. . .

The upshot was that the committee accepted the resignations of Mr. Landells and Dr. Beckler, and expressed their entire approbation of the conduct of Mr. Burke.

The following extract from the Melbourne leading journal, the “Argus,”—­and with the view therein expressed all the other newspapers coincided—­shows pretty clearly the state of public opinion on the question:—­

Whatever may be the interest attached to the communications respecting the Victorian Exploring Expedition, as read before the committee of the Royal Society, there can be little doubt but that the judgment pronounced on Mr. Landells remains unaltered.  He deserted his leader on the eve of the fight; and such an act, so subversive of all discipline, and so far from the thoughts of the smallest drummer-boy, renders all explanations contemptible.  In the present instance, Mr. Landells’ explanations make his act the more inexcusable.  He is still of opinion that the camels are indispensable to the safety of the party, and that he is indispensable to the safety of the camels.  The inference is, therefore, that he knowingly left the party to perish.  Indeed, we should not at all enter into an examination of Mr. Landells’ letter, but that it may enable us to form some opinion as to the prospects of the expedition itself, and as to the suitability of Mr. Burke for its leadership.

The charges brought against Mr. Burke by his late lieutenant, comprise almost everything that a commander should not be guilty of.  His acts of commission and omission comprehend everything that a bad general could possibly commit or omit, and Mr. Landells winds up his bad qualities by asserting that he “cultivates the spy system,” and treats his men like a parcel of “convicts.”  Not only is he “ungentlemanly” to his officers and “interfering with the best interests of the party”—­not only has he “displayed such a want of judgment, candour, and decision;” but he has also shown, in addition to these and many other shortcomings, “such an entire absence of any and every quality which should characterize him as its leader, as has led to the conviction in my own mind that under his leadership the expedition will be attended by the most disastrous results.”

But in this matter we are not left to decide between Mr. Landells’ account and Mr. Burke’s account.  Mr. Wills, the third officer, may be taken as an impartial observer, and his statement, a private communication to the head of the department to which he lately belonged, Professor Neumayer, is free from any suspicion of toadyism.  From it we may find abundant reason for the conduct which Mr. Landells calls “strange.”  If Mr. Burke was restless at nights, hasty in the day, and apparently undecided what course to pursue, we have from this account of the matter only to wonder that he managed to bear with Mr. Landells so long as he did.  Here the rage is all on Mr. Landells’ side.  “Mr. Landells then jumped up in a