were not spared. They
took the officers of the chapel, bound them, and carried
them off with their families. They wanted all of them

WSJ .., &SA. ..”..I. •V A Yu ........ -- -
to recite the prayer of Tien-Fou. r
Thereupon two cate-
chists stepped forward and clearly explained our dogmas
and our usages. As a punishment for this it was ordered
that three hundred blows should be given to one, and
five hundred to the other. It is not yet known if they
have been able to survive this cruel flagellation, and
other bad treatment to which they were subjected. On
the whole, out of six hundred Christians in Nankin,
Yang-Tcheu, and Tseu-Kiang, fifty have been slain or
burned to death, and several have been bound and
beaten. Most of them have lost all they had and re-
main captives ; exposed to all sorts of dangers for the
soul of the body."

CASE OF MRS. NORTON.

The Hon. Mrs. Norton had yesterday a letter in the
Times extending, with accompanying documents, over
four columns, in answer to the letter of her husband,
which appeared in the same journal a few days ago,
and the substance of which was published in the The
Sun. Mrs. Norton thus commences her long epistle :
On Wednesday, the 24th ult., a long letter from Mr.
Norton appeared in your columns. I did not expect ever
to fe'A thankful for anything Mr. Norton would say of me ;
but I do feel most deeply thankful that he wrote and-pub-
lished that letter. iie has now deliberately given to the
world, on his own authority and under his own signature,
that history which I had always refrained from giving be-
yond the, circle of my own friends ; and he has thus given
me an opportunity of refuting slander, of which I should
sooner have availed mys lf, but that to do so completely I
have been obliged to look through a mass of papers and
correspondence, and I have been too ill since the day I had
to appear in the County Court to make the requisite
exertion.

After refuting the charge brought against her of ex•
travagance, and denying that her Income was 1,5001. a•
year, she proceeds :-

The charge I publicly bring against Mr. Norton (who
has brought so many against me) 'is a far graver charge
than any injustice in pecuniary matters. I complain,
that twice in my life lie has endeavoured, on a false pre-
tence, to rob me of my reputation.
In 1836 I had a quarrel with my husband. Our cause
of quarrel was whether I should, or should not, take my
children to the house of my brother, who would not re-
ceive my husband. I persisted. My husband baffled
me by sending my children to the women who has since
left him her property, who threatened to give me into
the hands of the police when I went to,claim them, and
L.leitetsawit-aleme-for-nry -brother's cocntry seat.- Such
actionoo
being our real quarrel, I charge Mr. Norton with con-
triving that the whole world should believe (as they did
believe)that my misconduct had broken up our home,
oLord Melbourne.
Melbourne.ltwaso baenTunfaithfulthe swseewitnesses
wife,toar brought
natdnh an
and
that
asctt i
degraded
my lover was
against
wereproved
o i.class.d
The chief witness was a drunken discarded groom, who
was then a ragseller in Monmouth-street ; both he and
others were proved to have been sent down to Lord
Grantley's place, and to have received a weekly-stipend.
from his agent while there. The trial was brought in
1836; nevertheless no evidence was offered after the
year 1833 ; the servants living with us after that time
were not called ; nothing was heard but the witnessing
of the ragseller and 'his companions, who admitted in
court that they had received money. In spite of all
which strange advantages, and the fact that a woman is
not allowed to defend herself in these actions, the ver-
dict went against Mr. Norton.
In this present year 1853 I have a quarrel with my
husband. Our quarrel is whether I shall, or shall not,
be compelled to cede a portion of my mother's bequest.
I refuse ; Mr. Norton insists. I rashly count on being
certain to obtain a compulsory fulfilment of our agree-
ment, which I imagined to be binding. I find myself,
on my return to England, without funds to meet my
English creditors. I stop one action against my hus-
band at my own expense. I write to Mr. Norton's own
solicitor, in the forlorn hope that Mr. Norton is acting
against advice. I come into court against my will,
upon subpoena, compelled to appear to prove the debt
and agreement. Mr. Norton meets me there, in person
and by counsel, once more to fight his battle against me
with cruel treachery, once more to raise the ghost of
that departed slander, and to contrive that the whole
world shall believe (as they do believe) that Lord Mel-
bourne was again the subject of our quarrel ; that some
pledge, stipulation, or promise was made and broken by
me, and that that is Mr. Norton's excuse for his breach

