occasion, that it is not natural these things should be forgotten when the next Maynooth debate comes on.
If ample pecuniary means are within the reach of Irish Roman Catholics, for the perpetuation of a priestly
bigotry and intolerance which consigns English Protestants to eternal reprobation, it is surely a little hard
that thirty thousand pounds a-year should be drawn from the pockets of those very Protestant unbelievers,
for the rearing of the very priestly bigots who thus denounce them!

NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND
POLITICS.

On Tuesday, Feb. 25th, in the HOUSE OF LORDS, the
second reading of the Marriages Bill was moved by the
Earl of St. Germans,whose speech was a perspicuous digest
of the well-known arguments in favour of the measure.
The bill was opposed, on religious grounds, by the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Exeter. It was
also opposed by the Bishops of St. David's and Norwich;
who objected to it, not because the marriages in question
are prohibited by Scripture, but that their tendency is
practically mischievous. The bill was opposed, likewise,
by Lord Campbell, the Bishop of London, and the
Bishop of Ossory. It was supported by Lord Gage.
On a division it was thrown out by 50 to 16. The
House then adjourned to Friday.

On Friday, Feb. 28th, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE
made a brief statement respecting the Ministerial Crisis;
the most important part of which was the circumstance
that, after the failure of the recognised party-leaders to
construct a ministry, the Queen had sent for himself as
a member of her Privy Council, and also for the Duke
of Wellington, who was then with her Majesty.—The
Earl of ABERDEEN briefly explained the part that he had
taken: The first efforts made, in obedience to her
Majesty's desire, in conjunction with Sir James Graham
and Lord John Russell, led to the submission by Lord
John Russell of a basis of agreement. All their differences
were confined to one measure: Lord Aberdeen
felt an invincible repugnance to adopt any measure of
penal legislation towards the Roman Catholic subjects
of this country, by the prohibition of the assumption of
ecclesiastical titles. He thought no law, or at least none
but some one of those barbarous laws, the text of which
still disgraces our statute-book, had been violated;
though sensitive to the arrogant tone assumed, which
must in some way have engaged the attention of Parliament,
he saw no sufficient ground for legislative
interference. Without any previous communication with
Sir James Graham, he found to his delight that he
concurred entirely in this opinion. Lord John Russell
was willing to make material alterations in his bill; but
those would not have removed the main objection.
The hope of that combination therefore disappeared.
The Queen then graciously requested Lord Aberdeen to
undertake the formation of a ministry alone; but, believing
that a majority of the members of both houses of
Parliament, and the mass of public sentiment, would
have been in conflict with his opinion on the subject in
question, he entreated her Majesty to permit him to
decline the task.—Lord STANLEY said, that when, at
the Queen's command, he repaired to her presence, he
learned from her Majesty the reasons which Lord John
Russell had given for his resignation, and then frankly
stated his own views on that event. He now expressed
his doubt whether the divisions on the motions of
Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Locke King were the sole or even
the principal causes of the resignation. He believed
the mode of dealing with the papal aggression, and the
difficulties arising out of the state of Protestant feeling,
kindled by the letter of the prime minister, had much
to do with the resignation; while the financial crotchets
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had aggravated the
difficulty; although the course taken by the ministry
was not such as to induce the notion, that under
ordinary circumstances so small a majority as fourteen
on a motion could be held by them a sufficient reason
for resigning. Lord Stanley corrected the statement
that he had informed her Majesty that he was "not
then prepared" to form an administration—incorrectly,
but not intentionally, conveying the inference that he
had abandoned the expectation of forming a government.
It should have been accompanied by a qualification;
though advising her Majesty that other means should
be tried first, yet when called on by his Sovereign, he did
not hesitate to express readiness in the service of her
Majesty to risk even failure and loss of personal reputation,
everything but loss of honour. After the failure
of Lord John Russell to form a junction with the party
which he hoped it would not be thought offensive to
call the Peelite party, from Tuesday morning to Thursday
afternoon, Lord Stanley earnestly endeavoured to
form a cabinet. In the position of parties, it was of the
utmost importance, if practicable without sacrifice of
principle, to obtain the co-operation of some of those
who, generally acting on Conservative principles, had
yet been separated by the unfortunate differences of
1846 from the great Conservative party of the Earl of
Aberdeen. "The reply of my noble friend was expressed
in language of the most sincere friendship, such as
I have always entertained for him; but he could not
give me the assistance I required. I had conferences
with various friends in this and the other House of
Parliament. I succeeded in obtaining the cooperation
of some who, I had no doubt, would be most able to
carry on the business of departments. I am not at
liberty to give names, but one noble friend now present
will allow me to say that I never felt anything more
deeply than the terms in which he expressed his readiness
to share the responsibility in administering a
department for which the country would have found
him peculiarly well qualified. On the following day Mr.
Gladstone was expected to arrive. I thought it desirable
to obtain the cooperation in the House of Commons of
so able, honest, and upright a man. He had acted with
the intermediate party to which I have referred; but,
in contradistinction to that party, he had supported a
motion for the relief of agricultural distress. On
communicating with Mr. Gladstone, I found that he could
not consistently with his views take part in an Administration.
I was thus deprived of all extraneous
assistance in the formation of a Government, and I was
compelled to rely entirely on that party with whom I
was immediately and politically connected. I found
some who, from various causes—one from the pressure
of domestic concerns, three or four from an undue
depreciation of their own ability to fill the situations in
which I proposed to place them—expressed their
unwillingness to join an Administration. Yesterday
afternoon, there met at my house a portion of those
noble friends and those friends in the other House of
Parliament, who had consented to take part if the
Government had gone on; and the whole state of the
case was anxiously and deliberately considered by them.
I express the general concurrence of their views, as well
as my own views, when I say, that though I was
enabled to present to her Majesty a list of the names of
gentlemen who were competent, with an assured
majority in the House of Commons, creditably and
reputably to conduct the business of the country, yet I
could not lay before her Majesty a Cabinet, more
especially in the other House of Parliament, so strong
as to act in the face of a most powerful majority—a
majority ready to combine for purposes of opposition,
though unable to act together for purposes of government."
There was not the slightest foundation for the
statement that he wished the power of dissolution, and
that her Majesty refused. He not only did not ask a
dissolution, but he expressed his distinct opinion that a
dissolution is impossible. Lord Stanley gave some
indications of his contemplated policy as a Minister.
He would not enter into a discussion of protection in
the abstract, but he would take it as admitted that the
land was labouring under the pressure of undue taxation,
and that the result of the unrestricted admission of
foreign corn had produced a more extensive effect than
had been desired or imagined, and that no imposition
of a moderate import duty could have raised the price
even to an amount that was at the time of the