NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

IN the HOUSE OF LORDS, on Thursday, July 28, the
Earl of ABERDEEN moved the third reading of the
Succession Duty Bill.—The Earl of ST. LEONARDS
moved a series of amendments, not, however, with the
intention of dividing upon them, but that the objections
urged by the opponents of the measure may hereafter
appear on the journals of the house.—The amendments
were negatived without a division, and the bill was read
a third time and passed.

Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that he should not press
the County Courts Further Extension Bill nor the
Equitable Jurisdiction Bill this session; but he laid on
the table a bill for the amendment of the Law of
Arbitration, which he trusted would receive the serious
attention of government before the next session.—The
LORD CHANCELLOR promised the question would be
attentively considered in committee, which was about to
inquire into the whole question.

On Friday, July 29, the LORD CHANCELLOR, in
reply to a question from Lord St. Leonards, said that in
the course of eight or ten days a commission would be
issued to inquire into the action of the County Courts,
and also of the Court of Bankruptcy.

The Earl of ABERDEEN stated that it would be
impossible to proceed with the Education Bill during the
present session.

In reply to a question from the Duke of Buccleuch,
relative to the Schoolmasters in Scotland, the Earl of
ABERDEEN stated that he did not think it necessary to
introduce a bill for the purpose of securing their stipends
for the year, when no doubt existed of their right to
them. During the next session he hoped to be able to
effect a change in their position, by connecting the
question with the general measure for education which
government were now obliged to postpone.

On Monday, August 1, the Case of the Baron de Bode
was once more brought before the house by Lord
LYNDHURST. So far as the facts were concerned, he
contented himself with the briefest reference; his argument
was, that, by agreeing to the select committee on the
subject, and receiving the unanimous report of that
committee, the house was pledged to take some further
step; the facts of the case remain uncontested by government,
the obstruction of justice having been effected
entirely by technicalities. He dwelt somewhat on the
question whether the original claimant was a British
subject; and cited the authority of Sir Samuel Romilly,
who gave a decided opinion in the affirmative. Lord
Lyndhurst showed that the surplus fund had been
disposed of to pay £250,000 of claims not belonging to the
original category, to which the Baron's did belong; and
of that surplus there remains a balance of £68,000 which
has not been accounted for to this day. It would not be
honest to meet the claim either by the Statute of Limitations
or by the plea that we had appropriated the money
to our own use.—The LORD CHANCELLOR recited his
version of the facts, and disputed the conclusions of Lord
Lyndhurst in toto. He denied that the Baron de Bode
was more than legally a British subject; he was so
because he was born in England; but he lived in Alsace,
where his father had purchased property, and he could
not speak a word of English. The claim of the Baron
de Bode had been made and adjudicated; the French
government had left us to decide such demands among
ourselves; the disposition of the surplus had been
provided for by act of Parliament; the act had been
fulfilled, and the case could not be reopened. In passing.
Lord Cranworth cited the opinion of Lord Stowell when
giving the judgment of the Privy Council on the appeal
—that "the complainant had completely failed in regard
to proving the ownership of the property." With
regard to the verdict of a jury in 1844, Lord Cranworth
"doubted much the competency of the jury, or any
jury in 1814, finding a verdict on the facts which occurred
in 1791."  The claim was not alone in its rejection;
many others also were disallowed; and Lord Cranworth
deprecated the unprecedented course of an address from
that house to recommend to the favourable consideration
of the government a claim which would now amount to
about £1,500,000 sterling, and to pay which an act of
Parliament would have to be passed to charge the
same to the consolidated fund.—Lord TRURO strongly
supported the motion. He recalled the fact, that the
Baron had never shifted his ground, as his opponents
had shifted theirs; but had always brought it forward
on the same ground. He showed that other claims had
been paid out of the fund, which had no such foundation
in law or justice; that the misappropriation of the fund
was a breach of faith towards the French government;
and that to reject the claim now would be a disgrace
both to the house and to the country.—The Earl of
HARROWBY observed, that the only ground upon which
the claim had originally been resisted was now abandoned,
and the lapse of time was almost the only reason assigned.
He thought it was a scandal to this country, and honestly
believed that it was the amount of the injustice which
prevented it from being remedied.—The Earl of ABERDEEN
asked what Lord Lyndhurst expected to result
from the motion?  [Lord LYNDHURST—"It rests with
the noble Earl to say what the result shall be."]  He
thought it was not competent for him to deal with the
matter, and he was convinced that no injustice had been
committed towards the Baron de Bode. If this claim
were admitted, not a single rejected claimant but might
reopen his case. The select committee made their
report in June last year; why did not Lord Lyndhurst
press this claim upon Lord Derby while he was at the
head of the government, as that nobleman had expressed
in the House of Commons an opinion favourable to the
Baron's claim? There is not the slightest ground for
asking the present government to reverse the decision
which all preceding governments have come to upon a
case decided by competent tribunals.—In reply to a
remark from Lord Lyndhurst across the table. Lord
ABERDEEN said, he might have yielded if it were a case
in which he had any discretion to show mercy; but he
feared in cases of this kind justice must precede mercy.
—The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired whether a division
would be called for?—Lord LYNDHURST—"Yes; I will
divide, if I stand alone."—A division took place, and
the motion was negatived by 16 to 6.

On Tuesday, August 2, in answer to questions by the
Marquis of CLANRICARDE respecting the Turkish Question,
the Earl of CLARENDON said that government had
received from our ambassador in Constantinople a
despatch stating that the Russian authorities had
signified to the Hospodar of Moldavia that his relations
with the Porte were to cease, and that the tribute
which Moldavia had hitherto transmitted to Constantinople
was to be placed at the disposal of the Russian