of covenant. I rebut that imputation on oath and by
prOved facts ; and Mr. Norton publishes in the Times
newspaper two columns of abuse of the dead and living,
including coarse anecdotes of the mother of his grown-
up sons, which, even if true (which they are not), he
hiniself dates back to the time when we had an only

child"—that is, 20 years ago. Shall the verdict not
once more be against him.
I was young when this slander was first raised ; my
children were infants. I was one of a numerous and

affectionate family ; I had kind friends and a good cause.
I struggled like a drowning person against disgrace, and
reached the shore. Already these miserable affairs were
half-forgotten by the world ; and in literary occupation,
devotion to my sons, and the firm friendship of those
who knew my real story, I thought to have spent the
future of a stormy past. Mr. Norton has not permitted
this. Once more he has dragged me into shameful pub-
licity ; but on his own letter I will rest my justification
now and for ever.

The following passage from Mr. Norton's letter draws
from Mrs. Norton an account of her treatment from
the period of their marriage
" My own conduct, I admit, at that time was weak and
vaccinating in the the extreme. I had loved her to mad-

newi for three or four years before I married her, and after
we were united she had all power over me."

It was a very young girl at school when Mr. Norton
proposed for me. I was always maltreated by him from
the earliest period of our marriage. I parted from him
in 1833, and in 1835, as my family can witness, for
violence such is brought before police courts ; and I re-
turned to him on his own passionate entreaty that I
would not "crush" but "forgive him," and that he
" went on his knees .to me for pardon." I was safe out
of his power, and my reputation unsullied, when he
made his prayer ; I returned, and, five months after
this' letter, we were again and definitively parted.
That parting was followed by the attempt publicly
to disgrace me. After that public disgrace,
he did,
as he admits, ask me to return to him. But that is
not, as he would have the world believe, his only " vacil-
lating" attempt at reconciliation. My husband, who pre-
tends to have loved me so tenderly,
and thrown me off
so completely, did neither one nor the other. He mal-
treated me while with him, and he has been in almost
constant correspondence with me, and occasionally a
visitor at my house down to the winter of the yearlBso.
Would any one believe that, two years after " our re-
union was rendered impossible,"
he wrote letter after
letter, endeavouring to arrange for our living together
again, and speaksjof "shielding me in a husband's arms ?"
that, at the time he alludes to, he was endeavouring to
resist my petition to the Chancellor to regain possession '
of my children • that he then gave his solemn word of
honour to Mr. Hardwick, a brother magistrate, that be
had not been raising a fresh scandal against me ; that
he never ventured to defend my petition to the Chancel-
lor ; that in his letters, two years subsequently, he begs
me, with coaxing expressions, to call in all copies of a
pamphlet containing our strange correspondence ; and,
in one of these letters of 1842, speaks of himself as
" your Geordie of former and happier years" that not
only then, but in all the years since, I can produce let-
ters more or less friendly and affectionate ; asking ser-
vices of me ; thanking me for serving him ' • announcing
the marriage of his sister; full of phrases of jesting and
affection ; many beginning "Dear Carry," and "Dearest
Carry ;"anxious about me.; complimenting me ; asking
how my travelling al ne can be obviated;" finally (for
I weary over these instances of caprice), in April, 1846,
he begins--" Your kind letter, written in the good old
spirit, which should never have been broken,"—and on
Christmas-day, 1846, exactly ten years and six months
after the trial, and six years after my petition to the
Chancellor, he hopes my health is " crisp like the frost
—praises my brother—signs himself, " Yours ever "
and in another letter begs I will embrace the boys "for
absent me, as well as for yourself ! " Is it possible to
conceive that in the face of all this Mr. Norton can so
depend on my not answering him as to venture to print
such mistatements ? Is it possible he does not see that
they leave him in th 4 position : either he disbelieves
these calumnies, which nevertheless he reiterates to my
injury when it suits him ; or, believing me to be a bad
woman, he wishes me to return home ? It is, indeed,
difficult to choose which alternative shall save his
honour
-- - - -

