In moving that the house should adjourn till Friday
evening, he added that an adjournment for a longer
interval would have been proposed, but that Sir De
Lacy Evans had intimated his intention of taking his
seat that night, when he would receive in person the
thanks of tbe Commons, expressed by the Speaker, for
his services in the Crimea.

On Friday, February 2nd, Lieutenant–General Sir
DE LACY EVANS entered the house in full uniform. The
whole of the members present remained standing as he
passed up the house to his seat, and cheered him warmly.
—The SPEAKER addressed him, and after an eloquent
eulogy, delivered to him the unanimous thanks of the
house for his zealous, intrepid, and distinguished services.
—Sir DE LACY EVANS assured the house that he felt
most deeply the very high honour that had just been
conferred on him. He thanked the Speaker for alluding
to his former military career, in which, though his
services had not been recognised by the house, yet he
had then a more difficult and a more intricate duty to
perform. He then proceeded to complain of Lord John
Russell, that in moving the vote of thanks to the army
he suppressed almost all allusion to the services of the
Second Division, which he commanded, though in three
general engagements—at Alma, on the 26th of October,
and likewise at lnkermann—the Second Division bore the
brunt of the battle for hours together. The noble lord,
he said in his theatrical sort of description of the battle
of the Alma, reminded me of the opinion expressed by
the witty Sidney Smith, whom we all know declared
that the noble lord believed himself capable of
commanding the Channel fleet. It is evident that he
considers himself a better judge of these transactions
than Lord Raglan. He described the battle rather
minutely. He stated that the two divisions which
exclusively won the battle were the First and Light
Divisions. Now Lord Raglan stated in his despatch
that the two leading divisions were the First and
Second. It is clear that the noble lord, by his total
oblivion of their services, placed that division in a
position which might reflect most grievously upon them.
He went on again to speak of the two lesser actions of
the 25th and 26th October. He gave all due credit and
honour to the gallantry displayed on the 25th October,
but he passed over the much more successful action
which took place on the subsequent day. That action
was however, deemed worthy of the highest approbation
by her Majesty, of the particular approbation of the
noble lord commanding that army, and of the despatch
to the French government by the general–in–chief
commanding their forces. But the noble lord in
his speech took no notice of that battle. In reference
to the battle of Inkermann, in which the Second
Divison was first engaged, as in every other, not the
slightest reference was made to that division, which
suffered so severely, and had for a whole hour to bear
the brunt of an attack of 20,000 men. That division
was the only one engaged prominently in three general
actions, and I think that division and myself have some
reason to complain of the noble lord in his official
statement to this house. Sir De Lacy concluded by saying
he did not state this on his own account—it was on
account of the gallant officers and men whom he
commanded; and he felt deeply grateful to the Speaker and
to the house for the honour which was now done to
them. He should hope to say a few words on the state
of the army, but he felt that this was not the proper
time; other opportunities would arise for doing so.—
Lord PALMERSTON moved that the address of the
Speaker, together with so much of Sir De Lacy Evans's
reply as related to the expression of his thanks should
be entered on the records of the house.—Mr. WALPOLE
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.

On Monday, February 5, Admiral BERKELEY, in reply
to a question from Mr. Deedes, stated that the Reports
of Waste and Disorder in Balaklava were much
Exaggerated. The masters of many transports had sent
letters, from some of which he read extracts, expressing
their satisfaction at the arrangements made in that port.
According to the latest accounts, he added, the pre–
existing state of confusion had been rectified, and the
harbour was now in excellent order.

Lord J. RUSSELL, when an adjournment was
moved, took occasion to enter into a further Explanation
of his Resignation. He could not refrain from
noticing a publication of what was stated to be a speech
of the Duke of Newcastle, made elsewhere, unless he
were content to allow what he thought grave errors to
become established and settled in the public mind.
That speech, he thought, placed the question too much
as a dispute between himself and the Duke of Newcastle.
It appeared to me (he said) at the end of last
session, that the composition of the government was
such that, not relying upon party support, it did not
create any great attachment or enthusiasm, and frequent
defeats attended the propositions that were made;
but, in ordinary circumstances, I should have thought
these defeats a sufficient reason to allow me to state to
the Earl of Aberdeen that it was not advisable that
such a government should continue, and that I could
no longer attempt to conduct the business of the
government in the House of Commons. But there was
a great question then pending—a great question which
is still pending—namely, that of the prosecution of the
war. The house gave its confidence to the Government
upon that subject; and I stated, and I thought I
was justified in stating, that so long as I thought the
war would be prosecuted in a vigorous and efficient
manner we should be justified in holding office in
spite of the defeats that I have mentioned. There is
another consideration of a general nature which I wish
to place before the house—namely, that it is of the
utmost consequence in whose hands the conduct of the
war is placed. My belief is, that if Lord North had
conducted the seven years' war, we should not have
had to boast of the conquest of Canada; and that if
Lord Chatham had conducted the war of American
Independence, we should not have had to deplore the
capitulations of Saratoga and Yorktown, and to behold
the triumphant fleet of an enemy riding in the Channel.
Of so much consequence is it in whose hands the
conduct of war is placed. But if this be so, the house, I
am sure, will not think that it was unreasonable in me,
being the principal member of the Government to answer
in this house for the conduct of the war, not relying
upon measures of internal improvement,—upon which
we had the undoubted confidence of the country—you
will not I think consider it was an unreasonable anxiety
on my part that I should watch with the utmost care the
prosecution of the war. As to the particular points in
dispute. First, the Duke of Newcastle objected to the
statement that there was a "strong wish" on his part to
hold the office of secretary of state for the war
department. But several members of the cabinet had so
stated it to him; and Lord Aberdeen's letter
where he said, that "no objection whatever was made
to the choice of the war department by the duke,"
made the matter very clear. True, the Duke of Newcastle
declared himself ready to hold either or neither
of the offices; but Lord Aberdeen, who had great
confidence in the duke's abilities, proposed to leave the
choice of departments to himself. Had Lord Aberdeen
requested him to take the war department, he
would have felt it his duty to accept it, though with
great reluctance, it being totally alien to his habits of
business. Next, it was said that he had imputed errors
to the Duke of Newcastle with respect to the 97th
Regiment. Now he had mentioned those things
to show the inefficiency of the system. Not that he
felt that the Duke of Newcastle was unfit for the war
department, but that either the prime minister should
have constantly exerted himself to hurry on preparations,
or that the war minister should have been a
person of extraordinary authority and energy: had
the prime minister been a man whose persuasions and
dispositions led him to hasten on with eagerness the
preparations and arrangements for war, the Duke of
Newcastle would have been perfectly competent for the
department which he held. In conformity with that
opinion, he had written to the duke, saying, "you have
done all you could do,"—meaning, that having been
overruled by departments he could not do more. With
regard to the statement that he had, on the 10th of
December, changed his opinion on the subject, Lord
John explained, that there were two questions, one
relating to the constitution of the war department