NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND POLITICS.

BOTH Houses of parliament met on Thursday the
10th instant.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, Lord St. Leonards laid on
the table a series of Bills embodying the Law Reforms of
which he had given notice in November last.

The Earl of DERBY urged Lord Aberdeen to lose no
time in laying before the house a statement of the
Measures which the Government intended to introduce.
For himself (he said) and his friends he was quite
prepared to say that a cordial co-operation would be given
to any measures brought forward by the government, if
they were calculated to promote the public welfare.—
The Earl of ABERDEEN replied, that he had already
informed the house as to the general principles on
which the government would be carried out. As for
the particular measures which the government intended,
most of them would be brought forward in the House
of Commons, and, under those circumstances, he did not
think it necessary to make any further statement.

On Friday, February 11, the Earl of Harrowby
presented a petition from the clergy, laity, and bishops of
the Church of England and Ireland in the several
dioceses of Toronto and Quebec, praying that their
lordships would not consent to any measure with reference
to the Clergy Reserves in Canada by which an
infraction of the articles of union between the upper and
lower provinces would be affected.

The Earl of CARDIGAN put a question as to the course
to be adopted by the government with respect to the
Prosecutions arising out of the Six-Mile-Bridge affair;
and prefaced it with some observations for the necessity
of the military being protected in their arduous and
dangerous duties. Some soldiers of an infantry regiment
had been engaged in the county of Clare at the last
election. A large populace had been urged to the
highest degree of fury against them by the catholic
priests, and had made a violent attack upon them; the
soldiers, finding their lives in danger, defended
themselves, as, in the judgment of the greatest lawyers of
this country, they were perfectly entitled to do. Yet,
now it was understood that not only were the crown
lawyers in Ireland about to prosecute these soldiers for
so defending their menaced lives, but that these lawyers
were to be sent down specially for their prosecution.
He should like to know, if such were the case, who was
to pay for the defence of the soldiers so prosecuted?
Was the expense to come out of their miserable pay, or
did the government propose to supply the means? So
extraordinary an anomaly as this could scarcely be
anticipated. It did not appear to him that this proposition
would at all meet the feelings of the army, or that
the troops of Her Majesty would in any way be satisfied
with the state of things under which they were to be
prosecuted by high legal talent in the service of the
crown for having discharged their duty to the crown.
There was another question which he wished to put.
He desired to know whether it was the intention of the
government to prosecute the priests who had excited
the outrage?—The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the
question was somewhat premature. He had only that
day received an intimation from the lord-lieutenant
that the matter was under the consideration of the
government, and that no step whatever had yet been
decided upon. The case, however, was not quite so
simple as the noble earl imagined. It might be remembered
that, upon the verdict of "Murder" being returned
by the coroner's jury in this case, the late attorney-
general in Ireland brought the case before the Court of
Queen's Bench in Dublin, and endeavoured to procure
a decision which should quash the verdict of the coroner's
jury. The Court of Queen's Bench, after fully
considering the matter, came to the unanimous decision
that there was no ground for the motion, and therein,
he might observe, he considered the court was perfectly
right, the ground on which the court proceeded being,
that the court could only interfere in cases where there
had been some informality or irregularity in the verdict
and proceedings. If the case were so clear as the noble
earl represented it, and from every account he (Lord
Aberdeen) had received the noble earl's description was
perfectly correct, why did not the late attorney-general
at once enter a nolle prosequi, for he might have stopped
the proceedings at any stage? The attorney-general
might still do so, and he (Lord Aberdeen) was not
prepared to say what might be the course that learned
gentleman would pursue. As to the prosecution being
undertaken by the law officers, that was a matter
of course in Ireland, but the attorney-general had the
power, at any stage of the proceedings, on the part of
the crown, to stop all further proceedings if it should
be thought proper.

On Monday, February 14, the LORD CHANCELLOR
stated at great length, the intentions of the government
with respect to Law Reform. He first enumerated what
had been done, and what remained to be done, in the
way of Chancery and common law reform. He next
passed to the Ecclesiastical Courts, and specified some
recommendations of a former committee as having met
with his approbation, without, however, pledging
himself to bring forward any measure on the subject until
the commission now sitting had made its report. He
then proceeded to state what was proposed to be done
with regard to the registration of deeds, the transfer of
land, and the digest and codification of the statutes. He
concluded by laying on the table the bill for the
registration of deeds. Lord ST. LEONARDS and Lord CAMPBELL
having expressed their opinions on the subject, the
bill was read a first time.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for the
Correspondence between the British and French Governments
respecting the establishment of the Empire, and called
the attention of the house to the indiscretion displayed
by the president of the Board of Control in a late speech
to his constituents at Halifax, especially at a time when
it was so desirable to maintain friendly relations with
France.—The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the most
amicable relations existed between the two countries.
With respect to the speech complained of, though the
expressions employed were not so respectful as might
have been used to the sovereign of a foreign state, he
still thought its argument legitimate. He was sure,
however, that nothing was further from Sir Charles
Wood's intention than to say anything offensive to the
French emperor. With respect to the correspondence
moved for, he thought it would be inconvenient at
present to lay it before the house.

On Tuesday, February 15, the Bishop of EXETER
moved for certain papers relating to the Clergy Reserves
of Canada, and referring to a measure which was being
introduced into the other house upon the same subject,