ritbatal anti Pracceliingri in Partianunt. 1. IRISH CHURCH.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Com- mittee on the Irish Church. Some conversation ensued respecting the want of money for paying wages to workmen in the dock-yards- tide the head " Navy Estimates ; " the House then went into Com- mittee, and the consideration of Lord John Russell's resolution was resumed.

Mr. BORTLIWICK, Mr. BARING WALL, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. F. BRUEN, the Marquis of CHANDOS, and Mr. SCARI.ETT, opposed the resolu- tion. It was supported by Mr. H. L. BULWER, Mr. BAINES, and Mr. D. RONATNE. Mr. JOHN MAXWELL professed to be friendly to the principle of the resolution, but thought that the Legislature could only apply the surplus of Irish Church property to Christian pur- poses : unless, therefore, Christianity were introduced into the reso- lution, he would be unable to vote for it.

The Committee divided : for the resolution, ‘.162; against it, 237;

majority aminst Ministers, 25. The resolution being carried, the House resumed ; the resolution was reported ; and the resort ordered to be received on Tuesday.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then gave notice, that he should cn Tuesday move a resolution, to the effect that no measure on the subject of tithes in Ireland would be satisfactory which did not embody the prin- ciple of the resolution just adopted by the House. On Tuesday, Mr. BERNAL brought up the report. Before the resolution was read, Mr. SINCLAIR asked Lord John Russell, whether he intended to move that it should be communicated to the House of Peers ? He was convinced that one hundred new Peers must be created to carry through the Legislature any measure for diverting a portion of the Irish Church revenues to secular purposes.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that he did not intend that his resolu- tion should be communicated to the House of Peers ; though he differed with Mr. Sinclair as to the reception it would meet with there, if it were embodied in a legislative measure-

" I found my opinion upon the precedent which I quoted the other day as to the course the other House of Parliament adopted upon a very great question— a question which certainly disturbed and excited the religious feeling of the people of this kingdom more than any other that I remember—I mean the ques- tion usually known by the name of Catholic Emancipation. In the year lrx32l, after a resolution on that subject had been carried in this House, by a majority of six, it was determined to communicate it to the House of Lords. It was there moved by the Marquis of Lansdowne ; and, without recolleetino-b the pre- cise numbers on each side, I believe it was rejected by a majority of forty votes. That result would have induced one to think that no bill for Catholic Emanci- pation would be allowed to pass. History, however, informs us otherwise : it Informs us that, in the following year, a bill was proposed to the House of Lords, which had received the previous sanction of the Ministers of the Crown, and the measure being recommended by the Crown, it passed the House of Lords by a majority of ninety or one hundred votes. ( Cheers and laughter.) Therefore, with the leave of the honourable Member, I shall profit by that experience. (Much cheering.) I do not propose, in the first instance, to communicate the resolution ; but I feel convinced that when we have obtained the sanction of the Crown to the proceeding of this House, the House of Lords will not refuse to pass a legislative measure which, in my opinion, will promote the security of the Church of Ireland and the peace of the whole empire."

The resolution was then read, and agreed to, after a few words from Sir ROBERT PEEL ; who declined dividing upon it, but said that be certainly should take the sense of the House on the other resolution about to be proposed.

Lord Jolts RUSSELL then rose and moved- " That it is the opinion of this House. that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, which does not embody the principle contained in the for,guing resolution."

Ile maintained that it was a great principle on which the two parties in the House were divided, and that it was absolutely necessary that it should be decided. It was much better that the principle should succeed and the Ministry be turned out, than that the Ministry should succeed and the principle fail.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE, in opposing the motion, advocated the ap- plication of the surplus, should any be found, to the augmentation of poor livings, and the erection of glebe houses. He wished to know whether it was proposed to apply the surplus found in one county, or district, to the use of the people in another part of the country ? With regard to the resolution,

He for one felt that if it were embodied in any tithe bill, it would place the Government of Ireland in such a position as must render it perfectly impossible for diem to pass that measure. Under such circumstances, he felt that it was a practical difficulty—a practical obstruction which Lord John Russell was inter- posing in preventing him from bringing in the tithe bill which he had already explained to the House ; and if the decision of the House were to be in favour of the noble lord's proposal, no consideration on earth should induce him to be a party to the introduction of a measure in which was embodied such a resolution —a resolution through which he considered that the destruction of the Protes- tant Church must eventually arrive, and considerable difficulty must occur to the general administration of the country, as well as many scenes of tumult and bloodshed be brought about. It would be impossible for any Government en- tertaining the principles and the feelings of honour which the present Govern- ment entertained, to carry into effect a measure which had engrafted on it such a resolution as that proposed by Lord John Russell. He would not detain the House further—he would simply repeat, that if the resolution of the noble lord were to pass, be would not be the person to bring in a tithe bill embodying it.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained, that he did not intend to apply a surplus arising in Kerry or Limerick to the augmentation of livings in Down or Armagh—which would be unjust to the tithe-payers ; but to the education of the dwellers in the district whence the revenue was derived.

