who was responsible. Mr. Stafford had, however,
brought the subject forward in the absence of any
member connected with the war department, and
without notice, so that it was impossible for any
member of the government to be prepared with
a satisfactory explanation. He could say, nevertheless,
that arrangements had been made, and were making,
for supplying the deficiencies at the hospitals, and
the government would receive any communications
on the subject from Mr. Stafford with readiness
and thankfulness. With regard to Dr. M'Grigor, the
course taken by Mr. Stafford was neither more nor less
than an individual member of parliament taking into
his hands the duty of the executive government—a
practice which would lead to injurious consequences.—
Mr. WHITESIDE remarked upon the composure with
which members of government spoke of the condition of
our perishing army and of the horrors of the hospitals.
—Colonel KNOX referred to a letter he had received
from the camp, which described the sickness as most
dreadful. "We are losing," the writer stated, "1000
a–week, and the strength of the British army is not
more than 11,000 men." He thought Mr. Gladstone's
lecture to Mr. Stafford was ill–timed and misplaced.—
Colonel DUNNE did not believe that, of the 11,000 men,
more than 2000 were fit to go into action.—Sir W.
MOLESWORTH said, the statement that the army was
losing 1000 a–week was altogether incorrect. The
government were prepared to substantiate the statement
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, including all
arms and all ranks, and reckoning the auxiliary naval
force, the army in the Crimea amounted to 30,000 men,
according to the last returns received by|the government.
—The house then went into committee, and a vote of
£1,200,000 on account of the ordnance service was
agreed to, after a short discussion.

On Thursday, February 8th, the house in committee
of supply, voted the sum of £1,615,600 on Account of a
Navy Estimate, in excess of expenditure for 1854–55.
—The report of the committee having been brought up,
Mr. W. WILLIAMS inveighed against the gross
mismanagement and waste of money in the departments of
administration in the Crimea, whereby he considered
that the nation was lowered and disgraced. The report
was agreed to.

Lord J. RUSSELL obtained leave to bring in his
bill for the Promotion of Education in England and
Wales. In the present state of the government he
would not go into the question, except to say that he
introduced it as a private member, and he would leave
the government afterwards to deal with it as they
might think proper.

Mr. BUTT called the attention of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to the statement he made some time ago,
that the effective force of the Army before Sebastopol
amounted, in round numbers, to 30,000 men. He wished
the right hon. gentleman would verify that statement,
as his own information led him to the conclusion that
the effective force did not amount to 12,000 men.—
Mr. S. WORTLEY called the attention of honourable
gentlemen to the responsibility attending their making
statements—exaggerated as he believed them—of the
weakness of the army. There was no advantage to the
public, and there might be much mischief, in such
exposures. No doubt, the letters from the Crimea spoke
with pity of the state of the army, and especially of the
sufferings of the soldiers; but he had yet to learn that
there was one letter received breathing that spirit of
despondency which, to the shame of the house, was often
heard within these walls. These statements could only
tempt the Russians to attack our troops; and he believed,
the only reason they did not do so was that the Russians
had suffered more than ourselves. Even the French
army, which was held up as so superior to ours, was
perhaps only believed to be so because no information
was received as to its condition. He put it to the good
sense of the house to discountenance these conversations
in future.—Lord J. RUSSELL said part of the
discrepancy arose from this, that the official statement
referred to every individual sent to the Crimea, including
every commissioned and non–commissioned officer, the
cavalry, artillery, orderly men, &c, while the private
accounts of 12,000 effective men being under arms
referred only to the number of bayonets, and excluding
all the parties he before enumerated. He added that
yesterday he met a civilian who had just returned from
the Crimea, who informed him that, though there were
many sick, yet the great body of the army still seemed
ready to undertake any duty. He defended Lord Raglan
from the charges of indifference to the comforts of
his soldiers, which had been brought against him by a
ribald press, and hoped that gallant nobleman would
rise superior to them all. He drew a favourable augury
for the country from the fact that Lord Palmerston had
accepted the office of prime minister, and that his friend
Lord Panmure had accepted the post of war minister.
That nobleman, he was sure, would adopt every
improvement really deserving the name, while he would
reject innovations that had nothing but their novelty to
recommend them.—Mr. V. HARCOURT said the
private letters he had received were of a very different
complexion from those referred to by hon. gentlemen
opposite. They spoke of hardships, no doubt, but they
also spoke with hope and confidence, and the hardships
were not so great as those spoken of in some of the published
statements.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
confirmed the explanation given by Lord John
Russell of the discrepancy existing between the different
published accounts. But he could assure the house that
in the statement he made a few nights ago he did not
include a single Turk, nor a single sick or wounded man.
He sympathised with the strong feelings entertained by
honourable members as to the state of our army in the
Crimea, and he did not impute to them factious motives;
but he entreated them to use more caution in their
statements, which were calculated to do much mischief out
of doors.—Mr. G. DUNDAS said he had lately returned
from the Crimea, and he took a more hopeful view of
the army than some honourable gentlemen. Many
supplies had come to the army when he was there, and
more had gone since.

On Friday, February 9th, Mr. CRAUFORD inquired
whether the Board of Admiralty had Censured and
Dismissed Admiral Napier, and what instructions had been
given to the gallant admiral in reference to his opera–
tions. He asked this question in consequence of a speech
lately made by Sir C. Napier at the Mansion–house.—
Admiral BERKLEY criticised in severe terms the conduct
of Admiral Napier, and denied the whole of his statements.
The gallant admiral had not been censured or
dismissed; he was not goaded on to attack any particular
fortress—had not been restricted from attacking any
fortresses he pleased—and he was, moreover, told that
the country would accept everything he could perform.
The Admiralty left him perfectly unfettered in his
command. He thought the speech of Admiral Napier would
have a very bad effect upon the junior officers in the
service, and was in every other respect much to be
regretted.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was
a notice on the paper that the hon. member for Richmond
would ask him, whether he had any objection to
lay on the table of the house a copy of the official papers
on which he founded his Statement respecting the Army
in the Crimea, that, exclusive of sick at Balaklava and
elsewhere, there was an effective British force of 28,200
men, independently of 3,000 or 4,000 marines and marine
brigade. His answer to that question was, that there
had always been a great objection, founded upon general
principles, to publish statements as to the distribution of
the military force, and such an objection was entertained
on this occasion. At the same time he begged to say
that if the hon. member for Richmond, or any other hon.
member, desired information for the satisfaction of his
own mind, he was at liberty to have the fullest access to
it.—The house then adjourned till Friday the 16th inst.

On Friday, the 16th, Lord PALMERSTON stated the
Circumstances of his Appointment as Head of the
Government. It had already been correctly stated by
the Earl of Derby that that nobleman, when commissioned
by the Queen to form a government, offered him
a seat in his cabinet, making the same offer to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Secretary
to the Colonies. I stated (said Lord Palmerston,)
as was correctly stated by that noble lord, that those
habits of long personal friendship which co–operation in