it so much as formerly, since he had seen the utter failure of universal suffrage in a neighbouring country. He objected to the abolition of the property qualification, as introducing a further democratic element into the constitution, and separating to a still greater extent power from property.-Mr. BRIGHT objected to the omission of the ballot. He saw no reasons for lowering the county franchise to 201., which did not apply with equal force in favour of carrying the reduction to 10. What reason was there for saying that the man who occupied a 101. house in the country was not as intelligent and as respectable as the man who lived in a 57. house in a borough? The noble lord had talked about maintaining the balance of interests, but the preponderance of the representatives of the land and opponents of the settled question of free trade, which he supposed he meant, was not a balance of interests, but merely a dead lock to the government. He wanted to know why such places as Thetford and Harwich should send two members, while such boroughs as Manchester, Finsbury, or Westminster sent no more? A settlement on such a basis could not be permanent, nor ought it to be so. He urged Lord John Russell to consider the propriety of withdrawing the members from those small boroughs he proposed to enlarge, and apportioning them to the large constituencies, or to new constituencies raised from more populous districts. On the subject of oaths, he thought it would be far better to abolish them altogether, substituting, if necessary, a simple declaration.Further observations were made by Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Roche, Mr. Trelawney, Sir John Tyrell, Mr. Disraeli, Sir G. Grey, Sir B. Hall, and others; after which leave was given to bring in the bill. On Tuesday, the 10th, Mr. Sharman CRAWFORD moved for leave to bring in a bill for securing the Ulster custom of Tenant Right, or compensation to improving tenants, and to limit the power of eviction. He stated, that the measure he now proposed was substantially that which he brought in last year. It was avowedly for the protection of tenants, but it included justice to landlords: it extended to Ireland the English principle that the consent of the landlord to improvements was not to be a condition precedent to the tenant's right for compensation.-Sir George GREY consented to the introduction of the bill-in deference to its author's motives, and long consideration of the subject; but he hinted that it would be stopped at the second reading. Sir George ascribed the unfortunate condition of Ireland not to a desire of compensation for improvements, but to a combination, by force, intimidation, and terror, to reduce rents. Government (he said) will ask no new powers, but put forth the strong arm of the existing law, with strictness and severity.Mr. Sadleir and Mr. E. B. Roche having asked of the government to step forward and redeem the royal pledges to legislate on the unsatisfactory state of the relations between landlord and tenant,-Lord JOHN RUSSELL made a defensive statement. The government had introduced a bill-a bill which was settled by a committee on which were Sir William Somerville, Mr. Sadleir, and other gentlemen of experience; but Lord John had found, on a conference with the opponents of the bill, that if it were passed into law, the first thing they would do would be to get up meetings and raise a flame against it in Ireland: therefore, considering how government propositions were opposed, and considering what extravagant propositions were advanced by the opponents of the government proposals, Lord John had decided to relinquish his bill. The notions of the opponents of the government bill were inconsistent with the rights of private property; and the subject was so beset with a thousand difficulties, in a country where, as in Ireland, litigation is a sort of pastime, that he had resolved to bring in no further measure on the subject.-Mr. KEOGH severely criticised this extraordinary statement by Lord John Russell of his motives for disappointing the just expectations which his own public declarations and acts had encouraged in Ireland. -Mr. BRIGHT suggested, that the source of difficulty in the way of government legislation is the fears of the large Irish proprietors in the cabinet: "can the cats wisely and judiciously legislate for the mice?"-Leave given to bring in the bill. On Thursday, the 12th, the New Reform Bill was read a first time. The Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill was also brought in, and passed through the same stage. The subject of the Preserved Meats for the Navy was brought forward by Sir W. JOLIFFE, who demanded a select committee to inquire into the government contracts with Mr. Goldner. This was assented to by Sir Francis BARING, on the part of the government. The Admiralty defence was repeated, with additional exculpations. The substance of the defence was, that the meats were introduced to the navy very slowly and guardedly; that the contracts with Mr. Goldner were well fulfilled for the first years; that his contracts are not the only ones under which defective meats have been received; and that in fact the state