NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

IN the HOUSE of LORDS, on Tuesday, June 27, the
Earl of CLARENDON, in answer to a question from Earl
Fitzwilliam respecting the recent Treaty with the United
States relative to the Colonial Fisheries, stated that the
treaty had only just readied him, and he had not had
time to give it the attention it deserves. It had not yet
been submitted to the Senate, or ratified; and the
present was not the moment to discuss it. But he
might say that it contains no new provision whatever
for permitting American citizens to establish factories in
the British possessions. The terms are nearly the same,
and the principle is quite the same, as those of the
treaty of 1818: he believed that it would promote the
prosperity of the colonies, and hoped that nothing would
occur to mar its completion.

On Thursday, June 29, on the motion for going into
committee on the Legislative Council (Canada) Bill,
the Earl of DERBY objected to the measure and moved
that the bill be committed on that day three months.
—The Duke of NEWCASTLE defended the measure.
The house divided, when there appeared for the bill,
63; against it, 39: majority, 24.—The bill then passed
through committee.

On Friday, June 30, the house having gone into committee
on the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, the
first three clauses were agreed to without any discussion.
The Bishop of OXFORD suggested that the fourth clause was
not sufficiently large to include cases not enumerated.—
After a short explanation from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
the clause, together with the intervening clauses to the
15th, were agreed to.—Lord ST. LEONARDS objected to
the expense incident to the new tribunal being taken from
the suitors' fee fund of the Court of Chancery, which
was dedicated to another purpose. The noble and
learned lord proposed no amendment, and the clause
was consequently agreed to, as were the other clauses
to 37 inclusive.—On the 38th clause being put, the
Bishop of OXFORD proposed the introduction of words
prohibiting a wife divorced for adultery from being
remarried during the life of the husband. The committee
divided—For the amendment, 10; against it, 25:
majority, 15. The clause was consequently agreed to,
and the house resumed.

The Legislative Council (Canada) Bill was read a
third time and passed.

On Thursday, July 6, Lord CANNING moved the
second reading of the Oxford University Bill, and, after
vindicating the course pursued by the government from
any accusations of precipitancy or haste, and having
rapidly sketched the evils of the existing system, proceeded
to enumerate the provisions of the bill now before
the house, by which it was proposed to improve the
teaching of the university and to extend the sphere of its
influence. In dealing with this subject he did not deny
that the government had been forced to make some
sacrifices, and had experienced some disappointments,
but, considering that the question of university reform
was wide and complex, and involved much difference of
opinion, he was induced to think that the measure was
calculated to effect a real and substantial reform.—The
Earl of DERBY congratulated the house on the
metamorphoses which the bill had undergone in its progress
through the House of Commons, and declared his intention
not to oppose the second reading of the bill, which
accordingly took place.

On Friday, June 7, the LORD CHANCELLOR stated in
reply to Lord Lyndhurst, that it was not intended to
bring in any bill founded on the report of the commission
for Consolidating the Statute Laws during the
present session. The Divorce Bill, he added, would be
proceeded with.

The house went into committee on the Oxford
University Bill. A prolonged discussion took place
upon the clauses of the measure, and several divisions
were taken upon successive amendments.—Lord
BERNERS moved the omission empowering the commissioners
to demand the production of college or university
documents.—The amendment was negatived by 77 votes
to 64.—Lord WARD proposed to remove the provision
for sectional election, introduced in committee of the
House of Commons, and restore the clause to its original
form, according to which all the elective members of
the hebdomadal council were to be chosen by the votes of
the congregation.—This amendment was adopted by a
majority of 107 to 83.—An amendment by the Earl of
DERBY substituting the university convocation for the
proposed congregation as the electoral body by whom certain
members of the council were to be chosen, was negatived
upon division by 99 votes to 72. The Earl of Derby afterwards
moved the omission of the clause sanctioning the
establishment of private halls. The clause was retained
in the bill by 109 contents to 76 non-contents.—Viscount
CANNING moved several amendments, among which
was one upon the "schools clause," whereby fellowships
were exempted from the university preferences and
emoluments left in the possession of certain schools.—
The amendments were agreed to without a divison, and
the bill then passed through committee.

On Monday, July 10, the Bishop of LONDON asked the
Duke of Newcastle under what circumstances the Usual
Vote of £600 for the Bishop of New Zealand had been
omitted this Year. Looking at the distinguished
abilities, unwearied energy, and great sacrifices which
Bishop Gobat had made to found the see of New
Zealand, he could not but think the withdrawal of the
grant was a measure of extraordinary harshness.—The
Duke of NEWCASTLE excused the withdrawal of the
grant, stating that in 1852 Sir J. Pakington, the then
Secretary for the Colonies, proposed a vote of £10,000
for the colony of New Zealand, including £600 for
Bishop Gobat, but a note was appended to the estimate,
stating in the next year the vote would be reduced to
£5000, and that in the year 1854 the demand on the
imperial parliament would entirely cease. The sum of
£5000 was accordingly voted for the colony last year;
but no vote had been taken this year, it being understood
that the colony had undertaken to defray the
whole of the expenses formerly borne by the mother
country.

The house having gone into committee on the Cruelty
to Animals Bill, Lord EGLINTON moved that the clause
forbidding the use of dogs in carts for purposes of draught
be negatived, on the ground of its being an unjustifiable
interference with individual liberty, and if adopted would
in effect be a confiscation of the property of a very poor
class of persons.—The Duke of ARGYLL supported the
clause, observing that the onus probandi lay on those
who contended that it is cruel to use dog-carts within
fifteen miles of the metropolis, and harmless to permit
them in the country. He quoted the opinion of