NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

Both HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT assembled on Monday,
the 4th of June, after the Whitsuntide recess.

HOUSE OF LORDS. On Tuesday, June 5, the Earl of
ELLENBOROUGH called attention to the convention
entered into between her majesty's government and
that of the Sultan, on the 3rd of February last, for the
Employment of the Turkish Troops in, the British
Service. He asked what progress had been made in the
formation of such a body of troops?—Lord PANMURE
regretted the delay that had taken place in the
formation of those troops, from which he hoped that the
allied armies would receive much advantage. The
fault did not lie with either her Majesty's government
or the government of the Porte, but from the fact that
the Turkish troops concentrated at Constantinople, and
from which it was anticipated the Turkish contingent
would be taken, had been suddenly called away by
Omar Pasha to the seat of war, and all the available
troops of the Sultan had been thus withdrawn. The
Porte, therefore, readily offered to detach from the army
of Omar Pasha a body of troops to form the contingent;
but her Majesty's government declared that it was not
advisable to weaken the strength of the army at the
seat of war. It was therefore proposed, and the
proposition was now being carried out, that troops to form
the contingent should be withdrawn from the army of
the Danube. This was a suggestion from Omar Pasha
himself, and the arrangement of this body would soon
be completed.

Lord LYNDHURST asked whether Lord Clarendon
had received any intelligence of the Close of the Vienna
Conferences,—and if so, whether he was prepared to
lay on the table the last proposal made to or by Russia?
—Lord CLARENDON: I this morning received information
from her Majesty's minister at Vienna that a
conference was yesterday summoned by Count Buol,
and that he then made a proposition to the Russian
plenipotentiaries. I believe the Russian plenipotentiaries
—I am speaking from a short despatch received by
telegraph—requested to know whether they might send
that proposal to St. Petersburg. Upon the French and
English ministers being consulted, they said they had
no instructions to agree to such a proceeding, and Count
Buol then said that, having fulfilled the engagement
undertaken by Austria—to endeavour to find the
elements of accommodation between the contending
parties—and having failed to discover such means of
accommodation, he considered there was no further use
in conferences being held; and the conferences were
accordingly closed. With respect to the question as to
whether the proposal which was made at the conference
will be laid before parliament, I do not think there can
be any objection to the production of that proposition.

The Newspaper Stamp Bill was read a third time and
passed.

On Thursday, June 7, on the re-committal of the
Cambridge University Bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR
explained the various amendments which he proposed
to introduce into the measure, the general effect of
which may be described as intended to render the
clauses for reforming the general body of the university
of Cambridge in unison with those contained in the bill
passed last year for the university of Oxford. In the
case of dissenters, it was proposed that they should be
allowed to proceed to the degree of masters of arts on
the understanding that such masters of arts were not to
become members of the senate, unless they subscribed
the thirty-nine articles.—LORD LYNDHURST observed,
that the proposed amendments were of a nature to
transform the bill altogether into a new measure. The
house could have but one object in view, and that was
to form the best possible constitution for the university
of Cambridge. So far as the present governing body
was concerned, all the commissioners recently appointed,
with the exception of the Bishop of Chester, had reported
most favourably of it.—The Bishop of CHESTER
explained the circumstances under which he had declined
to sign the report alluded to by Lord Lyndhurst.—Their
lordships then went into committee on the bill, when
Lord POWYS proposed an amendment to clause 5, to the
effect that the masters of arts should stand in the same
relation to the governing body of the university of
Cambridge as the masters of arts in Oxford stood to the
hebdomadal council.—After some discussion, the
amendment was negatived.—The remaining clauses
were then agreed to.

On Friday, June 8, the Bishop of LONDON, moved
an address to the crown respecting the inadequate
provision made for Burials in the Metropolis. The evil he
complained of was much increased by the act of 1853,
which closed many of the old burial grounds before
others were provided. An immediate remedy for this
deficiency was essentially requisite.—Earl GRANVILLE
stated that the subject was under serious consideration
by the government.—The Bishop of LONDON, on this
intimation, withdrew his motion.

On Monday, June 11, on the motion of the Earl of
DERBY, the question of the recent Creation of the
Barony of Fermoy, by the elevation of Mr. Roche to
the peerage, was referred to a committee of privileges.

On Thursday, June 21, the Earl of MALMESBURY
called attention to the late horrible Massacre of a Boat's
Crew belonging to the Cossack while attempting to land
some Prisoners on the Coast of Hango. According to
the Russian account of this affair it was stated that
they were compelled to resist the boat's crew in
consequence of an attack made by the latter. Although
that representation, if true, would greatly mitigate the
atrocity of the deed, yet it by no means exculpated the
Russian party from a complete breach of the sacred law
of nations. He wished, therefore, to know what steps
the government had taken under the circumstances?—
The Earl of CLARENDON said that the outrage was too
horrible, and too much at variance with all the usages
of war, and the custom of civilised nations, to suppose
that it could be done by any persons but by some brutal
subordinates, without any instructions or any approval of
their superiors. He was the more inclined to believe
so, because Captain Fanshawe said he considered that
man who took the lead in the outrage was a non–
commissioned officer. He lost not a moment in forwarding
instructions to her Majesty's minister at Copenhagen,
requesting him to confer with the Danish government,
for inducing them forthwith to send instructions to their
minister at St. Petersburgh that her Majesty's government
viewed with extreme anxiety the conduct of the
Russian government in respect to this matter, and
wished to know what steps they intended to take to
mark their sense of this outrage by the condign
punishment of the offenders—an outrage which might not