NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

BOTH Houses of Parliament re-assembled, after the
Easter holidays, on the 27th of April.

In the House of Lords, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH
called attention to the Neglect Evinced with Regard to
the British Forces at Gallipoli: no preparation having
been made, according to the letters published in different
newspapers, for the arrival of the troops, and very
insufficient provision afforded for their accommodation.
It was stated that the sick had not a mattress to lie
upon, and that they were literally without blankets.
The noble earl asked who was responsible for what had
occurred?—The Duke of NEWCASTLE denied the
correctness of the statements on which the noble earl's
complaint was founded. The troops had been received
by the inhabitants in the most friendly spirit, and
accommodated as well as the locality rendered possible.
He (the Duke of Newcastle) was satisfied that the
commissariat departments of the allied armies had done
their utmost to provide sufficiently for the troops as
they arrived. He had received several letters to show
that not only was the best accommodation possible
provided, but that the Turkish authorities had done
their utmost to render the position of the troops as
comfortable as circumstances would allow. The noble
duke concluded with an advice to newspaper correspondents
to make sure of their facts before giving them
currency.—The Earl of HARDWICKE referred to
occasions on which the government had been
misinformed. In particular, a question to the noble earl,
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had been answered
by an assertion that no Russian ships had left Sebastopol
and entered the Black Sea; yet it afterwards appeared
that such had been the case.—The Earl of CLARENDON
explained that his answer had been based on a despatch
from Admiral Dundas himself, stating that the report
rested solely on the word of an American captain, who,
it was proved, could not have been in a position to see
the ships. It was true that some Russian vessels had
appeared off the Circassian coast, and had cleared and
destroyed several forts before they were ordered away
by ships belonging to the combined fleets. This,
however, took place on March 16th, before war was
declared; and the conduct of the Russians showed
rather that we were the masters of the Black Sea.—
After some further remarks, the subject dropped.

On Monday, May 1st, Lord ST. LEONARDS called
attention to a case arising out of the New Ticket-of-
Leave System. A man, sixty years of age, was
convicted at Edinburgh, and condemned to seven years'
transportation. He was sent to Dartmoor, remained
there seventeen months, and then obtained a ticket-of-
leave. Under this permission, he was sent back to
Edinburgh; and there he committed a new felony, upon
proof of which he forfeited his ticket-of-leave, and was
remanded to his former place of imprisonment. When
committed, he made a statement, of which this report
has been published:—"The prisoner, who cried bitterly
on being removed from the dock, told the officers who
had charge of him that he was driven to commit the
felony in question by starvation. The authorities of
Dartmoor prison sent him back to the scene of his
former disgrace; where, consequently, he failed to get
employment. Wherever he went in Edinburgh he was
a marked man; and even if he obtained a situation, the
police made it their business to inform his employer of
his previous character, and no confidence was
subsequently placed in him." It would be better to hang
or drown a man than subject him to this system. It
was desirable that this subject should be reconsidered
by the government with reference to the mode of
employment and the means of existence for the persons
so discharged.—The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would
obtain information with regard to the case from Lord
Palmerston. He threw doubts on the statement of the
prisoner. Until he heard it authenticated, he could
never believe that a man having a ticket-of-leave should
be obliged and compelled to resort to the scene of his
former delinquencies.—Lord ST. LEONARDS said the
act enables the Crown to grant the ticket-of-leave on
such conditions as it may think fit.—Lord CAMPBELL
joined in condemning the alleged practice.

On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE to go into
committee on the Income-tax Bill, a discussion arose
which had very little reference to the tax itself. Lord
Granville prefaced his motion by a brief statement in
vindication of the budget of last year from antecedent
attacks of Lord Derby; and in still briefer terms
described the present bill, as a simple measure, merely
enacting that during the first half of the current year
double the half-year's income-tax should be paid. One
reason for doubling the tax in the first half-year is, that
as direct taxes cannot be collected for six or nine
months, the whole charge might be received in the
current year; and another, that circumstances might
make it necessary to double the tax for the second half
of the year.—Lord BROUGHAM repeated the objections
he has often before expressed against an income-tax.
Of all taxes that can be imposed, except taxes upon
food, taxes upon knowledge, and taxes upon the
administration of justice, an income-tax is the worst.
But as we are unfortunately plunged in war, he feared
it is not only necessary to continue but to increase the
tax; and on that ground he assented to the motion.—
The remainder of the discussion consisted of attacks on,
and defences of, the general financial policy of the
government; and the bill went through the committee
without a word of remark.

On Thursday, May 4th, the Ticket-of-Leave System
was again brought under notice. Lord ST. LEONARDS
cited a letter from the Rev. T. Sutton, chaplain of
York Castle, addressed to the Times, declaring on the
faith of prisoners' statements, that "discharged prisoners
are constantly watched by the police, and every impediment
thrown in the way of their obtaining employment";
and on Mr. Sutton's own, that in some instances their
companions in crime "are bribed by the police to decoy
them again into the commission of crime," in order
that the police may get a job. Lord St. Leonards
trusted that was not the case, and hoped the statement
would be fully investigated.—The LORD CHANCELLOR
concurred in thinking that there must be an inquiry.
He promised to lay on the table copies of the instructions
given to the police with regard to persons receiving
tickets-of-leave.

On Friday, May 5th, in answer to a question respecting
the Bombardment of Odessa, Lord CLARENDON
stated that the news had been received by the Admiralty
that morning, in a telegraphic despatch from Mr.
Fonblanque at Belgrade, dated "4th May, 6.45 p.m."
He read the despatch to the House:—"Admiral Dundas