NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

IN the HOUSE OF LORDS, on Monday, June 27, Lord
LYNDHURST moved for a copy of the State Paper
published in the "Gazette" of St. Petersburg, and
having reference to the Eastern question. "As," said
his lordship, "I am not in any way connected with her
Majesty's government, I may venture, without creating
any embarrassment, to state that if the copy of that
document which I have seen be correct, it is one of tlie
most fallacious—one of the most illogical—one of the
most offensive—and one of the most insulting documents
of that description that I have ever had the misfortune
to read."—The Earl of ABERDEEN said that it would
not be convenient to lay a copy of this note on the table
of the house just at the present moment, but he might
not be indisposed to do so in the course of a few days.

On the motion of the Earl of ABERDEEN, their lordships
agreed to the address of the House of Commons
for a commission to inquire into the Corrupt Practices
at Elections at Barnstaple and Tynemouth. The
former was agreed to unanimously; the latter was
carried, after a division, by a majority of 33 to 13.

The third reading of the Income–Tax Bill was agreed
to after some opposition from Lord Brougham, and the
bill was passed after a long discussion, in which
amendments, severally proposed by the Earl of Wicklow and
the Earl of Lucan, were negatived after a division.

On Thursday, June 30, the Duke of NEWCASTLE
called attention to the unfortunate dissensions which
have arisen between the governor and the assembly of
the Island of Jamaica. Having elaborately traced the
constitutional history of the colony, and shown the
anomalous condition to which it was now reduced, the
noble duke observed that the quarrels between the
executive and the assembly had reached such a point
that the latter body had refused to pass the necessary
measures for the collection of the revenue, and that by
the cessation of the import duties and rum duties acts,
£1000 per day was being lost to the revenue of the
island. In this emergency Sir Charles Grey, the
governor, had promised to issue a commission similar to
that of 1830, which should be empowered to enact such
peremptory ordinances as might be required. But her
Majesty's government were first determined to appoint
a new governor, and try whether a pacific solution of
the difficulty which had arisen might not be possible.
For this purpose the choice of her Majestv's government
had rested upon Mr. Barkly, the late governor of
Guiana. It was further the intention of the government
to introduce some changes in the composition of the
executive council, and other financial reforms which
would tend to the prosperity of the island.—The Earl of
DERBY expressed his approval of the course which her
Majesty's government had proposed to adopt.—After a
few remarks from Earl GREY, in which he warned the
house that the blacks would soon possess an ascendancy
in the assembly of Jamaica, the subject dropped.

On Friday, July 1, the Earl of ABERMARLE presented
petitions from the corporation of Birmingham,
and the Manchester Commercial Association, praying
for modifications of the India Bill, and for substantial
improvements in the tenure of land in that country.
Both petitions were referred to the select committee on
Indian territories.

On the report of the Encumbered Estates (Ireland)
Act Continuance Bill an amendment was moved by
Lord St. LEONARDS, limiting the duration of the act to
one year. This amendment, upon a division, was
negatived by a majority of 9.

On Monday, July 4, the Earl of HARROWBY moved
that their lordships should go into committee on the
Church Building Acts Amendment Bill. The Earl of
POWIS opposed the motion, and a discussion followed,
in which the Bishop of London, the Marquis of Bath,
and the Earl of Malmesbury joined, and ultimately the
bill was considered in committee.

The third reading of the Excise Duties on Spirits
Bill was moved. Lord MONTEAGLE opposed the
motion, and the Earl of Derby expressed his opinion
that the government would find it necessary to retrace
their steps.—Earl GRANVILLE replied, and the bill was
read a third time.

On Tuesday, July 5, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in
moving the re–commitment of the Juvenile Mendicancy
Bill, drew a powerful picture of the present state of
mendicancy in the metropolis; showed its connection
with crime; and especially urged the importance of
checking it in its juvenile rather than in its matured
form. For this object he considered the bill to be
eminently adapted. In committee upon the bill, the
Lord Chancellor, Lord Campbell, and Lord Brougham,
while cordially concurring in its object, made legal
objections to its form, which they considered insuperable.
A conversation took place, which resulted in the bill
being reported pro formé, in order that it might be
referred to a select committee, and the opinion of the
poor–law board ascertained.

On Thursday, July 7, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
after some conversation, withdrew his motion on the
subject of the Turkish and Russian Question.

On Monday, July 11, the Earl of HARDWICKE called
the attention of the house to the order in council of
the 25th June, 1851, bearing upon the Promotion and
Retirement of Officers in the Navy. He had no wish
to make any attack upon the government, because they
had nothing to do with the order in question, but he
hoped that the effect of his calling the attention of their
lordships to the subject would be to cause a reform of
the practice at present existing, and that justice would
be done to the officers in her Majesty's naval service.
He went on to explain the grievances he desired to have
remedied.—The Earl of ABERDEEN said he would,
without giving any pledge, or expressing any opinions,
engage that Sir James Graham should have the subject
brought under his consideration; and no doubt he
would make such regulations as would give satisfaction.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of
the Transportation of Offenders Bill. His experience
(he said) in criminal courts had convinced him that
transportation answered the end of punishment better
than anything else that could have been devised. It
had all the main ingredients of secondary punishments;
it had a maximum in apprehension and a minimum in
endurance; it excited great terror, without, perhaps,
eventually inflicting great pain, and he knew not what
they could look to better. If the united kingdom alone
were concerned, he should have deprecated the removal
of transportation from the statute–book, to any great
degree, as a punishment for crime. But we were bound
also to consider the interests of our numerous colonies.
The opinion of these colonies having been, in an