An important division has taken place in the American House

of Representatives, on the Bank question. Mr. MDUFFIE, one of the members for South Carolina, proposed that a memorial pre- sented to the House on behalf of the Bank Directors should be re- ferred to a Committee of the whole House, with the general Bank question ; while the friends of the Administration insisted upon its being referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. On this question it was agreed expressly that a trial of strength should take place; and the Government party obtained a majority of 133 to 96 votes. This is considered decisive of the fate of the Bank.

In the Senate, some discussion, in which Mr. CLAY took the lead in opposition to the Government, occurred, in consequence of the refusal of the President to communicate a copy of the paper, which bad been published, and which lie read to the heads of the execu lave departments, in September last, relative to the removal of the public monies from the United States Bank. The following is General JACKSON'S reply to the request of the Senate.

" The Executive is a coordinate and independent branch of the Government, equally. with the Senate ; and I have yet to learn under what constitutional authority that branch of the Legislature has a right to require of me an account of any communication, either verbally or in writing, made to the heads of de- partments, acting as a Cabinet Council. As well might I be required to detail to the Senate the free and private conversations I have held with those officers on any subjects relating to their duties and my own. " keeling my responsibility to the American People, I am willing on all oc- casions to explain to them the grounds of my conduct ; and I am willing upon all proper occasions to give to either branch of the Legislature any information in my possession that can be useful in the execution of the appropriate duties confided to them.

" Knowing the constitutional rights of the Senate, I shall be the last man, under any circumstances, to inteifere with them. Knowing those of the Exe- cutive, I shall at all times endeavour to maintain them, agreeably to the pro- visions of the constitution, and the solemn oath I have taken to support and de- fend it.

" I am constrained, therefore, by a proper sense of my own self-respect, and the rights secured by the constitution to the executive branch of the Govern- ment, to decline a compliance with your request."

There is a considerable difference, it would seem, between a King of England and an American President. Both Houses of

Congress had voted that the Bank Charter should be renewed; but General JACKSON nevertheless refused the Presidential assent.

He takes a very important step in reference to the national finances ; but denies to a branch of the Legislature, elected by the People, the right of requiring an explanation of his motives for so doing. He says truly, that the Executive is a coordinate and in- dependent branch of' the Government—that lie knows the consti- tutional rights of the Executive, and will maintain them. His

Majesty King WILLIAM perhaps knows the rights assigned to the Sovereign by our " glorious Constitution ; " but he is not so ab- surd as to attempt to maintain them. The American Constitution is a reality, and will bear working ; ours is a fiction, and cannot be reduced to practice. The Globe says- ., If the President's view of the case be correct and honest, the majorities of two representative bodies chosen by the people (on a very extended plan of suf-

frage, and with all possible precautions against corruption) must have conspired through corrupt motives to perpetuate a corrupting and most pernicious esta- blishment, and to hoodwink the people as to its effects ; and were only prevented from effecting their purpose by the extraordinary accidents of peculiar vigour and ability in the President, and of an unusual state of parties. If this be pos- sible (as the American people clearly think it is), it is the testimony of a demo-

cratical people against the expediency of intrusting all the powers of the State to one set of popular representatives or delegates, and against that destruction of all extraneous checks on the proceedings of representative assemblies, which seems to a party in this country the height of political wisdom."

There is no necessity for supposing that the majorities which voted the renewal of the Batik Charter were actuated by corrupt motives. Some among them were perhaps corrupted; but there were sufficient reasons, previous to the recent revelations of the misconduct of the Bank, to justify an honest majority in voting as they did. But we have "the testimony of a democratical people against the expediency of intrusting all the powers of the State to one set of popular representatives," &c. Certainly we have ; and since the foundation of the American Constitution we have

constantly had this testimony before us. And we have their testi- mony, moreover, to another important principle,—which is, that

when the Representatives of a Nation, both in the Upper and Lower Houses, are really responsible to those who have elected them, and where the Executive is subjected to the same responsibility, then there is no occasion, in order to prevent revolution, that the latter should be a mere cipher. The Chief Magistrate may then exer- cise his coordinate and independent authority.

Supposing that the Bank of England had played the same game which the Globe assumes the United States Bank to have successfully pursued, and had actually bribed a majority of the

House of Commons—not to talk of the Lords, who are above or below being bribed--to carry their Charter at all hazards; we

should like lobe informed what check is tobe found in the British Constitution that could have prevented their succeeding in this project? Would the King have dared to resist their will ? The " extraneous check" really exists in the United States ; in England its exercise 'would overthrow the Constitution.