NW■ITS OF THE WEEK.
Fly g Mons and a half of pounds sterling were voted in a Com- mittee Supgly on the Army Estimates, on Monday night. The opere...'oii was' performed in double quick time ; the only obstruc- tion triv .ord Hoy/Ices triumphant progress being an injudicious Intl ill supported amendment proposed by Mr. HUME. The de- bate was not creditable to the Ministry, and was utterly disgrace- ful to the House of Commons. We have spoken of the Ministry in another place.
With the grant of " supply our notice of the public business done ends. It will take in' space and time to tell what the House of Commons
A resolution co/nil-WV Mr. PRIMROSE'S appointment in the Edinburgh Post-oflice was moved by Mr. Hume, on the some- what narrow ground of its Iseing a breach of the Duke of RICH- 1024 regulation that clerk. she Id be promoted to the higher places, and not kept down h•shewintrusion of more influential stringers., It was rep.ic,l,' 1 .att,tho Duke of Rictitaoren's rule did not tteich the -ase oi "r Peisteosa's appointment, because the office of Cashiur and Ftte:.ei:er was one of "check," not re- quiring previous experience. Mr. WALLACE plainly described the appointment as a "job ;" and, in spite of Ministerial assever- ations to the contrary, it cannot pass for any thing else. Let the facts speak.
Mr. Yourren the late Cashier, retires upon his full salary of 400/. a year. Mr. Youreo junior, his deputy, who did all the duty in five hoots a day, retains his place and salary of 1201. a year. Why not contidbe him on these terms till his father's death, and than make him the Cashier? Why !—because something was wanted for the Honourable BOUVER1E PRIMROSE, son of the Earl of ROSEMARY, and nephew of the Postmaster-General. It is too like a joke to talk, as Colonel Amore did, of the necessity of basing a man of rank to "check" the Post-office clerks. Was Mr. YOUNG "a man of rank?" Is not the Accountant a check" officer, and is he a man of rank ? In short, the single and simple result of the arrangement by which Mr. PRIMROSE is promoted, is a convenient addition to the income of Lord ROSE- HIM'S younger son, and a loss to the country of 400/. a year,- 60 great matter, perhaps, if it were not the consequence of a "job." Of course, the " Representatives of the People" sus- tained the appointment : the majority was 202 to 29-20 Tories voting in the minority.
-`golonel EVANS wearied the House, and occupied a large portion of the public time, on Tuesday, with a defence of his proceedings in.Spain. We should have thought, the less said on that subject the better for Colonel EVANS. His personal bravery nobody doubts; his qualifications for command, and the value of his ser- vices, are questioned more than ever, notwithstanding his long Speech and red riband to boot. Yet, having enough to do with his own vindication, he volunteered the Quixotic advocacy of the Spanish Government. Lord PALMERSTON patronized the Colonel ; but reserved the defence of the Downing Street Spanish policy, till a formal motion on the subject, which Lord ELIOT will bring forward on the 27th of March ; when the Tories expect another damaging discussion for Ministers, and probably a strong division.
An abortive effort to obtain an inquiry into the Corn-laws, with !View to their repeal, was made on Thursday, by Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS. 011 this question facts and arguments are thrown away in the House of Commons. Mr. VILL IERS and Sic Win- MOLESWORTH furnished plenty of both ; but nothing can Persuade the predominant majority of landowners that a free
ttrode in corn will not reduce their rents. It is quite sufficient for bem to stare so much : their professions of sympathy for the farmers and anxiety for the welfare of the labourers are surplus- age, which may be spared. Werw there a prospect of carrying such organic changes as
inexhaustible means of payment possessed by other c fertile soils and active populations.
The motion fora Committee was negatived by a of 300
to 95. Of the 300, only 47 were Liberals. Minim Q060 to consider the repeal of the Corn-laws an" open question there- fore Mr. Poulain THOMSON, Sir JOHN Hosnouss, Lor.. MOR- PETH, Sir HENRY PARNELL, Mr. JOHN PARKER, and Sir GloPr.lt GREY were at liberty to vote in accordance with their own o or their constituents' wishes. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wt., single Cabinet Minister who voted with the Tories; and he wa; joined by only a few of the official subalterns. A further examination of the division-lists shows the 1A..nes MP for the following large districts and towns in inoritv.
West Riding of Yorkshire, Cove ,, klanchester, Neweastle-upon•Tyne, O Salford, ldham, Leeds, Tynemouth, Sheffield, Sunderlawl,„ Birmingham, Lo Wolverhampton, w,,n,dntomi,n,ter, Halifax, Southwark, Nottingham, Finsbury, Northampton, Glasgow, Macclesfield,
IA'atorisrl(elee'.n,
Derby, Leicester, Dundee.
The Members for Marylebone, Bristol, and Stockport, were divided; and both the Members for Norwich voted in the ma- jority. With these exceptions, every large town in England gave its voice in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws. But was it not preordained, by the Great Charter of 1831, that land should pre- vail over towns in the Reformed House of Commons, for the "stability of our institutions?" So it's all right,
would overthrow the supremacy of the landed interest in, h gislature, and make the House of Commons the actn sentative of the nation, the abolition of the Corn-lc expected by a regular and quiet proem.. B et being postponed to an indefinite future, it is likely that the Corn- laws will keep their place on the Statute-hook. butil trui ha eve. with other causes, raise bread to a price u at, , ,11 i Bu.1.46‘. deems intolerable. Then will the savage rise in his wrath, and sweep them away—in company, perhaps, with some other "insti- tution:' And yet that would be a very narrow view of the evil occasioned by the Corn-laws, or of the good certain to follow their removal, which should be limited to a reduction in the cos'. of the quartern loaf. It is plain that the greater the aggregate quantity produced of things valuable and desirable among tet:ti, the more will there be for individuals to share. Our Com.Vaw4 restr:et production, and fetter the distribution of supplies for the wents':e' mankind. It is a praiseworthy and natural impulse to barte benefits ; but the British landowner steps in to prevent the advan- tageous exchange, thereby condemning millions to want or shr allowance, who, if left to the free exercise of their industry ni!ri skill, would procure abundance. To form an idea of the ev the mischief arising from the selfishness and ignertet - he majority of Parliament, it is necessary to reflect upok tl,, immense powers of production latent in British capital and enemy. and the .ies with
