of first-rate importance on which the government had
been placed in a minority some twelve, fourteen,
sixteen, or eighteen times. In former times, when a
government had found itself placed in circumstances of
great difficulty—though a government which had been
in such frequent minorities he had never heard of—its
conduct had not been for its members to get up in that
pettish spirit which had lately been displayed in so
many instances, and to taunt the opposition with not
bringing forward motions of want of confidence. The
right hon. member proceeded to comment sarcastically
upon the weakness of the coalition and the endurance
of suffering which its members displayed.—After a
discussion of five hours, the matter terminated by the
chairman reporting progress.

On Friday, July 14, the house, in committee,
proceeded with the Bribery Bill, which was resumed at
clause 17. Upon this clause, which provided for the
appointment of the new election officers, considerable
discussion took place, and several amendments were
introduced. Originally the appointment of these
functionaries was assigned to the candidates.—Sir F. KELLY,
with the concurrence of Lord J. Russell and the Attorney-
General, transferred the power of appointment to the
returning officer, and made it annual. The creation of
this class of officers was opposed by many hon. members,
and ultimately a division was taken on the question
whether the clause should not be rejected altogether.
There appeared for the clause, 133; against, 74; majority
for, 59. On reaching clause 21, which was agreed
to after much discussion and a division, the chairman
was ordered to report progress.

The motion for going into committee on the Poor
Law Continuance (Ireland) Bill was opposed by Colonel
DUNNE, who wished to limit the further continuance of
the commission to two years instead of five. Upon a
division, the question "that the speaker leave the chair,"
was carried by a majority of 82 to 45—37. In committee
the opposition was renewed, and a second division was
taken on a motion for reporting progress, which was
negatived by 90 votes to 28—62. The bill then went
through committee.

On Monday, July 17, in a committee of supply, Lord
John RUSSELL moved for a vote for the expenses of
the new department of a Secretary of State for War.
During former wars, he remarked, the functions
discharged by the Secretary at War related principally to
the conduct of military affairs. The colonies were then
of comparatively trifling importance, and the official
business arising from them presented few points of much
complication or urgency. Now, however, the case was
different. Colonial questions furnished an amount of
occupation sufficient to monopolise the undivided attention
of a Secretary of State; and as soon as the country
was engaged in a serious war, it became obvious that
some re-distribution of the duties was absolutely
necessary. After enumerating the principle on which this
change was to be based, namely, the concentration of
control over the several departments of military organisation
under one single and responsible head, Lord J.
Russell briefly sketched some of the propositions that
had been offered for accomplishing that end, dwelt
especially upon the reasons which had led the government
to reject the plan recommended by the late Duke of
Wellington, who considered that the Master-General of
Ordnance, being necessarily best acquainted with the
military necessities of the country, would be most eligible
as chief adviser of the sovereign upon the affairs of war.
Pointing out the distinction between the military and
the political questions connected with the administration
of the army, he explained that according to the plan
now proposed by the government the former should
remain under the control of the professional chiefs, the
Commander-in-chief and Master-General of Ordnance,
who would also decide all questions relating to
promotions, patronage, and pay. The civil and political
functions would be allotted to the new Secretary of
State for War, while matters of detail would continue,
as at present, under the supervision of the Secretary at
War. The Commissariat, he added, would fall to the
Secretary of State for War; the embodied militia would
be controlled by the military chiefs, the disembodied
militia by the Home Secretary. Various changes and
improvements in detail might be hereafter accomplished,
but these must be developed in the course of time and
of experience; and little progress in that direction could
be expected at a moment like the present, when the
office was so newly constituted, and the practical business
of the war so urgent. Lord J. Russell then detailed
the internal mechanism of the new secretary's office,
described the personnel of his staff, and concluded by
moving that a sum of £17,300 should be voted to
defray the additional expenses which the change
would necessitate up to March 31, 1855.—Sir John
PAKINGTON objected to the ministerial plan which, he
said, offered a very imperfect cure for the anomalies
in the administration of military affairs.—After some
remarks from Mr. Sidney Herbert in reply to Sir John
Pakington, the vote was agreed to.

The house then went into committee on the Bribery
Bill. The consideration of this measure was resumed
at the 22nd clause, which was agreed to; as were several
succeeding clauses after considerable discussion, and
several divisions upon amendments. Clause 33 having
been readied, the chairman was  ordered to report
progress.

The third reading of the Poor-law Commission
Continuance (Ireland) Bill was opposed by Colonel DUNNE,
who moved that the period for which the commission
was to be continued should be fixed at two years instead
of five. After discussion, a division was taken on a
motion for adjourning the debate, which was negatived
by a majority of 83 to 36—47. A motion for adjourning
the house was proposed immediately afterwards, and
pressed to a division, when it was also negatived by 97
votes to 21—76.—The bill having been read a third time,
Colonel DUNNE moved, as an amendment, that the
commission should be continued only for two years. The
house divided. For the amendment, 37; against, 82—45.
The bill was then passed.

On Tuesday, July 18, Mr. G. DUNDAS moved for
copies of correspondence regarding the question between
Dr. Reid and the Board of Works relative to the ventilation
of the new Houses of Parliament. He accompanied
his motion by a variety of details, from which he
drew the conclusion that Dr. Reid had received less than
justice from the Board of Works.—Sir W. MOLESWORTH
opposed the motion, on the ground that the claims of
Dr. Reid had been already settled by arbitration. The
papers asked for would cost £1000, and be altogether
useless after all. The motion was negatived without a
division.

Mr. BOWYER moved for the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the claims of the Representatives
of the late W. Sturgeon upon the fund allotted, at
the peace of 1815, by the French government, to
compensate the losses suffered by British subjects through
the confiscation of their property.—Mr. WILSON
recapitulated the circumstances out of which the claim had
arisen, and contended the losses suffered by Mr. Sturgeon
were not caused by confiscation, his property having
been destroyed by a mob, and therefore his case did not
come within the scope of the fund which the commissioners
appointed in 1815 had to administer. A sum of
£5000 was nevertheless awarded to him as a sort of
compassionate allowance. So far from possessing any title
to further compensation, Mr. Sturgeon had therefore
already received more than he was legally justified in
claiming.—The motion was negatived by 40 against 39.

Admiral WALCOTT renewed his motion for a select
committee to inquire into the Claims of Capt. Dickenson
respecting the property rescued by him from the
wreck of the Thetis.—Sir J. GRAHAM remarked that
the claim now urged was 23 years old, and after much
controversy and a full investigation was decided, as
long since as 1834, by a competent judicial tribunal,
the High Court of Admiralty. The motion was
negatived by 41 against 40.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved for returns of the number of
Floggings and Disratings on board her Majesty's ship
Star, with the particulars of each alleged offence and
the nature of the punishments inflicted. Much cruelty
and tyranny had, he alleged, been committed by the
captain of the steamer in question, whose conduct
required investigation. The hon. member enlarged
upon the inexpediency of maintaining the system of