Mr. BARING spoke against, and Mr. HENRY GRATTAN in favour of the resolution. The latter gentleman said, that it appeared from Par- liamentary returns made in 1824 and 1825, that the Church of Ireland held lands to the amount of 1,200,000 acres, which had been valued at various prices—some at 11. 15s. others at os. an acre ; but they were really worth altogether 1,250,0001. per annum, and all this was part of the property of a church counting only 750,000 members out of a popula- tion of eight millions.

Mr. SINCLAIR said, that the nature of the proposition might be judged of by the characters of those who welcomed it with joy.

It was not welcomed with joy by the clergy of the Church of England. (Lueghter.) He was sorry to observe that the name of the clergy was always received with a sneer by the honourable gentlemen opposite. By the clergy of the Church of England the proposition was not welcomed with joy; but it was welcomed with joy by the Unitarian who abjured the church of God ; by the Infidel, who denied the existence of a:Deity; and by the Papist, who sought the supremacy of his own religion.

lie did riot believe there would be any surplus at all.

The resolution, therefore, referred to that which, like a mathematical point, hal no parts, or like a mathematical line, had no breadth or thickness. The proposers and supporters of such a motion as the present ought to beware. The commencement was with the property of the Church ; the next step would be to relieve laymen from the incuinbrance of their property ; eventually, all titles and distinctions would be abolished, and Woburn Abbey might perhaps be converted int3 one of Owen's national schools, placed under the superintendence of Citisen :eha Russell the elder.

Lord FRANCIS Eoutrox considered it absolutely necessary, in spite

of the taunts of the Opposition, to ring " the alarm-bell" of the "Church in danger."

The day was at hand, when urged by no factious .purposes, but by the noblest motives that could actuate the human breast, a voice would roll like thunder over the island, rousing in every bosom that attachment to our sacred institu- tions by the manifestation of which alone they could be saved.

Mr. CAYI.EY said, that the alarm-bell had a loud tongue and an empty head, and had never been rung but from factious motives.

Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK considered that the motto of the Opposition with regard to the Irish Church was "Deleada est Carthago." He die_

approved of the whole course adopted by the Opposition in this matter.

Mr. Sergeant PERRIN said, that it was not in the South of Ireland only that there were Protestant churches and parsons almost destitute of congregations ; this was the case in the Protestant county of Monaghan, in the North—

There was first the parish of Magheracloon, in which there were 41 Protestant families, and 1400 Catholic families. The value of the living was 4001. in

tithes ; besides which, there was a glebe-house, with 42 acres of land, making the total value 556/. The incumbent resided at Bath. The second was the parish of Carrickmacross, in which there were 80 Protestant families, 10 Dis- senting families, and 1400 Catholic families. The value of the living was 7001. in tithes, under composition, and with glebe-house and 140 acres of land, 11`_A1. The third was the parish of Donaglimoirie, in which there were 50 Protestant families and 2000 Catholic families. The value of the living was 10501. in tithes, or with glebe-house and 60 acres of land, 12:301. The fourth was the parish of Killanuey, in which there were 4 Protestant familiesand 1000 Catholic families. The value of the living was 5001. in tithes, and with glebe- house and 80 acres of land, 7501. The fifth parish was Enniskeen, in which there were 10 Protestant families and 1000 Catholic families. The value of the living was also 5001. in tithes, and also with glebe-house and 80 acres of land, 750/. In all these cases, the incumbents were non-resident, and the duty was performed by curates, much to the satisfaction of the Protestant inhabitants, some of them at 751. per annum. These were not extreme cases, but such as might be outmatched in all the Southern, Western, and Eastern counties. He would call particular attention to the state of the parish of Kil- lanney ; where there were four Protestant families, who had a well- built, well-aired, well-furnished church— Contrast that with the accommodation afforded to the Roman Catholics. There were a thousand Roman Catholic families in the parish. Ignorant and superstitious as these persons might be, was that a valid reason why they should not be taken care of? why they should not be adequately furnished with the means of religious education ? Look at their situation, and look at their chapels,—generally ill-built, never furnished, no pews, no seat, no bench ; a plain, damp floor ; and, even such as it was, not of sufficient size to contain half the congregation. Ile appealed to his friends and countrymen on the other side of the House, to bear him out in this fact—to answer him this question : on riding by a Catholic chapel on Sunday, had they not frequently seen a great portion of the congregation kneeling on the outside, because there was no room for them within. . . . . . . He would ask, in conclusion, who was the in- cumbent of the parish of Killanney ?—Sir Harcourt Lees. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON replied to Mr. Perrin ; and went into several figure statements, which were, like the greater part of his speech, in- audible in the Gallery.

