The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-08 00:00:00

which he had not a right to give, but he had to enlighten I
him as to the intentions of the Government, and often sug-
gested
to him what would probably be the course of opera 7
tion. But he was happy to say that in this particular case,
he had the testimony of Sir R. Stopford himself. He then
-.read the following letter :--`• Greenwich Hospital, March
6. My Lord,--I have received your Lordship's letter
ii reference to the observations of Sir C. Napier, in the
House of Commons, as to having received a private letter
from your Lordship, directing me to proceed to Candies
I find, on -reference to my papers, that that order pro-
ceeded from the Board of Admiralty, dated Oct. 22,1840,
transmitting i n structi ons from Lord Palmerston, dated Oct.
19. In consequence, I believe, of not being able to obtain
the necessary force of, Turkish troops, I did not proceed
to Caudia, and I am quite sure that I never received
any private order from.. our Lordship." His Lordship
then read an extract frornamote from Admiral Stopford
to Lord Ponsonby, asking for instructions, and proving
that the Admiral did not consider himself bound to act
on such a private communicatidis as he would have been
by an order. He evidently did' not consider it as im-
posing any obligation upon him. He felt tempted to
refer to one or two other subjects that had been touched
on, b-st he would carefully abstain fronii:so doing.
Lord COLCHESTER said that the Npble Lord had
quoted from a newspaper which must have, given an in-
correct account, because it was inconistent with their
Lordship orders that such an order should have taken
place. There were two circumstances to which he
alluded. One related to certain circumstances which
took place, when the Noble Lord was at the head of the
Board of Admiraly in 1839. He the Noble Lord stated
that he was charged by a Gallant Officer in the other
House, with disregarding the opinions of high naval'
officers. The Noble Lord was of course quite right in
giving the best explanation of the circumstances in his
power. But when four officers, and the Secretary, con-
sulted as to the best mode of manning the ships, the
Noble Lord differed from them for certain reasons.—
(" No, no," from Lord Minto.) Such was the impres-
sion which he received from what had fallen from the
Noble Lard. The other case was, that certain orders were
given to the officer commanding in the Mediterranean on
the authority of the Noble himself ; but this he denied, and
read a letter from Admiral Stopford on the subject.
But from the extract which appeared in the paper, it
would seeni that such an order was given. The Noble
Lord then read an extract from the paper, by which it
appeared that an order, dated November, 1834, was sent
from the Noble Lord, directing the Admiral in the Le-
vant to proceed with his fleet to Cyprus, and he
.(Lord
Colchester) understood that he went to Cyprus in con-
sequence of that order, It appeared to him that any
person reading the extract he had just read, must come
to the conclusion that the Commander-in-Chief was to
obey the First Lord of the. Admiralty. The' Hon. and
Gallant Officer in the other. House might have been mis-
taken, but it appeared to him that he could not,
after the extract he had read, be accused of making any
wilful misstatements. He received that extract from the
Qullant Officer to whom allusion had been made ; and
having read it in the public papers, he conceived the
Commander-in-Chief was bound to Qin it; PICI that if '
he did not do so, be would have incurred heavy responsis
bilities. He would not go any further into discussion,
but he might be permitted to say, as an officer of her Ma-
jesty's Navy, that the government had acted with great
prudence in increasing the estublishmetit to which allns '
sion had been made, for it would be a means of prevent-
ing such occurrences as took place in 1812 and 1813.
The Duke of RICHMOND said the, present was an
instance of the ineonvenience that always arose from
Noble Lords making obsesvafinnet on what appeared
in the public papers,—(Hear,) Such a mode of proceeds
ing was contrary to the orders of their Lordship& House,
His Noble Friend complained of iv:let had boon said by
Sir Charles Napier and Captain Berkeley. Now it was
a great charge Against a gentleman that what he had
said was not true—(l-lear)—and those gentlemen would
defeini,themselves in the other House, when, of course,
his Noble Friend would reply, and they should go on
speaking at each other in both Houses. His Noble
Friend read a letter which appeared in that newspaper,
but which was not the letter written by Capt, Berkeley,
and read.by Sir Charles Napier.—(Hear, hear.) The
letter really written was in these terms :—" Let there
be no mistOke,as to my quitting the Admiralty. After
mature consideration, a reduet:on of one-eighth was
agreed to by the naval Lords, and was approved of by
Lord Dalmeny. This I assented to, and it was consi-
dered as a great boon. The Minute was shown to Lord
Minto, and he put tho paper in his pocket. It was never
brought before the Board af. Admiralty again,
and I heard no more of it until I received
a letter from Mr. Wood, informing me that the
reduction was to be one-fifth. This was done without
Consulting the other Lords," Now • his (the Duke of
Richmond's) Noble Friend (Lord Minto) admitted that
he did not consult the other Lords, and that he only
sent the order to two of them, to put their initials to it.
