NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, on Thursday, April 28,
on the motion for the third reading of the Canada
Clergy Reserves Bill, the Duke of NEWCASTLE, in
reply to questions from the Earl of Wicklow and Lord
Redesdale, explained that the guarantee would have
the same effect as before the passing of the present bill,
should the fund fall below the specified amount, the
clergy reserves remaining on the same footing under
any circumstances, with this exception, that the authority
over them would be given to the Canadian legislature.
According to the law officers of the Crown, if the
reserves were secularised, the guarantee would fall
with the condition on which it rested, and this country
would not, in that event, be answerable, as had been
anticipated.—The bill was then read a third time.

A conversation took place respecting the Punishment
of Transportation. Earl GREY asked what arrangements
had been made with regard to the ultimate
destination of the convicts now in the penal establishments
of Portland, Dartmoor, Gibraltar, and Bermuda, since
it was understood that transportation to Australia,
except in very rare instances, was to cease?—The Earl
of ABERDEEN replied, that the question was surrounded
with great difficulties, but it was now under the
consideration of the Home Secretary, who, he hoped, would
shortly propose a scheme to meet the case.—Lord CAMPBELL
expressed dismay at hearing that transportation as
a punishment was to cease, and suggested the Falkland
Islands as a proper place for the deportation of criminals.

On Friday, April 29, the Earl of ABERDEEN, in
moving the second reading of the Jewish Disabilities
Bill, explained the reasons which had induced him to
change his previous opinion on this question, and he
showed, at the same time, that he had formed this
determination some time previous to his acceptance of
office. He apprehended that a similar change had taken
place also on the part of others, who were now disposed
to abolish what, in his opinion, was a remnant of the
feeling which had formerly prevailed through the whole
of Christendom. Considering that the Jewish people
were under a curse in consequence of a crime of
inconceiveable magnitude, still it was not for them to take
upon themselves to execute the "vengeance" of the
Almighty; yet, whilst the country had recently
proclaimed the absolute freedom of all religious opinions,
the Jew was, nevertheless, excluded from civil rights in
consequence of his religious belief. He admitted that
Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land;
but the principle of exclusion, on the ground that parliament
must be composed exclusively of members of the
established church, no longer existed. Now if the
admission was to extend to errors, perhaps not so
monstrous as those which were opposed to the Christian
belief, he considered the principle of looking at parliament
as a body exclusively Christian failed entirely. He
showed also, that parliament had recognised the principle
in the colonial legislatures, to which Jews were admitted,
and that they were prepared to swear to the substance
and essence of the oath required, omitting an asseveration
which was most useless and unnecessary. He therefore
called upon their lordships to make their practice
conformable to their principle of religious freedom, by
casting to the winds this last rag of intolerance, and
admitting those who were in all other respects their
fellow-citizens to the full rights and privileges of Englishmen.
—The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in proposing as an
amendment that the bill should be read a second time
that day six months, reiterated his reasons for opposing
the measure.—The Earl of Darnley, the Bishop of Salisbury,
the Earl of Harrowby, and Lord Colchester
opposed the bill, which was supported by the Earl of
Albemarle, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishop of
St. David's, and Lord Brougham; after which their
lordships divided, when the numbers were—contents,
present, 69; proxies, 46—115; non-contents, present,
96; proxies, 68—164: majority against the government,
49. The bill is therefore lost.

On Monday, May 2, Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a
petition from the corporation of cutlers of Sheffield, on
the subject of Internal Improvement and Public Works
in India. He went into the question at some length.
This brought on a long discussion, in which the Earl
of ELLENBOROUGH, Earl GRANVILLE, and the Earl
of ALBERMARLE took part.

On Tuesday, May 3, in moving the third reading of
the South Sea Annuities Commutation Bill, Earl
GRANVILLE stated it would be necessary to introduce a
supplemental measure, on which the Earl of DERBY
expressed a desire to have the present bill postponed
until their lordships should be in possession of the
supplemental bill.—Lord MONTEAGLE, at some length,
stated his objections to the principle, not the details of
the bill. The bill was read a third time and passed.

On Friday, May 6, the Lord CHANCELLOR moved
the third reading of the Registration of Assurances Bill,
which was opposed by Lord ST. LEONARDS. The
house divided on the question, when the third reading
was carried by 57 to 24, and the bill passed.

The Cathedral Appointments Bill passed through
committee.

The Lunacy Bills were read a third time and passed.

On Monday, May 9, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY
presented a petition praying for the Registration and
Inspection of Nunneries.—The Archbishop of DUBLIN
heartily concurred in the prayer of the petitioners, and
expressed his conviction that nothing short of a
legislative enactment could put a stop to the oppression
exercised in these establishments.—The Bishop of
NORWICH hoped that some such measure would be
passed, care being taken at the same time to avoid all
undue interference with the religious principles and
privileges of the establishments in question.

On Tuesday, May 10, Earl GREY moved an address
to Her Majesty, praying that the arrangements with
respect to the Transportation of Convicts which were
in force last year might not be altered until parliament
was made acquainted with the system which the
government proposed to substitute for those arrangements,
and until it had an opportunity of discussing the
new system. The noble earl, in a speech of great length,
entered into a defence of the reformatory system ending
in transportation introduced by himself, which he
described as having worked admirably, and as being
peculiarly adapted, by its severity, to deter the vicious
from the commission of crime. It was true that an
outcry had recently been raised against transportation
by some of the Australian colonists—the very men who
had formerly applauded the system under which their
adopted country had risen to an unexampled pitch of
prosperity. It did not, however, follow that because a