NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT reassembled on
Monday, the 4th instant.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, Lord CAMPBELL called
attention to the Address presented by a Deputation from
Merchants in the City to the French Emperor. He
asked whether the deputation which, in the name of the
English nation, had presented an address to the
Emperor of the French on the relations of peace and
war between the two countries, had been sanctioned by
the government of her Majesty? He had no wish to
blame the individuals who composed the deputation.
No doubt their motives were patriotic and disinterested.
But if they had acted without the authority of the
government, he apprehended "they had been guilty of
an offence, perhaps against the law of the land, and at
all events against the law of nations." It was the
established rule, and he quoted Vattel in support of his
view, that the intercourse between independent nations
should be carried on through the medium of ambassadors.
He referred to what took place in 1791, when
there was a deputation sent from England to the
Empress Catherine by the English party who wished to
preserve relations of peace and amity. Burke then laid
it down that that proceeding was "in law, not very
remote from an offence, and undoubtedly a most
unconstitutional act, and a high treasonable misdemeanour."
Now those principles ought to govern the transaction to
which he had called attention. He concurred in the
sentiments of the address, but he should have thought
the declaration of them wholly unnecessary, for all
classes and parties concurred in them. He was happy
to find that his Imperial Majesty entertained sentiments
of peace and amity; but suppose there was a Republic
in France, and a deputation of Socialists and United
Irishmen went over to ask, in the name of the English
people, for fraternisation? Did not the deputation of
Smith O'Brien and the Irish sympathisers create great
alarm? No doubt the deputation who presented the
late address were actuated by disinterested motives; but
might not these demonstrations be got up for mere
stock-jobbing purposes?—The Earl of CLARENDON said
that the sanction of Government had not been given nor
asked. A gentleman had waited on him, and had
showed him the address. It appeared to him perfectly
unobjectionable, and such as "every right-minded man
could have no possible objection to sign." But when
asked, he objected to instruct the British Ambassador to
be present when the address was laid before the
Emperor; and Lord Cowley was not present. The
address had made a good impression; but had he been
asked, he would have objected to such a transaction as
"perfectly unnecessary," because the feelings of this
country towards France were of the most cordial description,
and no misapprehension existed among the French
people. There was no comparison between the late and
the Irish deputation of 1848.—The Earl of
ELLENBOROUGH was glad to hear from Lord Campbell that
this transaction was as illegal as it was repugnant to the
feelings of every Englishman. He dissented from the
complimentary terms used in the address, and the
whole transaction filled him with "unqualified disgust."
The LORD CHANCELLOR hoped it would not go forth
that the deputation was illegal. Such proceedings were
not quite unusual. A deputation, not national indeed,
but as national as they could make it, had not long ago
waited on the Grand Duke of Tuscany.—Lord CAMPBELL
explained that it would be necessary to define the
word "illegal." If it meant the subject of an indictment,
it would not amount to a misdemeanour, unless
there was a malus animus; but if illegal meant that
which the law did not sanction, and for which a Member
of Parliament might be impeached, then the deputation
was illegal. The deputation to the Grand Duke of
Tuscany had not a national object; had nothing to do
with peace or war.

On Tuesday, April 5, Lord CANNING moved the
second reading of the Land Improvement (Ireland) Bill,
to extend the facilities of the bill of 1847 by enabling
landowners to expend their own funds, and to borrow
from private individuals as well as government.—The
Earl of WICKLOW objected to some of the details of the
measure.—Lord St. LEONARDS remarked that the
powers for improving the land bestowed by the bill
were of a very dangerous character, and impressed
upon government the necessity of providing that they
should not be abused.—Lord BEAUMONT complained
that the bill was a violation of the rights of property.—
The bill was read a second time.

On Thursday, April 7, the Earl of ABERDEEN
announced the Birth of a Prince, and moved an address
of congratulation to her Majesty.—The Earl of
MALMESBURY, in the absence of Lord Derby, expressed
his satisfaction at the auspicious event, and seconded
the motion, which was, of course, carried unanimously.

Earl GREY asked whether it was the intention of
government to institute an inquiry into the conduct and
proceedings of the New Zealand Company. He thought
such an investigation absolutely necessary after the
accusations which had been last session made against
the company, and he was the more anxious for an
inquiry now, because it had been insinuated that he
had wilfully connived at the frauds alleged to have
been committed by the company.—The Duke of
NEWCASTLE replied, that last year he had been of
opinion that investigation was desirable before fresh
concessions were made to the New Zealand Company;
but parliament had decided that no inquiry was needed.
Now that those concessions had been made, he thought
an investigation useless. "While he abstained from
offering any opinion as to the conduct of the company,
he felt bound to say that he thought Lord Grey's
honour was not involved in the transactions of the
New Zealand Company.

On Friday, April 8, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH
presented a petition from the master mariners, mates, and
seamen of Hartlepool, against any repeal of the
provision of Act 12 Vict., restricting the Number of Foreign
Seamen in British Ships. The Noble Earl expressed his
regret at the fact of the tonnage of this country not
having increased in the same proportion as that of foreign
countries. He considered it would be highly impolitic
to assist the shipowners by reducing the rate of wages,
and thereby reduce the number of seamen. On the
maintenance of the maritime strength of this country
its safety depended, and that was a question of more importance
than the interest of any single mercantile class.—
Lord GRANVILLE deprecated a discussion upon a subject
which would so soon, in a more tangible form, occupy
the attention of the house. A measure was now under
the consideration of the government, but nothing could be