POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY.

The Irish Poor Bill was read a third time by the Lords last night, without discussion ; on the understanding that on Monday next there should be a debate on the question that the " bill do pass." Some conversation afterwards occurred respecting the mode of introducing certain amendments, to be moved by the Marquis of SALISBURY. It appeared doubtful whether new clauses or amendments could be moved on the question of passing the bill. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, to get rid of the difficulty, moved the omission of certain words in the 17th clause ; whereupon Lord MELBOURNE immediately moved the ad- journment of the debate on that motion, to Monday next. The rest of the business in the Lords was merely routine. In the House of Commons, Mr. HERRIES asked Lord John Russell, whether the composition of Lord Durham's Executive Council was in conformity with the instructions of the Government at home ?

Lord JoHN RUSSELL replied, that Lord Durham was empowered to use his own judgment in the selection of an Executive Council. No doubt, it might be made a matter of discussion hereafter, whether the principle enunciated by Lord Durham in Mr. Charles Buller's letter was wise or sound ; but all he could say was. that Government had given Lord Durham very great and extensive powers, and bad thought it best to leave it to his own discretion to determine in what manner this Council should be framed. But, added Lord John— As the successful issue of the powers confided to Lord Durham must depend in a great degree on the forbearance of Parliament in reference to the exercise of those powers, he would take this opportunity of expressing a hope that Government might not be asked questions on every step taken by Lord Durham. It would be quite incompatible with the powers given by the act of Parliament that every step taken by the Governor-General of Canada should be made

matter of Parliamentary discussion.

Mr. HERRIES maintained his full right to put what question he pleased to the Government.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not dispute the right, and had fully an- swered the question : he merely gave his opinion that it would be inju- rious to the public service to embarrass Lord Durham by raising these discussions.

In reply to a question from Lord CHANDOS, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the salaries and appointments of the officers serving under Lord Durham remained the same as originally intended, with the excep- tion that the Legal Adviser had been dispensed with.

[ Why did not Lord Glenelg give the same direct reply to Lord Ellenborough in the Lords, that Mr. Herries received from Lord John Russell in the Commons? Where could be the possible advantage of mystification—unless it was considered a favourable opportunity to create an impression that Lord Durham had exceeded his instructions?] On the motion of Lord JoHN RUSSELL, it was agreed, by a vote of 123 to 97, that after the present week, the House shall sit from twelve to four on Tuesdays and Thursdays, for the consideration of Orders of the Day, and reassemble at six to proceed with Notices of Motions.

We suspect that the attendance at six will be thin, if indeed any " House" is found at that hour. What happened on Tuesday and Thursday in the present week, shows that Members have lost all spirit for " motions," and that their only desire is to rub on to the close of this most disgraceful session with as little trouble as possible.]

A discussion occurred on resolutions moved by Mr. HUME, with the view of reducing the interest paid to the depositors in Savings Banks, which is larger than that received from the Government Securities by 66,0001. a year. Mr. WARBURTON supported the proposition for re- ducing the interest; but Mr. SPRING RICE opposed it,—chietly on the ground that it was highly impolitic to lessen the interest on the saving of the working classes, at the present time. Such a proceeding would cause a very large sum to be taken out of the banks ; in proof of which, Mr. Rice stated, that while no political or commercial convulsion had affected the deposits beyond the sum of 500,0001., the reduction of the interest in 1828 from 4/. Ils. to 3/. 16s. per cent. caused the with- drawal of 1,500,000/. Mr. HUME did not press his motion to a division.

On the motion that the House should go into a Committee of Sup- ply, Mr. GILLON rose to move an address to the Queen, praying her Majesty to take into consideration the allowance made to the Duke of Sussex, with a view to increasing it. Mr. Gillon enlarged on the ex- cellent qualities of the Duke of Sussex, and the liberality with which he gave his advice, time, and money. to the various charitable, literary, and scientific institutions of the country, over sixty of which he had presided for twenty-five years. He went into many details to prove that, in comparison with the other members of the Royal Family, the Duke is inadequately provided for.

Mr. WALTER CAMPBELL seconded the motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL fully concurred in the eulogium passed on the

Duke of Sussex. He declined entering into the statements respect- ing the comparative incomes of the Royal Family. The income voted by Parliament to the Duke of Sussex is now 21,000/. a year. Previous discussions on applications to Parliament to increase the allowances of the Royal Family, did not encourage Ministers to make any more. On the whole, Ministers had not deemed it expedient to advise the Queen to send a message to the House respecting an increase of the allowance of the Duke of Sussex ; but certainly, any proposition to that effect should come, if at all, from Ministers, and not from an in- dividual Member. He deemed it his duty to oppose Mr. Gillon's motion.

Mr. WARBURTON. Mr. HAWES. Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. HUME, and Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, cordially approved of the course taken by Lord John Russell. Sir GEORGE DE LACY EVANS, Sir MATTHEW WOOD, Sir EDWARD CODR1NGTON, Mr. D'EYNCOURT, Mr. PHILIP HOWARD, Captain PECHELL, and Lord WORSLEY, supported the motion.

The House divided— For the motion 48

Against it 98 Majority 50 The House went into a Committee of Supply.

The sum of 70,000/. was voted for the expenses of the Coronation.

The chief discussion was on the vote of 43781. 8s. 8d. for works re- quired by the National Gallery and Royal Academy. Mr. HUME, Mr. WARBURTON, and Mr. HUTT, spoke strongly in reprobation of the system on which the Royal Academy was conducted; and protested especially against the exclusion of the public from the exhibition, although the Academy used rooms which the public paid for. Mr. SPRING RICE, Lord SANDON, and Sir ROBERT INGLIS, maintained the full right of the Academy to rooms in the National Gallery, in exchange for those given to that body in Somerset House by George the Third. They asserted that the funds of the Society were judiciously devoted to the advancement of art. The vote was carried without a division.

A large sum was voted in items of various amounts; but no other discussion of interest occurred.

1,1r. BAINES withdrew his motion respecting First Fruits and Tenths; and the House adjourned to twelve o'clock this day.

In our second edition last week, we gave a brief account of a debate which unexpectedly occurred in the House of Commons on Saturday afternoon, on the Vestries in Churches Bill; the object of which bill was thus described-

" This measure is to prevent vestries from being held in churches where the population in the parish exceeds one thousand persons, except fur purposes approved of by the Bishop of the diocese ; and it empowers parishes to build, rent, and purchase premises wherein the business now transacted in vestries may be done."

As there are about 2,000 parishes with a population exceeding 1,000, and as the cost of the new premises may be fairly taken on an average at 1,000!. each, the amount of taxation this bill would authorize is no less than two millions sterling. The Bishop of London got the bill quietly through the Lords ; and Dr. Nicholl contrived to get it read twice in the Commons without much observation. On Saturday, however, in spite of a strong Tory whip, the Liberal Members—a minority us it happened—made a determined resistance ; and though the bill was "committed," no progress was made with the clauses. The bill stood on the Vote-paper for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Dr. NICHOLL wished to bring it forward to-day ; but last night, the Committee was deferred to Thursday next ; when every Liberal Member should be in his place to oppose this impudent en- croachment of the Church.