Crimea. The leader of the land force, Lord Raglan,
was one in whom their lordships took the greatest
pride for the courage and ability which he had
shown in command, qualities which were equalled by
the generosiry with which he extolled the deeds of
others, and by the modesty with which he suppressed
all mention of his own. To him, then, the thanks of
the House was first due, and after him to the generals
and officers under his command. Not to these generals
and officers were the thanks of the House alone due; the
common men were entitled to a full meed of praise, for
the contests in which they had been engaged were such
as to bring out in the fullest relief the bravery, fortitude,
and perseverance of every man who contested these well–
fought fields. Under these circumstances he was sure
the House would be gratified to learn that her
Majesty had resolved to issue a medal with clasps for
the great battles of Alma and Inkerman. Passing to
the navy, that branch of the forces also deserved the
warmest thanks of the House for the zeal and courage
with which it had assisted the sister service. The noble
Duke then adverted to the services rendered by the
medical department, sympathised with the country in
the loss it had sustained by the death of General
Cathcart and so many brave men, and alter a high panegyric
upon Marshal St. Arnaud, General Canrobert, and our
French allies, for the cordial co-operation which they
had afforded us, and the unflinching bravery which
they had displayed on every occasion, concluded
by moving resolutions of the following purport;
that thanks be given to Field-Marshal Lord Raglan,
"for the energy and distinguished ability with which
he has conducted the operations of her Majesty's forces
in the Crimea, for the brilliant and decisive victory
obtained over the enemy's army on the Alma, and the
signal defeat of a force of vastly superior numbers on
the heights of Inkerman." Also to Lieutenant-General
Sir John Burgoyne, Lieutenant-General Sir George
Brown, Lieutenant-General the Duke of Cambridge,
Lieutenant-General Sir De Lacy Evans, Lieutenant-
General Sir Richard England, Lieutenant-General the
Earl of Lucan, Major-General the Earl of Cardigan,
Major-General Yorke Scarlett, Major-General Bentinck,
Major-General Sir Colin Campbell, Major-General
Pennefather, Major-General Codrington, Major-General
Adams, Major-General Sir John Campbell, Major-
General Buller, Major-General Eyre, and Major-General
Torrens; and to the other officers. And the House
expressed its high acknowledgment of the "distinguished
discipline, valour, and exertions "of the non-commissioned
officers and privates; with thanks to be
communicated. Thanks were also voted to Vice-Admiral
Dundas, Rear-Admiral Sir Edmund Lyons, and the
other officers of the fleet; and the services of the
seamen and marines were highly approved of and
acknowledged. In separate resolutions, thanks were
voted to General Canrobert, General Bosquet, and
Admiral Hamelin, for their gallant and successful
co-operation with her Majesty's forces in the Crimea.
The resolutions were seconded by the Earl of Derby,
and supported by the Earl ot Hardwicke, Lord Hardinge,
Lord Malmesbury, Lord Gough, and Lord Colchester.

The motion for going into committee on the
Foreigners' Enlistment Bill led to a debate and a
division. At the commencement, the Duke of
NEWCASTLE explained, that on re-examining the bill, he
discovered that it might be converted to the purpose of
employing the foreign force within the United Kingdom
as a substitute for the British force. Practically, no
possible government in this country could use such a
power; it was not intended, and the words implying
the power should be struck out, while a direct
prohibition should be inserted in the bill. The sole object of
the measure is to enlist and enrol foreign troops, and to
despatch them to the seat of war. The numerical limit,
15,000, had been copied from the act of 1806; but if
there are any objections to that number, he will alter it
to 10,000.—The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, drawing a
distinction between the support of the war and the
support of ministers,—reminding the House that he was
the oldest supporter of the war, and that he had fatigued
the peers with his constant references to it,—censured
the slovenly and careless manner in which ministers
treat measures for the military service of the country,
making it a matter of indifference in the present case
whether a force should be 10,000 or 15,000. He reminded
the House of his propositions in 1853 to increase
the Indian force, as a precautionary step in preparation
for the impending war, and to strengthen the force at
home. The rejection of those constitutional measures
now forced them to supersede the constitutional principles
of the country. Government has sacrificed the two
great principles of success in war—secrecy and expedition.
He admired the capacities of ministers for civil
administration, but had no confidence in them for war.
He had always doubted the probability that Lord
Aberdeen would succeed in a thing he so thoroughly
hated as carrying on a war. Her Majesty's ministers
are extremely clever gentlemen; they all possess an
extraordinary capacity for making good speeches
of extraordinary length. The only exception is
his noble friend at the head of the government;
in that respect, if not in any other, he is the ablest
minister who ever sat upon those benches. The
want of the cabinet is the absence of great
commanding ability. The presence of so many very nearly
equal persons impedes instead of facilitating public
business. The ballot is an open question amongst them:
perhaps (he said) there is no measure that would so
much tend to strengthen them, and to strengthen them
especially for the transaction of public business, as the
expulsion, by ballot, of one-third of their number. It
is a matter of perfect indifference who go. I do not
think that it signifies one rush to the public, so equal
are they; but I am quite sure that the remaining two-
thirds would conduct the business of the country a very
great deal better than it is conducted at present.—The
remainder of the debate consisted of renewed attacks
upon ministers, by Lord HARDWICKE, Lord DERBY,
and others.—Lord WODEHOUSE, Lord GRANVILLE, and
the Duke of ARGYLL spoke for ministers.—On a
division, the motion for going into committee was
carried by 55 to 43. In committee, the clauses, as
amended, were agreed to; and the report was ordered
to be brought up with a view to the third reading.

In reply to a question put by the Marquis of CLANRICARDE
as to the Conduct of Austria in the Principalities,
the Earl of CLARENDON made a statement. At
the time when the expedition to the Crimea was
meditated, General Hess proposed operations in concert
with the allies; but he was informed that the allies
intended to proceed against Sebastopol. Austria not
being in a condition to attack Russia single-handed,
gave up her own plan of co-operation, augmented her
forces on the frontier, and strategetically compelled the
Russians to evacuate the Principalities. With respect
to their occupation by Austria, the British Government
had objected to it, unless with the consent of the
Sultan; and advised the Sultan not to accede to any
demand for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from
Wallachia. The Austrian Government gave the fullest
assurances that no exclusive occupation of the
Principalities was intended: nevertheless, hindrances were
thrown in the way of Omar Pasha. Against these the
French and British Governments made strong and
energetic remonstrances; whereupon the Austrian
Government explained that the officers had acted
contrary to and in excess of their instructions; and
fresh orders were sent by telegraph. It appeared that
Omar Pasha had no fixed plan. A mixed commission,
consisting of the Austrian, French, Turkish, and British
Ambassadors at Vienna, is now sitting to receive reports
from Omar Pasha and the French and English Consuls,
with summary powers to settle disputes.

On Monday, December 18, on the motion for the third
reading of the Foreigners Enlistment Bill, the Earl of
ELLENBOROUGH said, that as the bill now stood, it
would go down to the House of Commons with the
single alteration of 10,000 for 15,000 men. His objections
to the principle of the bill remained the same. If the
government wanted troops to hold in reserve, let it
appeal boldly to the people of England, who would come
forward in numbers to be drilled and disciplined, but not
to the people of Germany; and, above all, let the war be
conducted on true military principles, for otherwise
our failure of success would not only be disappointing