Mr. GISBORNE contended, that the feelings of the whole Catholic people of Ireland were outraged by the mode in which the Church was maintained. Lord Stanley's principle divided the Irish people into 500,000 Spartans on one side, and seven millions of Helots on the other ; and as such was his principle, much as he respected his talents, be should most unwillingly see him take a part in the administration of the affairs of the country. He would say a few words as to the mode in which the Church acquired that property with which it was pretended the House had no right to interfere- " Why, Sir, in some dark and ignorant age, some gross, profligate, enormous sinner, some oppressor of the people. some despoiler Of the widow and the orphan, when lying on his deathbed is visited by a wily priest, who tells him his sins are so great that unless be give his property to the Church his soul will re- main in Purgatory till the day of judgment, and in eternal torments ever after. That is the foundation of the right of the Church to that property; and the consequence of such a gift—a gift made perhaps after the wavering reason had ceased to guide the act or the intentions of the donor—is to be, that to the end

of society this estate must be devoted to ecclesiastical purposes. That is your first absurdity. Then, this gross and unscriptural attempt to expiate sin—this, which you yourselves hold to be impious, heretical, and anticbristian, you con- strue into an unalienable title to this property for Protestant purposes. That is your second absurdity."

It had been objected to the Opposition, that it was made up of gentle- men holding incongruous opinions, and that the next Liberal Govern- ment must be supported by such. (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He was surprised to hear that objection from Lord Stanley. Lord STANLEY denied that he had made such an objection.

Mr. GISBORNE continued- " Gentlemen would remember, that a very prominent part of Lord Stanley's speech was, that the Opposition was formed of men entertaining the most in- congruous principles ; that they were persons who had agreed together on this occasion, for the purpose of embarrassing the Government; but who, when they should succeed to their places, would move together very badly in- deed. Now, there was a remark he wished to make to Lord Stanley, because the noble lord either agreed in principle with the present Government, or he did not.

If he agreed with agreed why did he not join them ? If he did not agree with them, then he would ask was Lord Stanley the person to make an objec-

tion to those who acted together on the Opposition side of the House ? When Lord Stanley was in office, Mr. Gisborne was for two or three years not cer- tainly a regular, but a general supporter of the noble lord. lie supported him on

all questions, he believed, in which the noble lord was in any trying. difficulties with the Ilouse. He voted with him on the nth- tax ; also against Inquiry into agricultural distress; he voted also against an inquiry into the Pension-list ; and

lastly, he not only voted but spoke for hint on the question of the 11119141111.• Dutch Loan. Now, he would ask Lord Stanley, whether be thought it was any objection to his Government that it had his (Mr. Gisborne s) support on those questions, or whether he thought on that account that it was less worthy

of the confidence of the country? And yet he as widely differed from the noble lord then on the general subject of ecclesiastical property, and especially on the state and government of Ireland, as he did now. If a new Government should be formed, he would give to that Government the same disinterested support as he did to the Government of Lord Stanley. The consequence of such a change would probably be, that the noble lord would come to this side of the House, and that he would occupy that section of the House where the noble lord now sat, though, perhaps, not in so distinguished a manner. But the difference between his situation and that which Lord Stanley now held, would be this—that be, when filling the noble lord's seat, would be supporting Ministers in whom he add confidence, while the noble lord was now supporting Ministers in whom we had not any.

As to the cry of the " Church in danger," it would be like mere tiukling brass— It would, in all probability, have the same effect as the advice given to Mae- by one of his associates, when he watt at the gallows, and which was very pithy and appropriate to a man in his situation. It consisted of two words, which were simply these—" Die hard !" ( Great laughter.) lie rather apprehended that the effect of the address which was presented to-day to Sir Robert Peel would be somewhat similar, and that the cry of " Church in danger," which -was to be raised, would simply give that exhortation to Sir Robert which was given to the noted highwayman—" Die hard ;" and which advice, by the by, Sir Robert did nut at all seem indisposed to adopt.

Mr. WYNN, who was nearly inaudible from the effects of a bud cold, opposed the resolution.

Colonel SIBTHORP spoke to the following effect, in a tone of ex- ceeding solemnity, waving his white handkerchief with a theatrical and imposing air, amidst the laughter and mock cheering of the House.

" I am desirous to express my consternation at that-1 will say—unconstitu- tional proceeding to which- the noble lord has lent his sanction. I think—at least I hope—that the noble lord, 011 a future occasion—he who undertakes the appropriation of the surplus property of the Church—will give us sonic oppor- tunity of hearing from the same quarter a declaration that he means to leave Ireland in the • possession of lay impropriatms This question has already undergone considerable discussion ; I have beard many arguments fiom this side of the )louse, but I have heard little more than vox et pralerta nihil on the other. Sir, what said the honourable Member for Derbyshire? Why, he told you that this was the last attempt of the noble lord to keep up the Protestant Church in Ireland. But he also told you that this would not pacify Ireland. Why, what will the honten able Member—the great man—the mince of Dublin—say to this ? What has he said ? lie said that this was but an instalment. He swell knew that the only way of attaining his point was to Ming all your heads together ; and when your beads have been together a little tune, they will become more divided than ever. (if the body opposite, I know not what the head may be, but I believe the tail will leave the other part. What will be the result? Unprecedented confusion ; an unheard-of breaking up of the whole system, the head will be at one end and the tail will be—at the other. Sir, I say that on the right honourable baronet's continuance in office depends the safety of the Crown, and preservation of the honour, the character, and I will ventute to say, the dignity of the country."

