NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS

IN the HOUSE OF LORDS, on Tuesday, May 30, the
Navy Pay Bill was read a third time and passed.

The Common Law Procedure Bill was also read a third
time and passed; an amendment, proposed by Lord St.
LEONARDS, to omit the 21st clause, whereby oaths were
to be dispensed with in the case of witnesses pleading
conscientious objections, having been negatived by 41 to 31.

On Thursday, June 1, Lord LYNDHURST, in reply to
a question from Lord Campbell, said it was not his
intention to bring in this session his Bill for altering the
Oaths to be taken by Members of Parliament; and, as
to bringing in a bill for the complete relief of the Jews,
he was satisfied that such a measure would not pass
during the present session. He believed, however, that
the time was not very distant when the legislature would
assent to such a bill.

Lord CANNING, in reply to questions from Lord Beaumont,
described the arrangements made for the Transmission
of Letters to the Fleets in the Baltic and Black
Sea. He added that two officers belonging to the Post-
office had been sent to the East, in order to act as post-
masters for the army. One of these officers would be
stationed at Constantinople, and the other would
probably accompany the head-quarters into the interior of
the country, to assist in the distribution of letters.

On Friday, June 2, Lord MONTEAGLE accompanied a
motion for certain returns, with some remarks touching
upon the Arrangements between the Treasury and the
Bank of England. He elicited from Lord Granville a
declaration that the government had no intention of
becoming in any degree their own bankers.

The House adjourned till Friday, the 9th instant.

On Friday, June 9, the Earl of ABERDEEN, in answer
to a question from the Earl of Derby, respecting the
New Ministerial Arrangements, stated that Lord John
Russell had accepted the office of Lord President of the
Council, remaining in the House of Commons. It had
also been decided to divide the functions of Secretary of
State for War and the Colonies; and the change would
take effect before the next meeting of their lordships'
house. The Duke of Newcastle would continue to
discharge the duties of Secretary of State for War; but he
would have no control over either the finances or the
patronage of the army.—Lord PANMURE approved of
the intended change; but he thought the Minister of
War should have a department as well as a name. He
ought, therefore, to have control over all the military
departments of the army, except the executive functions
of the commander-in-chief. The commissariat should
be placed under his charge, the direction of the militia
force be confided to him, and, through the commander-
in-chief, he should exercise authority over the movements
of her Majesty's troops. The department should
further exercise these functions in time of peace as well
as during war.—The Earl of ABERDEEN, in reply to a
further question from the Earl of Derby, said that
although the new secretary would have no authority
over either the finances or the patronage of the army,
his duties would be quite sufficient to occupy his utmost
exertions during the war. As to his duties during
peace, it would be time enough to consider that
question when peace should have been made.

On Tuesday, June 13, the LORD CHANCELLOR moved
the second reading of the Divorce Bill. He briefly
traced the various steps that had been taken in dealing
with this question. The object of the measure was to
facilitate divorces on account of adultery, to transfer the
jurisdiction over matrimonial suits from the Ecclesiastical
Courts to Chancery, where a Court of Divorce was
proposed to be established. This court would consist of
the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the Queen's
Bench, the Master of the Rolls, and two other members
appointed under the Great Seal. From this court there
would be an appeal to the House of Lords.—Lord
Brougham and Lord Campbell gave a general approval
of the measure, and suggested some modification in the
details.—Lord REDESDALE expressed an apprehension
that the measure would prove prejudicial to morality,
and derogate from the sanctity of the marriage vow.—
Lord ST. LEONARDS thought that they could not at this
time of day say that a party should not have a divorce
on account of adultery. But he believed that very
serious inconveniences would attend a measure of this
sort. He should not, however, oppose the bill at this
stage.—Ultimately the bill was read a second time.

Earl GRANVILLE moved the third reading of the
Exchequer Bonds (£6,000,000) Bill, which, he observed,
was not a loan bill in the ordinary sense of those words.
—Lord MONTEAGLE said the bill had received less
explanation than an ordinary turnpike bill would
receive. He considered the measure to be objectionable
in principle, and containing clauses pregnant with
difficulty. He objected to the power which the bill would
give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and enable him
to interfere with the government stock, more especially
as regarded savings banks moneys.—The bill ultimately
passed.

On Thursday, June 15, the Duke of NEWCASTLE
moved the second reading of the Legislative Council
(Canada) Bill. The measure was, he explained,
designed to modify certain clauses in the Act of Union
between England and Canada, with the effect of
enabling the Legislative Council in the colony to make
their Upper Chamber elective instead of nominative.—
The Earl of DESART urged the postponement of the bill.
He thought there was a certain danger in giving to the
Assembly the power of making what regulations they
pleased for the election of the Council.—Lord WHARNCLIFFE
was of opinion that it would be far better to leave
the matter to the legislature of Canada.—The Earl of
ELLENBOROUGH advocated steps towards making Canada
and the other North American colonies free of this
country.—The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he could not
accede to the proposition of deferring the bill He
regretted that there should be found one peer in their
lordship's house to advocate a separation between
Canada and the mother country. No party in Canada
would be found to support the views of the noble earl.
—The Earl of MALMESBURY adverted to a subject of
importance, to which he was sorry no allusion had
been made this session, namely, the proposed treaty of
commerce between the United States and the North
American colonies. We had not yet got reciprocity of
free trade with the United States.—Lord BROUGHAM
expressed his approval of the proposed measure, and
said that his opinions coincided with those of the noble
Earl who had advocated the independence of the colony.
—After a few words from the Earl of Harrowby, the
Duke of Newcastle explained, and the bill was read a,
second time.