NEWS OF THE WEEK.
IMPORTANT subjects have taken their turn in both Houses of Par- liament this week; in one case with some token of an unexpected result.
In the Commons, the grand debate was had upon Mr. WARD'S yearly motion about the Irish Church, somewhat differently shaped. -Last year he had a plan cut and dry for the division of the Church- -revenues and their distribution among all sects: this year he made the more easily supported motion for a Committee of the whole House merely to "consider" the state of the Church Establish- ment. in Ireland. His more general terms, however, did not obtain for him a majority, but the motion was negatived by nearly two to one. Earlier in the session, the state of that Church was inci- dentally but very fully considered; it then became clear that no plan could at present have any chance of success ; and no fa- vourable alteration has taken place since that time. On the con- trary, men have been thinking of other things : instead of having been put in a frame of mind to nuke mutual concessions, they have been put wider apart than ever,-because that is the present tactic of the popular leaders in Ireland _...-Xfsere as,sis,....aa.e,-rm e-,rets present facility for a settlement: still, the grievance also remains, quite unaltered—unmitigated; and another session is passing over without any measure on that head—without any ameliorating mea- sure for Ireland having yet been achieved. One or two, indeed, are ready to be pushed forward, or to be disposed of in the " mas- .sacre of the innocents" at the middle of July ; and a measure to facilitate Catholic endowments is again promised, four months having elapsed without a word said of it I That is not the way to Booth Ireland, while it undergoes the irritating, even if wholesome, process of law. One agreeable feature of a debate that attracted few listeners till near the close, was a general concurrence in the ex- pediency of endowing the Roman Catholic clergy somehow or other.
An ecclesiastical subject also has engaged the House of Lords. The English Church Temporalities Act united the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, the union to take effect on the death of the then living Bishops. The inducement to this junction vies, that funds were required for the new Bishopric of Manchester. The measure has excited general dislike among all the parties interested ; and very naturally. The wounded vanity of Welshmen may have had a share in prompting the complaints and petitions. But there is also a le- gitimate religious ground of opposition to the change. The keenest Dissenter will admit, that if we have an Established Church at all, it should be efficient. Doubtless, it is desirable to have a Bishop of Manchester; but it is akin to the Irish feat of cutting off the bot- tom of the blanket to sew it on the top if we set up a Manchester Bishop at the expense of abolishing a Welsh Bishop. The present Bishop of St. David's is not a man who flinches from wolk Dr.
• Tniatwasx, mastered the Welsh language in mature life in order to the efficient discharge of his duties: when we see such a man ob- jecting to the labour to be thrown upon the one Bishop for the two sees, we may conclude that it would be too much—in other words, that the work will not be done. True, Dr. HOWLEY says that the millions placed under the Manchester Bishop merit more consi- deration than the thousands under the Welsh Bishop ; yet no less surely the millions of Lancashire are much more accessible to any overseer than the comparatively scattered inhabitants of North Wales, whose distance is virtually increased by the mountainous character of the country. On all the evidence it appears that the yet unconsummated union of sees ought to be rescinded. The reasons alleged against it were ludicrous in their feebleness. Quoth the Duke of WELLINGTON, the act was passed eight years ago, and must not be repealed. This is a new idea of prescription : it suggests for the future a practice of repealing every act of Parlia- ment within seven years, lest by lasting eight it should become in- conveniently permanent. Next it is said, if two Bishops remain in the House of Lords for St. Asaph and Bangor, the full number of twenty-six will be complete, and there will be no room for another;
so that there is only this alternative—either the new Bishop must be without a seat, or there must be one more Bishop in the Lords.
What then ? There have been Bishops without seats-as the Bishop of Sodor and Man, and it is not alleged that either they or the Church have suffered detriment by the exclusion. But suppose the Bishop for the great factory-district were added to a full bench
of twenty-six, what danger could accrue ? If it is a matter of proportion between the Spiritual and Temporal Peers, then that is altered by every failure of issue and by every creation. Depend upon it, the "constitution" can bear the presence of another mitred Peer without crumbling under the weight of a supernumerary Bishop. The second reading of Lord Pown's Bill to rescind the union was carried, by a considerable majority. Ministers may succeed in stopping its progress for the session; but the two sees can hardly be thrown into one in the teeth of an opposition so strongly founded in reason.
The Sugar-duties were again discussed, apropos to Mr. EWARY'S amendment for equalizing the duties on all sugars whether slave- grown or free. The debate exhibited three parties,—the advocates of the Ministerial plan ; the advocates of the West Indies and no change; and the advocates of free trade and the " consumer." The West Indian advocates spoke under the disadvantage of being complainers; but if they did not succeed in making good any stable ground for resisting all change, they at least showed, with painful clearness, that they are not in a condition to undergo change with impunity—without enormous losses. The position of Ministers was most embarrassing : their strongest opponents were the Free- traders—they had to resist the Free-trade doctrines as applied to the West Indies; but, unluckily, they could not strike home, for to carry out all their own arguments to the full would be to strike at their own project. Every argument against meddling—against exposing the West Indies to an unprepared competition—every argument which might have crippled the Free-traders recoiled, upon themselves. Thus feebly opposed, the Free-traders seemed( to ride rough-shod over the field. When Mr. MILNER Gxnsom asked the grounds for differential duties—for the specific rate of duty proposed by the Governthent—he was not answered. Mr.
statistics; and Mr. G=Z-cl7ra-11910R4
. . . u sta
damaging a dangerous antagonist ; but Mr. VILLIERS'S arguments were better than his figures, and they remained intact. There is an answer to the Free-traders—the oft-cited one of their great authority, Mr. DEACON Hume, who declared the West Indies to be removed, by the accidents of Emancipation, from the category of free trade: but Mr. Hums's disciples, instead of showing his hu- mane consideration for practical difficulties, or his plain English love of justice, evinced utter disregard of the real injury that they might inflict. However, they were not successful: Ministers were able to push their plan, trimming between injury and forbearance, through that stage. The more comprehensive question of Import-duties generally was mooted in the House of Peers by Lord MONTEAGLE ; who made a very tolerable exposition of the advantages of abolishing restric- tive duties and the evils of retaining them. He moved for a Com- mittee of inquiry ; and as, of course, he could not expect to carry his motion, the precise object of it does not appear. Perhaps Lord MONTEAGLE wishes to keep his hand in, on the chance of being "sent for" some day actively to control these matters. As it was, the most interesting feature of the debate was the general concur- rence in his Free-trade principles: Lord DALHOUSIE, the young Vice-President of the Board of Trade, opposing the motion on grounds of expediency, emphatically subscribed to the principles. Indeed, the Duke of RICHMOND complained that he seemed left alone in the House as the advocate of Protection, finding none to agree with him except Lord COLCHESTER ; whom he quaintly designated, in accordance with the periphrastic etiquette of Parlia- ment which substitutes description for the proper name, as "the noble Lord with his back at the wall"; he seemed to feel that the Protectionists had gone to the wall. The Bank Charter Bill reached its second reading in the House of COMInOtle ; at which stage the new currency arrangement met its first serious obstruction. Mr. HAWES moved an amendment, to nullify that part which relates to banks of issue, lie said that he only sought to retnove part of the measure; which might be said
of cutting off a man's head. The debate was animated, and ex- hibited a good deal of mental activity : the subject-matter was really "discussed" on its merits—a rare fate for any Parliamentary bill. It is observable, however, that of its opponents no two ap- peared to agree, for there are on that side as many opinions as men ; while the chief point of agreement in any quarter is, that upon the whole the bill is what is wanted. The inroad upon it was repulsed by a majority of six to one.