Mr. Hoco spoke against the resolution, amidst much clamour, and cries of " Read, read !" occasioned by his constant reference to very copious written memoranda.

Mr. LUCAS admitted that Sergeant Perrin's statement respecting the Monaghan parishes was correct, and said that it was a state of things he could not approve of; but it was the fault of the system, not of the individual clergymen.

Sir ROBERT PEEL strongly objected to the course pursued by the Op- position. It was a tyrannical act of the majority to make the House affirm that no settlement of the tithe question could be satisfactory which did not embody the principle of the resolution. It was shutting the door against future discussion. The House was asked to preclude itself from taking advantage of the labours of the Commission of Public Instruction, which had as yet made no report. The resolution put an end to all possibility of compromise. This was the first time the House of Commons had assumed the functions of the three brunches of the Legislature. Why, he would ask, would nut Lord John Russell wait for the Report of the Church Commissioners?

What declaration did they make by this haste? It was tantamount to a de- claration on the part of the supporters of the resolution to this effect—" We have confidence in our resolution, but we have no confidence in ourselves. Why should we swear eternal friendship ? Fur six months we have been trying to cement a friendship ; and so anxious are we to adhere to the compact, that we do not choose to trust to our own discretion, to our own conformity of opinion, or to our own perseverance ; but we take the novel course of tying ourselves down, without a chance of departure, to that resolution which is the only one which we hold iu common."

He asked what would be done, if it was found that in a district whence the Church revenues were withdrawn, there was already a suf- ficient fund for education ? Was it probable that the people would not claim the whole of the tithes when they found their right to a part of them acknowledged ? He was for retaining the clergyman in his parish, merely as holding out a symbol to Protestants, that, if they resided there, they would have the means of Protestant worship. He would put an end to abuses. He would compel residence, and amend the law so as to make it effectual for that purpose. He contended that it was most unwise to legislate in ignorance of all that they ought to know—the numbers of the Protestants, and the income of the Church. He read a letter front a Protestant clergyman, in which the serious in- convenience resulting even from the Government plan of settling the tithe system was feelingly described. lle quoted Mr. Burke, Lord Plunkett, Mr. Grattan, and Sir John Newport, against the principle on which the Opposition proposed to act ; and concluded by declaring once for all, that he would not be a party for carrying into effect Lord John Russell's resolution.

Mr. SPRING RICE replied at some length to Sir Robert Peel's argu- ments ; and the House divided : for the resolution, 28.3 ; against it, 25S; majotity against Ministers, V.

