NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

IN the HOUSE OF LORDS, on Thursday, March 1, Earl
GRANVILLE, in reply to the Earl of Carnarvon, said that
the loyal Addresses from the Colonies Respecting the
War had been brought under the notice of the Queen,
and had received most gracious answers.

On Friday, March 2, the Earl of CLARENDON
informed the house of the Death of the Emperor of Russia.
He said,—My lords, I feel it my duty to communicate
to your lordships the contents of a telegraphic despatch
I received half-an-hour ago from her Majesty's minister
at the Hague. It is as follows—"The Emperor Nicholas
died this morning, at one o'clock, of pulmonic apoplexy,
after an attack of influenza." I have also received a
despatch from her Majesty's minister at Berlin, stating
that the Emperor of Russia died at twelve o'clock.
About an hour before these despatches arrived, I
received accounts from Berlin, from my noble friend
Lord John Russell, in which he stated that the emperor
was on the point of death, and had already taken leave
of his family. I apprehend, my lords, although this
event occurred so short a time ago as between twelve
and one o'clock this morning, that there can be no
doubt as to its authenticity. Under these circumstances,
as this unexpected event must exercise so important and
immediate an influence on the war, on the negotiations
for peace that are now going on, and possibly on the
policy of Russia, I think my noble friend will agree
with me that it might be attended with much inconvenience
if he brought forward his motion this evening.
I therefore trust that he will not, on public grounds,
object to the request I take the liberty of making.—
Lord LYNDHURST at once assented, saying—After the
statement of my noble friend, it is impossible that I can
proceed with my motion: but I shall not withdraw it,
I shall only postpone it. Unless I find, as the result of
the negotiations said to be going on at Berlin, that the
Prussian court accedes to the treaty of the 2nd of
December, or to an equivalent treaty with France and
this country, I shall bring forward the motion of which
I have given notice, on a future occasion.

The Earl of LUCAN Brought His Case Before the
House, by reading the correspondence respecting his
recall at considerable length, but without any comment.

On Monday, March 5, LORD MONTEAGLE, in moving
for correspondence respecting Education in India, called
attention to the minutes recently issued by the late
president of the Board of Control. The object of his
remarks was to show that the natives will be subjected
to great disadvantages under the new system of testing
the proficiency of candidates for the civil service by
marks.—The motion was agreed to.

On Tuesday, March 6, the Earl of LUCAN again
Brought his Case Before the House. He read the
following despatch from Lord Raglan, which, he
complained, had not been laid on the table before, and of
the existence of which he had not been aware:—

"Before Sebastopol, Dec. 16, 1854.

"My Lord Duke—I regret to be under the necessity
of forwarding to your grace the copy of a letter which
has been addressed to me by Lieutenant-General the
Earl of Lucan. When I received it I placed it in the
hands of Brigadier-General Airey, the quartermaster
general, and requested him to suggest to his lordship to
withdraw the communication, considering that it would
not lead to his advantage in the slightest degree; but,
Lord Lucan having declined to take the step recommended,
I have but one course to pursue—that of laying
the letter before your grace, and submitting to you such
observations upon it as I am bound in justice to myself
to put you in possession of. Lieutenant-General the
Earl of Lucan complains that in my despatch to your
grace of the 28th of October, I stated that, 'from some
misconception of the instruction to advance, the
lieutenant-general considered that he was bound to attack
at all hazards.' His lordship conceives this statement
to be a grave charge, and an imputation reflecting
seriously upon his professional character, and he deems
it to be incumbent upon him to state the facts, which he
cannot doubt must clear him from what he respectfully
submits is altogether unmerited. He has referred
to my despatch, and, far from being willing to alter
one word of it, I am prepared to declare that
not only did the lieutenant-general misconceive
the written instruction that was sent him, but that
there was nothing in that instruction which called on
him to attack at all hazards, or to undertake the
operation which led to such a brilliant display of
gallantry on the part of the light brigade, and, unhappily,
at the same time occasioned such lamentable casualties
in every regiment composing it. In his lordship's letter
he is wholly silent with respect to a previous order
which had been sent him. He merely says that the
cavalry was formed to support an intended movement
of the infantry. That previous order was in the
following words:—'The cavalry to advance and take
advantage of any opportunity to recover the heights.
They will be supported by infantry, which has been
ordered to advance on two fronts.' This order did not
seem to me to have been attended to, and therefore it
was that the instruction by Captain Nolan was forwarded
to him. Lord Lucan must have read the first order with
very little attention, for he now states that cavalry was
formed to support the infantry, whereas he was told by
brigadier-general Airey 'that the cavalry was to advance
and take advantage of any opportunity to recover the
heights, and that they would be supported by infantry'
—not that they were to support the infantry; and so
little had he sought to do as he had been directed, that
he had no men in advance of his main body, made no
attempt to regain the heights, and was so little informed
of the position of the enemy, that he asked Captain
Nolan 'where and what he was to attack, as neither
enemy nor guns were in sight.' This, your grace will
observe, is the lieutenant-general's own admission.
The result of his inattention to the first order was, that
it never occurred to him that the second was connected
with, and a repetition of the first. He viewed it only
as a positive order to attack at all hazards (the word
'attack,' be it observed, was not made use of in
general Airey's note) an unknown enemy, whose
position, numbers, and composition he was wholly
unacquainted with, and whom, in consequence of a
previous order, he had taken no step whatever to watch.
I undoubtedly had no intention that he should make
such an attack—there was nothing in the instruction to
require it—and therefore I conceive I was fully justified
in stating to your grace what was the exact truth—that
the charge arose from the misconception of an order for
the advance, which Lord Lucan considered obliged him
to attack at all hazards. I wish I could say, my lord