of science is not such that any preserved meats can be unreservedly relied on. But the preserved stores supplied to the Arctic expedition were made of picked meats supplied by the Admiralty itself, under the late administration, and were made during the period when the best results were obtained: it is confidently trusted that those have remained good. Sir Francis Baring proposed that the period of inquiry should reach back to 1840, so as to include the case of the Arctic meats, and should include English meats as well as the foreign meats, to which Sir William Joliffe, with protectionist sympathies [as hinted] had confined it. With these extensions, the motion for a select committee was agreed to nem. con. On Friday, the 13th, Mr. LABOUCHERE moved for leave to bring in a bill to carry into effect certain provisions contained in the Copyright Treaty with France. He said that it was only recently that negotiations with France had been brought to a satisfactory termination. The proposed bill was an extension, in regard to France, of the act of 1844. The only new principle it enunciated was the recognition of a copyright in translations, a point which had been strongly urged by the French diplomatists, and which it had been deemed just to concede. At the same time, a translation could not properly be placed upon the same basis as an original work. It was therefore proposed to give a copyright protection of five years to an authorised translation of a French work, under certain conditions, as to announcement of the authority, and publication of such translation within a specified time. The other details of the bill he thought would be best explained at a later stage.-Lord MAHON considered that the thanks of all literary men were due to the government for this bill, and also to Lord Palmerston, during whose tenure of office the treaty in question had been negotiated. It had been the conviction of the present Justice Talfourd, when carrying his measure on copyright, that it would not be complete until an international law of the same character should be established. He was, however, anxious to know whether the important question of copyright in Belgium and the United States were in course of negotiation ?-Mr. LABOUCHERE replied in the negative, but said as soon as the law regarding France should be complete, it was intended to send it to the governments of other nations, as a basis for negotiations.-Leave was given to bring in the bill. The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in the New Reform Act for Scotland. In its leading features it closely resembled the English bill, it being intended to reduce the amount which qualifies Scotch county voters from 10l. to 51. as regarded proprietors and long leaseholders, and from 50l. to 201. as regarded occupiers. And in boroughs the 107. franchise was to be reduced to 57., and the right of voting conferred upon all who paid 40s. in direct taxation. Sir W. SOMERVILLE obtained leave to bring in the New Reform Bill for Ireland. He referred to the very recent legislation which had taken place upon the subject of the representation in Ireland, and said that as that legislation had so largely increased the county constituency (from 25,000 to 135,000) there would be no further interference with the county voters. But as the number of borough electors had actually been diminished, it was proposed to reduce the borough franchise from 81. to 51. And it was further designed to adopt the same course with Irish as with English boroughs where the electoral population was small, namely, the associating them with other districts, such course to be adopted in Ireland where the number of electors now on the registry did not exceed 400. years. On Monday, the 16th, the house having gone into committee on the Local Militia Arts, Lord John RUSSELL explained his proposed measure. The treaty engagements of this country (he said) might involve her in war; the chances of an invasion were greatly increased by steam navigation; and the military establishments of this country were kept very far below those of other countries; nor was it intended to increase them by more than 4000 men of the line and 1000 of artillery, at the same time that everything was being done at this moment to render the existing force thoroughly efficient. The proposal was for a local militia on the plan adopted in 1808 and improved in 1812, with some modifications; two-thirds of the officers to be appointed by the lord-lieutenants, and one-third by the crown; the age at which persons should be liable to the ballot to be between twenty and twentythree years, which, at the rate of one in five, would give about 80,000 men; with leave to volunteers to enlist between twenty and thirty, their number to be deducted from the number ballotted for; the time of service to be four years, and one year less for volunteers, with a power of extension in case of danger to the extent of a twelvemonth; the periods of training to be twentyeight or fourteen days in the first, and fourteen in every following year. The expense was estimated at 200,000. the first year, and at somewhat more in the following After some further explanation of the details of the bill, the noble lord concluded by saying, that whether he retained the confidence of the house or not, it was a satisfaction to him to have proposed this measure for the defence of the country.