2. DISSOLUTION OF THE MINISTRY.

The House on Wednesday was full of Members, anxious to hear the announcement of the resignation of Ministers, which, it was un- derstood, had taken place in the morning. Sir ROBERT PEEL was loudly cheered from the Ministerial benches as he walked up the House to take his seat. Petitions were presented by various Mem- bers, and among them by Mr. RICHARDS; who annoyed the House by persisting in reading at length one from a person against the Bill for Abolishing Imprisonment for Debt. When this preliminary business had been despatched, Sir ROBERT PEEL rose and spoke as follows— s, It is my intention to move that the Mutiny Bill be read a third time; and In making that motion, I wish to avail myself of the opportunity it affords to sotify to the House that I, and all my colleagues of his Majesty's Government, in conjunction, and in conformity with our unanimous opinion, have felt it in- cumbent upon us, on combined considerations of the vote which the House of Commons came to last night, and of the position in which, as a Ministry, we find ourselves here, to signify to his Majesty, that in our judgment it was our duty to place the offices we hold at his disposal. ( Cheers.) I do not hesitate to say that we have taken that course with the utmost reluctance, and not without the deepest conviction of its eecessity ; because we feel, that being in possession of the entire confidence of the King, and having received from his Majesty the most cordial and unremitting support—looking to the present state of public affairs, to the present state of political parties, and to the strength (not only the numerical, but the moral strength) of that great party by which we have had the honour of being supported—we felt it to be our duty, under existing circumstances, to continue the attempt of administering public affairs as the responsible advisers of the Crown, to the latest moment that was consistent with the interests of the public service, and with the honour of public men. ( Cheers from all sides.) Wheu I do not hesitate to avow that reluctance, I believe I shall have credit with the great majority of the House, that it is connected only with public principle. ( General cheers.) I have a strong impression that when a public man, at a crisis of great importance, takes upon himself the trust of administering the affairs of the Government of this country, he does incur an obligation to persevere in the adini- nistration of these affairs as long as it is possible. I do feel that no indifference to public life—that no disgust at the labour it imposes—that no personal gratification —that no discordance of private feeling, would sanction a public man, on light grounds, in withdrawing from the post in which the favour of his Sovereign has placed him. But at the same time, there is an evil in exhibiting to the country a want on the part of Government of that support in the (louse of Cum- mons which will enable it satisfactorily to conduct the business of the nation, and to exercise a legitimate and necessary control over the proceedings of this House—a control conferred by the possession oldie confidence of the House. I say that there is an evil in that exhibition of weakness to which limits must be placed ; and reviewing all that has occurred since the commencement of the session, looking at the little progress we have been Al.! to make ( I presume from want of confidence and support as public men), looking at what has taken place even within the four last nights, that we have hail the misfortune to be in a minority upon each—on Thursday last, on Friday last, on Monday last, and again last night; considering that that minority was a minority of thirty, and that it was larger in relation to the minority than the minority with which we commenced the session ; adverting also to the fact, that on this occasion we re- ceived the support of those who, not having general and unlimited confidence in the Government, have still given us, I must say, a cordial and honourable sup- port—( Cheers)—on every occasion in which it was consistent with their public principle to give it ; adverting to all these considerations, in my opinion the time had come when it was incumbent on us to withdraw from the responsibility which office under such circumstance imposes. In addition to these con- siderations came the vote of last night ; that vote, I conceive, implied a want of confidence in the Government, because it was not necessary, in :uy opinion, for any public man to come to that decision. It was tantamount to a declaration, that the House had not that confidence in the Government which entitled it to permit that Government to submit to consideration the measures of which it had given notice. The noble lord had signified his intention that if the vote of last night did not lead to the result he anticipated, he would follow it up with an address to the Crown. As I conceived that embarrass- ment of public affairs would proceed from the presentation of that address, and as I had no right to presume that the House would take a different view of the policy of the address than of the policy of the resolution, it did appear in- cumbent upon myself and my colleagues, whose views are in exact conformity with my own, as a part of our public duty not to persevere in a useless struggle, which might involve his Majesty and political parties in the country in addi- tional and unnecessary difficulty. The vote of last night was not only tanta- mount to a declaration of want of confidence in Government, but it implied the necessity of a total change of system in Ireland, so far as the Church revenues are concerned. It would also, in my, opinion, oppose such difficulties in the way of the practical administration of affairs in Ireland (in addition to its being a vote of want of confidence) that it made it next to impossible for us to under- take the execution of the law in Ireland, a majority—and a considerable ma- jority—of the House of Commons having approved of a principle which was in direct variance with the principle to which we declared our adherence. The vote of last night was not an abstract question : it is not one the practical exe- cution of which admits of delay. There may be points on which the House of Commons may come to a different conclusion to that of the Government ; it may do so on an abstract question, and that of great importance ; but still it might admit of postponement : and there may be cases where it would be possible for a Government even in opposition to the House of Commons to conduct the ad- ministration of public affairs, but you cannot leave the Tithe question in its present state. ( Cheers.) The laws now in force for the collection of tithes are every day infringed, and while uncertainty prevails as to the future system they cannot be enforced. Nothing can be more dangerous than to leave matters in that condition, where there is a perpetual conflict in the execution of the law ; property must be ultimately endangered unless the system be established and the law enforced. Under these circumstances it would have been our duty, had we continued in office, to have pressed for an immediate decision on the Tithe Bill. That Tithe Bill we could not have presented to the House without previously proposing a resolution for a grant, or rather a vote for the remission of the claim for the repayment of the instalments. I cannot say that I antici- pated a different conclusion from that which was come to last night ; I cannot think that the House of Commons would sanction the grant of a million of money without a distinct understanding of the principle on which the Tithe Bill was to rest. We, therefore, thought that the delay of a few days could make no material difference in our position, as it would be impossible to let the principle of the vote of last night lie dominant. If we had proceeded with the Tithe Bill, the vote of last night was tantamount to a declaration that we should be obstructed in our progress. Being firmly resolved to adhere to that principle—( Cheers)—whatever are the difficulties of the times, and not to adopt the principle of the vote of last night, on all these combined considerations we have, as I said before, felt it to be a duty incumbent upon us, as public men in- vested with a public trust, respectfully to request his Majesty to permit us to retire. We, therefore, now hold our offices for the execution of public business, and to prevent inconvenience, until his Majesty shall have had titne to make other arrangements. Under these circumstances, I submit that the best course will be for this House to make a short adjournment, and I should not propose it to extend beyond Monday next. I should have made the motion at once for an adjournment from to-night, were it not that a ballot for an Election Committee is fixed for to-morrow. Perhaps the House will think in the present state of public affairs that any discussion of important matters had better be postponed. I have not the slightest doubt, from the consideration always shown to the Crown under circumstances analogous to the present, that my proposal will meet with an almost unanimous, perhaps unanimous, acquiescence. (Cheers from all sides.) To prevent inconvenience to parties interested in the Election Como injure, the ballot for which stands for to-morrow, the House will probably think it right to meet, and then consent, without any formal resolution brought forward to-night, to adjourn till Monday. I am confident, also, that the motion 1 am about to make, for the third reading of the Mutiny Bill, with reference to considerations of the public interest, will be as cheerfully conceded to me by the House as the motion of adjournment. I wish to give this explanation as briefly as I could, and in the manner least calculated to produce any angry feelings. ( Cheers from every part of the House.) The whole of may pole tical life has been spent in the House of Commons: the remainder of it all be spent here; and whatever may be the conflicts of parties, I, for one, Shia always be anxious to stand well with the House, whether I be in a majority or in a minority. (Loud cheers.) I do not hesitate to declare that, under no circumstances, under the pressure of no difficulties, would I ever have advised the Crown to resign that great source of moral strength which consists in a strict adherence to the practice, to the principles, to the letter, and to the spirit of the constitution of this country. I am confident that that adherence will be the surest method of warding off eventful dangers. It is because I believe, in conformity with that constitution, a Government ought not to per• silt in carrying on public affrirs after a fair trial against the decided opinion of a majority of the House of Commons—it is because I have that conviction deeply rooted in my mind, that I have relinquished my post ; although I do sin- cerely regret the necessity which has compelled me to abandon the Fin 'e; service at the present moment. (Much cheering.) Yet, upon the balance of opposite interests, I believe I have taken that course which is more likely to maintain the character of a public man, and to promote the ultimate interests of the country, rather than persevering in what I believe would be a fruitless attempt to conduct public affairs in the free of an Opposition which has hitherto obstructed the satisfactory progress of the business of the nation."

