Admiral.—On the vote to the navy, the charges made
against Admiral Dundas were again brought into
discussion, when Captain Duncombe, Sir J. Graham, Sir
F. Baring, Admiral Walcott, and Captain Scobell,
defended the admiral, and Mr. Layard reiterated his
declaration, that, if challenged, he was ready to support
the charges he had made.

On Monday, Dec. 18, the House having gone into
committee on the Militia Bill, Mr. BANKES moved to
amend the first clause, which empowers her Majesty to
accept the voluntary offers of the militia to serve out of
the united kingdom, by limiting the number to three-
fourths of each corps actually serving.—Lord PALMERSTON
did not object to a limitation to three-fourths of
the actual establishment of each regiment.—The amendment
thus altered was agreed to, after a discussion which
extended to various collateral points.—On the motion of
Lord Palmerston, in the oath contained in the second
clause, the term of "five years" for the service was
substituted for "during the remainder of the war."—
The other clauses in the bill were agreed to.—Mr.
FITZROY moved a new clause, making subalterns of
militia of five years' continuous standing eligible to the
rank of captain, without property qualification; and
another clause altering the law respecting notices to
militiamen; both of which were added to the bill.

On Tuesday, Dec. 19, the Militia Bill was read a
third time, and passed, after some opposition by Colonel
Sibthorp.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved the second reading of the
Foreigners Enlistment Bill. Much prejudice, he
observed, had been excited against the measure, and
exaggerated apprehensions entertained of its possible
consequences. The history of this country showed that
a similar resource had often been adopted, often with
great advantage, and always with perfect safety. In
the time of Queen Elizabeth, of Cromwell, of William
III., and of Anne—by Marlborough and Wellington—
whenever, in fact, England had been engaged in
continental war, foreign troops had been enlisted under
English pay, and embodied as a portion of the British
army. Admitting that the employment of German
soldiers in the American war was not to be justified,
Lord J. Russell urged that whenever this country
embarked in war for the sake of maintaining the
equilibrium and preserving the peace of Europe, then
was it altogether allowable to draw forces from every
European nation. The present war possessed exactly
the same character as our former contests against a
preponderating power, and presented no features that
rendered advisable a departure from our ancient policy,
or abstinence from employing the expedients that had
formerly proved so useful. Premising that the severest
call on our resources occurred at the commencement of
a war, the noble lord detailed the nature and extent
of the services which would immediately devolve upon
the allied armies for the purpose of defending Turkey at
all points from the dangers that threatened her. In the
Crimea, in the Danubian principalities, and in Asia,
they were called upon to resist a sovereign who
commanded sixteen or eighteen corps d'armées, each as
numerous as the force which we had already despatched
to the Crimea. If we attempted to supply reinforcements
solely from native sources the risk must be
incurred of sending out recruits imperfectly trained,
and he referred to the precepts and the example of the
Duke of Wellington in support of the conclusion that
there was no national degradation attending the
employment of foreigners under such contingencies.
Briefly combating the assertion that the measure was
unconstitutional, Lord J. Russell adverted to the
adcaptandum argument against the engagement of
hirelings and mercenaries to fight our battles, observing
that the plea for employing only British troops would
be inapplicable, except while we were fighting for a
solely British object, which was not the case at present.
In the view of a possibly protracted war, accompanied
by a constant drain upon the population, he considered
the additional strength derivable from the assistance
of foreign soldiers highly to be desired, and could
perceive no substantial objection to its employment.—
Sir E. B. LYTTON opposed the bill and moved as an
amendment, that it be read a second time that day six
months.—Mr. MONKTON MILNES expressed his
approbation of the bill.—It was opposed by Mr. Adderly, Mr.
Ball, Mr. Milner Gibson, and Mr. J. G. Phillimore.—
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT replied to various objections urged
against the bill, and explained the motives that had
prompted the government to propose it.—Lord Stanley
opposed, and Sir J. Fitzgerald supported the bill.—
Lord PALMERSTON could not reconcile the professions of
anxiety to prosecute the war with vigour, lavished by
the opposition, with their present antagonism to the very
first measure which the government had introduced for
that purpose. Antiquated and obsolete arguments had
been furbished up against a proposition which after all
presented merely a copy of numerous precedents
established in former conflicts. Other nations
employed foreign soldiers, and England might with
greater justice follow their example, inasmuch as she
did not, like them, maintain a large standing army in
time of peace, nor employ the compulsory agency of
the conscription to recruit her military force. Our
voluntary system doubtless produced in the end better
soldiers, but the production required time, and the
government having to compete with all other
industrial employment when bidding for labour, found
every augmentation of the army a slow and gradual
process. The measure had been misrepresented as
being simply a mechanism for adding 10,000 men to the
Crimean army. But in reality the only limit to the
number would be the money voted for their maintenance
by parliament. Any neglect on this point would prove
an unworthy abandonment of their duty by the
government or the legislature.—Mr. DISRAELI vindicated the
opposition from the charge of inconsistency. They
concurred in the desire to prosecute the war effectually, but
denied that the measure now before thorn was calculated
to effect that object.—Mr. Muntz and Mr. Deedes opposed
the bill.—Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied and the House
divided: for the second reading 241, against 202; Majority
for ministers 39. The bill was then read a second time.

On Wednesday, Dec. 20, the motion for going into
committee on the above bill gave rise to another debate,
in which the principal opponent of the measure was
Mr. Cobden. The debate was adjourned to the
following day.

On Thursday, Dec. 21, the debate was resumed and
concluded. The House then went into committee, and
passed its several clauses without alteration.

On Friday, Dec. 22, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER brought in a bill for the better management
of Savings' Banks.—The third reading of the
Foreigners Enlistment Bill having been moved by Lord
John Russell, Sir E. DERING moved its third reading
that day six months. After some debate the amendment
was negatived by 173 against 135; and the bill
was read a third time and passed.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS.

House of Lords.—Tuesday, Dec. 12.—Opening of Parliament.
—Queen's Speech, and Debate on the Address.

14th.—Foreigners Enlistment Bill read a second time.

15th.—Votes of thanks to Army and Navy.—Foreigners
Enlistment Bill committed.

18th.—Foreigners Enlistment Bill read a third time and
passed.

19th.—Militia Bill read a first time.—Bills of Exchange
Bill read a first time.

21st.—Militia Bill read a second time and reported.

22nd.—Militia Bill read a third time and passed.

House of Commons.—Dec. 12th.—Debate on the Address.

13th.—The Address reported.—Militia Bill read a first time.

14th.—Militia Bill read a second time.

15th.—Treaty with Austria presented by Lord John Russell.
—Votes of thanks to Army and Navy.

18th.—Militia Bill in committee.

19th—Militia Bill read a third time and passed.—Foreigners
Enlistment Bill read a second time.

20th.—Foreigners Enlistment Bill in committee.

21st.—Ditto.

22nd.—Foreigners Enlistment Bill read a third time and
passed.

A copy of the treaty of alliance between the Queen
of Great Britain, the Emperor of Austria, and the
Emperor of the French, signed at Vienna on the 2nd