-Various members made remarks on the measure. The most important were those of Lord PALMERSTON, whose speech was an unconditional advocacy of the necessity for providing some such additional measure of national defence as the militia. "I trust (he said) our relations with all those countries from whom, under any circumstances, any danger might arise, are as friendly as they can be, and that there is no subject at present likely to arise which can expose this country to the danger of war. But the noble lord at the head of her Majesty's government knows, that so long ago as the year 1846, I took the liberty of pressing on him my opinion, that, on general principles, and with a view to the permanent and lasting interests of the country, it was desirable that some such measure of precaution should be taken as that which is the object of the present proposal; and that I have at various times renewed my instances, but that there were difficulties which prevented their being carried into effect. I am glad, sir, these difficulties have disappeared, and that her Majesty's government are now enabled to propose measures to provide more adequately for the defence of the country. There are honourable gentlemen who say they hope we may not be again engaged in continental warfare, or mix ourselves up unnecessarily with continental quarrels. Sir, I agree with them entirely; but we, as the noble lord said, now have engagements, and some of them of long standing, which may involve us with other countries. We have political interests beyond our shores. We have engagements which it would not be safe to stand quietly by and see destroyed." These general reasons Lord Palmerston fortified at considerable length. He contended that it is perfectly impossible to defend all of our widelyextended insular shore by fortifications; there was no fortification like brave men, armed, organised, disciplined, and ready to meet an enemy. It was mighty well for persons in this country to talk of the hardships of taking men from their farms and shops; but those who have served abroad, and seen the effects of war, think that a greater calamity could not befall this country than the landing of a force of sufficient magnitude to occupy any portion for even the shortest conceivable period. He observed that the citizens of the United States do not feel the service a hardship, though there are a million of militia-men there. He corrected a statement by Mr. Cobden, that the national guards of France were disbanded-they had more recently been partially organised. He observed that this country is an exception from all European prudential usage in dispensing with a militia. He stated reasons for preferring the regular militia to the local, under which the men would be drilled in squads instead of battalions, and, county by county be lod successively up against the enemy. In conclusion, he referred to the questions from Irish members about the omission of Ireland from the bill. The reason for the omission he was at a loss to conceive; for he would pledge his existence that there was not a man in Ireland who would be called out, and who had taken the oath of allegiance, who would not lose his life rather than not defend his country against invasion.-The chairman was instructed to ask for leave to bring in a bill, which was granted; the report to be brought up on Friday. A bill for the Disfranchisement of St. Alban's was brought in by Sir G. GREY. On the motion for leave to do so, Sir D. L. EVANS declined to press his amendment to include the borough of Harwich, intimating that he would, on a future day, move a commission of inquiry. into the alleged corruption there. A long and a somewhat warm discussion, however, arose on the motion, in which Mr. J. Bell, Mr. Repton, and Mr. Bagshaw defended the character of their respective boroughs. Mr. SPOONER and Lord C. HAMILTON charged complicity with corrupt practices at elections, in connexion with Mr. Coppock, against members of the opposite (the ministerial) party,. and Mr. Roebuck intimated an intention of calling Mr. Coppock to the bar, to examine him as to a statement made by Mr. Spooner that that gentleman had been rewarded for his services by government patronage; a statement which Mr. Hayter repelled. Mr. DISRAELI read from the Sudbury report that a clerk of Mr. Coppock's, engaged in the Dyce Sombre case in 1841, had since been appointed to a clerkship in the Customs. On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE the house resolved itself into committee on the bill for the Abolition of Tests in the Scotch Universities, and after a short discussion, in which Lord Melgund, Mr. F. Mackenzie, Mr. F. Maule, Mr. Cowan, and Mr. Forbes took part, the chairman was ordered to move for leave to bring in a bill, which, the house having resumed, was given. Sir D. L. EVANS moved for leave to bring in a bill for the Reduction of Duty on Carriages, to which the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected, and which after a brief discussion was negatived by 59 to 24.