After a brief pause, Lord JOHN 11 essan. rose and said- " I merely rise to say one word as to the course the right honourable baronet proposes that the House ShOl:h1 pursue as regards public business. In the two respects to which he has referred, both as to the adjournment and the Mutiny Bill, I am happy to be able cordially to concur with him. With regard to the rest of the right honourable baronet's statement, this is not the tit time for making any comment upon it, I shall therefore only give my opinion that lie has acted entirely in the spirit of the constitution."

The Mutiny Bill was read a third time, and passed ; and the House adjourned.

In the House of Lords, after some petitions Lad been presented, and Lord BROUGHAM had given notice of a motion for Tuesday next on the subject of education, The Duke of WELLINGTON spoke as follows- " My Lords, in consequence of circumstances which have occurred elsewhere, his Majesty's Ministers have thought it to he their duty to tender their resigna- tions to his Majesty. I and nay colleagues, therefore, shall only hold office until our successors are appointed. I should have made this communication to your Lordships sooner, but that I was in expectation of a bill (the Mutiny Bill) being brought up from the other Ilouse of Parliament ; of which, in order that the public business might not be impeded, it was important that the first reading should be moved at the earliest opportunity."

Lord 13aortmast said, that even under the circumstances which had been stated be the noble duke, there could not, lie thought, be the slightest objec- tion to the introduction of his motion. He should, therefore, bring it forward on Tuesday next, as their Lordships were not likely to be overburdened with business, because, with reference to that motion, it was of no consequence who was in or out of office.

Lord Dexcasxox spoke a few words relative to a petition from an Irish clergymn, which the Bishop of Exeter intended to present, and their Lordships then adjourned.

3. Murtav ACT.

The House of Commons went into Committee on the Mutiny Act on Monday. Some conversation arose respecting military flogging ; which :Nil.. Ilene said, he feared could not be entirely done away with, until a new system of rewards and promotion was adopted in the Army. Mr. iltatturs stated, that the Commission on Military Punishments were carefully proceeding in their inquiries. In reply to some obser-

vations from Mr. LAW and Mr. HUME, Sir 11. HARDINGE declared, that he never would consent to deprive the soldier of his side-arms when sashay ; though he was sorry to hear that they sometimes at- tacked the peaceable inhabitants with them. Mr. LAW said, lie had that morning sent a presentation of the Middlesex Grand Jury to the officers of a regiment, in consequence of a soldier having, when in- toxicated, stabbed a person with his sword.

The bill passed through the Committee; as did also the Marine Mutiny Bill. On Wednesday, the former bill was read a third time, and passed. On Thursday it was read a first time in the Lords ; yesterday it passed the second reading, and went through the Committee; and their Lordships meet this day in order to read it a third time and pass it finally.

The Marine Mutiny Bill went through the same stages, and will pass to-day.

4. NAVY ESTIMATES.

On Monday, the House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, Lord ASHLEY moved that 118,547/. should be granted for the Marine establishment at home.

A conversation occurred respecting the canvassing of Mr. Dawson at Devonport under the Admiralty flag; which ended in Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON'S promising to bring the whole subject before the House.

