_London, March 13th_, 1854.--The only event of recent occurrence was the dinner given last week to Sir Charles Napier at the Reform Club, with Lord Palmerston in the chair. Everybody disapproves of the whole proceeding, which is thought to have been unwise and in bad taste. The only Ministers there besides Palmerston were Graham and Molesworth, and the former made an excessively foolish, indiscreet speech, which has been generally censured, and to-night he is to be called to account for it in the House of Commons. It is marvellous that a man of mature age, who has been nearly forty years in public life, should be so rash and ill-judged in his speeches.[1] There seems now to be a better chance of John Russell's again putting off his Reform Bill next month. There are not two opinions, except among the extreme Radicals, of the expediency of his doing so, and his best friends (including his brother) greatly regret that he did not put it off _sine die_ instead of to another fixed day. [Footnote 1: At this dinner at the Reform Club, Sir James Graham made an intemperate speech in which he said: 'My gallant friend (Napier) says that when he goes into the Baltic he will declare war. I, as First Lord of the Admiralty, give my free consent to do so. I hope the war may be short, and that it may be sharp.' Sir Charles Napier's subsequent performances in the Baltic did not at all correspond to this heroic language, and did not add to his former reputation.] _March 20th._--There has been a little episode, not very important, but which being entirely personal caused some noise in the world. About a week ago, or perhaps more, appeared the Petersburg 'Gazette' with a sort of manifesto, complaining bitterly of the conduct of the British Government, which was said to be the more inexcusable as a confidential correspondence had taken place between the two Governments, and we had been all along informed of their views and intentions. The 'Times' published this (as did all the other papers), and with it a peremptory denial of its truth, stating that John Russell, then Foreign Secretary, had sent an indignant refusal to the proposals made to us. Derby took this up in the House of Lords, complaining of State secrets having been imparted to the 'Times,' and insinuating his belief that Aberdeen had communicated them. Aberdeen denied the imputation with some resentment, and said that a flagrant breach of confidence had been certainly committed, and he had reason to believe that the culprit was a man formerly in the Foreign Office as clerk, though now out of it, who had been appointed by Lord Malmesbury. On this Malmesbury flared up, and desired to know his name, which Aberdeen said he did not know. On a subsequent night Malmesbury again took the matter up, and challenged Aberdeen to give the name and produce his proof. Aberdeen said he had received the information in a way which left no doubt on his mind of its