-Mr. HEADLAM moved a resolution for the Abolition of Stamp Duties on Receipts, which was opposed by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and which was also negatived by 61 to 28. On Wednesday the 18th, Mr. F. MACKENZIE, in moving the second reading of the Public Houses (Scotland) Bill, proposed that it be referred to a select committee.-Mr. HUME did not think the bill would produce the effect intended, to check drunkenness in Scotland, which could only be done, as it had been done in England, by providing rational amusements for the people.-Lord DRUMLANRIG supported the bill with a view to the information the committee would elicit.Mr. A. HASTIE contended that the habits of the people were improving.-Mr. F. MAULE was of a different opinion. With a population of not quite three millions, there was a consumption of not less than 6,000,000 gallons of raw spirits. He attributed the evil to the sale of spirits by grocers, instead of confining it to public houses. He hoped the house would by reading the bill a second time, commit itself to the principle that the consumption of spirits in Scotland ought to be diminished. -Mr. OSWALD did not think this could be effected by legislative measures, and feared the granting of licenses would lead to a great deal of jobbing.-Mr. M'GREGOR was opposed to the bill because it was contrary to any commercial maxim, and would not insure the end intended.-Mr. BRUCE thought that in committee the bill might be so altered as to produce a useful measure. In Glasgow alone no less a sum than 1,200,000l. a year was expended upon ardent spirits.-Mr. COWAN was favourable to the system of licenses.-Sir J. HOPE hoped the Lord Advocate would take charge of the bill in committee.-The LORD ADVOCATE was willing to vote for the second reading, but could not support the bill further in its present shape.—Mr. ELLIOTT objected to the arbitrary power which the bill would give to the magistrates.-Mr. F. MACKENZIE urged the second reading of the bill on the ground that it was the only means of obtaining legislation on the subject this session. -Lord MELGUND believed it would increase the evils which it professed to cure.-Mr. BoUVERIE thought the very supporters of the bill had objected to its details. On a division, 123 voted for and 67 against the bill, which was accordingly read a second time. Mr. BRIGHT (for Mr. Milner Gibson) moved the second reading of the County Rates Expenditure Bill.-Sir John PAKINGTON opposed the bill, which, he declared, assailed ancient institutions of the country, and if introduced at all, ought to have been brought in on the responsibility of government. Condemning the animus by which, he said, the promoters of the bill were actuated, he moved its being read a second time that day six months.-Mr. R. PALMER said that the principle of the bill (which had been represented as the same as that of last year) had been entirely altered. Under the present bill it was left to boards of guardians to decide whether any magistrate whatever should have a voice in the affairs of his county. He charged Mr. M. Gibson with dealing unfairly by the house.-Mr. M. GIBSON denied that there was any alteration in the principle of the bill, and asserted his right to deal as he thought proper with its details. The principle of the bill having been twice sanctioned by the House of Commons, he thought it was the duty of government to take it up. -Sir G. GREY thought that, on introducing the bill, Mr. Gibson should have explained its difference from that of last year, and that those who had supported the latter were not thereby bound to vote in favour of the present measure. He was not prepared to agree to a bill which excluded the magistrates from the direction of the county expenditure. Pointing out other important differences between this bill and its predecessor, he said that he could not consent to the second reading.Mr. BRIGHT spoke in favour of the bill, and warmly complained of Sir G. Grey's opposition. Mr. DEEDES said that Mr. M. Gibson had brought the present opposition upon himself, by setting himself in opposition to the select committee.-Mr. HUME regretted that, on account of a want of tact in the mover of the bill, the ratepayers were to be deprived of an important boon.-Mr. HENLEY said that the measure had been brought forward as a means of getting up a popular agitation. After some further discussion the second reading was negatived by 130 to 63. government, on the understanding that he was to receive a certain reward, and it was admitted that these services were paid for partly out of public money, although his lordship stated that he afterwards repaid that money out of his own pocket. Under these circumstances he thought that he was justified in bringing to the notice of the house acts which, in his opinion, called for condemnation.