but fatal.—The Marquis of Lansdowne characterised
the objections to the measure as phantoms which have
been dispelled by the light of investigation. The object
of the bill (he said) was to extend in a very slight degree
the prerogative of her Majesty, and to bring at once into
the field a body of disciplined troops, who would, no
doubt, fight as gallantly as the victors of Alma and
Inkermann.—The Earl of DERBY denied that the
arguments used by the opponents of the measure were
absurd, or that the objections raised against it on
constitutional grounds were deserving of the ridicule
thrown upon them by Lord Lansdowne. It was
humiliating and degrading at the outset of the war to
find that our own forces were insufficient to carry it on.
No one had ever said that it was degrading for British
soldiers to fight side by side with foreigners; but it
certainly was degrading to be obliged to confess that we
could not fight our battles without foreign assistance.
He concluded by recommending our Indian army as a
source from which our army in the East might be
judiciously strengthened.—After some further discussion,
in which Lords Hardinge, Grey, Malmesbury, and
Granville took part, the bill was read a third time
the fifth clause, relating to the enforcement of discipline,
having been struck out by the Duke of Newcastle,

On Tuesday, December 19, the Duke of GRAFTON
asked whether it was the intention of her Majesty to
appoint some especial day to be kept holy for the purpose
of returning Thanks to God for his Divine Protection
during the War, or to order an especial service on some
sabbath day for the same purpose?—The Earl of
ABERDEEN thought that, under existing circumstances, no
special interference on the part of the government was
necessary.

The Militia Bill was brought up from the Commons
and read a first time.

On Thursday, December 21, the Foreigners
Enlistment Bill was read a second time, after the Earl of
DERBY had repeated his objections. It then passed
through committee, the standing order having been
suspended for that purpose.

On Friday, December 22, the Militia Bill was read a
third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, December 12.—
The address, in answer to Her Majesty's speech,
was moved by Mr. H. HERBERT and seconded by
Mr. E. LEVESON GOWER.—Sir J. PAKINGTON
expressed his satisfaction at being unable to take any
serious exception to the address, and trusted that
amongst every party of the House there would
prevail a degree of cordial unanimity such as never
before existed in any popular assembly. Like the
opposition speakers in the other House, Sir John Pakington
condemned the government for want of foresight in the
conduct of the war, and particularly criticised the
operations in the Baltic, respecting which he thought
that explanations were due to the public.—Sir R.
PEEL was of opinion that an inquiry into the
character and conduct of the war would not be
distasteful to the government, and he saw no reason
to despair of the result of the first campaign. It
was quite true that the scourges of pestilence and
unfavourable weather had made great havoc with the
troops, but still he believed that no one in that house
would be unpatriotic enough to give way to a spirit of
despondency because those casualties which usually
attended warlike operations had in their effects
outstripped our calculations. He thought that some
explanations were due from the government respecting
the operations of the Baltic and Black Sea fleets, as to
which much disappointment, if not dissatisfaction,
prevailed in the country. An unjust slur had been thrown
on the character of Admiral Napier. He thought the
gallant admiral had exercised a very wise discretion in
the course he had pursued.—Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT,
the Secretary at War, replied to the charges brought
forward by Sir John Pakington. He went over much
the same ground as that occupied by the Duke of
Newcastle in reply to Lord Derby in the other house—
the policy of the defence of the Balkan, the invasion of
the Crimea, the transport of the expedition thither, the
cholera at Varna, and the reinforcements which at
different times had been forwarded, and were still on
their way to the army. After making a statement
similar to that of the Duke of Newcastle respecting
the medical stores at Scutari, he turned to the
materiel of which the army was composed, and pointed
to the good effects of free enlistment, by which
40,000 men had been called into readiness. We were
getting men exceedingly fast, but not faster than was
required, because care was taken that they should be
made thoroughly skilful in the use of their arms, and
Lord Hardinge would not allow a single man to go out
until he was thoroughly practised in the use of the Minié
rifle. In spite of all the disasters that had happened
since the commencement of the war, could it be said
that we had accomplished nothing? I want to know
(exclaimed Mr. Herbert) whether at any period in the
history of England her military character stood higher
than it does at present? I want to know what effect
the valour of our battalions has had upon the public
mind of Europe? Nay, what effect has it produced
upon the enemy themselves? What effect must it
have upon the public mind of Russia—upon their own
army, when they think of the manner in which they
were repulsed, aud their strong fortified positions taken?
The critics who say our men were exposed unnecessarily
at Alma, or that it ought to have been gained at once,
can never have studied the map of the country, or they
would have seen that the line to the right of the
Russians on that occasion was so steep that it was not
thought worth defending by the Russian commander.
But had these critics' advice been followed at Alma,
nothing could have served the purpose of the enemy
better, because it would have caused a separation
between the English and the French armies, while the
Russians would have been admirably placed as against
both in the centre. It has been urged against Lord
Raglan, also, that he ought to have assaulted Sebastopol
immediately after the march to Balaklava. I do not
know that we who sit here are good judges of the noble
Lord's conduct—but this I know, that the majority of
the military men of England agree in thinking that it
would have been exceedingly wrong if such a course had
been taken by Lord Raglan. Mr. Herbert concluded
by an animated eulogium on the valour of our troops at
Inkerman, and adjured the House not to despair, but
still go on making increased exertions to meet the
enemy, and give our army the means of obtaining a
perfect triumph.—Mr. LAYARD delivered at great
length his views upon the policy of the war as carried
out by the government; sharply criticising from
the beginning to the end the whole campaign both
in the Black Sea and the Baltic, and claiming
credit for having foreseen the calamities that had
followed from the line of policy adopted by government.
Touching on a variety of topics, and returning to the
same topic oftener than once, he discoursed sympathetically
on the immense difficulties which France had to
encounter in sending troops; objected that the army
had gone to Gallipoli, that it had gone to unhealthy
Varna; that it had gone to Sebastopol, and gone
without any preparation. He spoke of the rapid way in
which the Emperor of Russia had placed "one hundred
and fifty thousand" men on our flank and rear; and
ascribed it to the conduct of Austria. He denounced the
sparing of Odessa; the campaign in the Baltic. Ministers
are not alive to the magnitude of the war—not
equal to the occasion; they have no definite policy.
They have set up three new principles: they are attempting
to carry on the war on the greatest economy
principle, or getting the least done for the most money;
the greatest humanity principle which spared Odessa;
and the greatest publicity principle. These three new
principles would entail inevitable and terrible losses.
He entreated Lord John Russell, by the name he bore
as the great leader of the liberal party in this country,
to endeavour to induce her Majesty's government to
adopt a policy which perhaps might not reconcile the
conflicting opinions of a Coalition Ministry, but which
would be more in consonance with the true position
and important interests of this mighty empire.—
Colonel DUNNE charged the government with want
of skill and energy in the prosecution of the war.—