I'Lle next shows that Mr. Norton proved by his own
admissions that there was no stipulation that her annuity
was to depend on her not receiving any money from
Lord Melbourne, and further, that his only ground for
proposing a reduction was the fact of her income being
not abide by
increased by 5001., which was left by her mother. She
then proceeds :
eyonduetwnmosatcpcloauunstibolyf, manydpmroevstioiialsmsely
in Hmeongieyvems matters, most the
exact and witnessed truth being, that during the two
years 1836 and 1837 I had not one single. farthing from
Mr. Norton ; that be then employed Sir John Bayley,
allow-
ancewho had been
all
otherhis counsel,matter s t; ot arbitratebat b o would
the arbitration ; made what allowance he pleased ; and
advertised me (to guard himself from further liability)
in the public papers ; being, I believe, the only person
of his own rank in life who ever adopted such a mea-
sure. I copy two sentences from a declaration with
which Sir John Bailey has lately furnished me, in con-
tradiction at once of the whole fabrication respecting
my conduct in these matters :
" I was appointed arbitrator on Mr. Norton's behalf in
the year 1837, having been counsel for him, and thus be-
came intimately acquainted with the circumstances of
these disputes. Mr. Norton gave me at that time a
written promise to abide by my decision. He broke his
promise, and refused to hold himself bound by the pledges
given."
to his wife, so far as it has come under my knowledge and
cognizance, to have been marked with the grossest cruelty,
injustice, and inconsistency."
It is with pain I approach that portion of Mr. Norton's
letter in which he has chosen to make reference to ourson.
I think my sons' names should have been held sacred in
i
this dreary quarrel, which began n their childhood, and
which their manhood finds unreconciled. My son is not
yet in England, nor was he in England at the time Mr.
Norton states he had those communications with him.
I utterly deny that I ever made him the channel of a
falsehood to his father ; and I deny that I ever said or
implied that it was "an insult" to be supposed to be
aided by Lord Melbourne's family.
With respect to Lord Melbourne, three years after
the date Mr. Norton himself assigns to the anecdote he
has thought fit to publish, he writes thus—speaking of
the woman who afterwards left him the Yoikshire pro-
perty, and who had invited him to dine
"I sent her a civil excuse, which was answered by a
thorough love-letter; indeed, it is high time that I should

sanction to a remarking world your penchant for old men,
by suffering this antique faux pas."
_The postmark of that letter is Aug. 8, 1834. I do
not know if Mr. Norton will persist that it is the remark
of a jealous husband. In January and in February,
1836 (that is, one month before our final separation),
Mr. Norton speaks of the "tinpaYalleled kindness" of
Lord Melbourne, and strenuously urges me to write to
him to press the appointment of a friend. I will not
enter into the fabulous history of the letters. Mr.
Norton forgets that as he was then, by his own admis-
sion, occupied on " one or two other" names, it could
not be foreseen that these notes from Lord Melbourne
would be important; and the whole of that statement is
false. With the exception of myself, most of the per-
sons Mr. Norton maligns are dead, and cannot answer
him. Lord Melbourne is no longer here to give his word
of honour that the man he served when living has stated
that which is untrue of his memory ; but I can very
clearly contradict Mr. Norton as to one statement, and
I do so to show what credence may be given to others.
Becoming apparently uneasy as_ to any, remarks which
may be made on the affectation of looking with abhor-
rence on my acceptance of aid, while he himself receives
1,0001. a year from Lord Melbourne's appointment, Mr.
Norton asserts as follows :
" Lord Melbourne promised me the appointment of
police magistrate before he visited at our house, or before
I believe,'he even knew Mrs. Norton."

And he gives this very plausible reason :
" Lord Eldon had appointed me Commissioner of Bank-
rupts in 1827, and when such appointment was abolished
by the construction of the Bankruptcy Court, in 1830 or
1831, I considered that I had some claim on the Home Se-
cretary, having received no compensation for the loss of
my situation."

Both these sentences are directly contrary to the real
-acts.