-Lord J. RUSSELL began his speech in reply by saying, "The noble lord leaving those questions in which he has lately been engaged, has brought a most grave question for the consideration of the house. And let him not expect to extenuate or diminish the gravity of that question. He says that he does not wish to do anything vexatious, and that he does not wish to make any remarks personal to Lord Clarendon. Now the house must be quite aware that the attempt of the noble lord is to blast the character and to affix disgrace upon a man who has rendered great public services, who has not only been engaged in political life with great honour and credit, but who has rendered great services to that country of which the noble lord is a representative. Let not the house at all believe that the noble lord brings forward a question of mere speculative reference to public morality; it must entail the consequences that I have described; and I may ask on what foundation does the noble lord ask the house to come to so grave and penal a declaration? The facts with respect to these transactions require to be again stated after the narrative of the noble lord." Lord J. Russell then gave an exposition of the circumstances which led the Irish government to countenance Mr. Birch, who tendered his services in the spring of 1848, when the state of Ireland was one of great peril, to promote the cause of peace and order, and these services were with that object accepted. He taxed Lord Naas with unfairly excluding from view the perilous position of Ireland at that critical period, which had induced the lordlieutenant to encourage a public writer to support, not his government, but the cause of the whole united king. dom. In these difficult and dangerous times Lord Clarendon had shown all those qualities which should distinguish a viceroy, and now, when the danger was past, an attempt was made to affix a stigma upon his fame. He could not understand how a member of a conservative opposition, who owed to the wisdom and energy of Lord Clarendon the safety of his property, could now arraign the men by whom those benefits had been conferred, and ask the house to concur with him in condemning one to whom he ought to be grateful. In his (Lord John's) own opinion, it would have been more discreet in Lord Clarendon if he had refused a compromise with Mr. Birch; but a slight error of this kind was but a feather's weight in the scale against his great and undoubted services, and he (Lord John) was persuaded that the house would be of opinion that it would be consistent neither On Thursday the 19th, Lord NAAS, according to with its own dignity nor the interests of the country notice, brought forward his Charge against Lord to pronounce Lord Clarendon's condemnation.-The Clarendon as Viceroy of Ireland. He moved a resolu- motion was supported by Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Moore, tion that the transactions which have recently taken Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Newdegate, and Lord Claude place between the Irish government and the editor of Hamilton; and opposed by Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Roche, a Dublin newspaper are of a nature to weaken the Dr. Power, Col. Thompson, and Sir D. Norreys.-Lord authority of the executive, and to reflect discredit upon PALMERSTON said, that having for many years had the the administration of public affairs. After giving a brief advantage and honour of Lord Clarendon's friendship, outline of the cause of action tried on the 5th of Decem- and been connected with him by official relations, he could ber last in the Irish Court of Queen's Bench, in which not give a silent negative to the motion. He was bound Mr. Birch was the plaintiff and Sir William Somer- to bear his testimony to his private worth and personal ville the defendant, when it had not been denied that honour, and to express his deep regret that he should Mr. Birch had been employed by the Irish government, have been selected as the object of a personal attack. he proceeded to show the character of Mr. Birch and This was not a worthy weapon of political warfare. For that of his paper. He then traced the connexion betwixt such a motion the grounds should be broad, clear, and the government and the World newspaper, commencing substantial, and he appealed to all who had heard the in 1848, as developed by the evidence at the trial. He debate whether any such ground had been assigned. read various letters, commenting upon certain passages, What had Lord Naas established? It was this :-In a and laying particular stress upon a letter, which he moment of great public peril, when danger of the characterised as an extraordinary one, from Mr. Birch greatest magnitude threatened that part of the empire to Lord J. Russell, in June last. The most painful of which he was the responsible governor, a newspaper part of the case, Lord Naas remarked, was the appear- editor comes to him and says, "I agree in the policy ance of the lord-lieutenant at the trial, the first appear-, which you are carrying on-I wish to support the cause ance of a viceroy of Ireland in the witness-box, to give evidence against his own chief secretary. From the evidence of Lord Clarendon he drew the conclusion that Mr. Birch was employed to support the measures of the Mr. FRESHFIELD moved the second reading of the County Rates Bill, explaining that his object was to consolidate existing acts, and put an end to incongruities in the law. To prevent inequalities, he