If any Minister of-the Crown resigned his office, he ob-
tained the leave-Of the Sovereign to explain in his place
in Parliament the ' reasons, of his resignation, and he
could not see why,, if a Cabinet Minister could do that,
a member of an inferior Board,- such as- the Admiralty,
should not be at liberty,to explain in a letter to a friend
his reasons for resigning office.=,(Hear, hear.) His
Noble Friend admitted that the full complement should
be kept up, when 'the political horizon was clouded.
Weil, was not the political horizon clouded at the time
of that reduction ? and had not his Noble Friend to
send out reinforcements to the Mediterranean ? But he
(the Duke of Richmond) thought it was' not right to
send out our seamen in ships which had not a sufficient
complement of men. If a war broke out, they might be en-
countered by a superior force ; and under such circum-
stances, the first six
.weeks might determine the issue
against us. For his cosh part-he_Wonlll rqui, iiare two
~, •.- - 1--.,-,... ~ilgmfi.. v. uperly manned than a cozen
without—the full complement of men. Tie would only
refer to one point further, and that was merely to state
to the House that he was aware that Sir Thomas Hardy
was on a Commission, 'but his friend must be aware that
it was never carried into effect. It was notorious that
that Gallant Officer had told Captain Berkeley that he.
was one of the old school, and was not for ships going to
sea not fully manned.: He thought that the First Lord
of the Admiralty had done rightly, and he only hoped
they would never alter, the manning of ships. He would'
at any time rather see too many men than too few in the
Navy,
The Earl of MINTO explained. He had made no
charge against any Gallant Officer, although it appeared
to be supposed he had done so. He had no charge to
make against Sir Charles Napier, but that he greatly
misunderstood the relations between a Commander-in-
Chief and a Government; so intimate was this that when
a change in the Government took place, they did not
appoint a new Commander -in-Chiefin the Mediterranean.
The Duke of RICHMOND explained and said, the
charge against the Noble Earl still remained unshaken.
Lord FITZGERALD condemned the conversation
as irregular .. beyond example, and showing how un-
wise it was to take up debates that took place in the
other House. The' anxiety of the Noble Earl was quite
natural, and it was only to be regretted that the Noble
Earl had not taken such measures as the House pre-
scribed, by moving for papers-and records instead of
making the speech which they had just heard from
him, in reply to statements made by Gallant Officers in
the other House, when no question was before their
Lordships, and in the irregular manner in which he had
hoped the few remarks that
done. He (Lord Fitzgerald) had felt himself called
d act so as to prevent such oc-
loinadtofael
currences taking place again.
olernrefcrtomthihs,imanud.ouhle
Earl MINTO said the only observation he was de-
sirous of making in reply was, that he hoped the Noble
Lord would give him credit for having abstained gene-
rally from replying to what passed in other place s. His
whole object. had been- attained, if he had succeeded in
vindicating himself.
Lord FITZGERALD said that he was ' quite prepared
to admit that the anxiety of• the Noble Earl was quite
natural, -but he could not retract what he had said rela-
tive to what appeared to Win to be an irregular pro- '
ceeding in that House.

147,ap•VMINTO briefly explained, and after a few words
from the Duke of RICHMOND, the matter dropped.
LUNACY,
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice that he
should to-morrow lay on their Lordships' table a Bill to'
alter and amend the law respecting proceedings in lunacy..
, The Bills on the • table were fbrwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjoorned shortly before Seven o'Clock. •