Sir ROBERT PEEL adverted to the great necessity that existed for voting the Navy Estimates ; and read part of a letter from Mr. Briggs, Accountant of the Navy, setting forth that the day for paying wages was Friday next, and that the money for the payment of them had not yet been voted by the House. It was therefore absolutely necessary that a supply should be granted to his Majesty.

Mr. HUME asked, whether any Navy bills had been refused payment in consequence of the Estimates not having been voted ?

Lord ASHLEY said, that some usual payments had been withheld till the money was voted.

Mr. Hem said, the real cause of obstruction was the unnecessary dissolution of the late Parliament. Every indulgence had been shown to Government by the Opposition. This was the first time since he had t:een in Parliament that public credit had been dishonoured.

Sir Romer PEEL maintained that the delay had been occasioned by Members occupying Supply nights with motions. Lord ASHLEY mentioned, that as yet no Navy bill had actually been dishonoured.

Mr. BARING said, that the Order-book would show that night after night obstruction had been given to the ordinary course of Govern- ment ; and now, forsooth, the Opposition blamed Ministers for not paying away money which had not been voted—that was a novel charge against a Government. The motions of the Members oppo- site were interposed for the express purpose of delaying the Supplies. He reminded Mr. Hume of his exclamation, " No money to-night," after consuming three or four hours in statements which nobody listened to.

Mr. Hume replied, that he had made the statement alluded to on the Army, not the Navy Estimates; which showed how utterly un- founded Mr. Baring's remarks were. lie had offered no obstruction to the Navy Estimates. Mr. Baring's observations were inapplicable, because untrue ; being untrue, of course they did not apply.

But he would appeal to the House whether the eery moderate and temperate speech of Mr. Baring, was the best mode in which to carry these Estimates. (Loud cheers.) If there was any thing calculated to interfere: with the pas- sing of these votes, it was that speech ; rind if it were not for the sake of the public service that these Estimates should be carried, he could assure Mr. Bar ing, that he would in all probability have got just as much as he deserved, and that would have been not a farthing. With respect to the cry, " No more looney tonight !" he begged to ask what it was o'clock at the time he uttered those words ? It was one o'clock ; and on the motion for another vote, his answer was, " No more money after midnight." This had been the rule of the House in former sessions, and it had only been transgressed in order to oblige the Government. So much, then, for this story, got up by Mr. Baring, from some old recollection floating on his mind as to something which had fallen from Mr. I fume. But as Mr. Baring did not always recollect what fell from himself, it was not likely that he should have a better recollection of what fell from others. ( thich laughter.)

The vote was then agreed to; as were several others, amounting to about 700,000/. for the payment principally of wages, stores, and the expense of repairing ships.

The !louse then resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Wednesday.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

CORK ELECTION. A Committee of the House of Commons, to consider the merits of a petition against the return of the sitting Members for Cork, was balloted for on Thursday; and the following Members were ehosen,—Sir John Byng, Sir Richard Nagle, Lord llowiek, Mr. Scholefield, Lord Milton, Messrs. G. 11. Pechell, J. Power, J. Bagshaw, J. Maher, R. J. Eaton, R. Macleod. Sir John Byng, was chosen Chairman.

CANTERBURY ELECTION. A petition from certain electors of Can- terbury, and another from Mr. Villiers, against the return of Mr. Istishington, were presented on Thursday, and ordered to be taken into consideration on the 30th of May.

GOVERNOR OF CEYLON. In reply to a question from a Member on Monday, Sir Ronan' PEEL said, he was not aware that Sir Robert Wilmot Horton intended to relinquish the Governorship of Ceylon.

Comairssioa:rn TO CANADA. en Monday, Mr. Roaneca asked Sir Robert Peel, whether it was true that Lord Amherst was appointed Commissioner to Canada; and whether Ministers were aware that there was a tinnily connexion between Lord Amherst and Mr. Hal!, against whom the complaints of the colonists were directed? Lord Amherst might be impartial, but would the people of Canada believe him to be so ?

Sir Roes RT PEEL had never heard of the connexion—if lie had heard of it he doribtt•1 much whetter it would have made any difference. Lord Amherst had filled the situation of Governor.General of India, and was one of the last men to be governed or guided by prejudice. He must add, that he had that respect for the people of Canada, that he did not believe they would thick that a nobleman of his high character could by possibility be influenced by family interests or considerations.

Mr. ROEHUCK repeated, that he did not mean to say that Lord Amherst weld be influenced, but that the people of Canada might think that, so connected, it must have some influence on his mind.

Sir HOBERT PEEL again asserted that his opinion of the people of Canada was so high, that he did not apprehend any such suspicion in the case of a no- bleman who had filled the situation of Governor-General of India, would enter their minds.