proposed to take the gross, instead of the nett, value of property as the basis of the rate. After a short discussion, the second reading was agreed to. of the monarchy, the cause of loyalty and order, which you are charged to maintain. I have a paper which has but a small circulation, and I am willing, if you can assist me in giving a greater circulation, to endeavour to " 36 out." THE HOUSEHOLD NARRATIVE. diffuse more extensively, the opinions which I con- 66 On Friday the 20th, on the bringing up of the report on the ministerial Local Militia Acts Bill, Lord John RUSSELL again briefly set forth the main features of his measure, and his explanations seemed to anticipate some of the gravest objections about to be urged with success against him. He proposed to allow substitutes, but to require that they should be taken out of the same liststhe lists of the same county and year: thus he got rid of the onerousness of strict personal service, and still avoided the evils of the system of general evasion by hiring substitutes, which is always practised when the regular militia is embodied in time of peace. He proposed that the queen have power to call out the force, not only in presence of actual invasion, but in case of apprehended invasion;" and he would retain the force embodied for six months after the enemy has left our shores, instead of six weeks, as the local militia law enacts, with a further liability to be kept on foot for twelve months.-Lord PALMERSTON rose ostensibly to move amendments in the instructions of the chairman, that would make the title of the bill to be brought in accord with the explanation of the provisions which Lord John Russell had given. The title of the bill was for a local militia, but the bill described was very nearly founded on the regular militia. The local system was thrown aside by Lord John Russell, but the local name was preserved. Going over the objections to the local militia as regulated by the old law-its immobility in case of sudden danger, its impermanency when the danger shall have only momentarily passed, the restriction of its service to Great Britain- Lord Palmerston summed up the objections to it by describing what is really wanted. "We have now (he said) to provide, not for a danger which may happen at the end of six months or twelve months, but for a danger which may happen at the end of a fortnight from the time when it was first apprehended. Now, how is that to be provided for? Why, the only rational mode is, that you should have at your disposal in time of peace a considerable force, adequately officered, drilled, disciplined, clothed, and armed, and that this force should be kept ready at the shortest notice to act under arms at the breaking out of war, or when war appears imminent. You want a force which shall be already drawn, which is sufficient for ordinary purposes, and which you can lay your hand upon at the shortest possible notice." He met the objections to a regular militia in this way. "It is said that the regular militia is a bad thing, because it admits of substitutes; that you cannot rely upon your substitute; that he does not appear at the time of training; that he will not come whenever the regiment is embodied; that in Scotland people do not like to serve, and that in Ireland you cannot trust the men who may be enrolled. To listen to these objections, one might suppose that Englishmen are cheats, that Scotchmen are cowards, and that Irishmen are traitors. All the objections I ever heard are founded upon a practical distrust of the people of these countries. Sir, I, " on the contrary, am disposed rather to confide in them. govern Labouchere.-New Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland 18th.-County Rates Bill (Mr. Freshfield's), read a second time.-Public Houses (Scotland) Bill read a second time.-County Rates Expenditure Bill (Mr. Gibson's) thrown out on second reading. Copyright Amendment (Mr. Lewes's) Bill. 19th.-Lord Naas' motion of censure on Lord Clarendon negatived. 20th.-Militia Acts, report brought up. Lord Palmerston's amendment to leave out the word "local" carried against ministers by 136 to 125.-Resignation of Ministers intimated by Lord John Russell.-Church Affairs in the Colonies considered Intestate Estates, leave given to Mr. Cornewall Lewis to bring in Committee.-Charitable Trusts, in Committee.-Personal in a bill. course was unprecedented. After a few more speeches, the Navy.-Mortmain Laws, Mr. Headlam's Committee rethe house went to a division-For Lord Palmerston's appointed.-Customs' Inquiry, Mr. Mitchell's Select Committee amendment, 136; against it, 125; majority against re-appointed. government, 11.-Lord John RUSSELL rose and stated, that as the house refused him leave to bring in his own bill, and as he could not be responsible for any other, he relieved himself of all responsibility with respect to the measure. "Any other person might bring in a bill on the subject, but he would not."-This declaration was received with loud cheers from all parts of the house. Lord PALMERSTON expressed extreme surprise at this announcement; that when there was so little difference, government should shrink from its duty, and, on account of a small incidental failure, throw up a measure which they ought not to have proposed unless they thought it really essential for the welfare of the country.