By Mr. Norton's express wish and desire, I wrote at
that time, not only to Lord Melbourne, but to all those
friends I thought might serve us. I wrote to Lord
Holland, Lord Lansdowne, the Duke of Devonshire,
and others, to, make interest with Lord Brougham (then
Lord Chancellor) to get Mr. Norton a legal appoint-
ment. This not appearing probable, we asked for a
Commissionership of Excise or custom. We did not
succeed in this second request any more than the first,
but when Mr. Wyatt, a police magistrate, died, Lord Mel-
bourne wrote to me to offer the vacant magistracy. On
the 18th of April, 1831, Lord Melbourne wrote me
word that the Chancellor had sent his secretary to in-
quire respecting this matter ; and had intimated that he
should expect Mr. Norton to resign his Commissioner-
ship of Bankrupts ; Lord Melbourne added, " This is
not so agreeable, but still was to be expected, and is
perhaps not unfair in these reforming times, and I men-
tion it that you may not be surprised when you receive
the intelligence."
Mr. Norton was disappointed, and demurred ? he
desired to hold both appointments ; I wrote again to
Lord Melbourne to state this ; and received in reply
the following note :

" House of Lords, Quarter-past Five.

" Take my advice, and make Norton write ti line imme-
diately to the Lord Chancellor, giving up his Commis-
sionership. What you cannot keep, it is always best to
give up with a good grace.—Yours faithfully,

" MELBOURNE."

The statement, therefore, made by Mr. Norton, is
entirely fictitious ; and, if I notice it, it is to ask what
reliance can be placed on all the other misstatements in
which blind wrath, imperfect memory, and utter irresolu-
tion, have involved him ? Mr. Norton calls his pub-
lished letter, a " vindication ;" a man of keener moral
perceptions would have felt, when he wrote it, that he
was not writing his defence, but his confession.
From beginning to end it is a tissue of degrading
admissions, or incorrect assertions ; of which the con-
tradiction, I am thankful to say, does not rest on my
helpless denial, but on the clearest disproof.
The conclusion cf the letter is as follows :—" I have
done. There will always be those to whom a slander is
precious ; and who can bear to have it refuted. There
are also those in whose eyes the accusation of a woman
is condemnation, and who care little whether the story
be false or true, so long as there is or was a story against
her." But juster minds, who will pause and review the
circumstances Mr. Norton himself has published, will
perhaps think the fate of that woman a hard one whom
neither the verdict of the jury, nor the solemn denial of
a voice from the dead, nor the petition of her husband
for reconciliation and oblivion of the past, can clear from
a charge always and utterly untrue. I did not deserve
the scandal of 1836, and I do not deserve the scandal of

1853. Lord Melbourne did not tempt me then to break
my wedded faith ; and his name has not now been the
ground of a broken stipulation. On Mr. Norton's own
letter I am content that people should judge us both.
Many friends have wished me to pass over that letter in
disdainful silence, as refuting itself ; and perhaps, if I were
happy enough to be obscure and unknown, that would be
my course. But I have a position separate from my woman's
destiny ; I am known as a writer ; and I will not permit
that Mr. Norton's letter shall remain on the journal
of Great Britain as the uncontradicted record of my ac-
tions. I will, as far as lam able, defend a name which
might have been only favourably known, but which my
husband has rendered notorious. The little world of
my chance readers may say of me, atter I am dead and
gone, and my struggle over and forgotten—" The wo-
nrin who wrote this book had an unhappy history ;" but
they shall not say— "The woman who wrote this book
was a profligate and mercenary hypocrite." Since my
one gift of writing gives me friends among strangers, I
appeal to the opinion of strangers as well as that of
friends. Since, in however bounded and narrow a de-
gree, there is a chance that I may be remembered after
death, I will not have my whole life misrepresented.
Let those women who have the true woman's lot, of
being unknown out of the circle of their homes, thank
God for that blessing ; it is a blessing ; but for me pub-
licity is no longer a matter of choice. Defence is pos-
sible to me; not silence. And I must remind those who
think the right of a husband so indefeasible that a wife
ought rather to submit to the martyrdom of her reputa-
tion than be justified at his expense, that I have re-
frained. All I state now I might have stated at any
time during the past unhappy years ; and I never did
publicly state it till now—now, when I find Mr. Norton
slandering the mother of his sons by coarse anecdotes,
signed with his name and published by his authority,
endeavouring thus to overwhelm me with infamy, for no
offence but that of having rashly asserted a claim upon
him which was found not to be valid in law, but only
binding on him " as a man of honour."

