NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

IN the HOUSE OF LORDS, on Thursday, March 29,
on the third reading of the Irish Militia Bill, the Earl
of ELLENBOROUGH revived two points which he had
urged on previous occasions. First, that as we must
look for the recruitment of the army mainly to the
militia, as we did in the last war, some means should be
taken to bring the militia up to the nominal force;
secondly, that the commander of the Land Transport
Corps in the Crimea should have the power of providing
for the feeding of his animals.—Lord PANMURE and
Earl GREY did not agree with Lord Ellenborough that
the militia should be the nursery of the line. In the
last war, the reason why so large a number of recruits
for the army passed through the militia was, that the
men got higher bounty by first entering the militia than
by directly entering the army. As to the second point,
if Lord Ellenborough's suggestion were adopted, there
would be two commissariats bidding in one market, and
neither would properly perform its duties.—The further
progress of the bill was postponed.

On Friday, March 30, the house Adjourned to
Monday, the 16th of April.

On Monday, April 16, the Charitable Trusts Bill was
read a second time.

On Tuesday, April 17, the Cambridge University Bill
was read a second time, with the understanding that
the discussion should take place on the motion for the
committal.

On Tuesday, April 24, the Earl of MALMESBURY put
questions to the government respecting the Negotiations
at Vienna. After taking credit for the forbearance
shown by the house in abstaining so long from questions
on foreign affairs likely to embarrass the government,
he wished to know, now that those negotiations had
ceased, the object which the government proposed to
itself on entering on a fresh campaign, and what results
it would consider equivalent to the expenditure of so
much blood and treasure.—The Earl of CLARENDON
fully admitted the forbearance evinced on this question
by the noble lord and his friends. It was perfectly true
the negotiations at Vienna had come to an end, and that
Russia refused to treat on the terms proposed by the
allies. With respect to the other points referred to by
the noble lord, it would not be convenient to enter into
them at present, but the house might rely that the
government would afford it the earliest information on
the subject consistent with the public service.

In reply to Lord HARDWICKE, the Earl of CLARENDON
stated that up to Friday last Austria held language
on the Eastern Question identical with that of the
Allies. The time for anything beyond language had
not yet arrived, so that it was impossible to say what
course Austria would take.

The house then went into committee on the
Cambridge University Bill, when the Lord CHANCELLOR
explained the object aimed at by the measure.—Lord
LYNDHURST regretted the necessity of introducing this
bill, though, after the example set last year in the case
of Oxford, he supposed such a measure was inevitable.
The noble lord then proceeded in an eloquent speech to
enumerate the names of the illustrious men which
Cambridge had produced under the existing system,
and concluded by declaring that, though the bill must
pass, he would do everything in his power to make it as
perfect a measure as possible, both as regarded the
university and the country.—After some further
discussion, in which Lords Powis and Canning took part,
the bill passed through committee.

On Thursday, April 26, the Royal Assent was given
by commission to a number of bills.

The Earl of HARDWICKE said it was reported that
the Electric Telegraph between London and Balaklava
was very nearly completed, and that the government had
actually received a despatch from the seat of war within
the last four-and-twenty hours. He ventured to ask
whether that report was true, and, if so, whether the
government had received any material information that
could be communicated to the public?—The Earl of
HARROWBY believed that the first lord of the admiralty
had that day received a despatch from Balaklava, but
its purport was merely to inform him that the
communication was open.

The Earl of MALMESBURY, in moving for some
returns, urged on the government the expediency of
taking steps to restrict the Exportation of Horses from
the country, during the extensive demand for the supply
of our cavalry service, occasioned by the war.

IN the HOUSE OF COMMONS on Wednesday, March 28,
the second reading of the Bills of Exchange Bill was
opposed by Mr. VANCE, who moved the second reading
that day six months. The amendment was seconded by
Mr. MUNTZ.—Sir E. PERRY defended the bill, which
was founded, he said, upon sound principles, consistent
with those of past law reforms, its object being to do
away with fictitious and fraudulent defences.—Mr.
GURNEY opposed the bill. Admitting that there were
inconveniences in the law which it might be well to
remedy, great care, he observed, should be taken that
the remedy was not worse than the disease. His opinion
was that the bill, while it would benefit a few, would
ruin multitudes; that it would give an immense priority
and advantage to one class of creditors over others, and
have a prejudicial operation upon the character of bills of
exchange.—Mr. NAPIER observed that, the principle of
the bill being a sound one, the possible abuse of its
provisions afforded no argument against its utility. The
house should not reject, upon the second reading, a
measure the object of which was to assimilate the
commercial law throughout the united kingdom, preparatory
to making it conform to that of the whole commercial
world.—Mr. MITCHELL supported the bill, replying to
Mr. Gurney and Mr. Muntz, whose objections, he
thought, savoured of the Birmingham currency school.
He adhered to the doctrine that bills of exchange were
preferable to running accounts, and believed that no
practical hardship would result from the bill.—Mr.
SPOONER opposed the bill. He dwelt upon the injury
it would inflict upon retail country traders, who, with
ample assets in the shape of book debts, might be ruined
by liabilities under bills of exchange. There was no
reason, in his opinion, why the holder of a bill should
have a better remedy than another creditor.—Mr.
BAINES read a passage from a petition from the Leeds
Chamber of Commerce, which contained, he thought,
a summary of the arguments in favour of the bill.—Mr
GLYNN believed that so many practical evils attended
the bill circulation of this country that some remedy
was absolutely necessary, and he concurred with Mr.
Baines in thinking that it would be best to send this bill