THE Ministerial Crisis consequent on Lord John
Russell's resignation (see Narrative of Parliament)
appears to have come to a termination by the accession
of Lord Stanley. On Tuesday, the 25th, Lord John
Russell having given up the task of forming a ministry,
Lord Stanley was again sent for by her Majesty, and
agreed to undertake the government. Names are
mentioned of some of the chief members of the new ministry,
but merely by rumour, nothing certain being known on
the subject.

The Duke of Wellington has had occasion to explain
his views in adopting the Roman Catholic Relief Bill
in 1829. Mr. Thompson, of Dublin, in the name of a
body of Protestant inhabitants, lately addressed a letter
to the Duke, reminding him of certain words spoken by
him in Parliament on that occasion, and calling upon
him to make them good. The Duke is alleged to have
said:—"If I am disappointed in my hopes of tranquillity
after a trial has been given of the measure, I shall have no
scruple in coming down to Parliament and calling for
the necessary powers to enable the government to take
the steps suited to the occasion." Mr. Thompson
interprets this to be a promise, under present
circumstances, to call for the repeal of the bill. The Duke has
made a reply, in which he reminds Mr. Thompson that
when he advocated the measure of relief he was at the
time the First Lord of the Treasury and the Minister of
the Crown, conducting the business of the Government
in the House of Lords. He then goes on to say:—"If
any doubt could be entertained of the meaning of the
expressions used by the speaker in that character, such
should have been sought for by a diligent and accurate
examination of the context of the expressions; and words
should not have been added in a parenthesis 'in other
words' which, according to the published record, do not
appear to have been used, and positively were not used
by the speaker. If such examination and discussion
should not have produced a clear understanding of the
meaning of the speaker, who was the minister at the
time and speaking in that character, his speeches upon
the introduction to the house, and upon other stages of
the same bill, should have been examined and considered.
If that had been done, he believes that no individual,
with common fairness, could have made such examination,
and entertain the opinion that the minister who had
addressed those speeches to the house, who had stated
that the continued opposition to the Roman Catholic
Relief Act was effete; that an administration could no
longer be framed on the principle of considering as an
open question all propositions for the relief of the
disabilities of the Roman Catholics; that an administration
could not be framed on the principle of refusing to
consider measures of relief which should be satisfactory
to the Sovereign and the Parliament, composed of
individuals enjoying the confidence of the public in their
capacity for conducting the business of the departments
at the head of which they should severally be placed;
that in the meantime Government and Parliament
itself were exposed to great difficulties in consequence of
the existing state of the law; that Mr. Daniel O'Connell,
supposed to be disqualified by law to take his seat in
the House of Commons, had been elected and returned
as member for the county of Clare, in a severely
contested election in which he had been candidate against
Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, one of the members of His
Majesty's administration, who was well known in the
country, had large property in it, and had for years,
and at repeated elections, been returned to Parliament
as its representative; that the same inconvenience and
embarrassment were to be expected in case a vacancy
should be occasioned, whether by the appointment to
office, or the elevation to the peerage, or by the death of
any member of Parliament for an Irish county; and
still more extensive embarrassment in case of a general
election in consequence of a dissolution of Parliament.
For this state of things there was no remedy, excepting
that one with which former governments had been
charged without ground—viz., that of forcing the
people to rebellion, which no government could adopt
which was sensible of the enormity of the evils resulting
from civil war in any country. The man who urged
these arguments could not have in his mind an intention
eventually to propose to the house to repeal the law,
and of which he was by these arguments urging the
adoption, and ultimately to pass. Such examination
and discussion would have been a fair course of
proceeding. But it appears that the Protestants residing
in Dublin, who have signed the address to the Duke of
Wellington, have considered it preferable to alter the
printed record of what the Duke did say in the House
of Lords: and, in other words, inserted by
themselves, and never used by the Duke of Wellington,
to endeavour to show that the Duke declared in
Parliament the intention of eventually proposing to
Parliament the repeal of the Relief Act after it
should have become the law." His Grace then
desires Mr. Thompson to inform "the Protestant
inhabitants of Dublin," that although in the service of
Her Majesty, in the capacity of Commander-in-Chief of
Her Majesty's Land Forces, he is not called to Her
Majesty's Council; that in the capacity of Commander-
in-Chief it is no part of his duty to receive, take into
consideration, and submit to Parliament, the proposition
of measures to relieve the inconveniences and evils of
which Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland may complain,
as resulting from the operation of any law. He points
out that this duty devolves on the Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland; and suggests to the Protestants of Dublin
that they should adopt this, the natural course, in
order that their complaints may be taken into consideration,
as he positively and distinctly declines to interfere
in them in any manner whatever.

The Two Houses of Convocation met in the Jerusalem
Chamber on the 5th, and their proceedings attracted
more than ordinary attention. The Archbishop of
Canterbury, with the Bishops of Oxford, Chichester,
and Bath and Wells, were present in the Upper House:
in the Lower House were Archdeacons Thorpe and
Harrison, Dean Lyall, and Dr. Mill, the Hebrew
Professor at Cambridge. In both Houses a petition was
presented from the clergy and laity of the province of
Canterbury, lamenting the suppression of the synodal
action of the "Church of England" for the last hundred
and fifty years; whence (it is said) has resulted her
grievous injury in the weakening of the bonds of love
and unity among churchmen, the growth of unsound
doctrine, and the great increase of error, superstition,
heresy, schism, ungodliness, immorality. This decay of
true religion having been forcibly brought under attention
by the recent aggressive measures of the Pope,
her Majesty is implored to restore to the Church the
freedom of her synodal action as in former times. The
petition was presented to the Upper House by the
Bishop of Chichester; to the Lower House it was
presented by Archdeacon Thorpe. In the latter assembly,
a discussion was raised on the question of competency
to receive the petition; and a demand was made of a
formal conference with the Upper House on the point.
The conference was had, and the Archbishop of Canterbury
delivered the opinion that the Lower House was
legally competent. The Lower House accordingly was
commencing a discussion of the petition, when the
proper officers entered with a formal prorogation of both
Houses, under the signature of the Archbishop.

It is announced that the Pope has conferred the
dignity of Cardinal on the Most Rev. Dr. Cullen, "Lord
Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland, and
Apostolic Delegate." It is also announced that the
Very Rev. Tobias Kirby, president of the Irish College
at Rome, has been appointed coadjutor Bishop of
Dromore to the Right Rev. Dr. Blake.

The bill brought into Parliament by Lord John
Russell to counteract the Papal Aggression, has been
published. It is entitled "A Bill to prevent the assumption
of certain ecclesiastical titles in respect of places in
the United Kingdom." It consists of four sections. The
first section recites the 24th section of the Emancipation
Act, by which it was enacted that persons other than
those authorised by law assuming the title of any
archbishopric or bishopric in England or Ireland, should
forfeit one hundred pounds. It then recites that it may
be doubted whether this extends to the assumption of a
title from any place in England or Ireland, not being
the see of any bishop or archbishop recognised by law;