purpose of explaining and defending the conduct of Lord
Derby in making overtures of coalition to certain
members of the Aberdeen cabinet. He went on to criticise
the pleas advanced by Lord Palmerston for the abandonment
of the proposed committee of inquiry. He ridiculed
the reasons which the noble lord had given for rescinding
their vote on the appointment of a committee, and
declared his determination to persevere in the inquiry;
and intimated that, if a dissolution were the consequence
of the house persisting in that inquiry, he, for one,
would desire no better question on which to appear
before his constituents.—Mr. ROEBUCK, saw no ground
in what had been stated by Lord Palmerston for
withdrawing his committee, and he would persevere in
moving their names on Thursday next.—Mr. Muntz, Mr. T.
Duncombe, Mr. Horsman, Mr. E. Ball, and Mr. Liddell
expressed their determination to persevere in the inquiry.
—Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR complained that Mr. Layard
had been excluded from the administration in deference
to Admiral Dundas, and of other short–comings in the
composition of the government. He had little faith in
the commissions to be appointed, which would end, he
feared, as the report on the state of the harbour at
Balaklava had ended—in the reports of the men who were
most interested in the continuance of the abuse. He
was still in favour of the inquiry.

Captain DUNCOMBE said before the house went into
committee of supply he wished to ask the First Lord of
the Admiralty for an explanation of the Position in
which the late Commander of the Baltic Fleet, Sir
Charles Napier, stood with reference to the Admiralty,
and also as to the charges which that gallant officer had
brought against the Board, and against the right hon.
baronet who presided over that Board, more particularly?
—Sir J. GRAHAM stated that he had intended,
before moving the navy estimates, to have offered a few
observations on the subject referred to. At the same
time he should not attempt to refute the charges brought
against himself by the gallant admiral, because to do so
explicitly and fully would necessitate the production of
correspondence which would prejudice our position in
the Baltic, and be detrimental to the public service. It
was quite true, as Sir C. Napier had stated, that in the
first instance some of the ships were badly manned and
worse disciplined, but every exertion had been made in
the appointment of officers to the fleet, with a view to
improving the discipline, and a better system was arrived
at. Soon after taking the command, Sir C. Napier
complained to the Admiralty of the want of a better disciplined
body of men, but he never specified the names of
the ships in which that defect existed, although solicited
by the Board to do so. With regard to the speech he
(Sir J. Graham) made when Sir C. Napier took command
of the Baltic fleet, he would only say he was not
likely to use the same language upon any future
occasion. He trusted that he had become more prudent
since then. With regard to the question of the. hon. and
gallant member opposite, as to whether Sir C. Napier
had been censured or dismissed, he (Sir James Graham)
could only reiterate what his gallant friend (Admiral
Berkeley) had already told the house, namely, that
there was no foundation for such assertions. But the
Admiralty had felt bound to make strong comments
upon certain aspersions contained in some part of the
gallant Admiral's correspondence with the Board, and
which they thought were neither courteous nor becoming.
The gallant Admiral was not dismissed, but at the
close of the expedition he was simply ordered to leave
his flag, for which course there were many precedents.
In conclusion, Sir J. Graham said he would willingly
allow Sir C. Napier to proclaim himself a hero, but as
he was not disposed to enable the gallant Admiral to
dub himself a martyr, it was not his intention to advise
the Crown to take any further notice of the matter.

The house then went into a committee of supply,
and Sir J. GRAHAM moved the Naval Estimates.
He recapitulated the various items, and explained the
nature and the cause of the excess in the charges
appearing under almost every head. The net result went
to show an increase in the number of men engaged,
comprising 6000 seamen and 500 marines, and raising the
total personnel of the navy to 70,000 hands. The gross
expenditure amounted to something more than ten
millions, and exhibited an enhancement of only £299,000
beyond the outlay of the previous year. Respecting the
arrangements for the ensuing campaign, the First Lord
stated that difficulties had been found to arise in
manœuvring mixed squadrons composed of sailing
vessels and steamers, and it was therefore determined to
send no sailing ships to the Baltic this year, but he hoped
to have twenty ships of war, all propelled by steam, in
readiness for service in that quarter by the end of the
next six weeks. Detailing the measures adopted to
increase the force of gunboats and mortar vessels, and for
the construction of floating batteries, Sir J. Graham
declared that provision was making, not only to repair
any amount of ordinary dilapidation; but also to meet
the consequences of possible casualty or disaster.—After
a prolonged and miscellaneous discussion, the several
votes on the estimates were agreed to, as was a
subsequent vote of £5,181,000 for the transport service.

On Monday, February 19th, a debate of some length
arose upon the Three London Dock Bills, which stood
for a second reading, but which were thrown out on a
division by a very large majority.

Among a great variety of questions put to the
government, Mr. C. BERKLEY inquired whether it
was true or not that Lord Lucan had been Recalled from
the command of the cavalry in the Crimea?—Lord
PALMERSTON replied that it was true, and that it was
in consequence of differences between Lord Lucan and
the Commander of the Forces, which rendered it
impossible for them to act together.

On the first order of the day for going into committee
of supply, Mr. LAYARD called attention to the Condition
of the Country, which was supposed, he said, to be
standing almost upon the brink of ruin. He adverted
first to the composition of the government, to which
was to be confided the conduct of one of the greatest
wars ever intrusted to any administration. That
government was almost identical with the last; it
behoved parliament therefore to consider what the late
government had done, and how far those members who
remained were worthy of its confidence. After glancing
at the alleged deficiencies of the late administration in
regard to their diplomacy, the blockade of the Russian
ports, and the foreign enlistment act, he observed
that what was proposed by the present ministry was not
to recall incompetent agents, but to send out a series of
commissions; what the country, however, wanted, was
not commissions, but men, or a man, fit for the emergency.
Among the prospective measures enumerated
by Lord Palmerston, nothing was said about the Horse
Guards; yet, unless the government were determined
to remodel that branch of the military administration,
and to do away with the system of favouritism, the
country would not be satisfied. Mr. Layard insisted
strongly upon the latter point, and called upon the
government, if they desired to save the remnant of our
gallant men in the Crimea, to send thither a man of
vigour, who would, in defiance of family considerations,
cut down abuses with a knife. In spite of the great
reputation of the present first minister, the people of
England, he thought, would not be content with what
he had done; they were now quiet, but a storm
might arise, and unless the government did something
not only they, but others, would be shipwrecked.—
General PEEL said he had voted against Mr. Roebuck's
motion, not because he denied the evils in question, or
because he treated the motion as a vote of non–confidence
in the government, but because he had no confidence
in the tribunal, believing a committee of that
house to be the worst tribunal for trying such a question,
and that the causes of the evils which had befallen our
army were so evident that no committee was required
to discover them. The war had been entered upon with
inadequate means; with such means more had been
attempted than any army could accomplish.—Lord
PALMERSTON was, he said, the last to find fault with
any man who blamed any part of our administrative
system, but he protested against the language he had
heard from Mr. Layard, who had talked of the degradation
of this country and of its becoming the laughing–
stock of Europe. He lamented the sufferings of the
army, and he admitted that those sufferings had been
aggravated by want of management on the part of those