sketched out a plan for negotiations, which he had
communicated to the British premier.—The Earl of
ABERDEEN declared that the report in question was
absolutely baseless.—Lord BROUGHAM expressed his
satisfaction at the speech of the prime minister, but felt
some apprehension that, as Russia seemed about to
evacuate the principalities, Austria would consent to
make peace on that basis. He trusted that neither
France nor England were in any way committed to the
conclusions at which the Austrian and Prussian cabinets
might think proper to arrive.—The subject then dropped,
and, after transacting some formal business, their
lordships adjourned at half past seven o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, on Monday, May 29,
Mr. BLACKETT inquired if the Last Protocol by the
Representatives of the Four Powers at Vienna conveyed any
recognition or sanction of the first article of the treaty
lately concluded between Austria and Prussia, by which
the contracting powers reciprocally guaranteed to each
other the possession of their German and non-German
territories.—Lord J. RUSSELL said the protocol
contained no such special recognition or sanction. The four
powers recognised, in the two treaties lately concluded
between Austria and Prussia and Great Britain and France
respectively, a tendency to confirm and maintain the
principles consecrated by the Vienna protocols, namely,
the independence and integrity of the Turkish empire,
and the evacuation of the principalities by the Russian
troops.

Mr. MILNES wished to know if it were true that the
Territory of Greece had been Occupied by the Forces of
France and England, and if so, what was the object of
the occupation?—Lord J. RUSSELL stated that 6000
men had been sent from France, with instructions to
occupy the Piræus; and a regiment of infantry which
had left this country would likewise take part in the
occupation. The cause of the measure was the intelligence
received, that, with the connivance of the Greek
government, Greek officers had been attempting to raise
insurrection in the Turkish provinces adjoining Greece,
and had in some instances succeeded, as was shown by a
correspondence found in the possession of General
Grivas, taken in a late action. If it were true that the
King of Greece was opposed to the violation of friendly
territory, the protection of the allied forces would
enable him to prevent it. The object of France and
England was to take care that Greece should not be,
whether secretly or openly, the ally of Russia in the
present war.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM described the arrangements for
the Conveyance of Letters to and from the British
Forces engaged in the War.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL withdrew the Bills for the
Prevention of Bribery in the Boroughs of Canterbury,
Cambridge, Kingston, Maldon, and Barnstaple, which
stood for a second reading, and entered into an
explanation of his reasons for doing so. It was hopeless to
attempt to carry them through at this advanced period
of the session, and there was, besides, a general impression
in the boroughs concerned that the measures would
contravene the expectation of indemnity held out on the
appointment of the commissioners of inquiry. The
justice of this view was questionable, but, under all
the circumstances, it was not the intention of government
to persevere with them.—This communication gave
rise to comments from various members, in the course of
which Mr. DISRAELI took an opportunity of reviewing
the progress of public business during the present session.
Seven measures of the highest importance had been
introduced by ministers, three of which—those on the law
of settlement, Scottish education, and parliamentary
oaths—had been lost; three—the reform bill, the civil
service bill, and the corrupt boroughs disfranchisement
bill—withdrawn or not brought forward; whilst one;—
the Oxford university bill—remained, on which they
had sustained many ignominious defeats. If they had
not a fair prospect of carrying those bills, they ought
not to have attempted to introduce them at all. It was
remarkable, too, that all those measures were either
assaults upon the rights of the subjects or the institutions
of the country. We had now ministers of distinguished
ability, and who had made enormous sacrifices
for their country and themselves, yet they made very
little progress in passing bills, and he thought the house
had received no adequate compensation in well-digested
and statesmanlike measures, for the break-up of parties
and the departure which had taken place from the spirit
and genius of our parliamentary constitution when the
present administration was formed.—Lord J. RUSSELL
reminded Mr. Disraeli that he had himself been unsuccessful
with the measures he proposed during his short
tenure of office in 1852, and especially his grand financial
plan. It was true that owing to the pressure of time
and circumstances, several bills brought forward in the
present session had failed, but on the question of the
war and the conduct of the negotiations which had
preceded it, the house had plainly and strongly declared its
confidence in the present administration, as it had done
also only last week on the Exchequer Bonds resolutions.
Though the oaths bill had been lost, it might be hoped
that the cause of Jewish emancipation would make such
progress in public opinion as to ensure its success
within a few years. In spite of all the anxiety professed
by the right hon. gentleman on the subject, it was
singular that he had been known to abstain from voting
in their favour, and even to vote against them; so that
it appeared he could allow the convenience of the hour
to overrule his attachment to their cause.—After a reply
from Mr. Disraeli, and a rejoinder from Lord John
Russell, the order of the day for the second reading of
the bills was discharged.

On Thursday, June 1, Sir J. PAKINGTON, as chairman
of the late committee on the Public Business of the
House, moved the adoption of the resolutions agreed to,
and recommended by them for the sanction of the house.
—The resolutions were then put seriatim, some
discussion taking place on each. All were agreed to, with
the exception of the last, for the adjournment of the
house at its rising from Friday to Monday without
formal motion, which was opposed by Mr. Bright, Mr.
Hume, and Mr. Disraeli, and withdrawn in consequence.

The house went into committee on the Oxford University
Bill, and proceeded with the consideration of its
clauses, from the 26th onwards.

On Friday, June 2, Sir J. GRAHAM stated, in reply
to a question put by Mr. Hume, the substance of
despatches received at the Admiralty from Sir C. Napier,
communicating the Operations of the British Fleet in the
Bay of Hango, at the entrance of the Gulf of Finland,
whence it appeared that a merchantman had been cut
out by Captain Hall,—a feat which, though not upon a
large scale, was a gallant one, and was described by Sir
Charles as an exploit worthy of the best days of the
British navy; and that next day an attack was made on
two forts. He added, that the state of the British fleet
was most satisfactory, and that, when joined by the
French squadron, the allied force collected in the Gulf
of Finland would amount to twenty-eight sail of the
line, with frigates and steamers in proportion.

Sir G. HEATHCOTE inquired whether it was intended
to take any steps to make the Dress and Accoutrements
of the Army more convenient, and better adapted to
hot climates?—Mr. S. HERBERT was glad to be able to
answer in the affirmative. The commander-in-chief
had called for patterns of the uniforms and accoutrements
of the different armies of Europe; and, with
regard to the stock, he hoped the arrangement made
would be perfectly satisfactory. The military authorities
were perfectly alive to the subject; and as respected
shaving, this matter, he said (in reply to Mr. H. Herbert)
had engaged the attention of Lord Raglan, who would
act as observation and experience suggested.

The house having resolved itself into committee upon
the Customs Duties (Sugar) Bill, the clauses underwent
much discussion, and new clauses were added.

On the order for the third reading of the Excise Duties
Bill, Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved to defer the order until
that day fortnight, in order to afford to the Irish distillers
an opportunity of making a representation to the
government with relation to the subject of drawbacks.
—Mr. Wilson resisted the proposed delay, and, after a
discussion, turning principally upon the policy of the
drawback system, the house divided, when the third
reading was carried by 61 to 32.—Mr. BEAMISH made a
further attempt to obtain delay, and moved that the