-Lord J. RUSSELL replied, that he was stopped at the threshold, and told by the division that the house had no confidence in the government. The cheers of gentlemen affirmed that on this serious question such was the feeling of a majority of the house. There being no motion before the house, he moved that the chairman and Lord Palmerston be ordered to bring in the bill.-Sir Benjamin HALL declared that he had voted against Lord Palmerston's motion, as uncalled for and unprecedented, uncourteous and unconstitutional; but after the division, the manly and constitutional course would be for Lord John Russell to declare that he no longer presides over the councils of this country.-Lord John RUSSELL said, he thought his meaning had been sufficiently plain"When I said I took it for granted, as the result of the vote of the house, that the ministry had no longer the confidence of the house, and that such being the case, I could no longer continue"-[Loud ministerial cheers prevented the conclusion of the sentence from being heard; but it was inferred that Lord John said, or meant to say, that he could no longer continue to be the responsible adviser of the crown.]-He then withdrew his motion, and the house adjourned. Monday 23rd, Lord John RUSSELL announced that Ministers had resigned, and that the Queen had sent to the Earl of Derby, who was engaged in the formation of a new ministry. Lord John then said, with regard to the future, that he should feel it his duty, out of office as well as in office, to oppose the restoration of a duty on corn, whether for protection or revenue; that he should support an extension of the suffrage to those who were fitted to exercise the franchise; and that he should always exert any influence he might possess for the maintenance of the blessings of peace. In conformity with a wish expressed by Lord Derby, he moved that the house at its rising do adjourn until Friday next. The matter was agreed to, and the house adjourned. 23rd.-Resignation of Ministers announced by Lord John Russell.-House adjourned. THE two Houses of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury assembled at the Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster Abbey, on the 4th inst. In the Upper House, besides the Archbishop of Canterbury, there were the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Oxford, the Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of Chichester, the Bishop of Lichfield, and the Bishop of St. Asaph; in the Lower House, Archdeacon Denison, the Archdeacon of Bath, the Archdeacon of Barnstaple, the Archdeacon of Bristol, the Archdeacon of Maidstone, the Reverends J. Slaney, Dr. Moore, Dr. Spry, Dr. Mill, G. E. Gillett, H. E. Majendie, R. W. Huntley, E. Goddard, J. Yardley, T. Mills, H. A. Woodgate, T. Randolph, J. Harding. The solemn initiatory services having been gone through, an entrance upon actual business was made. In the Upper House, the Bishop of London presented seven petitions from several dioceses, praying that Convocation might sit for despatch of business. The Bishop of Exeter presented five petitions, the Bishop of Chichester eight, the Bishop of Llandaff one, the Bishop of Oxford four, and the Bishop of St. Asaph one, all of the same tenor as those presented by the Bishop of London. An animated discussion arose, in which the Bishops of London, Exeter, Chichester, Winchester, St. Asaph, Oxford, and Lichfield, took part, on the proposition to address the Queen for her license to meet for despatch of business. The debate had gone on for about an hour, when the Archbishop appealed to his brethren to forbear pressing (he said) Synodical action might be desired, he did not the subject at the present moment. "However much think that any good would accrue from petitioning her Majesty; for he felt quite certain that, in the present state of the Church and its multitudinous divisions, their prayer would not be granted." At the same time in the Lower House, about thirty petitions had been received, and a very earnest discussion on the same topic had gone on. The Lower House carried an address on the subject, and sent it to the Upper House with a request that they would take the subject into consideration. There was some demur to receiving this address, on the ground of form; but it was received, and best attention" was promised for it. The Prolocutor of the Lower House, and the members who accompanied him, were returning to their own chamber, to enter on further business, when the Archbishop's Apparitor summoned them back; and on their arrival the Queen's Proctor, Mr. F. Hart Dyke, read the formal prorogation of the Convocation to Thursday, the 19th of August. At the reading of this document great surprise was expressed, and many of the members said the proceeding was illegal; but there was no appeal. On the same day the Convocation of the Province of York assembled at the Chapter-house of that city. But when the clergy appeared, several of them with petitions, numerously signed, in their hands, they found the doors |