judge the said Captain Phillott to be admonished to be more circumspect in future.” This is the whole sentence, the preamble only being omitted. It will be observed that while the circumstances favourable to Captain Phillott are duly brought forward, no word is said in condemnation of Captain Bull. If anything had been elicited at the court-martial which cast blame on the Packet, the Admiralty, which was never very favourably disposed towards the Post-Office Service, would at once have forwarded a copy of the pleadings to the Postmaster General, with a request that Captain Bull might be punished. Nothing, however, was heard at the Post-Office of the result of the court-martial until ten days had passed, when Mr. Freeling wrote and asked for it. It was then sent to him, with a short covering letter, which contained absolutely no comment whatever. Probably it is not necessary to go beyond these indisputable facts in defence of Captain Bull; but a few comments upon the account given by James may not be misplaced. His unfavourable verdict on the “Duke of Marlborough” appears to be based on four circumstances: (1) that she had no lower studding sails or royals set when the “Primrose” first sighted her; (2) that no one on board the Packet, except the gunner, knew the difference between a blue light and a false fire; (3) that whereas Captain Phillott hailed once, and his second lieutenant (who had a loud voice) twice, the hail was answered only by a broadside; (4) that the flags used by the Packet were only half the established size. The first of these points was carefully investigated by the Court of Inquiry at Falmouth, which obtained from Captain Bull a written statement of his reasons for having his royal masts on deck. The explanation was perfectly natural and clear; and whereas it was admitted that Captain Phillott, not knowing the circumstances, might have been misled, Captain Bull pointed out that the square rig of the “Duke of Marlborough” ought to have shown that she was no merchantman. The second point is of no value. It is not probable that so experienced an officer as Captain Bull was ignorant of any detail connected with the private signals which were so important to the safety of his ship. Even Mr. James admits that the gunner had proper knowledge on the subject. If the night signal had been made in an improper manner, the court-martial would have adduced that fact in support of Captain Phillott. A signal was certainly made on the Packet, whether with blue lights or false fires. The officers of the “Primrose” alleged that they did not see it. That could scarcely be the case; since the vessels were so near at the time that Captain Bull, who assisted in making the signal, distinctly saw the match put to a gun on board the sloop of war. No hail was heard on board the Packet, until the action had lasted more than two hours, as already described. It is difficult to believe that the “Primrose” really hailed three times before opening fire.