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

PORTSMOUTH, SEPT. 2.

The London, 90, Capt. Eden, sailed from Spithead
this morning, to join Rear• Admiral Corry's division of
the Channel fleet.

The Daedalus, 20, Capt. Wellesley, sailed last night on
her return to Plymouth, to be paid off.
The Prince of Wales Indiaman brought up at Spit-
head this afternoon ea route to Calcutta.
The Sprightly steam-tender, Master-Commander
Allen, went to Lunce-point yesterday, with Capt. Pel-
ham and a party of engineers, to inspect the new bat-
tery.

The Plumper, 9, screw-sloop, Commander Wharton,
bent sails to-day ;it is expected she will relieve the
Penelope, as flag of Rear-Admiral Bruce, on the coast
of Africa. It is probable the Antelope steam-vessel will
accompany her out.
The Christiana American packet-ship, which arrived
on Thursday, sailed this morning for New York.
Wind N. by E., with rain.
The comet has been distinctly visible two nights this
week, looking up the harbour W.N.W., from 8 to 10
p.m., about 35 degrees from the earth • and to the naked
eye the " length of a rocket," with the nucleus beauti-
fully bright, the size of a cocoa-nut. Many hundreds
witnessed this interesting phenomenon.
The new-fashioned iron propeller for the Conflict, 8,
will be cast to-morrow in her Majesty's dockyard, and
which is expected to be the happy medium.
The Comus, 18, Commander Fellowes, arrived at
Madeira on the Ist of August, from England.

DEVONPORT, SEPT. 1.
The trial of the St. Jean d'Acre yesterday gave the
greatest satisfaction. She was not tried at full speed on
Tuesday. Yesterday full speed was put on, and she
ran from the Breakwater to the Eddystone in 53 minutes.
She kept out some hours, when,
in every position, she
answered admirably, and finally left the Eddystone,
coming in at full speed, and reached her moorings
abreast of the dockyard in one hour and fifteen minutes,
about ten miles and a half per hour. She is altogether
a splendid ship. Her qualities as a sailing-ship have
not as yet been tested.
Mr. Dinnen is here entering into all the qualities and
performances of her engines.

SHEERNESS, SEPT. 1.
At 9 a.m., this day, the Lords of the Admiralty ar-
rived here from Chatham. On their approaching the
yard a salute was fired from the Waterloo, 120 gun!,
Captain the Hon. Montagu Stopford. On landing their
lordships were received by the port officers, Captain-
Superintendent Charles Hope, R.N., and the principal
officers of her Majesty's dockyard. The full Board
visited, with the exception of Vice-Admiral C.B. Hyde
Parker and the First Secretary, Mr. Ralph Osborne,
M.P. The Board, with Captain Sir Baldwin Walker,
K.C.8., &c., Surveyor of the Navy, proceeded to the
board-room, in the Captain Superintendent's depart-
ment, for the purpose of inspecting the reports and sug-
gestions of the officers of every grade for the improvement
of the service, the result of which is, of course, unknown
at present ; but there is little doubt there is great
room for improvement. At about twelve o'clock their
lordships proceeded to visit the storehouses, all of
which were thrown open for inspection. Their lord-
ships were conducted through the various departments
appropriated for the stowage of cables, standing and run-
ning rigging, sails, &c., by Mr. Robert Laws, store-
keeper. Their Lordships then proceeded to the docks
to inspect the Miranda, 14, screw steam-sloop, after
which they visited the Royal George, 120, screw steam-
ship. The Howe, 120, now being taken to pieces, in
No. 2 dock, for future conversion, became a point of at-
traction, or, perhaps, reflection on some persons or other,
for such a noble ' stucture of marine -architecture, at an
enormous expense, being sacrificed. 'At 1.30 p.m., their