announces, through her Majesty's Consul at Varna,
that a division of steam-boats of the combined squadrons
destroyed, on the 22nd of April, the Imperial mole and
the Russian ships at Odessa. The mole of the quarantine,
the foreign ships, and the city itself, have not
been injured, great care having been taken with respect
to private and neutral property. The Pasha of Belgrade
stated yesterday, that the great powder-magazine had
been blown up; that the land batteries had been
entirely destroyed; and that the loss which bad been
sustained by the allied fleets did not exceed 8 men
killed and 18 men wounded." Lord Clarendon added
—"I am further informed that the fleets, immediately
after the attack on Odessa, sailed towards Sebastopol."
(This information was received with much cheering.)

On Tuesday, May 8th, Lord CAMPBELL moved the
second reading of the bill for Prohibiting Unauthorised
Negotiations with Foreign Powers. He cited, in
support of his measure, the dicta of sundry authorities
upon the law of nations, and pointed to the example of
the United States, by whose code the acts he designed
to prevent were punished by fine and imprisonment.
The provisions of his bill were less severe; but after
referring successively to the deputations sent by the
Irish insurrectionists to M. Ledru Rollin, by the City
of London corporation to the President of the French,
and by the Society of Friends to the Czar, he submitted
that although the motive might sometimes be good, the
acts themselves were inexpedient, and ought to be
prohibited.—Lord LYNDHURST opposed the bill, questioning
whether many of the acts which came within its scope,
could be considered offences against the law of nations.
Many proceedings of undoubted benefit would also be
prevented by its operation, as an instance of which he
mentioned the interference lately made by British
subjects on behalf of the Madiai.—The Earl of
SHAFTESBURY concurred in condemning the measure.
There were many cases in which British subjects must
feel bound in conscience to attempt an interposition,
and could not be prevented, except by an act of
intolerable tyranny.—The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH
observed that the right of interference laid down by
the noble earl might be carried to an inconvenient
extent.—The Bishop of OXFORD agreed in this opinion.
At the time when the slave trade was still in existence
such a bill as this would abridge the means of pleading
on behalf of the oppressed negro, and be a check on the
extension of civilisation and humanity. Instances did
occur in which it would be inconvenient for the government
to come forward, as a government, whilst it might
be desirable and useful to bring the sympathy of a large
body before the sovereigns of other states.—Lord
BEAUMONT objected to the bill.—The Earl of ABERDEEN
said he should feel unwilling, out of respect for the
noble and learned lord, to vote against the second
reading; at the same time he felt that the objections
urged against the bill were so numerous and weighty
that it could not possibly pass without great and
extensive alterations. He advised Lord Campbell to
withdraw the bill; in which advice the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE concurred: but Lord Campbell refused
to withdraw the bill.—A division was called, but none
took place, the bill being read a second time, and
ordered to be referred to the committee, now sitting, on
Common Law Procedure.

On Thursday, May 11, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH
put several questions to the government, in relation to
the Conduct of the War. With respect to the transport
service, a sum of £3,096,000 had been voted by the
House of Commons for this purpose, whilst only 27,000
men and 5,000 horses had been moved to Turkey. In
1808 the conveyance of 49,000 men and 6,696 horses to
the Peninsula cost only £2,800,000. Making allowances
for the depreciation of currency and other circumstances,
he stated that the sum just voted for the transport
service was £1,100,000 more than the amount in 1808,
when greater bodies of men and troops were moved.
He wished for details on this subject. He also inquired
in what manner the troops in Turkey were to be paid,
seeing that the currency of that country was depreciated
to the extent of 82½ per cent. Another inquiry he made
was, what provision had been made for affording the
means of movement to the army in Turkey, to enable
it to execute the operations required from it?—The
Duke of NEWCASTLE replied to the first question, that
any statement of details would be attended with injury
to the public service, and that as most of them involved
matters of account, it would be impossible to produce
them, even if it were expedient. But at the proper
time the fullest information would be laid before
parliament. As to the payment of the troops, an experiment
was being made to pay them in English sovereigns
and silver; and, of course, means would be adopted to
remedy any inconvenience which might arise from the
peculiar condition of Turkey in this respect. Relative
to the means of movement possessed by the army, he
affirmed that they would be sufficient in point of
quantity, and that, though of course they would not be
equal to those in this country, no difficulty was anticipated
in this respect. In conclusion, the duke mentioned
that the health of the troops in Gallipoli was most
satisfactory: for, out of 5,300 men, only 20 were sick on the
1st of April last; and the medical department of the
army was in the highest state of efficiency.

The Earl of MALMESBURY asked whether the government
had received from Admiral Dundas an official
account of the Bombardment of Odessa; and whether
it was intended to inform the public of the events of the
war as they occurred?—The Duke of NEWCASTLE
replied that a despatch had been received this day from
Admiral Dundas respecting the bombardment of Odessa.
The details had already appeared in the newspapers;
and he would only add that the despatch and its enclosure
gave a most positive denial to the allegation of the
Russian authorities that the flag of truce had not been
fired upon. The despatch and its enclosures would be
published in the Gazette to-morrow; and the government
would publish from time to time, in the same
way, any important information which they might
receive.

On Monday, May 15th, the Bishop of OXFORD presented
a petition from the town of Aylesbury, praying for
an alteration in the mode of carrying Capital Punishments
into effect, and wished to know whether there
was any prospect of the government taking the subject
into consideration.—The Earl of ABERDEEN was indisposed
to give any countenance to the prayer of the
petitioners.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE moved an address to the
Crown, in reply to a message respecting the Militia,
praying her Majesty to call out the whole or such part
of the militia as her Majesty might think fit.—After
some observations from Lords GREY and DERBY, who,
admitting the propriety of the step about to be taken
with regard to the militia, insisted on the necessity
which existed for carrying it out with the least possible
appearance of a breach of faith towards those who had
enlisted in the militia, the address was agreed to.

On Tuesday, May 16th, the Nuisances Act Amendment
Bill passed through committee, and was reported
on the motion of Lord Shaftesbury.

The Benifices Augmentation Bill was read a third
time and passed.

Lord BROUGHAM then brought before the House the
subject of Taxes on Law Proceedings, and, after a speech
of great length, moved a series of seven resolutions,
condemnatory of the existing system of levying those
taxes or fees in the County Courts—The LORD
CHANCELLOR, though he agreed on many points with Lord
Brougham, still thought there were considerations
which rendered the adoption of these resolutions
inexpedient.—Lord BROUGHAM having replied, the resolutions
were negatived without a division.

On Thursday, May 18th, the Duke of NEWCASTLE
stated, in reply to a question from Lord St. Leonards,
that large sums had been collected in the churches and
elsewhere, upon the day of humiliation, for the relief of
the Wives and Children of the Soldiers now on active
service in the East. In the first instance, the government
deemed it desirable to give more of a national character
to the distribution of the funds so collected than would
be the case by means of a voluntary association. It had,
therefore, been intended to issue a royal commission to
dispense the funds, as in the case of the patriotic fund
in the last war. But a great part of the money having
been paid over to the association, it was thought that to