CHARGE AGAINST LORD GOSFORD. Mr. SPRING Rice complained. on Thursday, that Lord Mandeville who had appointed that day for bringing forward charges against the conduct of Lord Gosford, as Lord- Lieutenant of Armagh, had left town without the slightest apology or notice to the House. Mr. SIIAW endeavoured to excuse Lord Man- deville, by saying that be considered it quite hopeless that the discus.. sion could be entered into before Easter. Lord ACHESON said, he was ready to meet the charges against Lord Gosford (his father) with "the flattest contradiction possible."

WITNESSES' BRIBERY INDEMNITY BILL. This bill went through a Committee of the Lords on Thursday, on the motion of Lord Mut- GRAVE. It met with some opposition from the Earl of Wm:Low; who gave a brief history of former bills for the same purpose, and took the opportunity of glancing at the present state of parties. He said— The first bill of this kind was introduced in 1742, when the previously con- tending parties of that day, laying aside their hostile principles, united for the purpose of removing one of the ablest Ministers this country ever saw from office—nay, they united to persecute him even in private life. He alluded, he need scarcely amid, to Sir Robert Walpole. A Committee was appointed to inquire into Ma conduct. But some of chore who had been with him in office refused to eire any information, fearful that they might implicate themselves. Then a bai far indemnifying them was introduced into the House of Commons. What was the consequence? A Whig historian told them, that that bill paused through the House of Commons, but not without a severe struggle. It was strongly opposed in the House of Commons, and was carried by only a majority of 12. The question was then argued in their Lordships' House, and the bill was rejected by a majority of 57; the contents being 52, the non-contents 109. The Earl of Cardigan opposed the bill, and it was also opposed by Lord Hard- wicke, who declared that the principle of the measure was founded in gross itt- justice. Was it not, then, surprising that not one of their Lordships had raised his voice against the principle of the present measure, which had been intro. duced without statement or exploration? lie did not •- •ske the sense of their Lordships on the bill; but, humble indivithal us he was, he felt him- self called on, though he stood alone, to raise his stem against a bill the principle of which was founded in injustice.

Lord BROUGHAM approved of the bill ; and denied that there was now any such combination of parties as that which was formed against Sir Robert Walpole.

Lord 1:tex Low rejoined— There certainly was this resemblance between the Whigs of former times 5551 those of the present, that DOW they were called the Racal Whigs, and the* they were called the Disaffected Whigs. There was some resemblance, t00, is the anecdote told of Pulteuey, afterwards Earl of Bath ; who, when sent for to form a coalition Ministry, said that the heads of parties were like the heads of snakes—they were impelled by their tails. (Luayhter.) Lord BROUGHAM had never heard the anecdote before. It certainly did show that there was some applicability in the circumstances of past times to the language of the present times, but he could not say how far the language was applicable to the facts. (Laughter.) IRISH CHURCH COMMISSION : Ma. GIBBON CRAIG. A conversa- tion arose in the House of Peers on Thursday relative to some charge which a Mr. Stoney, an Irish clergyman, had stated against Mr Gibson Craig, one of the Irish Church Commissioners, in a petition which was intrusted to the Bishop of Exeter for presentation. Lord DUNGANNON wished the petition to be kept back till he had received some information on the subject from Ireland ; and the Bishop of EXETER agreed to postpone a motion of which he had given notice on the subject. Lord BROUGHAM said— He should consider it peculiarly unfortunate if any thing could be alleged against Mr. Craig ; for he had himself recommended Mr. Craig, whom he bad known from childhood, who was the son of Sir James Oishon Craig, a gentleman well known to their Lordships, and who was the personal representa- tive of Sir Thomas Craig, the celebrated feudist. Mr. Craig was himself a barrister of ten years' standing; and to considerable attainments he joined an excellent understanding and an unexceptionable character in point of in- tegrity, as well as being judicious and courteous in his disposition ; and this last quality he had thought most important in reference to the task which Mr. Craig would be called on to perform.

THE DUDLEY ADDRESS TO THE KING. Lord Want) asked the Duke of Wellington, on Monday, whether Ministers had advised his friend Mr. Ilawkes to present an address to the King from Dudley in favour of the present Government ?

The Duke of WELLINGTON and other Ministers spoke together for some minutes, but no answer was given.

Lord WARD resumed- " Am Ito infer front the silence of the noble kids opposite, that such is the case —that the honourable Member for Dudley has presented such an address to his Majesty ? Because, if he has, I feel myself called on to say that it is not founded in fact; that that address was got up at the hole-and-corner meeting ; that it did not express the opinions of the people of the town of Dudley ; that his Ma- jesty has been deceived and cajoled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury : and I think it high time that his Majesty's confi- dence should be disabused, and that he should fax informed that such are not the sentiments of my honourable frieud's constituents."

The Duke of WELLINGTON then said, that he had no knowledge of the presentation of any such address.

LORD BROUGHAM'S MOTION ON EDUCATION. 'Yesterday, Lord BROUGHAM postponed the notice he bad given for Tuesday on the sub- ject of Education, till some convenient day after the Easter recess; as he found it would be very difficult to obtain an attendance of Peers on Tuesday.